A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 00:03:24 -0600, cavelamb himself
wrote:

Jim Logajan wrote:

Jim Logajan wrote:

The FAA is about to make it a whole hell of a lot harder for people to
build safe amateur built aircraft. Richard VanGrunsven, founder of one
of the most successful kit aircraft companies, has written up a
warning and a call to arms about the issue. You can read it beginning
on page 3 of this document:

http://doc.vansaircraft.com/RVator/2...008-RVator.pdf


Also consider using this site (to save Vans Aircraft some bandwidth load):

http://www.vansairforce.net/rvator/1-2008-RVator.pdf




Sounds more like they want to make it harder to_have_one_built_for_you.

That is the reasoning behind all this, but as with many regulations
it's going to take some close watching to keep them from going astray.
In the past, there really wasn't a 51% rule as we think of it. They
expected the builder complete 51% of the tasks. IOW, if you
constructed one aileron That was as good as constructing and mounting
both. Build one rib is as good as building 30. Some areas are just
done much better by the manufacturer as stated in the letter. forming
ribs as an example. In the past IIRC you could share the wing,
aileron, elevator and stab construction with the manufacturer if they
stamped out the ribs and you put everything together. The FAA
apparently wants to eliminate this. How they would go about it and how
it would affect what we do is really an unknown at this point.

There's a big gap between the *Intent* of the rule as has been
interpreted AND ACCEPTED by the FAA and the *Letter* of the rule.

In my G-III the fuselage shells (right, and left, along with the
forward and rear belly pans are factory molded composite sandwiches.
The builder spends many hours just jigging, aligning, and bonding
these sections. The horizontal stab comes with pre molded ribs and
shear webs (which have to be cut to size) along with the upper and
lower shells, but putting one together is a long and tedious task.
OTOH the elevator, ailerons, and flaps only come as shells. You get
to figure out the dimensions of the ribs. They give a bit of guidance
on the lay ups but absolutely nothing on the dimensions or shaping of
those ribs.

The G-III is probably one of the most, if not the most labor intensive
kit out there at a conservative 4000 hours for construction. Few make
it in that little a time.. Even the fast build (Jump start in their
dictionary) still takes thousands of hours to complete.

there is a good chance the way they are wording some things that even
this kit might be affected.




These articles explain the FAA's concerns over excessive commercial
abuses of the Experimental Amateur Built (E-AB) licensing category.
The ARC committee was created as an FAA/EAA/ Industry process to address
the FAA concerns and to recommend corrective actions.

Unfortunately as logical as that sounds it doesn't necessarily follow
that any rules changes will be as logical. Even as currently written
changing from the Intent to the letter of the rule would be a drastic
change.

I doubt with what I'm building if the rules changes would have much
effect. OTOH contrary to probably most on the group, I see little
problem or even downside to changing it to a 20 or 25% rule. I happen
to like building and by doing so I can also end up with a plane that
has capabilities not available in production aircraft AND end up with
one I couldn't afford to purchase outright. OTOH I have no problem
nor do I see a problem with some one hiring the same plane built for
them as long as it still has to abide by the flight restrictions of
other E-AB aircraft.. I say this for two reasons that are very
apparent to me.

Although many of us build for the fun of it (education is rarely one
of the top reasons, or even one of the reasons.) From what I've seen
and we have quite a few homebuilts at 3BS (kit and scratch built),
most are constructed either to save money or just because they like to
build. One more reason is they couldn't purchase a plane like they
want to build even if they did have the money and we have quite a few
who are flying two and even three engine jets.OK only one is flying a
three holer.

Yes I'm learning things and some would call that education which it
is, but I'll state outright, that has nothing to do with me building.
I'm building because I like to do it! I'd get more enjoyment out of
building another because I could do it more efficiently, faster, and
cheaper. HOWEVER if I ever do get the thing finished and I'm able to
fly it, my main/only reason for building at that time would be "flying
an airplane I constructed myself".

