FAA crack down on "professional builders"

"flybynightkarmarepair" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hired Guns (or to put a finer point on it, the
potential for cut-rate, slipshod operators in that field) are a
potential threat to that part of my life.

Better we, the Sport Aviation movement, get our own house in order,
than have external actors force changes down our throat, eh?


I'm not sure you're speaking to me here as I never suggested you should "get
a life". I really did not get all the way through your post, I usually tune
out as soon as I read something akin to "if you don't like it, go somewhere
else" or "commie", posts seldom recover from that sort of thing.

Here in Canada we have classes of ownership that you are denied such as
owner maintenance and homebuilt. Both seem to be working out well enough.
The hired builder does not have to be any better or worse than the approved
mechanic, Lord knows there are enough shysters out there with all the
credentials you can obtain. Sadly the paper does not constitute any
guarantee.

flybynightkarmarepair wrote:
Dave wrote:

"Drew Dalgleish" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 21:21:21 GMT, "Dave"
wrote:


In Canada the rules have been changed so you can legally use a hired
gun to build your plane. You better have deep pockets though.

I know that rules are different here, I just noted a fair amount of anger
about the concept of builders and figured that the rules weren't cast in
stone, why not update them. Then I got a long rant about Russia and commies,
go figure.


IMHO, they need to be updated - sorry if I went on a bit. But it's a
historical fact that the rules we live under now in the USA WERE
enacted in a Cold War, Red Scare context. That WAS the Window of
Oppurtunity Neil Bogardus flew the Little Gee Bee through. have no doubt
HIS would be safer.

I belive you mean George Bogardus

Jerry springer wrote:

flybynightkarmarepair wrote:

Dave wrote:

"Drew Dalgleish" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 21:21:21 GMT, "Dave"
wrote:


In Canada the rules have been changed so you can legally use a hired
gun to build your plane. You better have deep pockets though.


I know that rules are different here, I just noted a fair amount of
anger
about the concept of builders and figured that the rules weren't
cast in
stone, why not update them. Then I got a long rant about Russia and
commies,
go figure.



IMHO, they need to be updated - sorry if I went on a bit. But it's a
historical fact that the rules we live under now in the USA WERE
enacted in a Cold War, Red Scare context. That WAS the Window of
Oppurtunity Neil Bogardus flew the Little Gee Bee through. have no doubt
HIS would be safer.

I belive you mean George Bogardus

Some additional information can be found here on George's The Little
Gee Bee. http://www.eaa105.org/History/history.htm the restoration
on the little Gee Bee is now pretty much complete and it is setting in
Van's hangar. in the url is some good early information about Van as
well and the history of his first RV-3. There is even a picture of me
standing by my old VW powered Mini Coupe, man I was skinny in the early
70's.

Jerry

Jerry springer wrote:
flybynightkarmarepair wrote:

But it's a
historical fact that the rules we live under now in the USA WERE
enacted in a Cold War, Red Scare context. That WAS the Window of
Oppurtunity Neil Bogardus flew the Little Gee Bee through.

I belive you mean George Bogardus

Right!

More he http://www.bowersflybaby.com/stories/story.HTM

Key graf: "Prior to the war, reaction against homebuilt aircraft had
caused them to be banned in every state except Oregon. Bogardus wanted
the CAA to implement a new certification category that would overrule
the state limitations."

Getting the Hired Gun house in order will hopefully avoid another
reaction, this time on the national level.

On 8 Oct 2006 10:05:03 -0700, "flybynightkarmarepair"
wrote:


Jerry springer wrote:
flybynightkarmarepair wrote:

But it's a
historical fact that the rules we live under now in the USA WERE
enacted in a Cold War, Red Scare context. That WAS the Window of
Oppurtunity Neil Bogardus flew the Little Gee Bee through.

I belive you mean George Bogardus

Right!

