FAA crack down on "professional builders"

Just as the homebuilt community is drawing scrutiny from the FAA over
professional builders of homebuilt airplanes, we find out that US
Senators are hiring builders to build homebuilt planes for them:

http://tinyurl.com/lbgc3

Earlier, rpellicciotti wrote:

Just as the homebuilt community is drawing scrutiny from the FAA over
professional builders of homebuilt airplanes, we find out that US
Senators are hiring builders to build homebuilt planes for them:

http://tinyurl.com/lbgc3

Senators plural? Possible, I guess, but statistically unlikely. Anyhow,
quoting from the article:

...Finnerty said the plane, which he described
as a "tail dragger," was built for the senator
by a professional a few years ago...

Yup, smoking guns don't get much smokier...

After his Grumman Tiger shed its prop inflight in 1999, Inhofe
expressed interest in buying Stephan Wilkinson's Falco F.8L. Stephan
turned him down:

http://www.seqair.com/Hangar/Wilkins...fe/Inhofe.html

Bob K.

As a Canadian, this makes little to no difference to me but what, really is
wrong with pro builders. The planes are built better (in theory), there are
less uncompleted kits, people get rewarding work. I really don't see a
problem other than the rules forbid it, but rules can be adapted to reflect
reality.

"rpellicciotti" wrote in message
ups.com...
Just as the homebuilt community is drawing scrutiny from the FAA over
professional builders of homebuilt airplanes, we find out that US
Senators are hiring builders to build homebuilt planes for them:

It's all about FREEDOM...the freedom to be governed to death. I tend
to agree with you but the infinate wisdom of those BurroCraps who
actually run this country want something to justify their miserable
existance and regulating us to death is their only function. I guess
we should be thankful to them for even allowing us to fly at all.


Dave wrote:
As a Canadian, this makes little to no difference to me but what, really is
wrong with pro builders. The planes are built better (in theory), there are
less uncompleted kits, people get rewarding work. I really don't see a
problem other than the rules forbid it, but rules can be adapted to reflect
reality.

"rpellicciotti" wrote in message
ups.com...
Just as the homebuilt community is drawing scrutiny from the FAA over
professional builders of homebuilt airplanes, we find out that US
Senators are hiring builders to build homebuilt planes for them:

"Dave" wrote in message
...
As a Canadian, this makes little to no difference to me but what, really
is wrong with pro builders. The planes are built better (in theory), there
are less uncompleted kits, people get rewarding work. I really don't see a
problem other than the rules forbid it, but rules can be adapted to
reflect reality.

1) It is against the rules.

2) As you say, rules can be changed.

3) In my opinion, there are few, if any, changes that could be made to the
rules governing amateur built aircraft that wouldn't have an adverse impact
on the people who follow the rules.

Wouldn't it be rotten if the FAA knee jerked the Amateur/Experimental rules
and screwed it up for everyone instead of enforcing the perfectly good rules
they already have in place?

KB

Dave wrote:
As a Canadian, this makes little to no difference to me but what, really is
wrong with pro builders. The planes are built better (in theory), there are
less uncompleted kits, people get rewarding work. I really don't see a
problem other than the rules forbid it, but rules can be adapted to reflect
reality.

To break it down:

Certification rules came into place to safeguard the public, and also
boost confidence in aviation in general. Prior to the mid-1930's, you
DID NOT have any certainty that the plane you boarded wasn't going to
kill you, or people on the ground. If you don't like regulations, I
suggest you move to some place where there aren't any, like, say,
Somalia, and see how you like it. Or places where they're very loosely
enforced, like Nigeria, the former Soviet Union, Ghana, etc. Those
places have LOTS of freedom, and sarcasm="Heavy" EXCELLENT aviation
safety records./sarcasm

Experimental - Amateur Built came about during the Cold War,
effectively relaxing those rules, for EDUCATIONAL purposes. We were
worried the Russkies were ahead of us, building more bomb, more tanks,
more airplanes than we were. It was the Golden Age of Science, Math
AND, for the Not College Material crowd, Vocational Education. At the
time, experimentals were about where Light Sport Airplanes are today.
Relatively low powered, seating one or two. Not able to kill much more
than the builder and a buddy. And letting people build them - so the
argument lead - would be good for our Industrial Base to stem the
inexorable march of those pesky Marxist-Leninists.

So, relatively low risk, plus a potential public good. Enough to
offset the POTENTIAL risk inherent in relaxing the regulations.

The first half of that rationale - relatively low risk to the general
public - governed the Ultralight rules. The 254 lb limit is based on
Kinetic Energy considerations. Something that light can't hurt much.

