|
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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/
|