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 web33905.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([209.191.69.183] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.7) with SMTP id 4337639 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 05 Jun 2010 17:14:29 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.191.69.183; envelope-from=wfhannahan@yahoo.com Received: (qmail 255 invoked by uid 60001); 5 Jun 2010 21:13:54 -0000 DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=zSjV7olau+XBlRdqMpgExD0Qc6juk7OWNZxAOlBX5hNHyoofbU55b4owW7gBxBkajBPKEG4xvNW7XgIaWxgQeGaqBTFjE4MTDamiddSdF6ra71J9b2RAbKZi1qLAd/xzNbIxtWg/U/NuOoACECNET4V530nghVP7J0zqJfsH0Rs=; X-Original-Message-ID: <282056.99983.qm@web33905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: xdI0_MkVM1mIduC.VOA4UiLCWipa7SeoDRq4VWaEpfskMuF nMRlHMZFr5boTqs2eNQKY6RGRh5H9koF0dWsi9LQLIzVWpvu2cS4eOnq2UI5 7v35HQPjbdFDwmUnNtcHzMZvPLH9gdbffYy.TCJ1_H5zXqMrukVcMxUbKnEO K3RDBEPGhETie_gQrAMF94PPqzE54.oqbhZC3cDfvvEBPfvA8pLuxb.6vnTO LSngFESo5G1.hmW0iPsw.BS_Sbfp9zbYbAcbFuVEX8cZe.R7KimuP92cnRv3 6oL88KwxEFXMj6XmkvU_yZer0YKq5krTlj6n1vcYgCbLJRf2AI20- Received: from [71.208.32.37] by web33905.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 05 Jun 2010 14:13:54 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailClassic/11.0.8 YahooMailWebService/0.8.103.269680 X-Original-Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 14:13:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Bill Hannahan Subject: Transfer of Ownership X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1386738487-1275772434=:99983" --0-1386738487-1275772434=:99983 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =0A=0A=0A=0ARob has pretty well summed up my perspective on the issue.=0A= =0A=A0=0A=0AWhat about the new owner who refuses to pay the fee and=0Asubst= itutes sub standard parts? If an accident results, could Lancair be held=0A= partially responsible?=20 The accident will impact all of us in insurance / training / regulatory cos= ts. Parts are parts. Charge a reasonable price and sell them to whoever wants t= hem. =0A=0A Bill Hannahan =20 wfhannahan@yahoo.com --- On Sat, 6/5/10, rwolf99@aol.com wrote: From: rwolf99@aol.com Subject: [LML] Re: Transfer of Ownership To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Saturday, June 5, 2010, 2:19 PM =0AI've re-read my posting, and reviewed all the other comments, and have c= ome to the conclusion that my initial response was a little too strident.= =A0 (It would not be the first time in my life that I've done that.)=A0 Any= way, I separate this into different issues, and have some more comments:=0A= =0A=0A=A0=0A=0A=0APaying 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 amount is too much to ask.=A0 $300?=A0 As good a number as any.= =A0 But I would consider the=A0right to purchase parts for an airplane in p= rogress=A0to be different.=A0 (And yes, I realize that we don't have a "rig= ht" to patronize any business, but bear with me here...)=0A=0A=0A=A0=0A=0A= =0AIn the olden days of plans-built aircraft, it was not uncommon for someo= ne to build his airplane and pass the plans on to someone else.=A0 A licens= e transfer fee was reasonable and appropriate.=A0 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.=A0=A0If you finished you= r 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 piec= e of paper.=A0 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.=A0 Joe's=A0= the lawyer, not me, so I assume he knows these matters better than I do.=0A= =0A=0A=A0=0A=0A=0AWhere I have a problem is requiring a "factory inspection= " and "mandatory training from a factory-approved source" before replacemen= t pats can be purchased from Lancair.=A0 I do accept that they have every r= ight to establish this policy but it is something I disagree with.=A0 Will = we have airplanes that "pass" or "fail"?=A0 Will they give the new buyer a = punch list of things to replace or change before they will sell a new nose = gear strut?=A0 What if I believe that my non-certified power distribution s= ystem is better than their non-certified power distribution system?=A0 Do I= need to get a DER to certify that it's airworthy before I can buy a new ca= nopy latch?=0A=0A=0A=A0=0A=0A=0AExamples -- Maybe two electronic ignitions = without a backup battery is okay and maybe it isn't.=A0 Maybe a single vacu= um system without a backup attitude indicator is not "approved" by the fact= ory, even though it was good enough for Beech, Piper, Cessna and the FAA fo= r 50 years.=A0 Who says whether something good enough or not?=A0 An EAA Tec= hnical Advisor?=A0 Who says "okay, you can buy parts"?=A0 And there are ple= nty of places where NAPA Air Parts are just fine, although I can proudly sa= y that there are no Radio Shack parts in *my* airplane.=A0 What will Lancai= r's position be on this?=0A=0A=0A=A0=0A=0A=0A1)=A0 The FAA has established = criteria for airworthiness, even for experimental airplanes.=A0 They issue = certificates that say so.=A0 Every flying airplane has one.=A0 Why should L= ancair be able to declare it not valid?=0A=0A=0A=A0=0A=0A=0A2)=A0 As for tr= aining, the FAA has not established a type rating requirement for non-turbi= ne Lancairs.=A0 However, they have established training criteria for single= -engine airplanes and every licensed and current pilot with a BFR and a med= ical meets them.=A0 Not to mention that the insurance cartel is requiring t= raining for the high-end Lancairs already.=0A=0A=0A=A0=0A=0A=0AI have heard= many good comments from the group on both sides.=A0 Let's keep the dialogu= e going.=A0 It's in our common interest to have safe airplanes flown by saf= e pilots.=0A=0A=0A=A0=0A=0A=0A- Rob Wolf=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A --0-1386738487-1275772434=:99983 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=0A=0A= =0A=0A

Rob has pretty well summed up my perspective o= n the issue.

=0A=0A

 

=0A=0A

What about the new owner who refuses to pay the fee and= =0Asubstitutes sub standard parts? If an accident results, could Lancair be= held=0Apartially responsible?


The accident will impact all of us in insurance / trainin= g / regulatory costs.


Parts are parts. Charge a reasonable price and sell them to whoever wan= ts them.


=0A=0A
Bill Hannahan

--- On Sat, 6/5/10,= rwolf99@aol.com <rwolf99@aol.com> wrote:

From: rwolf99@aol.com <rwolf99@aol.com>
Subject: [= LML] Re: Transfer of Ownership
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Saturd= ay, June 5, 2010, 2:19 PM

=0A
I've re-read my posting, and review= ed 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 i= n my life that I've done that.)  Anyway, I separate this into differen= t issues, and have some more comments:
=0A=0A=0A
 
=0A= =0A=0A
Paying for builder assistance is not in itself a problem.  = A certain amount should be included with the purchase of the kit but an unl= imited amount is too much to ask.  $300?  As good a number as any= .  But I would consider the right to purchase parts for an airpla= ne 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...)
= =0A=0A=0A
 
=0A=0A=0A
In the olden days of plans-built ai= rcraft, 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 a= ppropriate.  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 dat= a, even if that data came from the identical piece of paper.  On the o= ther hand, if you sold your project you also sold your license to use the d= ata, i.e., the license was transferable.  Joe's the lawyer, not m= e, so I assume he knows these matters better than I do.
=0A=0A=0A
=  
=0A=0A=0A
Where I have a problem is requiring a "factory in= spection" and "mandatory training from a factory-approved source" before re= placement pats can be purchased from Lancair.  I do accept that they h= ave every right to establish this policy but it is something I disagree wit= h.  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 distribu= tion system?  Do I need to get a DER to certify that it's airworthy be= fore I can buy a new canopy latch?
=0A=0A=0A
 
=0A=0A=0A=
Examples -- Maybe two electronic ignitions without a backup battery is= okay and maybe it isn't.  Maybe a single vacuum system without a back= up 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 sa= ys whether something good enough or not?  An EAA Technical Advisor?&nb= sp; Who says "okay, you can buy parts"?  And there are plenty of place= s 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 posit= ion be on this?
=0A=0A=0A
 
=0A=0A=0A
1)  The F= AA has established criteria for airworthiness, even for experimental airpla= nes.  They issue certificates that say so.  Every flying airplane= has one.  Why should Lancair be able to declare it not valid?
= =0A=0A=0A
 
=0A=0A=0A
2)  As for training, the FAA h= as not established a type rating requirement for non-turbine Lancairs. = ; However, they have established training criteria for single-engine airpla= nes and every licensed and current pilot with a BFR and a medical meets the= m.  Not to mention that the insurance cartel is requiring training for= the high-end Lancairs already.
=0A=0A=0A
 
=0A=0A=0AI 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 ai= rplanes flown by safe pilots.
=0A=0A=0A
 
=0A=0A=0A
= - Rob Wolf
=0A=0A

=0A= =0A --0-1386738487-1275772434=:99983--