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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Professionally built?
I searched controller.com for lancair and found an entry that says
"Professionally built." Now I know that a homebuilt owner does not have to build the entire thing themself but I thought it still had to be an amateur undertaking. How does this pass muster with the FAA? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Professionally built?
es330td wrote:
I searched controller.com for lancair and found an entry that says "Professionally built." Now I know that a homebuilt owner does not have to build the entire thing themself but I thought it still had to be an amateur undertaking. How does this pass muster with the FAA? If it is really built for anything other than the education and entertainment of the builder it is illegal. There is nothing in the regs though that would stop an A&P from building for education and entertainment and then selling it. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Professionally built?
On Nov 27, 12:32 pm, es330td wrote:
I searched controller.com for lancair and found an entry that says "Professionally built." Now I know that a homebuilt owner does not have to build the entire thing themself but I thought it still had to be an amateur undertaking. How does this pass muster with the FAA? "Professionally Built" isn't a problem for Experimental aircraft. Many aircraft were so built and subequently issued Experimental Racing and Experimental Exhibition special airworthiness certificates. However, it can be a big problem for an aircraft issued an Experimental Amateur-Built special airworthiness certificate. The rules are pretty clear that the major part of such aircraft are to be constructed by folks who undertook the work solely for the purposes of education and entertainment, that is, without money changing hands. The word "Professional" implies here, as it does in the sports world, financial transactions that likely violate the spirit if not the letter of the Amateur-Built rules. In at least one prior case, the FAA has moved a non-"51% rule" aircraft out of Amateur-Built and into Racing or Exhibition. While this is a relative non-issue for a glider or a single-seat acro airplane, the additional operating limitations and Program Letter requirements can put a huge onerous kink in your plans for a four-seat cruiser. Checking the controller.com site, I find not one but three Lancairs that claim "professional construction," and at least one of those lists a corporate entity as the manufacturer. Hopefully it's a non- profit corporation... I'm thinking that the sellers might be folks who haven't observed that the FAA seems to have been cracking down on hired gunmanship, and that they seem to be using sport aviation publications and circulars to do it. Thanks, Bob K. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Professionally built?
In a previous article, Bob Kuykendall said:
Checking the controller.com site, I find not one but three Lancairs that claim "professional construction," and at least one of those lists a corporate entity as the manufacturer. Hopefully it's a non- profit corporation... I'm thinking that the sellers might be folks who haven't observed that the FAA seems to have been cracking down on hired gunmanship, and that they seem to be using sport aviation publications and circulars to do it. Or maybe they want to unload it before the FAA gets to them. -- Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/ I'm a person who can't understand why everyone in the entire nation doesn't look up, realise that George W Bush is their president, and not immediately throw up in their mouths. Shows what I know. - Harry Teasley |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Professionally built?
"Bob Kuykendall" wrote in message ... On Nov 27, 12:32 pm, es330td wrote: I searched controller.com for lancair and found an entry that says "Professionally built." Now I know that a homebuilt owner does not have to build the entire thing themself but I thought it still had to be an amateur undertaking. How does this pass muster with the FAA? "Professionally Built" isn't a problem for Experimental aircraft. Many aircraft were so built and subequently issued Experimental Racing and Experimental Exhibition special airworthiness certificates. However, it can be a big problem for an aircraft issued an Experimental Amateur-Built special airworthiness certificate. The rules are pretty clear that the major part of such aircraft are to be constructed by folks who undertook the work solely for the purposes of education and entertainment, that is, without money changing hands. The word "Professional" implies here, as it does in the sports world, financial transactions that likely violate the spirit if not the letter of the Amateur-Built rules. In at least one prior case, the FAA has moved a non-"51% rule" aircraft out of Amateur-Built and into Racing or Exhibition. While this is a relative non-issue for a glider or a single-seat acro airplane, the additional operating limitations and Program Letter requirements can put a huge onerous kink in your plans for a four-seat cruiser. Checking the controller.com site, I find not one but three Lancairs that claim "professional construction," and at least one of those lists a corporate entity as the manufacturer. Hopefully it's a non- profit corporation... I'm thinking that the sellers might be folks who haven't observed that the FAA seems to have been cracking down on hired gunmanship, and that they seem to be using sport aviation publications and circulars to do it. Thanks, Bob K. From all I've read, the "51% Rule" is "clear as mud." The owner/builder/applicant must have learned/demonstrated 51% of the necessary tasks to assemble/build the aircraft. That might leave room for a fascinating variety of imaginative interpretations. Generally, I have read that the owner/builder/applicant should have personally built/constructed at least one of 51% of the diferent items specifically built for the aircraft. In other words; bolts, washers, and rivets would not count. OTOH; ribs, gussets, and rivets that have been pulled/driven would count. Just because I intend to build it myself does not mean that it is required by anything other than personal pride ... and bull-headedness. Obviously, opinions vary and the issue is not likely to be fully resolved in any of our lifetimes. Peter Just my $0.02 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Professionally built?
"es330td" wrote in message ... I searched controller.com for lancair and found an entry that says "Professionally built." Now I know that a homebuilt owner does not have to build the entire thing themself but I thought it still had to be an amateur undertaking. How does this pass muster with the FAA? I have no idea who is selling the aircraft you mention, but "professionally built" is often just a buzz word used in attempt to say the builder of the particular aircraft was "special" compared to most. I have seen this stated because an A&P had built the aircraft. He felt it was professionally built because he works on aircraft every day for a living. As opposed to an experimental that has been built by a postal worker, lawyer, doctor, etc. I think the main thing to remember is when it comes to what you will be receiving, it might not mean zip! The quality of every experimental airplane comes down to the skill, integrity and interest in "whoever" built it, and has little to do with what they do for a living. Just think of it as a laundry detergent that is "new and improved", or "fortified", etc. You know the drill. Walk through a supermarket. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Professionally built?
es330td wrote:
I searched controller.com for lancair and found an entry that says "Professionally built." Now I know that a homebuilt owner does not have to build the entire thing themself but I thought it still had to be an amateur undertaking. How does this pass muster with the FAA? The words PROFESSIONAL and AMATEUR are not mutually exclusive. Get a dictionary. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Professionally built?
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:06:28 -0500, "Peter Dohm"
wrote: From all I've read, the "51% Rule" is "clear as mud." The owner/builder/applicant must have learned/demonstrated 51% of the necessary tasks to assemble/build the aircraft. That might leave room for a fascinating variety of imaginative interpretations. Generally, I have read that the owner/builder/applicant should have personally built/constructed at least one of 51% of the diferent items specifically built for the aircraft. In other words; bolts, washers, and rivets would not count. OTOH; ribs, gussets, and rivets that have been pulled/driven would count. many years ago a judge was making a determination in a case where he needed to establish whether the chap had an interest in an aircraft. as i recall a feature in the case was proven if the guy had built most of the aircraft. the judge made an off the cuff decision that if the chap had built more than half his case was accepted. a deciding majority legally is 51%. 51% has actually no more significance than something established as part of a case many years ago. what is actually required is structurally safe aircraft. the fact that 51% has taken such hold in the environment is just nonsense. The FAA should really get some focus back in the environment. "51%" is a silly distraction in the world of aviation safety. Stealth Pilot |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Professionally built?
In article ,
"Maxwell" wrote: "es330td" wrote in message ... I searched controller.com for lancair and found an entry that says "Professionally built." Now I know that a homebuilt owner does not have to build the entire thing themself but I thought it still had to be an amateur undertaking. How does this pass muster with the FAA? I have no idea who is selling the aircraft you mention, but "professionally built" is often just a buzz word used in attempt to say the builder of the particular aircraft was "special" compared to most. I have seen this stated because an A&P had built the aircraft. He felt it was professionally built because he works on aircraft every day for a living. As opposed to an experimental that has been built by a postal worker, lawyer, doctor, etc. I think the main thing to remember is when it comes to what you will be receiving, it might not mean zip! The quality of every experimental airplane comes down to the skill, integrity and interest in "whoever" built it, and has little to do with what they do for a living. Just think of it as a laundry detergent that is "new and improved", or "fortified", etc. You know the drill. Walk through a supermarket. The "professionally built" term really doesn't amount to a hill of beans. A friend here bought a Harmon Rocket that an A&P built. The metal work was good, but the engine installation was very poor. I coined the term "flyable but not airworthy" to describe the plane as purchased. He could not maintain cruise power in vevel flight without overtemping the oil. Our "Spruce Creek Skunk Works" took on the job of sorting it out. What we found (and corrected): 1. The oil cooler had insufficient airflow (both in and out). Remember -- any cooling MUST provide an exit path for the air, as well as an entry path. This installaltion had neither. 2. There was no blockage of cooling air in the nose bowl behind the spinner, allowing air to exit behind the spinner. We installed the appropriate baffles and seals there. 3. The air entering the cowling inlets passed over a sharp lip behind the inlets. We added some internal fairing to the inlets. 4. Baffle seals were poorly thought out, allowing air to leak out the top of the baffles, rather than passing over the cylinder fins. 5. Exhaust pipes were cantilevered, creating the opportunity for fatigue failure. We added some support to reduce stress there. 6. The owner had the pipes ceramic coated, both inside and out, to reduce heat transfer into the engine compartment. IMHO, it is more important to coat the INSIDE of an exhaust pipe than the outside -- to reduce heat transfer into the metal. Result: The plane runs cool and FAST! |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Professionally built?
Peter Dohm wrote:
Just because I intend to build it myself does not mean that it is required by anything other than personal pride ... and bull- headedness. Obviously, opinions vary and the issue is not likely to be fully resolved in any of our lifetimes. The 51% rule isn't really what's in question here. It's the "education and entertainment" clause of the rule. While I agree that too is clear as mud it wouldn't take the FAA long to notify it DARs and FSDO to just stop issuing AW certs to someone. No fine needed. Somebody invests $100K in a plane they think is they are going to sell as soon as they finish. I have a friend that bought an RV-8 from a "professional builder." The Hobbs and log showed a little over 40 hours and that it was out of phase 1 testing. On the way home from Chicago the engine died in flight. My friend landed the aircraft in a field with no damage. He had an A&P from the local airport come out and look at it and after various items made the A&P believe that the plane had less than 10 hours on it. A look through the memory of the EIS supported this. My friend had his lawyer call the builder and explain that the check had had a stop pay put on it and that the plane was at and airport in Missouri and that if my friend ever heard from him again that the FAA would be notified of the issues. He never heard from the builder again. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GPS Chips Can Now Be Built In To Almost Anything | reasi | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | October 30th 07 12:18 PM |
Trainer built in Florida? | GM | Soaring | 2 | May 8th 07 10:34 AM |
ION aircraft being built at ANE | Montblack | Home Built | 11 | January 3rd 07 11:41 PM |
the first NAV computer; who built and used one? | John Firth | Soaring | 0 | April 3rd 06 10:07 PM |
How many Lycomings built? | Ben Hallert | Home Built | 6 | January 30th 06 02:50 AM |