A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 03:48:36 -0800 (PST), stol wrote
in
:

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

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?


Pretty much everythign , as usual, Larry.

You don't build so **** off and mind your own business.


Bertie

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

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 03:48:36 -0800 (PST), stol wrote
in
:

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

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...

Larry Dighera wrote:

snipping here - to set a good example...

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.


You never had the freedom to commissioon the construction of an aircraft.

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 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

"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

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.

That appears to be what the FAA wants. But IMHO the changes the FAA is
considering appear unlikely to accomplish that goal. Consider Joe
Homebuilder and friends who invest in a lot of equipment and somehow set up
an assembly-line-like operation and build homebuilts from "raw" material.
If they fill out all the paperwork legal and proper, on what basis could
the FAA claim that they had not "fabricated and assembled the majority
portion of the aircraft for their own education or recreation?"

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 believe Van pointed out that the FAA appears to be ignoring the concerns
raised by some members of the ARC if shared credit is disallowed for the
tasks on the form 8000-38 checklist. He was on the committee and clearly
got negative vibes from the FAA members - and appears to be concerned
enough about the impact on the entire field that he felt compelled to write
his "call to arms."

(If suppose if one believes that pounding 10,000 rivets is instructional
and/or recreational but pounding 1000 rivets is not, fine. No accounting
for taste. ;-))

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 00:03:24 -0600, 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.

That is the reasoning behind all this, but as with many regulations
it's going to take some close watching to keep them from going astray.
In the past, there really wasn't a 51% rule as we think of it. They
expected the builder complete 51% of the tasks. IOW, if you
constructed one aileron That was as good as constructing and mounting
both. Build one rib is as good as building 30. Some areas are just
done much better by the manufacturer as stated in the letter. forming
ribs as an example. In the past IIRC you could share the wing,
aileron, elevator and stab construction with the manufacturer if they
stamped out the ribs and you put everything together. The FAA
apparently wants to eliminate this. How they would go about it and how
it would affect what we do is really an unknown at this point.

There's a big gap between the *Intent* of the rule as has been
interpreted AND ACCEPTED by the FAA and the *Letter* of the rule.

In my G-III the fuselage shells (right, and left, along with the
forward and rear belly pans are factory molded composite sandwiches.
The builder spends many hours just jigging, aligning, and bonding
these sections. The horizontal stab comes with pre molded ribs and
shear webs (which have to be cut to size) along with the upper and
lower shells, but putting one together is a long and tedious task.
OTOH the elevator, ailerons, and flaps only come as shells. You get
to figure out the dimensions of the ribs. They give a bit of guidance
on the lay ups but absolutely nothing on the dimensions or shaping of
those ribs.

The G-III is probably one of the most, if not the most labor intensive
kit out there at a conservative 4000 hours for construction. Few make
it in that little a time.. Even the fast build (Jump start in their
dictionary) still takes thousands of hours to complete.

there is a good chance the way they are wording some things that even
this kit might be affected.




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.

Unfortunately as logical as that sounds it doesn't necessarily follow
that any rules changes will be as logical. Even as currently written
changing from the Intent to the letter of the rule would be a drastic
change.

I doubt with what I'm building if the rules changes would have much
effect. OTOH contrary to probably most on the group, I see little
problem or even downside to changing it to a 20 or 25% rule. I happen
to like building and by doing so I can also end up with a plane that
has capabilities not available in production aircraft AND end up with
one I couldn't afford to purchase outright. OTOH I have no problem
nor do I see a problem with some one hiring the same plane built for
them as long as it still has to abide by the flight restrictions of
other E-AB aircraft.. I say this for two reasons that are very
apparent to me.

Although many of us build for the fun of it (education is rarely one
of the top reasons, or even one of the reasons.) From what I've seen
and we have quite a few homebuilts at 3BS (kit and scratch built),
most are constructed either to save money or just because they like to
build. One more reason is they couldn't purchase a plane like they
want to build even if they did have the money and we have quite a few
who are flying two and even three engine jets.OK only one is flying a
three holer.

Yes I'm learning things and some would call that education which it
is, but I'll state outright, that has nothing to do with me building.
I'm building because I like to do it! I'd get more enjoyment out of
building another because I could do it more efficiently, faster, and
cheaper. HOWEVER if I ever do get the thing finished and I'm able to
fly it, my main/only reason for building at that time would be "flying
an airplane I constructed myself".

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

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


Well, Jim,

Looks like your "call to arms" call backfired on ya...