A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

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 Sat, 8 Mar 2008 16:55:32 -0800, "Stuart & Kathryn Fields"
wrote:



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



Burecrats love plackards. I had to install one for up and down on my
water rudders

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:36:03 -0500, "Highflyer" wrote:


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?


Any individual or group can construct an aircraft. No one has been told
they cannot construct an aircraft.

Implicit in my question was the intent to have the aircraft licensed.

The only thing they are being told is
that it is illegal to attempt to license an aircraft in the official
specific license category of "Experimental - Amateur Built" that wan [sic]
NOT in fact, built by an amateur. I do not have a problem with that.

My point is, why is does the FAA feel it is necessary to provide
separate experimental licensing criteria between "Experimental -
Amateur Built" and other experimentals?

Any aircraft not built by an amateur can indeed be licensed, but only in the
appropriate category. If they proceed to license the aircraft correctly
there is no problem and no objection. The only problem is with people who
make known false official statements to allow an outcome they deem
favorable, if illegal.

I'm not condoning the making of false statements.

I'm questioning the appropriateness of the FAA's scrutinizing the
_intent_ of the builder(s). It seems to me that the FAA requirement
for the "Experimental - Amateur Built" builder to be motivated by
educational or recreational intent places the FAA in the role of
evaluating the mental state of the builder, not the airworthiness of
the aircraft.

I realize that those intents are ostensibility to prevent the
wholesale construction of uncertified aircraft by amateurs with the
intent to sell them to the public, but the rule seems flawed due to
the role of psychologist in which it necessarily places the FAA. The
FAA's role should be solely to determine the suitability of a given
aircraft to operate in the NAS with appropriate restrictions as may be
necessary, IMO, not to examine the motivation of the builder(s).

What are the pertinent licensing differences between "Experimental -
Amateur Built" and those of the appropriate experimental type of say
SpaceshipOne built by Scaled Composites commissioned by Branson?

What is your opinion of a group composed of an experienced builder and
a potential operator of the fruit of their labor collaborating on the
construction of an aircraft licensed as "Experimental - Amateur
Built?" Wouldn't that be a simple method of circumventing the
"Experimental - Amateur Built?" rubric?

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:36:03 -0500, "Highflyer" wrote:


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?


Any individual or group can construct an aircraft. No one has been
told they cannot construct an aircraft.

Implicit in my question was the intent to have the aircraft licensed.

The only thing they are being told is
that it is illegal to attempt to license an aircraft in the official
specific license category of "Experimental - Amateur Built" that wan
[sic] NOT in fact, built by an amateur. I do not have a problem with
that.

My point is, why is does the FAA feel it is necessary to provide
separate experimental licensing criteria between "Experimental -
Amateur Built" and other experimentals?

Any aircraft not built by an amateur can indeed be licensed, but only
in the appropriate category. If they proceed to license the aircraft
correctly there is no problem and no objection. The only problem is
with people who make known false official statements to allow an
outcome they deem favorable, if illegal.

I'm not condoning the making of false statements.


No, you just make them yourself and cut out the middle man.

I'm questioning the appropriateness of the FAA's scrutinizing the
_intent_ of the builder(s). It seems to me that the FAA requirement
for the "Experimental - Amateur Built" builder to be motivated by
educational or recreational intent places the FAA in the role of
evaluating the mental state of the builder, not the airworthiness of
the aircraft.

I realize that those intents are ostensibility to prevent the
wholesale construction of uncertified aircraft by amateurs with the
intent to sell them to the public, but the rule seems flawed due to
the role of psychologist in which it necessarily places the FAA. The
FAA's role should be solely to determine the suitability of a given
aircraft to operate in the NAS with appropriate restrictions as may be
necessary, IMO, not to examine the motivation of the builder(s).

What are the pertinent licensing differences between "Experimental -
Amateur Built" and those of the appropriate experimental type of say
SpaceshipOne built by Scaled Composites commissioned by Branson?


It wasn't commisoned by branson, fjukkwit.


He merely jumped in when he saw it nearing the finish line.

What is your opinion of a group composed of an experienced builder and
a potential operator of the fruit of their labor collaborating on the
construction of an aircraft licensed as "Experimental - Amateur
Built?" Wouldn't that be a simple method of circumventing the
"Experimental - Amateur Built?" rubric?


Twit.

Bertie

Larry Dighera wrote:
My point is, why is does the FAA feel it is necessary to provide
separate experimental licensing criteria between "Experimental -
Amateur Built" and other experimentals?

The answer to that requires going through some history. Too much for me to
recount here - even if I knew it all (and I don't). Amateur builders today
appear to have a lot to thank for the tireless work of people like the
"Beaverton Outlaws" of Oregon. Quoting from Ron Wanttaja's book "Kit
Airplane Construction": "By World War II, homebuilt aircraft had been
banned in every state of the Union. Except Oregon."

