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
  #181  
Old March 25th 08, 09:57 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,953
Default A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:12:52 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote:

Jim Logajan wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Nobody said the FAA was going to properly correct the problem but that
is what the aim of the action is. The better way to correct the
problem would be to just have someone in OKC look through the
magazines and search the internet, find those operations that are in
violation, refuse the AW certificates of the next 3 aircraft that roll
out of their hanger and very publicly announce the action.


Ouch. Unless I'm missing something, that appears to advocate arbitrary and
capricious use of authority.

If all these alleged rich scoundrels are already skirting the law, there is
no need to change them, right? Do you really think it is wise to promote
and encourage changes to the laws that suddenly makes a victimless activity
a criminal activity? What if it were an activity you engaged in and someone
else was trying to make it illegal?


Excuse me? I specifically wrote that the better way was to enforce the
law as it is already written.


I don't see where you wrote that at all. You said: "... find those
operations that are in violation, refuse the AW certificates of the
next 3 aircraft that roll out of their hanger..."

Are you able to provide the specific language of any of "those
operations that are in violation" and publicly advertise such? The
implication in your comment is, that regardless of the aircrafts'
airworthiness, the FAA should reject them to make a point.

And to pick out companies or individuals for enforcement action who
are advertising a violation of the law is hardly arbitrary or capricious.


It's hardly likely that any companies or individuals are doing that
also.
  #182  
Old March 25th 08, 10:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 428
Default A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

Larry Dighera wrote:

I don't see where you wrote that at all. You said: "... find those
operations that are in violation, refuse the AW certificates of the
next 3 aircraft that roll out of their hanger..."


What part of "operations that are in violation" don't you understand Larry?


Are you able to provide the specific language of any of "those
operations that are in violation" and publicly advertise such? The
implication in your comment is, that regardless of the aircrafts'
airworthiness, the FAA should reject them to make a point.


The phrase in the regulations is "for recreation and education." The
spirit of the law is that aircraft certified under the EXP-HB
classification are to be built in a not for profit setting and not as a
way to get around the certification requirements in place for aircraft
manufacturers.

And it is not regardless of the aircrafts airworthiness. It is
specifically because of the aircrafts airworthiness. The power that the
FAA has to issue the certificate comes from the law that also sets the
rules under which an EXP-HB certificate can be issued. If the aircraft
isn't build under those rules it is not airworthy at least as far as
those rules are concerned.



And to pick out companies or individuals for enforcement action who
are advertising a violation of the law is hardly arbitrary or capricious.


It's hardly likely that any companies or individuals are doing that
also.


You really are a moron. For somebody that seems to have no skill other
than cutting and pasting to USENET it amazes me that you don't realize
that it is specifically this practice that is causing the FAA to look at
changing the regulations.

I know of at least two places where I could of have my kit delivered to
and shown up for a few days and watched while it was being built doing
as much or as little work (including none at all) as I desired. I would
have been able to pose for some photos with the plane under construction
and been able to show that to the DAR along with some bogus paperwork
and I not only would have been able to get the EXP-HB AW certificate I
would be able to get the repairman's certificate as well.





  #183  
Old March 26th 08, 03:46 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Steve Hix
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 340
Default A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:19:42 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote:

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Nobody said the FAA was going to properly correct the problem but that
is what the aim of the action is. The better way to correct the
problem would be to just have someone in OKC look through the
magazines and search the internet, find those operations that are in
violation, refuse the AW certificates of the next 3 aircraft that roll
out of their hanger and very publicly announce the action.


Ouch. Unless I'm missing something, that appears to advocate arbitrary and
capricious use of authority.


It's just another of Mr. G's well considered proposals. :-(

If all these alleged rich scoundrels are already skirting the law, there is
no need to change them, right? Do you really think it is wise to promote
and encourage changes to the laws that suddenly makes a victimless activity
a criminal activity?


Hey it works for the religious right. :-)


And the left.

No need to get excessively picky amongst statists of any stripe.
  #184  
Old March 26th 08, 07:50 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
WJRFlyBoy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 531
Default A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 08:11:03 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:53:20 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

I don't see any real change at all. they're going back to the original
spirit of the rule.


They are significantly re-writing the rules of the market in favor of
the production aircrafters. or they are not.

Which is it?


They are not. They are looking at the problem that has developed
regarding those that are currently violating the rules that have been in
place for years.


Huh?

http://doc.vansaircraft.com/RVator/2...008-RVator.pdf

"On Feb. 15th, in the FAA .... report were indications that procedural
changes would include changes to the criteria for determining
eligibility for airworthiness in the E-AB category. *In other words,
re-defining the level of prefabrication and assembly permissible for
kits.*"

Who benefits from these re-writings, increased cost and complexity? The
kit sellers? Or Cessna?
  #185  
Old March 26th 08, 03:17 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Peter Dohm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,754
Default A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven


"WJRFlyBoy" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 08:11:03 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:53:20 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

I don't see any real change at all. they're going back to the original
spirit of the rule.

