A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

"Ron Lee" wrote in message ...
wrote:
All that said, the most common
argument (not necessarily one with which I'm in agreement) in favor of
professional builds of experimental aircraft is that the pro shops
turn out a better quality product which is less likely to injure or kill
the proverbial innocent bystander. Even if we accept that at face value
(which I certainly don't), it begs for the creation of a new
experimental sub-category, perhaps Experimental Professional Built,
with increased oversight akin to that suffered by the standard category
manufacturers in pursuing and maintaining their type certificates.

I also don't agree that innocents are less likely to be killed by a
pro built plane. Show me the stats to prove it.

The real killer is that the customer of a pro built plane may also get
the repairman's certificate which means that he lied about building
it.

Ron Lee


It would be very interesting for someone to be charged with operating an illegally built aircraft. How would this be
challenged in the courts?

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

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 14:11:36 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:

Personally, I see no reason for our government to intrude on our
freedom to commission the construction of an aircraft. If the FAA is
going to permit the sale and operation by non-builders of aircraft
licensed as experimental, the ban on having one built for you seems at
least inconsistent. And the implication that having personally
constructed the aircraft somehow enhances its performance or
suitability for operation in the NAS is ludicrous, IMO. To me, the
51% policy smacks of protectionism for normal/utility aircraft
manufacturers.

I realize this is probably an unpopular opinion among the majority of
armature aircraft builders, but emotional jealousy of those able to
afford commissioning the construction of an aircraft, I fail to find
an _objective_ reason for homebuilders' objections.

What he said.

What am I
missing?

I guess we must be missing something, staying tuned......
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 11:54:37 -0600, Rich Ahrens wrote:

Personally, I see no reason for our government to intrude on our
freedom to commission the construction of an aircraft. If the FAA is
going to permit the sale and operation by non-builders of aircraft
licensed as experimental, the ban on having one built for you seems at
least inconsistent. And the implication that having personally
constructed the aircraft somehow enhances its performance or
suitability for operation in the NAS is ludicrous, IMO. To me, the
51% policy smacks of protectionism for normal/utility aircraft
manufacturers.

I realize this is probably an unpopular opinion among the majority of
armature aircraft builders, but emotional jealousy of those able to
afford commissioning the construction of an aircraft, I fail to find
an _objective_ reason for homebuilders' objections. What am I
missing?

Your frontal lobes, from all appearances...

Amusing Rich, sorta, but I find no argument that can untrack Larry's.

None.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

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

On Mar 7, 6:48*am, stol wrote:
On Mar 6, 11:03*pm, 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.

* 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.

I agree with the , " harder to have one built for you" concept.. I
have been to several airshows-fly-ins etc, and chat with experimental
owners who sit under the wings of their *bought homebuilts and bask in
the glow of,, See what I built crap. Later in the conversation they
usually say " Yeah, Ol Clem up in Montana, Texas, Florida", pick a
state, " did a great job of building my wizbang 200 mph toy. In my
mind they are lying sacks of **** and with this action are poking
their finger in the eyes of the FAA. The intent of experimental /
homebuilts rule was for the " educational and recreational aspect of
the builder, not to see who has the most money.. IMHO.

Ben- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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

"WJRFlyBoy" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 11:54:37 -0600, Rich Ahrens wrote:

Personally, I see no reason for our government to intrude on our
freedom to commission the construction of an aircraft. If the FAA is
going to permit the sale and operation by non-builders of aircraft
licensed as experimental, the ban on having one built for you seems at
least inconsistent. And the implication that having personally
constructed the aircraft somehow enhances its performance or
suitability for operation in the NAS is ludicrous, IMO. To me, the
51% policy smacks of protectionism for normal/utility aircraft
manufacturers.

I realize this is probably an unpopular opinion among the majority of
armature aircraft builders, but emotional jealousy of those able to
afford commissioning the construction of an aircraft, I fail to find
an _objective_ reason for homebuilders' objections. What am I
missing?

Your frontal lobes, from all appearances...

Amusing Rich, sorta, but I find no argument that can untrack Larry's.

None.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

How about this argument: Until a century or so ago, a landowner held rights
from the center of the earth to the heavens. Nothing could pass over his
land without his permission. Since there were no aircraft, the issue didn't
come up very often. When flight became possible, this property theory was
changed to allow overflight; however, overflight was not a right given by
God, but a negotiated privilege enforced by governments through legislation
and courts. 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? Aviation would not exist in this country without government
action.

In the U.S., with a few exceptions, flying machines need Airworthiness
Certificates to fly. Airworthiness Certificates are issued by the
government. They are not issued or denied arbitrarily. If you do not wish
to meet requirements for issue of an Airworthiness Certificate, your
home-built project could be a nice static display. That is the ultimate
penalty for ignoring or circumventing requirements.

Dale Scroggins

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.

"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 built
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

On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 02:50:33 GMT, "Dale Scroggins"
wrote:
er!

How about this argument: Until a century or so ago, a landowner held rights
from the center of the earth to the heavens. Nothing could pass over his
land without his permission. Since there were no aircraft, the issue didn't
come up very often. When flight became possible, this property theory was
changed to allow overflight; however, overflight was not a right given by
God, but a negotiated privilege enforced by governments through legislation
and courts. 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? Aviation would not exist in this country without government
action.

In the U.S., with a few exceptions, flying machines need Airworthiness
Certificates to fly. Airworthiness Certificates are issued by the
government. They are not issued or denied arbitrarily. If you do not wish
to meet requirements for issue of an Airworthiness Certificate, your
home-built project could be a nice static display. That is the ultimate
penalty for ignoring or circumventing requirements.

Dale Scroggins

Interesting argument. Mainly the part about landowners that used to
own the air above their land. With the recent history of plane
crashes into peoples homes, I'm surprised the non-aviation types
haven't stirred up more ruckus about overflight. Such as the crash
near Sanford, Fla. by the Nascar C-310, and that recent crash near
Corona, Ca that killed those poeple at the car dealership. I just
hope things stay quiet about that, or it could make flying a real pain
if you want to go over just about any land someone owns. Countless
cars could crash into private property and no one will ever suggest
limiting where cars can drive, because just about everyone drives one.
But we are a relatively few that fly, so we could be scrutinized
pretty harshly.