More he http://www.bowersflybaby.com/stories/story.HTM

Key graf: "Prior to the war, reaction against homebuilt aircraft had
caused them to be banned in every state except Oregon. Bogardus wanted
the CAA to implement a new certification category that would overrule
the state limitations."

Getting the Hired Gun house in order will hopefully avoid another
reaction, this time on the national level.

Although I can't afford to hire some one to build for me, I don't see
a so called "hired gun" any different than purchasing a used home
built. One of the main reasons for building is being able to do your
own maintenance. Whether you hire one built or purchase used you do
not have that option. Purchasing used or having some one build it for
you comes with a lot of drawbacks. You can't do your own maintenance
and quite a few FBOs don't want to work on them.

As I see it, the hired gun approach is expensive. The owner is going
to spend nearly as much if not more than they would for a certificated
plane and probably have more capabilities than they could buy.

The Comp10 was listed earlier. Building something like that is not
much different than building a Glasair or Lancair, but probably more
like the two and 4 seat glasair bush plane (forgot the name). I'd
*guess* it'd probably be easier than the G-III and probably the
Lancair 320-360, and IV series.

Bigger doesn't necessarily mean more difficult to build, particularly
when it's over a steel tube frame. I never have figured out why any
one would want to built a comp 10 except as a conversation piece.
:-)) The 6-place with a PT-6 and the rear seats thrown out could be
a lot of fun though.

Now the issue of the hired gun itself: Does any one have any
statistics on just how many have gone beyond the basic builder's
center help?
I doubt it's many.

I strongly believe the week or two basic builder's center help is
something every first time builder should take advantage of "If they
can afford it" because in those two weeks they'll learn all the basic
techniques to do a good job and put them to use.

Me? Something like that could have saved me many hours of trial and
error learning and yes, I'm building one of those aerobatic capable
hot rods. There is an unofficial POH and I've had one of them pulling
3 1/2 to 4 Gs at the listed Vne, not Va. I know that particular plane
had been tested far beyond what I was doing so I was not concerned.
Chip Beck used to enter the vertical 8 (one loop on top of the other)
way over that listed Vne and he was pulling far more Gs than I. :-))
OTOH he has a lot more skill too.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Jerry springer wrote:
Some additional information can be found here on George's The Little
Gee Bee. http://www.eaa105.org/History/history.htm the restoration
on the little Gee Bee is now pretty much complete and it is setting in
Van's hangar. in the url is some good early information about Van as
well and the history of his first RV-3. There is even a picture of me
standing by my old VW powered Mini Coupe, man I was skinny in the early
70's.

It looks like there is a real good article in the April/May 2006 Air
and Space Magazine on George and the Little Gee Bee.
http://www.airspacemag.com/issues/20...ay/beltway.php
I'll check it out at the library and report back.

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 23:29:41 -0400, "Roger (K8RI)" wrote:

Although I can't afford to hire some one to build for me, I don't see
a so called "hired gun" any different than purchasing a used home
built. One of the main reasons for building is being able to do your
own maintenance. Whether you hire one built or purchase used you do
not have that option.

Not quite true. Anyone can *maintain* a homebuilt aircraft. The annual
condition inspection, however, must be performed by a qualified individual (A&P
or the Repairman Certificate for that aircraft).

The biggest problem in the "hired gun" building is the perjury that is entailed
if the owner certifies it in the Experimental/Amateur-Built category. The FAA
needs a new subcategory equivalent to Amateur-Built...."Custom-Built" or some
similar verbiage. No 51% rule, no Repairman Certificates, maintenance can be
performed by owner, annuals must be by A&P.

Manufacturer's name on the registration to be listed as the actual name (e.g.,
no corporations or other liability dodges) of the primary builder. If certified
parts are used, they have full AD vulnerability. If a non-certified engine is
used, again, the builder's name is listed as the engine manufacturer.

I'd couple this with some additional restrictions on Experimental Amateur-Built
to force things back to Education/Recreation. Maybe scale back some of the
recent 51% rule interpretations. Maybe eliminate turbine engines,
turbochargers, and pressurization, or just limit them to planes of two seats or
less.

