A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

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

wrote:
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 also don't agree that innocents are less likely to be killed by a
pro built plane. Show me the stats to prove it.

The real killer is that the customer of a pro built plane may also get
the repairman's certificate which means that he lied about building
it.

Ron Lee

Ron Lee wrote:
wrote:
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 also don't agree that innocents are less likely to be killed by a
pro built plane. Show me the stats to prove it.

The real killer is that the customer of a pro built plane may also get
the repairman's certificate which means that he lied about building
it.

Ron Lee

I have a business associate that bought a "pro-built" RV7. While he was
flying home X-C the plane lost power and he safely landed in a field. He
got the farmer who owned the land to tow him over beside the barn and
then found and A&P to come out and see if he could fix the problem.

The logs showed the plane had flown the 40 hours to get out of phase 1
testing. That A&P and another that looked at it later both felt after
looking at the plane that there was no way this plane had been flown
more than five or six hours.

When the buyer looked further at the log book entries he realized that
the that a date had been changed and that there was only, originally 3
days between the beginning and the end of the phase 1 testing.

He got his money back in the deal after his lawyer made it very clear
that there would either be a wire in the buyers account that day or a
call would be made to the FAA.

What is a "Pro Built"? I would take it to mean that an experimental
"kit" was built by somebody like Cessna or Piper, etc. As an amateur
builder, am I a "novice" when I complete it? Will I turn pro after I
finish a second one? I'd tend to say that an airplane built by Joe Blow
for somebody else is still amateur built, but the owner who applies for
the repairman certificate should not be able to get it if they
themselves did not build 51%.

Scott


Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Ron Lee wrote:

wrote:
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 also don't agree that innocents are less likely to be killed by a
pro built plane. Show me the stats to prove it.

The real killer is that the customer of a pro built plane may also get
the repairman's certificate which means that he lied about building
it.

Ron Lee


I have a business associate that bought a "pro-built" RV7. While he was
flying home X-C the plane lost power and he safely landed in a field. He
got the farmer who owned the land to tow him over beside the barn and
then found and A&P to come out and see if he could fix the problem.

The logs showed the plane had flown the 40 hours to get out of phase 1
testing. That A&P and another that looked at it later both felt after
looking at the plane that there was no way this plane had been flown
more than five or six hours.

When the buyer looked further at the log book entries he realized that
the that a date had been changed and that there was only, originally 3
days between the beginning and the end of the phase 1 testing.

He got his money back in the deal after his lawyer made it very clear
that there would either be a wire in the buyers account that day or a
call would be made to the FAA.

Acepilot wrote:

What is a "Pro Built"? I would take it to mean that an experimental
"kit" was built by somebody like Cessna or Piper, etc. As an amateur
builder, am I a "novice" when I complete it? Will I turn pro after I
finish a second one? I'd tend to say that an airplane built by Joe Blow
for somebody else is still amateur built, but the owner who applies for
the repairman certificate should not be able to get it if they
themselves did not build 51%.

Scott

"pro built" in my message means that you pay someone to build it.

Ron Lee

"Ron Lee" wrote in message ...
Acepilot wrote:

What is a "Pro Built"? I would take it to mean that an experimental
"kit" was built by somebody like Cessna or Piper, etc. As an amateur
builder, am I a "novice" when I complete it? Will I turn pro after I
finish a second one? I'd tend to say that an airplane built by Joe Blow
for somebody else is still amateur built, but the owner who applies for
the repairman certificate should not be able to get it if they
themselves did not build 51%.

Scott

"pro built" in my message means that you pay someone to build it.

Ron Lee

Why should this not be allowed? This is a free country, maybe...

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 23:11:34 GMT, "Blueskies"
wrote:


"Ron Lee" wrote in message ...
Acepilot wrote:

What is a "Pro Built"? I would take it to mean that an experimental
"kit" was built by somebody like Cessna or Piper, etc. As an amateur
builder, am I a "novice" when I complete it? Will I turn pro after I
finish a second one? I'd tend to say that an airplane built by Joe Blow
for somebody else is still amateur built, but the owner who applies for
the repairman certificate should not be able to get it if they
themselves did not build 51%.

Scott

"pro built" in my message means that you pay someone to build it.

Why should this not be allowed? This is a free country, maybe...

Certainly! And that's why the Experimental-Exhibition category exists. The
Experimental Amateur-Built category is specifically for those who build aircraft
for education or recreation. If someone wants to build a plane for money, let
them get them certified in one of the other five Experimental categories. Heck,
there are over 5,000 planes certified as Experimental Exhibition, it's not like
it's new territory.

Ron Wanttaja

Blueskies wrote:

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
Acepilot wrote:

What is a "Pro Built"? I would take it to mean that an experimental
"kit" was built by somebody like Cessna or Piper, etc. As an amateur
builder, am I a "novice" when I complete it? Will I turn pro after I
finish a second one? I'd tend to say that an airplane built by Joe
Blow for somebody else is still amateur built, but the owner who
applies for the repairman certificate should not be able to get it if
they themselves did not build 51%.

Scott

"pro built" in my message means that you pay someone to build it.

Ron Lee

Why should this not be allowed? This is a free country, maybe...

It is allowed. They jet have to get it certified.

Acepilot wrote:
What is a "Pro Built"? I would take it to mean that an experimental
"kit" was built by somebody like Cessna or Piper, etc. As an amateur
builder, am I a "novice" when I complete it? Will I turn pro after I
finish a second one? I'd tend to say that an airplane built by Joe Blow
for somebody else is still amateur built, but the owner who applies for
the repairman certificate should not be able to get it if they
themselves did not build 51%.

