X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:03:00 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from QMTA10.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.17] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.5) with ESMTP id 3036241 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:29:55 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=76.96.30.17; envelope-from=j.hafen@comcast.net Received: from OMTA12.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.44]) by QMTA10.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id sakW1Z00A0x6nqcAAmVH9Q; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:29:17 +0000 Received: from [10.128.88.86] ([206.191.160.125]) by OMTA12.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id smV71Z00V2idoaN8YmVAjy; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:29:15 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=H2KFwv3uSqAA:10 a=8zk5xBVmn8sA:10 a=HfFIh8YyAAAA:8 a=2XCZmVC07uIdT1Nx8rUA:9 a=Uk4fbfzgjL74Q_2SLWEA:9 a=SYd_PJAAOOoLOdkZ0pwA:7 a=5g00YVokgtZ8nYk6TVUizI62TP0A:4 a=U8Ie8EnqySEA:10 a=si9q_4b84H0A:10 a=SKpDKCWXRSQA:10 a=3m_XFnOiiWuVO0dm9rMA:9 a=wRWEmU8XWKqQhQgvL1wA:7 a=V7X0a4xSyaI0-DnbtdKlL3eqp7IA:4 a=Sz-0p1zU2dQA:10 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.11.0.080522 X-Original-Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:29:07 -0700 Subject: Re: [LML] Re: 51% Rule, the FAA, and the IRS From: John Hafen X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List X-Original-Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [LML] Re: 51% Rule, the FAA, and the IRS Thread-Index: AcjrgTAU/sy55iwuKUOB7J8otxWD5g== In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3299498954_848953" > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3299498954_848953 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Grayhawk: I spent two years full time (I quit my day job) building IVP 413AJ. I have about 75 hours on it now and I love it. I will confess to you that I cheated the system because I did not build the plane for education and recreation purposes. Nothing else was available with the performance of a IVP for anywhere near the price. I just wanted the price/performance ratio provided by a LIVP. Please don=B9t tell the FAA because that makes me illegal. You ask, =B3What more do you what?=B2 Well, if you are the genie and I get some wishes, here goes. I would like some honesty from the FAA that a strict definition of who built what and or percentages etc., is simply unrealistic, unworkable, unenforceable, pointless, and therefore silly and unnecessary. They should regulate certified airplanes, and control controlled airspaces, and get their noses out of everything everything else. If I am bold enough to strap some kind of flying machine onto my butt and jump off a hill, and I don=B9t endanger others by doing so, my wish to you, mister genie, is that I don=B9t want the federal government (FAA) telling me I can=B9t because I didn=B9t build enough o= f it. =20 There should be two categories: Certified, and NSM (Not So Much). John Like you=B9 I=B9m not TSO certified either. Only >70%. On 7/21/08 10:15 AM, "Sky2high@aol.com" wrote: > John, > =20 > You must go read the history of what the EAA accomplished in getting the = FAA > "Experimental, Amateur Built" airworthiness category established. > =20 > I believe the text was (is) something like "The builder shall do a majori= ty of > the work in constructing the plane. The purpose of the plane is for the > education and recreation of the builder." > =20 > Majority =3D 51% rule. > =20 > I think the FAA has come more than 50% of the way in only requiring at le= ast > 20% of the fabrication and at least 20% of the assembly as sub-requiremen= ts of > accomplishing the majority of the work. > =20 > What is interesting is that the FAA has placed no safety requirements on = the > pilot (the insurance companies have, however). The airworthiness certifi= cate > is issued if it is an aircraft, built with reasonable standards and the e= ngine > runs. There usually is a check of the builder's log and a Q & A to deter= mine > if the builder did enough of the work (has intimate knowledge) to qualify= for > the repairmen's certificate - thus allowing the builder to sign off the > required annual inspection. > =20 > Remember that there is a placard informing occupants that the aircraft wa= s not > built to FAA standards. > =20 > What more do you want? > =20 > Perhaps you have yet to build an aircraft in this category? > =20 > Scott Krueger AKA Grayhawk > Lancair N92EX IO320 SB 89/96 > Aurora, IL (KARR) >=20 > Pilot not TSO'd, Certificated score only > 70%. > =20 > In a message dated 7/20/2008 5:58:46 A.M. Central Daylight Time, > j.hafen@comcast.net writes: >> As I read about fabrication versus assembly versus X percentage of buil= ding >> work not applying to the entire aircraft but only the "builder's portio= n" >> that is arbitrarily defined anyway, it seems to me that the FAA has >> complicated this issue beyond comprehension, much like the IRS has done= with >> our tax code. >>=20 >> I would argue that an aircraft is either certified, or it is not. Anyt= hing >> less that a 100% compliant aircraft is simply not certified. >>=20 >> I question the value of the arbitrary assignment of 51%. It is still n= ot >> certified. Is it "half certified?" (I would argue no, since the half = that >> got built by an amateur still got built by an amateur, therefore, "no >> certification for you.") If a plane is built by an unqualified amateur,= one >> could argue that ANY portion of the plane built by that unwashed amateu= r >> (myself in the case of LIVP N413AJ) is unsafe, or at least not certifie= d, >> therefore making the entire airplane dangerous. >>=20 >> Is "safety" the point behind the 51% rule? What is the FAA justificati= on >> that makes 51 the magic number. Does 51% make it "safe?" If the amate= ur >> doesn't have to build to certification standards, why is 51 significant= , >> relevant, or applicable? >>=20 >> Does the FAA think that a plane that was constructed 100% (or at least = 51%) >> by a guy who doesn't know what he is doing is safer than a plane built = for >> pay by a shop who has done it dozens of times? >>=20 >> Someone please tell me what I'm not seeing here. What is the FAA's >> rationale in assigning 51% as the magic number? Does it have any meani= ng >> what-so-ever? Why not just say it is certified, or it is not certified= , >> plane and simple? >>=20 >> Thanks in advance, >>=20 >> John =20 >>=20 >> =20 >> =20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy > Football today=20 > . >=20 --B_3299498954_848953 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Re: [LML] Re: 51% Rule, the FAA, and the IRS Grayhawk:

