X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:28:02 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao02.cox.net ([68.230.241.37] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0c2) with ESMTP id 723230 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:01:03 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.37; envelope-from=rickschrameck@cox.net Received: from [192.168.1.101] (really [68.108.32.101]) by fed1rmmtao02.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20050915210017.DALL7185.fed1rmmtao02.cox.net@[192.168.1.101]> for ; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:00:17 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <4329E0E1.7000704@cox.net> X-Original-Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 14:00:17 -0700 From: Rick Schrameck User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Macintosh/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: Re: [LML] Re: FAA Trying to stop us all? References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040708030408000405080300" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040708030408000405080300 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Robert, This memo is NOT written addressing the Epic situation. This rewrite of the 8130-2 has been on the drawing boards before Epic existed. Let's talk about your plane. The new rule states that if you got any build assistance above thee evaluated quick-build kit then you are not going to meet the 51% rule. Did you build your plane at the Lancair factory? If you did you would be in trouble under the new order. This has nothing to do with complex aircraft. Why do you think that the IV-PT is different as it relates to complex aircraft? It is not different. The rules will stop all of us, read the order carefully. Rick N301ES wrote: > Carl Cadwell wrote: > >> <> <> >> >> I was handed the attached memorandum by the Seattle MIDO last week. >> >> Also is page 10 from Sept 2005 Sport Aviation. >> >> My reading of this is that Lancair Kit company, RV and probably all >> the current fast build kit companies will not be in compliance. >> (Maybe this has already gone into effect--man I hope not!! >> > > Sounds like this memo was written directly addressing the Epic > situation. Those folks have really pushed the envelope of > amature-built and the envelope pushed back. The FAA are reviewing the > world of "complex" kits and stated specifically pressurized, > turbine-powered, and 5 or more seats. Even with 2 jump seats my ES-P > would not be covered and a PT would not either. Come to think of it - > SpaceShip One would not fall into the FAA's definition of complex! > > > Robert M. Simon, ES-P N301ES > > --------------040708030408000405080300 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Robert,

This memo is NOT written addressing the Epic situation. This rewrite of the 8130-2 has been on the drawing boards before Epic existed.

Let's talk about your plane. The new rule states that if you got any build assistance above thee evaluated quick-build kit then you are not going to meet the 51% rule. Did you build your plane at the Lancair factory? If you did you would be in trouble under the new order. This has nothing to do with complex aircraft. Why do you think that the IV-PT is different as it relates to complex aircraft? It is not different. The rules will stop all of us, read the order carefully.

Rick

N301ES wrote:

Carl Cadwell wrote:
FAA Trying to stop us all?
<<FAA memorandum.pdf>> <<EAA p10 Sep 05.pdf>>

I was handed the attached memorandum by the Seattle MIDO last week.

Also is page 10 from Sept 2005 Sport Aviation.

My reading of this is that Lancair Kit company, RV and probably all the current fast build kit companies will not be in compliance. (Maybe this has already gone into effect—man I hope not!!

Sounds like this memo was written directly addressing the Epic situation. Those folks have really pushed the envelope of amature-built and the envelope pushed back. The FAA are reviewing the world of "complex" kits and stated specifically pressurized, turbine-powered, and 5 or more seats. Even with 2 jump seats my ES-P would not be covered and a PT would not either. Come to think of it - SpaceShip One would not fall into the FAA's definition of complex!

Robert M. Simon, ES-P N301ES

--------------040708030408000405080300--