X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2008 21:51:47 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mta21.charter.net ([216.33.127.81] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.10) with ESMTP id 3282030 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 08 Nov 2008 12:11:21 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.33.127.81; envelope-from=troneill@charter.net Received: from aarprv04.charter.net ([10.20.200.74]) by mta21.charter.net (InterMail vM.7.08.03.00 201-2186-126-20070710) with ESMTP id <20081108171047.VYDV3214.mta21.charter.net@aarprv04.charter.net> for ; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 12:10:47 -0500 Received: from axs ([75.132.241.174]) by aarprv04.charter.net with SMTP id <20081108171046.CSGM3522.aarprv04.charter.net@axs> for ; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 12:10:46 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: From: "terrence o'neill" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Comment Period Extension X-Original-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 11:10:47 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0030_01C94192.A692D0C0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-Chzlrs: 0 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0030_01C94192.A692D0C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Joe, One of the basic problems is that the FAA has not adhered to the intent = and spirit of the 51% rule, by clearly defining precisely WHAT the = builder is to provide, and HOW he may do it. Because the personnel do not themselves understand this, they keep = making band-aid rules to complicate things further, to cover their = rears. The 51% rule was created when ALL amateur-builts were scratch- or = plans-built. I was on the original EAA Rules Proposal COmmittee in the = early 1960s. it worked fine until the kit builders began supplying = fairly complete kits which the FAA sees as 'erector-set' assembly kits = which appear to violate the 51% rule... which they themselves did not = understand. Just this summer I had an hours-long meeting with the Illinois = Department of Revenue, and I explained to them that BY LAW, the kits = could not constitute being an 'airplane' because kits had to amount to = only 49% or less, of materials that would become an airplane when the = PROJECT was finally awarded an Airworthiness Certificate, making its = builder the MANUFACTERER, of his original aircraft, be it a model = Lancair 235, or whatever. =20 I also pointed out to them the FAA's own insistence that the = 'Registration' form must have the word "AIRPLANE' crossed out, and 'KIT' = printed in its place. This is the FAA again clouding the issue by not = printing up a separate for for KITS of m aterials parts.=20 A nother probelm they create is by registering kits which must be less = than 50% of the eventual final airplane. Instead the FAA should insist = on NO REGISTRATION until an Airworthiness Certificate is awarded to the = Builder/Manufacturer for his new Model which he can call anything he = wants-- besides 'Lancair'. =20 The IL DEPT REV appears -- so far -- to have seriously considered this = info, as they have not pursued me further for Use Tax on the package of = unfinished parts I bought from an individual four years ago. The problem is partly that the intellectual capability of the personnel = in Oklahoma City has run up against the Peter Principle, and ignores the = basic intent of the law establishing the FAA ... which is the promotion = of aviation... not 'safety'. General Aviation included in the concept = of 'aviation', if not foremost. The intent of the law is not the = expansion of the bureaucracy. That the FAA is not doing its job is evident from the fact that in the = last 40 years the number of pilots has decreased from 800,000 to about = 600,000.=20 The continual adding of popular-aviation-impeding regulations that are = not justified by EVIDENCE of safety needs... such as the biennial flight = testgs, never justified by evidence of poor safety. Lately another = impedikment that is a finaician hardship is the outsourcing of FAA = inspections for Airworthiness to DARs ... at as much as $800 for a few = hours look-see whcih examines for the same stuff as an AI or a local A&E = could check ... and the FAA now requires these DARs to be 'signed off' = for different kinds of construction which is against the very concept of = EXPERIMENTAL. All of which shows the FAA is making so muchmake-work for = itself it has to outsource its work at our expense ... and just squeezes = out the little guys. The EAA should be fighting these things, but unfortunately Tom Poberezny = is not the same man as his father Paul. This is a lot of 'ain't it awful', but fact. =20 I got my first Airworthiness Inspection in 1963 and the next in 1969. = To me its clear that the Republican mind-set focuses on serving the = corporate sector, and does not set aside funding for promoting aviation = for the grass-roots, We the People. =20 I'm fortunate to have the help of Senator Durbin, who had to write three = letters to the FAA to get them to transfer registration of N211AL kit = materials parts ... actually just the N Number ... something that should = have been done in five minutes by a clerk. What I'm saying is, the FAA does not respond to us, but to Congress. =20 All the new Congressmen need a presentation of the value of EXPERIMENTAL = builders, becaise the builders risk their own money and work to improve = aircraft. Established corporations are characteriestically incapable of = improvement, hambered also b y the FAA's rules that make im provements = exorbitantly expensive. Why else did Cessna have to BUY an advanced = aircraft. Established companies ca't afford the FAA's useless and = expensive regulating of General Aviation, which FAA Certificates provide = in ZERO value or benefits, for example, in a litigation regarding = safety. I suggest the FAA be deregulated as regards EXPERIMENTALS... and the FAA = be limited to defining what 51% pertains to, subject to approval of the = vote of owners of persons who own the kit and plans-built airplane = designs listed in Kitplanes Annual.=20 I suggest that the FAA Oklahoma City office be deactivated (not moved), = and that Congress create a small watch-dog group of persons who have an = interest in the improvement of utility, lowering of cost, and that = issues of safety be secondary, by law. I suggest that the watch-dog group be limited to persons who have this = interest at heart, of promoting single-pilot, signle-engine aircraft, = for no salary or recompense other than expenses... and exclude any = person in government employ. Let's try to remember that We are the employers of the FAA personnel, = and that they are our employees. From: Terrence O'Neill rom: Joe Bartels=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net - Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 17:37 Subject: [LML] Comment Period Extension For those of you who have not commented on the proposed FAA "Major = Portion" rule changes, seems as though the FAA forgot something or = another and now has provided us with a further extension within which to = comment. There are a lot of you who have not commented on these onerous = changes and I ask that you take the time to do so now! The sum and substance of the FAA's proposed policy change is that = commercial builders should not be allowed to continue in existance. = Further that the manufacturers of the various kits should be limited as = to what they can provide in the kit as "prefabricated" parts. I invite you to look at www.eaa.org to get more proarticulars, or you = can call me at 541-350-2901 and I will direct you towards more = information on this vital subject. Joe Joseph C. Bartels, CEO Lancair International, Inc. No virus found in this incoming message Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (5.0.0.22 - 10.100.048). http://www.pctools.com/free-antivirus/ No virus found in this outgoing message Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (5.0.0.22 - 10.100.048). http://www.pctools.com/free-antivirus/ ------=_NextPart_000_0030_01C94192.A692D0C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Joe,
 
