FAA releases final report on changes to amateur-built aircraft rules

The PDF document of the committee's final report is he

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/u...008_report.pdf

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:31:14 -0500, Jim Logajan
wrote:

The PDF document of the committee's final report is he

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/u...008_report.pdf

thanks for posting this Jim.

as a interested non american can I pass some comments.

you americans have gone off on a tangent. you've forgotten what is
important here.
much of what is in this determination and the regs it relates to is
nonsense.

safe amateur construction is about the resulting aircraft being
structurally adequate for flight and having flight dynamics such that
the pilot can actually fly the aircraft.

the 50 or 51% rule is a total irrelevance. it has no direct
correlation with safety or structural adequacy.
in fact forcing a builder to do a poorer job than an expert who might
assist is plain stupid in safety terms.

the worry that people will bypass the certified manufacturing system
is just a stupid imposition of wills argument. why the hell are you
seeking to stifle enterprise? the actual requirement is that people
put structurally adequate aircraft into the air. how they do it is
only relevant if you are a jealous little dweeb.
why the worry about this? for heavens sake Cessna is about to market
the Dreamcatcher, an aircraft made in the sweatshops of china.
you havent worried about that and yet you support the stupid argument
that people can only build in the manner prescribed by a 1930's safety
approach.

if you dont frame your legislation in terms of the structural adequacy
of the final aircraft you've missed the point entirely.
the 51% rule is a crock, a legal convenience used by a judge in a
determination, why you've made this into a religion is beyond thinking
people.

sorry but you guys have missed the boat entirely with this thinking.
hopefully it wont take the rest of the century before you realise.

Stealth Pilot

"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:31:14 -0500, Jim Logajan
wrote:

The PDF document of the committee's final report is he

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/u...008_report.pdf

thanks for posting this Jim.

as a interested non american can I pass some comments.

you americans have gone off on a tangent. you've forgotten what is
important here.
much of what is in this determination and the regs it relates to is
nonsense.

safe amateur construction is about the resulting aircraft being
structurally adequate for flight and having flight dynamics such that
the pilot can actually fly the aircraft.

the 50 or 51% rule is a total irrelevance. it has no direct
correlation with safety or structural adequacy.
in fact forcing a builder to do a poorer job than an expert who might
assist is plain stupid in safety terms.

the worry that people will bypass the certified manufacturing system
is just a stupid imposition of wills argument. why the hell are you
seeking to stifle enterprise? the actual requirement is that people
put structurally adequate aircraft into the air. how they do it is
only relevant if you are a jealous little dweeb.
why the worry about this? for heavens sake Cessna is about to market
the Dreamcatcher, an aircraft made in the sweatshops of china.
you havent worried about that and yet you support the stupid argument
that people can only build in the manner prescribed by a 1930's safety
approach.

if you dont frame your legislation in terms of the structural adequacy
of the final aircraft you've missed the point entirely.
the 51% rule is a crock, a legal convenience used by a judge in a
determination, why you've made this into a religion is beyond thinking
people.

sorry but you guys have missed the boat entirely with this thinking.
hopefully it wont take the rest of the century before you realise.

Stealth Pilot

Hey Stealth Pilot: Take a look at the turbine powered rotorcraft
requirements. The Feds want some Inspection plan for the turbine engine and
totally ignore the two stroke powered ships and the seizure problems that
these engines have demonstrated. It seems that we have a need to stick some
rules out there just to maintain our position of authority. It doesn't seem
to matter if those rules make us look more stupid and actually engender more
tendencies to ignore or bypass the Feds. The need to control exceeds the
need to make sense.

On Sep 23, 11:56*am, Stealth Pilot wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:31:14 -0500, Jim Logajan
wrote:

The PDF document of the committee's final report is he

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/u...built/media/AR...

thanks for posting this Jim.

as a interested non american can I pass some comments.

you americans have gone off on a tangent. you've forgotten what is
important here.
much of what is in this determination and the regs it relates to is
nonsense.

safe amateur construction is about the resulting aircraft being
structurally adequate for flight and having flight dynamics such that
the pilot can actually fly the aircraft.

the 50 or 51% rule is a total irrelevance. it has no direct
correlation with safety or structural adequacy.
in fact forcing a builder to do a poorer job than an expert who might
assist is plain stupid in safety terms.

the worry that people will bypass the certified manufacturing system
is just a stupid imposition of wills argument. why the hell are you
seeking to stifle enterprise? the actual requirement is that people
put structurally adequate aircraft into the air. how they do it is
only relevant if you are a jealous little dweeb.
why the worry about this? for heavens sake Cessna is about to market
the Dreamcatcher, an aircraft made in the sweatshops of china.
you havent worried about that and yet you support the stupid argument
that people can only build in the manner prescribed by a 1930's safety
approach.

if you dont frame your legislation in terms of the structural adequacy
of the final aircraft you've missed the point entirely.
the 51% rule is a crock, a legal convenience used by a judge in a
determination, why you've made this into a religion is beyond thinking
people.

sorry but you guys have missed the boat entirely with this thinking.
hopefully it wont take the rest of the century before you realise.

Stealth Pilot

Believe me when I state that we know and must accept that our burro-
craps don't have a clue but in the interest of maintaining employment
we are forced to accept them.

"Stu Fields" wrote in message ...

The need to control exceeds the need to make sense.


This is the definition of government in the USA

In article ,
"Dan D" wrote:

"Stu Fields" wrote in message
...

The need to control exceeds the need to make sense.


This is the definition of government in the USA

This is a general tendency of governments everywhere throughout history.

Stealth Pilot wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
The PDF document of the committee's final report is he

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/u...ilt/media/ARC_
FINAL_2008_report.pdf

thanks for posting this Jim.

as a interested non american can I pass some comments.

you americans have gone off on a tangent.

