If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
On Mar 7, 10:59*pm, Sliker wrote:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 18:13:41 -0800 (PST), William Hung I agree with you to a certain point. *I think that there arepeople out there who are better off having 'one made for them' than to have them make it themselves. *I know people will say, 'so let them get a certified one!' *Well... just well... Wil No doubt. I helped a friend about a year ago pick up a Glasair 2S kit that had been partially built by a very untalented builder. What we couldn't see during the inspection was that every single layup the guy did was unsound. The entire project had to be delaminated and then re-laminated. It ended up being more work than if it had been a new kit. If he had finished it, it could have *came apart in the air. The previous builder must have done no surface prep at all before any of his laminations. Even though it's called for. Buyer beware as they say. I've also looked at finished projects at Lakeland and OSH that were pro built, and I wasn't impressed with the glasswork. But pro builders can't waste time perfecting things, or they'd take too long to finish it. So the more hurried work shows in areas if you know what to look for. Plus, pro builders make more money charging as they go, rather than if they had to finish it with their own money, then sell it. Most owners I've talked to that have had their planes professionally built end up with more invested than if they had just bought one outright, finished and flying. For a Glasair 3, it's usually over $200K to have one pro built, for a plane that's sold on the market in the $150K range, give or take depending on how nice it is. So for the owner, he'll always end up upside down in his plane if he writes a check to have it built. I guess it's worth it to some to have it done the way they want it, and to remove the mystery of the construction quality. This is one reason I would want to witness or be a part of the build first hand. Wil |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
On Mar 15, 3:14*pm, William Hung wrote:
On Mar 8, 6:21*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote: William Hung wrote : On Mar 7, 10:07*pm, "Morgans" wrote: "William Hung" wrote I agree with you to a certain point. *I think that there arepeople out there who are better off having 'one made for them' than to have them make it themselves. *I know people will say, 'so let them get a certified one!' *Well... just well... They still have the freedom to go out and buy an experimental that was constructed by someone else, under the rights allowed the person that buil t it, as educational/recreational. Until the regulations are change to allow people to build airplanes for hire, and not have to be certified, that is the only way to go, except the limitations of LSA. You don't like a reg, get it changed. *You don't have the right to screw *it up for me, when I decide to build-legally, under the current amateur built provisions. -- Jim in NC It's not that I don't like the reg or wanting them changed, I just want to be able to get help on my project if I get to a point where I think, 'Hey maybe I'm not so confident about doing this part myself'. I am still thinking about building my own plane, but that time hasn't yet arrived. That's no problem. That's sinificantly different from writing a check and having someone build one for you. The airplanes in that class usually are available with center sections built and so on, so there;s no excuse to take it further. I can see stol's point of view that there are people out there with more money than brains. *People who pay pros to do their work an claiming credit for it. *Those people are slimeballs, I agree. And the more salient point is there are slimeballs out there who will sell you an airplane that is a deathtrap.. The law is becoming less forgiven of slimeballs.http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4438090a10.html Wil Time for Juan Jiminez to enter..... Bertue- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The law is becoming less forgiv(ING) of slimeballs.http:// www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4438090a10.html Wil |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:28:42 -0500, "Highflyer" wrote:
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message .. . My point is, why is does the FAA feel it is necessary to provide separate experimental licensing criteria between "Experimental - Amateur Built" and other experimentals? The FAA does NOT feel it is necessary. If it's unnecessary, why do they have other experimental types? It took many years to get them to allow a homemade airplane to fly in US airspace at all. What year was that? The compromise we got was a special category in Experimental for amateur built airplanes. We also got much better operational limitations that [sic] any of the other experimental categories. We are very happy that we have a special category. That sounds appropriate. But you make it sound like the FAA (or CAA at the time?) had the legal right to prevent amateur built aircraft from operating in the NAS. While the FAA surely possessed the power, I submit, that such a "right" probably wouldn't stand up to a legal challenge, and that is probably why the FAA made the concession to amateur constructed experimental aircraft. But you are far more familiar with topic than I. We would much rather not have this rare privelege abused by a bunch of greedy shortsighted idiots lining their pockets. Any privelege, when abused, is vulnerable to loss. That is the way of the world. I'm