X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 14:30:05 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: <5zq@cox.net> Received: from [68.1.16.142] (HELO centrmmtao04.cox.net) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0c2) with ESMTP id 722983 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 14:28:53 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.1.16.142; envelope-from=5zq@cox.net Received: from OFFICE ([68.110.249.147]) by centrmmtao04.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with SMTP id <20050915182806.QWPY13943.centrmmtao04.cox.net@OFFICE> for ; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 14:28:06 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <00a901c5ba23$37a35580$6401a8c0@OFFICE> From: "Bill&Sue" <5zq@cox.net> X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] FAA Trying to stop us all? X-Original-Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 14:28:06 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00A6_01C5BA01.B042F940" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00A6_01C5BA01.B042F940 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable FAA Trying to stop us all?Hi Carl, I believe that you're reading way more into this memo than is actually = there. I see nothing that would make builder ASSISTANCE programs = illegal. They just want to evaluate the program to make sure that the = spirit and letter of the existing regulation is met. Let's face it, = there have been MANY instances of applicant's for an experimental = certificate who's building experience has consisted of writing checks. = Are their airplanes "safer"? Arguably yes, in some instances. Being = "better built" , however, doesn't make it "amatuer built".=20 We have a huge amount of freedom in the amatuer built category. = Professional assistance has never been illegal, nor does this memo = propose to make it illegal. I believe that the Feds want to make a = distinction between professional assistance and professional building. = I, for one, don't find this particularly onerous.=20 If you want to have an airplane built for you...call Cessna. If you want = an amatuer built airplane...build it. Get ASSISTANCE where needed. I = seriously doubt that the FAA will object to ligitimate professional = assistance. There is an Advisory Circular that specifically addresses = this matter. There's a fine line between "show me how to do this" and = "do this for me". I believe that this memo is just letting you know that = they will be looking to see if you're crossing that line.=20 Mine may not be a popular opinion. What do you listers think? I don't = think that the Feds are actually changing their position. It's the = industry that has, over the past several years, changed theirs. Bill Harrelson 5zq@cox.net N5ZQ 320 1,100 hrs (built by Sue and me with plenty of assistance) N6ZQ IV under construction using the experience and skills that the = previous assistance helped us acquire ------=_NextPart_000_00A6_01C5BA01.B042F940 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable FAA Trying to stop us all?
Hi Carl,
 
I believe that you're reading way more = into this=20 memo than is actually there. I see nothing that would make builder = ASSISTANCE=20 programs illegal. They just want to evaluate the program to make sure = that the=20 spirit and letter of the existing regulation is met. Let's face it, = there=20 have been MANY instances of applicant's for an experimental certificate = who's=20 building experience has consisted of writing checks. Are their = airplanes "safer"? Arguably yes, in some instances.  Being "better = built" ,=20 however, doesn't make it "amatuer built".
 
We have a huge amount of freedom in the = amatuer=20 built category. Professional assistance has never been illegal, nor does = this=20 memo propose to make it illegal. I believe that the Feds want = to make=20 a distinction between professional assistance and professional building. = I, for=20 one, don't find this particularly onerous.
 
If you want to have an airplane built = for=20 you...call Cessna. If you want an amatuer built airplane...build it. Get = ASSISTANCE where needed. I seriously doubt that the FAA will object to=20 ligitimate professional assistance. There is an Advisory Circular = that=20 specifically addresses this matter. There's a fine line between "show me = how to=20 do this" and "do this for me". I believe that this memo is just letting = you know=20 that they will be looking to see if you're crossing that line. =
 
Mine may not be a popular opinion. What = do you=20 listers think?  I don't think that the Feds are actually changing = their=20 position. It's the industry that has, over the past several years, = changed=20 theirs.
 
 
 
Bill Harrelson
5zq@cox.net
N5ZQ  320  1,100 = hrs   =20 (built by Sue and me with plenty of assistance)
N6ZQ   IV    = under=20 construction using the experience and skills that the previous = assistance=20 helped us acquire
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_00A6_01C5BA01.B042F940--