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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
The FAA is about to make it a whole hell of a lot harder for people to
build safe amateur built aircraft. Richard VanGrunsven, founder of one of the most successful kit aircraft companies, has written up a warning and a call to arms about the issue. You can read it beginning on page 3 of this document: http://doc.vansaircraft.com/RVator/2...008-RVator.pdf |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
Jim Logajan wrote:
The FAA is about to make it a whole hell of a lot harder for people to build safe amateur built aircraft. Richard VanGrunsven, founder of one of the most successful kit aircraft companies, has written up a warning and a call to arms about the issue. You can read it beginning on page 3 of this document: http://doc.vansaircraft.com/RVator/2...008-RVator.pdf Also consider using this site (to save Vans Aircraft some bandwidth load): http://www.vansairforce.net/rvator/1-2008-RVator.pdf |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
Jim Logajan wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote: The FAA is about to make it a whole hell of a lot harder for people to build safe amateur built aircraft. Richard VanGrunsven, founder of one of the most successful kit aircraft companies, has written up a warning and a call to arms about the issue. You can read it beginning on page 3 of this document: http://doc.vansaircraft.com/RVator/2...008-RVator.pdf Also consider using this site (to save Vans Aircraft some bandwidth load): http://www.vansairforce.net/rvator/1-2008-RVator.pdf Sounds more like they want to make it harder to_have_one_built_for_you. These articles explain the FAA's concerns over excessive commercial abuses of the Experimental Amateur Built (E-AB) licensing category. The ARC committee was created as an FAA/EAA/ Industry process to address the FAA concerns and to recommend corrective actions. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
On Mar 6, 11:03*pm, cavelamb himself wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote: Jim Logajan wrote: The FAA is about to make it a whole hell of a lot harder for people to build safe amateur built aircraft. Richard VanGrunsven, founder of one of the most successful kit aircraft companies, has written up a warning and a call to arms about the issue. You can read it beginning on page 3 of this document: http://doc.vansaircraft.com/RVator/2...008-RVator.pdf Also consider using this site (to save Vans Aircraft some bandwidth load): http://www.vansairforce.net/rvator/1-2008-RVator.pdf Sounds more like they want to make it harder to_have_one_built_for_you. * These articles explain the FAA's concerns over excessive commercial abuses of the Experimental Amateur Built (E-AB) licensing category. The ARC committee was created as an FAA/EAA/ Industry process to address the FAA concerns and to recommend corrective actions. 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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
stol wrote in
: On Mar 6, 11:03*pm, cavelamb himself wrote: Jim Logajan wrote: Jim Logajan wrote: The FAA is about to make it a whole hell of a lot harder for people to build safe amateur built aircraft. Richard VanGrunsven, founder of one of the most successful kit aircraft companies, has written up a warning and a call to arms about the issue. You can read it beginning on page 3 of this document: http://doc.vansaircraft.com/RVator/2...008-RVator.pdf Also consider using this site (to save Vans Aircraft some bandwidth load ): http://www.vansairforce.net/rvator/1-2008-RVator.pdf Sounds more like they want to make it harder to_have_one_built_for_you. * These articles explain the FAA's concerns over excessive commercial abuses of the Experimental Amateur Built (E-AB) licensing category. The ARC committee was created as an FAA/EAA/ Industry process to address the FAA concerns and to recommend corrective actions. 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. I agree. I couldn't be bothered to travel to OSH now... Bertie |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message ... I agree. I couldn't be bothered to travel to OSH now... Bertie But OSH is pretty cool! Gotta take it for what it is, not what they say it is. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
"stol" wrote in message ... 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. Yup,... I share your annoyance listening to them, but I'm glad they're spending their money in aviation rather than boating or classic cars. These bloated ego "come look at me" guys are present in every arena of life. I just keep thinking about how small our circle would be if they dried up. Sales at Spruce (Chief,... you name em) would drop and half of our source chain would disappear. Ol Clem wouldn't have his million dollar hanger in his poverty stricken backwater corner. Fact is you may never even hear about him outside his small loyal admirers. It would be a lot more "homey", but homey don't pay the bills. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
"Mike Isaksen" wrote in
news:BSaAj.6156$oy2.1669@trndny07: "stol" wrote in message ... 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. Yup,... I share your annoyance listening to them, but I'm glad they're spending their money in aviation rather than boating or classic cars. These bloated ego "come look at me" guys are present in every arena of life. I just keep thinking about how small our circle would be if they dried up. Sales at Spruce (Chief,... you name em) would drop and half of our source chain would disappear. Ol Clem wouldn't have his million dollar hanger in his poverty stricken backwater corner. Fact is you may never even hear about him outside his small loyal admirers. It would be a lot more "homey", but homey don't pay the bills. I disagree. ACS as well as many other suppliers were around long before these idiots arrived on the scene. Bertie |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
On Mar 7, 5:50*am, "Mike Isaksen" wrote:
"stol" wrote in message ... 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. Yup,... I share your annoyance listening to them, but I'm glad they're spending their money in aviation rather than boating or classic cars. These bloated ego "come look at me" guys are present in every arena of life. I just keep thinking about how small our circle would be if they dried up. Sales at Spruce (Chief,... you name em) would drop and half of our source chain would disappear. Ol Clem wouldn't have his million dollar hanger in his poverty stricken backwater corner. Fact is you may never even hear about him outside his small loyal admirers. It would be a lot more "homey", but homey don't pay the bills. I agree with the substance of your message. The real problem is Ol Clem is ruining it for all future homebuilders by thumbing his nose at the FAA. The hell with his million dollar hangar... Ben www.haaspowerair.com N801BH A proud homebuilder who did it the hard way..... |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 03:48:36 -0800 (PST), stol wrote
in : On Mar 6, 11:03*pm, cavelamb himself wrote: Jim Logajan wrote: Jim Logajan wrote: The FAA is about to make it a whole hell of a lot harder for people to build safe amateur built aircraft. Richard VanGrunsven, founder of one of the most successful kit aircraft companies, has written up a warning and a call to arms about the issue. You can read it beginning on page 3 of this document: http://doc.vansaircraft.com/RVator/2...008-RVator.pdf Also consider using this site (to save Vans Aircraft some bandwidth load): http://www.vansairforce.net/rvator/1-2008-RVator.pdf Sounds more like they want to make it harder to_have_one_built_for_you. * These articles explain the FAA's concerns over excessive commercial abuses of the Experimental Amateur Built (E-AB) licensing category. The ARC committee was created as an FAA/EAA/ Industry process to address the FAA concerns and to recommend corrective actions. 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 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? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
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 |
Small arms locker questions | Red | Naval Aviation | 4 | July 30th 03 02:10 PM |