A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

cavelamb himself 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


Well, Jim,

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

_My_ call to arms? Huh??

If Richard VanGrunsven's call to arms backfired, it may be because people
no longer actually read what is written. They can't even get attributions
correct. So if they can't figure out who originated a call to arms, I guess
it is not surprising they get a clean miss on the central thesis.

Jim Logajan wrote:

cavelamb himself 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


Well, Jim,

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


_My_ call to arms? Huh??

If Richard VanGrunsven's call to arms backfired, it may be because people
no longer actually read what is written. They can't even get attributions
correct. So if they can't figure out who originated a call to arms, I guess
it is not surprising they get a clean miss on the central thesis.


YOU brought it in here...

But I guess WE are all wrong - for disagreeing?

Pffft...

cavelamb himself wrote:
YOU brought it in here...

I didn't realize it works that way. Boy is R.V. going to ****ed when he
learns I inadvertently assumed ownership to his call to arms.

You have a better grasp of these things than I - perhaps you would be kind
enough to tell me how I might correct the situation?

But I guess WE are all wrong - for disagreeing?

Excellent point. You and everyone else who posted followups are not all
wrong.

Pffft...

Not only can't I argue with that logic, the front of my shirt is full of
spittle.

Thanks for setting me straight. I know now, thanks to you and several other
posters, that you have keener insight into what changes the FAA may be
planning to the rules than this VanGrunsven fellow does.

I've found that it's not very effective to judge what the homebuilder
population at large thinks by what the relatively small population of
RAH posters writes.

There are many lurkers on this newsgroup who never post, and also many
who don't ever tune into RAH. And there are no doubt no few who maybe
surveyed it once during a hystrionical episode or em-aye-five storm
and decided the signal/noise ratio was below their threshold, so they
never came back.

My interest in this issue is two-fold: Now I know to prepare for a sea-
change on the interpretation of "major portion" and its reflection on
form 8000-38. And also, now I know what was so important about the EAA
telecon that Dick had to attend to while we were visiting Vans that
Monday morning:

http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24/update_4_march_08.htm

Thanks, Bob K.

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 05:51:51 -0000, 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



-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVwebAUDIO Volume 2, Number 11 -- March 21, 2008

-------------------------------------------------------------------
MORE PODCASTS: http://www.avweb.com/podcast/podcast/index.html

Today's Exclusive AVweb Podcast

LANCAIR'S JOE BARTELS OUTLINES THE POSSIBLE DANGERS
OF THE FAA'S PROPOSED "51% RULE" CHANGES FOR HOMEBUILTS
(http://www.avweb.com/alm?podcast20080321&kw=AVwebAudio)
The FAA is proposing changes to the rules governing homebuilt
aircraft, some of which are raising concerns about the future of
this time-honored niche of general aviation. The Experimental
Aircraft Association (http://www.avweb.com/alm?eaa&kw=Podcast) has
stated publicly that it opposes the changes, which would make it
more difficult for homebuilders to comply with the "51%
rule." Earlier this week, Lancair CEO Joe Bartels told the
Bend, Oregon Weekly News that his business could be in danger if
the FAA rule changes are passed. Hear what Bartels told AVweb
about the proposed rule changes and the future of homebuilding in
this AVweb audio feature.

Click here (http://www.avweb.com/podcast/files/2008-03-21.mp3) to
listen. (7.2 MB, 7:54)

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 05:51:51 -0000, 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



-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVwebAUDIO Volume 2, Number 11 -- March 21, 2008

-------------------------------------------------------------------
MORE PODCASTS: http://www.avweb.com/podcast/podcast/index.html

Today's Exclusive AVweb Podcast

LANCAIR'S JOE BARTELS OUTLINES THE POSSIBLE DANGERS
OF THE FAA'S PROPOSED "51% RULE" CHANGES FOR HOMEBUILTS
(http://www.avweb.com/alm?podcast20080321&kw=AVwebAudio)
The FAA is proposing changes to the rules governing homebuilt
aircraft, some of which are raising concerns about the future of
this time-honored niche of general aviation. The Experimental
Aircraft Association (http://www.avweb.com/alm?eaa&kw=Podcast) has
stated publicly that it opposes the changes, which would make it
more difficult for homebuilders to comply with the "51%
rule." Earlier this week, Lancair CEO Joe Bartels told the
Bend, Oregon Weekly News that his business could be in danger if
the FAA rule changes are passed. Hear what Bartels told AVweb
about the proposed rule changes and the future of homebuilding in
this AVweb audio feature.


Bull****. it's not difficult at all. You buy a pile of spruce and a pile
of tubing and make it all yourself. Easy. What it's doing is making it
difficult for people to build hairdressers airplanes like Lancairs.


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Larry Dighera wrote:
LANCAIR'S JOE BARTELS OUTLINES THE POSSIBLE DANGERS
OF THE FAA'S PROPOSED "51% RULE" CHANGES FOR HOMEBUILTS
(http://www.avweb.com/alm?podcast20080321&kw=AVwebAudio)
The FAA is proposing changes to the rules governing homebuilt
aircraft, some of which are raising concerns about the future of
this time-honored niche of general aviation. The Experimental
Aircraft Association (http://www.avweb.com/alm?eaa&kw=Podcast)
has stated publicly that it opposes the changes, which would make
it more difficult for homebuilders to comply with the "51%
rule." Earlier this week, Lancair CEO Joe Bartels told the
Bend, Oregon Weekly News that his business could be in danger if
the FAA rule changes are passed. Hear what Bartels told AVweb
about the proposed rule changes and the future of homebuilding in
this AVweb audio feature.


Bull****. it's not difficult at all. You buy a pile of spruce and a
pile of tubing and make it all yourself. Easy. What it's doing is
making it difficult for people to build hairdressers airplanes like
Lancairs.

