A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

"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

"Rich S." wrote in message
...
"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.

I admit it has been a few years since I have reviewed the Ninth and Tenth
amendments. In twenty years of legal practice, I've not seen any
substantial claims or arguments based on either of these amendments. Most
references I see to them are in political arguments or usenet postings.
Could you point me to some references showing the impact of these amendments
on airspace law? I'd be especially be interested in the rights of states to
regulate air commerce, and of citizen rights to trespass in airspace owned
by others.

For that matter, perhaps you could point me to any significant body of case
law based upon either of these amendents.

Aviation would not exist in this country without government action.

You cannot be serious.

Trespassing is serious in my part of the US. Trespassers are regularly
shot. I've patched bullet holes in airplanes that flew too low over hunting
leases. Property rights are deadly serious business here.

If you like, I can e-mail you articles on development of airspace law in
this country and others. Dry reading for most people.


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


I began building airplanes in 1972. I read rec.aviation.homebuilt
occasionally. You assumed wrong.

Dale Scroggins

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 16:23:44 -0500, Peter Dohm wrote:

I presume that you are new around here.

Peter

Relatively, yes. Instruction set?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 10:10:11 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Thx, I understand the federal and statutory history but, I don't
believe, that is the issue here.

Here is my personal example. I don't have the expertise or time to kit
or plan build. These planes are, at least, the equivalent or superior
to the major manufacturers. If they are not, then I don't understand
why the FAA would allow them.

Which airplane?

Velocity, Cozy or Van.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 10:10:11 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Yet I can't buy a completely built kit/plans plane. If this isn't to
control the entry plane market place (or the maj mfgs market), then
why is the restriction imposed. I understand all the philosophical and
why ppl have immense pride in their own-builds but that is not
relevant to the issue at hand.

Cessna goes to China to get the Skyscraper at a reasonable price. Yet
we have USA built planes off better value that are restricted from my
purchase because I can't flip fiberglass?


So, if someone builds a BD% on commision for you you think that's safer
than a 172?

That's what we're talking about.

Bertie

Don't know, I am going on the testimony of others that say that they are.
Of course, the FAA certainly would no tallow unsafe planes in the air.

Would they?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!