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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |