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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
No repairman's certificate (not a "right" but a "priviledge").
WJRFlyBoy wrote: You just can't buy one and have the same privilges as the original builder. -- Jim Pennino Ok, what rights do I lose and why do I lose them? |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
I agree. On one of Van's promotional videotapes, there's a comment that
one guy built "3 RV-3s and yes, an RV-4." Did the second and third RV-3s not cert airworthiness certificates? Morgans wrote: "cavelamb himself" wrote 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. Really? Where did you get that information? Do you know of a case where a builder was denied the second airplane's airworthiness permit? |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
That's not the way I understand it (an the question has been asked to
EAA as well). I own an experimental that I didn't build. I can do any maintenance and/or mod I want. The only thing I can't do is the yearly condition inspection. Scott Bertie the Bunyip wrote: WJRFlyBoy wrote in : On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 06:45:03 GMT, wrote: 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 Ok, what rights do I lose and why do I lose them? the origianl builder is the manufacturer. He can effect any maintenance or repeair on the airplane he likes...You buy it , you can't. Th ereason is pretty obvious. He has demonstrated he knows what he is doing and has effectively been issued a resticted airframe or airframe and powerplant licence. Bertie |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
Acepilot wrote in
: That's not the way I understand it (an the question has been asked to EAA as well). I own an experimental that I didn't build. I can do any maintenance and/or mod I want. The only thing I can't do is the yearly condition inspection. OK, my bad.... Bertie |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 20:50:55 -0500, Sliker wrote:
You still building Roger? I can second the build time for the Glasair 3, I'm 17 years and still going on my 3. The Glasair 3 from that era would never have any problem with the 51 % rule. It's got to be one of the most labor intensive homebuilts out there. And once I started building, it became obvious the parts the factory makes are the easy stuff. laying up big stuff in molds and popping them out after they cure. Probably the best part of the kit is having most, but not all, of the hardware and metal parts assembled and done. Like the landing gear. Glad I don't have to weld up gear legs, like someone building a Barracuda or similar project. Actually, there are lots of plans built planes out there I could have finished years ago. Rich On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 19:06:44 -0500, Roger wrote: On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 00:03:24 -0600, cavelamb himself wrote: Jim Logajan wrote: 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. You can read it beginning on page 3 of this document: http://doc.vansaircraft.com/RVator/2...008-RVator.pdf Also consider using this site (to save Vans Aircraft some bandwidth load): http://www.vansairforce.net/rvator/1-2008-RVator.pdf Sounds more like they want to make it harder to_have_one_built_for_you. That is the reasoning behind all this, but as with many regulations it's going to take some close watching to keep them from going astray. In the past, there really wasn't a 51% rule as we think of it. They expected the builder complete 51% of the tasks. IOW, if you constructed one aileron That was as good as constructing and mounting both. Build one rib is as good as building 30. Some areas are just done much better by the manufacturer as stated in the letter. forming ribs as an example. In the past IIRC you could share the wing, aileron, elevator and stab construction with the manufacturer if they stamped out the ribs and you put everything together. The FAA apparently wants to eliminate this. How they would go about it and how it would affect what we do is really an unknown at this point. There's a big gap between the *Intent* of the rule as has been interpreted AND ACCEPTED by the FAA and the *Letter* of the rule. In my G-III the fuselage shells (right, and left, along with the forward and rear belly pans are factory molded composite sandwiches. The builder spends many hours just jigging, aligning, and bonding these sections. The horizontal stab comes with pre molded ribs and shear webs (which have to be cut to size) along with the upper and lower shells, but putting one together is a long and tedious task. OTOH the elevator, ailerons, and flaps only come as shells. You get to figure out the dimensions of the ribs. They give a bit of guidance on the lay ups but absolutely nothing on the dimensions or shaping of those ribs. The G-III is probably one of the most, if not the most labor intensive kit out there at a conservative 4000 hours for construction. Few make it in that little a time.. Even the fast build (Jump start in their dictionary) still takes thousands of hours to complete. there is a good chance the way they are wording some things that even this kit might be affected. These articles explain the FAA's concerns over excessive commercial abuses of the Experimental Amateur Built (E-AB) licensing category. The ARC committee was created as an FAA/EAA/ Industry process to address the FAA concerns and to recommend corrective actions. Unfortunately as logical as that sounds it doesn't necessarily follow that any rules changes will be as logical. Even as currently written changing from the Intent to the letter of the rule would be a drastic change. I doubt with what I'm building if the rules changes would have much effect. OTOH contrary to probably most on the group, I see little problem or even downside to changing it to a 20 or 25% rule. I happen to like building and by doing so I can also end up with a plane that has capabilities not available in production aircraft AND end up with one I couldn't afford to purchase outright. OTOH I have no problem nor do I see a problem with some one hiring the same plane built for them as long as it still has to abide by the flight restrictions of other E-AB aircraft.. I say this for two reasons that are very apparent to me. Although many of us build for the fun of it (education is rarely one of the top reasons, or even one of the reasons.) From what I've seen and we have quite a few homebuilts at 3BS (kit and scratch built), most are constructed either to save money or just because they like to build. One more reason is they couldn't purchase a plane like they want to build even if they did have the money and we have quite a few who are flying two and even three engine jets.OK only one is flying a three holer. Yes I'm learning things and some would call that education which it is, but I'll state outright, that has nothing to do with me building. I'm building because I like to do it! I'd get more enjoyment out of building another because I could do it more efficiently, faster, and cheaper. HOWEVER if I ever do get the thing finished and I'm able to fly it, my main/only reason for building at that time would be "flying an airplane I constructed myself". Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com Being an old fart I remember when Cessna, Piper &co. nearly went belly up due to ambulance chasers. Cessna even shut down its production lines for piston aircraft because of it. this is where the expermentals saved their collective bacons as the lawyers found that individuals didn't have big cheque books to raid. Cessna only recommencet production after congress changed the litigation laws, now if become a pro builder to the lawyers you are a manufactures so whach out! |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
Morgans wrote:
"cavelamb himself" wrote 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. Really? Where did you get that information? Do you know of a case where a builder was denied the second airplane's airworthiness permit? That was pretty common interpretation of this mess when I was a kid. Back when FAA was doing "pre-close" inspections, they were a lot more involved in the process. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
"cavelamb himself" wrote in message ... Morgans wrote: "cavelamb himself" wrote 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. Really? Where did you get that information? Do you know of a case where a builder was denied the second airplane's airworthiness permit? That was pretty common interpretation of this mess when I was a kid. Back when FAA was doing "pre-close" inspections, they were a lot more involved in the process. Ahhh, back in the days before entitlements really started sinking our govment and we truly received services... |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
In rec.aviation.piloting WJRFlyBoy wrote:
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 06:45:03 GMT, wrote: 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 Ok, what rights do I lose and why do I lose them? 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. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
wrote in message ... 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. Not true... |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
In rec.aviation.piloting Blueskies wrote:
wrote in message ... 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. Not true... Yeah, in retrospect I realized that. Without multiple pages of details, the purchaser of a home built can do less than the builder, but more than the buyer of a Cessna. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
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 |