X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 22:10:22 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail-iw0-f180.google.com ([209.85.214.180] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.7) with ESMTP id 4337780 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 05 Jun 2010 21:56:46 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.214.180; envelope-from=donkarich@gmail.com Received: by iwn36 with SMTP id 36so1452767iwn.25 for ; Sat, 05 Jun 2010 18:56:10 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=kVbKbgx8Vx9UcfdSpd8gInmW2owt+PqIyVZQma8kxFsiPKq8wpVacjLUiJQqtsM3DN sFpJN+2W7YjsR6idKMm7F8BmHyxjHoCNzfCJpLXOFWCiJ3ZcL7M0/ehk8PW7Axuj3zU+ dpssJksnWHg6eBU8ZIGDBG42DF+wh77ClTJnQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.111.209 with SMTP id t17mr2693501ibp.182.1275789370787; Sat, 05 Jun 2010 18:56:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.144.197 with HTTP; Sat, 5 Jun 2010 18:56:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: X-Original-Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 18:56:10 -0700 X-Original-Message-ID: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Transfer of Ownership From: Don Karich X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e649c74c410844048852dc1e --0016e649c74c410844048852dc1e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Taking money and requiring anything, inspections, training or anything else, it seems incurs an endorsement and subsequent liability if anything they could have prevented did not get prevented. I think that for this piddley sum the factory is stupid to take that liability. Even the FAA was smart enough to rethink the liability in approving pilots and has subed it out to sueable private approvers. I am not a lawyer and maybe my view is wrong. don karich n42DK On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 1:19 PM, wrote: > 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 > --0016e649c74c410844048852dc1e Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Taking money and requiring anything, inspections, training or anything= else, it seems incurs an endorsement and subsequent liability if anything = they could have prevented did not get prevented. I think that for this pidd= ley sum the factory is stupid to take that liability. Even the FAA was smar= t enough to rethink the liability in approving pilots and has subed it out = to sueable private approvers. I am not a lawyer and maybe my view is wrong.=
=A0
don karich n42DK

On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 1:19 PM, <rwolf99@aol.com> wro= te:
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 strid= ent.=A0 (It would not be the first time in my life that I've done that.= )=A0 Anyway, I separate this into different issues, and have some more comm= ents:
=A0
Paying for builder assistance is not in itself a problem.=A0 A certain= amount should be included with the purchase of the kit but an unlimited am= ount is too much to ask.=A0 $300?=A0 As good a number as any.=A0 But I woul= d consider the=A0right to purchase parts for an airplane in progress=A0to b= e different.=A0 (And yes, I realize that we don't have a "right&qu= ot; to patronize any business, but bear with me here...)
=A0
In the olden days of plans-built aircraft, it was not uncommon for som= eone to build his airplane and pass the plans on to someone else.=A0 A lice= nse transfer fee was reasonable and appropriate.=A0 In fact, I would conten= d that what you actually purchased was not the plans per se, but a license = to use the design data to produce a single airplane.=A0=A0If you finished y= our 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 pi= ece of paper.=A0 On the other hand, if you sold your project you also sold = your license to use the data, i.e., the license was transferable.=A0 Joe= 9;s=A0the lawyer, not me, so I assume he knows these matters better than I = do.
=A0
Where I have a problem is requiring a "factory inspection" a= nd "mandatory training from a factory-approved source" before rep= lacement pats can be purchased from Lancair.=A0 I do accept that they have = every right to establish this policy but it is something I disagree with.= =A0 Will we have airplanes that "pass" or "fail"?=A0 Wi= ll they give the new buyer a punch list of things to replace or change befo= re they will sell a new nose gear strut?=A0 What if I believe that my non-c= ertified power distribution system is better than their non-certified power= distribution system?=A0 Do I need to get a DER to certify that it's ai= rworthy before I can buy a new canopy latch?
=A0
Examples -- Maybe two electronic ignitions without a backup battery is= okay and maybe it isn't.=A0 Maybe a single vacuum system without a bac= kup attitude indicator is not "approved" by the factory, even tho= ugh it was good enough for Beech, Piper, Cessna and the FAA for 50 years.= =A0 Who says whether something good enough or not?=A0 An EAA Technical Advi= sor?=A0 Who says "okay, you can buy parts"?=A0 And there are plen= ty of places where NAPA Air Parts are just fine, although I can proudly say= that there are no Radio Shack parts in *my* airplane.=A0 What will Lancair= 's position be on this?
=A0
1)=A0 The FAA has established criteria for airworthiness, even for exp= erimental airplanes.=A0 They issue certificates that say so.=A0 Every flyin= g airplane has one.=A0 Why should Lancair be able to declare it not valid?<= /div>
=A0
2)=A0 As for training, the FAA has not established a type rating requi= rement for non-turbine Lancairs.=A0 However, they have established training= criteria for single-engine airplanes and every licensed and current pilot = with a BFR and a medical meets them.=A0 Not to mention that the insurance c= artel is requiring training for the high-end Lancairs already.
=A0
I have heard many good comments from the group on both sides.=A0 Let&#= 39;s keep the dialogue going.=A0 It's in our common interest to have sa= fe airplanes flown by safe pilots.
=A0
- Rob Wolf

--0016e649c74c410844048852dc1e--