not convinced that flying an airplane you built is not a right, providing it meets the standards of others that have been permitted to fly. United State Code TITLE 49 - TRANSPORTATION Sec. 40103. Sovereignty and use of airspace (2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace. Perhaps the time has come to rethink the whole issue. What if the FAA's intent to modify the current amateur built experimental regulations were to result, not in further restrictions and prohibitions, but in accommodating those who desire to commission the construction of aircraft that haven't been submitted to type certification standards (something like the LSAs), but do meet the airworthiness standards of other experimental aircraft that have been licensed by the FAA to operate in the NAS? Would that be a bad thing? Why? There are many avenues in the regulations for people to build and sell airplanes. They are not i mpossible. Look at Cirrus. However, t hey do require some effort. Are you referring to Cirrus certifying an amateur build experimental aircraft in the Normal category? People who want to make a buck building airplanes, but do not want to put in the time and effort to ensure that they meet appropriate standards for doing so really should not be allowed to abuse the privelege granted to homebuilders. There are a few "loaded' concepts in that assertion, IMO. First, the aircraft to which you refer probably do meet the standards of amateur built experimental aircraft or the standards that the FAA has established for other experimental aircraft. Second, construction of an aircraft that meets those standards can hardly be construed as "abuse" in my opinion. Third, is the notion that building and flying an amateur built aircraft that complies with FAA standards is a "privilege" not a right. It seems the FAA has attempted to prevent the wholesale construction of experimental aircraft by judging the intent (or mental state and motivation) of the builder, rather than judging the safety of the aircraft in question, as would seem considerably more appropriate for a governmental agency, IMO. Perhaps it's time for that sort of governmental "thought policing" to be reexamined. Highflyer EAA member for 50 years. Thanks for the information you have provided, John. I'm not trying to upset anyone; I'm just thinking outside the box in the hope such objective analysis by someone who has hasn't been an EAA member ever, let alone fifty years, will provide another way to view the issue. |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
Larry Dighera wrote in
: On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:28:42 -0500, "Highflyer" wrote: "Larry Dighera" wrote in message . .. My point is, why is does the FAA feel it is necessary to provide separate experimental licensing criteria between "Experimental - Amateur Built" and other experimentals? The FAA does NOT feel it is necessary. If it's unnecessary, why do they have other experimental types? It took many years to get them to allow a homemade airplane to fly in US airspace at all. What year was that? The compromise we got was a special category in Experimental for amateur built airplanes. We also got much better operational limitations that [sic] any of the other experimental categories. We are very happy that we have a special category. That sounds appropriate. But you make it sound like the FAA (or CAA at the time?) had the legal right to prevent amateur built aircraft from operating in the NAS. While the FAA surely possessed the power, I submit, that such a "right" probably wouldn't stand up to a legal challenge, and that is probably why the FAA made the concession to amateur constructed experimental aircraft. But you are far more familiar with topic than I. We would much rather not have this rare privelege abused by a bunch of greedy shortsighted idiots lining their pockets. Any privelege, when abused, is vulnerable to loss. That is the way of the world. I'm not convinced that flying an airplane you built is not a right, providing it meets the standards of others that have been permitted to fly. United State Code TITLE 49 - TRANSPORTATION Sec. 40103. Sovereignty and use of airspace (2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace. Perhaps the time has come to rethink the whole issue. What if the FAA's intent to modify the current amateur built experimental regulations were to result, not in further restrictions and prohibitions, but in accommodating those who desire to commission the construction of aircraft that haven't been submitted to type certification standards (something like the LSAs), but do meet the airworthiness standards of other experimental aircraft that have been licensed by the FAA to operate in the NAS? Would that be a bad thing? Why? There are many avenues in the regulations for people to build and sell airplanes. They are not i mpossible. Look at Cirrus. However, t hey do require some effort. Are you referring to Cirrus certifying an amateur build experimental aircraft in the Normal category? People who want to make a buck building airplanes, but do not want to put in the time and effort to ensure that they meet appropriate standards for doing so really should not be allowed to abuse the privelege granted to homebuilders. There are a few "loaded' concepts in that assertion, IMO. So write a letter to the times, k00k. First, the aircraft to which you refer probably do meet the standards of amateur built experimental aircraft or the standards that the FAA has established for other experimental aircraft. Yeah, "probably". That;s a word you see a lot of in the FARs. Second, construction