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

A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old March 7th 08, 04:01 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Sliker[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 03:48:36 -0800 (PST), stol
wrote:


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


I agree, some of the goings on in the homebuilt kit world have been
pushing things past the limit, and putting the whole homebuilt rule in
jepordy. I have no sympathy for Van and his worries of a few customers
that may not buy his kits if they have to do a little more work
putting them together.
  #12  
Old March 7th 08, 04:06 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Sliker[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 14:59:40 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:



Pretty much everythign , as usual, Larry.


Bertie


I'll second that one
Rich

  #13  
Old March 7th 08, 04:29 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

On Mar 7, 9:11*am, 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 am I
missing?



I do agree that it is not in our interests as homebuilders or citizens
to permit the government to intrude any further on our freedoms. I
also
agree that the 51% policy seems to contain at least an element of
protectionism for manufacturers. 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 have only two emotional reactions to people who've commissioned
their
'amateur built' aircraft. The first is against those who sit by their
planes at airshows and pass the work off as their own and happily
collect whatever trophies come their way. At the very least, the
major
shows should institute an additional judging category, such that folks
who actually constructed their own airplanes with their own hands for
the purpose of their own education and recreation are only in
competition against each other and are not up against the check
writers.
The second is that these people (airplane 'commissioners') are simply
in violation of the existing rules. As far as I'm concerned, someone
who doesn't like the rules is free to attempt to change them within
the
system, but is most certainly not free to flout them at will. I have
zero sympathy for rule breakers in any context, and certainly not in
my
proverbial backyard.

Ken
  #15  
Old March 7th 08, 05:07 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,953
Default A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 07:29:20 -0800 (PST), wrote in
:

On Mar 7, 9:11*am, 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 am I
missing?



I do agree that it is not in our interests as homebuilders or citizens
to permit the government to intrude any further on our freedoms.


Right. Unless it can be demonstrated that such intrusion is
reasonable and Constitutionally implemented, it's abuse of power, IMO.

I also agree that the 51% policy seems to contain at least an element of
protectionism for manufacturers.


I can understand the FAA's need to provide some impetus for aircraft
manufacturers to participate in their Type Certification program, but
not at the expense of my freedom to engage in reasonable commerce.

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.


I hadn't heard that argument before. I suppose that would have to be
evaluated on a case by case basis, as I assume it is during the FAA
inspections.

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.


Interesting. What benefit could be expected with increased FAA
oversight of experimental aircraft production?

I have only two emotional reactions to people who've commissioned
their 'amateur built' aircraft. The first is against those who sit by their
planes at airshows and pass the work off as their own and happily
collect whatever trophies come their way.


Nobody like a fraud.

At the very least, the major shows should institute an additional judging
category, such that folks who actually constructed their own airplanes with
their own hands for the purpose of their own education and recreation are
only in competition against each other and are not up against the check
writers.


Implicit in that suggestion is the notion that "professional"
experimental aircraft "manufacturers" are able to produce a product
that is somehow superior to those constructed by less experienced
homebuilders. Do you believe that to be true?

The second is that these people (airplane 'commissioners') are simply
in violation of the existing rules. As far as I'm concerned, someone
who doesn't like the rules is free to attempt to change them within
the system, but is most certainly not free to flout them at will.


Perhaps. It sort of depends on the validity of the "rule." If the
rule is unconstitutional, violating it may be seen as an act of
asserting one's rights. Consider the lunch counter sit-ins of the
'60s for example. At the other end of the spectrum is the warrantless
wiretaps perpetrated by the current RNC regime in power in our nation.
Does the end justify the means?

I have zero sympathy for rule breakers in any context, and certainly not in
my proverbial backyard.

Ken


I wish it were that simple.

Thank you for your reasonable response, and the information it
contains.

While I have precious little exposure to homebuilding and those who do
it, I have sincere respect for anyone who applies his skills in
constructing useful things. And craftsmanship seems to be an ever
diminishing virtue in today's world, so seeing it fostered in this
context provides hope that it won't be entirely driven out of
existence by mass production.

I guess the real question is why does the FAA feel it's necessary for
a homebuilder to have done 51% of the work? Is it to protect him from
himself, or to protect the public from him, or are there other
reasons? What of the prototypes built by Lockheed or Boeing; 51% of
them aren't constructed by a single individual.