Now we have turbine powered airplanes, up to 10 passengers, and pure
jets, capable of 300+ MPH. WHAT CONCEIVABLE PUBLIC GOOD DO SUCH
AIRPLANES SERVE, SUCH THAT WE SHOULD RELAX CERTIFICATION
REQUIREMENTS!!!!!

How many people in this country have the money, the time and the skill
set to build, ON THEIR OWN, a Comp 10? And, asssuming such a person
exists (they probably do, but they can probably be censused on the
fingers of one hand), how will their building such a airplane serve the
purpose of strengthening our industrial base? Who's getting
"Educated"?

The reality is that a lot of the more sophisticated kit airplanes,
starting with the Swearingen SX-300 INVITE "hired guns". And the mix
of the profit motive with a mindset of "it's EXPERIMENTAL aviation, we
can do what we want" sounds to me like a recipe for trouble. "Have
your RV-10 built in MY shop, I can do it for less". Is that what we
want? 'Cause in a free market, capitalist society WITHOUT REGULATION,
that's what we'll get.

I actually think the way they do things in Great Britain makes much
sense. There are limits on what airplanes you can build, and a bit
more rigorous review of what IS allowed. The PFA has an excellent
safety record, and there is less incentive for hired guns, as the sort
of airplanes that ONLY rich doctors, lawyers, and senators are
interested in aren't allowed. (This sounds a little more absolute than
the truth - Most of the RV series, the Falco and Berkut, for example,
pretty hot ships, and known targets of Hired Guns, ARE allowed in
Great Britain).
http://www.pfa.org.uk/pdfs/Hombuilt%...0by%20Type.pdf

I'll tell you what I'd accept - building for hire, but the builder must
be the first Owner of Record, so the liability trail is clear. That
would give an incentive to do good work.

It's either that, or face PFA like restrictions on what we're allowed
to build. All it would take would be a Farrel's Ice Cream disaster
(for those with short memories, a privately owned F-86 ran off the
runway at Sacramento Exec, and plowed into an ice cream parlor full of
kids) to have the PUBLIC - not the bogeyman bureaucrats - demand
changes in our sport.
http://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites...crash_site.htm
http://www.news10.net/storyfull.asp?id=2623

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 21:21:21 GMT, "Dave"
wrote:

As a Canadian, this makes little to no difference to me but what, really is
wrong with pro builders. The planes are built better (in theory), there are
less uncompleted kits, people get rewarding work. I really don't see a
problem other than the rules forbid it, but rules can be adapted to reflect
reality.

In Canada the rules have been changed so you can legally use a hired
gun to build your plane. You better have deep pockets though.

"Drew Dalgleish" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 21:21:21 GMT, "Dave"
wrote:


In Canada the rules have been changed so you can legally use a hired
gun to build your plane. You better have deep pockets though.

I know that rules are different here, I just noted a fair amount of anger
about the concept of builders and figured that the rules weren't cast in
stone, why not update them. Then I got a long rant about Russia and commies,
go figure.

"flybynightkarmarepair" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dave wrote:
As a Canadian, this makes little to no difference to me but what, really
is
wrong with pro builders. The planes are built better (in theory), there
are
less uncompleted kits, people get rewarding work. I really don't see a
problem other than the rules forbid it, but rules can be adapted to
reflect
reality.

To break it down:

Certification rules came into place to safeguard the public, and also
boost confidence in aviation in general. Prior to the mid-1930's, you
DID NOT have any certainty that the plane you boarded wasn't going to
kill you, or people on the ground. If you don't like regulations, I
suggest you move to some place where there aren't any, like, say,
Somalia, and see how you like it. Or places where they're very loosely
enforced, like Nigeria, the former Soviet Union, Ghana, etc. Those
places have LOTS of freedom, and sarcasm="Heavy" EXCELLENT aviation
safety records./sarcasm

Experimental - Amateur Built came about during the Cold War,
effectively relaxing those rules, for EDUCATIONAL purposes. We were
worried the Russkies were ahead of us, building more bomb, more tanks,
more airplanes than we were. It was the Golden Age of Science, Math
AND, for the Not College Material crowd, Vocational Education. At the
time, experimentals were about where Light Sport Airplanes are today.
Relatively low powered, seating one or two. Not able to kill much more
than the builder and a buddy. And letting people build them - so the
argument lead - would be good for our Industrial Base to stem the
inexorable march of those pesky Marxist-Leninists.

So, relatively low risk, plus a potential public good. Enough to
offset the POTENTIAL risk inherent in relaxing the regulations.

The first half of that rationale - relatively low risk to the general
public - governed the Ultralight rules. The 254 lb limit is based on
Kinetic Energy considerations. Something that light can't hurt much.

Now we have turbine powered airplanes, up to 10 passengers, and pure
jets, capable of 300+ MPH. WHAT CONCEIVABLE PUBLIC GOOD DO SUCH
AIRPLANES SERVE, SUCH THAT WE SHOULD RELAX CERTIFICATION
REQUIREMENTS!!!!!