They are significantly re-writing the rules of the market in favor of
the production aircrafters. or they are not.

Which is it?


They are not. They are looking at the problem that has developed
regarding those that are currently violating the rules that have been in
place for years.


Huh?

http://doc.vansaircraft.com/RVator/2...008-RVator.pdf

"On Feb. 15th, in the FAA .... report were indications that procedural
changes would include changes to the criteria for determining
eligibility for airworthiness in the E-AB category. *In other words,
re-defining the level of prefabrication and assembly permissible for
kits.*"

Who benefits from these re-writings, increased cost and complexity? The
kit sellers? Or Cessna?


From my point of view, only two things are certain:
1) This won't address the alleged "problem" of "hired guns" and
2) It will increase the build time.

The most probable side effect will be fewer aircraft built and flown and the
secondary side effect, especially for some of the composites, will be
improper bonding due to slower assembly at critical stages--in other words
DECREASED safety.

So, in the grand scheme of things; we'll be looking at fewer kits
successfully completed, less airport utilization, and eventually less sales
of type certified factory completed aircraft as well. Another genuine
"lose-lose" proposition!

Peter


  #186  
Old March 26th 08, 10:32 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
WJRFlyBoy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 531
Default A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:17:53 -0400, Peter Dohm wrote:

They are significantly re-writing the rules of the market in favor of
the production aircrafters. or they are not.

Which is it?

They are not. They are looking at the problem that has developed
regarding those that are currently violating the rules that have been in
place for years.


Huh?

http://doc.vansaircraft.com/RVator/2...008-RVator.pdf

"On Feb. 15th, in the FAA .... report were indications that procedural
changes would include changes to the criteria for determining
eligibility for airworthiness in the E-AB category. *In other words,
re-defining the level of prefabrication and assembly permissible for
kits.*"

Who benefits from these re-writings, increased cost and complexity? The
kit sellers? Or Cessna?


From my point of view, only two things are certain:
1) This won't address the alleged "problem" of "hired guns" and
2) It will increase the build time.

The most probable side effect will be fewer aircraft built and flown and the
secondary side effect, especially for some of the composites, will be
improper bonding due to slower assembly at critical stages--in other words
DECREASED safety.

So, in the grand scheme of things; we'll be looking at fewer kits
successfully completed, less airport utilization, and eventually less sales
of type certified factory completed aircraft as well. Another genuine
"lose-lose" proposition!

Peter


Why do you think there will be less type certifieds sold, question not a
challenge.
  #187  
Old March 27th 08, 03:14 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Peter Dohm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,754
Default A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven


"WJRFlyBoy" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:17:53 -0400, Peter Dohm wrote:

They are significantly re-writing the rules of the market in favor of
the production aircrafters. or they are not.

Which is it?

They are not. They are looking at the problem that has developed
regarding those that are currently violating the rules that have been
in
place for years.

Huh?

http://doc.vansaircraft.com/RVator/2...008-RVator.pdf

"On Feb. 15th, in the FAA .... report were indications that procedural
changes would include changes to the criteria for determining
eligibility for airworthiness in the E-AB category. *In other words,
re-defining the level of prefabrication and assembly permissible for
kits.*"

Who benefits from these re-writings, increased cost and complexity? The
kit sellers? Or Cessna?


From my point of view, only two things are certain:
1) This won't address the alleged "problem" of "hired guns" and
2) It will increase the build time.

The most probable side effect will be fewer aircraft built and flown and
the
secondary side effect, especially for some of the composites, will be
improper bonding due to slower assembly at critical stages--in other
words
DECREASED safety.

So, in the grand scheme of things; we'll be looking at fewer kits
successfully completed, less airport utilization, and eventually less
sales
of type certified factory completed aircraft as well. Another genuine
"lose-lose" proposition!

Peter


Why do you think there will be less type certifieds sold, question not a
challenge.


I believe that anything that reduces the size of the overall fleet will have
the effect of also reducing airport utilization. That will have a
"snowball" effect of reducing the number of active airports, and in turn the
utility of individual air travel. Also, the amateur built movement seems to
me to serve as a major focal point for bringing "new blood" into aviation
Therefore, the demand for factory built aircraft would ultimately suffer as
well.

There is an additional fudge factor in that amateur built aircraft are much
more likely to be hangared than other aircraft of similar size, despite
their lower average monetary value. That means that the amateur built
aircraft directly contribute disproportionately to the financial health of
FBOs and small airports generally.

Peter


  #188  
Old May 1st 08, 03:14 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
clint
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 47
Default A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

flyboy did USAF DanMc kick your ass?
WJRFlyBoy was thinking very hard :
On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 05:51:51 -0000, Jim Logajan wrote:


The FAA is about to make it a whole hell of a lot harder for people to
build safe amateur built aircraft. Richard VanGrunsven, founder of one of
the most successful kit aircraft companies, has written up a warning and a
call to arms about the issue.


Used and newly built for sale prices may jump considerably then.



 




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 11:52 PM
[!] Russian Arms software sale Naval Aviation 0 December 18th 04 06:51 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 04:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.