of an aircraft that meets those standards can hardly be construed as "abuse" in my opinion. Your opinion doesn't matter. Bertie |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ... On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:28:42 -0500, "Highflyer" wrote: I'm not convinced that flying an airplane you built is not a right, providing it meets the standards of others that have been permitted to fly. Anyone can build an fly any airplane with no amateur built restrictions at all if they do that. The standards are set forth in the FAR's Part 21. Technical requirements are in FAR Part 23. These are the standards established for building and flying aircraft in the US airspace. These standards were established about 80 years ago to prevent people from building and selling deathtraps to unsuspecting pilots who were not aeronautical engineers. What if the FAA's intent to modify the current amateur built experimental regulations were to result, not in further restrictions and prohibitions, but in accommodating those who desire to commission the construction of aircraft that haven't been submitted to type certification standards (something like the LSAs), but do meet the airworthiness standards of other experimental aircraft that have been licensed by the FAA to operate in the NAS? Would that be a bad thing? The FAA did precisely that with the S-LSA certification process. It greatly simplified the proof and oversight needed to ensure an adequate standard for aircraft that cannot endanger a lot of unsuspecting people. That is why they limited them to slower airspeeds and lighter weights as well as two places. They are also only allowed to fly Daytime and by Visual flight rules. Not unreasonable restrictions for aircraft that do not meet the full blown standards required for aircraft to be sold to the general public. People who want to make a buck building airplanes, but do not want to put in the time and effort to ensure that they meet appropriate standards for doing so really should not be allowed to abuse the privelege granted to homebuilders. There are a few "loaded' concepts in that assertion, IMO. First, the aircraft to which you refer probably do meet the standards of amateur built experimental aircraft or the standards that the FAA has established for other experimental aircraft. Second, construction of an aircraft that meets those standards can hardly be construed as "abuse" in my opinion. Clearly an uninformed opinion. All experimental aircraft do NOT meet the same standards. The bulk of the experimental class is set up to all aircraft manufacturers to perform reasonable flight tests of new designs before entering the full certification procedures. That is the REASON for an "experimental" category. For flying "experimental" aircraft prior to certification so they can generate the data required for certification. The FAA generously allowed two separate classes under the general "experimental" category for special airplanes that did NOT meet the standards for certification. In these classes the aircraft is NOT really "experimental." They just put them there because that is where they put aircraft that were not certified as up to the published standards. In these two classes each aircraft is treated and inspected as a "one of a kind" aircraft to ensure a reasonable standard of construction if not design. Typically the field maintenance inspectors who were charged with inspecting these aircraft were not trained to make design critiques and evaluations. They could evaluate construction quality and technique. These two special categories that did not require full compliance with the published airworthiness standards for flight in the US airspace are Experimental, Amateur Built and Experimental, Exibition. The amateur built category allowed people who built their own airplane for educational or recreational reasons, not for profit, to actually fly their creations legally in the airspace without having to comply with the published standards. The Exibition category allows us to fly aircraft that have never been certified by our published standards in our airspace. This is usually the home for unusual or antique aircraft that predate the certification standards or otherwise sidestepped them. You "hired gun" who builds an aircraft on "commission" for someone who doesn't want to build it himself can license an aircraft they built in this category. It does, however, have a few more stringent operating limitations than the Amateur built category does. The "hired guns" are falsifying information in order to avoid these additional operational limitations. The method for removing these operational limitations is spelled out in the regulations. Merely comply with the standards required for certification. I admit this is easier to say than do. That is why they established a separate certification path and separate certification standards for LSA aircraft. Third, is the notion that building and flying an amateur built aircraft that complies with FAA standards is a "privilege" not a right. It seems the FAA has attempted to prevent the wholesale construction of experimental aircraft by judging the intent (or mental state and motivation) of the builder, rather than judging the safety of the aircraft in question, as would seem considerably more appropriate for a governmental agency, IMO. Perhaps it's time for that sort of governmental "thought policing" to be reexamined. Not at all. They merely provided a different way to judge the safety of the aircraft in question that adhereing to the published standards in special cases. Thanks for the information you have provided, John. I'm not trying to upset anyone; I'm just thinking outside the box in the hope such objective analysis by someone who has hasn't been an EAA member ever, let alone fifty years, will provide another way to view the issue. You can do that. However, you are not thinking "outside the box." You are rehashing old tired arguments that were brought up and shot down over fifty years ago. What we have today is a hard won compromise that allows us a tremendous degree of freedom compared to every other country in the world. There are many people in this country that believe we have way too much freedom to build and fly airplanes over THEIR house. It takes a continueing effort to maintain these hard won priveleges. If we lose what we have then the largest and fastest growing segment of General Aviation is dead. I do not want that to happen. I have been working for fifty years to expand and clarify these issues through the EAA and AOPA. Let's not undo years of work and wind up with nothing. Highflyer Highflight Aviation Services Pinckneyville Airport, PJY |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
On 2008-03-18, Highflyer wrote:
The FAA did precisely that with the S-LSA certification process. It greatly simplified the proof and oversight needed to ensure an adequate standard for aircraft that cannot endanger a lot of unsuspecting people. That is why they limited them to slower airspeeds and lighter weights as well as two places. They are also only allowed to fly Daytime and by Visual flight rules. Not true. They can fly IFR or night VFR if properly equipped. That's one big reason I wound up with a Zodiac XLi. The key is that no part of the aircraft must have manufacturer's instructions prohibiting night or IFR operations, and their equipment must meet the minimum standards of the rules. This means, for example, that the aircraft must not be powered by a Rotax 912ULS or Jabiru 3300, both of which have manufacturer's instructions limiting them to day VFR. -- Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!) AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June) |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
In article ,
Jay Maynard wrote: On 2008-03-18, Highflyer wrote: The FAA did precisely that with the S-LSA certification process. It greatly simplified the proof and oversight needed to ensure an adequate standard for aircraft that cannot endanger a lot of unsuspecting people. That is why they limited them to slower airspeeds and lighter weights as well as two places. They are also only allowed to fly Daytime and by Visual flight rules. Not true. They can fly IFR or night VFR if properly equipped. As long as you have a Private Pilot rating, or above. That's one big reason I wound up with a Zodiac XLi. The key is that no part of the aircraft must have manufacturer's instructions prohibiting night or IFR operations, and their equipment must meet the minimum standards of the rules. This means, for example, that the aircraft must not be powered by a Rotax 912ULS or Jabiru 3300, both of which have manufacturer's instructions limiting them to day VFR. |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
Steve Hix schreef:
In article , Jay Maynard wrote: On 2008-03-18, Highflyer wrote: The FAA did precisely that with the S-LSA certification process. It greatly simplified the proof and oversight needed to ensure an adequate standard for aircraft that cannot endanger a lot of unsuspecting people. That is why they limited them to slower airspeeds and lighter weights as well as two places. They are also only allowed to fly Daytime and by Visual flight rules. Not true. They can fly IFR or night VFR if properly equipped. As long as you have a Private Pilot rating, or above. This was about plane certification, not about pilot rating. |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
"Steve Hix" wrote in message
... In article , Jay Maynard wrote: On 2008-03-18, Highflyer wrote: The FAA did precisely that with the S-LSA certification process. It greatly simplified the proof and oversight needed to ensure an adequate standard for aircraft that cannot endanger a lot of unsuspecting people. That is why they limited them to slower airspeeds and lighter weights as well as two places. They are also only allowed to fly Daytime and by Visual flight rules. Not true. They can fly IFR or night VFR if properly equipped. As long as you have a Private Pilot rating, or above. That's one big reason I wound up with a Zodiac XLi. The key is that no part of the aircraft must have manufacturer's instructions prohibiting night or IFR operations, and their equipment must meet the minimum standards of the rules. This means, for example, that the aircraft must not be powered by a Rotax 912ULS or Jabiru 3300, both of which have manufacturer's instructions limiting them to day VFR. I am not sure of the phrasing on that last part, regarding the engines; but engine and propeller combinations not certified under parts 34 and 35 (IIRC) are not supposed to be approved for night IFR. Several contributors here are much more knowledgeable of the specifics. Peter |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven | Jim Logajan | Piloting | 181 | May 1st 08 03:14 AM |
Flew home and boy are my arms tired! | Steve Schneider | Owning | 11 | September 5th 07 12:16 AM |
ASW-19 Moment Arms | jcarlyle | Soaring | 9 | January 30th 06 10:52 PM |
[!] Russian Arms software sale | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 18th 04 05:51 PM | |
Dick VanGrunsven commutes to aviation | Fitzair4 | Home Built | 2 | August 12th 04 11:19 PM |