It seems that there is some fundamental assumption that I am
overlooking, because the current FAA 51% mandate seems arbitrary and
unfounded to me.
  #16  
Old March 7th 08, 05:36 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 428
Default A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

Ron Lee wrote:
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


I have a business associate that bought a "pro-built" RV7. While he was
flying home X-C the plane lost power and he safely landed in a field. He
got the farmer who owned the land to tow him over beside the barn and
then found and A&P to come out and see if he could fix the problem.

The logs showed the plane had flown the 40 hours to get out of phase 1
testing. That A&P and another that looked at it later both felt after
looking at the plane that there was no way this plane had been flown
more than five or six hours.

When the buyer looked further at the log book entries he realized that
the that a date had been changed and that there was only, originally 3
days between the beginning and the end of the phase 1 testing.

He got his money back in the deal after his lawyer made it very clear
that there would either be a wire in the buyers account that day or a
call would be made to the FAA.
  #17  
Old March 7th 08, 05:49 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

Larry Dighera wrote:
Interesting. What benefit could be expected with increased FAA
oversight of experimental aircraft production?


The potential benefit would be primarily one of consistency. To use
another word: standards. The feds (as representatives of both the
public's safety interests and the manufacturer's fiscal interests)
would create a more level playing field with respect to quality of
construction (similar to the whole type certification process) and the
'commissioners', for their part, would get more assurance of receiving
a product that meets a certain standard of quality/airworthiness. As
it stands now, the work of 'professional' builders is all over the
place with respect to quality. Anyone can hang out their shingle and
dupe people into believing that having completed an airplane or two,
or even having an A&P certificate, somehow implies a quality product.
Too many builders, including the pros, will take the quick route or
the cheap route to the solution of a particular building situation/
problem. There is often more than one 'right' route, but the quick or
cheap one is seldom it. There is no shortcut to craftsmanship.

Now, I'm by no means advocating this sort of additional oversight, but
merely pointing out the potential upside.

Nobody like a fraud.


That's one word for it. These people are the worst sort of liars. I
can think of one Grand Champion RV-6 from a few years ago as just one
example.

Implicit in that suggestion is the notion that "professional"
experimental aircraft "manufacturers" are able to produce a product
that is somehow superior to those constructed by less experienced
homebuilders. Do you believe that to be true?


Certainly not across the board by any means, though some shops are
capable of turning out a more slickly finished product than the
average homebuilder generally produces. Everyone likes to look at a
gorgeous airplane, but it's disingenuous to put those planes forward
as examples of 'homebuilding', to say nothing of the unfairness of
allowing them to compete alongside the genuine articles.

Perhaps. It sort of depends on the validity of the "rule." If the
rule is unconstitutional, violating it may be seen as an act of
asserting one's rights. Consider the lunch counter sit-ins of the
'60s for example. At the other end of the spectrum is the warrantless
wiretaps perpetrated by the current RNC regime in power in our nation.
Does the end justify the means?


I think that when we talk about 'validity' in this context we need to
be cognizant of the difference between a rule that is morally wrong
and one that is merely inconvenient. The lunch counter protesters,
however morally right they were, in fact were breaking the rules.
They were asserting a moral right, but definitely not a legal one.
The warrantless wiretaps you mention represent just the opposite
situation, where they are conducted as a legal right (according to you-
know-who), but are morally (and constitutionally) wrong. In one case,
it could be said that the ends justified the means, but I don't think
that most people would apply that particular reasoning to the other
case. I didn't intend to state my premise in such terms that one has
to definitively choose either side. Life is not that simple.

All of this aside, let's not put check writers skirting the intention
of the amateur-built rules for their own convenience on the same level
as Parks and King and Gandhi, for that matter.

Thank you for your reasonable response, and the information it
contains.


Glad to contribute.

While I have precious little exposure to homebuilding and those who do
it, I have sincere respect for anyone who applies his skills in
constructing useful things. And craftsmanship seems to be an ever
diminishing virtue in today's world, so seeing it fostered in this
context provides hope that it won't be entirely driven out of
existence by mass production.


Agree 100%.

I guess the real question is why does the FAA feel it's necessary for
a homebuilder to have done 51% of the work? Is it to protect him from
himself, or to protect the public from him, or are there other
reasons? What of the prototypes built by Lockheed or Boeing; 51% of
them aren't constructed by a single individual.


Why 51%? I think that brings us back to the point of the feds
protecting the investment of the manufacturers in the type
certification process. The prototypes you mention aren't registered
as amateur-built. There are a number of experimental categories and
the 51% rule only applies to amateur-built aircraft.

