X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 08:32:36 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-d21.mx.aol.com ([205.188.144.207] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.5) with ESMTP id 3040340 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:28:46 -0400 Received: from Sky2high@aol.com by imo-d21.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r9.4.) id q.c86.361642b5 (14467) for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:28:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Sky2high@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:28:40 EDT Subject: Re: [LML] 51% rule X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1216909720" X-Mailer: Unknown sub 34 X-Spam-Flag:NO -------------------------------1216909720 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rob, See my reply to John. The purpose of the existing reg is clear. If other requirements are needed, such as for hand building airplanes under contract or for immediate resale, then lobby for a new reg, don't mess with one that works. I didn't build my airplane(s) with the objective of selling them. Assuming I don't crash the one I am flying, when I become more senile I shall sell it. There is a difference to the buyer - I custom built it to my specs, not his. If he wants one according to his specs, he can modify the one he bought or have one built under the new "professionally built" category. Oh darn, I got ahead of the times. Grayhawk PS An A&P is trained to fix stuff designed in the middle of the last century. I don't believe modern construction materials, Electrics, etc. were a part of their training or testing. In a message dated 7/23/2008 9:03:59 A.M. Central Daylight Time, rwolf99@aol.com writes: It has been suggested that a contractor-built kitplane will always be safer than an owner-built airplane. I don't agree. Some builder support centers provide first-class workmanship. The one I went to (Aircrafters) was certainly one of those. I have also visited private individuals who build airplanes for other people and seen excellent work being done. However, just because someone is charging for their services doesn't make them an expert. We've all seen good car mechanics and bad ones. And we've been shown several pictures on this forum of some pretty shoddy workmanship done by "professionals" (or at least people who got paid to do it). So charging for building services is no guarantee of safety. If we were going to claim that builder support shops always provide airworthy services, we'd have to insist that they be regulated and licensed. But wait, the FAA does that already, don't they? It's called an A&P certificate. Would we be willing to say that the owner can purchase as much support as he wants, as long as it is done under the supervision of an A&P? That might work. How about motivation? The owner wants to stay alive -- the builder support center wants to get paid. Who is more motivated towards safety? You do the math. What about resale? Suppose I buy a plane that someone else built? Why is that okay when paying someone to build it for me is not? Isn't it really the same thing? The answer is simple -- presumably it has flown enough that it's airworthiness has been demonstrated. As far as contractor help is concerned, I only have a problem with awarding a repairman's certificate to an owner who paid a guy to build his airplane for him. Unless the owner is an A&P, they may not know enough to maintain it. But letting someone buy assistance -- that should be fine, as long as it is done under the supervision of an A&P. And if you don't do "the majority" then you don't get a repairman's certificate. - Rob Wolf ____________________________________ The Famous, the Infamous, the Lame - in your browser. _Get the TMZ Toolbar Now_ (http://toolbar.aol.com/tmz/download.html?NCID=aolcmp00050000000014) ! **************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today. (http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020) -------------------------------1216909720 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Rob,
 
See my reply to John.  The purpose of the existing reg is clear. I= f=20 other requirements are needed, such as for hand building airplanes unde= r=20 contract or for immediate resale, then lobby for a new reg, don't mess with=20= one=20 that works.
 
I didn't build my airplane(s) with the objective of selling them. = =20 Assuming I don't crash the one I am flying, when I become more senile I shal= l=20 sell it.  There is a difference to the buyer - I custom built it to my=20 specs, not his.  If he wants one according to his specs, he can modify=20= the=20 one he bought or have one built under the new "professionally built"=20 category.  Oh darn, I got ahead of the times.
 
Grayhawk
 
PS An A&P is trained to fix stuff designed in the middle of th= e=20 last century.  I don't believe modern construction materials, Electrics= ,=20 etc. were a part of their training or testing.
 
In a message dated 7/23/2008 9:03:59 A.M. Central Daylight Time,=20 rwolf99@aol.com writes:
<= FONT=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size= =3D2>It has=20 been suggested that a contractor-built kitplane will always be safer than=20= an=20 owner-built airplane.  I don't agree.  Some builder support cent= ers=20 provide first-class workmanship.  The one I went to (Aircrafters) was= =20 certainly one of those.  I have also visited private individuals who=20 build airplanes for other people and seen excellent work being done. = =20 However, just because someone is charging for their services doesn't make=20= them=20 an expert.  We've all seen good car mechanics and bad ones.  And= =20 we've been shown several pictures on this forum of some pretty shoddy=20 workmanship done by "professionals" (or at least people who got paid to do= =20 it).  So charging for building services is no guarantee of=20 safety.

If we were going to claim that builder support shops always= =20 provide airworthy services, we'd have to insist that they be regulated and= =20 licensed.  But wait, the FAA does that already, don't they?  It'= s=20 called an A&P certificate.  Would we be willing to say that the o= wner=20 can purchase as much support as he wants, as long as it is done under the=20 supervision of an A&P?  That might work.

How about=20 motivation?  The owner wants to stay alive -- the builder support cen= ter=20 wants to get paid.  Who is more motivated towards safety?  You d= o=20 the math.

What about resale?  Suppose I buy a plane that someo= ne=20 else built?  Why is that okay when paying someone to build it for me=20= is=20 not?  Isn't it really the same thing?  The answer is simple --=20 presumably it has flown enough that it's airworthiness has been=20 demonstrated.

As far as contractor help is concerned, I only have a= =20 problem with awarding a repairman's certificate to an owner who paid a guy= to=20 build his airplane for him. Unless the owner is an A&P, they may not k= now=20 enough to maintain it.  But letting someone buy assistance -- that sh= ould=20 be fine, as long as it is done under the supervision of an A&P. =20= And=20 if you don't do "the majority" then you don't get a repairman's=20 certificate.

- Rob Wolf=20



Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up fo= r FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
-------------------------------1216909720--