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 |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
"Dale Scroggins" wrote in message
... . . .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? I suggest a quick review of the Ninth and Tenth amendments to the Constitution of the U.S. It has become a common fallacy to say. "if a certain right is not enumerated in the Constitution, it therefore does not exist". Nothing could be further from the truth. The Constitution does not grant rights to the people - it restricts the powers of government. Aviation would not exist in this country without government action. You cannot be serious. Rich S. (retaining the cross-posting because I assume Mr. Scroggins is reading rec.aviation.piloting) |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
... . . .Now, if you want to build one of these yourself, and you can build anything you want, BTW, the FAA really only looks to see if it was put together properly, then off you go and more power to you. You must have a real generous FAA office. Nine years ago (before DAR's came in to the picture) the FAA "inspector" who checked my airplane was only interested in seeing that the paperwork was complete and that the required placards, registration numbers, and signage was in compliance. He checked nothing else and when I specifically asked his opinion of an aileron control cable bellcrank, he commented that it was "nicely done". There were no safety wires or cotter pins installed yet, as it was going be disassembled for the trip to the airport. Years before that, I knew a couple of the inspectors in the SEA FSDO. They were knowledgeable gentlemen who would, according to the rules, sign off anything you built - even if it was cast from concrete. However, they would contact members of the local EAA chapter to try to talk some sense into the builder. If that failed, they would establish rules for the test period which would make it impossible for the builder to fly off his time. That was their only loophole. Something like, "Test flying will be conducted between the hour of sunrise until 6:00 am in the Mohave Desert". Things have changed with a DAR's certification and liability, but the FAA has nothing directly to do with inspection. If I'm wrong (and things change overnight), never mind. Rich S. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
wrote The original builder can do any maintenance or modification he desires while the buyer has to follow the same rules as if he had bought a Cessna or Piper. You lose those rights because that is the rule which is based on the presumption that if you can build it, you can maintain it. Nope. The buyer may do any work or modifications he wants, unless it is considered major, then he/she may have to go though a testing phase again, like when it was new. The ONLY thing the second owner may not do is the yearly condition inspection. That must be done by the original owner, if he had the repair privileges, or by an IA or A&P. -- Jim in NC |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
wrote must have the annual condition inspection signed off by an A&P. Any A&P will do; no IA required. Damn! I always get that part of it messed up! You are right, of course. -- Jim in NC |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
"Rich S." wrote in message . .. "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message ... . . .Now, if you want to build one of these yourself, and you can build anything you want, BTW, the FAA really only looks to see if it was put together properly, then off you go and more power to you. You must have a real generous FAA office. Nine years ago (before DAR's came in to the picture) the FAA "inspector" who checked my airplane was only interested in seeing that the paperwork was complete and that the required placards, registration numbers, and signage was in compliance. He checked nothing else and when I specifically asked his opinion of an aileron control cable bellcrank, he commented that it was "nicely done". There were no safety wires or cotter pins installed yet, as it was going be disassembled for the trip to the airport. Years before that, I knew a couple of the inspectors in the SEA FSDO. They were knowledgeable gentlemen who would, according to the rules, sign off anything you built - even if it was cast from concrete. However, they would contact members of the local EAA chapter to try to talk some sense into the builder. If that failed, they would establish rules for the test period which would make it impossible for the builder to fly off his time. That was their only loophole. Something like, "Test flying will be conducted between the hour of sunrise until 6:00 am in the Mohave Desert". Things have changed with a DAR's certification and liability, but the FAA has nothing directly to do with inspection. If I'm wrong (and things change overnight), never mind. Rich S. Rich: Recently a friend of mine put together an original two seat helicopter that used a modified Lycoming engine. Note when the modification was done, the Lycoming tag is supposed to be removed as it is no longer considered a Lycoming engine. Makes sense to me, but not to the FAA inspectors. As I understand it was FAA employees from the local FSDO. They insisted that the builder comply with Lycoming ADs before they would issue the airworthiness. Too often the job of inspecting a homebuilt is really more work than the "Busy" bureacrat wants to do so the paper work gets all the attention. On my ship the DAR wanted a decal showing which was was open and close on the throttle. Number one that decal is by necessity in a place that you can't see when in operation. Number two if you need a decal to inform you of the proper direction of rotation of a helicopter throttle you surely should not be in there to start with. With all that said I did see and talk to a DAR who had his feet well on the ground and kept his critique useful and addressed reasonable items. I'm not sure what an airworthiness certificate in an aircraft means other than FAA has some paper work on file that acknowledges this aircraft's existence. Stu |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
On Mar 8, 5:47*pm, "Morgans" wrote:
wrote *must have the annual condition inspection signed off by an A&P. *Any A&P will do; no IA required. Damn! *I always get that part of it messed up! You are right, of course. -- Jim in NC Aw. come on ol buddy. If you look at how you worded it you are correct. The ONLY thing the second owner may not do is the yearly condition inspection. That must be done by the original owner, if he had the repair privileges, or by an IA or A&P. -- Jim in NC An A&P can do a conditional inspection, so can a IA. The difference is an A&P doesn't need a IA sign off. On a certified ship he does... Cheers. Ben www.haaspowerair.com |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
"Rich S." wrote in message ... "Dale Scroggins" wrote in message ... . . .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? I suggest a quick review of the Ninth and Tenth amendments to the Constitution of the U.S. It has become a common fallacy to say. "if a certain right is not enumerated in the Constitution, it therefore does not exist". Nothing could be further from the truth. The Constitution does not grant rights to the people - it restricts the powers of government. I admit it has been a few years since I have reviewed the Ninth and Tenth amendments. In twenty years of legal practice, I've not seen any substantial claims or arguments based on either of these amendments. Most references I see to them are in political arguments or usenet postings. Could you point me to some references showing the impact of these amendments on airspace law? I'd be especially be interested in the rights of states to regulate air commerce, and of citizen rights to trespass in airspace owned by others. For that matter, perhaps you could point me to any significant body of case law based upon either of these amendents. Aviation would not exist in this country without government action. You cannot be serious. Trespassing is serious in my part of the US. Trespassers are regularly shot. I've patched bullet holes in airplanes that flew too low over hunting leases. Property rights are deadly serious business here. If you like, I can e-mail you articles on development of airspace law in this country and others. Dry reading for most people. Rich S. (retaining the cross-posting because I assume Mr. Scroggins is reading rec.aviation.piloting) I began building airplanes in 1972. I read rec.aviation.homebuilt occasionally. You assumed wrong. Dale Scroggins |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 16:23:44 -0500, Peter Dohm wrote:
I presume that you are new around here. Peter Relatively, yes. Instruction set? -- Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either! |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 10:10:11 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip 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. Which airplane? Velocity, Cozy or Van. -- Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either! |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 10:10:11 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
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? So, if someone builds a BD% on commision for you you think that's safer than a 172? That's what we're talking about. Bertie Don't know, I am going on the testimony of others that say that they are. Of course, the FAA certainly would no tallow unsafe planes in the air. Would they? -- Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either! |
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 |