Guys,

 

You may attribute the FAA's motivation to any cabal you like.  The fact is that the majority work, education and recreation rule has worked for 30,000 EXPERIMENTAL, AMATEUR BUILT aircraft now registered (many still flying).  Don't screw it up with more regs.  Those hi-perf aircraft wanna-bees that are too timorous to actually learn how to build one and then actually build it should be afforded a separate category - Experimental, Pro Built - a category for which I really don't care what rules the FAA constructs.  Let's look at some history:

 

When I got my slow build 320 kit in 1989, it came in a coffin shaped crate containing nothing more than molded parts (nothing was glued together).  That was OK because I spent more time than just "measure twice, cut once" when, for example, I was clamping the main and wing spars together before drilling the future bolt up holes.  And, that was the way things went for 7 years and about 3600 hours.  Hunkered over the project, alone in the garage, I had only Lancair support to guide me since Al Gore and Marv had not yet invented the LML.

 

My friend got a 360 FB kit that seemed to put him much further than 700 hours ahead of me (probably, more like 1300), but he had to "adjust" a lot of thing before he could glue them together.  He still hade to build a lot of things although the main spar and wing spars were factory "built" and installed.  I thought that the FAA, by allowing such a fast build option, had made a great decision because of the factory assumed control over quality for components like the main spar, etc.  Separated by 150 miles, we learned much from each other from our Friday night phone calls (blind leading the blind).  We also learned a great deal from visiting other projects (sometimes, what not to do!).  We learned alot.

 

When I bought Legacy Kit #2, I was flabbergasted............  It was amazing that the gear and control surface hardware was already installed along with the fact that the control surfaces were already built.  I went to a then undefined factory builder assist program and closed the horizontal stab and the wing skins whilst they were clamped in the factory jigs ('twas a short week).  Over the next year or so, I was faced by fixing those deficiencies in the "factory" built parts that often did not fit together to my standards - not very interesting 'cause it wasn't "building".  That's OK though, I had a flying Lancair and good weather meant I went flying rather than building.  The kit was sold and is now flying after a beautiful job done by the buyer.  Anyway, "fast build" meant no building, but merely fixing problems instead.  This was an airplane that was meant more for assembly than fabrication.

 

I wouldn't trade what I have learned from building and flying for anything (Lancair 320 and a Quad Cities Challenger II).  I feel that I have not yet quite finished the 320 and the learning has never ended.  After all, it all started on the same day when I ordered the kit and arranged to start taking flying lessons.  Luckily it took me 7 years to build as I had accumulated 800 hours along with Commercial, MEL and Instrument ratings by the time the 320 took to the air in 1996.  12 years and 1000 hours - she's starting to look a little comfort-worn now.

 

For the last few years, I have been privy to the daily pix and commentary produced for an online emailed builder's log detailing the construction of a very fancy IVP turboprop.  This is an example of utilizing the builder assist program and then relocating to the factory area to build with the advice and occasional help of pros.  Believe me, the "builder" knows his airplane intimately as he has done a great deal of both assembly and fabrication under watchful eyes.  This would not be a bad model for the pro category but it certainly would be difficult to regulate as it totally depends on the integrity of the builder.

 

Let's get the FAA to stop meddling with current rules and let's get them to establish an appropriate category for those that want to buy a custom built hi performance aircraft.  After all, its only a matter of money (yeah, to hell with the education part).  Oh, and fretting about some conspiracy will get us nowhere - stop tilting windmills and think of ways to get this resolved.  Remember, kit companies have a vested interest in high priced fast builds and builder assist programs - perhaps even higher interest than the spam can establishment.

 

OK, I am returning to my cell for a higher dose of meds.  The screams are best muffled by the aircraft noise insulation on the walls.

 

John,

 

I think you and I are on the same page.  I think the FAA is under some pressure from the certified companies to enforce the current rule.  I'm sure the certified companies aren't happy about the sales being lost to the experimental market.  The only real argument the certified companies can make is the whole "amateur built for education and recreation" angle.  I agree this has little to do with safety, and everything to do with the FAA trying to keep the amateur built market, amateur built, for whatever reason.  Maybe this is pure FAA rattling its saber to enforce the rule as it was intended, nothing more.

 

What I'm hoping doesn't happen is the FAA making it more complicated to manufacture kits, and more complicated to build and document the build process, just to curtail commercial assistance.  It probably wouldn't work anyway, as I said in my first post, it would just make things worse for Joe Bartels and the guys out there trying to build their own airplanes.

 

If you haven't read Dick VanGrunsven's article "Pokin' the Bear", you should.  It lays out much of what I've been trying to communicate.

 

http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/whats_new/Pokin_the_Bear.pdf

 

Mike Easley

Colorado Springs

---

Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget? Read reviews on AOL Autos.