Professionally built?

Scott wrote:
The word "professionally" can be pretty vague. When I build my second
RV-4, I will sell it in Trade A Plane as "Professionally Built" since I
will be a "pro" at it having built one previously.

Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)


Actualy, (in the olde days) that would diswualify you from being able
to license or sell the second one.

It makes you a "manufacturer".

I wouldn't sweat the Feds in this case since I would have my builder's
log and a couple of reams worth of photos taken during construction, so
it meets amateur built rules, but like was noted by somebody else, it
would be built to "professional" standards

Scott


Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Scott wrote:

The word "professionally" can be pretty vague. When I build my second
RV-4, I will sell it in Trade A Plane as "Professionally Built" since
I will be a "pro" at it having built one previously.



I don't know if I'd do that. It seems that it should be just a matter of
time until somebody at FAA get's a hair up their ass and sends down a memo
to all the FSDOs to investigate all such claims. Not that you would be in
violation of the law but why stir the pot?



--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)

All amateur builders are considered "manufacturers" in the eyes of the
FAA. That's why there's never been an AD on a Van's RV-4 built by
someone other than Van...they are registered as Nelson RV-4, Smith RV-4,
etc. (glad I don't have a common name like Nelson or Smith!!)

Scott


cavelamb himself wrote:

Scott wrote:

The word "professionally" can be pretty vague. When I build my second
RV-4, I will sell it in Trade A Plane as "Professionally Built" since
I will be a "pro" at it having built one previously.

Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)


Actualy, (in the olde days) that would diswualify you from being able
to license or sell the second one.

It makes you a "manufacturer".

--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)

Scott wrote:
All amateur builders are considered "manufacturers" in the eyes of the
FAA. That's why there's never been an AD on a Van's RV-4 built by
someone other than Van...they are registered as Nelson RV-4, Smith RV-4,
etc. (glad I don't have a common name like Nelson or Smith!!)

Scott


Of course, but they used to make a very sharp distinction here.

You would not have been allowed to register the second copy as
experimental - amateur built.

Richard




cavelamb himself wrote:

Scott wrote:

The word "professionally" can be pretty vague. When I build my
second RV-4, I will sell it in Trade A Plane as "Professionally
Built" since I will be a "pro" at it having built one previously.

Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)


Actualy, (in the olde days) that would diswualify you from being able
to license or sell the second one.

It makes you a "manufacturer".

Hmmm...I wasn't aware of THAT! You say in the "old days"...has that
been reversed? On my promo tape from Van's they mention a guy (John
Harmon, I believe) has built 3 RV-3s and an RV-4. I would have to
assume all were registered in experimental amateur built category???
How does (or did) the FAA regulate how many planes a guy built of the
"same" model? For example, what if I register my 2nd RV-4 as a
Fliegenmeister 4-VR? Interesting topic!

Scott


cavelamb himself wrote:
Scott wrote:

All amateur builders are considered "manufacturers" in the eyes of the
FAA. That's why there's never been an AD on a Van's RV-4 built by
someone other than Van...they are registered as Nelson RV-4, Smith
RV-4, etc. (glad I don't have a common name like Nelson or Smith!!)

Scott


Of course, but they used to make a very sharp distinction here.

You would not have been allowed to register the second copy as
experimental - amateur built.

Richard




cavelamb himself wrote:

Scott wrote:

The word "professionally" can be pretty vague. When I build my
second RV-4, I will sell it in Trade A Plane as "Professionally
Built" since I will be a "pro" at it having built one previously.

Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)


Actualy, (in the olde days) that would diswualify you from being able
to license or sell the second one.

It makes you a "manufacturer".




--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)

jan olieslagers wrote:
Ron Natalie schreef:

The words PROFESSIONAL and AMATEUR are not mutually exclusive.
Get a dictionary.

Sorry, but as non-native English speaker I am confused here.
To my poor bit of learning, the meanings a
-) professional: mainly for profit, some fun not excluded
-) amateur: mainly for fun, some profit not excluded.
I don't have a dictionary handy - what does yours say?


Amateur: One who loves or is fond of; one who has a taste for something
professional: following a line of conduct as if it were a calling
requiring speciallized knowledge and often long and intensive
academic profession.


