A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

On Mar 7, 10:59*pm, Sliker wrote:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 18:13:41 -0800 (PST), William Hung

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...

Wil

No doubt. I helped a friend about a year ago pick up a Glasair 2S kit
that had been partially built by a very untalented builder. What we
couldn't see during the inspection was that every single layup the guy
did was unsound. The entire project had to be delaminated and then
re-laminated. It ended up being more work than if it had been a new
kit. If he had finished it, it could have *came apart in the air. The
previous builder must have done no surface prep at all before any of
his laminations. Even though it's called for. Buyer beware as they
say. I've also looked at finished projects at Lakeland and OSH that
were pro built, and I wasn't impressed with the glasswork. But pro
builders can't waste time perfecting things, or they'd take too long
to finish it. So the more hurried work shows in areas if you know what
to look for. Plus, pro builders make more money charging as they go,
rather than if they had to finish it with their own money, then sell
it. Most owners I've talked to that have had their planes
professionally built end up with more invested than if they had just
bought one outright, finished and flying. For a Glasair 3, it's
usually over $200K to have one pro built, for a plane that's sold on
the market in the $150K range, give or take depending on how nice it
is. So for the owner, he'll always end up upside down in his plane if
he writes a check to have it built. I guess it's worth it to some to
have it done the way they want it, and to remove the mystery of the
construction quality.

This is one reason I would want to witness or be a part of the build
first hand.

Wil

William Hung wrote in
:

On Mar 8, 6:21*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
William Hung wrote
innews:474be9f8-1906-4bb9-84ec-5d76
:





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 buil
t
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.

That's no problem. That's sinificantly different from writing a check
and having someone build one for you. The airplanes in that class
usually are available with center sections built and so on, so
there;s no excuse to take it further.



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.

And the more salient point is there are slimeballs out there who will
sell you an airplane that is a deathtrap..

The law is becoming less forgiven of slimeballs.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4438090a10.html


Good!

Bertie

On Mar 15, 3:14*pm, William Hung wrote:
On Mar 8, 6:21*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:





William Hung wrote :

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 buil
t
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.

That's no problem. That's sinificantly different from writing a check
and having someone build one for you. The airplanes in that class
usually are available with center sections built and so on, so there;s
no excuse to take it further.

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.

And the more salient point is there are slimeballs out there who will
sell you an airplane that is a deathtrap..

The law is becoming less forgiven of slimeballs.http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4438090a10.html

Wil





Time for Juan Jiminez to enter.....

Bertue- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The law is becoming less forgiv(ING) of slimeballs.http://
www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4438090a10.html

Wil

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:28:42 -0500, "Highflyer" wrote:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

My point is, why is does the FAA feel it is necessary to provide
separate experimental licensing criteria between "Experimental -
Amateur Built" and other experimentals?

The FAA does NOT feel it is necessary.

If it's unnecessary, why do they have other experimental types?

It took many years to get them to allow a homemade airplane to fly in US
airspace at all.

What year was that?

The compromise we got was a special category in Experimental for
amateur built airplanes. We also got much better operational
limitations that [sic] any of the other experimental categories.
We are very happy that we have a special category.

That sounds appropriate. But you make it sound like the FAA (or CAA
at the time?) had the legal right to prevent amateur built aircraft
from operating in the NAS. While the FAA surely possessed the power,
I submit, that such a "right" probably wouldn't stand up to a legal
challenge, and that is probably why the FAA made the concession to
amateur constructed experimental aircraft. But you are far more
familiar with topic than I.

We would much rather not have this rare privelege abused by a bunch of
greedy shortsighted idiots lining their pockets. Any privelege, when
abused, is vulnerable to loss. That is the way of the world.

I'm not convinced that flying an airplane you built is not a right,
providing it meets the standards of others that have been permitted to
fly.

United State Code TITLE 49 - TRANSPORTATION
Sec. 40103. Sovereignty and use of airspace
(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit
through the navigable airspace.

Perhaps the time has come to rethink the whole issue.

What if the FAA's intent to modify the current amateur built
experimental regulations were to result, not in further restrictions
and prohibitions, but in accommodating those who desire to commission
the construction of aircraft that haven't been submitted to type
certification standards (something like the LSAs), but do meet the
airworthiness standards of other experimental aircraft that have been
licensed by the FAA to operate in the NAS? Would that be a bad thing?
Why?