One of the basic = problems is=20 that the FAA has not adhered to the intent and spirit of the 51% = rule, by=20 clearly defining precisely WHAT the builder is to provide, and HOW he = may do=20 it.
 
Because the = personnel do not=20 themselves understand this, they keep making band-aid rules to = complicate things=20 further, to cover their rears.
 
 The 51% rule = was created=20 when ALL amateur-builts were scratch- or plans-built.  I was on the = original EAA Rules Proposal COmmittee in the early 1960s. it worked fine = until=20 the kit builders began supplying fairly complete kits which the FAA sees = as=20 'erector-set' assembly kits which appear to violate the 51% rule... = which they=20 themselves did not understand.
 
 Just this = summer I had an=20 hours-long meeting with the Illinois Department of Revenue, =  and I=20 explained to them that BY LAW, the kits could not constitute being an = 'airplane'=20 because kits had to amount to only 49% or less, of materials that would = become=20 an airplane when the PROJECT was finally awarded an Airworthiness = Certificate,=20 making its builder the MANUFACTERER,  of his=20 original aircraft, be it a model Lancair 235, or = whatever.
 
I also pointed out = to them the=20 FAA's own insistence that the 'Registration' form must have the word = "AIRPLANE'=20 crossed out, and 'KIT' printed in its place.  This is the FAA again = clouding the issue by not printing up a separate for for KITS of m = aterials=20 parts. 
 A nother = probelm they=20 create is by registering kits which must be less than 50% of the = eventual final=20 airplane.  Instead the FAA should insist on NO REGISTRATION until = an=20 Airworthiness Certificate is awarded to the Builder/Manufacturer for his = new=20 Model which he can call anything he wants-- besides 'Lancair'. =20
The IL DEPT REV = appears -- so=20 far -- to have seriously considered this info, as they have not pursued = me=20 further for Use Tax on the package of unfinished parts I bought from an=20 individual four years ago.
 
The problem is = partly that the=20 intellectual capability of the personnel in Oklahoma City has run up = against the=20 Peter Principle, = and ignores=20 the basic intent of the law establishing the FAA ... which is the = promotion of=20 aviation... not 'safety'.  General Aviation included in the concept = of=20 'aviation', if not foremost.  The intent of the law is not the = expansion of the bureaucracy.
 
