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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
FAA crack down on "professional builders"
"flybynightkarmarepair" wrote in message oups.com... Hired Guns (or to put a finer point on it, the potential for cut-rate, slipshod operators in that field) are a potential threat to that part of my life. Better we, the Sport Aviation movement, get our own house in order, than have external actors force changes down our throat, eh? I'm not sure you're speaking to me here as I never suggested you should "get a life". I really did not get all the way through your post, I usually tune out as soon as I read something akin to "if you don't like it, go somewhere else" or "commie", posts seldom recover from that sort of thing. Here in Canada we have classes of ownership that you are denied such as owner maintenance and homebuilt. Both seem to be working out well enough. The hired builder does not have to be any better or worse than the approved mechanic, Lord knows there are enough shysters out there with all the credentials you can obtain. Sadly the paper does not constitute any guarantee. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
FAA crack down on "professional builders"
flybynightkarmarepair wrote:
Dave wrote: "Drew Dalgleish" wrote in message ... On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 21:21:21 GMT, "Dave" wrote: In Canada the rules have been changed so you can legally use a hired gun to build your plane. You better have deep pockets though. I know that rules are different here, I just noted a fair amount of anger about the concept of builders and figured that the rules weren't cast in stone, why not update them. Then I got a long rant about Russia and commies, go figure. IMHO, they need to be updated - sorry if I went on a bit. But it's a historical fact that the rules we live under now in the USA WERE enacted in a Cold War, Red Scare context. That WAS the Window of Oppurtunity Neil Bogardus flew the Little Gee Bee through. have no doubt HIS would be safer. I belive you mean George Bogardus |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
FAA crack down on "professional builders"
Jerry springer wrote:
flybynightkarmarepair wrote: Dave wrote: "Drew Dalgleish" wrote in message ... On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 21:21:21 GMT, "Dave" wrote: In Canada the rules have been changed so you can legally use a hired gun to build your plane. You better have deep pockets though. I know that rules are different here, I just noted a fair amount of anger about the concept of builders and figured that the rules weren't cast in stone, why not update them. Then I got a long rant about Russia and commies, go figure. IMHO, they need to be updated - sorry if I went on a bit. But it's a historical fact that the rules we live under now in the USA WERE enacted in a Cold War, Red Scare context. That WAS the Window of Oppurtunity Neil Bogardus flew the Little Gee Bee through. have no doubt HIS would be safer. I belive you mean George Bogardus Some additional information can be found here on George's The Little Gee Bee. http://www.eaa105.org/History/history.htm the restoration on the little Gee Bee is now pretty much complete and it is setting in Van's hangar. in the url is some good early information about Van as well and the history of his first RV-3. There is even a picture of me standing by my old VW powered Mini Coupe, man I was skinny in the early 70's. Jerry |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
FAA crack down on "professional builders"
Jerry springer wrote: flybynightkarmarepair wrote: But it's a historical fact that the rules we live under now in the USA WERE enacted in a Cold War, Red Scare context. That WAS the Window of Oppurtunity Neil Bogardus flew the Little Gee Bee through. I belive you mean George Bogardus Right! More he http://www.bowersflybaby.com/stories/story.HTM Key graf: "Prior to the war, reaction against homebuilt aircraft had caused them to be banned in every state except Oregon. Bogardus wanted the CAA to implement a new certification category that would overrule the state limitations." Getting the Hired Gun house in order will hopefully avoid another reaction, this time on the national level. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
FAA crack down on "professional builders"
On 8 Oct 2006 10:05:03 -0700, "flybynightkarmarepair"
