FAA publishes proposed changes to amateur-built rules.

"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.

"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

"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.

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

"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
news
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

On Jul 18, 9:05*am, "Vaughn Simon"
wrote:
"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message

news
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.

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 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.