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

You still building Roger? I can second the build time for the Glasair
3, I'm 17 years and still going on my 3. The Glasair 3 from that era
would never have any problem with the 51 % rule. It's got to be one of
the most labor intensive homebuilts out there. And once I started
building, it became obvious the parts the factory makes are the easy
stuff. laying up big stuff in molds and popping them out after they
cure. Probably the best part of the kit is having most, but not all,
of the hardware and metal parts assembled and done. Like the landing
gear. Glad I don't have to weld up gear legs, like someone building a
Barracuda or similar project. Actually, there are lots of plans built
planes out there I could have finished years ago.
Rich

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 19:06:44 -0500, Roger
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 00:03:24 -0600, cavelamb himself
wrote:

Jim Logajan wrote:

Jim Logajan wrote:

The FAA is about to make it a whole hell of a lot harder for people to
build safe amateur built aircraft. Richard VanGrunsven, founder of one
of the most successful kit aircraft companies, has written up a
warning and a call to arms about the issue. You can read it beginning
on page 3 of this document:

http://doc.vansaircraft.com/RVator/2...008-RVator.pdf


Also consider using this site (to save Vans Aircraft some bandwidth load):

http://www.vansairforce.net/rvator/1-2008-RVator.pdf




Sounds more like they want to make it harder to_have_one_built_for_you.

That is the reasoning behind all this, but as with many regulations
it's going to take some close watching to keep them from going astray.
In the past, there really wasn't a 51% rule as we think of it. They
expected the builder complete 51% of the tasks. IOW, if you
constructed one aileron That was as good as constructing and mounting
both. Build one rib is as good as building 30. Some areas are just
done much better by the manufacturer as stated in the letter. forming
ribs as an example. In the past IIRC you could share the wing,
aileron, elevator and stab construction with the manufacturer if they
stamped out the ribs and you put everything together. The FAA
apparently wants to eliminate this. How they would go about it and how
it would affect what we do is really an unknown at this point.

There's a big gap between the *Intent* of the rule as has been
interpreted AND ACCEPTED by the FAA and the *Letter* of the rule.

In my G-III the fuselage shells (right, and left, along with the
forward and rear belly pans are factory molded composite sandwiches.
The builder spends many hours just jigging, aligning, and bonding
these sections. The horizontal stab comes with pre molded ribs and
shear webs (which have to be cut to size) along with the upper and
lower shells, but putting one together is a long and tedious task.
OTOH the elevator, ailerons, and flaps only come as shells. You get
to figure out the dimensions of the ribs. They give a bit of guidance
on the lay ups but absolutely nothing on the dimensions or shaping of
those ribs.

The G-III is probably one of the most, if not the most labor intensive
kit out there at a conservative 4000 hours for construction. Few make
it in that little a time.. Even the fast build (Jump start in their
dictionary) still takes thousands of hours to complete.

there is a good chance the way they are wording some things that even
this kit might be affected.




These articles explain the FAA's concerns over excessive commercial
abuses of the Experimental Amateur Built (E-AB) licensing category.
The ARC committee was created as an FAA/EAA/ Industry process to address
the FAA concerns and to recommend corrective actions.

Unfortunately as logical as that sounds it doesn't necessarily follow
that any rules changes will be as logical. Even as currently written
changing from the Intent to the letter of the rule would be a drastic
change.

I doubt with what I'm building if the rules changes would have much
effect. OTOH contrary to probably most on the group, I see little
problem or even downside to changing it to a 20 or 25% rule. I happen
to like building and by doing so I can also end up with a plane that
has capabilities not available in production aircraft AND end up with
one I couldn't afford to purchase outright. OTOH I have no problem
nor do I see a problem with some one hiring the same plane built for
them as long as it still has to abide by the flight restrictions of
other E-AB aircraft.. I say this for two reasons that are very
apparent to me.

Although many of us build for the fun of it (education is rarely one
of the top reasons, or even one of the reasons.) From what I've seen
and we have quite a few homebuilts at 3BS (kit and scratch built),
most are constructed either to save money or just because they like to
build. One more reason is they couldn't purchase a plane like they
want to build even if they did have the money and we have quite a few
who are flying two and even three engine jets.OK only one is flying a
three holer.

