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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 10:52 PM |
[!] Russian Arms software sale | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 18th 04 05:51 PM | |
Dick VanGrunsven commutes to aviation | Fitzair4 | Home Built | 2 | August 12th 04 11:19 PM |