FAA crack down on "professional builders"

Jerry springer wrote:
flybynightkarmarepair wrote:

But it's a
historical fact that the rules we live under now in the USA WERE
enacted in a Cold War, Red Scare context. That WAS the Window of
Oppurtunity Neil Bogardus flew the Little Gee Bee through.

I belive you mean George Bogardus

Right!

More he http://www.bowersflybaby.com/stories/story.HTM

Key graf: "Prior to the war, reaction against homebuilt aircraft had
caused them to be banned in every state except Oregon. Bogardus wanted
the CAA to implement a new certification category that would overrule
the state limitations."

Getting the Hired Gun house in order will hopefully avoid another
reaction, this time on the national level.

On 8 Oct 2006 10:05:03 -0700, "flybynightkarmarepair"
wrote:


Jerry springer wrote:
flybynightkarmarepair wrote:

But it's a
historical fact that the rules we live under now in the USA WERE
enacted in a Cold War, Red Scare context. That WAS the Window of
Oppurtunity Neil Bogardus flew the Little Gee Bee through.

I belive you mean George Bogardus

Right!

More he http://www.bowersflybaby.com/stories/story.HTM

Key graf: "Prior to the war, reaction against homebuilt aircraft had
caused them to be banned in every state except Oregon. Bogardus wanted
the CAA to implement a new certification category that would overrule
the state limitations."

Getting the Hired Gun house in order will hopefully avoid another
reaction, this time on the national level.

Although I can't afford to hire some one to build for me, I don't see
a so called "hired gun" any different than purchasing a used home
built. One of the main reasons for building is being able to do your
own maintenance. Whether you hire one built or purchase used you do
not have that option. Purchasing used or having some one build it for
you comes with a lot of drawbacks. You can't do your own maintenance
and quite a few FBOs don't want to work on them.

As I see it, the hired gun approach is expensive. The owner is going
to spend nearly as much if not more than they would for a certificated
plane and probably have more capabilities than they could buy.

The Comp10 was listed earlier. Building something like that is not
much different than building a Glasair or Lancair, but probably more
like the two and 4 seat glasair bush plane (forgot the name). I'd
*guess* it'd probably be easier than the G-III and probably the
Lancair 320-360, and IV series.

Bigger doesn't necessarily mean more difficult to build, particularly
when it's over a steel tube frame. I never have figured out why any
one would want to built a comp 10 except as a conversation piece.
:-)) The 6-place with a PT-6 and the rear seats thrown out could be
a lot of fun though.

Now the issue of the hired gun itself: Does any one have any
statistics on just how many have gone beyond the basic builder's
center help?
I doubt it's many.

I strongly believe the week or two basic builder's center help is
something every first time builder should take advantage of "If they
can afford it" because in those two weeks they'll learn all the basic
techniques to do a good job and put them to use.

Me? Something like that could have saved me many hours of trial and
error learning and yes, I'm building one of those aerobatic capable
hot rods. There is an unofficial POH and I've had one of them pulling
3 1/2 to 4 Gs at the listed Vne, not Va. I know that particular plane
had been tested far beyond what I was doing so I was not concerned.
Chip Beck used to enter the vertical 8 (one loop on top of the other)
way over that listed Vne and he was pulling far more Gs than I. :-))
OTOH he has a lot more skill too.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 23:29:41 -0400, "Roger (K8RI)" wrote:

Although I can't afford to hire some one to build for me, I don't see
a so called "hired gun" any different than purchasing a used home
built. One of the main reasons for building is being able to do your
own maintenance. Whether you hire one built or purchase used you do
not have that option.

Not quite true. Anyone can *maintain* a homebuilt aircraft. The annual
condition inspection, however, must be performed by a qualified individual (A&P
or the Repairman Certificate for that aircraft).

The biggest problem in the "hired gun" building is the perjury that is entailed
if the owner certifies it in the Experimental/Amateur-Built category. The FAA
needs a new subcategory equivalent to Amateur-Built...."Custom-Built" or some
similar verbiage. No 51% rule, no Repairman Certificates, maintenance can be
performed by owner, annuals must be by A&P.

Manufacturer's name on the registration to be listed as the actual name (e.g.,
no corporations or other liability dodges) of the primary builder. If certified
parts are used, they have full AD vulnerability. If a non-certified engine is
used, again, the builder's name is listed as the engine manufacturer.

I'd couple this with some additional restrictions on Experimental Amateur-Built
to force things back to Education/Recreation. Maybe scale back some of the
recent 51% rule interpretations. Maybe eliminate turbine engines,
turbochargers, and pressurization, or just limit them to planes of two seats or
less.

Ron Wanttaja

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 23:29:41 -0400, "Roger (K8RI)"
wrote:

Although I can't afford to hire some one to build for me, I don't see
a so called "hired gun" any different than purchasing a used home
built. One of the main reasons for building is being able to do your
own maintenance. Whether you hire one built or purchase used you do
not have that option.

Not quite true. Anyone can *maintain* a homebuilt aircraft. The annual
condition inspection, however, must be performed by a qualified individual
(A&P
or the Repairman Certificate for that aircraft).

The biggest problem in the "hired gun" building is the perjury that is
entailed
if the owner certifies it in the Experimental/Amateur-Built category. The
FAA
needs a new subcategory equivalent to Amateur-Built...."Custom-Built" or
some
similar verbiage. No 51% rule, no Repairman Certificates, maintenance can
be
performed by owner, annuals must be by A&P.

Manufacturer's name on the registration to be listed as the actual name
(e.g.,
no corporations or other liability dodges) of the primary builder. If
certified
parts are used, they have full AD vulnerability. If a non-certified
engine is
used, again, the builder's name is listed as the engine manufacturer.

I'd couple this with some additional restrictions on Experimental
Amateur-Built
to force things back to Education/Recreation. Maybe scale back some of
the
recent 51% rule interpretations. Maybe eliminate turbine engines,
turbochargers, and pressurization, or just limit them to planes of two
seats or
less.

Ron Wanttaja

Actually, IIRC, an owner can /maintain/ a certified aircraft as well. There
is a pubished list of approved owner performed maintenance steps--provided
that the appropriate parts, tools, manuals, and procedures are used.
However, in the case of type cerficicated aircraft, a mechanic with IA must
inspect and sign-off repairs and periodic condition inspections--and a
professional mechanic or apprentice /usually/ performs the work as well.

I see no reason to change the current interpretation of the 51% rule,
requiring the /builder/ to gain and demonstrate proficiency and successfull
completion of 51% of the work steps. IMHO, most of the griping has little
to do with safety and much to do with jealousy. Therefore, I say "get over
it."

Peter

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 10:32:31 -0400, "Peter Dohm" wrote:

Actually, IIRC, an owner can /maintain/ a certified aircraft as well. There
is a pubished list of approved owner performed maintenance steps--provided
that the appropriate parts, tools, manuals, and procedures are used.
However, in the case of type cerficicated aircraft, a mechanic with IA must
inspect and sign-off repairs and periodic condition inspections--and a
professional mechanic or apprentice /usually/ performs the work as well.

The owner of a certified aircraft can perform *certain* tasks with no
supervision or other signoff...the list of preventative maintenance tasks
spelled out in Appendix A of 14CFR Part 43. As you say, the owner can perform
any other maintenance task as well, but the aircraft cannot be flown until a
certified individual takes responsibility for the work.

In contrast, no such signoff is needed for a homebuilt. Anyone can perform major
alterations and repairs and return the aircraft to service. I can (and have...)
do work like removing an engine cylinder or replace major airframe components on
a homebuilt and signed off the work myself. The only thing I have to be
concerned about is whether the A&P performing the annual condition inspection
(up to a year later) will consider the airplane still airworthy.

The amount of difference this makes depends on one's individual circumstances.
Some owners have good friends who are A&Ps. To them, there's little difference
between Experimental and Certified, other than the need to use approved parts.

Ron Wanttaja

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 10:32:31 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
wrote:

Actually, IIRC, an owner can /maintain/ a certified aircraft as well.
There
is a pubished list of approved owner performed maintenance
steps--provided
that the appropriate parts, tools, manuals, and procedures are used.
However, in the case of type cerficicated aircraft, a mechanic with IA
must
inspect and sign-off repairs and periodic condition inspections--and a
professional mechanic or apprentice /usually/ performs the work as well.

The owner of a certified aircraft can perform *certain* tasks with no
supervision or other signoff...the list of preventative maintenance tasks
spelled out in Appendix A of 14CFR Part 43. As you say, the owner can
perform
any other maintenance task as well, but the aircraft cannot be flown until
a
certified individual takes responsibility for the work.

In contrast, no such signoff is needed for a homebuilt. Anyone can perform
major
alterations and repairs and return the aircraft to service. I can (and
have...)
do work like removing an engine cylinder or replace major airframe
components on
a homebuilt and signed off the work myself. The only thing I have to be
concerned about is whether the A&P performing the annual condition
inspection
(up to a year later) will consider the airplane still airworthy.

The amount of difference this makes depends on one's individual
circumstances.
Some owners have good friends who are A&Ps. To them, there's little
difference
between Experimental and Certified, other than the need to use approved
parts.