I'm sorry, but I think Bartel's main point is spot on - after approving
aircraft for 20+ years using one set of rules, the FAA is basically
proposing a change that would have excluded those same aircraft. It
appears to be an irrational capricious and arbitrary change - unless they
can clearly articulate convincing reasoning and facts to support the
change. They absolutely haven't. No one has. Anecdotes seems to be the
order of the day. That and what I see as a primal urge by some ******s
who thrill to anything that they think "sticks it to the rich guys," and
damn the side effects.

As to "easy" building - well - welding (for example) isn't a natural
skill (it wasn't for me, at least - I was taught some in high school shop
and took a vo-tech course on tig/mig welding a few years later with
dubious results. I'd have to relearn it from scratch since it was decades
ago.) And how many tube and fabric homebuilt designs can fly at 160+
knots with reasonable efficiency? Or aren't we supposed to be allowed to
build such craft? (I'm aware of wood aircraft with good speeds and
efficiencies - but the build times always seem godawful long.)

The thing is, though, is that wood, fabric, and tube aircraft are
technologies that are approaching the 100 year mark. The novelty of
aluminum aircraft technology is getting on in years also. Face it, the
vast majority of homebuilt designs employ technologies and materials
that existed 70 to 100 years ago - and could have been designed that long
ago (and some were I believe). The exception, ironically, appear to
carbon and glass fiber composites. Ironic because kits employing those
technologies are the ones that appear to be at risk. (Of course both
those are also reaching middle age too.)

I don't think it is wise to applaud or encourage the FAA in the changes
they appear to be suggesting (and I believe will be formally accepting
public comment on soon). If the FAA can't be bothered to invest resources
to build cases against violators who lie about who built their aircraft
_now_, in what meaningful way are their proposed changes going to stop
them later?

Jim Logajan wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Larry Dighera wrote:
LANCAIR'S JOE BARTELS OUTLINES THE POSSIBLE DANGERS
OF THE FAA'S PROPOSED "51% RULE" CHANGES FOR HOMEBUILTS
(http://www.avweb.com/alm?podcast20080321&kw=AVwebAudio)
The FAA is proposing changes to the rules governing homebuilt
aircraft, some of which are raising concerns about the future of
this time-honored niche of general aviation. The Experimental
Aircraft Association (http://www.avweb.com/alm?eaa&kw=Podcast)
has stated publicly that it opposes the changes, which would
make it more difficult for homebuilders to comply with the
"51% rule." Earlier this week, Lancair CEO Joe Bartels
told the Bend, Oregon Weekly News that his business could be in
danger if the FAA rule changes are passed. Hear what Bartels
told AVweb about the proposed rule changes and the future of
homebuilding in this AVweb audio feature.


Bull****. it's not difficult at all. You buy a pile of spruce and a
pile of tubing and make it all yourself. Easy. What it's doing is
making it difficult for people to build hairdressers airplanes like
Lancairs.

I'm sorry, but I think Bartel's main point is spot on - after
approving aircraft for 20+ years using one set of rules, the FAA is
basically proposing a change that would have excluded those same
aircraft. It appears to be an irrational capricious and arbitrary
change - unless they can clearly articulate convincing reasoning and
facts to support the change. They absolutely haven't. No one has.
Anecdotes seems to be the order of the day. That and what I see as a
primal urge by some ******s who thrill to anything that they think
"sticks it to the rich guys," and damn the side effects.

As to "easy" building - well - welding (for example) isn't a natural
skill (it wasn't for me, at least - I was taught some in high school
shop and took a vo-tech course on tig/mig welding a few years later
with dubious results. I'd have to relearn it from scratch since it was
decades ago.) And how many tube and fabric homebuilt designs can fly
at 160+ knots with reasonable efficiency? Or aren't we supposed to be
allowed to build such craft? (I'm aware of wood aircraft with good
speeds and efficiencies - but the build times always seem godawful
long.)

The thing is, though, is that wood, fabric, and tube aircraft are
technologies that are approaching the 100 year mark. The novelty of
aluminum aircraft technology is getting on in years also. Face it, the
vast majority of homebuilt designs employ technologies and materials
that existed 70 to 100 years ago - and could have been designed that
long ago (and some were I believe). The exception, ironically, appear
to carbon and glass fiber composites. Ironic because kits employing
those technologies are the ones that appear to be at risk. (Of course
both those are also reaching middle age too.)

I don't think it is wise to applaud or encourage the FAA in the
changes they appear to be suggesting (and I believe will be formally
accepting public comment on soon). If the FAA can't be bothered to
invest resources to build cases against violators who lie about who
built their aircraft _now_, in what meaningful way are their proposed
changes going to stop them later?


I don't see any real change at all. they're going back to the original
spirit of the rule.

I didn;'t say that welding was easy. I meant that it was easy to avoid
falling afoul of the 51% rule. IOW, don't like what the FAA is
proposing? Build something instead of buying. These airplanes fall
outside the spirit of the original ruling and the aiplans that have been
approve over the last twenty years have been flaunting it..


Bertie

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:53:20 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

I don't see any real change at all. they're going back to the original
spirit of the rule.

They are significantly re-writing the rules of the market in favor of
the production aircrafters. or they are not.

Which is it?

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:46:00 -0000, Jim Logajan wrote:

I don't think it is wise to applaud or encourage the FAA in the changes
they appear to be suggesting (and I believe will be formally accepting
public comment on soon). If the FAA can't be bothered to invest resources
to build cases against violators who lie about who built their aircraft
_now_, in what meaningful way are their proposed changes going to stop
them later?

None which leads to why is the real motivation to do this? I would cast
a sharp eye at the politics (Cessna, etc) who see market share eroding
as they bring out their own overpriced lights.