wrote: Jerry springer wrote: flybynightkarmarepair wrote: But it's a historical fact that the rules we live under now in the USA WERE enacted in a Cold War, Red Scare context. That WAS the Window of Oppurtunity Neil Bogardus flew the Little Gee Bee through. I belive you mean George Bogardus Right! More he http://www.bowersflybaby.com/stories/story.HTM Key graf: "Prior to the war, reaction against homebuilt aircraft had caused them to be banned in every state except Oregon. Bogardus wanted the CAA to implement a new certification category that would overrule the state limitations." Getting the Hired Gun house in order will hopefully avoid another reaction, this time on the national level. Although I can't afford to hire some one to build for me, I don't see a so called "hired gun" any different than purchasing a used home built. One of the main reasons for building is being able to do your own maintenance. Whether you hire one built or purchase used you do not have that option. Purchasing used or having some one build it for you comes with a lot of drawbacks. You can't do your own maintenance and quite a few FBOs don't want to work on them. As I see it, the hired gun approach is expensive. The owner is going to spend nearly as much if not more than they would for a certificated plane and probably have more capabilities than they could buy. The Comp10 was listed earlier. Building something like that is not much different than building a Glasair or Lancair, but probably more like the two and 4 seat glasair bush plane (forgot the name). I'd *guess* it'd probably be easier than the G-III and probably the Lancair 320-360, and IV series. Bigger doesn't necessarily mean more difficult to build, particularly when it's over a steel tube frame. I never have figured out why any one would want to built a comp 10 except as a conversation piece. :-)) The 6-place with a PT-6 and the rear seats thrown out could be a lot of fun though. Now the issue of the hired gun itself: Does any one have any statistics on just how many have gone beyond the basic builder's center help? I doubt it's many. I strongly believe the week or two basic builder's center help is something every first time builder should take advantage of "If they can afford it" because in those two weeks they'll learn all the basic techniques to do a good job and put them to use. Me? Something like that could have saved me many hours of trial and error learning and yes, I'm building one of those aerobatic capable hot rods. There is an unofficial POH and I've had one of them pulling 3 1/2 to 4 Gs at the listed Vne, not Va. I know that particular plane had been tested far beyond what I was doing so I was not concerned. Chip Beck used to enter the vertical 8 (one loop on top of the other) way over that listed Vne and he was pulling far more Gs than I. :-)) OTOH he has a lot more skill too. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
FAA crack down on "professional builders"
Jerry springer wrote: Some additional information can be found here on George's The Little Gee Bee. http://www.eaa105.org/History/history.htm the restoration on the little Gee Bee is now pretty much complete and it is setting in Van's hangar. in the url is some good early information about Van as well and the history of his first RV-3. There is even a picture of me standing by my old VW powered Mini Coupe, man I was skinny in the early 70's. It looks like there is a real good article in the April/May 2006 Air and Space Magazine on George and the Little Gee Bee. http://www.airspacemag.com/issues/20...ay/beltway.php I'll check it out at the library and report back. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
FAA crack down on "professional builders"
On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 23:29:41 -0400, "Roger (K8RI)" wrote:
Although I can't afford to hire some one to build for me, I don't see a so called "hired gun" any different than purchasing a used home built. One of the main reasons for building is being able to do your own maintenance. Whether you hire one built or purchase used you do not have that option. Not quite true. Anyone can *maintain* a homebuilt aircraft. The annual condition inspection, however, must be performed by a qualified individual (A&P or the Repairman Certificate for that aircraft). The biggest problem in the "hired gun" building is the perjury that is entailed if the owner certifies it in the Experimental/Amateur-Built category. The FAA needs a new subcategory equivalent to Amateur-Built...."Custom-Built" or some similar verbiage. No 51% rule, no Repairman Certificates, maintenance can be performed by owner, annuals must be by A&P. Manufacturer's name on the registration to be listed as the actual name (e.g., no corporations or other liability dodges) of the primary builder. If certified parts are used, they have full AD vulnerability. If a non-certified engine is used, again, the builder's name is listed as the engine manufacturer. I'd couple this with some additional restrictions on Experimental Amateur-Built to force things back to Education/Recreation. Maybe scale back some of the recent 51% rule interpretations. Maybe eliminate turbine engines, turbochargers, and pressurization, or just limit them to planes of two seats or less. Ron Wanttaja |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
FAA crack down on "professional builders"
"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
