X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 09:28:38 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-m17.mx.aol.com ([64.12.138.207] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0c2) with ESMTP id 726324 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 19 Sep 2005 08:03:36 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.138.207; envelope-from=MikeEasley@aol.com Received: from MikeEasley@aol.com by imo-m17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r5.5.) id q.1de.43b7a09e (25305) for ; Mon, 19 Sep 2005 08:02:47 -0400 (EDT) From: MikeEasley@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: <1de.43b7a09e.306002e7@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 08:02:47 EDT Subject: Re: FAA trying to stop us. X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1127131367" X-Mailer: 9.0 Security Edition for Windows sub 5200 X-Spam-Flag: NO -------------------------------1127131367 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Other than going through the kit approval process, the FAA doesn't like to get involved until the airplane is finished. The document doesn't talk about any "how are we doing" visits. I think that explains why the FAA did stop by Epic for a friendly visit. Although the changes in the rules concerning number of seats and being able to build the aircraft at home seemed directly aimed at Epic, I don't think this FAA rule change is as much about Epic as it is about too many airplanes departing from the original concept of "homebuilt" or "amateur built". Buying a kit that's 49% complete from the factory (according to the checklist), okay, getting professional help at a factory assist center, okay; combining both, probably okay. But the heart of this rule seems to be about "builder assist" while the airplane owner is off earning a living. One person's comment that these changes have been in the works longer than Epic sort of confirms my theory on the rule's motivation. I would think that Mooney and Piper, who are only selling a handful of planes may have approached the FAA and said, "Enough is enough, are you going to let these people walk all over the rules?" Maybe, Rick, it was TBM. You go toe to toe with them on your web site! These certified companies are struggling and they spent millions going through certification so they could sell airplanes. I agree with Rick that Epic shouldn't be singled out. I do wonder why anybody would shell out that kind of money without some assurance that they could register their airplane when it's done. I would think that if a Lancair IVP can pass the 51% kit approval checklist process, Epic should be able to. If the builder stays at your facility during the completion, Epic is operating along the same lines as Lancair. Doesn't it seem like they want the DAR to document the "nature" of the builder assist? The FAA has always encouraged builder assist due to the safety and educational benefit. If the airplane owner is off earning a living and not participating, he's just paying someone to build his airplane. Since kits are completed and registered often years after they are purchased, the risk to a kit builder of the FAA changing the rules midstream is real. Let's say you could buy an "approved" kit. During the building process, the FAA changes the checklist to better reflect the 51% rule. The pre-approved kits would no longer be valid. The DAR uses the new checklist and you can't register your airplane. Just because your kit is approved when you buy it, doesn't mean it's approved when you try to register it. The FAA document says clearly that the pre-approval process is only to help the DAR determine the major portion requirement. Any DAR who's questioning the 51% rule, even before the new changes, could toss aside the pre-approval and demand documentation from the builder showing that he did build the major portion. That's under the current rules. The new rules emphasize the FAA's insistence on the builder building the "major portion", and that they are going to be looking at that more closely in the future. The EAA has a big job ahead of them preserving the status quo, and protecting the many kits that are under construction. Like I said, I don't think Epic caused this! Mike -------------------------------1127131367 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Other than going through the kit approval process, the FAA doesn't like= to=20 get involved until the airplane is finished.  The document doesn't talk= =20 about any "how are we doing" visits.  I think that explains why the FAA= did=20 stop by Epic for a friendly visit.
 
Although the changes in the rules concerning number of seats and being=20= able=20 to build the aircraft at home seemed directly aimed at Epic, I don't think t= his=20 FAA rule change is as much about Epic as it is about too many airplanes=20 departing from the original concept of "homebuilt" or "amateur built". Buyin= g a=20 kit that's 49% complete from the factory (according to the checklist), okay,= =20 getting professional help at a factory assist center, okay; combining both,=20 probably okay.  But the heart of this rule seems to be about "buil= der=20 assist" while the airplane owner is off earning a living.
 
One person's comment that these changes have been in the=20 works longer than Epic sort of confirms my theory on the rule's=20 motivation.  I would think that Mooney and Piper, who are only selling=20= a=20 handful of planes may have approached the FAA and said, "Enough is enough, a= re=20 you going to let these people walk all over the rules?"  Maybe, Rick, i= t=20 was TBM.  You go toe to toe with them on your web site!  These=20 certified companies are struggling and they spent millions going through=20 certification so they could sell airplanes.
 
I agree with Rick that Epic shouldn't be singled out.  I do=20 wonder why anybody would shell out that kind of money without some assurance= =20 that they could register their airplane when=20 it's done.  I would think that if a Lancair IVP can pass the 51% k= it=20 approval checklist process, Epic should be able to.  If the builde= r=20 stays at your facility during the completion, Epic is operating al= ong=20 the same lines as Lancair.
 
Doesn't it seem like they want the DAR to document the "nature" of the=20 builder assist?  The FAA has always encouraged builder assist due to th= e=20 safety and educational benefit.  If the airplane owner is off earning a= =20 living and not participating, he's just paying someone to build his=20 airplane.
 
Since kits are completed and registered often years after they are=20 purchased, the risk to a kit builder of the FAA changing the rules midstream= is=20 real.  Let's say you could buy an "approved" kit.  During the= =20 building process, the FAA changes the checklist to better reflect the 51%=20 rule.  The pre-approved kits would no longer be valid.  The DAR us= es=20 the new checklist and you can't register your airplane.  Just because y= our=20 kit is approved when you buy it, doesn't mean it's approved when you try to=20 register it.  The FAA document says clearly that the pre-approval proce= ss=20 is only to help the DAR determine the major portion requirement.  Any D= AR=20 who's questioning the 51% rule, even before the new changes, could toss asid= e=20 the pre-approval and demand documentation from the builder showing that he d= id=20 build the major portion.  That's under the current rules.
 
The new rules emphasize the FAA's insistence on the builder building th= e=20 "major portion", and that they are going to be looking at that more closely=20= in=20 the future.  The EAA has a big job ahead of them preserving the status=20= quo,=20 and protecting the many kits that are under construction.
 
Like I said, I don't think Epic caused this!
 
Mike
 -------------------------------1127131367--