A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 18th 08, 03:04 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.homebuilt
Highflyer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 102
Default A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:28:42 -0500, "Highflyer" wrote:
I'm not convinced that flying an airplane you built is not a right,

providing it meets the standards of others that have been permitted to
fly.


Anyone can build an fly any airplane with no amateur built restrictions at
all if they do that. The standards are set forth in the FAR's Part 21.
Technical requirements are in FAR Part 23. These are the standards
established for building and flying aircraft in the US airspace. These
standards were established about 80 years ago to prevent people from
building and selling deathtraps to unsuspecting pilots who were not
aeronautical engineers.

What if the FAA's intent to modify the current amateur built
experimental regulations were to result, not in further restrictions
and prohibitions, but in accommodating those who desire to commission
the construction of aircraft that haven't been submitted to type
certification standards (something like the LSAs), but do meet the
airworthiness standards of other experimental aircraft that have been
licensed by the FAA to operate in the NAS? Would that be a bad thing?


The FAA did precisely that with the S-LSA certification process. It greatly
simplified the proof and oversight needed to ensure an adequate standard for
aircraft that cannot endanger a lot of unsuspecting people. That is why
they limited them to slower airspeeds and lighter weights as well as two
places. They are also only allowed to fly Daytime and by Visual flight
rules. Not unreasonable restrictions for aircraft that do not meet the full
blown standards required for aircraft to be sold to the general public.



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.


There are a few "loaded' concepts in that assertion, IMO.

First, the aircraft to which you refer probably do meet the standards
of amateur built experimental aircraft or the standards that the FAA
has established for other experimental aircraft.

Second, construction of an aircraft that meets those standards can
hardly be construed as "abuse" in my opinion.


Clearly an uninformed opinion. All experimental aircraft do NOT meet the
same standards. The bulk of the experimental class is set up to all
aircraft manufacturers to perform reasonable flight tests of new designs
before entering the full certification procedures. That is the REASON for
an "experimental" category. For flying "experimental" aircraft prior to
certification so they can generate the data required for certification.

The FAA generously allowed two separate classes under the general
"experimental" category for special airplanes that did NOT meet the
standards for certification. In these classes the aircraft is NOT really
"experimental." They just put them there because that is where they put
aircraft that were not certified as up to the published standards.

In these two classes each aircraft is treated and inspected as a "one of a
kind" aircraft to ensure a reasonable standard of construction if not
design. Typically the field maintenance inspectors who were charged with
inspecting these aircraft were not trained to make design critiques and
evaluations. They could evaluate construction quality and technique.

These two special categories that did not require full compliance with the
published airworthiness standards for flight in the US airspace are
Experimental, Amateur Built and Experimental, Exibition. The amateur built
category allowed people who built their own airplane for educational or
recreational reasons, not for profit, to actually fly their creations
legally in the airspace without having to comply with the published
standards.

The Exibition category allows us to fly aircraft that have never been
certified by our published standards in our airspace. This is usually the
home for unusual or antique aircraft that predate the certification
standards or otherwise sidestepped them. You "hired gun" who builds an
aircraft on "commission" for someone who doesn't want to build it himself
can license an aircraft they built in this category. It does, however, have
a few more stringent operating limitations than the Amateur built category
does. The "hired guns" are falsifying information in order to avoid these
additional operational limitations.

The method for removing these operational limitations is spelled out in the
regulations. Merely comply with the standards required for certification.
I admit this is easier to say than do. That is why they established a
separate certification path and separate certification standards for LSA
aircraft.



Third, is the notion that building and flying an amateur built
aircraft that complies with FAA standards is a "privilege" not a
right.

It seems the FAA has attempted to prevent the wholesale construction
of experimental aircraft by judging the intent (or mental state and
motivation) of the builder, rather than judging the safety of the
aircraft in question, as would seem considerably more appropriate for
a governmental agency, IMO. Perhaps it's time for that sort of
governmental "thought policing" to be reexamined.


Not at all. They merely provided a different way to judge the safety of the
aircraft in question that adhereing to the published standards in special
cases.


Thanks for the information you have provided, John. I'm not trying to
upset anyone; I'm just thinking outside the box in the hope such
objective analysis by someone who has hasn't been an EAA member ever,
let alone fifty years, will provide another way to view the issue.


You can do that. However, you are not thinking "outside the box." You are
rehashing old tired arguments that were brought up and shot down over fifty
years ago. What we have today is a hard won compromise that allows us a
tremendous degree of freedom compared to every other country in the world.
There are many people in this country that believe we have way too much
freedom to build and fly airplanes over THEIR house. It takes a continueing
effort to maintain these hard won priveleges. If we lose what we have then
the largest and fastest growing segment of General Aviation is dead. I do
not want that to happen. I have been working for fifty years to expand and
clarify these issues through the EAA and AOPA. Let's not undo years of work
and wind up with nothing.

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport, PJY


  #2  
Old March 18th 08, 04:49 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.homebuilt
Jay Maynard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 521
Default A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

On 2008-03-18, Highflyer wrote:
The FAA did precisely that with the S-LSA certification process. It greatly
simplified the proof and oversight needed to ensure an adequate standard for
aircraft that cannot endanger a lot of unsuspecting people. That is why
they limited them to slower airspeeds and lighter weights as well as two
places. They are also only allowed to fly Daytime and by Visual flight
rules.


Not true. They can fly IFR or night VFR if properly equipped. That's one big
reason I wound up with a Zodiac XLi. The key is that no part of the aircraft
must have manufacturer's instructions prohibiting night or IFR operations,
and their equipment must meet the minimum standards of the rules. This
means, for example, that the aircraft must not be powered by a Rotax 912ULS
or Jabiru 3300, both of which have manufacturer's instructions limiting them
to day VFR.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)
  #3  
Old March 18th 08, 05:26 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.homebuilt
Steve Hix
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 340
Default A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

In article ,
Jay Maynard wrote:

On 2008-03-18, Highflyer wrote:
The FAA did precisely that with the S-LSA certification process. It
greatly
simplified the proof and oversight needed to ensure an adequate standard
for
aircraft that cannot endanger a lot of unsuspecting people. That is why
they limited them to slower airspeeds and lighter weights as well as two
places. They are also only allowed to fly Daytime and by Visual flight
rules.


Not true. They can fly IFR or night VFR if properly equipped.


As long as you have a Private Pilot rating, or above.

That's one big
reason I wound up with a Zodiac XLi. The key is that no part of the aircraft
must have manufacturer's instructions prohibiting night or IFR operations,
and their equipment must meet the minimum standards of the rules. This
means, for example, that the aircraft must not be powered by a Rotax 912ULS
or Jabiru 3300, both of which have manufacturer's instructions limiting them
to day VFR.

  #4  
Old March 18th 08, 05:39 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.homebuilt
jan olieslagers[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 232
Default A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

Steve Hix schreef:
In article ,
Jay Maynard wrote:

On 2008-03-18, Highflyer wrote:
The FAA did precisely that with the S-LSA certification process. It
greatly
simplified the proof and oversight needed to ensure an adequate standard
for
aircraft that cannot endanger a lot of unsuspecting people. That is why
they limited them to slower airspeeds and lighter weights as well as two
places. They are also only allowed to fly Daytime and by Visual flight
rules.

Not true. They can fly IFR or night VFR if properly equipped.


As long as you have a Private Pilot rating, or above.


This was about plane certification, not about pilot rating.
  #5  
Old March 18th 08, 03:28 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.homebuilt
Steve Hix
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 340
Default A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

In article ,
jan olieslagers wrote:

Steve Hix schreef:
In article ,
Jay Maynard wrote:

On 2008-03-18, Highflyer wrote:
The FAA did precisely that with the S-LSA certification process. It
greatly
simplified the proof and oversight needed to ensure an adequate standard
for
aircraft that cannot endanger a lot of unsuspecting people. That is why
they limited them to slower airspeeds and lighter weights as well as two
places. They are also only allowed to fly Daytime and by Visual flight
rules.
Not true. They can fly IFR or night VFR if properly equipped.


As long as you have a Private Pilot rating, or above.


This was about plane certification, not about pilot rating.


Nevertheless, whether or not you can legally fly one at night or in IFR
conditions is dependent on pilot rating as well as installed equipment.

