From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: FAA trying to stop us.
To: lml
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 13:23:42 -0400
Message-ID: <web-725071@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <9F819487C44F0B4DBDB0CC0450824CEB019B54A3@ehost005-2.exch005intermedia.net>
References: <9F819487C44F0B4DBDB0CC0450824CEB019B54A3@ehost005-2.exch005intermedia.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Posted for "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>:

  Rick, I am wishing you the best on your efforts.  I am impressed with
  Carl's latest project.  I however, continue to become more confused with
  the various twists and turns of this melodrama.
  
  The consequences could indeed signal a clear course change in Amateur
  Built FAA Approved Kits.  If you have not yet applied to be added to
  that manufacturer list, please do and keep us informed.  If readers do
  not understand the TASK List, then this is most assuredly the time to do
  so. I for one think both Joe Bartels and Richard VanGrunsven should
  press to expand and clarify the obsolete task list.  The Tasks list is
  obsolete, incomplete and not appropriate to the mission.  Several
  posters are right that clearly required system tasks are not subject to
  the rule - like avionics, paint and engine build.  Maybe it needs to be
  renamed the 33% rule.
  
  Every purchaser of a kit should have a clear vision of the path to
  Experimental Certification - Amateur Built.  The options of Factory
  Assist (Lancair - Redmond), Quick Build Alternate kit (P.I. Bonanza
  Metalcrafters), Professional Assistance (seeking occasional and
  documented support like Aerocrafters), education, or just writing a big
  check to a Professional Builder (hired gunslinger) to do it are all
  separate events and various routes to the objective.  I see tremendous
  value in seeking alternate solutions to the objective. Safety will
  certainly be increased. The final product quality and the proficiency of
  the "Builder" should be the objective.
  
  The complexity, performance and consistency of said product has sure
  improved in the last few years.  I am glad it has. I am hopeful the EAA
  is not in bed with the Seattle MIDO but will serve as an advocate for
  the little guy. I want to continue to engage those with more knowledge
  and skill than I possess as I build an improved version of what used to
  be called Spam Cans.  I think the industry deserves on overhaul of this
  archaic and non appropriate list of tasks.
  
  John Cox