I spent two years full time (I quit my day job) building IVP 413AJ.  I= have about 75 hours on it now and I love it.

I will confess to you that I cheated the system because I did not build the= plane for education and recreation purposes.  Nothing else was availab= le with the performance of a IVP for anywhere near the price.  I just w= anted the price/performance ratio provided by a LIVP.  Please don’= ;t tell the FAA because that makes me illegal.  

You ask, “What more do  you what?”

Well, if you are the genie and I get some wishes, here goes.  I would = like some honesty from the FAA that a strict definition of who built what an= d or percentages etc., is simply unrealistic, unworkable, unenforceable, poi= ntless, and therefore silly and unnecessary.   They should regulat= e certified airplanes, and control controlled airspaces, and get their noses= out of everything everything else.  If I am bold enough to strap some = kind of flying machine onto my butt and jump off a hill, and I don’t e= ndanger others by doing so, my wish to you, mister genie, is that I don̵= 7;t want the federal government (FAA) telling me I can’t because I did= n’t build enough of it.  

There should be two categories: Certified, and NSM (Not So Much).

John

Like you’ I’m not TSO certified either.  Only >70%.


On 7/21/08 10:15 AM, "Sky2high@aol.com&= quot; <Sky2high@aol.com> wrote:

J= ohn,
You must go read the history of what the EAA accomplished in getting the FA= A "Experimental, Amateur Built" airworthiness category established= .
 
I believe the text was (is) something like "The builder shall do a = majority of the work in constructing the plane.  The purpose= of the plane is for the education and recreation of the builder."
 
Majority =3D 51% rule.
 
I think the FAA has come more than 50% of the way in only requiring at leas= t 20% of the fabrication and at least 20% of the assembly as s= ub-requirements of accomplishing the majority of the work.
 
What is interesting is that the FAA has placed no safety requirements on th= e pilot (the insurance companies have, however).  The airworthiness cer= tificate is issued if it is an aircraft, built with reasonable standards and= the engine runs.  There usually is a check of the builder's log and a = Q & A to determine if the builder did enough of the work (has intimate k= nowledge) to qualify for the repairmen's certificate - thus allowing the bui= lder to sign off the required annual inspection.
 
Remember that there is a placard informing occupants that the aircraft was = not built to FAA standards.
 
What more do you want?
 
Perhaps you have yet to build an aircraft in this category?
 
Scott Krueger AKA Grayhawk
Lancair N92EX IO320 SB 89/96
Aurora, IL (KARR)

Pilot not TSO'd, Certificated score only > 70%.
In a message dated 7/20/2008 5:58:46 A.M. Central Daylight Time, j.hafen@comcast.net writes:
As I  read about fabrication versus assembly versus X percentage = of building
work  not applying to the entire aircraft but only the "builder's= portion"
that  is arbitrarily defined anyway, it seems to me that the FAA has complicated  this issue beyond comprehension, much like the IRS has do= ne with
our tax  code.

I would argue that an aircraft is either certified, or it is  not. &nb= sp;Anything
less that a 100% compliant aircraft is simply not  certified.

I question the value of the arbitrary assignment of  51%.  It is = still not
certified.  Is it "half certified?"   (I would arg= ue no, since the half that
got built by an amateur still got  built by an amateur, therefore, &qu= ot;no
certification for you.") If a plane is  built by an unqualified a= mateur, one
could argue that ANY portion of the  plane built by that unwashed amat= eur
(myself in the case of LIVP N413AJ) is  unsafe, or at least not certif= ied,
therefore making the entire airplane  dangerous.

Is "safety" the point behind the 51% rule?  What is the &nbs= p;FAA justification
that makes 51 the magic number.  Does 51% make it  "safe?&qu= ot;  If the amateur
doesn't have to build to certification  standards, why is 51 significa= nt,
relevant, or applicable?

Does the  FAA think that a plane that was constructed 100% (or at leas= t 51%)
by a guy  who doesn't know what he is doing is safer than a plane buil= t for
pay by a  shop who has done it dozens of times?

Someone please tell me what I'm  not seeing here.  What is the FA= A's
rationale in assigning 51% as the  magic number?  Does it have an= y meaning
what-so-ever?  Why not  just say it is certified, or it is not ce= rtified,
plane and  simple?

Thanks in advance,

John   

 
 



Get fantasy football with free live = scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today <http://www.fanhouse.c= om/fantasyaffair?ncid=3Daolspr00050000000020> .

--B_3299498954_848953--