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...