Things may be different on your side of the pond, but SLSA applies over
here, and pilot certification affects legal use.
  #6  
Old March 18th 08, 02:34 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.homebuilt
Peter Dohm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,754
Default A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jay Maynard wrote:

On 2008-03-18, Highflyer wrote:
The FAA did precisely that with the S-LSA certification process. It
greatly
simplified the proof and oversight needed to ensure an adequate
standard
for
aircraft that cannot endanger a lot of unsuspecting people. That is
why
they limited them to slower airspeeds and lighter weights as well as
two
places. They are also only allowed to fly Daytime and by Visual flight
rules.


Not true. They can fly IFR or night VFR if properly equipped.


As long as you have a Private Pilot rating, or above.

That's one big
reason I wound up with a Zodiac XLi. The key is that no part of the
aircraft
must have manufacturer's instructions prohibiting night or IFR
operations,
and their equipment must meet the minimum standards of the rules. This
means, for example, that the aircraft must not be powered by a Rotax
912ULS
or Jabiru 3300, both of which have manufacturer's instructions limiting
them
to day VFR.


I am not sure of the phrasing on that last part, regarding the engines; but
engine and propeller combinations not certified under parts 34 and 35 (IIRC)
are not supposed to be approved for night IFR.

Several contributors here are much more knowledgeable of the specifics.

Peter



  #7  
Old March 18th 08, 06:27 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.homebuilt
Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 428
Default A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

Peter Dohm wrote:

I am not sure of the phrasing on that last part, regarding the engines; but
engine and propeller combinations not certified under parts 34 and 35 (IIRC)
are not supposed to be approved for night IFR.

Several contributors here are much more knowledgeable of the specifics.

Peter




The SLSA version of the 601XL built by AMD can be flown both IFR and VFR
day or night. It all depends on your ticket.
  #8  
Old March 18th 08, 09:34 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.homebuilt
Peter Dohm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,754
Default A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote in message
...
Peter Dohm wrote:

I am not sure of the phrasing on that last part, regarding the engines;
but engine and propeller combinations not certified under parts 34 and 35
(IIRC) are not supposed to be approved for night IFR.

Several contributors here are much more knowledgeable of the specifics.

Peter




The SLSA version of the 601XL built by AMD can be flown both IFR and VFR
day or night. It all depends on your ticket.


I took a look on their web site, and saw that they are using the Continental
O-200, which appears to be consistant with what I supposed.

Peter


  #9  
Old March 18th 08, 09:46 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.homebuilt
Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 428
Default A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

Peter Dohm wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote in message
...
Peter Dohm wrote:

I am not sure of the phrasing on that last part, regarding the engines;
but engine and propeller combinations not certified under parts 34 and 35
(IIRC) are not supposed to be approved for night IFR.

Several contributors here are much more knowledgeable of the specifics.

Peter



The SLSA version of the 601XL built by AMD can be flown both IFR and VFR
day or night. It all depends on your ticket.


I took a look on their web site, and saw that they are using the Continental
O-200, which appears to be consistant with what I supposed.

Peter




But I don't think that particular Sensenich propeller is certified.
  #10  
Old March 18th 08, 09:54 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.homebuilt
Jay Maynard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 521
Default A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

On 2008-03-18, Peter Dohm wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote in message
...
The SLSA version of the 601XL built by AMD can be flown both IFR and VFR
day or night. It all depends on your ticket.

I took a look on their web site, and saw that they are using the Continental
O-200, which appears to be consistant with what I supposed.


The certificated version of the O-200, and a certificated Sensenich
composite prop, and TSO'd instruments and avionics. There are only two LSAs
(well, the other one's actually a family of closely related aircraft) that
meet those requirements, the other one being the Tecnam Bravo/Sierra.
There's at least one LSA manufacturer that claims LSAs can't be legally
flown IFR, but I strongly suspect that's because they don't offer one.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven Jim Logajan Piloting 181 May 1st 08 03:14 AM
Flew home and boy are my arms tired! Steve Schneider Owning 11 September 5th 07 12:16 AM
ASW-19 Moment Arms jcarlyle Soaring 9 January 30th 06 10:52 PM
[!] Russian Arms software sale Naval Aviation 0 December 18th 04 05:51 PM
Dick VanGrunsven commutes to aviation Fitzair4 Home Built 2 August 12th 04 11:19 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.