Ron Wanttaja

I agree with you about the general rules regarding major repair of a
homebuilt. However, the issue of major alteration is another story which
depends upon whether the alteration would change the operating limitations.
That, in turn, opens multiple cans of worms.

The difference between certified and amateur-built can certainly be trivial
for non-revenue day-VFR. At the other extreme, the two categories can vary
wildly (or not) for night-IFR. If you use a certified combination of engine
and propeller, standard engineering and configuration practices, and
exemplary workmanship; then including single-engine night-IFR in the
operating limitations should be much easier than might otherwise be the
case.

I really do like some of the engine conversions, as long as the claims are
realistic, so I really don't want to get into a rant on either side of the
subject. I can see some sound arguments on both sides--just as I can on the
canard issue, plastic and glass versus metal, and a few others.

Peter

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

The amount of difference this makes depends on one's individual circumstances.
Some owners have good friends who are A&Ps. To them, there's little difference
between Experimental and Certified, other than the need to use approved parts.

Ron Wanttaja

And if the A&P is a really good friend, the need for approved parts goes
away, too. There's a certain C-150 in central North Carolina for sale
that has an annual suffering from pencil whiplash. The lawnmower
battery is from Sears. All those extra rivets in the empenage probably
are, too.

A friend bought the plane, but wasn't present for the pre-buy annual
done by Bud "somthin-or-'nother", who runs a shop just over the Virginia
line. He had it inspected again by a local A&P when all the brake fluid
automatically drained the first time he flew it. Tom not only declared
it woefully unairworthy, but a complete basket case.

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
The biggest problem in the "hired gun" building is the perjury that is entailed
if the owner certifies it in the Experimental/Amateur-Built category. The FAA
needs a new subcategory equivalent to Amateur-Built...."Custom-Built" or some
similar verbiage. No 51% rule, no Repairman Certificates, maintenance can be
performed by owner, annuals must be by A&P.

Like ELSA without the LSA restrictions.

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 21:59:11 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 23:29:41 -0400, "Roger (K8RI)" wrote:

Although I can't afford to hire some one to build for me, I don't see
a so called "hired gun" any different than purchasing a used home
built. One of the main reasons for building is being able to do your
own maintenance. Whether you hire one built or purchase used you do
not have that option.

Not quite true. Anyone can *maintain* a homebuilt aircraft. The annual
condition inspection, however, must be performed by a qualified individual (A&P
or the Repairman Certificate for that aircraft).

The biggest problem in the "hired gun" building is the perjury that is entailed
if the owner certifies it in the Experimental/Amateur-Built category. The FAA
needs a new subcategory equivalent to Amateur-Built...."Custom-Built" or some
similar verbiage. No 51% rule, no Repairman Certificates, maintenance can be
performed by owner, annuals must be by A&P.

Manufacturer's name on the registration to be listed as the actual name (e.g.,
no corporations or other liability dodges) of the primary builder. If certified
parts are used, they have full AD vulnerability. If a non-certified engine is
used, again, the builder's name is listed as the engine manufacturer.


Separating them out makes sense, but I'd make it anything goes as to
what can be Experimental Amateur-built. If I were 30 years younger and
still working at a good job I'd want to build something akin to the
Javelin on steroids. Maybe a Legend to start. It 's a personal
preference but I just don't have any interest in light, sport, or
anything less than the G-III and the thought of something like a
Javelin on steroids with a pair of kerosene burners and a large enough
size to carry enough fuel to cover a useful distance.

Maybe a twin with diesel engines on each side developing about 1000 HP
each. Hey, I have a daughter living in the Colorado Rockies and a son
just NE of Atlanta.

I'd couple this with some additional restrictions on Experimental Amateur-Built
to force things back to Education/Recreation. Maybe scale back some of the
recent 51% rule interpretations. Maybe eliminate turbine engines,

I want bigger engines and suborbital at least.:-)) (and I'm serious)
As long as it has two seats that's enough for me as I doubt I'd find
any one who'd want to go along. I have that problem now if I'm
heading for the practice area and those are the normal maneuvers we
had to do to get the ticket. Well, normal to me as steep turns were 60
degrees when I was a student.

To me airplanes are for play and I'd put every cent into playing I
could and I do like to build so I'd hate to be held back as to what I
could build...now all I need is the money and some genetic engineering
to get rid of about 40 years, or gain another 40 on my life. And I'd
prefer to gain that youth without the senility.

I've often said, I need five lifetimes just to do the things I what in
this one.

turbochargers, and pressurization, or just limit them to planes of two seats or
less.

Ron Wanttaja
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com