Mailing List lml@lancaironline.net Message #31932
From: Rick Schrameck <rickschrameck@cox.net>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: FAA trying to stop us.
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 15:44:56 -0400
To: <lml@lancaironline.net>
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  The Tasks list is
 obsolete, incomplete and not appropriate to the mission.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/


Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster