A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

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.

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 17:01:42 +0000, 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 is very easy to define. It's a plane licenced in the
experimental/amateur built catagory that was built by someone hired by
another to build it. Once someone accepts money to build someone
else's plane, he becomes a professional builder. How many planes the
pro builder has built in the past isn't part of the definition.
What irks me is when after this process is finished, some of the
persons that own the plane and didn't build it, put their name down as
the builder and get the repairman certificate, and later do
maintanence on this plane with questionable ability to perform it.
It's crap like this that puts the homebuilt/amateur catagory in
jepordy, and is now bringing on the wrath of the FAA.
Now, if the name of the pro builder is put down as the builder, it's
not as bad. But even this practice was not part of the original intent
of the homebuilt regulations. Probably the best way for Pro builders
to exist is if they built the plane for no one, then sold it. Similar
to when a house contractor builds a spec house, and sells it
afterwards. I would think that if the FAA had forseen what is going on
now with homebuilts, they probably never would have written the rule
at all or it would have been much more restrictive. Van's call to
arms is falling on a lof of deaf ears.

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

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
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

Wouldn't you love to see the RV-6 as a certified airplane!

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."