Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 16:19:11 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-4337590@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.105.146; envelope-from=RWolf99@aol.com
Subject: Re: Transfer of Ownership
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: rwolf99@aol.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
 boundary="--------MB_8CCD284BF7A71F2_A08_2904_webmail-m062.sysops.aol.com"


----------MB_8CCD284BF7A71F2_A08_2904_webmail-m062.sysops.aol.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


I've re-read my posting, and reviewed all the other comments, and have com=
e to the conclusion that my initial response was a little too strident. =
 (It would not be the first time in my life that I've done that.)  Anyway,=
 I separate this into different issues, and have some more comments:

Paying for builder assistance is not in itself a problem.  A certain amoun=
t should be included with the purchase of the kit but an unlimited amount=
 is too much to ask.  $300?  As good a number as any.  But I would conside=
r the right to purchase parts for an airplane in progress to be different.=
  (And yes, I realize that we don't have a "right" to patronize any busine=
ss, but bear with me here...)

In the olden days of plans-built aircraft, it was not uncommon for someone=
 to build his airplane and pass the plans on to someone else.  A license=
 transfer fee was reasonable and appropriate.  In fact, I would contend th=
at what you actually purchased was not the plans per se, but a license to=
 use the design data to produce a single airplane.  If you finished your=
 plane and gave the plans to a buddy, he *should* pay a new license fee fo=
r the right to use the data, even if that data came from the identical pie=
ce of paper.  On the other hand, if you sold your project you also sold yo=
ur license to use the data, i.e., the license was transferable.  Joe's the=
 lawyer, not me, so I assume he knows these matters better than I do.

Where I have a problem is requiring a "factory inspection" and "mandatory=
 training from a factory-approved source" before replacement pats can be=
 purchased from Lancair.  I do accept that they have every right to establ=
ish this policy but it is something I disagree with.  Will we have airplan=
es that "pass" or "fail"?  Will they give the new buyer a punch list of th=
ings to replace or change before they will sell a new nose gear strut?  Wh=
at if I believe that my non-certified power distribution system is better=
 than their non-certified power distribution system?  Do I need to get a=
 DER to certify that it's airworthy before I can buy a new canopy latch?

Examples -- Maybe two electronic ignitions without a backup battery is oka=
y and maybe it isn't.  Maybe a single vacuum system without a backup attit=
ude indicator is not "approved" by the factory, even though it was good en=
ough for Beech, Piper, Cessna and the FAA for 50 years.  Who says whether=
 something good enough or not?  An EAA Technical Advisor?  Who says "okay,=
 you can buy parts"?  And there are plenty of places where NAPA Air Parts=
 are just fine, although I can proudly say that there are no Radio Shack=
 parts in *my* airplane.  What will Lancair's position be on this?

1)  The FAA has established criteria for airworthiness, even for experimen=
tal airplanes.  They issue certificates that say so.  Every flying airplan=
e has one.  Why should Lancair be able to declare it not valid?

2)  As for training, the FAA has not established a type rating requirement=
 for non-turbine Lancairs.  However, they have established training criter=
ia for single-engine airplanes and every licensed and current pilot with=
 a BFR and a medical meets them.  Not to mention that the insurance cartel=
 is requiring training for the high-end Lancairs already.

I have heard many good comments from the group on both sides.  Let's keep=
 the dialogue going.  It's in our common interest to have safe airplanes=
 flown by safe pilots.

- Rob Wolf

----------MB_8CCD284BF7A71F2_A08_2904_webmail-m062.sysops.aol.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<font color=3D'black' size=3D'2' face=3D'arial'>
<div>I've re-read my posting, and reviewed all the other comments, and hav=
e come to the conclusion that my initial response was a little too striden=
t.&nbsp; (It would not be the first time in my life that I've done that.)&=
nbsp; Anyway, I separate this into different issues, and have some more co=
mments:</div>


<div>&nbsp;</div>


<div>Paying for builder assistance is not in itself a problem.&nbsp; A cer=
tain amount should be included with the purchase of the kit but an unlimit=
ed amount is too much to ask.&nbsp; $300?&nbsp; As good a number as any.&n=
bsp; But I would consider the&nbsp;right to purchase parts for an airplane=
 in progress&nbsp;to be different.&nbsp; (And yes, I realize that we don't=
 have a "right" to patronize any business, but bear with me here...)</div>


<div>&nbsp;</div>


<div>In the olden days of plans-built aircraft, it was not uncommon for so=
meone to build his airplane and pass the plans on to someone else.&nbsp;=
 A license transfer fee was reasonable and appropriate.&nbsp; In fact, I=
 would contend that what you actually purchased was not the plans per se,=
 but a license to use the design data to produce a single airplane.&nbsp;&=
nbsp;If you finished your plane and gave the plans to a buddy, he *should*=
 pay a new license fee for the right to use the data, even if that data ca=
me from the identical piece of paper.&nbsp; On the other hand, if you sold=
 your project you also sold your license to use the data, i.e., the licens=
e was transferable.&nbsp; Joe's&nbsp;the lawyer, not me, so I assume he kn=
ows these matters better than I do.</div>


<div>&nbsp;</div>


<div>Where I have a problem is requiring a "factory inspection" and "manda=
tory training from a factory-approved source" before replacement pats can=
 be purchased from Lancair.&nbsp; I do accept that they have every right=
 to establish this policy but it is something I disagree with.&nbsp; Will=
 we have airplanes that "pass" or "fail"?&nbsp; Will they give the new buy=
er a punch list of things to replace or change before they will sell a new=
 nose gear strut?&nbsp; What if I believe that my non-certified power dist=
ribution system is better than their non-certified power distribution syst=
em?&nbsp; Do I need to get a DER to certify that it's airworthy before I=
 can buy a new canopy latch?</div>


<div>&nbsp;</div>


<div>Examples -- Maybe two electronic ignitions without a backup battery=
 is okay and maybe it isn't.&nbsp; Maybe a single vacuum system without a=
 backup attitude indicator is not "approved" by the factory, even though=
 it was good enough for Beech, Piper, Cessna and the FAA for 50 years.&nbs=
p; Who says whether something good enough or not?&nbsp; An EAA Technical=
 Advisor?&nbsp; Who says "okay, you can buy parts"?&nbsp; And there are pl=
enty of places where NAPA Air Parts are just fine, although I can proudly=
 say that there are no Radio Shack parts in *my* airplane.&nbsp; What will=
 Lancair's position be on this?</div>


<div>&nbsp;</div>


<div>1)&nbsp; The FAA has established criteria for airworthiness, even for=
 experimental airplanes.&nbsp; They issue certificates that say so.&nbsp;=
 Every flying airplane has one.&nbsp; Why should Lancair be able to declar=
e it not valid?</div>


<div>&nbsp;</div>


<div>2)&nbsp; As for training, the FAA has not established a type rating=
 requirement for non-turbine Lancairs.&nbsp; However, they have establishe=
d training criteria for single-engine airplanes and every licensed and cur=
rent pilot with a BFR and a medical meets them.&nbsp; Not to mention that=
 the insurance cartel is requiring training for the high-end Lancairs alre=
ady.</div>


<div>&nbsp;</div>


<div>I have heard many good comments from the group on both sides.&nbsp;=
 Let's keep the dialogue going.&nbsp; It's in our common interest to have=
 safe airplanes flown by safe pilots.</div>


<div>&nbsp;</div>


<div>- Rob Wolf</div>
</font>

----------MB_8CCD284BF7A71F2_A08_2904_webmail-m062.sysops.aol.com--