Ken
  #18  
Old March 7th 08, 05:59 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 428
Default A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

Larry Dighera wrote:



I guess the real question is why does the FAA feel it's necessary for
a homebuilder to have done 51% of the work? Is it to protect him from
himself, or to protect the public from him, or are there other
reasons? What of the prototypes built by Lockheed or Boeing; 51% of
them aren't constructed by a single individual.


Those aircraft aren't certified under Experimental-Homebuilt. The only
place the 51% rule applies. And for the record the rule isn't that the
plane be built 51% by Joe T. Nomebuilder it is that 51% of the TASKS
have to be done by Joe or others for Education and Recreation.



It seems that there is some fundamental assumption that I am
overlooking, because the current FAA 51% mandate seems arbitrary and
unfounded to me.


Congress passed the law requiring the FAA to create the regulations.
That's how it works in Washington.

The law was designed to allow home builders to do exactly that "For
recreation and education. When it was first passed the way it was
implemented in the real world was Joe T. Homebuilder bought some plans
or even designed it himself and then went to the hardware store and
bought what he needed an built the plane.

As time passed companies started putting to kits of all the parts (in
very unfinished form) needed to build their plans and selling that along
with the plans. All is good at this point because buying raw material
isn't really either education and it certainly isn't recreational.

More time passed and those kits of parts started becoming more and
complete and finished. The FAA saw the problem and modified the
regulation with the completely reasonable 51% rule.

BTW.


  #19  
Old March 7th 08, 06:01 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Acepilot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

What is a "Pro Built"? I would take it to mean that an experimental
"kit" was built by somebody like Cessna or Piper, etc. As an amateur
builder, am I a "novice" when I complete it? Will I turn pro after I
finish a second one? I'd tend to say that an airplane built by Joe Blow
for somebody else is still amateur built, but the owner who applies for
the repairman certificate should not be able to get it if they
themselves did not build 51%.

Scott


Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Ron Lee wrote:

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



I have a business associate that bought a "pro-built" RV7. While he was
flying home X-C the plane lost power and he safely landed in a field. He
got the farmer who owned the land to tow him over beside the barn and
then found and A&P to come out and see if he could fix the problem.

The logs showed the plane had flown the 40 hours to get out of phase 1
testing. That A&P and another that looked at it later both felt after
looking at the plane that there was no way this plane had been flown
more than five or six hours.

When the buyer looked further at the log book entries he realized that
the that a date had been changed and that there was only, originally 3
days between the beginning and the end of the phase 1 testing.

He got his money back in the deal after his lawyer made it very clear
that there would either be a wire in the buyers account that day or a
call would be made to the FAA.


  #20  
Old March 7th 08, 06:52 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Sliker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 17:01:42 +0000, Acepilot
wrote:

What is a "Pro Built"? I would take it to mean that an experimental
"kit" was built by somebody like Cessna or Piper, etc. As an amateur
builder, am I a "novice" when I complete it? Will I turn pro after I
finish a second one? I'd tend to say that an airplane built by Joe Blow
for somebody else is still amateur built, but the owner who applies for
the repairman certificate should not be able to get it if they
themselves did not build 51%.

Scott


Pro Built is very easy to define. It's a plane licenced in the
experimental/amateur built catagory that was built by someone hired by
another to build it. Once someone accepts money to build someone
else's plane, he becomes a professional builder. How many planes the
pro builder has built in the past isn't part of the definition.
What irks me is when after this process is finished, some of the
persons that own the plane and didn't build it, put their name down as
the builder and get the repairman certificate, and later do
maintanence on this plane with questionable ability to perform it.
It's crap like this that puts the homebuilt/amateur catagory in
jepordy, and is now bringing on the wrath of the FAA.
Now, if the name of the pro builder is put down as the builder, it's
not as bad. But even this practice was not part of the original intent
of the homebuilt regulations. Probably the best way for Pro builders
to exist is if they built the plane for no one, then sold it. Similar
to when a house contractor builds a spec house, and sells it
afterwards. I would think that if the FAA had forseen what is going on
now with homebuilts, they probably never would have written the rule
at all or it would have been much more restrictive. Van's call to
arms is falling on a lof of deaf ears.
 




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
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 11:52 PM
[!] Russian Arms software sale Naval Aviation 0 December 18th 04 06:51 PM
Dick VanGrunsven commutes to aviation Fitzair4 Home Built 2 August 12th 04 11:19 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.