That the FAA is not = doing its=20 job is evident from the fact that in the last 40 years the number of = pilots has=20 decreased from 800,000 to about 600,000.
The continual = adding of=20 popular-aviation-impeding regulations that are not justified by EVIDENCE = of=20 safety needs... such as the biennial flight testgs, never justified by = evidence=20 of poor safety.  Lately another impedikment that is a finaician = hardship is=20 the  outsourcing of FAA inspections for Airworthiness to DARs ... = at as=20 much as $800 for a few hours look-see whcih examines for the same stuff = as an AI=20 or a local A&E could check ... and the FAA now requires these = DARs to=20 be 'signed off' for different kinds of construction which is against the = very=20 concept of EXPERIMENTAL.  All of which shows the FAA is making = so=20 muchmake-work for itself it has to outsource its work at our expense ... = and=20 just squeezes out the little guys.
 
The EAA should be = fighting=20 these things, but unfortunately Tom Poberezny is not the same man as his = father=20 Paul.
 
This is a lot of = 'ain't it=20 awful', but fact. 
I got my first = Airworthiness=20 Inspection in 1963 and the next in 1969.  To me its clear that the=20 Republican mind-set focuses on serving the corporate sector, and does = not set=20 aside funding for promoting aviation for the grass-roots, We the = People. =20
I'm fortunate to = have the help=20 of Senator Durbin, who had to write three letters to the FAA to get them = to=20 transfer registration of N211AL kit materials parts ... actually just = the N=20 Number ... something that should have been done in five minutes by = a=20 clerk.
 
What I'm saying is, = the FAA=20 does not respond to us, but to Congress. 
All the new = Congressmen need a=20 presentation of the value of EXPERIMENTAL builders, becaise the=20 builders risk their own money and work to improve aircraft. =20 Established corporations are characteriestically incapable of = improvement,=20 hambered also b y the FAA's rules that make im provements exorbitantly=20 expensive.  Why else did Cessna have to BUY an advanced = aircraft. =20 Established companies ca't afford the FAA's useless and expensive = regulating of=20 General Aviation, which FAA Certificates provide in ZERO value or = benefits,=20 for example, in a litigation regarding safety.
 
I suggest the FAA = be=20 deregulated as regards EXPERIMENTALS... and the FAA be limited to=20 defining what 51% pertains to, subject to approval of the vote of = owners=20 of persons who own the kit and plans-built airplane designs listed in = Kitplanes=20 Annual.
I suggest = that the FAA=20 Oklahoma City office be deactivated (not moved), and that Congress = create a=20 small watch-dog group of persons who have an interest in the = improvement=20 of utility, lowering of cost, and that issues of safety be = secondary, by=20 law.
I suggest that the = watch-dog=20 group be limited to persons who have this interest at heart, of = promoting=20 single-pilot, signle-engine aircraft, for no salary or recompense other = than=20 expenses... and exclude any person in government employ.
Let's try to = remember that We=20 are the employers of the FAA personnel, and that they are our=20 employees.
 
From:  = Terrence=20 O'Neill
 
 
  = rom: Joe = Bartels
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 = 17:37
Subject: [LML] Comment Period=20 Extension

For those of=20 you who have not commented on the proposed FAA "Major Portion" rule = changes,=20 seems as though the FAA forgot something or another and now has = provided us=20 with a further extension within which to comment.  There are a = lot of you=20 who have not commented on these onerous changes and I ask that you = take the=20 time to do so now!
 
The sum and substance of the FAA's proposed policy = change is that=20 commercial builders should not be allowed to continue in = existance. =20 Further that the manufacturers of the various kits should be limited = as to=20 what they can provide in the kit as "prefabricated" parts.
 
I invite you to look at www.eaa.org to get more proarticulars, = or you=20 can call me at 541-350-2901 and I will direct you towards more = information on=20 this vital subject.
 
Joe
 
Joseph C. Bartels, = CEO
Lancair International,=20 Inc.


No virus found in this incoming=20 message
Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (5.0.0.22 - = 10.100.048).
http://www.pctools.com/fr= ee-antivirus/


No virus found in this outgoing message
Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (5.0.0.22 - 10.100.048).
http://www.pctools.com/free-antivirus/
------=_NextPart_000_0030_01C94192.A692D0C0--