A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

Appreciate the comment. If certification has value, why does this put him
in unfair competition?



Because it takes time and money.



Replying to myself (because it's late)...


Ok first:

Certifications says that the airplane meets minimum standards for
controlability and performance. That is not the case with X-AB.

The airplane can be manufactured in quanity and sold freely.
But the design is then frozen.
No changes are allowed without recertification.

Experimental amateur built allows you to build an airplane for your own
education and recreation.

It does not have to meet FAA standards of any kind.

Usually the neophyte builder has some tool skills - but no where near
what he (or she!) will have when finished.
That's part of the education part.

But one who says he can't - before trying - is usually right.


Second:

Fiberglass is laid, not flipped.
And dog gone near anybody can learn to do it.
It's not magic.
Just messy.


And Lastly:

I humbly suggest that if you are going to come in here with that handle,
you need to make a much more active effort at educating yourself.

This is a very technical forum.

And there are some very talented and knowledgable people who hang here.

They mostly don't care for trolls.

For what it's worth...

Richard

On Mar 8, 5:36*am, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote:

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.- Hide quoted text -

Isn't that blackmail?

Cheers

"cavelamb himself" wrote

Actually, jst to keep the record straight, you CAN buy an X-AB airplane.
But the biulder can not build and register another of the same kind.

Really? Where did you get that information? Do you know of a case where a
builder was denied the second airplane's airworthiness permit?
--
Jim in NC

WJRFlyBoy wrote in
:

On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 02:50:33 GMT, Dale Scroggins wrote:

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?

Your frontal lobes, from all appearances...

Amusing Rich, sorta, but I find no argument that can untrack
Larry's.

None.
--


How about this argument: Until a century or so ago, a landowner held
rights from the center of the earth to the heavens. Nothing could
pass over his land without his permission. Since there were no
aircraft, the issue didn't come up very often. When flight became
possible, this property theory was changed to allow overflight;
however, overflight was not a right given by God, but a negotiated
privilege enforced by governments through legislation and courts.
Because flying over other people's property without permission has
never been a right, and certainly was not even a privilege at the
time the Constitution was written, how do you libertarians come up
with any basis for arguing that the government has limited authority
in regulating aviation? Aviation would not exist in this country
without government action.

In the U.S., with a few exceptions, flying machines need
Airworthiness Certificates to fly. Airworthiness Certificates are
issued by the government. They are not issued or denied arbitrarily.
If you do not wish to meet requirements for issue of an
Airworthiness Certificate, your home-built project could be a nice
static display. That is the ultimate penalty for ignoring or
circumventing requirements.

Dale Scroggins

Thx, I understand the federal and statutory history but, I don't
believe, that is the issue here.

Here is my personal example. I don't have the expertise or time to kit
or plan build. These planes are, at least, the equivalent or superior
to the major manufacturers. If they are not, then I don't understand
why the FAA would allow them.


Which airplane?

Yet I can't buy a completely built kit/plans plane. If this isn't to
control the entry plane market place (or the maj mfgs market), then
why is the restriction imposed. I understand all the philosophical and
why ppl have immense pride in their own-builds but that is not
relevant to the issue at hand.

Cessna goes to China to get the Skyscraper at a reasonable price. Yet
we have USA built planes off better value that are restricted from my
purchase because I can't flip fiberglass?


So, if someone builds a BD% on commision for you you think that's safer
than a 172?

That's what we're talking about.


Bertie

WJRFlyBoy wrote in
:

On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 06:45:03 GMT, wrote:

In rec.aviation.piloting WJRFlyBoy
wrote:

Yet I can't buy a completely built kit/plans plane.

Sure you can.

See any airplanes for sale web site.

You just can't buy one and have the same privilges as the original
builder.

--
Jim Pennino

Ok, what rights do I lose and why do I lose them?

the origianl builder is the manufacturer. He can effect any maintenance
or repeair on the airplane he likes...You buy it , you can't.


Th ereason is pretty obvious. He has demonstrated he knows what he is
doing and has effectively been issued a resticted airframe or airframe
and powerplant licence.


Bertie

WJRFlyBoy wrote in
:

On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 00:46:47 -0600, cavelamb himself wrote:

Thx, I understand the federal and statutory history but, I don't
believe, that is the issue here.

Here is my personal example. I don't have the expertise or time to
kit or plan build. These planes are, at least, the equivalent or
superior to the major manufacturers. If they are not, then I don't
understand why the FAA would allow them.

Yet I can't buy a completely built kit/plans plane. If this isn't to
control the entry plane market place (or the maj mfgs market), then
why is the restriction imposed. I understand all the philosophical
and why ppl have immense pride in their own-builds but that is not
relevant to the issue at hand.

Cessna goes to China to get the Skyscraper at a reasonable price.
Yet we have USA built planes off better value that are restricted
from my purchase because I can't flip fiberglass?


Actually, jst to keep the record straight, you CAN buy an X-AB
airplane. But the biulder can not build and register another of the
same kind.

That puts him in unfair competition with the certified manufacturers
who went to the expense and trouble to certify their airplanes.

Appreciate the comment. If certification has value, why does this put
him in unfair competition?

