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
|
|||
|
|||
FAA releases final report on changes to amateur-built aircraft rules
The PDF document of the committee's final report is he
http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/u...008_report.pdf |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
FAA releases final report on changes to amateur-built aircraft rules
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
FAA releases final report on changes to amateur-built aircraft rules
"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 Hey Stealth Pilot: Take a look at the turbine powered rotorcraft requirements. The Feds want some Inspection plan for the turbine engine and totally ignore the two stroke powered ships and the seizure problems that these engines have demonstrated. It seems that we have a need to stick some rules out there just to maintain our position of authority. It doesn't seem to matter if those rules make us look more stupid and actually engender more tendencies to ignore or bypass the Feds. The need to control exceeds the need to make sense. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
FAA releases final report on changes to amateur-built aircraftrules
On Sep 23, 11:56*am, Stealth Pilot wrote:
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...built/media/AR... 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 Believe me when I state that we know and must accept that our burro- craps don't have a clue but in the interest of maintaining employment we are forced to accept them. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
FAA releases final report on changes to amateur-built aircraft rules
"Stu Fields" wrote in message ... The need to control exceeds the need to make sense. This is the definition of government in the USA |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
FAA releases final report on changes to amateur-built aircraft rules
In article ,
"Dan D" wrote: "Stu Fields" wrote in message ... The need to control exceeds the need to make sense. This is the definition of government in the USA This is a general tendency of governments everywhere throughout history. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
FAA releases final report on changes to amateur-built aircraft rules
Stealth Pilot wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote: The PDF document of the committee's final report is he http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/u...ilt/media/ARC_ FINAL_2008_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. I'd agree that the U.S. government has gone off on a tangent on amateur built aircraft, but the tangent actually took place quite a few decades ago. This is just continuing fallout from an attempt to claim back some freedom. 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. Actually, I believe it was appeals for more safety that effectively outlawed flight of amateur built aircraft for several decades in most of the U.S. back in the 1920s. Don't know what the history was like in your country - maybe you guys lucked out or kept your government at bay somehow. I think that historically, mixing "government" with appeals to "safety" yields patronizing tyranny in any part of the universe. So I now think it is better to argue for freedom to make mistakes than argue for safety! the 50 or 51% rule is a total irrelevance. it has no direct correlation with safety or structural adequacy. True - but the exception that was finally carved out of the previous oppressive U.S. state and CAA/(later FAA) regulations uses the phrase "major portion" and that has yielded the 51% interpretation. in fact forcing a builder to do a poorer job than an expert who might assist is plain stupid in safety terms. Let's not go there again! :-) Some of us want our freedoms, not protection from ourselves! Else, what is the point of life? 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. By "you" I assume you mean "your government". I don't disagree with the general thrust of your points. I'm all for keeping civilized thuggery (my own term for "government") to a minimum. 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. I think this whole issue came up because the FAA has to periodically justify their budget requests. The problem could have been dealt with in other ways, but their proposed rule changes would have allowed an expansion of their duties. Since "eternal vigilance is the price of freedom," our own alphabet soup of private organizations had to deal with this encroachment on this particular liberty. The fight, alas, will never complete. 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. I don't agree with that line of argument. That is because there is a class of machines known as ultralights where U.S. citizens don't have to prove anything about either the safety of the aircraft or the pilots. It is a good freedom, though very tiny and circumscribed. I'd rather the ultralight safety record be improved by self-serving actions of its participants so that it can act as argument _against_ the need for civilized patronizing thuggery (i.e. more government regs.) sorry but you guys have missed the boat entirely with this thinking. hopefully it wont take the rest of the century before you realise. There is a lot of civilized organized thuggery and many patrons who benefit from it, so it may take more than a century to roll any of it back. :-( |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
FAA releases final report on changes to amateur-built aircraft rules
"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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
FAA releases final report on changes to amateur-built aircraftrules
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
FAA releases final report on changes to amateur-built aircraft rules
"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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FAA publishes proposed changes to amateur-built rules. | Jim Logajan | Home Built | 19 | July 28th 08 08:30 AM |
Flight Restrictions on non-amateur built experimental aircraft?? | Don W | Home Built | 9 | April 20th 07 11:23 PM |
Air Force Releases USAFA Report | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | September 2nd 04 09:45 PM |
clever amateur built placard mods | Joa | Home Built | 5 | January 8th 04 08:10 AM |
restrictions on Amateur built aircraft | Rob | Home Built | 3 | October 20th 03 08:37 PM |