Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Larry Dighera wrote:
LANCAIR'S JOE BARTELS OUTLINES THE POSSIBLE DANGERS
OF THE FAA'S PROPOSED "51% RULE" CHANGES FOR HOMEBUILTS
(http://www.avweb.com/alm?podcast20080321&kw=AVwebAudio)
The FAA is proposing changes to the rules governing homebuilt
aircraft, some of which are raising concerns about the future of
this time-honored niche of general aviation. The Experimental
Aircraft Association (http://www.avweb.com/alm?eaa&kw=Podcast)
has stated publicly that it opposes the changes, which would make
it more difficult for homebuilders to comply with the "51%
rule." Earlier this week, Lancair CEO Joe Bartels told the
Bend, Oregon Weekly News that his business could be in danger if
the FAA rule changes are passed. Hear what Bartels told AVweb
about the proposed rule changes and the future of homebuilding in
this AVweb audio feature.


Bull****. it's not difficult at all. You buy a pile of spruce and a
pile of tubing and make it all yourself. Easy. What it's doing is
making it difficult for people to build hairdressers airplanes like
Lancairs.

I'm sorry, but I think Bartel's main point is spot on - after approving
aircraft for 20+ years using one set of rules, the FAA is basically
proposing a change that would have excluded those same aircraft. It
appears to be an irrational capricious and arbitrary change - unless they
can clearly articulate convincing reasoning and facts to support the
change. They absolutely haven't. No one has. Anecdotes seems to be the
order of the day. That and what I see as a primal urge by some ******s
who thrill to anything that they think "sticks it to the rich guys," and
damn the side effects.

As to "easy" building - well - welding (for example) isn't a natural
skill (it wasn't for me, at least - I was taught some in high school shop
and took a vo-tech course on tig/mig welding a few years later with
dubious results. I'd have to relearn it from scratch since it was decades
ago.) And how many tube and fabric homebuilt designs can fly at 160+
knots with reasonable efficiency? Or aren't we supposed to be allowed to
build such craft? (I'm aware of wood aircraft with good speeds and
efficiencies - but the build times always seem godawful long.)

The thing is, though, is that wood, fabric, and tube aircraft are
technologies that are approaching the 100 year mark. The novelty of
aluminum aircraft technology is getting on in years also. Face it, the
vast majority of homebuilt designs employ technologies and materials
that existed 70 to 100 years ago - and could have been designed that long
ago (and some were I believe). The exception, ironically, appear to
carbon and glass fiber composites. Ironic because kits employing those
technologies are the ones that appear to be at risk. (Of course both
those are also reaching middle age too.)

I don't think it is wise to applaud or encourage the FAA in the changes
they appear to be suggesting (and I believe will be formally accepting
public comment on soon). If the FAA can't be bothered to invest resources
to build cases against violators who lie about who built their aircraft
_now_, in what meaningful way are their proposed changes going to stop
them later?