X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 12:07:06 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-d04.mx.aol.com ([205.188.157.36] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0c2) with ESMTP id 723885 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 07:05:50 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.157.36; envelope-from=MikeEasley@aol.com Received: from MikeEasley@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r5.5.) id q.1fd.a30be56 (3924) for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 07:05:01 -0400 (EDT) From: MikeEasley@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: <1fd.a30be56.305c00dd@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 07:05:01 EDT Subject: Re: FAA Trying to stop us all? X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1126868701" X-Mailer: 9.0 Security Edition for Windows sub 5200 X-Spam-Flag: NO -------------------------------1126868701 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I read through the FAA document and I think any airplane that is built by someone other than the "builder" may have to either lie or have some detailed documentation on how the "builder" was involved with every step along the way with the assistance of the professional builder. I'm flying a Millennium Fastbuild ES. My flaps, ailerons, wings, including all the hinges, wing mating, fuel bays, slosh doors, holes for the fuel probe.... well you get the idea, were completed before I even saw my kit. The kit companies have used the definition of the "major portion" rule to complete as much as possible for us. My plane seemed more like 90% was completed by Lancair. Since the rule isn't based on hours spent, but the checklist, I can get "credit" for fabricating the landing gear by drilling out the 3/16" hole to 1/4" and sticking the leg in the pre aligned gear leg bracket. The kit passed the FAA approval process. I've always felt that my kit was bending the rules, if not bending the rules, bending the intent of the rules. I'm not complaining about my kit, I'm glad it built fast, in less than two years, not the 6 years that people in the past have to deal with. And I think the FAA is okay with kits that are as far along as my ES kit was. So maybe the FAA sees my kit as bending the rule a bit, but that's fine IF if build the rest. So the FAA thinking must be that 51% is left when you get your kit. If you have someone else do anything, that 51% goes down to 50% or 49% and now the aircraft doesn't qualify. I spent two weeks at the factory closing my wings, horiz stab, and elevators, installing windows, the door, flight controls, etc. But I was standing there every step of the way. At the beginning, I was the helper for sure, and Kerry was the guy who knew what he was doing. But the educational benefit helped me build a safer plane. I think that's what the FAA is intending to happen with "builder assist". Art and Gail Jensen built there Legacy completely at the factory. Even in there case, they were there for all the work. The came home for a couple weeks while Lancair did some work on their plane, but it's the work that's not listed on the FAA form. So if they had to document their professional assistance they'd be fine in my opinion. We all know that the more complex the aircraft, the more expensive the aircraft, the more likely someone other than the owner is doing large portions of the work. The FAA knows about all the professional builders out there. There are two at my little home airport. One does nothing but build RVs, the other specializes in composites and builds Rutans, Velocities, an Express, and is working on an ES right now. Maybe I'm being too simplistic, and many of the professional builders are personal friends of mine, but the FAA sees the ongoing practice of hiring someone to build your airplane as being outside the boundaries of the experimental homebuilt category. As others have commented, that's not the original intent of the category, to build an airplane of your own design for education and recreation. Can you really blame the FAA for cracking down? Mike Easley -------------------------------1126868701 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I read through the FAA document and I think any airplane that is built=20= by=20 someone other than the "builder" may have to either lie or have some detaile= d=20 documentation on how the "builder" was involved with every step along the wa= y=20 with the assistance of the professional builder.
 
I'm flying a Millennium Fastbuild ES.  My flaps, ailerons, wings,=20 including all the hinges, wing mating, fuel bays, slosh doors, holes for the= =20 fuel probe....  well you get the idea, were completed before I even saw= my=20 kit.  The kit companies have used the definition of the "major portion"= =20 rule to complete as much as possible for us.  My plane seemed more like= 90%=20 was completed by Lancair.  Since the rule isn't based on hours spent, b= ut=20 the checklist, I can get "credit" for fabricating the landing gear by drilli= ng=20 out the 3/16" hole to 1/4" and sticking the leg in the pre aligned gear leg=20 bracket.  The kit passed the FAA approval process. I've always felt tha= t my=20 kit was bending the rules, if not bending the rules, bending the intent of t= he=20 rules.
 
I'm not complaining about my kit, I'm glad it built fast, in less than=20= two=20 years, not the 6 years that people in the past have to deal with. And I thin= k=20 the FAA is okay with kits that are as far along as my ES kit was. = So=20 maybe the FAA sees my kit as bending the rule a bit, but that's fine IF if b= uild=20 the rest.
 
So the FAA thinking must be that 51% is left when you get your kit.&nbs= p;=20 If you have someone else do anything, that 51% goes down to 50% or 49% and n= ow=20 the aircraft doesn't qualify.
 
I spent two weeks at the factory closing my wings, horiz stab, and=20 elevators, installing windows, the door, flight controls, etc.  But I w= as=20 standing there every step of the way.  At the beginning, I was the help= er=20 for sure, and Kerry was the guy who knew what he was doing.  But the=20 educational benefit helped me build a safer plane.  I think that's what= the=20 FAA is intending to happen with "builder assist".
 
Art and Gail Jensen built there Legacy completely at the factory. = =20 Even in there case, they were there for all the work.  The came home fo= r a=20 couple weeks while Lancair did some work on their plane, but it's the work=20 that's not listed on the FAA form.  So if they had to document their=20 professional assistance they'd be fine in my opinion.
 
We all know that the more complex the aircraft, the more expensive the=20 aircraft, the more likely someone other than the owner is doing large portio= ns=20 of the work.  The FAA knows about all the professional builders out=20 there.  There are two at my little home airport.  One does nothing= but=20 build RVs, the other specializes in composites and builds Rutans, Velocities= , an=20 Express, and is working on an ES right now.
 
Maybe I'm being too simplistic, and many of the professional builders a= re=20 personal friends of mine, but the FAA sees the ongoing practice of hiring=20 someone to build your airplane as being outside the boundaries of the=20 experimental homebuilt category.  As others have commented, that's not=20= the=20 original intent of the category, to build an airplane of your own design for= =20 education and recreation.
 
Can you really blame the FAA for cracking down?
 
Mike Easley
 -------------------------------1126868701--