|
|
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 The Tasks list is
obsolete, incomplete and not appropriate to the mission.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
|
|