FAA publishes proposed changes to amateur-built rules.

[Jim Logajan]

The EAA has an article on the proposed changes:

http://www.eaa.org/news/2008/2008-07-15_policy.asp

[Ernest Christley]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> The EAA has an article on the proposed changes:
>
> http://www.eaa.org/news/2008/2008-07-15_policy.asp

Welcome to "Joe's House of Incomplete Aircraft". We're all having a good time.

I do like the part about requiring the inspector to question the builder about the build process. Even if I do pay
someone to help me, I should at least know what is going on. I wished the EAA did more to question builders before
handing out awards. Beyond insuring that they're giving awards to amateurs, it would go a long way to promoting their
goal of education.

[BobR]

On Jul 15, 6:51*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> The EAA has an article on the proposed changes:
>
> http://www.eaa.org/news/2008/2008-07-15_policy.asp

We should all be very happy that the government worked so hard and
spent so much of our tax dollars to finally make everything perfectly
CLEAR.

[Jim Logajan]

Jim Logajan > wrote:
> The EAA has an article on the proposed changes:
>
> http://www.eaa.org/news/2008/2008-07-15_policy.asp

"The FAA is proposing that an amateur builder fabricate a minimum of 20
percent of an aircraft and assemble a minimum of 20 percent of the
aircraft."

Mixing objective measures (e.g. percentages or fractions) without objective
definitions is absurd. Are those 20% numbers to be determined by weight, by
volume, by part count, by cost, by width, by height, by length, by labor
hours worked or avoided, or what?

They never knew what they wanted amateurs to prove and they still don't.

[Jim Logajan]

Jim Logajan > wrote:
> The EAA has an article on the proposed changes:
>
> http://www.eaa.org/news/2008/2008-07-15_policy.asp

The EAA appears to have provided an almost useless link to the alleged
changes (just a text-only page of part of the material). After a bit of
searching, I found the following link that provides more complete
information and an e-mail address on where to send comments:

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/display_docs/index.cfm?Doc_Type=Pubs

[Vaughn Simon]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> They never knew what they wanted amateurs to prove and they still don't.

I think that their real objective is shut down aircraft factories
masquerading as homebuilders. I don't think that is an unreasonable goal, but
it may be up to us to figure out how they can do that without stepping on the
toes of honest homebuilders and honest suppliers, and then convincing them.

Vaughn

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:47:20 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
> wrote:

>
>"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
>>
>> They never knew what they wanted amateurs to prove and they still don't.
>
> I think that their real objective is shut down aircraft factories
>masquerading as homebuilders. I don't think that is an unreasonable goal, but
>it may be up to us to figure out how they can do that without stepping on the
>toes of honest homebuilders and honest suppliers, and then convincing them.
>
>Vaughn
>
>
why would they or you want to????
surely the goal for aircraft building is structurally sound aircraft.

the way managed manufacturing is going you will eventuially have the
choice of something built by clued up enthusiasts in your own country
or something tacked together and given a slick paint job in some asian
sweat shop.

why deny your own people the opportunity to build an industry?

certification is just a 1930's quality assurance program out of
england. it is not the only way that safe sound aircraft can be built.

if the 'aircraft factories masquerading as homebuilders' are producing
sound aircraft why do you seek to stop them? jealousy? envy?

Stealth Pilot

[Vaughn Simon]

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
> if the 'aircraft factories masquerading as homebuilders' are producing
> sound aircraft why do you seek to stop them? jealousy? envy?

The quality (or lack of) of the product produced by these unofficial
"aircraft factories" is not the issue.

Those folks are abusing regulations that are designed to allow amateur design
and construction of experimental aircraft. The FAA wants to stop that. One way
or another, the FAA WILL stop that. The easiest way for the FAA to proceed is
to produce new regulations that will make things just as hard on the true
amateurs as it will on the rogue "aircraft factories".

Don't get me wrong. I feel that the availability of CNC-made predrilled
kits and parts to the amateur is a wonderful thing and probably produces a safer
aircraft compared to a true one-off build. I would hate to see the practice
regulated out of existence because a few folks are abusing the system.

I would simply prefer for those "aircraft factories" to make their own case
to the FAA if they feel that they should be allowed to operate and (more
importantly) for the true amateur who has been operating within the spirit of
the regulations to be left alone.

