![]() |
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 |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:53:20 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
I don't see any real change at all. they're going back to the original spirit of the rule. They are significantly re-writing the rules of the market in favor of the production aircrafters. or they are not. Which is it? |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
WJRFlyBoy wrote in
: On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:53:20 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote: I don't see any real change at all. they're going back to the original spirit of the rule. They are significantly re-writing the rules of the market in favor of the production aircrafters. or they are not. Which is it? They are not. The amateur experimental was never written for any "market" it was written so guys could build their own airplanes. That was what George Bogardus and the EAA pioneers campaigned for. Not for someone to sell airfix kits. Like this, for instance. http://machaircraft.com/default.aspx I got no problem with anyone building something like this, but if it's not amateur built, it;'s not amateur built. That was the concession granted away back in the forties. It was never intended to be a loophole to get around certification. Bertie Bertie |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
WJRFlyBoy wrote:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:53:20 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote: I don't see any real change at all. they're going back to the original spirit of the rule. They are significantly re-writing the rules of the market in favor of the production aircrafters. or they are not. Which is it? They are not. They are looking at the problem that has developed regarding those that are currently violating the rules that have been in place for years. |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
WJRFlyBoy wrote in : On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:53:20 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote: I don't see any real change at all. they're going back to the original spirit of the rule. They are significantly re-writing the rules of the market in favor of the production aircrafters. or they are not. Which is it? They are not. The amateur experimental was never written for any "market" it was written so guys could build their own airplanes. That was what George Bogardus and the EAA pioneers campaigned for. Not for someone to sell airfix kits. Like this, for instance. http://machaircraft.com/default.aspx I got no problem with anyone building something like this, but if it's not amateur built, it;'s not amateur built. That was the concession granted away back in the forties. It was never intended to be a loophole to get around certification. Bertie Bertie Places like this are what the FAA will really be looking at. http://www.aircraftersllc.com/index.htm |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 08:15:54 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote: Places like this are what the FAA will really be looking at. http://www.aircraftersllc.com/index.htm Can I license my plane if someone else built it? Before receiving an Airworthiness Certificate, every kitplane builder is required to certify that he or she built "the major portion" of the plane "for his or her own education and recreation". At AirCrafters, we have carefully and correctly interpreted this rule to mean that the builder must be primarily involved in the process, but has no obligation to spend more than 50% of the time required. This leaves us in a good position to help minimize the amount of time a builder must spend working on the project. Our builders will always be able to certify to the FAA, correctly and without doubt, that they built the plane. How does the FAA view the fact that you build kitplanes? The FAA visits our shop on a regular basis to issue Airworthiness Certificates and just say "Hi". They tell us regularly that they appreciate the fact that we are providing a service to the experimental community, improving safety, and educating builders. Please call Inspector Lee Mountz at the San Jose FSDO for more information: 408-291-7681 X102. How Do I Know If I've Built the Major Portion? (It has nothing to do with the number of hours required to build!) The following fabrication & assembly operations are listed on FAA Form 8000-38 - these are the parts of the aircraft that FAA Airworthiness Inspectors are concerned with when determining the major portion status of your amateur-built experimental aircraft. When you perform any of these operations, you earn "credit" towards the major portion for having performed these operations and toward establishing amateur-built status for your plane: Fuselage Operations Wing Operations Flight Control Operations Empennage Operations Landing Gear Operations Cockpit Operations Propulsion Operations Canard Operations Main Rotor Operations Tail Rotor Operations Thus, in the case of a standard fixed-wing aircraft, being involved in performing at least 60 of the applicable 119 Fabrication & Assembly Operations (51%) establishes your plane's amateur-built status and your eligibility to apply for a Repairman's Certificate. Some of those 119 operations are easier than others. Some are less critical to safety. Some require fewer special tools to complete expertly. AirCrafters can pick the operations you do for your particular kit that will guarantee adherence to the 51% rule, and reduce the amount of time you spend, if that's your goal. What if you bought the project from a previous owner who never finished it? It does not matter how many previous owners a project may have had - as long as each owner intended to build the aircraft for their own education or recreation - if you can document or show documentation of the work that each did, it is as if YOU did the work! AirCrafters: Builder Education and Assistance in Custom Aircraft Construction and Repair 140 Aviation Way Watsonville, CA 95076 Phone 831.722.9141 Fax 831.722.9142 So it would appear that all a wealthy pilot need do to get his kit plane built for him, is to get some "amateur" builders to construct various phases of the aircraft, and then sell the partially completed kit to the next one to perform the next phase of construction, and finally purchase the completed airplane, and produce the requisite documentation to receive the Repairman's Certificate. |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Gig 601XL Builder wrote in
