X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 15:32:49 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-d23.mx.aol.com ([205.188.139.137] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.6) with ESMTP id 3063051 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 18:35:00 -0400 Received: from VTAILJEFF@aol.com by imo-d23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r9.4.) id q.bee.2d614fa3 (37142) for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 18:34:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtprly-ma02.mx.aol.com (smtprly-ma02.mx.aol.com [64.12.207.141]) by cia-ma03.mx.aol.com (v121_r2.11) with ESMTP id MAILCIAMA034-91164898d590227; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 18:34:56 -0400 Received: from WEBMAIL-MC03 (webmail-mc03.webmail.aol.com [64.12.170.80]) by smtprly-ma02.mx.aol.com (v121_r2.11) with ESMTP id MAILSMTPRLYMA026-5c504898d58e2df; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 18:34:54 -0400 References: X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [LML] Re: FAA comment on new 51% A/B Ruling X-Original-Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 18:34:54 -0400 X-AOL-IP: 75.58.186.34 In-Reply-To: X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: vtailjeff@aol.com X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CAC5629E1885A4_1274_299D_WEBMAIL-MC03.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 38159-STANDARD Received: from 75.58.186.34 by WEBMAIL-MC03.sysops.aol.com (64.12.170.80) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Tue, 05 Aug 2008 18:34:54 -0400 X-Original-Message-Id: <8CAC5629E162347-1274-14C1@WEBMAIL-MC03.sysops.aol.com> X-Spam-Flag:NO ----------MB_8CAC5629E1885A4_1274_299D_WEBMAIL-MC03.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" I support that idea. Jeff Would it make sense to leave the regs as they are and just enforce the curre= nt guidelines? -----Original Message----- From: John Hafen To: lml@lancaironline.net Sent: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 5:11 pm Subject: [LML] Re: FAA comment on new 51% A/B Ruling Kyrilian: I appreciate your comments. What would YOU tell the FAA at this point. =C2=A0Do you feel that further de= fining 51% is the solution, or would that just make life for honest builders= more difficult? Would it make sense to leave the regs as they are and just enforce the curre= nt guidelines? John On 8/3/08 11:47 AM, "Kyrilian Dyer" wrote: John, It seems that everyone is concerned about amateur building regulations becom= ing stricter, and I'm no different. =C2=A0However, I don't agree with some o= f the presumptions and conclusions that are being drawn. You ask why the FAA wants to curtail pure commercial assistance. =C2=A0Furth= er, you equate safety with the builders' safety. =C2=A0Finally, you propose=20= that the FAA is in bed with the certificated airframe manufacturers. =C2=A0A= s someone involved in flight test and certification of TC'd aircraft (large=20= military and commercial helicopters) I suggest that this is silly. My understanding is that the regulations to which TC manufacturers must comp= ly are largely the result of accidents. =C2=A0Though perhaps imperfect, the=20= FAA's intent for type certificated aircraft is the safety of passengers and=20= people on the ground (ie, the unsuspecting=3D2 0public). =C2=A0 The '51% rule' and all that's associated with the amateur built category has= little to do with our (the builders') safety. =C2=A0It's there, again, to p= rotect the unsuspecting public. =C2=A0This doesn't just include passengers a= nd people on the ground, but future owners as well. =C2=A0Why, do you ask, d= oes this make any sense? As I see it, implicit in the 51% requirement is that you have to disclose th= at you, an unqualified builder are building an unqualified design. =C2=A0Bes= ides disclosure, personal builders have a liability interest that a potentia= lly fly-by-night commercial outfit may not take as seriously as an individua= l hobbyist. You say that professionally built airplanes are better. =C2=A0Says who? I see so many ads for homebuilts that list them as 'professionally built'.=20= =C2=A0What does that mean? =C2=A0Besides admitting to the FAA that they brok= e the rules (except, perhaps in the few cases where the sellers are themselv= es 'professional builders'), these sellers are presenting the aircraft as bu= ilt by someone who is 'qualified'. =C2=A0What defines a professional builder= ? =C2=A0Someone with an A&P? =C2=A0Someone who's built an airplane before?=20= =C2=A0Heck, why couldn't it be a complete novice who's simply collecting mon= ey for his/her effort? =C2=A0Does money=3Dskill? =C2=A0Buyers are led to bel= ieve that these 'professionally built' airplanes are better than those built= by regular people, right? =C2=A0Otherwise, why mention it? =C2=A0Isn't the=20= implication here that these airplanes are built by 'qualified' builders? 