There are many avenues in the regulations for people to build and sell
airplanes. They are not i mpossible. Look at Cirrus. However, t hey do
require some effort.

Are you referring to Cirrus certifying an amateur build experimental
aircraft in the Normal category?

People who want to make a buck building airplanes, but
do not want to put in the time and effort to ensure that they meet
appropriate standards for doing so really should not be allowed to abuse the
privelege granted to homebuilders.

There are a few "loaded' concepts in that assertion, IMO.

First, the aircraft to which you refer probably do meet the standards
of amateur built experimental aircraft or the standards that the FAA
has established for other experimental aircraft.

Second, construction of an aircraft that meets those standards can
hardly be construed as "abuse" in my opinion.

Third, is the notion that building and flying an amateur built
aircraft that complies with FAA standards is a "privilege" not a
right.

It seems the FAA has attempted to prevent the wholesale construction
of experimental aircraft by judging the intent (or mental state and
motivation) of the builder, rather than judging the safety of the
aircraft in question, as would seem considerably more appropriate for
a governmental agency, IMO. Perhaps it's time for that sort of
governmental "thought policing" to be reexamined.


Highflyer
EAA member for 50 years.


Thanks for the information you have provided, John. I'm not trying to
upset anyone; I'm just thinking outside the box in the hope such
objective analysis by someone who has hasn't been an EAA member ever,
let alone fifty years, will provide another way to view the issue.

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:28:42 -0500, "Highflyer" wrote:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
. ..

My point is, why is does the FAA feel it is necessary to provide
separate experimental licensing criteria between "Experimental -
Amateur Built" and other experimentals?

The FAA does NOT feel it is necessary.

If it's unnecessary, why do they have other experimental types?

It took many years to get them to allow a homemade airplane to fly in
US airspace at all.

What year was that?

The compromise we got was a special category in Experimental for
amateur built airplanes. We also got much better operational
limitations that [sic] any of the other experimental categories.
We are very happy that we have a special category.

That sounds appropriate. But you make it sound like the FAA (or CAA
at the time?) had the legal right to prevent amateur built aircraft
from operating in the NAS. While the FAA surely possessed the power,
I submit, that such a "right" probably wouldn't stand up to a legal
challenge, and that is probably why the FAA made the concession to
amateur constructed experimental aircraft. But you are far more
familiar with topic than I.

We would much rather not have this rare privelege abused by a bunch of
greedy shortsighted idiots lining their pockets. Any privelege, when
abused, is vulnerable to loss. That is the way of the world.

I'm not convinced that flying an airplane you built is not a right,
providing it meets the standards of others that have been permitted to
fly.

United State Code TITLE 49 - TRANSPORTATION
Sec. 40103. Sovereignty and use of airspace
(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit
through the navigable airspace.

Perhaps the time has come to rethink the whole issue.

What if the FAA's intent to modify the current amateur built
experimental regulations were to result, not in further restrictions
and prohibitions, but in accommodating those who desire to commission
the construction of aircraft that haven't been submitted to type
certification standards (something like the LSAs), but do meet the
airworthiness standards of other experimental aircraft that have been
licensed by the FAA to operate in the NAS? Would that be a bad thing?
Why?


There are many avenues in the regulations for people to build and sell
airplanes. They are not i mpossible. Look at Cirrus. However, t hey
do require some effort.

Are you referring to Cirrus certifying an amateur build experimental
aircraft in the Normal category?

People who want to make a buck building airplanes, but
do not want to put in the time and effort to ensure that they meet
appropriate standards for doing so really should not be allowed to
abuse the privelege granted to homebuilders.

There are a few "loaded' concepts in that assertion, IMO.


So write a letter to the times, k00k.

First, the aircraft to which you refer probably do meet the standards
of amateur built experimental aircraft or the standards that the FAA
has established for other experimental aircraft.

Yeah, "probably". That;s a word you see a lot of in the FARs.



Second, construction of an aircraft that meets those standards can
hardly be construed as "abuse" in my opinion.



Your opinion doesn't matter.