: Bertie the Bunyip wrote: WJRFlyBoy wrote in : On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:53:20 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote: I don't see any real change at all. they're going back to the original spirit of the rule. They are significantly re-writing the rules of the market in favor of the production aircrafters. or they are not. Which is it? They are not. The amateur experimental was never written for any "market" it was written so guys could build their own airplanes. That was what George Bogardus and the EAA pioneers campaigned for. Not for someone to sell airfix kits. Like this, for instance. http://machaircraft.com/default.aspx I got no problem with anyone building something like this, but if it's not amateur built, it;'s not amateur built. That was the concession granted away back in the forties. It was never intended to be a loophole to get around certification. Bertie Bertie Places like this are what the FAA will really be looking at. http://www.aircraftersllc.com/index.htm Yeah, I would imagine so. I have had to get help with my project, but i have so far avoided farming out anything. The way I look at it is, the reason I'm building the airplane is to learn and that was the original intent of the rule. Bertie |
#167
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Larry Dighera wrote:
So it would appear that all a wealthy pilot need do to get his kit plane built for him, is to get some "amateur" builders to construct various phases of the aircraft, and then sell the partially completed kit to the next one to perform the next phase of construction, and finally purchase the completed airplane, and produce the requisite documentation to receive the Repairman's Certificate. Hence the problem that the FAA is looking at correcting. |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Larry Dighera wrote: So it would appear that all a wealthy pilot need do to get his kit plane built for him, is to get some "amateur" builders to construct various phases of the aircraft, and then sell the partially completed kit to the next one to perform the next phase of construction, and finally purchase the completed airplane, and produce the requisite documentation to receive the Repairman's Certificate. Hence the problem that the FAA is looking at correcting. I can't see how the changes the FAA is proposing to its form 8000-38 would correct that "problem". Specifically, the changes that the FAA is considering to form 8000-38 don't seem to address the sequence that Larry mentions at all. See section 8 of FAA advisory AC 20-139 for details on multiple builders. It also contains a copy of form 8000-38: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/3209fec2139ccb3f862569af006ab9e9/$FILE/AC20-139.pdf An example of an already filled out 8000-38: http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/8000-38.htm |
#169
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jim Logajan wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder wrote: Larry Dighera wrote: So it would appear that all a wealthy pilot need do to get his kit plane built for him, is to get some "amateur" builders to construct various phases of the aircraft, and then sell the partially completed kit to the next one to perform the next phase of construction, and finally purchase the completed airplane, and produce the requisite documentation to receive the Repairman's Certificate. Hence the problem that the FAA is looking at correcting. I can't see how the changes the FAA is proposing to its form 8000-38 would correct that "problem". Specifically, the changes that the FAA is considering to form 8000-38 don't seem to address the sequence that Larry mentions at all. See section 8 of FAA advisory AC 20-139 for details on multiple builders. It also contains a copy of form 8000-38: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/3209fec2139ccb3f862569af006ab9e9/$FILE/AC20-139.pdf An example of an already filled out 8000-38: http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/8000-38.htm Nobody said the FAA was going to properly correct the problem but that is what the aim of the action is. The better way to correct the problem would be to just have someone in OKC look through the magazines and search the internet, find those operations that are in violation, refuse the AW certificates of the next 3 aircraft that roll out of their hanger and very publicly announce the action. |
#170
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Nobody said the FAA was going to properly correct the problem but that is what the aim of the action is. The better way to correct the problem would be to just have someone in OKC look through the magazines and search the internet, find those operations that are in violation, refuse the AW certificates of the next 3 aircraft that roll out of their hanger and very publicly announce the action. Ouch. Unless I'm missing something, that appears to advocate arbitrary and capricious use of authority. If all these alleged rich scoundrels are already skirting the law, there is no need to change them, right? Do you really think it is wise to promote and encourage changes to the laws that suddenly makes a victimless activity a criminal activity? What if it were an activity you engaged in and someone else was trying to make it illegal? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
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 |
Small arms locker questions | Red | Naval Aviation | 4 | July 30th 03 02:10 PM |