0Ma= ybe I've had a sip of the Kool Aid, but I think there are good reasons that=20= type certificated airplanes are built under direct oversight of the FAA or i= ndirectly with production certificates. =C2=A0The intent, whether perfect or= not, is for the builder to meet defined and repeatable qualification standa= rds. =C2=A0Ten prior kit builds or an A&P certificate are insufficient quali= fications for the manufacturers of TC'd airplanes--what's the qualification=20= associated with 'professionally-built' homebuilts? Note that I'm not talking about professional assistance. =C2=A0The current r= ules allow for this, and hopefully will continue to do so. Some people have suggested that amateur-built airplanes are just as safe as=20= TC'd aircraft. =C2=A0Is this true? =C2=A0Frankly, I doubt it. =C2=A0For a fa= ir comparison one would have to compare similar aircraft on similar missions= flown by similar pilots. =C2=A0This may be tough to do. =C2=A0What TC'd air= craft would we use as comparison? =C2=A0IVPT with a TBM? =C2=A0ES with a SR2= 2 or C400? =C2=A0Obviously, there are many homebuilt types for which there i= s no TC'd counterpart, but perhaps that's the point. =C2=A0Slower, more bori= ng handling aircraft tend to be safer. =C2=A0Missions may be tough to match=20= up as well, since by definition homebuilt aircraft shouldn't be used for bus= iness. =C2=A0Finally, I'd contend that builder pilots are not the same as no= n-builder pilots. =C2=A0I don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing=20= though! Perhaps I'm a pessimist, but I don't think it's smart for regulati ons to be optimistic--we shouldn't assume that everyone will 'do the right'=20= thing. =C2=A0Just consider the current rules that clearly lay out what we ma= y have someone do for us, and how many people have wholly flaunted them. While I've read that homebuilt safety has improved recently at the same time= that 'professional' assistance has bloomed, I think it's foolhardy to presu= me that this trend (if true) has reason to continue if the regulatory climat= e were to change. =C2=A0Here=E2=80=99s a hypothetical: =C2=A0If some very in= telligent and dedicated people got together and taught themselves medicine o= r law and went out and practiced diligently, it's possible that they could b= e very successful. =C2=A0They'd be working extra hard to be perfect, because= for them the cost of failure could be jail, rather than slightly higher mal= practice premiums or a lawsuit. =C2=A0One could argue then that if they did=20= so and were shown to perform better than their certified counterparts that t= he regulations for those fields were pointless. A string of successes shouldn't lead one to presume that bar exams, board ex= ams, or type and production certificates are pointless. =C2=A0Not everything= that meets regulations is good and not all that doesn't is bad. =C2=A0But m= ost regulations were born from experience. =C2=A0Let's hope that abuses of t= he rules don't force those rules to become excessively restrictive for those= that want to meet the original intent. I think it's interesting that many people are angry with the FAA for taking=20= another hack at=3D2 0the amateur built regs, while few people have bitched about those who broug= ht this unwanted attention. =C2=A0Sure, some will argue that we have a right= to do whatever we want and to heck with the government, but come on... =C2= =A0Then why bother getting a pilot's certificate? =C2=A0Don't get me wrong t= hough; I think it's imperative that we ensure that the resulting regulations= don't change the tone of this great experience. =C2=A0Hopefully the regs wo= n't change at all, but I think we're beyond that. =C2=A0Cheers, - Kyrilian =C2=A0=C2=A0L2K-236 --- On Fri, 8/1/08, John Hafen wrote: From: John Hafen Subject: [LML] Re: FAA comment on new 51% =C2=A0A/B Ruling To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Friday, August 1, 2008, 1:07 PM Re: [LML] Re: FAA comment on new 51% =C2=A0A/B Ruling Mike, thanks for your=20= comments. =C2=A0You state: =E2=80=9CIf the FAA's goal is to curtail pure commercial assistance and get=20= back to builders building their own airplanes, the proposed changes won't ge= t the job done. =C2=A0There will still be plenty of opportunity to bend the=20= rules and hide the commercial assistance in the paperwork.=E2=80=9D I agree with your statement, but what is the point of the FAA wanting to=20= =E2=80=9Ccurtail pure commercial assistance?=E2=80=9D =C2=A0Why would they c= are? =C2=A0It can=E2=80=99t be about safety, because the commercial builders= out there are way better at their jobs than many of us amateurs are, so wha= t is the point??? =C2=A0In deed, what is the point of the 51% rule at a ll. As I stated in another email, I think the whole point of the 51% rule is to=20= protect the certified airplane builders from home-built competition. =C2=A0I= t has nothing to do with safety. =C2=A0It is government control to assure a=20= type of monopoly owned by the certified guys. John ----------MB_8CAC5629E1885A4_1274_299D_WEBMAIL-MC03.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" I support that idea.

Jeff
Would i= t make sense to leave the regs as they are and just enforce the current guid= elines?



-----Original Message-----
From: John Hafen <j.hafen@comcast.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Sent: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 5:11 pm
Subject: [LML] Re: FAA comment on new 51% A/B Ruling

Kyrilian:<= br>
I appreciate your comments.

What would YOU tell the FAA at this point.  Do you feel that further de= fining 51% is the solution, or would that just make life for honest builders= more difficult?

Would it make sense to leave the regs as they are and just enforce the curre= nt guidelines?

John


On 8/3/08 11:47 AM, "Kyrilian Dyer" <kyrilian_av@yahoo.com> wro= te:
John,

It seems that everyone is concerned about amateur building regulations becom= ing stricter, and I'm no different.  However, I don't agree with some o= f the presumptions and conclusions that are being drawn.

You ask why the FAA wants to curtail pure commercial assistance.  Furth= er, you equate safety with the builders' safety.  Finally, you propose=20= that the FAA is in bed with the certificated airframe manufacturers.  A= s someone involved=3D2 0in flight test and certification of TC'd aircraft (large military and comme= rcial helicopters) I suggest that this is silly.

My understanding is that the regulations to which TC manufacturers must comp= ly are largely the result of accidents.  Though perhaps imperfect, the=20= FAA's intent for type certificated aircraft is the safety of passengers and=20= people on the ground (ie, the unsuspecting public).  

The '51% rule' and all that's associated with the amateur built category has= little to do with our (the builders') safety.  It's there, again, to p= rotect the unsuspecting public.  This doesn't just include passengers a= nd people on the ground, but future owners as well.  Why, do you ask, d= oes this make any sense?

As I see it, implicit in the 51% requirement is that you have to disclose th= at you, an unqualified builder are building an unqualified design.  Bes= ides disclosure, personal builders have a liability interest that a potentia= lly fly-by-night commercial outfit may not take as seriously as an individua= l hobbyist.

You say that professionally built airplanes are better.  Says who?

I see so many ads for homebuilts that list them as 'professionally built'. &= nbsp;What does that mean?  Besides admitting to the FAA that they broke= the rules (except, perhaps in the few cases where the sellers are themselve= s 'professional builders'), these sellers are presenting the aircraft as bui= lt by someone who is 'qualified'.  What defines a professional builder?=  Someone with an A&P?  Someone who's built an airplane before?  Heck, why c= ouldn't it be a complete novice who's simply collecting money for his/her ef= fort?  Does money=3Dskill?  Buyers are led to believe that these '= professionally built' airplanes are better than those built by regular peopl= e, right?  Otherwise, why mention it?  Isn't the implication here=20= that these airplanes are built by 'qualified' builders?  Maybe I've had= a sip of the Kool Aid, but I think there are good reasons that type certifi= cated airplanes are built under direct oversight of the FAA or indirectly wi= th production certificates.  The intent, whether perfect or not, is for= the builder to meet defined and repeatable qualification standards.  T= en prior kit builds or an A&P certificate are insufficient qualification= s for the manufacturers of TC'd airplanes--what's the qualification associat= ed with 'professionally-built' homebuilts?

