A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

WJRFlyBoy wrote in
:

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 10:18:02 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Actually, jst to keep the record straight, you CAN buy an X-AB
airplane. But the biulder can not build and register another of the
same kind.

That puts him in unfair competition with the certified
manufacturers who went to the expense and trouble to certify their
airplanes.

Appreciate the comment. If certification has value, why does this
put him in unfair competition?

Because it cost many millions to certify an airplane. It doesn;'t
cost anything to kit a homebuilt. We're not just talking about RVs
here. There are some major crooks and nutjobs out there selling
dreams. Peopkle have died in them. Now, if you want to build one of
these yourself, and you can build anything you want, BTW, the FAA
really only looks to see if it was put together properly, then off
you go and more power to you. That's experimenting. But to try and
sell some of these things as capable airplanes would be criminal. I
think some of the kitplanes around are crimes against nature as it
is, but there ya go..

OK, so the FAA allows these planes under the guise of "experimental"
they certify planes and then there are experimental planes that are as
good or better than the certified planes (not talking engines whose
"certifications" are all over the place).

Is that about right?

If so, 1) where do you find the output which points to "good" kit/plan
planes and 2) what good is the FAA doing (other than restricting the
good builds for market related purposes)?


The FAA made the rules in the late forties to accomodate guys who wanted
to make little putt putts like Piets and Longsters in their garages. The
rules haven;t changed significantly since then. You can draw out any
kind of airplane powered by any kind of engine you like on the back of a
napkin, go out and get material to build it from anywhere you like. you
can make it out of old beer cans if you like. The design can be as nutty
as you like. You're unlikely to get anything too stupid past them, but
you're pretty much given Carte Blanche in the design and matrials
department. So, you start to build it and then you can decide , before
you've even got a couple of opieces glued togethether you decide you
want to share this marvelous beast with the world. You advertise it on
the net and before you know it people ( crazy ones) are throwing money
at you asking you to build one for them. Lots of people have been burned
in many ways through this sort of activity over the years and there's
nothing to distinguish a VanGruven airplane from one of these things
legally.



Bertie

On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 14:54:42 GMT, badbaz wrote:

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.

Lived in Wichita a few years, remember this.

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!

Let me see if I understand, at some (unknown) point, a builder who sells
becomes a manufacturer for reasons of litigation.

That's a good point. Then as a Buyer, I might have rights of recourse on
the designer, builder and, perhaps, the engine (re) manufacturer. Hmmm.
Case law anyone?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

"WJRFlyBoy" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 09:46:15 -0600, cavelamb himself wrote:

Morgans wrote:
"cavelamb himself" wrote

Actually, jst to keep the record straight, you CAN buy an X-AB airplane.
But the biulder can not build and register another of the same kind.

Really? Where did you get that information? Do you know of a case
where a
builder was denied the second airplane's airworthiness permit?

That was pretty common interpretation of this mess when I was a kid.

Back when FAA was doing "pre-close" inspections, they were a lot more
involved in the process.

I humbly suggest that if you are going to come in here with that handle,
you need to make a much more active effort at educating yourself.

This is a very technical forum.

And there are some very talented and knowledgeable people who hang here.

They mostly don't care for trolls.

For what it's worth...

WJRFlyboy ))
--

I presume that you are new around here.

Peter

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 21:01:53 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

OK, so the FAA allows these planes under the guise of "experimental"
they certify planes and then there are experimental planes that are as
good or better than the certified planes (not talking engines whose
"certifications" are all over the place).

Is that about right?

If so, 1) where do you find the output which points to "good" kit/plan
planes and 2) what good is the FAA doing (other than restricting the
good builds for market related purposes)?

The FAA made the rules in the late forties to accomodate guys who wanted
to make little putt putts like Piets and Longsters in their garages. The
rules haven;t changed significantly since then. You can draw out any
kind of airplane powered by any kind of engine you like on the back of a
napkin, go out and get material to build it from anywhere you like. you
can make it out of old beer cans if you like. The design can be as nutty
as you like. You're unlikely to get anything too stupid past them, but
you're pretty much given Carte Blanche in the design and matrials
department. So, you start to build it and then you can decide , before
you've even got a couple of opieces glued togethether you decide you
want to share this marvelous beast with the world. You advertise it on
the net and before you know it people ( crazy ones) are throwing money
at you asking you to build one for them. Lots of people have been burned
in many ways through this sort of activity over the years and there's
nothing to distinguish a VanGruven airplane from one of these things
legally.

Bertie

Thx for that.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

"Dale Scroggins" wrote in message
...

. . .Because flying over other people's property without permission has
never been a right, and certainly was not even a privilege at the time the
Constitution was written, how do you libertarians come up with any basis
for arguing that the government has limited authority in regulating
aviation?

I suggest a quick review of the Ninth and Tenth amendments to the
Constitution of the U.S. It has become a common fallacy to say. "if a
certain right is not enumerated in the Constitution, it therefore does not
exist". Nothing could be further from the truth. The Constitution does not
grant rights to the people - it restricts the powers of government.