Amateur means you like it.
Professional means you do a skillful job.

The "for free" vs. "for pay" distinction is primarily an
archaic sports distinction.

Scott wrote:
Hmmm...I wasn't aware of THAT! You say in the "old days"...has that
been reversed? On my promo tape from Van's they mention a guy (John
Harmon, I believe) has built 3 RV-3s and an RV-4. I would have to
assume all were registered in experimental amateur built category??? How
does (or did) the FAA regulate how many planes a guy built of the "same"
model? For example, what if I register my 2nd RV-4 as a Fliegenmeister
4-VR? Interesting topic!

Scott


I wouldn't say they have officially reversed anything.

FAA has just gotten out of the business of amateur built airplanes.
They don't inspect them anymore, but USED to very agressively.
"Before closing" inspections and sign-offs were required before any
structure (spars, wings, taile, etc) could be "closed out".

Things have relaxed quite a bit.

Richard


cavelamb himself wrote:

Scott wrote:

All amateur builders are considered "manufacturers" in the eyes of
the FAA. That's why there's never been an AD on a Van's RV-4 built
by someone other than Van...they are registered as Nelson RV-4, Smith
RV-4, etc. (glad I don't have a common name like Nelson or Smith!!)

Scott


Of course, but they used to make a very sharp distinction here.

You would not have been allowed to register the second copy as
experimental - amateur built.

Richard




cavelamb himself wrote:

Scott wrote:

The word "professionally" can be pretty vague. When I build my
second RV-4, I will sell it in Trade A Plane as "Professionally
Built" since I will be a "pro" at it having built one previously.

Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)


Actualy, (in the olde days) that would diswualify you from being able
to license or sell the second one.

It makes you a "manufacturer".

Marc J. Zeitlin wrote:
cavelamb himself wrote:

You would not have been allowed to register the second copy as
experimental - amateur built.


Huh?


Scott wrote:

Hmmm...I wasn't aware of THAT!


That's because it's not correct. There are numerous folks that have
built more than one aircraft, even of the same type, and had no issues
at all with registering them in the experimental amateur built category,
even if they have sold the previous ones. The only restriction is that
the plane is built for education and/or recreation. If those criteria
are met, what you did with it after you built it is not an issue.

I've built two aircraft - neither time was I asked (or was it
researched) by the FAA inspectors - not DARs - as to whether I'd built a
plane before, what type it was, or what had happened to it (or whether I
still had it).

If the FAA believes that an aircraft was NOT built for education or
recreation, but for profit, then they will not certificate it in the
Exp. Am-Built category, but that's rare, even when it shouldn't be rare.


Thinkg have changed since the 1950's.

You guys go talk to some of the old timere at the EAA meetings about this.

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 01:55:55 +0000, Scott
wrote:

I wouldn't sweat the Feds in this case since I would have my builder's
log and a couple of reams worth of photos taken during construction, so
it meets amateur built rules, but like was noted by somebody else, it
would be built to "professional" standards

I'm building my own because I want'd something better than that.:-))
Professionaly built would included Cessnas, Pipers, etc...

Roger (K8RI)


Scott


Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Scott wrote:

The word "professionally" can be pretty vague. When I build my second
RV-4, I will sell it in Trade A Plane as "Professionally Built" since
I will be a "pro" at it having built one previously.



I don't know if I'd do that. It seems that it should be just a matter of
time until somebody at FAA get's a hair up their ass and sends down a memo
to all the FSDOs to investigate all such claims. Not that you would be in
violation of the law but why stir the pot?

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 07:40:47 -0500, Ron Natalie
wrote:

es330td wrote:
I searched controller.com for lancair and found an entry that says
"Professionally built." Now I know that a homebuilt owner does not
have to build the entire thing themself but I thought it still had to
be an amateur undertaking. How does this pass muster with the FAA?

The words PROFESSIONAL and AMATEUR are not mutually exclusive.
Get a dictionary.

It's strange how the word Amateur has been misused to the point where
people think of it as beginners or unskilled. IIRC it's derived from
Latin and means, generally one who does something for the love of
doing it, or they enjoy what they are doing.

Roger (K8RI)