I'd agree that the U.S. government has gone off on a tangent on amateur
built aircraft, but the tangent actually took place quite a few decades
ago. This is just continuing fallout from an attempt to claim back some
freedom.

safe amateur construction is about the resulting aircraft being
structurally adequate for flight and having flight dynamics such that
the pilot can actually fly the aircraft.

Actually, I believe it was appeals for more safety that effectively
outlawed flight of amateur built aircraft for several decades in most of
the U.S. back in the 1920s. Don't know what the history was like in your
country - maybe you guys lucked out or kept your government at bay
somehow.

I think that historically, mixing "government" with appeals to "safety"
yields patronizing tyranny in any part of the universe. So I now think it
is better to argue for freedom to make mistakes than argue for safety!

the 50 or 51% rule is a total irrelevance. it has no direct
correlation with safety or structural adequacy.

True - but the exception that was finally carved out of the previous
oppressive U.S. state and CAA/(later FAA) regulations uses the phrase
"major portion" and that has yielded the 51% interpretation.

in fact forcing a builder to do a poorer job than an expert who might
assist is plain stupid in safety terms.

Let's not go there again! :-) Some of us want our freedoms, not
protection from ourselves! Else, what is the point of life?

the worry that people will bypass the certified manufacturing system
is just a stupid imposition of wills argument. why the hell are you
seeking to stifle enterprise? the actual requirement is that people
put structurally adequate aircraft into the air. how they do it is
only relevant if you are a jealous little dweeb.

By "you" I assume you mean "your government". I don't disagree with the
general thrust of your points. I'm all for keeping civilized thuggery (my
own term for "government") to a minimum.

why the worry about this? for heavens sake Cessna is about to market
the Dreamcatcher, an aircraft made in the sweatshops of china.
you havent worried about that and yet you support the stupid argument
that people can only build in the manner prescribed by a 1930's safety
approach.

I think this whole issue came up because the FAA has to periodically
justify their budget requests. The problem could have been dealt with in
other ways, but their proposed rule changes would have allowed an
expansion of their duties. Since "eternal vigilance is the price of
freedom," our own alphabet soup of private organizations had to deal with
this encroachment on this particular liberty.

The fight, alas, will never complete.

if you dont frame your legislation in terms of the structural adequacy
of the final aircraft you've missed the point entirely.
the 51% rule is a crock, a legal convenience used by a judge in a
determination, why you've made this into a religion is beyond thinking
people.

I don't agree with that line of argument. That is because there is a
class of machines known as ultralights where U.S. citizens don't have to
prove anything about either the safety of the aircraft or the pilots. It
is a good freedom, though very tiny and circumscribed. I'd rather the
ultralight safety record be improved by self-serving actions of its
participants so that it can act as argument _against_ the need for
civilized patronizing thuggery (i.e. more government regs.)

sorry but you guys have missed the boat entirely with this thinking.
hopefully it wont take the rest of the century before you realise.

There is a lot of civilized organized thuggery and many patrons who
benefit from it, so it may take more than a century to roll any of it
back. :-(

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
The PDF document of the committee's final report is he


http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/u...008_report.pdf

Some years ago I read that the reason for the requirement that the
majority of work building an experimental/homebuilt aircraft was to
insure the builder "learned" something. That it was to be an educational
experience. Can't find any mention of it today. It used to be they same
for amateur radio as well. We actually built radios, antennas from plans
and schematics and at a later time from Heathkits, etc. Does anyone else
remember the educational requirement and if so when it was no longer
mentioned?

--
A man is known by the company he keeps- Unknown

Anyolmouse

Anyolmouse wrote:

Some years ago I read that the reason for the requirement that the
majority of work building an experimental/homebuilt aircraft was to
insure the builder "learned" something. That it was to be an educational
experience. Can't find any mention of it today. It used to be they same
for amateur radio as well. We actually built radios, antennas from plans
and schematics and at a later time from Heathkits, etc. Does anyone else
remember the educational requirement and if so when it was no longer
mentioned?

I don't believe there was ever solely a education requirement.

The 51% rule came about because some folks were taking production
airplanes, modifying them, and registering them a Experimental
Amateur-Built. The Nelson N-4 was an example:

http://www.nvva.nl/renekrul/catalogs...elson.n14n.jpg

Basically, it was a cut-down J-3, converted to a shoulder-wing single
seater.

Probably wasn't that big of a deal when it was just an occasional owner,
but I suspect some folks started doing this commercially as a way to
bypass the STC process. Hence the requirement that the majority of the
construction had to be done for "Education or Recreation."

Ron Wanttaja

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...
Anyolmouse wrote:

Some years ago I read that the reason for the requirement that the
majority of work building an experimental/homebuilt aircraft was to
insure the builder "learned" something. That it was to be an
educational
experience. Can't find any mention of it today. It used to be they
same
for amateur radio as well. We actually built radios, antennas from
plans
and schematics and at a later time from Heathkits, etc. Does anyone
else
remember the educational requirement and if so when it was no longer
mentioned?

I don't believe there was ever solely a education requirement.

The 51% rule came about because some folks were taking production
airplanes, modifying them, and registering them a Experimental
Amateur-Built. The Nelson N-4 was an example:

http://www.nvva.nl/renekrul/catalogs...elson.n14n.jpg

Basically, it was a cut-down J-3, converted to a shoulder-wing single
seater.

Probably wasn't that big of a deal when it was just an occasional
owner,
but I suspect some folks started doing this commercially as a way to
bypass the STC process. Hence the requirement that the majority of
the
construction had to be done for "Education or Recreation."

Ron Wanttaja

Thanks for replying-

--
We have met the enemy and he is us-- Pogo

Anyolmouse