![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mar 7, 9:11*am, 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 am I missing? I do agree that it is not in our interests as homebuilders or citizens to permit the government to intrude any further on our freedoms. I also agree that the 51% policy seems to contain at least an element of protectionism for manufacturers. 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 have only two emotional reactions to people who've commissioned their 'amateur built' aircraft. The first is against those who sit by their planes at airshows and pass the work off as their own and happily collect whatever trophies come their way. At the very least, the major shows should institute an additional judging category, such that folks who actually constructed their own airplanes with their own hands for the purpose of their own education and recreation are only in competition against each other and are not up against the check writers. The second is that these people (airplane 'commissioners') are simply in violation of the existing rules. As far as I'm concerned, someone who doesn't like the rules is free to attempt to change them within the system, but is most certainly not free to flout them at will. I have zero sympathy for rule breakers in any context, and certainly not in my proverbial backyard. Ken |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Flew home and boy are my arms tired! | Steve Schneider | Owning | 11 | September 5th 07 12:16 AM |
ASW-19 Moment Arms | jcarlyle | Soaring | 9 | January 30th 06 10:52 PM |
[!] Russian Arms software sale | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 18th 04 05:51 PM | |
Dick VanGrunsven commutes to aviation | Fitzair4 | Home Built | 2 | August 12th 04 11:19 PM |
Small arms locker questions | Red | Naval Aviation | 4 | July 30th 03 02:10 PM |