Aviation would not exist in this country without government action.

You cannot be serious.

Rich S.
(retaining the cross-posting because I assume Mr. Scroggins is reading
rec.aviation.piloting)

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

. . .Now, if you want to build one of these yourself, and you can
build anything you want, BTW, the FAA really only looks to see if it was
put together properly, then off you go and more power to you.

You must have a real generous FAA office. Nine years ago (before DAR's came
in to the picture) the FAA "inspector" who checked my airplane was only
interested in seeing that the paperwork was complete and that the required
placards, registration numbers, and signage was in compliance. He checked
nothing else and when I specifically asked his opinion of an aileron control
cable bellcrank, he commented that it was "nicely done". There were no
safety wires or cotter pins installed yet, as it was going be disassembled
for the trip to the airport.

Years before that, I knew a couple of the inspectors in the SEA FSDO. They
were knowledgeable gentlemen who would, according to the rules, sign off
anything you built - even if it was cast from concrete. However, they would
contact members of the local EAA chapter to try to talk some sense into the
builder. If that failed, they would establish rules for the test period
which would make it impossible for the builder to fly off his time. That was
their only loophole. Something like, "Test flying will be conducted between
the hour of sunrise until 6:00 am in the Mohave Desert".

Things have changed with a DAR's certification and liability, but the FAA
has nothing directly to do with inspection.

If I'm wrong (and things change overnight), never mind.

Rich S.

wrote

The original builder can do any maintenance or modification he desires
while the buyer has to follow the same rules as if he had bought a
Cessna or Piper.

You lose those rights because that is the rule which is based on the
presumption that if you can build it, you can maintain it.

Nope.

The buyer may do any work or modifications he wants, unless it is considered
major, then he/she may have to go though a testing phase again, like when it
was new.

The ONLY thing the second owner may not do is the yearly condition
inspection. That must be done by the original owner, if he had the repair
privileges, or by an IA or A&P.
--
Jim in NC

wrote

must have the annual condition inspection signed off by an
A&P. Any A&P will do; no IA required.

Damn! I always get that part of it messed up!

You are right, of course.
--
Jim in NC

"Rich S." wrote in message
. ..
"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

. . .Now, if you want to build one of these yourself, and you can
build anything you want, BTW, the FAA really only looks to see if it was
put together properly, then off you go and more power to you.

You must have a real generous FAA office. Nine years ago (before DAR's
came in to the picture) the FAA "inspector" who checked my airplane was
only interested in seeing that the paperwork was complete and that the
required placards, registration numbers, and signage was in compliance. He
checked nothing else and when I specifically asked his opinion of an
aileron control cable bellcrank, he commented that it was "nicely done".
There were no safety wires or cotter pins installed yet, as it was going
be disassembled for the trip to the airport.

Years before that, I knew a couple of the inspectors in the SEA FSDO. They
were knowledgeable gentlemen who would, according to the rules, sign off
anything you built - even if it was cast from concrete. However, they
would contact members of the local EAA chapter to try to talk some sense
into the builder. If that failed, they would establish rules for the test
period which would make it impossible for the builder to fly off his time.
That was their only loophole. Something like, "Test flying will be
conducted between the hour of sunrise until 6:00 am in the Mohave Desert".

Things have changed with a DAR's certification and liability, but the FAA
has nothing directly to do with inspection.

If I'm wrong (and things change overnight), never mind.

Rich S.

Rich: Recently a friend of mine put together an original two seat helicopter
that used a modified Lycoming engine. Note when the modification was done,
the Lycoming tag is supposed to be removed as it is no longer considered a
Lycoming engine. Makes sense to me, but not to the FAA inspectors. As I
understand it was FAA employees from the local FSDO. They insisted that
the builder comply with Lycoming ADs before they would issue the
airworthiness. Too often the job of inspecting a homebuilt is really more
work than the "Busy" bureacrat wants to do so the paper work gets all the
attention. On my ship the DAR wanted a decal showing which was was open and
close on the throttle. Number one that decal is by necessity in a place
that you can't see when in operation. Number two if you need a decal to
inform you of the proper direction of rotation of a helicopter throttle you
surely should not be in there to start with. With all that said I did see
and talk to a DAR who had his feet well on the ground and kept his critique
useful and addressed reasonable items.
I'm not sure what an airworthiness certificate in an aircraft means other
than FAA has some paper work on file that acknowledges this aircraft's
existence.

Stu

On Mar 8, 5:47*pm, "Morgans" wrote:
wrote

*must have the annual condition inspection signed off by an
A&P. *Any A&P will do; no IA required.

Damn! *I always get that part of it messed up!

You are right, of course.
--
Jim in NC

Aw. come on ol buddy. If you look at how you worded it you are
correct.

The ONLY thing the second owner may not do is the yearly condition
inspection. That must be done by the original owner, if he had the repair
privileges, or by an IA or A&P.
--
Jim in NC

An A&P can do a conditional inspection, so can a IA. The difference is
an A&P doesn't need a IA sign off. On a certified ship he does...

Cheers.

Ben
www.haaspowerair.com