Note that I'm not talking about professional assistance.  The current r= ules allow for this, and hopefully will continue to do so.

Some people have suggested that amateur-built airplanes are just as safe as=20= TC'd aircraft.  Is this true?  Frankly, I doubt it.  For a fa= ir comparison one would have to compare similar aircraft on similar missions= flown by similar pilots.  This may be tough to do.  What TC'd air= craft would we use as comparison?  IVPT with a TBM?  ES with a SR2= 2 or C400?  Obviously, there are many homebuilt types for which there i= s no TC'd counterpa rt, but perhaps that's the point.  Slower, more boring handling aircraf= t tend to be safer.  Missions may be tough to match up as well, since b= y definition homebuilt aircraft shouldn't be used for business.  Finall= y, I'd contend that builder pilots are not the same as non-builder pilots. &= nbsp;I don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing though!

Perhaps I'm a pessimist, but I don't think it's smart for regulations to be=20= optimistic--we shouldn't assume that everyone will 'do the right' thing. &nb= sp;Just consider the current rules that clearly lay out what we may have som= eone do for us, and how many people have wholly flaunted them.

While I've read that homebuilt safety has improved recently at the same time= that 'professional' assistance has bloomed, I think it's foolhardy to presu= me that this trend (if true) has reason to continue if the regulatory climat= e were to change.  Here=E2=80=99s a hypothetical:  If some very in= telligent and dedicated people got together and taught themselves medicine o= r law and went out and practiced diligently, it's possible that they could b= e very successful.  They'd be working extra hard to be perfect, because= for them the cost of failure could be jail, rather than slightly higher mal= practice premiums or a lawsuit.  One could argue then that if they did=20= so and were shown to perform better than their certified counterparts that t= he regulations for those fields were pointless.

A string of successes shouldn't lead one to presume that bar exams, board exams, or type and production certificates are pointless.=20=  Not everything that meets regulations is good and not all that doesn't= is bad.  But most regulations were born from experience.  Let's h= ope that abuses of the rules don't force those rules to become excessively r= estrictive for those that want to meet the original intent.

I think it's interesting that many people are angry with the FAA for taking=20= another hack at the amateur built regs, while few people have bitched about=20= those who brought this unwanted attention.  Sure, some will argue that=20= we have a right to do whatever we want and to heck with the government, but=20= come on...  Then why bother getting a pilot's certificate?  Don't=20= get me wrong though; I think it's imperative that we ensure that the resulti= ng regulations don't change the tone of this great experience.  Hopeful= ly the regs won't change at all, but I think we're beyond that.

 Cheers,
- Kyrilian
  L2K-236

--- On Fri, 8/1/08, John Hafen <j.hafen@comcast.net><= /B> wrote:
From: John Hafen <j.hafen@comcast.net>
Subject: [LML] Re: FAA comment on new 51%  A/B Ruling
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Friday, August 1, 2008, 1:07 PM

Re: [LML] Re: FAA comment on new 51%  A/B Ruling Mike, thanks for your=20= comments.  You state:

=E2=80=9CIf the FAA's goal is to curtail pure commercial assistance and= get back to builders building their own airplanes, the proposed changes won= 't get the job done.  There will still be plenty of opportunity to bend= the rules and hide the commercial assistance in the paperwork.=E2=80=9D

I agree with your statement, but what is the point of the FAA wanting to=20= =E2=80=9Ccurtail pure commercial assistance?=E2=80=9D  Why would they c= are?  It can=E2=80=99t be about safety, because the commercial builders= out there are way better at their jobs than many of us amateurs are, so wha= t is the point???  In deed, what is the point of the 51% rule at all.
As I stated in another email, I think the whole point of the 51% rule is to=20= protect the certified airplane builders from home-built competition.  I= t has nothing to do with safety.  It is government control to assure a=20= type of monopoly owned by the certified guys.

John



It'= s time to go back to school! Get the latest trends and gadgets that make the= grade on AOL Shopping.
----------MB_8CAC5629E1885A4_1274_299D_WEBMAIL-MC03.sysops.aol.com--