A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

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?


Pretty much everythign , as usual, Larry.

You don't build so **** off and mind your own business.


Bertie

On Mar 7, 9:11*am, Larry Dighera wrote:
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?


I do agree that it is not in our interests as homebuilders or citizens
to permit the government to intrude any further on our freedoms. I
also
agree that the 51% policy seems to contain at least an element of
protectionism for manufacturers. All that said, the most common
argument (not necessarily one with which I'm in agreement) in favor of
professional builds of experimental aircraft is that the pro shops
turn
out a better quality product which is less likely to injure or kill
the
proverbial innocent bystander. Even if we accept that at face value
(which I certainly don't), it begs for the creation of a new
experimental sub-category, perhaps Experimental Professional Built,
with
increased oversight akin to that suffered by the standard category
manufacturers in pursuing and maintaining their type certificates.

I have only two emotional reactions to people who've commissioned
their
'amateur built' aircraft. The first is against those who sit by their
planes at airshows and pass the work off as their own and happily
collect whatever trophies come their way. At the very least, the
major
shows should institute an additional judging category, such that folks
who actually constructed their own airplanes with their own hands for
the purpose of their own education and recreation are only in
competition against each other and are not up against the check
writers.
The second is that these people (airplane 'commissioners') are simply
in violation of the existing rules. As far as I'm concerned, someone
who doesn't like the rules is free to attempt to change them within
the
system, but is most certainly not free to flout them at will. I have
zero sympathy for rule breakers in any context, and certainly not in
my
proverbial backyard.

Ken

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...

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.

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 14:11:36 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:

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 he said.

What am I
missing?

I guess we must be missing something, staying tuned......
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 03:48:36 -0800 (PST), stol
wrote:


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

I agree, some of the goings on in the homebuilt kit world have been
pushing things past the limit, and putting the whole homebuilt rule in
jepordy. I have no sympathy for Van and his worries of a few customers
that may not buy his kits if they have to do a little more work
putting them together.

On Mar 7, 6:48*am, stol wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I agree with you to a certain point. I think that there arepeople out
there who are better off having 'one made for them' than to have them
make it themselves. I know people will say, 'so let them get a
certified one!' Well... just well...

Wil

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 18:13:41 -0800 (PST), William Hung
I agree with you to a certain point. I think that there arepeople out
there who are better off having 'one made for them' than to have them
make it themselves. I know people will say, 'so let them get a
certified one!' Well... just well...

Wil

No doubt. I helped a friend about a year ago pick up a Glasair 2S kit
that had been partially built by a very untalented builder. What we
couldn't see during the inspection was that every single layup the guy
did was unsound. The entire project had to be delaminated and then
re-laminated. It ended up being more work than if it had been a new
kit. If he had finished it, it could have came apart in the air. The
previous builder must have done no surface prep at all before any of
his laminations. Even though it's called for. Buyer beware as they
say. I've also looked at finished projects at Lakeland and OSH that
were pro built, and I wasn't impressed with the glasswork. But pro
builders can't waste time perfecting things, or they'd take too long
to finish it. So the more hurried work shows in areas if you know what
to look for. Plus, pro builders make more money charging as they go,
rather than if they had to finish it with their own money, then sell
it. Most owners I've talked to that have had their planes
professionally built end up with more invested than if they had just
bought one outright, finished and flying. For a Glasair 3, it's
usually over $200K to have one pro built, for a plane that's sold on
the market in the $150K range, give or take depending on how nice it
is. So for the owner, he'll always end up upside down in his plane if
he writes a check to have it built. I guess it's worth it to some to
have it done the way they want it, and to remove the mystery of the
construction quality.

"William Hung" wrote I agree with you to a certain
point. I think that there arepeople out
there who are better off having 'one made for them' than to have them
make it themselves. I know people will say, 'so let them get a
certified one!' Well... just well...

They still have the freedom to go out and buy an experimental that was
constructed by someone else, under the rights allowed the person that built
it, as educational/recreational.

Until the regulations are change to allow people to build airplanes for
hire, and not have to be certified, that is the only way to go, except the
limitations of LSA.

You don't like a reg, get it changed. You don't have the right to screw it
up for me, when I decide to build-legally, under the current amateur built
provisions.
--
Jim in NC

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. ;-))