A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:28:42 -0500, "Highflyer" wrote:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

My point is, why is does the FAA feel it is necessary to provide
separate experimental licensing criteria between "Experimental -
Amateur Built" and other experimentals?

The FAA does NOT feel it is necessary.

If it's unnecessary, why do they have other experimental types?

It took many years to get them to allow a homemade airplane to fly in US
airspace at all.

What year was that?

The compromise we got was a special category in Experimental for
amateur built airplanes. We also got much better operational
limitations that [sic] any of the other experimental categories.
We are very happy that we have a special category.

That sounds appropriate. But you make it sound like the FAA (or CAA
at the time?) had the legal right to prevent amateur built aircraft
from operating in the NAS. While the FAA surely possessed the power,
I submit, that such a "right" probably wouldn't stand up to a legal
challenge, and that is probably why the FAA made the concession to
amateur constructed experimental aircraft. But you are far more
familiar with topic than I.

We would much rather not have this rare privelege abused by a bunch of
greedy shortsighted idiots lining their pockets. Any privelege, when
abused, is vulnerable to loss. That is the way of the world.

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.

United State Code TITLE 49 - TRANSPORTATION
Sec. 40103. Sovereignty and use of airspace
(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit
through the navigable airspace.

Perhaps the time has come to rethink the whole issue.

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?
Why?


There are many avenues in the regulations for people to build and sell
airplanes. They are not i mpossible. Look at Cirrus. However, t hey do
require some effort.

Are you referring to Cirrus certifying an amateur build experimental
aircraft in the Normal category?

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.

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.


Highflyer
EAA member for 50 years.


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.