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

FAA publishes proposed changes to amateur-built rules.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 17th 08, 03:19 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Vaughn Simon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 735
Default FAA publishes proposed changes to amateur-built rules.


"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
...
my point is why chime in and ask for them to be banned?


I have asked for no such thing. Go back and read. I just don't want folks
who are skirting the rules to be crapping in the nests of those who aren't.

why not ask
for the regs to be relaxed so that it can occur.
base it on a safety case. if it isnt causing a problem start
supporting aviation enterprises.


OK, go ahead a doze peacefully in your little make believe world. While you
are sleeping, the FAA will be "throwing out the baby with the bath water".
Regardless if we agree or not, the FAA bureaucracy perceives a problem and is in
motion to do what bureaucrats do to "fix" the problem. Homebuilders, and
ultimately aviation safety will be the losers if 50% kits become a thing of the
past.

while you are at it why not support the much more sensible private
owner maintenance system that the canadians have introduced.


A whole 'nuther subject. Let's talk about one thing at a time.

Vaughn


Ads
  #12  
Old July 17th 08, 03:45 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Maxwell[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,043
Default FAA publishes proposed changes to amateur-built rules.


"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
...

so you have a mixture of emotions there.
the puritanical desire to stop anyone actually getting ahead.
an unrealised desire to have the regulations freed up.

my point is why chime in and ask for them to be banned? why not ask
for the regs to be relaxed so that it can occur.
base it on a safety case. if it isnt causing a problem start
supporting aviation enterprises.

while you are at it why not support the much more sensible private
owner maintenance system that the canadians have introduced.

Stealth Pilot


It's about regulations for homebuilt aircraft, not relaxing standards on
factory built aircraft. The "homebuilt" factories are jeopardizing the
future of real homebuilders.





  #13  
Old July 18th 08, 10:10 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Stealth Pilot[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 846
Default FAA publishes proposed changes to amateur-built rules.

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:45:07 -0500, "Maxwell" luv2^[email protected]^net
wrote:


"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
.. .

so you have a mixture of emotions there.
the puritanical desire to stop anyone actually getting ahead.
an unrealised desire to have the regulations freed up.

my point is why chime in and ask for them to be banned? why not ask
for the regs to be relaxed so that it can occur.
base it on a safety case. if it isnt causing a problem start
supporting aviation enterprises.

while you are at it why not support the much more sensible private
owner maintenance system that the canadians have introduced.

Stealth Pilot


It's about regulations for homebuilt aircraft, not relaxing standards on
factory built aircraft. The "homebuilt" factories are jeopardizing the
future of real homebuilders.



no they're not. they are jeopardising their own futures by not
addressing the FAA concerns.not the futures of individual builders.
you really need to understand the legal precedents related to
experimental aircraft. there is a fairly long history of the law
upholding the experimental concept ...for actual amateur builders.

in hindsight what I could have written better would have become this..
why not ask for the regs to be expanded to accomodate the commercial
builders of uncertified aircraft.

Stealth Pilot
  #14  
Old July 18th 08, 03:05 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Vaughn Simon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 735
Default FAA publishes proposed changes to amateur-built rules.


"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
news
The "homebuilt" factories are jeopardizing the
future of real homebuilders.


no they're not.


Then I guess our only option is to grit our teeth and agree to disagree. If
those folks were not skirting the regulations, the FAA would see no reason to
tighten them for everyone.

Regards
Vaughn




  #15  
Old July 18th 08, 03:51 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
BobR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 356
Default FAA publishes proposed changes to amateur-built rules.

On Jul 18, 9:05*am, "Vaughn Simon"
wrote:
"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message

news
The "homebuilt" factories are jeopardizing the
future of real homebuilders.


no they're not.


* *Then I guess our only option is to grit our teeth and agree to disagree. *If
those folks were not skirting the regulations, the FAA would see no reason to
tighten them for everyone.

Regards
Vaughn


I think the issue that we are all missing is that the FAA is not as
concerned about the building of safe homebuilts as they are about
regulating homebuilders and ensuring that any commercial assistance is
limited. The fact that an experienced commercial builder assisting a
homebuilder might result in a better built and safe aircraft is not
material.
  #16  
Old July 18th 08, 04:16 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 472
Default FAA publishes proposed changes to amateur-built rules.


We should all be very happy that the government worked so hard and
spent so much of our tax dollars to finally make everything perfectly
CLEAR.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Embarrassing, eh?

Despite claims to the contrary, putting on an air-show is no guarantee
of competence in other areas. In the same vein, the fact a hack
politician holds a particular office is no guarantee they are
qualified to do so. Indeed, the biffy handlers and the political
hacks have wasted more than TEN YEARS trying to resolve what is at
best, a fairly simple problem.

-R.S.Hoover
  #17  
Old July 18th 08, 06:33 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Jim Logajan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,958
Default FAA publishes proposed changes to amateur-built rules.

Stealth Pilot wrote:
why not ask for the regs to be expanded to accomodate the commercial
builders of uncertified aircraft.


I think that has been suggested to the FAA - Dick VanGrunsven wrote an
article that mentions that:

http://www.eaa.org/govt/building_lookback.asp

As I understand it, basically what was suggested was modifying something
called the Primary Category (established in 1992) to use an industry self-
certification mechanism similar to that eventially adopted for LSA, rather
than require FAA oversight that Primary Category requires now.
  #18  
Old July 18th 08, 06:46 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Jim Logajan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,958
Default FAA publishes proposed changes to amateur-built rules.