Yes I'm learning things and some would call that education which it
is, but I'll state outright, that has nothing to do with me building.
I'm building because I like to do it! I'd get more enjoyment out of
building another because I could do it more efficiently, faster, and
cheaper. HOWEVER if I ever do get the thing finished and I'm able to
fly it, my main/only reason for building at that time would be "flying
an airplane I constructed myself".

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 20:50:55 -0500, Sliker wrote:

You still building Roger? I can second the build time for the Glasair
3, I'm 17 years and still going on my 3. The Glasair 3 from that era
would never have any problem with the 51 % rule. It's got to be one of
the most labor intensive homebuilts out there. And once I started
building, it became obvious the parts the factory makes are the easy
stuff. laying up big stuff in molds and popping them out after they
cure. Probably the best part of the kit is having most, but not all,
of the hardware and metal parts assembled and done. Like the landing
gear. Glad I don't have to weld up gear legs, like someone building a
Barracuda or similar project. Actually, there are lots of plans built
planes out there I could have finished years ago.
Rich

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 19:06:44 -0500, Roger
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 00:03:24 -0600, cavelamb himself
wrote:

Jim Logajan wrote:

Jim Logajan wrote:

The FAA is about to make it a whole hell of a lot harder for people to
build safe amateur built aircraft. Richard VanGrunsven, founder of one
of the most successful kit aircraft companies, has written up a
warning and a call to arms about the issue. You can read it beginning
on page 3 of this document:

http://doc.vansaircraft.com/RVator/2...008-RVator.pdf


Also consider using this site (to save Vans Aircraft some bandwidth load):

http://www.vansairforce.net/rvator/1-2008-RVator.pdf




Sounds more like they want to make it harder to_have_one_built_for_you.

That is the reasoning behind all this, but as with many regulations
it's going to take some close watching to keep them from going astray.
In the past, there really wasn't a 51% rule as we think of it. They
expected the builder complete 51% of the tasks. IOW, if you
constructed one aileron That was as good as constructing and mounting
both. Build one rib is as good as building 30. Some areas are just
done much better by the manufacturer as stated in the letter. forming
ribs as an example. In the past IIRC you could share the wing,
aileron, elevator and stab construction with the manufacturer if they
stamped out the ribs and you put everything together. The FAA
apparently wants to eliminate this. How they would go about it and how
it would affect what we do is really an unknown at this point.

There's a big gap between the *Intent* of the rule as has been
interpreted AND ACCEPTED by the FAA and the *Letter* of the rule.

In my G-III the fuselage shells (right, and left, along with the
forward and rear belly pans are factory molded composite sandwiches.
The builder spends many hours just jigging, aligning, and bonding
these sections. The horizontal stab comes with pre molded ribs and
shear webs (which have to be cut to size) along with the upper and
lower shells, but putting one together is a long and tedious task.
OTOH the elevator, ailerons, and flaps only come as shells. You get
to figure out the dimensions of the ribs. They give a bit of guidance
on the lay ups but absolutely nothing on the dimensions or shaping of
those ribs.

The G-III is probably one of the most, if not the most labor intensive
kit out there at a conservative 4000 hours for construction. Few make
it in that little a time.. Even the fast build (Jump start in their
dictionary) still takes thousands of hours to complete.

there is a good chance the way they are wording some things that even
this kit might be affected.




These articles explain the FAA's concerns over excessive commercial
abuses of the Experimental Amateur Built (E-AB) licensing category.
The ARC committee was created as an FAA/EAA/ Industry process to address
the FAA concerns and to recommend corrective actions.

Unfortunately as logical as that sounds it doesn't necessarily follow
that any rules changes will be as logical. Even as currently written
changing from the Intent to the letter of the rule would be a drastic
change.

