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 |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 00:03:24 -0600, 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 is the reasoning behind all this, but as with many regulations it's going to take some close watching to keep them from going astray. In the past, there really wasn't a 51% rule as we think of it. They expected the builder complete 51% of the tasks. IOW, if you constructed one aileron That was as good as constructing and mounting both. Build one rib is as good as building 30. Some areas are just done much better by the manufacturer as stated in the letter. forming ribs as an example. In the past IIRC you could share the wing, aileron, elevator and stab construction with the manufacturer if they stamped out the ribs and you put everything together. The FAA apparently wants to eliminate this. How they would go about it and how it would affect what we do is really an unknown at this point. There's a big gap between the *Intent* of the rule as has been interpreted AND ACCEPTED by the FAA and the *Letter* of the rule. In my G-III the fuselage shells (right, and left, along with the forward and rear belly pans are factory molded composite sandwiches. The builder spends many hours just jigging, aligning, and bonding these sections. The horizontal stab comes with pre molded ribs and shear webs (which have to be cut to size) along with the upper and lower shells, but putting one together is a long and tedious task. OTOH the elevator, ailerons, and flaps only come as shells. You get to figure out the dimensions of the ribs. They give a bit of guidance on the lay ups but absolutely nothing on the dimensions or shaping of those ribs. The G-III is probably one of the most, if not the most labor intensive kit out there at a conservative 4000 hours for construction. Few make it in that little a time.. Even the fast build (Jump start in their dictionary) still takes thousands of hours to complete. there is a good chance the way they are wording some things that even this kit might be affected. 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. Unfortunately as logical as that sounds it doesn't necessarily follow that any rules changes will be as logical. Even as currently written changing from the Intent to the letter of the rule would be a drastic change. I doubt with what I'm building if the rules changes would have much effect. OTOH contrary to probably most on the group, I see little problem or even downside to changing it to a 20 or 25% rule. I happen to like building and by doing so I can also end up with a plane that has capabilities not available in production aircraft AND end up with one I couldn't afford to purchase outright. OTOH I have no problem nor do I see a problem with some one hiring the same plane built for them as long as it still has to abide by the flight restrictions of other E-AB aircraft.. I say this for two reasons that are very apparent to me. Although many of us build for the fun of it (education is rarely one of the top reasons, or even one of the reasons.) From what I've seen and we have quite a few homebuilts at 3BS (kit and scratch built), most are constructed either to save money or just because they like to build. One more reason is they couldn't purchase a plane like they want to build even if they did have the money and we have quite a few who are flying two and even three engine jets.OK only one is flying a three holer. Yes I'm learning things and some would call that education which it is, but I'll state outright, that has nothing to do with me building. I'm building because I like to do it! I'd get more enjoyment out of building another because I could do it more efficiently, faster, and cheaper. HOWEVER if I ever do get the thing finished and I'm able to fly it, my main/only reason for building at that time would be "flying an airplane I constructed myself". Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
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! |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 11:54:37 -0600, Rich Ahrens 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? Your frontal lobes, from all appearances... Amusing Rich, sorta, but I find no argument that can untrack Larry's. None. -- Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either! |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
You still building Roger? I can second the build time for the Glasair
3, I'm 17 years and still going on my 3. The Glasair 3 from that era would never have any problem with the 51 % rule. It's got to be one of the most labor intensive homebuilts out there. And once I started building, it became obvious the parts the factory makes are the easy stuff. laying up big stuff in molds and popping them out after they cure. Probably the best part of the kit is having most, but not all, of the hardware and metal parts assembled and done. Like the landing gear. Glad I don't have to weld up gear legs, like someone building a Barracuda or similar project. Actually, there are lots of plans built planes out there I could have finished years ago. Rich On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 19:06:44 -0500, Roger wrote: On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 00:03:24 -0600, 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 is the reasoning behind all this, but as with many regulations it's going to take some close watching to keep them from going astray. In the past, there really wasn't a 51% rule as we think of it. They expected the builder complete 51% of the tasks. IOW, if you constructed one aileron That was as good as constructing and mounting both. Build one rib is as good as building 30. Some areas are just done much better by the manufacturer as stated in the letter. forming ribs as an example. In the past IIRC you could share the wing, aileron, elevator and stab construction with the manufacturer if they stamped out the ribs and you put everything together. The FAA apparently wants to eliminate this. How they would go about it and how it would affect what we do is really an unknown at this point. There's a big gap between the *Intent* of the rule as has been interpreted AND ACCEPTED by the FAA and the *Letter* of the rule. In my G-III the fuselage shells (right, and left, along with the forward and rear belly pans are factory molded composite sandwiches. The builder spends many hours just jigging, aligning, and bonding these sections. The horizontal stab comes with pre molded ribs and shear webs (which have to be cut to size) along with the upper and lower shells, but putting one together is a long and tedious task. OTOH the elevator, ailerons, and flaps only come as shells. You get to figure out the dimensions of the ribs. They give a bit of guidance on the lay ups but absolutely nothing on the dimensions or shaping of those ribs. The G-III is probably one of the most, if not the most labor intensive kit out there at a conservative 4000 hours for construction. Few make it in that little a time.. Even the fast build (Jump start in their dictionary) still takes thousands of hours to complete. there is a good chance the way they are wording some things that even this kit might be affected. 