"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:28:42 -0500, "Highflyer" wrote:
I'm not convinced that flying an airplane you built is not a right,
providing it meets the standards of others that have been permitted to
fly.

Anyone can build an fly any airplane with no amateur built restrictions at
all if they do that. The standards are set forth in the FAR's Part 21.
Technical requirements are in FAR Part 23. These are the standards
established for building and flying aircraft in the US airspace. These
standards were established about 80 years ago to prevent people from
building and selling deathtraps to unsuspecting pilots who were not
aeronautical engineers.

What if the FAA's intent to modify the current amateur built
experimental regulations were to result, not in further restrictions
and prohibitions, but in accommodating those who desire to commission
the construction of aircraft that haven't been submitted to type
certification standards (something like the LSAs), but do meet the
airworthiness standards of other experimental aircraft that have been
licensed by the FAA to operate in the NAS? Would that be a bad thing?


The FAA did precisely that with the S-LSA certification process. It greatly
simplified the proof and oversight needed to ensure an adequate standard for
aircraft that cannot endanger a lot of unsuspecting people. That is why
they limited them to slower airspeeds and lighter weights as well as two
places. They are also only allowed to fly Daytime and by Visual flight
rules. Not unreasonable restrictions for aircraft that do not meet the full
blown standards required for aircraft to be sold to the general public.



People who want to make a buck building airplanes, but
do not want to put in the time and effort to ensure that they meet
appropriate standards for doing so really should not be allowed to abuse
the
privelege granted to homebuilders.

There are a few "loaded' concepts in that assertion, IMO.

First, the aircraft to which you refer probably do meet the standards
of amateur built experimental aircraft or the standards that the FAA
has established for other experimental aircraft.

Second, construction of an aircraft that meets those standards can
hardly be construed as "abuse" in my opinion.


Clearly an uninformed opinion. All experimental aircraft do NOT meet the
same standards. The bulk of the experimental class is set up to all
aircraft manufacturers to perform reasonable flight tests of new designs
before entering the full certification procedures. That is the REASON for
an "experimental" category. For flying "experimental" aircraft prior to
certification so they can generate the data required for certification.

The FAA generously allowed two separate classes under the general
"experimental" category for special airplanes that did NOT meet the
standards for certification. In these classes the aircraft is NOT really
"experimental." They just put them there because that is where they put
aircraft that were not certified as up to the published standards.

In these two classes each aircraft is treated and inspected as a "one of a
kind" aircraft to ensure a reasonable standard of construction if not
design. Typically the field maintenance inspectors who were charged with
inspecting these aircraft were not trained to make design critiques and
evaluations. They could evaluate construction quality and technique.

These two special categories that did not require full compliance with the
published airworthiness standards for flight in the US airspace are
Experimental, Amateur Built and Experimental, Exibition. The amateur built
category allowed people who built their own airplane for educational or
recreational reasons, not for profit, to actually fly their creations
legally in the airspace without having to comply with the published
standards.

The Exibition category allows us to fly aircraft that have never been
certified by our published standards in our airspace. This is usually the
home for unusual or antique aircraft that predate the certification
standards or otherwise sidestepped them. You "hired gun" who builds an
aircraft on "commission" for someone who doesn't want to build it himself
can license an aircraft they built in this category. It does, however, have
a few more stringent operating limitations than the Amateur built category
does. The "hired guns" are falsifying information in order to avoid these
additional operational limitations.

The method for removing these operational limitations is spelled out in the
regulations. Merely comply with the standards required for certification.
I admit this is easier to say than do. That is why they established a
separate certification path and separate certification standards for LSA
aircraft.



Third, is the notion that building and flying an amateur built
aircraft that complies with FAA standards is a "privilege" not a
right.

It seems the FAA has attempted to prevent the wholesale construction
of experimental aircraft by judging the intent (or mental state and
motivation) of the builder, rather than judging the safety of the
aircraft in question, as would seem considerably more appropriate for
a governmental agency, IMO. Perhaps it's time for that sort of
governmental "thought policing" to be reexamined.


Not at all. They merely provided a different way to judge the safety of the
aircraft in question that adhereing to the published standards in special
cases.


Thanks for the information you have provided, John. I'm not trying to
upset anyone; I'm just thinking outside the box in the hope such
objective analysis by someone who has hasn't been an EAA member ever,
let alone fifty years, will provide another way to view the issue.


You can do that. However, you are not thinking "outside the box." You are
rehashing old tired arguments that were brought up and shot down over fifty
years ago. What we have today is a hard won compromise that allows us a
tremendous degree of freedom compared to every other country in the world.
There are many people in this country that believe we have way too much
freedom to build and fly airplanes over THEIR house. It takes a continueing
effort to maintain these hard won priveleges. If we lose what we have then
the largest and fastest growing segment of General Aviation is dead. I do
not want that to happen. I have been working for fifty years to expand and
clarify these issues through the EAA and AOPA. Let's not undo years of work
and wind up with nothing.

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport, PJY