Bertie

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:28:42 -0500, "Highflyer" wrote:
I'm not convinced that flying an airplane you built is not a right,
providing it meets the standards of others that have been permitted to
fly.

Anyone can build an fly any airplane with no amateur built restrictions at
all if they do that. The standards are set forth in the FAR's Part 21.
Technical requirements are in FAR Part 23. These are the standards
established for building and flying aircraft in the US airspace. These
standards were established about 80 years ago to prevent people from
building and selling deathtraps to unsuspecting pilots who were not
aeronautical engineers.

What if the FAA's intent to modify the current amateur built
experimental regulations were to result, not in further restrictions
and prohibitions, but in accommodating those who desire to commission
the construction of aircraft that haven't been submitted to type
certification standards (something like the LSAs), but do meet the
airworthiness standards of other experimental aircraft that have been
licensed by the FAA to operate in the NAS? Would that be a bad thing?


The FAA did precisely that with the S-LSA certification process. It greatly
simplified the proof and oversight needed to ensure an adequate standard for
aircraft that cannot endanger a lot of unsuspecting people. That is why
they limited them to slower airspeeds and lighter weights as well as two
places. They are also only allowed to fly Daytime and by Visual flight
rules. Not unreasonable restrictions for aircraft that do not meet the full
blown standards required for aircraft to be sold to the general public.



People who want to make a buck building airplanes, but
do not want to put in the time and effort to ensure that they meet
appropriate standards for doing so really should not be allowed to abuse
the
privelege granted to homebuilders.

There are a few "loaded' concepts in that assertion, IMO.

First, the aircraft to which you refer probably do meet the standards
of amateur built experimental aircraft or the standards that the FAA
has established for other experimental aircraft.

Second, construction of an aircraft that meets those standards can
hardly be construed as "abuse" in my opinion.


Clearly an uninformed opinion. All experimental aircraft do NOT meet the
same standards. The bulk of the experimental class is set up to all
aircraft manufacturers to perform reasonable flight tests of new designs
before entering the full certification procedures. That is the REASON for
an "experimental" category. For flying "experimental" aircraft prior to
certification so they can generate the data required for certification.

The FAA generously allowed two separate classes under the general
"experimental" category for special airplanes that did NOT meet the
standards for certification. In these classes the aircraft is NOT really
"experimental." They just put them there because that is where they put
aircraft that were not certified as up to the published standards.

In these two classes each aircraft is treated and inspected as a "one of a
kind" aircraft to ensure a reasonable standard of construction if not
design. Typically the field maintenance inspectors who were charged with
inspecting these aircraft were not trained to make design critiques and
evaluations. They could evaluate construction quality and technique.

These two special categories that did not require full compliance with the
published airworthiness standards for flight in the US airspace are
Experimental, Amateur Built and Experimental, Exibition. The amateur built
category allowed people who built their own airplane for educational or
recreational reasons, not for profit, to actually fly their creations
legally in the airspace without having to comply with the published
standards.

The Exibition category allows us to fly aircraft that have never been
certified by our published standards in our airspace. This is usually the
home for unusual or antique aircraft that predate the certification
standards or otherwise sidestepped them. You "hired gun" who builds an
aircraft on "commission" for someone who doesn't want to build it himself
can license an aircraft they built in this category. It does, however, have
a few more stringent operating limitations than the Amateur built category
does. The "hired guns" are falsifying information in order to avoid these
additional operational limitations.

The method for removing these operational limitations is spelled out in the
regulations. Merely comply with the standards required for certification.
I admit this is easier to say than do. That is why they established a
separate certification path and separate certification standards for LSA
aircraft.



Third, is the notion that building and flying an amateur built
aircraft that complies with FAA standards is a "privilege" not a
right.

It seems the FAA has attempted to prevent the wholesale construction
of experimental aircraft by judging the intent (or mental state and
motivation) of the builder, rather than judging the safety of the
aircraft in question, as would seem considerably more appropriate for
a governmental agency, IMO. Perhaps it's time for that sort of
governmental "thought policing" to be reexamined.


Not at all. They merely provided a different way to judge the safety of the
aircraft in question that adhereing to the published standards in special
cases.