Because it cost many millions to certify an airplane. It doesn;'t cost
anything to kit a homebuilt. We're not just talking about RVs here. There
are some major crooks and nutjobs out there selling dreams. Peopkle have
died in them. Now, if you want to build one of these yourself, and you can
build anything you want, BTW, the FAA really only looks to see if it was
put together properly, then off you go and more power to you. That's
experimenting. But to try and sell some of these things as capable
airplanes would be criminal. I think some of the kitplanes around are
crimes against nature as it is, but there ya go..
The RVs could probably be certified pretty easily. A couple of air forces
are even using them as trainers and there have been thousands built, so a
lot of th eR&D is already done.


Bertie




Bertie

William Hung wrote in
:

On Mar 7, 10:07*pm, "Morgans" wrote:
"William Hung" wrote I agree with you to a
certain point. *I think that there arepeople out
there who are better off having 'one made for them' than to have them
make it themselves. *I know people will say, 'so let them get a
certified one!' *Well... just well...

They still have the freedom to go out and buy an experimental that
was constructed by someone else, under the rights allowed the person
that buil
t
it, as educational/recreational.

Until the regulations are change to allow people to build airplanes
for hire, and not have to be certified, that is the only way to go,
except the

limitations of LSA.

You don't like a reg, get it changed. *You don't have the right to
screw
it
up for me, when I decide to build-legally, under the current amateur
built

provisions.
--
Jim in NC

It's not that I don't like the reg or wanting them changed, I just
want to be able to get help on my project if I get to a point where I
think, 'Hey maybe I'm not so confident about doing this part myself'.
I am still thinking about building my own plane, but that time hasn't
yet arrived.

That's no problem. That's sinificantly different from writing a check
and having someone build one for you. The airplanes in that class
usually are available with center sections built and so on, so there;s
no excuse to take it further.

I can see stol's point of view that there are people out there with
more money than brains. People who pay pros to do their work an
claiming credit for it. Those people are slimeballs, I agree.


And the more salient point is there are slimeballs out there who will
sell you an airplane that is a deathtrap..

Time for Juan Jiminez to enter.....


Bertue

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message ...

It would be very interesting for someone to be charged with operating an illegally built aircraft. How would this be
challenged in the courts?

I don't think they'd be charged with operating an illegally-built aircraft, but
if they applied for the Repairman Certificate, they could be charged with
perjury.

In any case, the FAA could just cancel the plane's airworthiness certificate,
and the person who bought it from the hired gun would be out the ~$50K-$250K he
paid for it.

Ron Wanttaja

Just because the FAA cancels the airworthiness certificate doesn't make the aircraft any more or less 'airworthy'.

Have you seen the justification presented to re-register aircraft every 3 years? Looks like the FAA can't enforce
current regulations. So they write more?

I seem to remember it costs something like 10 million to certify a 'car' to run on roads in the US of A. The cost to
certify an aircraft is insane. There needs to be a middle ground where a sound safe design can be produced (built)
without the muda and hindrances of our govment.

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message ...
WJRFlyBoy wrote in
:

On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 06:45:03 GMT, wrote:

In rec.aviation.piloting WJRFlyBoy
wrote:

Yet I can't buy a completely built kit/plans plane.

Sure you can.

See any airplanes for sale web site.

You just can't buy one and have the same privilges as the original
builder.

--
Jim Pennino

Ok, what rights do I lose and why do I lose them?

the origianl builder is the manufacturer. He can effect any maintenance
or repeair on the airplane he likes...You buy it , you can't.


Th ereason is pretty obvious. He has demonstrated he knows what he is
doing and has effectively been issued a resticted airframe or airframe
and powerplant licence.


Bertie


Not exactly. The buyer can go all the maintenance, they just cannot sign off the annual condition inspection. You still
have a bonus here also, an A&P can sign off the inspection; you don't need an AI. If the buyer wanted to make a major
change, like maybe put in a different more powerful engine, then the stakes are higher. In that case, depending on how
the ops limitations are written, the plane may need to fly off the initial hours within the 25 mile confines..

"Blueskies" wrote in
t:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
WJRFlyBoy wrote in
:

On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 06:45:03 GMT, wrote:

In rec.aviation.piloting WJRFlyBoy
wrote:

Yet I can't buy a completely built kit/plans plane.

Sure you can.

See any airplanes for sale web site.

You just can't buy one and have the same privilges as the original
builder.

--
Jim Pennino

Ok, what rights do I lose and why do I lose them?

the origianl builder is the manufacturer. He can effect any
maintenance or repeair on the airplane he likes...You buy it , you
can't.


Th ereason is pretty obvious. He has demonstrated he knows what he is
doing and has effectively been issued a resticted airframe or
airframe and powerplant licence.


Bertie


Not exactly. The buyer can go all the maintenance, they just cannot
sign off the annual condition inspection. You still have a bonus here
also, an A&P can sign off the inspection; you don't need an AI. If the
buyer wanted to make a major change, like maybe put in a different
more powerful engine, then the stakes are higher. In that case,
depending on how the ops limitations are written, the plane may need
to fly off the initial hours within the 25 mile confines..



You're right, of course. I was aiming more for the spirit of the law
than the letter. My own view is that the laws are pretty sensible the
way they stand with the exception of the loophole which effectively
allows manufacture without certification. The FAA already relaxed
certification significantly with the LSA thing, which i do hope won'[t
be abused in the same way by there being absolute junk foisted in the
unsuspecting. So far it seems to be working better than I would have
imagined.


Bertie