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

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

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.

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

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

"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.

"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

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?

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.....

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

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?


Pretty much everythign , as usual, Larry.

You don't build so **** off and mind your own business.


Bertie