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 |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 05:51:51 -0000, 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------- AVwebAUDIO Volume 2, Number 11 -- March 21, 2008 ------------------------------------------------------------------- MORE PODCASTS: http://www.avweb.com/podcast/podcast/index.html Today's Exclusive AVweb Podcast LANCAIR'S JOE BARTELS OUTLINES THE POSSIBLE DANGERS OF THE FAA'S PROPOSED "51% RULE" CHANGES FOR HOMEBUILTS (http://www.avweb.com/alm?podcast20080321&kw=AVwebAudio) The FAA is proposing changes to the rules governing homebuilt aircraft, some of which are raising concerns about the future of this time-honored niche of general aviation. The Experimental Aircraft Association (http://www.avweb.com/alm?eaa&kw=Podcast) has stated publicly that it opposes the changes, which would make it more difficult for homebuilders to comply with the "51% rule." Earlier this week, Lancair CEO Joe Bartels told the Bend, Oregon Weekly News that his business could be in danger if the FAA rule changes are passed. Hear what Bartels told AVweb about the proposed rule changes and the future of homebuilding in this AVweb audio feature. Click here (http://www.avweb.com/podcast/files/2008-03-21.mp3) to listen. (7.2 MB, 7:54) |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 05:51:51 -0000, 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. Used and newly built for sale prices may jump considerably then. -- Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either! I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor, just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that might kill someone. |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
Larry Dighera wrote in
: On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 05:51:51 -0000, 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------- AVwebAUDIO Volume 2, Number 11 -- March 21, 2008 ------------------------------------------------------------------- MORE PODCASTS: http://www.avweb.com/podcast/podcast/index.html Today's Exclusive AVweb Podcast LANCAIR'S JOE BARTELS OUTLINES THE POSSIBLE DANGERS OF THE FAA'S PROPOSED "51% RULE" CHANGES FOR HOMEBUILTS (http://www.avweb.com/alm?podcast20080321&kw=AVwebAudio) The FAA is proposing changes to the rules governing homebuilt aircraft, some of which are raising concerns about the future of this time-honored niche of general aviation. The Experimental Aircraft Association (http://www.avweb.com/alm?eaa&kw=Podcast) has stated publicly that it opposes the changes, which would make it more difficult for homebuilders to comply with the "51% rule." Earlier this week, Lancair CEO Joe Bartels told the Bend, Oregon Weekly News that his business could be in danger if the FAA rule changes are passed. Hear what Bartels told AVweb about the proposed rule changes and the future of homebuilding in this AVweb audio feature. Bull****. it's not difficult at all. You buy a pile of spruce and a pile of tubing and make it all yourself. Easy. What it's doing is making it difficult for people to build hairdressers airplanes like Lancairs. Bertie |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Larry Dighera wrote: LANCAIR'S JOE BARTELS OUTLINES THE POSSIBLE DANGERS OF THE FAA'S PROPOSED "51% RULE" CHANGES FOR HOMEBUILTS (http://www.avweb.com/alm?podcast20080321&kw=AVwebAudio) The FAA is proposing changes to the rules governing homebuilt aircraft, some of which are raising concerns about the future of this time-honored niche of general aviation. The Experimental Aircraft Association (http://www.avweb.com/alm?eaa&kw=Podcast) has stated publicly that it opposes the changes, which would make it more difficult for homebuilders to comply with the "51% rule." Earlier this week, Lancair CEO Joe Bartels told the Bend, Oregon Weekly News that his business could be in danger if the FAA rule changes are passed. Hear what Bartels told AVweb about the proposed rule changes and the future of homebuilding in this AVweb audio feature. Bull****. it's not difficult at all. You buy a pile of spruce and a pile of tubing and make it all yourself. Easy. What it's doing is making it difficult for people to build hairdressers airplanes like Lancairs. I'm sorry, but I think Bartel's main point is spot on - after approving aircraft for 20+ years using one set of rules, the FAA is basically proposing a change that would have excluded those same aircraft. It appears to be an irrational capricious and arbitrary change - unless they can clearly articulate convincing reasoning and facts to support the change. They absolutely haven't. No one has. Anecdotes seems to be the order of the day. That and what I see as a primal urge by some ******s who thrill to anything that they think "sticks it to the rich guys," and damn the side effects. As to "easy" building - well - welding (for example) isn't a natural skill (it wasn't for me, at least - I was taught some in high school shop and took a vo-tech course on tig/mig welding a few years later with dubious results. I'd have to relearn it from scratch since it was decades ago.) And how many tube and fabric homebuilt designs can fly at 160+ knots with reasonable efficiency? Or aren't we supposed to be allowed to build such craft? (I'm aware of wood aircraft with good speeds and efficiencies - but the build times always seem godawful long.) The thing is, though, is that wood, fabric, and tube aircraft are technologies that are approaching the 100 year mark. The novelty of aluminum aircraft technology is getting on in years also. Face it, the vast majority of homebuilt designs employ technologies and materials that existed 70 to 100 years ago - and could have been designed that long ago (and some were I believe). The exception, ironically, appear to carbon and glass fiber composites. Ironic because kits employing those technologies are the ones that appear to be at risk. (Of course both those are also reaching middle age too.) I don't think it is wise to applaud or encourage the FAA in the changes they appear to be suggesting (and I believe will be formally accepting public comment on soon). If the FAA can't be bothered to invest resources to build cases against violators who lie about who built their aircraft _now_, in what meaningful way are their proposed changes going to stop them later? |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
Jim Logajan wrote in
: Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Larry Dighera wrote: LANCAIR'S JOE BARTELS OUTLINES THE POSSIBLE DANGERS OF THE FAA'S PROPOSED "51% RULE" CHANGES FOR HOMEBUILTS (http://www.avweb.com/alm?podcast20080321&kw=AVwebAudio) The FAA is proposing changes to the rules governing homebuilt aircraft, some of which are raising concerns about the future of this time-honored niche of general aviation. The Experimental Aircraft Association (http://www.avweb.com/alm?eaa&kw=Podcast) has stated publicly that it opposes the changes, which would make it more difficult for homebuilders to comply with the "51% rule." Earlier this week, Lancair CEO Joe Bartels told the Bend, Oregon Weekly News that his business could be in danger if the FAA rule changes are passed. Hear what Bartels told AVweb about the proposed rule changes and the future of homebuilding in this AVweb audio feature. Bull****. it's not difficult at all. You buy a pile of spruce and a pile of tubing and make it all yourself. Easy. What it's doing is making it difficult for people to build hairdressers airplanes like Lancairs. I'm sorry, but I think Bartel's main point is spot on - after approving aircraft for 20+ years using one set of rules, the FAA is basically proposing a change that would have excluded those same aircraft. It appears to be an irrational capricious and arbitrary change - unless they can clearly articulate convincing reasoning and facts to support the change. They absolutely haven't. No one has. Anecdotes seems to be the order of the day. That and what I see as a primal urge by some ******s who thrill to anything that they think "sticks it to the rich guys," and damn the side effects. As to "easy" building - well - welding (for example) isn't a natural skill (it wasn't for me, at least - I was taught some in high school shop and took a vo-tech course on tig/mig welding a few years later with dubious results. I'd have to relearn it from scratch since it was decades ago.) And how many tube and fabric homebuilt designs can fly at 160+ knots with reasonable efficiency? Or aren't we supposed to be allowed to build such craft? (I'm aware of wood aircraft with good speeds and efficiencies - but the build times always seem godawful long.) The thing is, though, is that wood, fabric, and tube aircraft are technologies that are approaching the 100 year mark. The novelty of aluminum aircraft technology is getting on in years also. Face it, the vast majority of homebuilt designs employ technologies and materials that existed 70 to 100 years ago - and could have been designed that long ago (and some were I believe). The exception, ironically, appear to carbon and glass fiber composites. Ironic because kits employing those technologies are the ones that appear to be at risk. (Of course both those are also reaching middle age too.) I don't think it is wise to applaud or encourage the FAA in the changes they appear to be suggesting (and I believe will be formally accepting public comment on soon). If the FAA can't be bothered to invest resources to build cases against violators who lie about who built their aircraft _now_, in what meaningful way are their proposed changes going to stop them later? I don't see any real change at all. they're going back to the original spirit of the rule. I didn;'t say that welding was easy. I meant that it was easy to avoid falling afoul of the 51% rule. IOW, don't like what the FAA is proposing? Build something instead of buying. These airplanes fall outside the spirit of the original ruling and the aiplans that have been approve over the last twenty years have been flaunting it.. Bertie |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:46:00 -0000, Jim Logajan wrote:
I don't think it is wise to applaud or encourage the FAA in the changes they appear to be suggesting (and I believe will be formally accepting public comment on soon). If the FAA can't be bothered to invest resources to build cases against violators who lie about who built their aircraft _now_, in what meaningful way are their proposed changes going to stop them later? None which leads to why is the real motivation to do this? I would cast a sharp eye at the politics (Cessna, etc) who see market share eroding as they bring out their own overpriced lights. |
#167
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:53:20 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
I don't see any real change at all. they're going back to the original spirit of the rule. They are significantly re-writing the rules of the market in favor of the production aircrafters. or they are not. Which is it? |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
WJRFlyBoy wrote in
: On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:53:20 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote: I don't see any real change at all. they're going back to the original spirit of the rule. They are significantly re-writing the rules of the market in favor of the production aircrafters. or they are not. Which is it? They are not. The amateur experimental was never written for any "market" it was written so guys could build their own airplanes. That was what George Bogardus and the EAA pioneers campaigned for. Not for someone to sell airfix kits. Like this, for instance. http://machaircraft.com/default.aspx I got no problem with anyone building something like this, but if it's not amateur built, it;'s not amateur built. That was the concession granted away back in the forties. It was never intended to be a loophole to get around certification. Bertie Bertie |
#169
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
WJRFlyBoy wrote:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:53:20 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote: I don't see any real change at all. they're going back to the original spirit of the rule. They are significantly re-writing the rules of the market in favor of the production aircrafters. or they are not. Which is it? They are not. They are looking at the problem that has developed regarding those that are currently violating the rules that have been in place for years. |
#170
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
WJRFlyBoy wrote in : On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:53:20 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote: I don't see any real change at all. they're going back to the original spirit of the rule. They are significantly re-writing the rules of the market in favor of the production aircrafters. or they are not. Which is it? They are not. The amateur experimental was never written for any "market" it was written so guys could build their own airplanes. That was what George Bogardus and the EAA pioneers campaigned for. Not for someone to sell airfix kits. Like this, for instance. http://machaircraft.com/default.aspx I got no problem with anyone building something like this, but if it's not amateur built, it;'s not amateur built. That was the concession granted away back in the forties. It was never intended to be a loophole to get around certification. Bertie Bertie Places like this are what the FAA will really be looking at. http://www.aircraftersllc.com/index.htm |
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 |