Scott


Ace you might want to read the thread there Ace. A "pro-built" in the
context of this thread is a a person that is building an aircraft under
the guise of the homebuilt rules for profit instead for recreation and
education as allowed by the law.

I used to term "pro-built" instead of the more apt "law breaking,
risking my ability to build an airplane, asshole."

"Acepilot" wrote in message
.. .
What is a "Pro Built"? I would take it to mean that an experimental "kit"
was built by somebody like Cessna or Piper, etc. As an amateur builder,
am I a "novice" when I complete it? Will I turn pro after I finish a
second one? I'd tend to say that an airplane built by Joe Blow for
somebody else is still amateur built, but the owner who applies for the
repairman certificate should not be able to get it if they themselves did
not build 51%.

Scott



That is a reasonable question Scott. The traditional answer, that the FAA
has used for many years, was the magic number 'three.'

If you build the same design once or twice you are learning and still an
"amateur" building for "educational" purposes. After the third one, they
figure you have learned, and are now building for monetary purposes.

The type certification process was originally established to protect people
who bought airplanes built by some small company. Some built fine flyable
and safe airplanes and some did not. The ones who did not could not get
their products through the certification process. Certification requires
design review to accepted and published standards for most aspects of the
design, including the flyability and handling qualities.

Experimental amateur built airplanes, including kits, are not subject to
this type of review. I have flown some homebuilt aircraft that I would only
characterize as downright dangerous. I have flown others that meet or
exceed the requirements for certification in every way. The average is, as
you would expect, somewhere between those two extremes.

When you allow "professional builders" of "homebuilt" airplanes and allow
them to be licensed as "amateur built" it seems to be somewhat outside the
intent of the original legislation. It also avoids the certification
process which was established for the safety and protection of airplane
buyers. This was one of the primary reasons for establishing the CAA, which
later became the FAA.

Highflyer
PS: its flyin time ...
2008 Pinckneyville Rec Aviation Flyin

The annual flyin time is coming around again! I finally got to where I
could find things in the hangar again, which is a sure indication that it is
time to start flyin preparations!

The local motels will be filling up fast again so you may want to get your
reservations in as soon as you can if you want a close motel room.

WHEN: May 16, 17, and 18 this year. Once again, it is the full weekend
prior to the Memorial Day official weekend. This has become the traditional
historical date for the flyin. It allows folks to plan well ahead to this
incredible trek. For many it becomes the cross country trip that they talk
about to everyone that will hold still long enough to listen.

WHE Pinckneyville DuQuoin Airport, Pinckneyville, Illinois. PJY is the
airport identifier. Put K in front if you have a fussy GPS. We are about
80 miles southeast of the Arch in St. Louis. There is a 4001 foot ( have to
be over 4000 feet for jets! ) north-south runway ( 18L – 36R ) with an 1800
foot grass runway parallel to the northern half.
( 18R – 36L ) . There is no taxiway. This an access taxiway perpendicular
to the runways. We do have instrument approachs again, but they are GPS
approachs only.

WHAT: The annual t here day get together of the diehards on the
rec.aviation newsgroups. Buddy rides all day and hangar flying all night.
Other entertainment as happens. Beer, soda, and good food. The PJY
barbeque is world renowned, as are the uniquely HOT Italian sausages served
on Thursday night. The Red Lady should be flying this year.

WHO: Pilots, about to be Pilots, wannabe Pilots, and anybody else who is
willing to put up with a bunch of wild eyed folks who talk about airplanes
and flying all day and all night.

COST: This is not one of those “break the bank” flyins. Highflyer and Mary
try to keep the costs in line so that we can have a good time without being
rich. We do that because a lot of people who come to the flyin own
airplanes. We all know that people who own an airplane are not rich
anymore! We try to collect $25 from everyone to defray the cost of the
beverages and the groceries. We do breakfast, lunch, and dinner every day.
Usually we have baby back ribs, steak, and chicken on Saturday night.
Friday night we have something good. No one goes hungry. We do have
something for vegetarians.

ACCOMODATIONS: Pitch a tent next to your airplane if you like. There is no
charge for camping on the field. We have a couple of bathrooms, but no
showers. Generally, if someone really would like to shower one of the folks
in a motel can help you out. We do have a garden hose. There are places
you can park a camper or motorhome near the action. If you are really nice,
we can even run you out an extension cord for an electrical hookup. No
sewer hookups though.

If you want a motel there are several in the area now. The preferred flyin
motel is the Mainstreet Inn, in Pinckneyville. The lady who runs it always
puts up with our group graciously. One year she even shortsheeted every bed
in the place, for a small bribe!
Her phone number is 618-357-2128. The rates are quite reasonable.

A little fancier is the local Oxbow Bed and Breakfast. This is between the
airport and town, right on the edge of town. A number of our folks stay
there every year they come and speak very highly of the establishment.
Their phone number is 618-357-9839.

We always manage to arrange some kind of transportation to and from both of
these places. If they are full there are other motels in the area and
transportation can usually be managed with no particular problems.

HOW: Flying to PJY is the primo way to arrive. If that doesn’t work many
fly commercial to St. Louis and rent a car for the last 90 miles from the
airport. Whatever works for you works for us! Pinckneyville airport is
right on Illinois 127 just six miles south of the town of Pinckneyville.
Route 127 is exit 50 off of I-64. The airport is about 30 miles south of
I-64.

Please send an email to Mary at so that she can get some
idea how many steaks to buy for Saturday night dinner! It makes it a lot
easier when we have some idea of how many people to plan for meals.