X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 14:47:40 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from web53701.mail.re2.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.22] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.5) with SMTP id 3053590 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 03 Aug 2008 02:17:53 -0400 Received: (qmail 22275 invoked by uid 60001); 3 Aug 2008 06:17:52 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=qa0UDd4e3dGRfCoFdoTK47uOC4A3unslPt5+jcq1x/N7K7mRQXTR1h47CrFYfE4UF+f0Gq0Q/wewWSck3kqrVFRTETEsEgbfTV07TOWsDqVSpRp2Ic03s4pVKZSl43BHWQW70Rj1FN3FuMVCJfemv92ARNXYSMZsBrypKHCwaak=; Received: from [66.32.120.156] by web53701.mail.re2.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 02 Aug 2008 23:17:52 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.7.218 X-Original-Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 23:17:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Kyrilian Dyer Reply-To: kyrilian_av@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [LML] Re: FAA comment on new 51% A/B Ruling X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1339800602-1217744272=:22200" X-Original-Message-ID: <899685.22200.qm@web53701.mail.re2.yahoo.com> --0-1339800602-1217744272=:22200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable John, It seems that everyone is concerned about amateur building regulations beco= ming stricter, and I'm no different.=A0 However, I don't agree with some of= the presumptions and conclusions that are being drawn. You ask why the FAA wants to curtail pure commercial assistance.=A0 Further= , you equate safety with the builders' safety.=A0 Finally, you propose that= the FAA is in bed with the certificated airframe manufacturers.=A0 As some= one involved in flight test and certification of TC'd aircraft (large milit= ary and commercial helicopters) I suggest that this is silly. My understanding is that the regulations to which TC manufacturers must com= ply are largely the result of accidents.=A0 Though perhaps imperfect, the F= AA's intent for type certificated aircraft is the safety of passengers and = people on the ground (ie, the unsuspecting public).=A0=20 The '51% rule' and all that's associated with the amateur built category ha= s little to do with our (the builders') safety.=A0 It's there, again, to pr= otect the unsuspecting public.=A0 This doesn't just include passengers and = people on the ground, but future owners as well.=A0 Why, do you ask, does t= his make any sense? As I see it, implicit in the 51% requirement is that you have to disclose t= hat you, an unqualified builder are building an unqualified design.=A0 Besi= des disclosure, personal builders have a liability interest that a potentia= lly fly-by-night commercial outfit may not take as seriously as an individu= al hobbyist. You say that professionally built airplanes are better.=A0 Says who? I see so many ads for homebuilts that list them as 'professionally built'.= =A0 What does that mean?=A0 Besides admitting to the FAA that they broke th= e rules (except, perhaps in the few cases where the sellers are themselves = 'professional builders'), these sellers are presenting the aircraft as buil= t by someone who is 'qualified'.=A0 What defines a professional builder?=A0= Someone with an A&P?=A0 Someone who's built an airplane before?=A0 Heck, w= hy couldn't it be a complete novice who's simply collecting money for his/h= er effort?=A0 Does money=3Dskill?=A0 Buyers are led to believe that these '= professionally built' airplanes are better than those built by regular peop= le, right?=A0 Otherwise, why mention it?=A0 Isn't the implication here that= these airplanes are built by 'qualified' builders?=A0 Maybe I've had a sip= of the Kool Aid, but I think there are good reasons that type certificated= airplanes are built under direct oversight of the FAA or indirectly with production certificates.=A0 The intent, whether perfect or not, is for the= builder to meet defined and repeatable qualification standards.=A0 Ten pri= or kit builds or an A&P certificate are insufficient qualifications for the= manufacturers of TC'd airplanes--what's the qualification associated with = 'professionally-built' homebuilts? Note that I'm not talking about professional assistance.=A0 The current rul= es allow for this, and hopefully will continue to do so. Some people have suggested that amateur-built airplanes are just as safe as= TC'd aircraft.=A0 Is this true?=A0 Frankly, I doubt it.=A0 For a fair comp= arison one would have to compare similar aircraft on similar missions flown= by similar pilots.=A0 This may be tough to do.=A0 What TC'd aircraft would= we use as comparison?=A0 IVPT with a TBM?=A0 ES with a SR22 or C400?=A0 Ob= viously, there are many homebuilt types for which there is no TC'd counterp= art, but perhaps that's the point.=A0 Slower, more boring handling aircraft= tend to be safer.=A0 Missions may be tough to match up as well, since by d= efinition homebuilt aircraft shouldn't be used for business.=A0 Finally, I'= d contend that builder pilots are not the same as non-builder pilots.=A0 I = don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing though! Perhaps I'm a pessimist, but I don't think it's smart for regulations to be= optimistic--we shouldn't assume that everyone will 'do the right' thing.= =A0 Just consider the current rules that clearly lay out what we may have s= omeone do for us, and how many people have wholly flaunted them. While I've read that homebuilt safety has improved recently at the same tim= e that 'professional' assistance has bloomed, I think it's foolhardy to pre= sume that this trend (if true) has reason to continue if the regulatory cli= mate were to change.=A0 Here=92s a hypothetical:=A0 If some very intelligen= t and dedicated people got together and taught themselves medicine or law a= nd went out and practiced diligently, it's possible that they could be very= successful.=A0 They'd be working extra hard to be perfect, because for the= m the cost of failure could be jail, rather than slightly higher malpractic= e premiums or a lawsuit.=A0 One could argue then that if they did so and we= re shown to perform better than their certified counterparts that the regul= ations for those fields were pointless. A string of successes shouldn't lead one to presume that bar exams, board e= xams, or type and production certificates are pointless.=A0 Not everything = that meets regulations is good and not all that doesn't is bad.=A0 But most= regulations were born from experience.=A0 Let's hope that abuses of the ru= les don't force those rules to become excessively restrictive for those tha= t want to meet the original intent. I think it's interesting that many people are angry with the FAA for taking= another hack at the amateur built regs, while few people have bitched abou= t those who brought this unwanted attention.=A0 Sure, some will argue that = we have a right to do whatever we want and to heck with the government, but= come on...=A0 Then why bother getting a pilot's certificate?=A0 Don't get = me wrong though; I think it's imperative that we ensure that the resulting = regulations don't change the tone of this great experience.=A0 Hopefully th= e regs won't change at all, but I think we're beyond that. =A0Cheers, - Kyrilian =A0 L2K-236 --- On Fri, 8/1/08, John Hafen wrote: From: John Hafen Subject: [LML] Re: FAA comment on new 51% A/B Ruling To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Friday, August 1, 2008, 1:07 PM Re: [LML] Re: FAA comment on new 51% =A0A/B Ruling Mike, thanks for your comments. =A0You state: =93If the FAA's goal is to curtail pure commercial assistance and get back = to builders building their own airplanes, the proposed changes won't get th= e job done. =A0There will still be plenty of opportunity to bend the rules = and hide the commercial assistance in the paperwork.=94 I agree with your statement, but what is the point of the FAA wanting to = =93curtail pure commercial assistance?=94 =A0Why would they care? =A0It can= =92t be about safety, because the commercial builders out there are way bet= ter at their jobs than many of us amateurs are, so what is the point??? =A0= In deed, what is the point of the 51% rule at all. As I stated in another email, I think the whole point of the 51% rule is to= protect the certified airplane builders from home-built competition. =A0It= has nothing to do with safety. =A0It is government control to assure a typ= e of monopoly owned by the certified guys. John =20 =0A=0A=0A --0-1339800602-1217744272=:22200 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
John,

