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!

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!

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

"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

"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

On Mar 7, 10:07*pm, "Morgans" wrote:
"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

It's not that I don't like the reg or wanting them changed, I just
want to be able to get help on my project if I get to a point where I
think, 'Hey maybe I'm not so confident about doing this part myself'.
I am still thinking about building my own plane, but that time hasn't
yet arrived.

I can see stol's point of view that there are people out there with
more money than brains. People who pay pros to do their work an
claiming credit for it. Those people are slimeballs, I agree.

Wil

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 23:11:34 GMT, "Blueskies"
wrote:


"Ron Lee" wrote in message ...
Acepilot wrote:

What is a "Pro Built"? I would take it to mean that an experimental
"kit" was built by somebody like Cessna or Piper, etc. As an amateur
builder, am I a "novice" when I complete it? Will I turn pro after I
finish a second one? I'd tend to say that an airplane built by Joe Blow
for somebody else is still amateur built, but the owner who applies for
the repairman certificate should not be able to get it if they
themselves did not build 51%.

Scott

"pro built" in my message means that you pay someone to build it.

Why should this not be allowed? This is a free country, maybe...

Certainly! And that's why the Experimental-Exhibition category exists. The
Experimental Amateur-Built category is specifically for those who build aircraft
for education or recreation. If someone wants to build a plane for money, let
them get them certified in one of the other five Experimental categories. Heck,
there are over 5,000 planes certified as Experimental Exhibition, it's not like
it's new territory.

Ron Wanttaja

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 23:11:34 GMT, "Blueskies"
wrote:


"Ron Lee" wrote in message ...

Acepilot wrote:


What is a "Pro Built"? I would take it to mean that an experimental
"kit" was built by somebody like Cessna or Piper, etc. As an amateur
builder, am I a "novice" when I complete it? Will I turn pro after I
finish a second one? I'd tend to say that an airplane built by Joe Blow
for somebody else is still amateur built, but the owner who applies for
the repairman certificate should not be able to get it if they
themselves did not build 51%.

Scott

"pro built" in my message means that you pay someone to build it.

Why should this not be allowed? This is a free country, maybe...


Certainly! And that's why the Experimental-Exhibition category exists. The
Experimental Amateur-Built category is specifically for those who build aircraft
for education or recreation. If someone wants to build a plane for money, let
them get them certified in one of the other five Experimental categories. Heck,
there are over 5,000 planes certified as Experimental Exhibition, it's not like
it's new territory.

Ron Wanttaja

Wouldn't you love to see the RV-6 as a certified airplane!

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 23:15:52 GMT, "Blueskies"
wrote:


"Ron Lee" wrote in message ...
wrote:
All that said, the most common
argument (not necessarily one with which I'm in agreement) in favor of
professional builds of experimental aircraft is that the pro shops
turn out a better quality product which is less likely to injure or kill
the proverbial innocent bystander. Even if we accept that at face value
(which I certainly don't), it begs for the creation of a new
experimental sub-category, perhaps Experimental Professional Built,
with increased oversight akin to that suffered by the standard category
manufacturers in pursuing and maintaining their type certificates.

I also don't agree that innocents are less likely to be killed by a
pro built plane. Show me the stats to prove it.

The real killer is that the customer of a pro built plane may also get
the repairman's certificate which means that he lied about building
it.

Ron Lee


It would be very interesting for someone to be charged with operating an illegally built aircraft. How would this be
challenged in the courts?

I don't think they'd be charged with operating an illegally-built aircraft, but
if they applied for the Repairman Certificate, they could be charged with
perjury.

In any case, the FAA could just cancel the plane's airworthiness certificate,
and the person who bought it from the hired gun would be out the ~$50K-$250K he
paid for it.

Ron Wanttaja

On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 02:50:33 GMT, Dale Scroggins wrote:

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.
--


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

Thx, I understand the federal and statutory history but, I don't believe,
that is the issue here.

Here is my personal example. I don't have the expertise or time to kit or
plan build. These planes are, at least, the equivalent or superior to the
major manufacturers. If they are not, then I don't understand why the FAA
would allow them.

Yet I can't buy a completely built kit/plans plane. If this isn't to
control the entry plane market place (or the maj mfgs market), then why is
the restriction imposed. I understand all the philosophical and why ppl
have immense pride in their own-builds but that is not relevant to the
issue at hand.

Cessna goes to China to get the Skyscraper at a reasonable price. Yet we
have USA built planes off better value that are restricted from my purchase
because I can't flip fiberglass?




--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!