Ron Wanttaja

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 23:29:41 -0400, "Roger (K8RI)"
wrote:

Although I can't afford to hire some one to build for me, I don't see
a so called "hired gun" any different than purchasing a used home
built. One of the main reasons for building is being able to do your
own maintenance. Whether you hire one built or purchase used you do
not have that option.

Not quite true. Anyone can *maintain* a homebuilt aircraft. The annual
condition inspection, however, must be performed by a qualified individual
(A&P
or the Repairman Certificate for that aircraft).

The biggest problem in the "hired gun" building is the perjury that is
entailed
if the owner certifies it in the Experimental/Amateur-Built category. The
FAA
needs a new subcategory equivalent to Amateur-Built...."Custom-Built" or
some
similar verbiage. No 51% rule, no Repairman Certificates, maintenance can
be
performed by owner, annuals must be by A&P.

Manufacturer's name on the registration to be listed as the actual name
(e.g.,
no corporations or other liability dodges) of the primary builder. If
certified
parts are used, they have full AD vulnerability. If a non-certified
engine is
used, again, the builder's name is listed as the engine manufacturer.

I'd couple this with some additional restrictions on Experimental
Amateur-Built
to force things back to Education/Recreation. Maybe scale back some of
the
recent 51% rule interpretations. Maybe eliminate turbine engines,
turbochargers, and pressurization, or just limit them to planes of two
seats or
less.

Ron Wanttaja

Actually, IIRC, an owner can /maintain/ a certified aircraft as well. There
is a pubished list of approved owner performed maintenance steps--provided
that the appropriate parts, tools, manuals, and procedures are used.
However, in the case of type cerficicated aircraft, a mechanic with IA must
inspect and sign-off repairs and periodic condition inspections--and a
professional mechanic or apprentice /usually/ performs the work as well.

I see no reason to change the current interpretation of the 51% rule,
requiring the /builder/ to gain and demonstrate proficiency and successfull
completion of 51% of the work steps. IMHO, most of the griping has little
to do with safety and much to do with jealousy. Therefore, I say "get over
it."

Peter

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
The biggest problem in the "hired gun" building is the perjury that is entailed
if the owner certifies it in the Experimental/Amateur-Built category. The FAA
needs a new subcategory equivalent to Amateur-Built...."Custom-Built" or some
similar verbiage. No 51% rule, no Repairman Certificates, maintenance can be
performed by owner, annuals must be by A&P.

Like ELSA without the LSA restrictions.

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 10:32:31 -0400, "Peter Dohm" wrote:

Actually, IIRC, an owner can /maintain/ a certified aircraft as well. There
is a pubished list of approved owner performed maintenance steps--provided
that the appropriate parts, tools, manuals, and procedures are used.
However, in the case of type cerficicated aircraft, a mechanic with IA must
inspect and sign-off repairs and periodic condition inspections--and a
professional mechanic or apprentice /usually/ performs the work as well.

The owner of a certified aircraft can perform *certain* tasks with no
supervision or other signoff...the list of preventative maintenance tasks
spelled out in Appendix A of 14CFR Part 43. As you say, the owner can perform
any other maintenance task as well, but the aircraft cannot be flown until a
certified individual takes responsibility for the work.

In contrast, no such signoff is needed for a homebuilt. Anyone can perform major
alterations and repairs and return the aircraft to service. I can (and have...)
do work like removing an engine cylinder or replace major airframe components on
a homebuilt and signed off the work myself. The only thing I have to be
concerned about is whether the A&P performing the annual condition inspection
(up to a year later) will consider the airplane still airworthy.

The amount of difference this makes depends on one's individual circumstances.
Some owners have good friends who are A&Ps. To them, there's little difference
between Experimental and Certified, other than the need to use approved parts.

Ron Wanttaja