A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 13:29:11 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 10:36:39 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote in
:

I have a business associate that bought a "pro-built" RV7. While he
was flying home X-C the plane lost power and he safely landed in a
field. He got the farmer who owned the land to tow him over beside
the barn and then found and A&P to come out and see if he could fix
the problem.

The logs showed the plane had flown the 40 hours to get out of
phase 1 testing. That A&P and another that looked at it later both
felt after looking at the plane that there was no way this plane
had been flown more than five or six hours.

When the buyer looked further at the log book entries he realized
that the that a date had been changed and that there was only,
originally 3 days between the beginning and the end of the phase 1
testing.

He got his money back in the deal after his lawyer made it very
clear that there would either be a wire in the buyers account that
day or a call would be made to the FAA.

Perhaps a prudent purchaser would consider it a good idea to have an
A&P look at the aircraft and logs BEFOFE the purchase.


The problem that developed and caused the engine failure may or may
not have been found by A&P. The log book entry would probably not have
been noticed in a hanger.

The point is though was that this was purchased from an A&P that was
building under the Exp-HB rules buy a buyer that thought that meant he
was getting a well constructed aircraft that had been properly built
and tested.

It's a significant expenditure, and demands due diligence of the
buyer, IMO. The buyer who fails to attempt to guard against being
defrauded in the situation you described shares some culpability, IMO.
This is the sort of caveat emptor that keeps Consumer Reports in
business.

Any aircraft buyer that uses the IA who signed off the last annual
inspection of the aircraft s/he is considering fails to appreciate the
potential conflict of interest. I see no reason that sort of prudence
shouldn't apply in a homebuilt context, especially if the buyer is
aware that the seller's moral character is suspect due to the
knowledge that they are both committing an act of fraud.



Good grief.

Bertie

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 08:49:35 -0800 (PST), wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
Implicit in that suggestion is the notion that "professional"
experimental aircraft "manufacturers" are able to produce a product
that is somehow superior to those constructed by less experienced
homebuilders. Do you believe that to be true?

Certainly not across the board by any means, though some shops are
capable of turning out a more slickly finished product than the
average homebuilder generally produces. Everyone likes to look at a
gorgeous airplane, but it's disingenuous to put those planes forward
as examples of 'homebuilding', to say nothing of the unfairness of
allowing them to compete alongside the genuine articles.


I can see where this fraud is irksome to true craftsmen, but I can't
see how it appropriate for the FAA to be involved in assuring that a
prize awarded ostensibly on merit is genuinely so.


While I have precious little exposure to homebuilding and those who do
it, I have sincere respect for anyone who applies his skills in
constructing useful things. And craftsmanship seems to be an ever
diminishing virtue in today's world, so seeing it fostered in this
context provides hope that it won't be entirely driven out of
existence by mass production.

Agree 100%.

I guess the real question is why does the FAA feel it's necessary for
a homebuilder to have done 51% of the work? Is it to protect him from
himself, or to protect the public from him, or are there other
reasons? What of the prototypes built by Lockheed or Boeing; 51% of
them aren't constructed by a single individual.

Why 51%? I think that brings us back to the point of the feds
protecting the investment of the manufacturers in the type
certification process.

Do you believe that the FAA should be involved in protecting aircraft
manufacturers financial interests?

The prototypes you mention aren't registered
as amateur-built. There are a number of experimental categories and
the 51% rule only applies to amateur-built aircraft.


Why? That seems a little arbitrary to me. If one group is enjoined
from employing others to construct an aircraft, why should another
group be permitted to do the same thing with impunity?

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message ...

I agree. I couldn't be bothered to travel to OSH now...


Bertie

But OSH is pretty cool! Gotta take it for what it is, not what they say it is.

Larry Dighera wrote in
:


I can see where this fraud is irksome to true craftsmen, but I can't
see how it appropriate for the FAA to be involved in assuring that a
prize awarded ostensibly on merit is genuinely so.



Do you believe that the FAA should be involved in protecting aircraft
manufacturers financial interests?


Wow, you've just moved your idiocy to a whole new level there Lar.


Bertie

"Blueskies" wrote in
et:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

I agree. I couldn't be bothered to travel to OSH now...


Bertie

But OSH is pretty cool! Gotta take it for what it is, not what they
say it is.


Been there. I know what it's become... Used to be 100% terrific, now
about 3-4%

And I never pay attention to what "they" say, anyhoo.


Bertie


Bertie

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 appears to be what the FAA wants. But IMHO the changes the FAA is
considering appear unlikely to accomplish that goal. Consider Joe
Homebuilder and friends who invest in a lot of equipment and somehow set up
an assembly-line-like operation and build homebuilts from "raw" material.
If they fill out all the paperwork legal and proper, on what basis could
the FAA claim that they had not "fabricated and assembled the majority
portion of the aircraft for their own education or recreation?"

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.

I believe Van pointed out that the FAA appears to be ignoring the concerns
raised by some members of the ARC if shared credit is disallowed for the
tasks on the form 8000-38 checklist. He was on the committee and clearly
got negative vibes from the FAA members - and appears to be concerned
enough about the impact on the entire field that he felt compelled to write
his "call to arms."

(If suppose if one believes that pounding 10,000 rivets is instructional
and/or recreational but pounding 1000 rivets is not, fine. No accounting
for taste. ;-))

"Ron Lee" wrote in message ...
Acepilot wrote:

What is a "Pro Built"? I would take it to mean that an experimental
"kit" was built by somebody like Cessna or Piper, etc. As an amateur
builder, am I a "novice" when I complete it? Will I turn pro after I
finish a second one? I'd tend to say that an airplane built by Joe Blow
for somebody else is still amateur built, but the owner who applies for
the repairman certificate should not be able to get it if they
themselves did not build 51%.

Scott

"pro built" in my message means that you pay someone to build it.

Ron Lee

Why should this not be allowed? This is a free country, maybe...

I suspect there is going to be a fall outhere.

A division between those who can read and understand the regulations,
and those who can't/won't.

Simple as that, Larry.

"Ron Lee" wrote in message ...
wrote:
All that said, the most common
argument (not necessarily one with which I'm in agreement) in favor of
professional builds of experimental aircraft is that the pro shops
turn out a better quality product which is less likely to injure or kill
the proverbial innocent bystander. Even if we accept that at face value
(which I certainly don't), it begs for the creation of a new
experimental sub-category, perhaps Experimental Professional Built,
with increased oversight akin to that suffered by the standard category
manufacturers in pursuing and maintaining their type certificates.

I also don't agree that innocents are less likely to be killed by a
pro built plane. Show me the stats to prove it.

The real killer is that the customer of a pro built plane may also get
the repairman's certificate which means that he lied about building
it.

Ron Lee


It would be very interesting for someone to be charged with operating an illegally built aircraft. How would this be
challenged in the courts?

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