FAA releases final report on changes to amateur-built aircraft rules

On Sep 25, 8:51*am, "Anyolmouse" wrote:
"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message

...





Anyolmouse wrote:

Some years ago I read that the reason for the requirement that the
majority of work building an experimental/homebuilt aircraft was to
insure the builder "learned" something. That it was to be an
educational
experience. Can't find any mention of it today. It used to be they
same
for amateur radio as well. We actually built radios, antennas from
plans
and schematics and at a later time from Heathkits, etc. Does anyone
else
remember the educational requirement and if so when it was no longer
mentioned?

I don't believe there was ever solely a education requirement.

The 51% rule came about because some folks were taking production
airplanes, modifying them, and registering them a Experimental
Amateur-Built. *The Nelson N-4 was an example:

http://www.nvva.nl/renekrul/catalogs...elson.n14n.jpg

Basically, it was a cut-down J-3, converted to a shoulder-wing single
seater.

Probably wasn't that big of a deal when it was just an occasional
owner,
but I suspect some folks started doing this commercially as a way to
bypass the STC process. *Hence the requirement that the majority of
the
construction had to be done for "Education or Recreation."

Ron Wanttaja

Thanks for replying-

--
We have met the enemy and he is us-- Pogo

Anyolmouse-

AND...it is only getting worse every single day!

At the rate things are going, the government will not only spend every
time we earn before we make it but will control both our sleep and our
waking time.
Resistance if futile....you will be assimilated!

I always knew Stu was one of the brighter bulbs around here.
But this is absolutely brilliant!
Ya done good, Stu.


The need to control exceeds the need to make sense.

"SP" == Stealth Pilot writes:

The PDF document of the committee's final report is he

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/u...008_report.pdf

SP you americans have gone off on a tangent. you've forgotten
SP what is important here.

Hey, that was 9 years ago...we got back on track last year.
Oh, you're talking about amateur aircraft...

I just started to read the final report, but keep in mind through all
the rants about the FAA: they do not make policy, they only create
rules to carry out a policy the Congress and Executive made.

So for instance, several years ago I was busted for violating a VIP
TFR and got a 30 day suspension. I could have posted rants here about
the fascist FAA, but in fact it was the fascist POTUS who made the
policy; the FAA was only enforcing it.

--
Folks still remember the day Bob Riley came bouncing down that
dirt road in his pickup. Pretty soon it was bouncing higher and
higher. The tire popped, and the shocks broke, but that truck
kept on bouncing. Some say it bounced clear over the moon, but
whoever says that is a goddamn liar.
- Jack Handey

"Anyolmouse" wrote in message
...

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
The PDF document of the committee's final report is he


http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/u...008_report.pdf

Some years ago I read that the reason for the requirement that the
majority of work building an experimental/homebuilt aircraft was to
insure the builder "learned" something. That it was to be an educational
experience. Can't find any mention of it today. It used to be they same
for amateur radio as well. We actually built radios, antennas from plans
and schematics and at a later time from Heathkits, etc. Does anyone else
remember the educational requirement and if so when it was no longer
mentioned?

--
A man is known by the company he keeps- Unknown

Anyolmouse


I recall the same, in both radio and aircraft, but have no idea when or
where the language might have been dropper--or even whether it is not
entirely omitted.

Peter

"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:31:14 -0500, Jim Logajan
wrote:

The PDF document of the committee's final report is he

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/u...008_report.pdf

thanks for posting this Jim.

as a interested non american can I pass some comments.

you americans have gone off on a tangent. you've forgotten what is
important here.
much of what is in this determination and the regs it relates to is
nonsense.

safe amateur construction is about the resulting aircraft being
structurally adequate for flight and having flight dynamics such that
the pilot can actually fly the aircraft.

the 50 or 51% rule is a total irrelevance. it has no direct
correlation with safety or structural adequacy.
in fact forcing a builder to do a poorer job than an expert who might
assist is plain stupid in safety terms.

the worry that people will bypass the certified manufacturing system
is just a stupid imposition of wills argument. why the hell are you
seeking to stifle enterprise? the actual requirement is that people
put structurally adequate aircraft into the air. how they do it is
only relevant if you are a jealous little dweeb.
why the worry about this? for heavens sake Cessna is about to market
the Dreamcatcher, an aircraft made in the sweatshops of china.
you havent worried about that and yet you support the stupid argument
that people can only build in the manner prescribed by a 1930's safety
approach.

if you dont frame your legislation in terms of the structural adequacy
of the final aircraft you've missed the point entirely.
the 51% rule is a crock, a legal convenience used by a judge in a
determination, why you've made this into a religion is beyond thinking
people.

sorry but you guys have missed the boat entirely with this thinking.
hopefully it wont take the rest of the century before you realise.

Stealth Pilot

First, the vast majority of people knowlegeable in aviation in the USA are
on the same page that you are.

Second, when we include fees to transit airspace, I for one am not at all
convinced that Australians have faired any better--and, if we include
matters not drelated to aviation, it might appear that you have faired far
worse.

Peter

Peter Dohm wrote:
"Anyolmouse" wrote in message
...
"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
The PDF document of the committee's final report is he


http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/u...008_report.pdf

Some years ago I read that the reason for the requirement that the
majority of work building an experimental/homebuilt aircraft was to
insure the builder "learned" something. That it was to be an educational
experience. Can't find any mention of it today. It used to be they same
for amateur radio as well. We actually built radios, antennas from plans
and schematics and at a later time from Heathkits, etc. Does anyone else
remember the educational requirement and if so when it was no longer
mentioned?

--
A man is known by the company he keeps- Unknown

Anyolmouse


I recall the same, in both radio and aircraft, but have no idea when or
where the language might have been dropper--or even whether it is not
entirely omitted.

Peter




Its from 14 CFR 21.191 and it lists the categories under which one may
apply for an experimental certification:

(g) Operating amateur-built aircraft. Operating an aircraft the major
portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by persons who
undertook the construction project solely for their own education or
recreation.

Charles