FAA crack down on "professional builders"

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


I'm not sure you're speaking to me here as I never suggested you should "get
a life". I really did not get all the way through your post, I usually tune
out as soon as I read something akin to "if you don't like it, go somewhere
else" or "commie", posts seldom recover from that sort of thing.

Here in Canada we have classes of ownership that you are denied such as
owner maintenance and homebuilt. Both seem to be working out well enough.
The hired builder does not have to be any better or worse than the approved
mechanic, Lord knows there are enough shysters out there with all the
credentials you can obtain. Sadly the paper does not constitute any
guarantee.

flybynightkarmarepair wrote:
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. have no doubt
HIS would be safer.

I belive you mean George Bogardus