Jim Logajan wrote:
Stealth Pilot wrote:
why not ask for the regs to be expanded to accomodate the commercial
builders of uncertified aircraft.


I think that has been suggested to the FAA - Dick VanGrunsven wrote an
article that mentions that:

http://www.eaa.org/govt/building_lookback.asp


Quick followup to my own post: The ARC does appear to have recommended such
a thing but...

"At the Summit meeting, Associate Administrator for Safety Nick Sabatini
said that there's currently "a clear distinction between type certificated
and amateur-built. To put another layer in there and say it's commercially
available will prompt questions regarding safety that becomes a difficult
conversation.""
....
"Conversely, the FAA said that allowing commercial building of a kit
aircraft and calling it a homebuilt could adversely affect Part 23-
certifcated aircraft manufacturers."

From: http://www.eaa.org/news/2008/2008-02-06_summit.asp

Bottom line:

(1) The FAA associate admin for safety doesn't like the idea of another
category for reasons he doesn't wish, or is unable, to articulate. It is
difficult if not impossible to argue when "no reason is given."

(2) If the EAA article is correct, the FAA appears to have explicitly
stated that they are trying to protect Part 23 manufacturers. Which member
of the FAA stated this is not mentioned.
  #19  
Old July 19th 08, 12:07 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Stealth Pilot[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 846
Default FAA publishes proposed changes to amateur-built rules.

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:46:14 -0500, Jim Logajan
wrote:

Jim Logajan wrote:
Stealth Pilot wrote:
why not ask for the regs to be expanded to accomodate the commercial
builders of uncertified aircraft.


I think that has been suggested to the FAA - Dick VanGrunsven wrote an
article that mentions that:

http://www.eaa.org/govt/building_lookback.asp


Quick followup to my own post: The ARC does appear to have recommended such
a thing but...

"At the Summit meeting, Associate Administrator for Safety Nick Sabatini
said that there's currently "a clear distinction between type certificated
and amateur-built. To put another layer in there and say it's commercially
available will prompt questions regarding safety that becomes a difficult
conversation.""
...
"Conversely, the FAA said that allowing commercial building of a kit
aircraft and calling it a homebuilt could adversely affect Part 23-
certifcated aircraft manufacturers."

From: http://www.eaa.org/news/2008/2008-02-06_summit.asp

Bottom line:

(1) The FAA associate admin for safety doesn't like the idea of another
category for reasons he doesn't wish, or is unable, to articulate. It is
difficult if not impossible to argue when "no reason is given."

(2) If the EAA article is correct, the FAA appears to have explicitly
stated that they are trying to protect Part 23 manufacturers. Which member
of the FAA stated this is not mentioned.


my point is that guys like vaughn need to point the finger to the
problem you highlight in the FAA argument, not unwittingly let them
destroy a growing area of commercial activity.

why does this interest me all the way around on the other side of the
world. our regulators are so clueless that they do a donkey act
everytime and blindly follow yours. to get ours fixed we need to be
vigilant on matters in america.


as I see it...
any new technology starts out as a set of gurus developing it from
scratch. all the knowledge is in their heads.
the second phase of commercialisation involves spreading the
understanding and creating a market. gurus are still in the lead but
others are picking up the knowledge as well and it is becoming
published.
the third phase involves the technology becoming widely understood and
becoming a part of everyday life. there is no longer a need for gurus
because everyone understands it.
computing is now pretty well in the third phase.
aviation is locked in the second phase by regulation. it will have a
permanent future if we can get it into the third phase.
locked in the second phase will mean it will die like the steam
engine.

thanks for the research Jim.

Stealth Pilot

  #20  
Old July 28th 08, 08:30 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 75
Default FAA publishes proposed changes to amateur-built rules.

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:00:47 -0500, Jim Logajan
wrote:

Jim Logajan wrote:
The EAA has an article on the proposed changes:

http://www.eaa.org/news/2008/2008-07-15_policy.asp


"The FAA is proposing that an amateur builder fabricate a minimum of 20
percent of an aircraft and assemble a minimum of 20 percent of the
aircraft."

Mixing objective measures (e.g. percentages or fractions) without objective
definitions is absurd. Are those 20% numbers to be determined by weight, by
volume, by part count, by cost, by width, by height, by length, by labor
hours worked or avoided, or what?


At one time they said 51% of the parts and they clarified that to say
building one wing rib is as good as building all of them.
constructiong one elevator is as good as both.


They never knew what they wanted amateurs to prove and they still don't.

Roger (K8RI) ARRL Life Member
N833R (World's oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
 




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
2008 Proposed US Competition Rules Changes [email protected] Soaring 18 December 31st 07 07:21 PM
Flight Restrictions on non-amateur built experimental aircraft?? Don W Home Built 9 April 20th 07 11:23 PM
US Contest Rules Proposed Changes for 2006 Ken Sorenson Soaring 18 January 12th 06 04:30 PM
clever amateur built placard mods Joa Home Built 5 January 8th 04 08:10 AM
restrictions on Amateur built aircraft Rob Home Built 3 October 20th 03 08:37 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.