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 |
#171
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:19:42 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote: 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. It's just another of Mr. G's well considered proposals. :-( 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? Hey it works for the religious right. :-) What if it were an activity you engaged in and someone else was trying to make it illegal? I see this issue as a two fold _opportunity_. By virtue of its existence, there is obviously an opportunity to legitimize this sort of commerce, and the FAA is apparently in the mood to change its dogma, err.. regulations. If the regulations could be changed from prohibitive to enabling, that would be a win for all involved, IMO. But those small minded homebuilders, who can only see the status of their not insignificant accomplishments being eroded, impede the potential for further FAA concessions to market forces and reduced aircraft costs. |
#172
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
Jim Logajan wrote:
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? Excuse me? I specifically wrote that the better way was to enforce the law as it is already written. And to pick out companies or individuals for enforcement action who are advertising a violation of the law is hardly arbitrary or capricious. |
#173
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:19:42 -0000, Jim Logajan wrote: 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. It's just another of Mr. G's well considered proposals. :-( Wow, enforce the law that is already on the books instead of creating a new law. What a novel idea. |
#174
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote: 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? Excuse me? I specifically wrote that the better way was to enforce the law as it is already written. And to pick out companies or individuals for enforcement action who are advertising a violation of the law is hardly arbitrary or capricious. Okay - my misread. Sorry. |
#175
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:12:52 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote: Jim Logajan wrote: 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? Excuse me? I specifically wrote that the better way was to enforce the law as it is already written. I don't see where you wrote that at all. You said: "... find those operations that are in violation, refuse the AW certificates of the next 3 aircraft that roll out of their hanger..." Are you able to provide the specific language of any of "those operations that are in violation" and publicly advertise such? The implication in your comment is, that regardless of the aircrafts' airworthiness, the FAA should reject them to make a point. And to pick out companies or individuals for enforcement action who are advertising a violation of the law is hardly arbitrary or capricious. It's hardly likely that any companies or individuals are doing that also. |
#176
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
Larry Dighera wrote:
I don't see where you wrote that at all. You said: "... find those operations that are in violation, refuse the AW certificates of the next 3 aircraft that roll out of their hanger..." What part of "operations that are in violation" don't you understand Larry? Are you able to provide the specific language of any of "those operations that are in violation" and publicly advertise such? The implication in your comment is, that regardless of the aircrafts' airworthiness, the FAA should reject them to make a point. The phrase in the regulations is "for recreation and education." The spirit of the law is that aircraft certified under the EXP-HB classification are to be built in a not for profit setting and not as a way to get around the certification requirements in place for aircraft manufacturers. And it is not regardless of the aircrafts airworthiness. It is specifically because of the aircrafts airworthiness. The power that the FAA has to issue the certificate comes from the law that also sets the rules under which an EXP-HB certificate can be issued. If the aircraft isn't build under those rules it is not airworthy at least as far as those rules are concerned. And to pick out companies or individuals for enforcement action who are advertising a violation of the law is hardly arbitrary or capricious. It's hardly likely that any companies or individuals are doing that also. You really are a moron. For somebody that seems to have no skill other than cutting and pasting to USENET it amazes me that you don't realize that it is specifically this practice that is causing the FAA to look at changing the regulations. I know of at least two places where I could of have my kit delivered to and shown up for a few days and watched while it was being built doing as much or as little work (including none at all) as I desired. I would have been able to pose for some photos with the plane under construction and been able to show that to the DAR along with some bogus paperwork and I not only would have been able to get the EXP-HB AW certificate I would be able to get the repairman's certificate as well. |
#177
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote: On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:19:42 -0000, Jim Logajan wrote: 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. It's just another of Mr. G's well considered proposals. :-( 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? Hey it works for the religious right. :-) And the left. No need to get excessively picky amongst statists of any stripe. |
#178
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 08:11:03 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
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. Huh? http://doc.vansaircraft.com/RVator/2...008-RVator.pdf "On Feb. 15th, in the FAA .... report were indications that procedural changes would include changes to the criteria for determining eligibility for airworthiness in the E-AB category. *In other words, re-defining the level of prefabrication and assembly permissible for kits.*" Who benefits from these re-writings, increased cost and complexity? The kit sellers? Or Cessna? |
#179
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
"WJRFlyBoy" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 08:11:03 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote: 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. Huh? http://doc.vansaircraft.com/RVator/2...008-RVator.pdf "On Feb. 15th, in the FAA .... report were indications that procedural changes would include changes to the criteria for determining eligibility for airworthiness in the E-AB category. *In other words, re-defining the level of prefabrication and assembly permissible for kits.*" Who benefits from these re-writings, increased cost and complexity? The kit sellers? Or Cessna? From my point of view, only two things are certain: 1) This won't address the alleged "problem" of "hired guns" and 2) It will increase the build time. The most probable side effect will be fewer aircraft built and flown and the secondary side effect, especially for some of the composites, will be improper bonding due to slower assembly at critical stages--in other words DECREASED safety. So, in the grand scheme of things; we'll be looking at fewer kits successfully completed, less airport utilization, and eventually less sales of type certified factory completed aircraft as well. Another genuine "lose-lose" proposition! Peter |
#180
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:17:53 -0400, Peter Dohm wrote:
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. Huh? http://doc.vansaircraft.com/RVator/2...008-RVator.pdf "On Feb. 15th, in the FAA .... report were indications that procedural changes would include changes to the criteria for determining eligibility for airworthiness in the E-AB category. *In other words, re-defining the level of prefabrication and assembly permissible for kits.*" Who benefits from these re-writings, increased cost and complexity? The kit sellers? Or Cessna? From my point of view, only two things are certain: 1) This won't address the alleged "problem" of "hired guns" and 2) It will increase the build time. The most probable side effect will be fewer aircraft built and flown and the secondary side effect, especially for some of the composites, will be improper bonding due to slower assembly at critical stages--in other words DECREASED safety. So, in the grand scheme of things; we'll be looking at fewer kits successfully completed, less airport utilization, and eventually less sales of type certified factory completed aircraft as well. Another genuine "lose-lose" proposition! Peter Why do you think there will be less type certifieds sold, question not a challenge. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
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 |