A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

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...

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...

Gig 601XL Builder wrote in news:13taf5pnhte4u44
@news.supernews.com:
Ok, what rights do I lose and why do I lose them?

the origianl builder is the manufacturer. He can effect any maintenance
or repeair on the airplane he likes...You buy it , you can't.


That's not exactly right Bertie. You can work on the plane, anyone can,
what you can't do is sign off the annual inspection.


OK, my bad.

Bertie

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 Sat, 8 Mar 2008 16:55:32 -0800, "Stuart & Kathryn Fields"
wrote:



Rich: Recently a friend of mine put together an original two seat helicopter
that used a modified Lycoming engine. Note when the modification was done,
the Lycoming tag is supposed to be removed as it is no longer considered a
Lycoming engine. Makes sense to me, but not to the FAA inspectors. As I
understand it was FAA employees from the local FSDO. They insisted that
the builder comply with Lycoming ADs before they would issue the
airworthiness. Too often the job of inspecting a homebuilt is really more
work than the "Busy" bureacrat wants to do so the paper work gets all the
attention. On my ship the DAR wanted a decal showing which was was open and
close on the throttle. Number one that decal is by necessity in a place
that you can't see when in operation. Number two if you need a decal to
inform you of the proper direction of rotation of a helicopter throttle you
surely should not be in there to start with. With all that said I did see
and talk to a DAR who had his feet well on the ground and kept his critique
useful and addressed reasonable items.
I'm not sure what an airworthiness certificate in an aircraft means other
than FAA has some paper work on file that acknowledges this aircraft's
existence.

Stu



Burecrats love plackards. I had to install one for up and down on my
water rudders

Updated Pinckneyville Fly-In FAQ he
http://www.ousterhout.net/pjy-faq.html

- John (thank dog I'm not in Iowa any more) Ousterhout -


Highflyer wrote:

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.

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