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. Unfortunately as logical as that sounds it doesn't necessarily follow that any rules changes will be as logical. Even as currently written changing from the Intent to the letter of the rule would be a drastic change. I doubt with what I'm building if the rules changes would have much effect. OTOH contrary to probably most on the group, I see little problem or even downside to changing it to a 20 or 25% rule. I happen to like building and by doing so I can also end up with a plane that has capabilities not available in production aircraft AND end up with one I couldn't afford to purchase outright. OTOH I have no problem nor do I see a problem with some one hiring the same plane built for them as long as it still has to abide by the flight restrictions of other E-AB aircraft.. I say this for two reasons that are very apparent to me. Although many of us build for the fun of it (education is rarely one of the top reasons, or even one of the reasons.) From what I've seen and we have quite a few homebuilts at 3BS (kit and scratch built), most are constructed either to save money or just because they like to build. One more reason is they couldn't purchase a plane like they want to build even if they did have the money and we have quite a few who are flying two and even three engine jets.OK only one is flying a three holer. Yes I'm learning things and some would call that education which it is, but I'll state outright, that has nothing to do with me building. I'm building because I like to do it! I'd get more enjoyment out of building another because I could do it more efficiently, faster, and cheaper. HOWEVER if I ever do get the thing finished and I'm able to fly it, my main/only reason for building at that time would be "flying an airplane I constructed myself". Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
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 |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
"WJRFlyBoy" wrote in message ... On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 11:54:37 -0600, Rich Ahrens 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? Your frontal lobes, from all appearances... Amusing Rich, sorta, but I find no argument that can untrack Larry's. None. -- Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either! How about this argument: Until a century or so ago, a landowner held rights from the center of the earth to the heavens. Nothing could pass over his land without his permission. Since there were no aircraft, the issue didn't come up very often. When flight became possible, this property theory was changed to allow overflight; however, overflight was not a right given by God, but a negotiated privilege enforced by governments through legislation and courts. Because flying over other people's property without permission has never been a right, and certainly was not even a privilege at the time the Constitution was written, how do you libertarians come up with any basis for arguing that the government has limited authority in regulating aviation? Aviation would not exist in this country without government action. In the U.S., with a few exceptions, flying machines need Airworthiness Certificates to fly. Airworthiness Certificates are issued by the government. They are not issued or denied arbitrarily. If you do not wish to meet requirements for issue of an Airworthiness Certificate, your home-built project could be a nice static display. That is the ultimate penalty for ignoring or circumventing requirements. Dale Scroggins |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
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. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
"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 |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 02:50:33 GMT, "Dale Scroggins"
wrote: er! How about this argument: Until a century or so ago, a landowner held rights from the center of the earth to the heavens. Nothing could pass over his land without his permission. Since there were no aircraft, the issue didn't come up very often. When flight became possible, this property theory was changed to allow overflight; however, overflight was not a right given by God, but a negotiated privilege enforced by governments through legislation and courts. Because flying over other people's property without permission has never been a right, and certainly was not even a privilege at the time the Constitution was written, how do you libertarians come up with any basis for arguing that the government has limited authority in regulating aviation? Aviation would not exist in this country without government action. In the U.S., with a few exceptions, flying machines need Airworthiness Certificates to fly. Airworthiness Certificates are issued by the government. They are not issued or denied arbitrarily. If you do not wish to meet requirements for issue of an Airworthiness Certificate, your home-built project could be a nice static display. That is the ultimate penalty for ignoring or circumventing requirements. Dale Scroggins Interesting argument. Mainly the part about landowners that used to own the air above their land. With the recent history of plane crashes into peoples homes, I'm surprised the non-aviation types haven't stirred up more ruckus about overflight. Such as the crash near Sanford, Fla. by the Nascar C-310, and that recent crash near Corona, Ca that killed those poeple at the car dealership. I just hope things stay quiet about that, or it could make flying a real pain if you want to go over just about any land someone owns. Countless cars could crash into private property and no one will ever suggest limiting where cars can drive, because just about everyone drives one. But we are a relatively few that fly, so we could be scrutinized pretty harshly. |
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 |