If that dialog leads to an improvement of the certification process that
allows a small company to afford to actually design and build a safe aircraft at
a profit, so much the better!

Vaughn

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:25:55 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
> wrote:

>
>"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
>> if the 'aircraft factories masquerading as homebuilders' are producing
>> sound aircraft why do you seek to stop them? jealousy? envy?
>
> The quality (or lack of) of the product produced by these unofficial
>"aircraft factories" is not the issue.
>
> Those folks are abusing regulations that are designed to allow amateur design
>and construction of experimental aircraft. The FAA wants to stop that. One way
>or another, the FAA WILL stop that. The easiest way for the FAA to proceed is
>to produce new regulations that will make things just as hard on the true
>amateurs as it will on the rogue "aircraft factories".
>
> Don't get me wrong. I feel that the availability of CNC-made predrilled
>kits and parts to the amateur is a wonderful thing and probably produces a safer
>aircraft compared to a true one-off build. I would hate to see the practice
>regulated out of existence because a few folks are abusing the system.
>
> I would simply prefer for those "aircraft factories" to make their own case
>to the FAA if they feel that they should be allowed to operate and (more
>importantly) for the true amateur who has been operating within the spirit of
>the regulations to be left alone.
>
> If that dialog leads to an improvement of the certification process that
>allows a small company to afford to actually design and build a safe aircraft at
>a profit, so much the better!
>
>Vaughn
>

so you have a mixture of emotions there.
the puritanical desire to stop anyone actually getting ahead.
an unrealised desire to have the regulations freed up.

my point is why chime in and ask for them to be banned? why not ask
for the regs to be relaxed so that it can occur.
base it on a safety case. if it isnt causing a problem start
supporting aviation enterprises.

while you are at it why not support the much more sensible private
owner maintenance system that the canadians have introduced.

Stealth Pilot

[BobR]

On Jul 17, 8:58*am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:25:55 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> if the 'aircraft factories masquerading as homebuilders' are producing
> >> sound aircraft why do you seek to stop them? jealousy? envy?
>
> > * The quality (or lack of) of the product produced by these unofficial
> >"aircraft factories" is not the issue.
>
> > * Those folks are abusing regulations that are designed to allow amateur design
> >and construction of experimental aircraft. *The FAA wants to stop that.. *One way
> >or another, the FAA WILL stop that. *The easiest way for the FAA to proceed is
> >to produce new regulations that will make things just as hard on the true
> >amateurs as it will on the rogue "aircraft factories".
>
> > * * Don't get me wrong. *I feel that the availability of CNC-made predrilled
> >kits and parts to the amateur is a wonderful thing and probably produces a safer
> >aircraft compared to a true one-off build. *I would hate to see the practice
> >regulated out of existence because a few folks are abusing the system.
>
> > * I would simply prefer for those "aircraft factories" to make their own case
> >to the FAA if they feel that they should be allowed to operate and (more
> >importantly) for the true amateur who has been operating within the spirit of
> >the regulations to be left alone.
>
> > * If that dialog leads to an improvement of the certification process that
> >allows a small company to afford to actually design and build a safe aircraft at
> >a profit, so much the better!
>
> >Vaughn
>
> so you have a mixture of emotions there.
> the puritanical desire to stop anyone actually getting ahead.
> an unrealised desire to have the regulations freed up.
>
> my point is why chime in and ask for them to be banned? why not ask
> for the regs to be relaxed so that it can occur.
> base it on a safety case. if it isnt causing a problem start
> supporting aviation enterprises.
>
> while you are at it why not support the much more sensible private
> owner maintenance system that the canadians have introduced.
>
> Stealth Pilot- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You are forgetting the prime directive of Government...Regulate
EVERYTHING!

As for the homebuilt movement, the Federal Government would like
nothing better than to eliminate the whole thing.

[Vaughn Simon]

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
> my point is why chime in and ask for them to be banned?

I have asked for no such thing. Go back and read. I just don't want folks
who are skirting the rules to be crapping in the nests of those who aren't.

> why not ask
> for the regs to be relaxed so that it can occur.
> base it on a safety case. if it isnt causing a problem start
> supporting aviation enterprises.

OK, go ahead a doze peacefully in your little make believe world. While you
are sleeping, the FAA will be "throwing out the baby with the bath water".
Regardless if we agree or not, the FAA bureaucracy perceives a problem and is in
motion to do what bureaucrats do to "fix" the problem. Homebuilders, and
ultimately aviation safety will be the losers if 50% kits become a thing of the
past.

> while you are at it why not support the much more sensible private
> owner maintenance system that the canadians have introduced.

A whole 'nuther subject. Let's talk about one thing at a time.

Vaughn

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
>
> so you have a mixture of emotions there.
> the puritanical desire to stop anyone actually getting ahead.
> an unrealised desire to have the regulations freed up.
>
> my point is why chime in and ask for them to be banned? why not ask
> for the regs to be relaxed so that it can occur.
> base it on a safety case. if it isnt causing a problem start
> supporting aviation enterprises.
>
> while you are at it why not support the much more sensible private
> owner maintenance system that the canadians have introduced.
>
> Stealth Pilot
>

It's about regulations for homebuilt aircraft, not relaxing standards on
factory built aircraft. The "homebuilt" factories are jeopardizing the
future of real homebuilders.

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:45:07 -0500, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net>
wrote:

>
>"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> so you have a mixture of emotions there.
>> the puritanical desire to stop anyone actually getting ahead.
>> an unrealised desire to have the regulations freed up.
>>
>> my point is why chime in and ask for them to be banned? why not ask
>> for the regs to be relaxed so that it can occur.
>> base it on a safety case. if it isnt causing a problem start
>> supporting aviation enterprises.
>>
>> while you are at it why not support the much more sensible private
>> owner maintenance system that the canadians have introduced.
>>
>> Stealth Pilot
>>
>
>It's about regulations for homebuilt aircraft, not relaxing standards on
>factory built aircraft. The "homebuilt" factories are jeopardizing the
>future of real homebuilders.
>


no they're not. they are jeopardising their own futures by not
addressing the FAA concerns.not the futures of individual builders.
you really need to understand the legal precedents related to
experimental aircraft. there is a fairly long history of the law
upholding the experimental concept ...for actual amateur builders.

in hindsight what I could have written better would have become this..
why not ask for the regs to be expanded to accomodate the commercial
builders of uncertified aircraft.

Stealth Pilot

[Vaughn Simon]

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
> The "homebuilt" factories are jeopardizing the
>>future of real homebuilders.
>
> no they're not.

Then I guess our only option is to grit our teeth and agree to disagree. If
those folks were not skirting the regulations, the FAA would see no reason to
tighten them for everyone.

Regards
Vaughn

[BobR]

On Jul 18, 9:05*am, "Vaughn Simon" >
wrote:
> "Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > The "homebuilt" factories are jeopardizing the
> >>future of real homebuilders.
>
> > no they're not.
>
> * *Then I guess our only option is to grit our teeth and agree to disagree. *If
> those folks were not skirting the regulations, the FAA would see no reason to
> tighten them for everyone.
>
> Regards
> Vaughn

I think the issue that we are all missing is that the FAA is not as
concerned about the building of safe homebuilts as they are about
regulating homebuilders and ensuring that any commercial assistance is
limited. The fact that an experienced commercial builder assisting a
homebuilder might result in a better built and safe aircraft is not
material.

[[email protected]]

> We should all be very happy that the government worked so hard and
> spent so much of our tax dollars to finally make everything perfectly
> CLEAR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Embarrassing, eh?

Despite claims to the contrary, putting on an air-show is no guarantee
of competence in other areas. In the same vein, the fact a hack
politician holds a particular office is no guarantee they are
qualified to do so. Indeed, the biffy handlers and the political
hacks have wasted more than TEN YEARS trying to resolve what is at
best, a fairly simple problem.

-R.S.Hoover

[Jim Logajan]

Stealth Pilot > wrote:
> why not ask for the regs to be expanded to accomodate the commercial
> builders of uncertified aircraft.

I think that has been suggested to the FAA - Dick VanGrunsven wrote an
article that mentions that:

http://www.eaa.org/govt/building_lookback.asp

As I understand it, basically what was suggested was modifying something
called the Primary Category (established in 1992) to use an industry self-
certification mechanism similar to that eventially adopted for LSA, rather
than require FAA oversight that Primary Category requires now.