Here's a very nice article titled "The Resistance" about how some of the
Oregonian "rebels" were critical in getting that category into the
regulations:

http://www.airspacemag.com/issues/20...on_outlaws.php

What are the pertinent licensing differences between "Experimental -
Amateur Built" and those of the appropriate experimental type of say
SpaceshipOne built by Scaled Composites commissioned by Branson?

If the experimental is created in furtherance of a business it is supposed
to be registered under a different experimental category. It may also have
different operating limitations. Scaled Composites almost certainly doesn't
attempt to register its aircraft under the amateur built category.


"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to
the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is
eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the
consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
---- John Philpot Curran
From http://www.bartleby.com/73/1054.html

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

My point is, why is does the FAA feel it is necessary to provide
separate experimental licensing criteria between "Experimental -
Amateur Built" and other experimentals?

The FAA does NOT feel it is necessary. It took many years to get them to
allow a homemade airplane to fly in US airspace at all. The compromise we
got was a special category in Experimental for amateur built airplanes. We
also got much better operational limitations that any of the other
experimental categories. We are very happy that we have a special category.
We would much rather not have this rare privelege abused by a bunch of
greedy shortsighted idiots lining their pockets. Any privelege, when
abused, is vulnerable to loss. That is the way of the world.

There are many avenues in the regulations for people to build and sell
airplanes. They are not i mpossible. Look at Cirrus. However, t hey do
require some effort. People who want to make a buck building airplanes, but
do not want to put in the time and effort to ensure that they meet
appropriate standards for doing so really should not be allowed to abuse the
privelege granted to homebuilders.

Highflyer
EAA member for 50 years.

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:02:39 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:

My point is, why is does the FAA feel it is necessary to provide
separate experimental licensing criteria between "Experimental -
Amateur Built" and other experimentals?

There's really no such thing as just an "Experimental" airplane. Anyone who
wants an Experimental certificate has to justify why their plane needs one, and
there are only seven allowable reasons. "Operating an Amateur-Built Aircraft"
is just one of them.

Ron Wanttaja

"Highflyer" wrote in :


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

My point is, why is does the FAA feel it is necessary to provide
separate experimental licensing criteria between "Experimental -
Amateur Built" and other experimentals?

The FAA does NOT feel it is necessary. It took many years to get them
to allow a homemade airplane to fly in US airspace at all. The
compromise we got was a special category in Experimental for amateur
built airplanes. We also got much better operational limitations that
any of the other experimental categories. We are very happy that we
have a special category. We would much rather not have this rare
privelege abused by a bunch of greedy shortsighted idiots lining their
pockets. Any privelege, when abused, is vulnerable to loss. That is
the way of the world.

There are many avenues in the regulations for people to build and sell
airplanes. They are not i mpossible. Look at Cirrus. However, t hey
do require some effort. People who want to make a buck building
airplanes, but do not want to put in the time and effort to ensure
that they meet appropriate standards for doing so really should not be
allowed to abuse the privelege granted to homebuilders.

Highflyer
EAA member for 50 years.


hear hear

Bertie
EAA member for 37 years.

On Mar 8, 6:21*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
William Hung wrote :





On Mar 7, 10:07*pm, "Morgans" wrote:
"William Hung" wrote I agree with you to a
certain point. *I think that there arepeople out
there who are better off having 'one made for them' than to have them
make it themselves. *I know people will say, 'so let them get a
certified one!' *Well... just well...

They still have the freedom to go out and buy an experimental that
was constructed by someone else, under the rights allowed the person
that buil
t
it, as educational/recreational.

Until the regulations are change to allow people to build airplanes
for hire, and not have to be certified, that is the only way to go,
except the

limitations of LSA.

You don't like a reg, get it changed. *You don't have the right to
screw
*it
up for me, when I decide to build-legally, under the current amateur
built

provisions.
--
Jim in NC

It's not that I don't like the reg or wanting them changed, I just
want to be able to get help on my project if I get to a point where I
think, 'Hey maybe I'm not so confident about doing this part myself'.
I am still thinking about building my own plane, but that time hasn't
yet arrived.

That's no problem. That's sinificantly different from writing a check
and having someone build one for you. The airplanes in that class
usually are available with center sections built and so on, so there;s
no excuse to take it further.



I can see stol's point of view that there are people out there with
more money than brains. *People who pay pros to do their work an
claiming credit for it. *Those people are slimeballs, I agree.

And the more salient point is there are slimeballs out there who will
sell you an airplane that is a deathtrap..

The law is becoming less forgiven of slimeballs.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4438090a10.html

Wil



Time for Juan Jiminez to enter.....

Bertue- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -