A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

Larry Dighera wrote:
Interesting. What benefit could be expected with increased FAA
oversight of experimental aircraft production?

The potential benefit would be primarily one of consistency. To use
another word: standards. The feds (as representatives of both the
public's safety interests and the manufacturer's fiscal interests)
would create a more level playing field with respect to quality of
construction (similar to the whole type certification process) and the
'commissioners', for their part, would get more assurance of receiving
a product that meets a certain standard of quality/airworthiness. As
it stands now, the work of 'professional' builders is all over the
place with respect to quality. Anyone can hang out their shingle and
dupe people into believing that having completed an airplane or two,
or even having an A&P certificate, somehow implies a quality product.
Too many builders, including the pros, will take the quick route or
the cheap route to the solution of a particular building situation/
problem. There is often more than one 'right' route, but the quick or
cheap one is seldom it. There is no shortcut to craftsmanship.

Now, I'm by no means advocating this sort of additional oversight, but
merely pointing out the potential upside.

Nobody like a fraud.

That's one word for it. These people are the worst sort of liars. I
can think of one Grand Champion RV-6 from a few years ago as just one
example.

Implicit in that suggestion is the notion that "professional"
experimental aircraft "manufacturers" are able to produce a product
that is somehow superior to those constructed by less experienced
homebuilders. Do you believe that to be true?

Certainly not across the board by any means, though some shops are
capable of turning out a more slickly finished product than the
average homebuilder generally produces. Everyone likes to look at a
gorgeous airplane, but it's disingenuous to put those planes forward
as examples of 'homebuilding', to say nothing of the unfairness of
allowing them to compete alongside the genuine articles.

Perhaps. It sort of depends on the validity of the "rule." If the
rule is unconstitutional, violating it may be seen as an act of
asserting one's rights. Consider the lunch counter sit-ins of the
'60s for example. At the other end of the spectrum is the warrantless
wiretaps perpetrated by the current RNC regime in power in our nation.
Does the end justify the means?

I think that when we talk about 'validity' in this context we need to
be cognizant of the difference between a rule that is morally wrong
and one that is merely inconvenient. The lunch counter protesters,
however morally right they were, in fact were breaking the rules.
They were asserting a moral right, but definitely not a legal one.
The warrantless wiretaps you mention represent just the opposite
situation, where they are conducted as a legal right (according to you-
know-who), but are morally (and constitutionally) wrong. In one case,
it could be said that the ends justified the means, but I don't think
that most people would apply that particular reasoning to the other
case. I didn't intend to state my premise in such terms that one has
to definitively choose either side. Life is not that simple.

All of this aside, let's not put check writers skirting the intention
of the amateur-built rules for their own convenience on the same level
as Parks and King and Gandhi, for that matter.

Thank you for your reasonable response, and the information it
contains.

Glad to contribute.

While I have precious little exposure to homebuilding and those who do
it, I have sincere respect for anyone who applies his skills in
constructing useful things. And craftsmanship seems to be an ever
diminishing virtue in today's world, so seeing it fostered in this
context provides hope that it won't be entirely driven out of
existence by mass production.

Agree 100%.

I guess the real question is why does the FAA feel it's necessary for
a homebuilder to have done 51% of the work? Is it to protect him from
himself, or to protect the public from him, or are there other
reasons? What of the prototypes built by Lockheed or Boeing; 51% of
them aren't constructed by a single individual.

Why 51%? I think that brings us back to the point of the feds
protecting the investment of the manufacturers in the type
certification process. The prototypes you mention aren't registered
as amateur-built. There are a number of experimental categories and
the 51% rule only applies to amateur-built aircraft.

Ken

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 08:49:35 -0800 (PST), wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
Implicit in that suggestion is the notion that "professional"
experimental aircraft "manufacturers" are able to produce a product
that is somehow superior to those constructed by less experienced
homebuilders. Do you believe that to be true?

Certainly not across the board by any means, though some shops are
capable of turning out a more slickly finished product than the
average homebuilder generally produces. Everyone likes to look at a
gorgeous airplane, but it's disingenuous to put those planes forward
as examples of 'homebuilding', to say nothing of the unfairness of
allowing them to compete alongside the genuine articles.


I can see where this fraud is irksome to true craftsmen, but I can't
see how it appropriate for the FAA to be involved in assuring that a
prize awarded ostensibly on merit is genuinely so.


While I have precious little exposure to homebuilding and those who do
it, I have sincere respect for anyone who applies his skills in
constructing useful things. And craftsmanship seems to be an ever
diminishing virtue in today's world, so seeing it fostered in this
context provides hope that it won't be entirely driven out of
existence by mass production.

Agree 100%.

I guess the real question is why does the FAA feel it's necessary for
a homebuilder to have done 51% of the work? Is it to protect him from
himself, or to protect the public from him, or are there other
reasons? What of the prototypes built by Lockheed or Boeing; 51% of
them aren't constructed by a single individual.

Why 51%? I think that brings us back to the point of the feds
protecting the investment of the manufacturers in the type
certification process.

Do you believe that the FAA should be involved in protecting aircraft
manufacturers financial interests?

The prototypes you mention aren't registered
as amateur-built. There are a number of experimental categories and
the 51% rule only applies to amateur-built aircraft.


Why? That seems a little arbitrary to me. If one group is enjoined
from employing others to construct an aircraft, why should another
group be permitted to do the same thing with impunity?

Larry Dighera wrote in
:


I can see where this fraud is irksome to true craftsmen, but I can't
see how it appropriate for the FAA to be involved in assuring that a
prize awarded ostensibly on merit is genuinely so.



Do you believe that the FAA should be involved in protecting aircraft
manufacturers financial interests?


Wow, you've just moved your idiocy to a whole new level there Lar.


Bertie

I suspect there is going to be a fall outhere.

A division between those who can read and understand the regulations,
and those who can't/won't.

Simple as that, Larry.

the 51% rule only applies to amateur-built aircraft.


Why? That seems a little arbitrary to me. If one group is enjoined
from employing others to construct an aircraft, why should another
group be permitted to do the same thing with impunity?



Any individual or group can construct an aircraft. No one has been told
they cannot construct an aircraft. The only thing they are being told is
that it is illegal to attempt to license an aircraft in the official
specific license category of "Experimental - Amateur Built" that wan NOT in
fact, built by an amateur. I do not have a problem with that. Any
aircraft not built by an amateur can indeed be licensed, but only in the
appropriate category. If they proceed to license the aircraft correctly
there is no problem and no objection. The only problem is with people who
make known false official statements to allow an outcome they deem
favorable, if illegal.

Rather like saying "I didn't make enough money last year to file income tax.
All those W-2's with my name on them are really not mine or are mistaken and
should be ignored."

Highflyer

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:36:03 -0500, "Highflyer" wrote:


the 51% rule only applies to amateur-built aircraft.


Why? That seems a little arbitrary to me. If one group is enjoined
from employing others to construct an aircraft, why should another
group be permitted to do the same thing with impunity?


Any individual or group can construct an aircraft. No one has been told
they cannot construct an aircraft.

Implicit in my question was the intent to have the aircraft licensed.

The only thing they are being told is
that it is illegal to attempt to license an aircraft in the official
specific license category of "Experimental - Amateur Built" that wan [sic]
NOT in fact, built by an amateur. I do not have a problem with that.

My point is, why is does the FAA feel it is necessary to provide
separate experimental licensing criteria between "Experimental -
Amateur Built" and other experimentals?

Any aircraft not built by an amateur can indeed be licensed, but only in the
appropriate category. If they proceed to license the aircraft correctly
there is no problem and no objection. The only problem is with people who
make known false official statements to allow an outcome they deem
favorable, if illegal.

I'm not condoning the making of false statements.

I'm questioning the appropriateness of the FAA's scrutinizing the
_intent_ of the builder(s). It seems to me that the FAA requirement
for the "Experimental - Amateur Built" builder to be motivated by
educational or recreational intent places the FAA in the role of
evaluating the mental state of the builder, not the airworthiness of
the aircraft.

I realize that those intents are ostensibility to prevent the
wholesale construction of uncertified aircraft by amateurs with the
intent to sell them to the public, but the rule seems flawed due to
the role of psychologist in which it necessarily places the FAA. The
FAA's role should be solely to determine the suitability of a given
aircraft to operate in the NAS with appropriate restrictions as may be
necessary, IMO, not to examine the motivation of the builder(s).

What are the pertinent licensing differences between "Experimental -
Amateur Built" and those of the appropriate experimental type of say
SpaceshipOne built by Scaled Composites commissioned by Branson?

What is your opinion of a group composed of an experienced builder and
a potential operator of the fruit of their labor collaborating on the
construction of an aircraft licensed as "Experimental - Amateur
Built?" Wouldn't that be a simple method of circumventing the
"Experimental - Amateur Built?" rubric?

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:36:03 -0500, "Highflyer" wrote:


the 51% rule only applies to amateur-built aircraft.


Why? That seems a little arbitrary to me. If one group is enjoined
from employing others to construct an aircraft, why should another
group be permitted to do the same thing with impunity?


Any individual or group can construct an aircraft. No one has been
told they cannot construct an aircraft.

Implicit in my question was the intent to have the aircraft licensed.

The only thing they are being told is
that it is illegal to attempt to license an aircraft in the official
specific license category of "Experimental - Amateur Built" that wan
[sic] NOT in fact, built by an amateur. I do not have a problem with
that.

My point is, why is does the FAA feel it is necessary to provide
separate experimental licensing criteria between "Experimental -
Amateur Built" and other experimentals?

Any aircraft not built by an amateur can indeed be licensed, but only
in the appropriate category. If they proceed to license the aircraft
correctly there is no problem and no objection. The only problem is
with people who make known false official statements to allow an
outcome they deem favorable, if illegal.

I'm not condoning the making of false statements.


No, you just make them yourself and cut out the middle man.

I'm questioning the appropriateness of the FAA's scrutinizing the
_intent_ of the builder(s). It seems to me that the FAA requirement
for the "Experimental - Amateur Built" builder to be motivated by
educational or recreational intent places the FAA in the role of
evaluating the mental state of the builder, not the airworthiness of
the aircraft.

I realize that those intents are ostensibility to prevent the
wholesale construction of uncertified aircraft by amateurs with the
intent to sell them to the public, but the rule seems flawed due to
the role of psychologist in which it necessarily places the FAA. The
FAA's role should be solely to determine the suitability of a given
aircraft to operate in the NAS with appropriate restrictions as may be
necessary, IMO, not to examine the motivation of the builder(s).

What are the pertinent licensing differences between "Experimental -
Amateur Built" and those of the appropriate experimental type of say
SpaceshipOne built by Scaled Composites commissioned by Branson?


It wasn't commisoned by branson, fjukkwit.


He merely jumped in when he saw it nearing the finish line.

What is your opinion of a group composed of an experienced builder and
a potential operator of the fruit of their labor collaborating on the
construction of an aircraft licensed as "Experimental - Amateur
Built?" Wouldn't that be a simple method of circumventing the
"Experimental - Amateur Built?" rubric?


Twit.

Bertie

Larry Dighera wrote:
My point is, why is does the FAA feel it is necessary to provide
separate experimental licensing criteria between "Experimental -
Amateur Built" and other experimentals?

The answer to that requires going through some history. Too much for me to
recount here - even if I knew it all (and I don't). Amateur builders today
appear to have a lot to thank for the tireless work of people like the
"Beaverton Outlaws" of Oregon. Quoting from Ron Wanttaja's book "Kit
Airplane Construction": "By World War II, homebuilt aircraft had been
banned in every state of the Union. Except Oregon."

Here's a very nice article titled "The Resistance" about how some of the
Oregonian "rebels" were critical in getting that category into the
regulations:

http://www.airspacemag.com/issues/20...on_outlaws.php

What are the pertinent licensing differences between "Experimental -
Amateur Built" and those of the appropriate experimental type of say
SpaceshipOne built by Scaled Composites commissioned by Branson?

If the experimental is created in furtherance of a business it is supposed
to be registered under a different experimental category. It may also have
different operating limitations. Scaled Composites almost certainly doesn't
attempt to register its aircraft under the amateur built category.


"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to
the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is
eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the
consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
---- John Philpot Curran
From http://www.bartleby.com/73/1054.html

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

My point is, why is does the FAA feel it is necessary to provide
separate experimental licensing criteria between "Experimental -
Amateur Built" and other experimentals?

The FAA does NOT feel it is necessary. It took many years to get them to
allow a homemade airplane to fly in US airspace at all. The compromise we
got was a special category in Experimental for amateur built airplanes. We
also got much better operational limitations that any of the other
experimental categories. We are very happy that we have a special category.
We would much rather not have this rare privelege abused by a bunch of
greedy shortsighted idiots lining their pockets. Any privelege, when
abused, is vulnerable to loss. That is the way of the world.

There are many avenues in the regulations for people to build and sell
airplanes. They are not i mpossible. Look at Cirrus. However, t hey do
require some effort. People who want to make a buck building airplanes, but
do not want to put in the time and effort to ensure that they meet
appropriate standards for doing so really should not be allowed to abuse the
privelege granted to homebuilders.

Highflyer
EAA member for 50 years.

"Highflyer" wrote in :


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

My point is, why is does the FAA feel it is necessary to provide
separate experimental licensing criteria between "Experimental -
Amateur Built" and other experimentals?

The FAA does NOT feel it is necessary. It took many years to get them
to allow a homemade airplane to fly in US airspace at all. The
compromise we got was a special category in Experimental for amateur
built airplanes. We also got much better operational limitations that
any of the other experimental categories. We are very happy that we
have a special category. We would much rather not have this rare
privelege abused by a bunch of greedy shortsighted idiots lining their
pockets. Any privelege, when abused, is vulnerable to loss. That is
the way of the world.

There are many avenues in the regulations for people to build and sell
airplanes. They are not i mpossible. Look at Cirrus. However, t hey
do require some effort. People who want to make a buck building
airplanes, but do not want to put in the time and effort to ensure
that they meet appropriate standards for doing so really should not be
allowed to abuse the privelege granted to homebuilders.

Highflyer
EAA member for 50 years.


hear hear

Bertie
EAA member for 37 years.