Thanks for the information you have provided, John. I'm not trying to
upset anyone; I'm just thinking outside the box in the hope such
objective analysis by someone who has hasn't been an EAA member ever,
let alone fifty years, will provide another way to view the issue.


You can do that. However, you are not thinking "outside the box." You are
rehashing old tired arguments that were brought up and shot down over fifty
years ago. What we have today is a hard won compromise that allows us a
tremendous degree of freedom compared to every other country in the world.
There are many people in this country that believe we have way too much
freedom to build and fly airplanes over THEIR house. It takes a continueing
effort to maintain these hard won priveleges. If we lose what we have then
the largest and fastest growing segment of General Aviation is dead. I do
not want that to happen. I have been working for fifty years to expand and
clarify these issues through the EAA and AOPA. Let's not undo years of work
and wind up with nothing.

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport, PJY

On 2008-03-18, Highflyer wrote:
The FAA did precisely that with the S-LSA certification process. It greatly
simplified the proof and oversight needed to ensure an adequate standard for
aircraft that cannot endanger a lot of unsuspecting people. That is why
they limited them to slower airspeeds and lighter weights as well as two
places. They are also only allowed to fly Daytime and by Visual flight
rules.

Not true. They can fly IFR or night VFR if properly equipped. That's one big
reason I wound up with a Zodiac XLi. The key is that no part of the aircraft
must have manufacturer's instructions prohibiting night or IFR operations,
and their equipment must meet the minimum standards of the rules. This
means, for example, that the aircraft must not be powered by a Rotax 912ULS
or Jabiru 3300, both of which have manufacturer's instructions limiting them
to day VFR.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

In article ,
Jay Maynard wrote:

On 2008-03-18, Highflyer wrote:
The FAA did precisely that with the S-LSA certification process. It
greatly
simplified the proof and oversight needed to ensure an adequate standard
for
aircraft that cannot endanger a lot of unsuspecting people. That is why
they limited them to slower airspeeds and lighter weights as well as two
places. They are also only allowed to fly Daytime and by Visual flight
rules.

Not true. They can fly IFR or night VFR if properly equipped.

As long as you have a Private Pilot rating, or above.

That's one big
reason I wound up with a Zodiac XLi. The key is that no part of the aircraft
must have manufacturer's instructions prohibiting night or IFR operations,
and their equipment must meet the minimum standards of the rules. This
means, for example, that the aircraft must not be powered by a Rotax 912ULS
or Jabiru 3300, both of which have manufacturer's instructions limiting them
to day VFR.

Steve Hix schreef:
In article ,
Jay Maynard wrote:

On 2008-03-18, Highflyer wrote:
The FAA did precisely that with the S-LSA certification process. It
greatly
simplified the proof and oversight needed to ensure an adequate standard
for
aircraft that cannot endanger a lot of unsuspecting people. That is why
they limited them to slower airspeeds and lighter weights as well as two
places. They are also only allowed to fly Daytime and by Visual flight
rules.
Not true. They can fly IFR or night VFR if properly equipped.

As long as you have a Private Pilot rating, or above.

This was about plane certification, not about pilot rating.

"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jay Maynard wrote:

On 2008-03-18, Highflyer wrote:
The FAA did precisely that with the S-LSA certification process. It
greatly
simplified the proof and oversight needed to ensure an adequate
standard
for
aircraft that cannot endanger a lot of unsuspecting people. That is
why
they limited them to slower airspeeds and lighter weights as well as
two
places. They are also only allowed to fly Daytime and by Visual flight
rules.

Not true. They can fly IFR or night VFR if properly equipped.

As long as you have a Private Pilot rating, or above.

That's one big
reason I wound up with a Zodiac XLi. The key is that no part of the
aircraft
must have manufacturer's instructions prohibiting night or IFR
operations,
and their equipment must meet the minimum standards of the rules. This
means, for example, that the aircraft must not be powered by a Rotax
912ULS
or Jabiru 3300, both of which have manufacturer's instructions limiting
them
to day VFR.

I am not sure of the phrasing on that last part, regarding the engines; but
engine and propeller combinations not certified under parts 34 and 35 (IIRC)
are not supposed to be approved for night IFR.

Several contributors here are much more knowledgeable of the specifics.

Peter