[Jim Logajan]

Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Stealth Pilot > wrote:
>> why not ask for the regs to be expanded to accomodate the commercial
>> builders of uncertified aircraft.
>
> I think that has been suggested to the FAA - Dick VanGrunsven wrote an
> article that mentions that:
>
> http://www.eaa.org/govt/building_lookback.asp

Quick followup to my own post: The ARC does appear to have recommended such
a thing but...

"At the Summit meeting, Associate Administrator for Safety Nick Sabatini
said that there's currently "a clear distinction between type certificated
and amateur-built. To put another layer in there and say it's commercially
available will prompt questions regarding safety that becomes a difficult
conversation.""
....
"Conversely, the FAA said that allowing commercial building of a kit
aircraft and calling it a homebuilt could adversely affect Part 23-
certifcated aircraft manufacturers."

From: http://www.eaa.org/news/2008/2008-02-06_summit.asp

Bottom line:

(1) The FAA associate admin for safety doesn't like the idea of another
category for reasons he doesn't wish, or is unable, to articulate. It is
difficult if not impossible to argue when "no reason is given."

(2) If the EAA article is correct, the FAA appears to have explicitly
stated that they are trying to protect Part 23 manufacturers. Which member
of the FAA stated this is not mentioned.

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:46:14 -0500, Jim Logajan >
wrote:

>Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> Stealth Pilot > wrote:
>>> why not ask for the regs to be expanded to accomodate the commercial
>>> builders of uncertified aircraft.
>>
>> I think that has been suggested to the FAA - Dick VanGrunsven wrote an
>> article that mentions that:
>>
>> http://www.eaa.org/govt/building_lookback.asp
>
>Quick followup to my own post: The ARC does appear to have recommended such
>a thing but...
>
>"At the Summit meeting, Associate Administrator for Safety Nick Sabatini
>said that there's currently "a clear distinction between type certificated
>and amateur-built. To put another layer in there and say it's commercially
>available will prompt questions regarding safety that becomes a difficult
>conversation.""
>...
>"Conversely, the FAA said that allowing commercial building of a kit
>aircraft and calling it a homebuilt could adversely affect Part 23-
>certifcated aircraft manufacturers."
>
>From: http://www.eaa.org/news/2008/2008-02-06_summit.asp
>
>Bottom line:
>
>(1) The FAA associate admin for safety doesn't like the idea of another
>category for reasons he doesn't wish, or is unable, to articulate. It is
>difficult if not impossible to argue when "no reason is given."
>
>(2) If the EAA article is correct, the FAA appears to have explicitly
>stated that they are trying to protect Part 23 manufacturers. Which member
>of the FAA stated this is not mentioned.

my point is that guys like vaughn need to point the finger to the
problem you highlight in the FAA argument, not unwittingly let them
destroy a growing area of commercial activity.

why does this interest me all the way around on the other side of the
world. our regulators are so clueless that they do a donkey act
everytime and blindly follow yours. to get ours fixed we need to be
vigilant on matters in america.


as I see it...
any new technology starts out as a set of gurus developing it from
scratch. all the knowledge is in their heads.
the second phase of commercialisation involves spreading the
understanding and creating a market. gurus are still in the lead but
others are picking up the knowledge as well and it is becoming
published.
the third phase involves the technology becoming widely understood and
becoming a part of everyday life. there is no longer a need for gurus
because everyone understands it.
computing is now pretty well in the third phase.
aviation is locked in the second phase by regulation. it will have a
permanent future if we can get it into the third phase.
locked in the second phase will mean it will die like the steam
engine.

thanks for the research Jim.

Stealth Pilot

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:00:47 -0500, Jim Logajan >
wrote:

>Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> The EAA has an article on the proposed changes:
>>
>> http://www.eaa.org/news/2008/2008-07-15_policy.asp
>
>"The FAA is proposing that an amateur builder fabricate a minimum of 20
>percent of an aircraft and assemble a minimum of 20 percent of the
>aircraft."
>
>Mixing objective measures (e.g. percentages or fractions) without objective
>definitions is absurd. Are those 20% numbers to be determined by weight, by
>volume, by part count, by cost, by width, by height, by length, by labor
>hours worked or avoided, or what?

At one time they said 51% of the parts and they clarified that to say
building one wing rib is as good as building all of them.
constructiong one elevator is as good as both.

>
>They never knew what they wanted amateurs to prove and they still don't.
Roger (K8RI) ARRL Life Member
N833R (World's oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com