It seems that everyone is concerned about amateur build= ing regulations becoming stricter, and I'm no different.  However, I d= on't agree with some of the presumptions and conclusions that are being dra= wn.

You ask why the FAA wants to curtail pure commercial assistance.=   Further, you equate safety with the builders' safety.  Finally,= you propose that the FAA is in bed with the certificated airframe manufact= urers.  As someone involved in flight test and certification of TC'd a= ircraft (large military and commercial helicopters) I suggest that this is = silly.

My understanding is that the regulations to which TC manufact= urers must comply are largely the result of accidents.  Though perhaps= imperfect, the FAA's intent for type certificated aircraft is the safety o= f passengers and people on the ground (ie, the unsuspecting public).  <= br>
The '51% rule' and all that's associated with the amateur built cate= gory has little to do with our (the builders') safety.  It's there, ag= ain, to protect the unsuspecting public.  This doesn't just include pa= ssengers and people on the ground, but future owners as well.  Why, do= you ask, does this make any sense?

As I see it, implicit in the 51%= requirement is that you have to disclose that you, an unqualified builder = are building an unqualified design.  Besides disclosure, personal buil= ders have a liability interest that a potentially fly-by-night commercial o= utfit may not take as seriously as an individual hobbyist.

You say t= hat professionally built airplanes are better.  Says who?

