View Single Post
  #57  
Old March 8th 08, 06:46 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
cavelamb himself[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 474
Default A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 02:50:33 GMT, Dale Scroggins wrote:


I realize this is probably an unpopular opinion among the majority of
armature aircraft builders, but emotional jealousy of those able to
afford commissioning the construction of an aircraft, I fail to find
an _objective_ reason for homebuilders' objections. What am I
missing?

Your frontal lobes, from all appearances...

Amusing Rich, sorta, but I find no argument that can untrack Larry's.

None.
--



How about this argument: Until a century or so ago, a landowner held rights
from the center of the earth to the heavens. Nothing could pass over his
land without his permission. Since there were no aircraft, the issue didn't
come up very often. When flight became possible, this property theory was
changed to allow overflight; however, overflight was not a right given by
God, but a negotiated privilege enforced by governments through legislation
and courts. Because flying over other people's property without permission
has never been a right, and certainly was not even a privilege at the time
the Constitution was written, how do you libertarians come up with any basis
for arguing that the government has limited authority in regulating
aviation? Aviation would not exist in this country without government
action.

In the U.S., with a few exceptions, flying machines need Airworthiness
Certificates to fly. Airworthiness Certificates are issued by the
government. They are not issued or denied arbitrarily. If you do not wish
to meet requirements for issue of an Airworthiness Certificate, your
home-built project could be a nice static display. That is the ultimate
penalty for ignoring or circumventing requirements.

Dale Scroggins



Thx, I understand the federal and statutory history but, I don't believe,
that is the issue here.

Here is my personal example. I don't have the expertise or time to kit or
plan build. These planes are, at least, the equivalent or superior to the
major manufacturers. If they are not, then I don't understand why the FAA
would allow them.

Yet I can't buy a completely built kit/plans plane. If this isn't to
control the entry plane market place (or the maj mfgs market), then why is
the restriction imposed. I understand all the philosophical and why ppl
have immense pride in their own-builds but that is not relevant to the
issue at hand.

Cessna goes to China to get the Skyscraper at a reasonable price. Yet we
have USA built planes off better value that are restricted from my purchase
because I can't flip fiberglass?





Actually, jst to keep the record straight, you CAN buy an X-AB airplane.
But the biulder can not build and register another of the same kind.

That puts him in unfair competition with the certified manufacturers
who went to the expense and trouble to certify their airplanes.