Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 15:44:56 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-725152@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.31; envelope-from=rickschrameck@cox.net
From: Rick Schrameck <rickschrameck@cox.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Macintosh/20050317)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: FAA trying to stop us.
References: <list-725089@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-725089@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

John,

You are not confused you got it right.

 Neither Joe nor Richard can expand or clarify only the FAA and EAA can 
do it.  The FAA is right now going against the AC's provided by them and 
the EAA regarding the way our aircraft are issued certificatees.

Rick


Marvin Kaye wrote:

> 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
>  
>
> -- 
> For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/lml/
>