Jim Logajan wrote in
:

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?


I don't see any real change at all. they're going back to the original
spirit of the rule.

I didn;'t say that welding was easy. I meant that it was easy to avoid
falling afoul of the 51% rule. IOW, don't like what the FAA is
proposing? Build something instead of buying. These airplanes fall
outside the spirit of the original ruling and the aiplans that have been
approve over the last twenty years have been flaunting it..


Bertie