X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:57:31 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-m28.mx.aol.com ([64.12.137.9] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.0) with ESMTP id 2757091 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:05:41 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.137.9; envelope-from=RWolf99@aol.com Received: from RWolf99@aol.com by imo-m28.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r9.3.) id q.c53.2beed76b (34897) for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:04:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from webmail-ne08 (webmail-ne08.sim.aol.com [207.200.67.8]) by cia-da01.mx.aol.com (v121.4) with ESMTP id MAILCIADA016-885147c31f5e113; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:04:46 -0500 X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: 51% Rule X-Original-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:04:46 -0500 X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI X-AOL-IP: 72.19.171.41 X-MB-Message-Type: User MIME-Version: 1.0 From: rwolf99@aol.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CA4600CDD50CBB_C9C_CB8_webmail-ne08.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 34032-STANDARD Received: from 72.19.171.41 by webmail-ne08.sysops.aol.com (207.200.67.8) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:04:46 -0500 X-Original-Message-Id: <8CA4600CDD50CBB-C9C-650@webmail-ne08.sysops.aol.com> X-Spam-Flag: NO ----------MB_8CA4600CDD50CBB_C9C_CB8_webmail-ne08.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" The following is my 2 cents worth: 1)? Professional builder assistance is a good thing.? I have used it before, and expect to again.? They are better than I am in some areas, and that's whay I pay them to do.? The key word in here is "assistance".? I want their help -- I am not paying for them to build my airplane for me.? I agree that when the more capable person builds the part, the airplane is better as a result. 2)? Okay, let's carry that a little further.? In some areas, they are no better than I am, but?they have more time than I do and I'm willing to pay for it.? Here's where the line gets fuzzy.? How much should they be allowed to do for me?? Personally, I have no clue, but?it has?been defined as "not more than half".? Okay, I can live with that. 3)? If I am going to buy a completed airplane or car or toaster oven?from someone, the law says that it is supposed to work.? At least that's the way I remember it from my high school law class 30 years ago.? Or at least, that's how it ought to be.? And part of what the FAA has been given the legal authority and responsibility to do is to determine when an aircraft is safe enough for sale.? That's what Part 23 certification (and Part 25 and light-sport certification) is all about. 4)? The average kitplane does NOT meet the standards established as "safe enough for the public" under Part 23.? Disagree if you want, but it's a fact.? That's one reason why we have to put those annoying stickers on our instrument panels that say so -- because the passenger might not be aware that the really cool planes don't come from certification programs.? What's not generally known is that certification has very little to do with making an airplane work -- but it has *everything* to do with making sure that it fails in a benign and survivable manner. 5)? Okay, so if you agree with everything above then you'll accept that people should not be able to buy an airplane kit, build it, and deliver the kit to you in an assembled form.? Okay.....what about the guy in the next hangar that built his own kit, flew it for 10 years, lost his medical and wants to sell his airplane?? He should be able to sell it to you, right?? And what about the guy that just likes to build, flies off the test flights and then sells the airplane to you.? Is that okay?? Sure. 6)? So here we have a conundrum.? An individual can build a kit, fly it, and then sell it.? An individual can even buy a kit, build part (or most) of it, lose interest (or need the money) and then sell the kit to you.? What's the difference between that and a company buying a kit, building part of it, and then unloading it?? That one, friends, is a mystery to me.? So here's the real problem -- if you agree that partially building and selling non-certified airplanes should not be done for commercial purposes, but builder assistance is okay, how do you structure the law to allow one and not the other? - Rob Wolf ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com ----------MB_8CA4600CDD50CBB_C9C_CB8_webmail-ne08.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" The following is my 2 cents worth:

1)  Professional builder assistance is a good thing.  I have used it before, and expect to again.  They are better than I am in some areas, and that's whay I pay them to do.  The key word in here is "assistance".  I want their help -- I am not paying for them to build my airplane for me.  I agree that when the more capable person builds the part, the airplane is better as a result.

2)  Okay, let's carry that a little further.  In some areas, they are no better than I am, but they have more time than I do and I'm willing to pay for it.  Here's where the line gets fuzzy.  How much should they be allowed to do for me?  Personally, I have no clue, but it has been defined as "not more than half".  Okay, I can live with that.

3)  If I am going to buy a completed airplane or car or toaster oven from someone, the law says that it is supposed to work.  At least that's the way I remember it from my high school law class 30 years ago.  Or at least, that's how it ought to be.  And part of what the FAA has been given the legal authority and responsibility to do is to determine when an aircraft is safe enough for sale.  That's what Part 23 certification (and Part 25 and light-sport certification) is all about.

4)  The average kitplane does NOT meet the standards established as "safe enough for the public" under Part 23.  Disagree if you want, but it's a fact.  That's one reason why we have to put those annoying stickers on our instrument panels that say so -- because the passenger might not be aware that the really cool planes don't come from certification programs.  What's not generally known is that certification has very little to do with making an airplane work -- but it has *everything* to do with making sure that it fails in a benign and survivable manner.

5)  Okay, so if you agree with everything above then you'll accept that people should not be able to buy an airplane kit, build it, and deliver the kit to you in an assembled form.  Okay.....what about the guy in the next hangar that built his own kit, flew it for 10 years, lost his medical and wants to sell his airplane?  He should be able to sell it to you, right?  And what about the guy that just likes to build, flies off the test flights and then sells the airplane to you.  Is that okay?  Sure.

6)  So here we have a conundrum.  An individual can build a kit, fly it, and then sell it.  An individual can even buy a kit, build part (or most) of it, lose interest (or need the money) and then sell the kit to you.  What's the difference between that and a company buying a kit, building part of it, and then unloading it?  That one, friends, is a mystery to me. 

So here's the real problem -- if you agree that partially building and selling non-certified airplanes should not be done for commercial purposes, but builder assistance is okay, how do you structure the law to allow one and not the other?

- Rob Wolf
More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail!
----------MB_8CA4600CDD50CBB_C9C_CB8_webmail-ne08.sysops.aol.com--