I see= so many ads for homebuilts that list them as 'professionally built'. = What does that mean?  Besides admitting to the FAA that they broke the rules (except, perhaps in the few cases where the sellers are th= emselves 'professional builders'), these sellers are presenting the aircraf= t as built by someone who is 'qualified'.  What defines a professional= builder?  Someone with an A&P?  Someone who's built an airpl= ane before?  Heck, why couldn't it be a complete novice who's simply c= ollecting money for his/her effort?  Does money=3Dskill?  Buyers = are led to believe that these 'professionally built' airplanes are better t= han those built by regular people, right?  Otherwise, why mention it?&= nbsp; Isn't the implication here that these airplanes are built by 'qualifi= ed' builders?  Maybe I've had a sip of the Kool Aid, but I think there= are good reasons that type certificated airplanes are built under direct o= versight of the FAA or indirectly with production certificates.  The i= ntent, whether perfect or not, is for the builder to meet defined and repeatable qualification standards.  Ten prior kit builds or an A&= ;P certificate are insufficient qualifications for the manufacturers of TC'= d airplanes--what's the qualification associated with 'professionally-built= ' homebuilts?

Note that I'm not talking about professional assistanc= e.  The current rules allow for this, and hopefully will continue to d= o so.

Some people have suggested that amateur-built airplanes are ju= st as safe as TC'd aircraft.  Is this true?  Frankly, I doubt it.=   For a fair comparison one would have to compare similar aircraft on = similar missions flown by similar pilots.  This may be tough to do.&nb= sp; What TC'd aircraft would we use as comparison?  IVPT with a TBM?&n= bsp; ES with a SR22 or C400?  Obviously, there are many homebuilt type= s for which there is no TC'd counterpart, but perhaps that's the point.&nbs= p; Slower, more boring handling aircraft tend to be safer.  Missions may be tough to match up as well, since by definition homebuilt a= ircraft shouldn't be used for business.  Finally, I'd contend that bui= lder pilots are not the same as non-builder pilots.  I don't know if t= his is a good thing or a bad thing though!

Perhaps I'm a pessimist, = but I don't think it's smart for regulations to be optimistic--we shouldn't= assume that everyone will 'do the right' thing.  Just consider the cu= rrent rules that clearly lay out what we may have someone do for us, and ho= w many people have wholly flaunted them.

While I've read that homebu= ilt safety has improved recently at the same time that 'professional' assis= tance has bloomed, I think it's foolhardy to presume that this trend (if tr= ue) has reason to continue if the regulatory climate were to change.  = Here=92s a hypothetical:  If some very intelligent and dedicated peopl= e got together and taught themselves medicine or law and went out and practiced diligently, it's possible that they could be very successful= .  They'd be working extra hard to be perfect, because for them the co= st of failure could be jail, rather than slightly higher malpractice premiu= ms or a lawsuit.  One could argue then that if they did so and were sh= own to perform better than their certified counterparts that the regulation= s for those fields were pointless.

A string of successes shouldn't l= ead one to presume that bar exams, board exams, or type and production cert= ificates are pointless.  Not everything that meets regulations is good= and not all that doesn't is bad.  But most regulations were born from= experience.  Let's hope that abuses of the rules don't force those ru= les to become excessively restrictive for those that want to meet the origi= nal intent.

I think it's interesting that many people are angry with= the FAA for taking another hack at the amateur built regs, while few people have bitched about those who brought this unwanted attention.&n= bsp; Sure, some will argue that we have a right to do whatever we want and = to heck with the government, but come on...  Then why bother getting a= pilot's certificate?  Don't get me wrong though; I think it's imperat= ive that we ensure that the resulting regulations don't change the tone of = this great experience.  Hopefully the regs won't change at all, but I = think we're beyond that.

 Cheers,
- Kyrilian
  L2K-2= 36

--- On Fri, 8/1/08, John Hafen <j.hafen@comcast.net><= /i> wrote:
From: John Hafen <j.hafen@com= cast.net>
Subject: [LML] Re: FAA comment on new 51% A/B Ruling
To= : lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Friday, August 1, 2008, 1:07 PM

Re: [LML] Re: FAA comment on new 51%  A/B Ruling Mike, thanks for your comments.  You state:

=93If the FAA's goal is to curtail pure commercial assistance and= get back to builders building their own airplanes, the proposed changes wo= n't get the job done.  There will still be plenty of opportunity to be= nd the rules and hide the commercial assistance in the paperwork.=94

I agree with your statement, but what is the point of the FAA wanting to = =93curtail pure commercial assistance?=94  Why would they care?  = It can=92t be about safety, because the commercial builders out there are w= ay better at their jobs than many of us amateurs are, so what is the point?= ??  In deed, what is the point of the 51% rule at all.

As I stated in another email, I think the whole point of the 51% rule is to= protect the certified airplane builders from home-built competition.  = ;It has nothing to do with safety.  It is government control to assure= a type of monopoly owned by the certified guys.

John


=20

=0A=0A --0-1339800602-1217744272=:22200--