|
|
John: Thanks for the note and keep up the good work lobbying on behalf of
CJAA.
You may be right about having to work with congress to protect our rights to
build experimental airplanes.
I do smell a rat here, however, and I'm interested in your opinion.
The expressed purpose of the 51% rule is safety. The FAA claims to be
regulating safety.
I believe that is bunk. I think as a first time builder, building a new and
strange kit out of new and strange materials with new and strange tools, I
am not as safe as a commercial shop who has done it dozens of times before.
In fact, I could argue that guys that have done it before are way safer than
I am. The fact that I put 51% into it could even make it dangerous.
I think the real purpose of the 51% rule is to protect the certified
manufacturers from home built competition. The certified guys (Cessna,
Piper, Beach, etc.) have been cozy with the FAA and Congress for a long
time. The last thing the certified guys want is competition from a host of
products that are simply better in many ways.
Example -- the Eclipse is certified and does not have a moving map display
capability or panel mounted GPS.
So that's what I think we're fighting. We're fighting the certified plane
makers (who have a cozy relationship with congress and the FAA) who are
angry about the dent in their sales being made by the kit guys and the shops
who provide completion services. I don't think it has anything to do with
"safety." Its all about restricting the marketplace via government
regulations so the guys who are pulling the strings of the FAA remain making
a lot of money selling products that are not as state of the art as they
could be.
John
On 7/31/08 12:21 PM, "jkezele@juno.com" <jkezele@juno.com> wrote:
> John,
>
> I support your ideas and feelings concerning the 51% ruling. I am currently
> finishing a Lancair 360 that I purchase from another builder. As a Board
> member of the Classic Jet Aircraft Association (CJAA), I can tell you that we
> are working hard to express our concerns about changes the FAA wants to make
> in the Experiment Exhibition category. We are finding there is an old theme
> only with more vigor .... "REGULATE, REGULATE, REGULATE." This is not the
> only place that I am seeing a revival in the FAA. In fact, last week prior to
> an airshow that I was flying in, FAA inspectors saw my aircraft in a hanger
> having a pitot static check. They took the liberty of going through my
> logbooks with out me being present. All was well but this in my opinion is
> quite aggressive. Now this may be an isolated incident, but they also
> enforced "essential crew only" for the airshow. We have flown with a spotter
> in our rear seat for years, if there is more then one aircraft in the air at
> the same time, especially if there is more than 200kts difference in airspeed.
> One of the FAA's concerns on this issue was liability ... what if the aircraft
> crashed ... there would be two dead instead of one.
>
> This pressure to regulate and enforce is coming down from congress. If we
> want to get anything done, or our voices heard, it will not happen by writing
> or working with the FAA. The CJAA has taken this approach for years with
> little results. Our conclusion, take our concerns to Washington. Of course,
> as you all know this takes money!
>
> Regards,
>
> John Kezele
> Still building 51%
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Free information on Internet Security. Click Now.
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3mEWrbCYqQBp0Vu5RbotVoq2yd2p
> jrXBeAelc4vE6WDnMD8d/
>
> --
> For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
|
|