... On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 23:29:41 -0400, "Roger (K8RI)" wrote: Although I can't afford to hire some one to build for me, I don't see a so called "hired gun" any different than purchasing a used home built. One of the main reasons for building is being able to do your own maintenance. Whether you hire one built or purchase used you do not have that option. Not quite true. Anyone can *maintain* a homebuilt aircraft. The annual condition inspection, however, must be performed by a qualified individual (A&P or the Repairman Certificate for that aircraft). The biggest problem in the "hired gun" building is the perjury that is entailed if the owner certifies it in the Experimental/Amateur-Built category. The FAA needs a new subcategory equivalent to Amateur-Built...."Custom-Built" or some similar verbiage. No 51% rule, no Repairman Certificates, maintenance can be performed by owner, annuals must be by A&P. Manufacturer's name on the registration to be listed as the actual name (e.g., no corporations or other liability dodges) of the primary builder. If certified parts are used, they have full AD vulnerability. If a non-certified engine is used, again, the builder's name is listed as the engine manufacturer. I'd couple this with some additional restrictions on Experimental Amateur-Built to force things back to Education/Recreation. Maybe scale back some of the recent 51% rule interpretations. Maybe eliminate turbine engines, turbochargers, and pressurization, or just limit them to planes of two seats or less. Ron Wanttaja Actually, IIRC, an owner can /maintain/ a certified aircraft as well. There is a pubished list of approved owner performed maintenance steps--provided that the appropriate parts, tools, manuals, and procedures are used. However, in the case of type cerficicated aircraft, a mechanic with IA must inspect and sign-off repairs and periodic condition inspections--and a professional mechanic or apprentice /usually/ performs the work as well. I see no reason to change the current interpretation of the 51% rule, requiring the /builder/ to gain and demonstrate proficiency and successfull completion of 51% of the work steps. IMHO, most of the griping has little to do with safety and much to do with jealousy. Therefore, I say "get over it." Peter |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
FAA crack down on "professional builders"
Ron Wanttaja wrote:
The biggest problem in the "hired gun" building is the perjury that is entailed if the owner certifies it in the Experimental/Amateur-Built category. The FAA needs a new subcategory equivalent to Amateur-Built...."Custom-Built" or some similar verbiage. No 51% rule, no Repairman Certificates, maintenance can be performed by owner, annuals must be by A&P. Like ELSA without the LSA restrictions. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
FAA crack down on "professional builders"
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 10:32:31 -0400, "Peter Dohm" wrote:
Actually, IIRC, an owner can /maintain/ a certified aircraft as well. There is a pubished list of approved owner performed maintenance steps--provided that the appropriate parts, tools, manuals, and procedures are used. However, in the case of type cerficicated aircraft, a mechanic with IA must inspect and sign-off repairs and periodic condition inspections--and a professional mechanic or apprentice /usually/ performs the work as well. The owner of a certified aircraft can perform *certain* tasks with no supervision or other signoff...the list of preventative maintenance tasks spelled out in Appendix A of 14CFR Part 43. As you say, the owner can perform any other maintenance task as well, but the aircraft cannot be flown until a certified individual takes responsibility for the work. In contrast, no such signoff is needed for a homebuilt. Anyone can perform major alterations and repairs and return the aircraft to service. I can (and have...) do work like removing an engine cylinder or replace major airframe components on a homebuilt and signed off the work myself. The only thing I have to be concerned about is whether the A&P performing the annual condition inspection (up to a year later) will consider the airplane still airworthy. The amount of difference this makes depends on one's individual circumstances. Some owners have good friends who are A&Ps. To them, there's little difference between Experimental and Certified, other than the need to use approved parts. Ron Wanttaja |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Crash investigators find crack in plane's wing | Marc CYBW | Piloting | 4 | December 22nd 05 05:59 AM |
Crack maintenance crew working on helicopter. | Fred the Red Shirt | Military Aviation | 1 | August 17th 04 12:26 AM |
Canopy crack repair | Pete Brown | Soaring | 0 | May 18th 04 03:09 AM |
FS2004 CRACK | Jerry Morgan | Simulators | 16 | March 1st 04 04:44 PM |