A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

Larry, shut up.


Bertie

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 13:29:11 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote in
:

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.

It's a significant expenditure, and demands due diligence of the
buyer, IMO. The buyer who fails to attempt to guard against being
defrauded in the situation you described shares some culpability, IMO.
This is the sort of caveat emptor that keeps Consumer Reports in
business.

Any aircraft buyer that uses the IA who signed off the last annual
inspection of the aircraft s/he is considering fails to appreciate the
potential conflict of interest. I see no reason that sort of prudence
shouldn't apply in a homebuilt context, especially if the buyer is
aware that the seller's moral character is suspect due to the
knowledge that they are both committing an act of fraud.

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 13:29:11 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote in
:

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.

It's a significant expenditure, and demands due diligence of the
buyer, IMO. The buyer who fails to attempt to guard against being
defrauded in the situation you described shares some culpability, IMO.
This is the sort of caveat emptor that keeps Consumer Reports in
business.

Any aircraft buyer that uses the IA who signed off the last annual
inspection of the aircraft s/he is considering fails to appreciate the
potential conflict of interest. I see no reason that sort of prudence
shouldn't apply in a homebuilt context, especially if the buyer is
aware that the seller's moral character is suspect due to the
knowledge that they are both committing an act of fraud.



Good grief.

Bertie

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 08:49:35 -0800 (PST), wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
Implicit in that suggestion is the notion that "professional"
experimental aircraft "manufacturers" are able to produce a product
that is somehow superior to those constructed by less experienced
homebuilders. Do you believe that to be true?

Certainly not across the board by any means, though some shops are
capable of turning out a more slickly finished product than the
average homebuilder generally produces. Everyone likes to look at a
gorgeous airplane, but it's disingenuous to put those planes forward
as examples of 'homebuilding', to say nothing of the unfairness of
allowing them to compete alongside the genuine articles.


I can see where this fraud is irksome to true craftsmen, but I can't
see how it appropriate for the FAA to be involved in assuring that a
prize awarded ostensibly on merit is genuinely so.


While I have precious little exposure to homebuilding and those who do
it, I have sincere respect for anyone who applies his skills in
constructing useful things. And craftsmanship seems to be an ever
diminishing virtue in today's world, so seeing it fostered in this
context provides hope that it won't be entirely driven out of
existence by mass production.

Agree 100%.

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.

Why 51%? I think that brings us back to the point of the feds
protecting the investment of the manufacturers in the type
certification process.

Do you believe that the FAA should be involved in protecting aircraft
manufacturers financial interests?

The prototypes you mention aren't registered
as amateur-built. There are a number of experimental categories and
the 51% rule only applies to amateur-built aircraft.


Why? That seems a little arbitrary to me. If one group is enjoined
from employing others to construct an aircraft, why should another
group be permitted to do the same thing with impunity?

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message ...

I agree. I couldn't be bothered to travel to OSH now...


Bertie

But OSH is pretty cool! Gotta take it for what it is, not what they say it is.

Larry Dighera wrote in
:


I can see where this fraud is irksome to true craftsmen, but I can't
see how it appropriate for the FAA to be involved in assuring that a
prize awarded ostensibly on merit is genuinely so.



Do you believe that the FAA should be involved in protecting aircraft
manufacturers financial interests?


Wow, you've just moved your idiocy to a whole new level there Lar.


Bertie

"Blueskies" wrote in
et:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

I agree. I couldn't be bothered to travel to OSH now...


Bertie

But OSH is pretty cool! Gotta take it for what it is, not what they
say it is.


Been there. I know what it's become... Used to be 100% terrific, now
about 3-4%

And I never pay attention to what "they" say, anyhoo.


Bertie


Bertie

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.

That appears to be what the FAA wants. But IMHO the changes the FAA is
considering appear unlikely to accomplish that goal. Consider Joe
Homebuilder and friends who invest in a lot of equipment and somehow set up
an assembly-line-like operation and build homebuilts from "raw" material.
If they fill out all the paperwork legal and proper, on what basis could
the FAA claim that they had not "fabricated and assembled the majority
portion of the aircraft for their own education or recreation?"

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 believe Van pointed out that the FAA appears to be ignoring the concerns
raised by some members of the ARC if shared credit is disallowed for the
tasks on the form 8000-38 checklist. He was on the committee and clearly
got negative vibes from the FAA members - and appears to be concerned
enough about the impact on the entire field that he felt compelled to write
his "call to arms."

(If suppose if one believes that pounding 10,000 rivets is instructional
and/or recreational but pounding 1000 rivets is not, fine. No accounting
for taste. ;-))

"Ron Lee" wrote in message ...
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

Why should this not be allowed? This is a free country, maybe...

I suspect there is going to be a fall outhere.

A division between those who can read and understand the regulations,
and those who can't/won't.

Simple as that, Larry.