Bill,
    I'm sorry that you did not understand the issue that Carl is talking about.  This has nothing to do with Epic.  The fact is that other than 4 or 6 passenger configuration there is no difference between the Lancair IV-PT and the Epic.  Both planes are turbine powered, pressurized et all.
    Tim Ong bragged about setting the difference between our Epic and the Lancair IV-PT as a seat issue.  He did not take the time to understand that the FAA is going to shut them down and all other quick build companies with the proposal now before you.

    This is not an issue between companies it is about the future of high performance experimental s, commercial assistance and high performance homebuilt.

    At this time they are making a new definition for high performance aircraft, next it takes no effort if this passes to make the normal FAA definition of complex aircraft as the new standard.  Now retract, gear and 200 HP are complex.

    I implore you all not to take this lightly.  The FAA wants all experimental aircraft gone.  You need to read the proposed 8130-2 as a FAA guy would. If you buy a quick build kit and get builder assist like you can be turned down as not completing the 51%.  This is not the way it is now but the way the new order will make it.  You will not be able to buy a kit and buy a firewall forward under the new reading of the 51% rule.

    Read the proposed order carefully it changes everything and the FAA has been working on this for Two or more years.  This is not about Epic.  It is about all of our rights to build experimental aircraft and develop new technologies.


Rick

Legacy 123



Bill&Sue wrote:

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".

 

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.

 

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.

 

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