Reply-To: <barbatab001@hawaii.rr.com>
Reply-To: lancair.list@olsusa.com
From: "Brian Barbata" <barbatab001@hawaii.rr.com>
To: "Lancair Mail List" <lancair.list@olsusa.com>
Subject: Builder assistance/insurance
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 21:50:40 -1000
Message-ID: <000b01c162a9$e6e13b00$6601a8c0@hawaii.rr.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Importance: Normal

          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
          <<  Lancair Builders' Mail List  >>
          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>
After reading some of the responses and thoughts on "LOGI" (if I can
coin now that acronym), and the on builder assistance/51% issue, I think
there is more going on here than just FAA regs and insurance.

I can tell you, we would never be building an airplane at all if it were
not for Lancair's credibility, latest fast-build options, factory shop
time, and a great builder assist shop next door. In fact, I think anyone
would be ill-advised to build a high performance carbon fiber airplane
w/o using such assets. Orin tells me ALL the IV's are now sold this way.
Thank God.

Forget FAA rules or intentions. As we all know, the FAA won't keep you
alive. The bottom line is, use your head. If you are going to build an
airplane, wouldn't you rather have a professional involved daily than
stumbling through a manual for years, worrying whether you got the right
materials, and trying to get answers on the phone from a kit
manufacturer who doesn't have a clue? Do you want to be making tough
structural decisions during construction, only to be wondering about
them when penetrating turbulence years later? We are going to honestly
put the 51% (or more) into our plane because it will be easy to do in a
professionally supervised shop and because we want to. Plus, we will be
flying in 9 months or so. But, as a requirement, it has nothing to do
with anything. Imputing some safety logic to the 51% rule has no
foundation at all. It would be interesting to ask the FAA to defend that
number (Oshkosh 2002?).

I believe the FAA has got to adopt a new standard, because I really
think Lancair is paving the way to a new industry for professionally
built custom performance aircraft. This revolution was ushered in by
composite technology, which is the aircraft equivalent of the personal
computer revolution. Look at a new Bonanza for $550K and a Lancair
Turbine for $400K to $500K, professionally custom built. No contest. In
fact, I think you are going to see a flood of kit composites replacing
these "tin cans" (one of which I currently fly) in the next decade.
Without allowing people to just setup shop and produce experimental
airplanes for sale, there should be an avenue through which you can buy
an "FAA Reviewed" design and have an "FAA Certified" shop professionally
build it....from 100% to 10%, as you like. Maybe the shop and the
airplane owner have to go through a course at the factory. Maybe the
owner can't resell the airplane for 5 years. Maybe the FAA inspections
are much more rigorous. Maybe there are progress sign-offs. Maybe there
are FAA test flight protocols. I'm sure there are ways to control such a
cottage industry, if the FAA would focus on it. Personally, I would be
much more comfortable buying such an airplane than flying one someone
had built in their garage over 5 years and flown the hours off.

I suspect the individual FAA inspectors/DAR's privately encourage good
shops for such complex airplanes because they would rather see them
coming out of good, professional shops than owner garages. There just
needs to be some oversight for these shops, instead of pretending they
don't exist and playing this little numbers game with the 51% criteria.
I think the recent Tony Duruzzi case exemplifies this need. As
"owner-builders", we are not capable of evaluating a shop, which can
easily be selected just because it is cheap and close to home. There
needs to be some control. Maybe that would make the insurance
underwriters feel better too, perhaps pre-approving airplanes built in
certain shops.

I'm not advocating that you HAVE to do it this way, but there should be
an FAA avenue to do it professionally if you want to. There should also
be an FAA procedure to get an already built airplane "reviewed". I think
these would help resolve the insurance dilemma as well. For those who
want to save money and spend years building an airplane from rolls of
material and gallons of resin, GO FOR IT!

Brian Barbata

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LML website:   http://members.olsusa.com/mkaye/maillist.html
LML Builders' Bookstore:   http://www.buildersbooks.com/lancair
Please remember that purchases from the Builders' Bookstore
assist with the management of the LML.

Please send your photos and drawings to marvkaye@olsusa.com.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>