How many people in this country have the money, the time and the skill
set to build, ON THEIR OWN, a Comp 10? And, asssuming such a person
exists (they probably do, but they can probably be censused on the
fingers of one hand), how will their building such a airplane serve the
purpose of strengthening our industrial base? Who's getting
"Educated"?

The reality is that a lot of the more sophisticated kit airplanes,
starting with the Swearingen SX-300 INVITE "hired guns". And the mix
of the profit motive with a mindset of "it's EXPERIMENTAL aviation, we
can do what we want" sounds to me like a recipe for trouble. "Have
your RV-10 built in MY shop, I can do it for less". Is that what we
want? 'Cause in a free market, capitalist society WITHOUT REGULATION,
that's what we'll get.

I actually think the way they do things in Great Britain makes much
sense. There are limits on what airplanes you can build, and a bit
more rigorous review of what IS allowed. The PFA has an excellent
safety record, and there is less incentive for hired guns, as the sort
of airplanes that ONLY rich doctors, lawyers, and senators are
interested in aren't allowed. (This sounds a little more absolute than
the truth - Most of the RV series, the Falco and Berkut, for example,
pretty hot ships, and known targets of Hired Guns, ARE allowed in
Great Britain).
http://www.pfa.org.uk/pdfs/Hombuilt%...0by%20Type.pdf

I'll tell you what I'd accept - building for hire, but the builder must
be the first Owner of Record, so the liability trail is clear. That
would give an incentive to do good work.

It's either that, or face PFA like restrictions on what we're allowed
to build. All it would take would be a Farrel's Ice Cream disaster
(for those with short memories, a privately owned F-86 ran off the
runway at Sacramento Exec, and plowed into an ice cream parlor full of
kids) to have the PUBLIC - not the bogeyman bureaucrats - demand
changes in our sport.
http://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites...crash_site.htm
http://www.news10.net/storyfull.asp?id=2623


C'mon Mr. Young, GET A LIFE!

The "hired gun" issue has been beaten to death and far beyond on this NG.

From the little that I've seen; Hired Guns allow a few well funded people,
who could not otherwise afford the time required, to have much greater
hands-on knowledge of the airplanes they fly. They also learn a large part
of a trade that interests them, and help to keep mechanics proficient and
employed when times are slow.

As to the jeaslousy issue: some of their airplanes will be prettier and
better equipped when they are judged at conventions. Learn to live with it.

As to differences from the Brittish Commonwealth, some things may have
changed. When I last knew anyone who kept up on such things; the precedures
to get a homebuilt signed off for normal operation were more stringent in
Australia, Republic of the Bahamas, and the United Kingdom--because each
homebuilt airplane received the equivalent of a type certificate. That was
a giant pain in the neck for local flying; but made international operations
much simpler.

Peter

Dave wrote:
"Drew Dalgleish" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 21:21:21 GMT, "Dave"
wrote:


In Canada the rules have been changed so you can legally use a hired
gun to build your plane. You better have deep pockets though.

I know that rules are different here, I just noted a fair amount of anger
about the concept of builders and figured that the rules weren't cast in
stone, why not update them. Then I got a long rant about Russia and commies,
go figure.

IMHO, they need to be updated - sorry if I went on a bit. But it's a
historical fact that the rules we live under now in the USA WERE
enacted in a Cold War, Red Scare context. That WAS the Window of
Oppurtunity Neil Bogardus flew the Little Gee Bee through. Hired Guns
are WAY out of the concept that was advanced at the time, and if a
highly public disaster involving a Hired-Gun built airplane draws
enough attention to Homebuilding, we're ALL potentially in trouble.

I'm not against Hired Guns. When I was an active EAA member, there was
a guy in our chapter who at introductions would claim to be building a
BD-5. That ignored the four Lancair 4s in his hanger. He did
beautiful work in composites and aluminum; his skills were far in
excess of mine, and given the same airplane to build, I have no doubt
HIS would be safer.

But he's not the guy I'm worried about.

I'm not against the airplanes they build either. A fair percentage of
the most exciting, inspirational airplanes at airshows are built by
them.

I've GOT a life. There are two sets of plans on a couch in my front
hall, right behind my left shoulder is roll of .032 for fuel tanks, and
I had to clear off a pile of AN470 rivets off my son's desk last night
so he could do homework. (Yes, I'm divorced, but not because of
aviation grinning). Hired Guns (or to put a finer point on it, the
potential for cut-rate, slipshod operators in that field) are a
potential threat to that part of my life.

Better we, the Sport Aviation movement, get our own house in order,
than have external actors force changes down our throat, eh?