I doubt with what I'm building if the rules changes would have much
effect. OTOH contrary to probably most on the group, I see little
problem or even downside to changing it to a 20 or 25% rule. I happen
to like building and by doing so I can also end up with a plane that
has capabilities not available in production aircraft AND end up with
one I couldn't afford to purchase outright. OTOH I have no problem
nor do I see a problem with some one hiring the same plane built for
them as long as it still has to abide by the flight restrictions of
other E-AB aircraft.. I say this for two reasons that are very
apparent to me.

Although many of us build for the fun of it (education is rarely one
of the top reasons, or even one of the reasons.) From what I've seen
and we have quite a few homebuilts at 3BS (kit and scratch built),
most are constructed either to save money or just because they like to
build. One more reason is they couldn't purchase a plane like they
want to build even if they did have the money and we have quite a few
who are flying two and even three engine jets.OK only one is flying a
three holer.

Yes I'm learning things and some would call that education which it
is, but I'll state outright, that has nothing to do with me building.
I'm building because I like to do it! I'd get more enjoyment out of
building another because I could do it more efficiently, faster, and
cheaper. HOWEVER if I ever do get the thing finished and I'm able to
fly it, my main/only reason for building at that time would be "flying
an airplane I constructed myself".

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Being an old fart I remember when Cessna, Piper &co. nearly went belly up
due to ambulance chasers. Cessna even shut down its production lines for
piston aircraft because of it. this is where the expermentals saved their
collective bacons as the lawyers found that individuals didn't have big
cheque books to raid. Cessna only recommencet production after congress
changed the litigation laws, now if become a pro builder to the lawyers you
are a manufactures so whach out!

Jim Logajan wrote:
The FAA is about to make it a whole hell of a lot harder for people to
build safe amateur built aircraft. Richard VanGrunsven, founder of one of
the most successful kit aircraft companies, has written up a warning and a
call to arms about the issue. You can read it beginning on page 3 of this
document:

http://doc.vansaircraft.com/RVator/2...008-RVator.pdf


Well, Jim,

Looks like your "call to arms" call backfired on ya...

cavelamb himself wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
The FAA is about to make it a whole hell of a lot harder for people
to build safe amateur built aircraft. Richard VanGrunsven, founder of
one of the most successful kit aircraft companies, has written up a
warning and a call to arms about the issue. You can read it beginning
on page 3 of this document:

http://doc.vansaircraft.com/RVator/2...008-RVator.pdf


Well, Jim,

Looks like your "call to arms" call backfired on ya...

_My_ call to arms? Huh??

If Richard VanGrunsven's call to arms backfired, it may be because people
no longer actually read what is written. They can't even get attributions
correct. So if they can't figure out who originated a call to arms, I guess
it is not surprising they get a clean miss on the central thesis.

Jim Logajan wrote:

cavelamb himself wrote:

Jim Logajan wrote:

The FAA is about to make it a whole hell of a lot harder for people
to build safe amateur built aircraft. Richard VanGrunsven, founder of
one of the most successful kit aircraft companies, has written up a
warning and a call to arms about the issue. You can read it beginning
on page 3 of this document:

http://doc.vansaircraft.com/RVator/2...008-RVator.pdf


Well, Jim,

Looks like your "call to arms" call backfired on ya...


_My_ call to arms? Huh??

If Richard VanGrunsven's call to arms backfired, it may be because people
no longer actually read what is written. They can't even get attributions
correct. So if they can't figure out who originated a call to arms, I guess
it is not surprising they get a clean miss on the central thesis.


YOU brought it in here...

But I guess WE are all wrong - for disagreeing?

Pffft...

cavelamb himself wrote:
YOU brought it in here...

I didn't realize it works that way. Boy is R.V. going to ****ed when he
learns I inadvertently assumed ownership to his call to arms.

You have a better grasp of these things than I - perhaps you would be kind
enough to tell me how I might correct the situation?

But I guess WE are all wrong - for disagreeing?

Excellent point. You and everyone else who posted followups are not all
wrong.

Pffft...

Not only can't I argue with that logic, the front of my shirt is full of
spittle.

Thanks for setting me straight. I know now, thanks to you and several other
posters, that you have keener insight into what changes the FAA may be
planning to the rules than this VanGrunsven fellow does.

