![]() |
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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:46:14 -0500, Jim Logajan
wrote: Jim Logajan wrote: Stealth Pilot wrote: why not ask for the regs to be expanded to accomodate the commercial builders of uncertified aircraft. I think that has been suggested to the FAA - Dick VanGrunsven wrote an article that mentions that: http://www.eaa.org/govt/building_lookback.asp Quick followup to my own post: The ARC does appear to have recommended such a thing but... "At the Summit meeting, Associate Administrator for Safety Nick Sabatini said that there's currently "a clear distinction between type certificated and amateur-built. To put another layer in there and say it's commercially available will prompt questions regarding safety that becomes a difficult conversation."" ... "Conversely, the FAA said that allowing commercial building of a kit aircraft and calling it a homebuilt could adversely affect Part 23- certifcated aircraft manufacturers." From: http://www.eaa.org/news/2008/2008-02-06_summit.asp Bottom line: (1) The FAA associate admin for safety doesn't like the idea of another category for reasons he doesn't wish, or is unable, to articulate. It is difficult if not impossible to argue when "no reason is given." (2) If the EAA article is correct, the FAA appears to have explicitly stated that they are trying to protect Part 23 manufacturers. Which member of the FAA stated this is not mentioned. my point is that guys like vaughn need to point the finger to the problem you highlight in the FAA argument, not unwittingly let them destroy a growing area of commercial activity. why does this interest me all the way around on the other side of the world. our regulators are so clueless that they do a donkey act everytime and blindly follow yours. to get ours fixed we need to be vigilant on matters in america. as I see it... any new technology starts out as a set of gurus developing it from scratch. all the knowledge is in their heads. the second phase of commercialisation involves spreading the understanding and creating a market. gurus are still in the lead but others are picking up the knowledge as well and it is becoming published. the third phase involves the technology becoming widely understood and becoming a part of everyday life. there is no longer a need for gurus because everyone understands it. computing is now pretty well in the third phase. aviation is locked in the second phase by regulation. it will have a permanent future if we can get it into the third phase. locked in the second phase will mean it will die like the steam engine. thanks for the research Jim. Stealth Pilot |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
2008 Proposed US Competition Rules Changes | [email protected] | Soaring | 18 | December 31st 07 07:21 PM |
Flight Restrictions on non-amateur built experimental aircraft?? | Don W | Home Built | 9 | April 20th 07 11:23 PM |
US Contest Rules Proposed Changes for 2006 | Ken Sorenson | Soaring | 18 | January 12th 06 04:30 PM |
clever amateur built placard mods | Joa | Home Built | 5 | January 8th 04 08:10 AM |
restrictions on Amateur built aircraft | Rob | Home Built | 3 | October 20th 03 08:37 PM |