FAA publishes proposed changes to amateur-built rules.

The EAA has an article on the proposed changes:

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

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.

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 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 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_do...?Doc_Type=Pubs

"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

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

"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

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

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.