I've re-read my posting, and reviewed all the other comments, and have come 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 amount 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 consider 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 business, 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 that 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 for the right to use the data, even if that data came from the identical piece of paper. On the other hand, if you sold your project you also sold your 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 establish this policy but it is something I disagree with. Will we have airplanes that "pass" or "fail"? Will they give the new buyer a punch list of things to replace or change before they will sell a new nose gear strut? What 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 okay and maybe it isn't. 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. 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 experimental airplanes. They issue certificates that say so. Every flying airplane 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 criteria 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