A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old March 7th 08, 06:54 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Rich Ahrens[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 404
Default A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 03:48:36 -0800 (PST), stol wrote
in
:

On Mar 6, 11:03 pm, 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.

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 agree with the , " harder to have one built for you" concept.. I
have been to several airshows-fly-ins etc, and chat with experimental
owners who sit under the wings of their bought homebuilts and bask in
the glow of,, See what I built crap. Later in the conversation they
usually say " Yeah, Ol Clem up in Montana, Texas, Florida", pick a
state, " did a great job of building my wizbang 200 mph toy. In my
mind they are lying sacks of **** and with this action are poking
their finger in the eyes of the FAA. The intent of experimental /
homebuilts rule was for the " educational and recreational aspect of
the builder, not to see who has the most money.. IMHO.

Ben


Personally, I see no reason for our government to intrude on our
freedom to commission the construction of an aircraft. If the FAA is
going to permit the sale and operation by non-builders of aircraft
licensed as experimental, the ban on having one built for you seems at
least inconsistent. And the implication that having personally
constructed the aircraft somehow enhances its performance or
suitability for operation in the NAS is ludicrous, IMO. To me, the
51% policy smacks of protectionism for normal/utility aircraft
manufacturers.

I realize this is probably an unpopular opinion among the majority of
armature aircraft builders, but emotional jealousy of those able to
afford commissioning the construction of an aircraft, I fail to find
an _objective_ reason for homebuilders' objections. What am I
missing?


Your frontal lobes, from all appearances...

  #22  
Old March 7th 08, 07:56 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,953
Default A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

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.

  #23  
Old March 7th 08, 08:09 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,735
Default A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

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.



Perhaps it shoudl be as intended and the builder knows how it went
toghether because he built it, Perry Mason.


Bertie
  #24  
Old March 7th 08, 08:19 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Ron Lee[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 233
Default A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

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
  #25  
Old March 7th 08, 08:24 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
cavelamb himself[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 474
Default A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

Larry Dighera wrote:

snipping here - to set a good example...

Personally, I see no reason for our government to intrude on our
freedom to commission the construction of an aircraft. If the FAA is
going to permit the sale and operation by non-builders of aircraft
licensed as experimental, the ban on having one built for you seems at
least inconsistent. And the implication that having personally
constructed the aircraft somehow enhances its performance or
suitability for operation in the NAS is ludicrous, IMO. To me, the
51% policy smacks of protectionism for normal/utility aircraft
manufacturers.


You never had the freedom to commissioon the construction of an aircraft.
  #26  
Old March 7th 08, 08:24 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 428
Default A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

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



Ace you might want to read the thread there Ace. A "pro-built" in the
context of this thread is a a person that is building an aircraft under
the guise of the homebuilt rules for profit instead for recreation and
education as allowed by the law.

I used to term "pro-built" instead of the more apt "law breaking,
risking my ability to build an airplane, asshole."
  #27  
Old March 7th 08, 08:29 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 428
Default A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

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.
  #28  
Old March 7th 08, 08:34 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Rich S.[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 227
Default A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

You don't build so **** off and mind your own business.


Yeah! What he said. And we gotta get rid of all those guys building KIT
airplanes, too.
You ain't $**t if you don't build from scratch! And you need to build your
own engine, too - at least 51% of it.
And make half the bolts and nuts. With a file. BFG

Rich S.


  #29  
Old March 7th 08, 08:47 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,953
Default A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 10:59:03 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:


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.


Those aircraft aren't certified under Experimental-Homebuilt. The only
place the 51% rule applies. And for the record the rule isn't that the
plane be built 51% by Joe T. Nomebuilder it is that 51% of the TASKS
have to be done by Joe or others for Education and Recreation.


From what authority does our government's power to demand how a
citizen recreates or educates himself emanate? It seems the FAA may
be overstepping their authority in making such demands if there is no
rational reason for it. Is there evidence that 51% constructed
aircraft provide some measure of safety to the public that aircraft
manufactured by a third party don't?

The real question is why does the FAA feel it's necessary for a
homebuilder to have done 51% of the work? Does it make the public
safer, and if you think so, how? It seems absurd to me.

The FAA should inspect the completed aircraft, and if it isn't deemed
to be a hazard to the public, it should be permitted to operate within
the NAS, period. Is there some history of a policy such as that
causing problems?



It seems that there is some fundamental assumption that I am
overlooking, because the current FAA 51% mandate seems arbitrary and
unfounded to me.


Congress passed the law requiring the FAA to create the regulations.
That's how it works in Washington.


Have you any idea what prompted Congress to pass such a law concerning
homebuilt aircraft? Is there a good reason for it, one that makes the
public safer?

The law was designed to allow home builders to do exactly that "For
recreation and education.


I find it curious that the FAA is able to regulate the _motivation_ of
homebuilders. That seems spurious on face. From my point of view,
the FAA's role is to attempt to assure that folks aren't creating an
aerial hazard to the public, nothing more. Why should we permit the
FAA to tell us what to think or demand that we have self-education as
our motivation? If that sort of government scrutiny is permitted
today, how far away are the thought-police?

When it was first passed the way it was
implemented in the real world was Joe T. Homebuilder bought some plans
or even designed it himself and then went to the hardware store and
bought what he needed an built the plane.

As time passed companies started putting to kits of all the parts (in
very unfinished form) needed to build their plans and selling that along
with the plans. All is good at this point because buying raw material
isn't really either education and it certainly isn't recreational.

More time passed and those kits of parts started becoming more and
complete and finished.


I fail to see any problem with that. The kit manufacturers are
providing a reasonable service. They complete some of the more arcane
construction that may demand specific skills or tools. Is that a bad
thing? Why?

The FAA saw the problem and modified the
regulation with the completely reasonable 51% rule.


Well, it seems you and the FAA see a problem, but I don't.

The "problem" being that the homebuilder hadn't done a significant
portion of the work. So what? Why is that a problem? I just fail to
understand the FAA's rational for demanding that the homebuilder do
the majority of the work. It may be reasonable, but no one has
provided a logical rational for it yet in this discussion.


  #30  
Old March 7th 08, 08:52 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,735
Default A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

"Rich S." wrote in
:

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

You don't build so **** off and mind your own business.


Yeah! What he said. And we gotta get rid of all those guys building
KIT airplanes, too.
You ain't $**t if you don't build from scratch! And you need to build
your own engine, too - at least 51% of it.
And make half the bolts and nuts. With a file. BFG


In an ideal world...


Bertie
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven Jim Logajan Piloting 181 May 1st 08 03:14 AM
Flew home and boy are my arms tired! Steve Schneider Owning 11 September 5th 07 12:16 AM
ASW-19 Moment Arms jcarlyle Soaring 9 January 30th 06 11:52 PM
[!] Russian Arms software sale Naval Aviation 0 December 18th 04 06:51 PM
Dick VanGrunsven commutes to aviation Fitzair4 Home Built 2 August 12th 04 11:19 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.