I've found that it's not very effective to judge what the homebuilder
population at large thinks by what the relatively small population of
RAH posters writes.

There are many lurkers on this newsgroup who never post, and also many
who don't ever tune into RAH. And there are no doubt no few who maybe
surveyed it once during a hystrionical episode or em-aye-five storm
and decided the signal/noise ratio was below their threshold, so they
never came back.

My interest in this issue is two-fold: Now I know to prepare for a sea-
change on the interpretation of "major portion" and its reflection on
form 8000-38. And also, now I know what was so important about the EAA
telecon that Dick had to attend to while we were visiting Vans that
Monday morning:

http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24/update_4_march_08.htm

Thanks, Bob K.

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 05:51:51 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote:

The FAA is about to make it a whole hell of a lot harder for people to
build safe amateur built aircraft. Richard VanGrunsven, founder of one of
the most successful kit aircraft companies, has written up a warning and a
call to arms about the issue. You can read it beginning on page 3 of this
document:

http://doc.vansaircraft.com/RVator/2...008-RVator.pdf



-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVwebAUDIO Volume 2, Number 11 -- March 21, 2008

-------------------------------------------------------------------
MORE PODCASTS: http://www.avweb.com/podcast/podcast/index.html

Today's Exclusive AVweb Podcast

LANCAIR'S JOE BARTELS OUTLINES THE POSSIBLE DANGERS
OF THE FAA'S PROPOSED "51% RULE" CHANGES FOR HOMEBUILTS
(http://www.avweb.com/alm?podcast20080321&kw=AVwebAudio)
The FAA is proposing changes to the rules governing homebuilt
aircraft, some of which are raising concerns about the future of
this time-honored niche of general aviation. The Experimental
Aircraft Association (http://www.avweb.com/alm?eaa&kw=Podcast) has
stated publicly that it opposes the changes, which would make it
more difficult for homebuilders to comply with the "51%
rule." Earlier this week, Lancair CEO Joe Bartels told the
Bend, Oregon Weekly News that his business could be in danger if
the FAA rule changes are passed. Hear what Bartels told AVweb
about the proposed rule changes and the future of homebuilding in
this AVweb audio feature.

Click here (http://www.avweb.com/podcast/files/2008-03-21.mp3) to
listen. (7.2 MB, 7:54)

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 05:51:51 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote:

The FAA is about to make it a whole hell of a lot harder for people to
build safe amateur built aircraft. Richard VanGrunsven, founder of one
of the most successful kit aircraft companies, has written up a
warning and a call to arms about the issue. You can read it beginning
on page 3 of this document:

http://doc.vansaircraft.com/RVator/2...008-RVator.pdf



-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVwebAUDIO Volume 2, Number 11 -- March 21, 2008

-------------------------------------------------------------------
MORE PODCASTS: http://www.avweb.com/podcast/podcast/index.html

Today's Exclusive AVweb Podcast

LANCAIR'S JOE BARTELS OUTLINES THE POSSIBLE DANGERS
OF THE FAA'S PROPOSED "51% RULE" CHANGES FOR HOMEBUILTS
(http://www.avweb.com/alm?podcast20080321&kw=AVwebAudio)
The FAA is proposing changes to the rules governing homebuilt
aircraft, some of which are raising concerns about the future of
this time-honored niche of general aviation. The Experimental
Aircraft Association (http://www.avweb.com/alm?eaa&kw=Podcast) has
stated publicly that it opposes the changes, which would make it
more difficult for homebuilders to comply with the "51%
rule." Earlier this week, Lancair CEO Joe Bartels told the
Bend, Oregon Weekly News that his business could be in danger if
the FAA rule changes are passed. Hear what Bartels told AVweb
about the proposed rule changes and the future of homebuilding in
this AVweb audio feature.


Bull****. it's not difficult at all. You buy a pile of spruce and a pile
of tubing and make it all yourself. Easy. What it's doing is making it
difficult for people to build hairdressers airplanes like Lancairs.


Bertie