FAA publishes proposed changes to amateur-built rules.

"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.

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Embarrassing, eh?

Despite claims to the contrary, putting on an air-show is no guarantee
of competence in other areas. In the same vein, the fact a hack
politician holds a particular office is no guarantee they are
qualified to do so. Indeed, the biffy handlers and the political
hacks have wasted more than TEN YEARS trying to resolve what is at
best, a fairly simple problem.

-R.S.Hoover

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.

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:46:14 -0500, Jim Logajan
wrote:

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.

my point is that guys like vaughn need to point the finger to the
problem you highlight in the FAA argument, not unwittingly let them
destroy a growing area of commercial activity.

why does this interest me all the way around on the other side of the
world. our regulators are so clueless that they do a donkey act
everytime and blindly follow yours. to get ours fixed we need to be
vigilant on matters in america.


as I see it...
any new technology starts out as a set of gurus developing it from
scratch. all the knowledge is in their heads.
the second phase of commercialisation involves spreading the
understanding and creating a market. gurus are still in the lead but
others are picking up the knowledge as well and it is becoming
published.
the third phase involves the technology becoming widely understood and
becoming a part of everyday life. there is no longer a need for gurus
because everyone understands it.
computing is now pretty well in the third phase.
aviation is locked in the second phase by regulation. it will have a
permanent future if we can get it into the third phase.
locked in the second phase will mean it will die like the steam
engine.

thanks for the research Jim.

Stealth Pilot

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:00:47 -0500, Jim Logajan
wrote:

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?

At one time they said 51% of the parts and they clarified that to say
building one wing rib is as good as building all of them.
constructiong one elevator is as good as both.


They never knew what they wanted amateurs to prove and they still don't.
Roger (K8RI) ARRL Life Member
N833R (World's oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com