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 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
On Mar 7, 10:07*pm, "Morgans" wrote:
"William Hung" wrote I agree with you to a certain point. *I think that there arepeople out there who are better off having 'one made for them' than to have them make it themselves. *I know people will say, 'so let them get a certified one!' *Well... just well... They still have the freedom to go out and buy an experimental that was constructed by someone else, under the rights allowed the person that built it, as educational/recreational. Until the regulations are change to allow people to build airplanes for hire, and not have to be certified, that is the only way to go, except the limitations of LSA. You don't like a reg, get it changed. *You don't have the right to screw it up for me, when I decide to build-legally, under the current amateur built provisions. -- Jim in NC It's not that I don't like the reg or wanting them changed, I just want to be able to get help on my project if I get to a point where I think, 'Hey maybe I'm not so confident about doing this part myself'. I am still thinking about building my own plane, but that time hasn't yet arrived. I can see stol's point of view that there are people out there with more money than brains. People who pay pros to do their work an claiming credit for it. Those people are slimeballs, I agree. Wil |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
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 |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
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! |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 02:50:33 GMT, Dale Scroggins wrote:
I realize this is probably an unpopular opinion among the majority of armature aircraft builders, but emotional jealousy of those able to afford commissioning the construction of an aircraft, I fail to find an _objective_ reason for homebuilders' objections. What am I missing? Your frontal lobes, from all appearances... Amusing Rich, sorta, but I find no argument that can untrack Larry's. None. -- How about this argument: Until a century or so ago, a landowner held rights from the center of the earth to the heavens. Nothing could pass over his land without his permission. Since there were no aircraft, the issue didn't come up very often. When flight became possible, this property theory was changed to allow overflight; however, overflight was not a right given by God, but a negotiated privilege enforced by governments through legislation and courts. Because flying over other people's property without permission has never been a right, and certainly was not even a privilege at the time the Constitution was written, how do you libertarians come up with any basis for arguing that the government has limited authority in regulating aviation? Aviation would not exist in this country without government action. In the U.S., with a few exceptions, flying machines need Airworthiness Certificates to fly. Airworthiness Certificates are issued by the government. They are not issued or denied arbitrarily. If you do not wish to meet requirements for issue of an Airworthiness Certificate, your home-built project could be a nice static display. That is the ultimate penalty for ignoring or circumventing requirements. Dale Scroggins Thx, I understand the federal and statutory history but, I don't believe, that is the issue here. Here is my personal example. I don't have the expertise or time to kit or plan build. These planes are, at least, the equivalent or superior to the major manufacturers. If they are not, then I don't understand why the FAA would allow them. Yet I can't buy a completely built kit/plans plane. If this isn't to control the entry plane market place (or the maj mfgs market), then why is the restriction imposed. I understand all the philosophical and why ppl have immense pride in their own-builds but that is not relevant to the issue at hand. Cessna goes to China to get the Skyscraper at a reasonable price. Yet we have USA built planes off better value that are restricted from my purchase because I can't flip fiberglass? -- Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either! |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
In rec.aviation.piloting WJRFlyBoy wrote:
Yet I can't buy a completely built kit/plans plane. Sure you can. See any airplanes for sale web site. You just can't buy one and have the same privilges as the original builder. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
WJRFlyBoy wrote:
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 02:50:33 GMT, Dale Scroggins wrote: I realize this is probably an unpopular opinion among the majority of armature aircraft builders, but emotional jealousy of those able to afford commissioning the construction of an aircraft, I fail to find an _objective_ reason for homebuilders' objections. What am I missing? Your frontal lobes, from all appearances... Amusing Rich, sorta, but I find no argument that can untrack Larry's. None. -- How about this argument: Until a century or so ago, a landowner held rights from the center of the earth to the heavens. Nothing could pass over his land without his permission. Since there were no aircraft, the issue didn't come up very often. When flight became possible, this property theory was changed to allow overflight; however, overflight was not a right given by God, but a negotiated privilege enforced by governments through legislation and courts. Because flying over other people's property without permission has never been a right, and certainly was not even a privilege at the time the Constitution was written, how do you libertarians come up with any basis for arguing that the government has limited authority in regulating aviation? Aviation would not exist in this country without government action. In the U.S., with a few exceptions, flying machines need Airworthiness Certificates to fly. Airworthiness Certificates are issued by the government. They are not issued or denied arbitrarily. If you do not wish to meet requirements for issue of an Airworthiness Certificate, your home-built project could be a nice static display. That is the ultimate penalty for ignoring or circumventing requirements. Dale Scroggins Thx, I understand the federal and statutory history but, I don't believe, that is the issue here. Here is my personal example. I don't have the expertise or time to kit or plan build. These planes are, at least, the equivalent or superior to the major manufacturers. If they are not, then I don't understand why the FAA would allow them. Yet I can't buy a completely built kit/plans plane. If this isn't to control the entry plane market place (or the maj mfgs market), then why is the restriction imposed. I understand all the philosophical and why ppl have immense pride in their own-builds but that is not relevant to the issue at hand. Cessna goes to China to get the Skyscraper at a reasonable price. Yet we have USA built planes off better value that are restricted from my purchase because I can't flip fiberglass? Actually, jst to keep the record straight, you CAN buy an X-AB airplane. But the biulder can not build and register another of the same kind. That puts him in unfair competition with the certified manufacturers who went to the expense and trouble to certify their airplanes. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 00:46:47 -0600, cavelamb himself wrote:
Thx, I understand the federal and statutory history but, I don't believe, that is the issue here. Here is my personal example. I don't have the expertise or time to kit or plan build. These planes are, at least, the equivalent or superior to the major manufacturers. If they are not, then I don't understand why the FAA would allow them. Yet I can't buy a completely built kit/plans plane. If this isn't to control the entry plane market place (or the maj mfgs market), then why is the restriction imposed. I understand all the philosophical and why ppl have immense pride in their own-builds but that is not relevant to the issue at hand. Cessna goes to China to get the Skyscraper at a reasonable price. Yet we have USA built planes off better value that are restricted from my purchase because I can't flip fiberglass? Actually, jst to keep the record straight, you CAN buy an X-AB airplane. But the biulder can not build and register another of the same kind. That puts him in unfair competition with the certified manufacturers who went to the expense and trouble to certify their airplanes. Appreciate the comment. If certification has value, why does this put him in unfair competition? -- Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either! |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
WJRFlyBoy wrote:
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 00:46:47 -0600, cavelamb himself wrote: Thx, I understand the federal and statutory history but, I don't believe, that is the issue here. Here is my personal example. I don't have the expertise or time to kit or plan build. These planes are, at least, the equivalent or superior to the major manufacturers. If they are not, then I don't understand why the FAA would allow them. Yet I can't buy a completely built kit/plans plane. If this isn't to control the entry plane market place (or the maj mfgs market), then why is the restriction imposed. I understand all the philosophical and why ppl have immense pride in their own-builds but that is not relevant to the issue at hand. Cessna goes to China to get the Skyscraper at a reasonable price. Yet we have USA built planes off better value that are restricted from my purchase because I can't flip fiberglass? Actually, jst to keep the record straight, you CAN buy an X-AB airplane. But the biulder can not build and register another of the same kind. That puts him in unfair competition with the certified manufacturers who went to the expense and trouble to certify their airplanes. Appreciate the comment. If certification has value, why does this put him in unfair competition? Because it takes time and money. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |