A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

"WJRFlyBoy" wrote in message
.. .
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?
--
Just keep reading for a while. It will become clear who are contributors of
usefull information and on which subjects, as it is not immediately obvious
from their handles.

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 16:55:32 -0800, Stuart & Kathryn Fields wrote:

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

FAA like any Fed agency works differently region to region. I don't doubt
your story for one moment. I wonder how much of it true across the FAA
"board".
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

WJRFlyBoy wrote in
news
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.

Then the designer should get them certified!

You can still buy one already built, though..


Bertie

WJRFlyBoy wrote in
:

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?

Yeah, of course. They do it all the time. There are a few BD5s flying (
that was a typo) and they are most definitely quite dangerous. There are
a few other contraptions flying around that have some serious issues
structuarally, aerodynamically, etc. There's one particular type which
is quite popular in my local group that fortunately never seems to get
finished. The accident reports are littered with these things and I'm
terrified that one of the members is going to ask me to test fly theirs
for them. (think 180 mph VW)

Bertie

"Dale Scroggins" wrote in message
...

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

eck, I can't even point you to any significant body of law based on the
Second Amendment. We both know that the original intent of the Constitution
has been skewed by Congress and the Buracracy until it is unrecognizable. I
was speaking from the heart, not from actual practice.

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.

Depends on what you mean by "is". )

The word "Aviation" as I understand it, is the science of flight. I guess
you were using it in a different sense. Government action had very little
effect upon the development of the science. It wasn't until the possibility
of government funding that Orville and Wilbur had to look to the French for
sales.

Good discussion, though. I'll leave the case law to you.

Rich S.

"Rich S." wrote in message
. ..

Too early in the morning. Excuse the typos and spelling errors.

Rich S.

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 13:30:12 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Which airplane?

Velocity, Cozy or Van.

Then the designer should get them certified!

You can still buy one already built, though..

Bertie

C'mon Bertie, a kit/plan guy can't afford certification (assuming it is
politically reasonable that he could).
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 13:34:25 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

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?

Yeah, of course. They do it all the time. There are a few BD5s flying (
that was a typo) and they are most definitely quite dangerous. There are
a few other contraptions flying around that have some serious issues
structuarally, aerodynamically, etc. There's one particular type which
is quite popular in my local group that fortunately never seems to get
finished. The accident reports are littered with these things and I'm
terrified that one of the members is going to ask me to test fly theirs
for them. (think 180 mph VW)

Bertie

Then who'se to say the Skywalker, for instance, certified to the hilt, is
safe? Aren't we back to Square One? FAA certification means exactly what?A
higher possibility of a safe aircraft?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

WJRFlyBoy wrote in
:

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 13:30:12 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Which airplane?

Velocity, Cozy or Van.

Then the designer should get them certified!

You can still buy one already built, though..

Bertie

C'mon Bertie, a kit/plan guy can't afford certification (assuming it
is
politically reasonable that he could).


Exactly. The history of aviation is littered with disasters of
airplanes. You can't take something drawn on the back of a napkin and
just start selling them without some sort of test program. Dertification
lays that program out. If you buy a ready made airplane it's supposed to
meet certain criteria. You want a kitplane, build it yourself or buy one
second hand. THey are two different things..


Bertie

WJRFlyBoy wrote in
:

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 13:34:25 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

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?

Yeah, of course. They do it all the time. There are a few BD5s flying
( that was a typo) and they are most definitely quite dangerous.
There are a few other contraptions flying around that have some
serious issues structuarally, aerodynamically, etc. There's one
particular type which is quite popular in my local group that
fortunately never seems to get finished. The accident reports are
littered with these things and I'm terrified that one of the members
is going to ask me to test fly theirs for them. (think 180 mph VW)

Bertie

Then who'se to say the Skywalker, for instance, certified to the hilt,
is safe?

Safer than a BD5, that's for sure.

Look the RVs could easily be certified. If Dick vangruven wants thenm to
be he should go ahead and do it. It's not like he couldn[t get backing
for such an endeaver.

Aren't we back to Square One? FAA certification means exactly
what?A higher possibility of a safe aircraft?


That's it exactly.