X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2008 18:50:25 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from smtp244.iad.emailsrvr.com ([207.97.245.244] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.5) with ESMTPS id 3052642 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 02 Aug 2008 10:10:34 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=207.97.245.244; envelope-from=lalcorn@natca.net Received: from relay14.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay14.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id EE9062B05D9 for ; Sat, 2 Aug 2008 10:09:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from natca.net (webmail2.r2.iad.emailsrvr.com [192.168.1.10]) by relay14.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id EB67F2B04F7 for ; Sat, 2 Aug 2008 10:09:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by webmail.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: lalcorn@natca.net, from: lalcorn@natca.net) with HTTP; Sat, 2 Aug 2008 10:09:54 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 10:09:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [LML] Re: FAA comment on new 51% A/B Ruling From: lalcorn@natca.net X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net Reply-To: lalcorn@natca.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Type: plain X-Original-Message-ID: <45846.192.168.1.35.1217686194.webmail@192.168.1.35> X-Mailer: webmail6.7 What the FAA is doing has nothing to do with making it harder to build, tha= t is just the only way they see to fix the problem. The problem as stated = by the administrator and others are the "commercial" "professional" shops = building aircraft for profit and the owner turning 2 screws on the aircraft= and saying it is amateur built. I remember a company that was doing V8 co= nversions for LIV's and I witnessed their operation for a few years. They = were building complete LIV's with either the V8 or turbo prop and the DER w= ould sign it off and the owner never touched the plane. I doubt the owner = even knew how the landing gear worked. The "professionals" building the pl= anes for profit were college students making 5 bucks and hour and ex auto m= echanics. I trust people who spend the time and effort to learn how to use= all of these processes and build their aircraft for themselves. As the ol= d saying "if you want it done right, do it yourself." I saw some of the mo= st shoddy work ever of these 1/2 million dollar aircraft and due to that, t= here were alot of crashed and broken planes. Not all fatal but lots of mon= ey lost. I am not saying that there are not good "commercial" shops to hel= p build and make the process safer with people that have done it before, bu= t do not confuse that with someone doing it strictly for profit with no exp= erience. I can go out and buy a bunch of tools, rent a hanger and put up a= nd add saying experienced aircraft builder, and no one would no the wiser. = The epic is another reason the FAA is jumping on this. A 7 to 10 seat pre= ssurized turbine. Please tell me who is building that for recreation and l= earning. I do believe that the FAA should make it easier to certify aircra= ft so that more advanced technologies can be used and the price reduced, bu= t the FAA is a bureaucracy and that is just what we get. I hear people say= , so what if I build a plane a kill myself. It is not about you the pilot = but the other people you will crash into. If you want to build something a= nd fly it in uncontrolled airspace over unpopulated areas with minimal FAA = interference, they will happily sign you off with those restriction. I use= d to know an FAA inspector that said he would give you an airworthiness cer= tificate for a 2 by 4 if you want. The restrictions would be 5 feet left a= nd right and above centerline of one runway.=0AJust my 2 cents.=0ALuke Alco= rn