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-d05.mx.aol.com ([205.188.157.37] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.5) with ESMTP id 3040243 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:12:03 -0400 Received: from Sky2high@aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r9.4.) id q.cd9.356bab4f (14467) for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:11:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Sky2high@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:11:52 EDT Subject: Re: [LML] Re: 51% Rule, the FAA, and the IRS X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1216908712" X-Mailer: Unknown sub 34 X-Spam-Flag:NO -------------------------------1216908712 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en John, =20 I only I could grant wishes............. =20 Here is the issue - builders, kit manufacturers, builder assist shops, guns= =20 for hire and other factors have pushed the FAA into a corner. "Majority of= =20 work" and "education and recreation" are terms with some fluidity that have= =20 been, uh, stretched to the extreme with respect to the Experimental, Amateu= r=20 Built category. =20 =20 There are many of us that would prefer that this category is not messed up =20 with further regulation. It has served us admirably over the years. What i= s=20 preferable is another category, say "Experimental, professionally built" wit= h =20 all the necessary regulations to assure that professionals are, uh, acting =20 professionally. =20 Grayhawk =20 =20 =20 In a message dated 7/23/2008 9:04:01 A.M. Central Daylight Time, =20 j.hafen@comcast.net writes: Grayhawk: I spent two years full time (I quit my day job) building IVP 413AJ. I have= =20 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= =20 plane for education and recreation purposes. Nothing else was available wi= th=20 the performance of a IVP for anywhere near the price. I just wanted the=20 price/performance ratio provided by a LIVP. Please don=E2=80=99t tell the F= AA because=20 that makes me illegal. =20 You ask, =E2=80=9CWhat more do you what?=E2=80=9D Well, if you are the genie and I get some wishes, here goes. I would like=20 some honesty from the FAA that a strict definition of who built what and or= =20 percentages etc., is simply unrealistic, unworkable, unenforceable, pointle= ss,=20 and therefore silly and unnecessary. They should regulate certified =20 airplanes, and control controlled airspaces, and get their noses out of eve= rything=20 everything else. If I am bold enough to strap some kind of flying machine=20 onto my butt and jump off a hill, and I don=E2=80=99t endanger others by do= ing so, my=20 wish to you, mister genie, is that I don=E2=80=99t want the federal governm= ent (FAA)=20 telling me I can=E2=80=99t because I didn=E2=80=99t build enough of it. =20 There should be two categories: Certified, and NSM (Not So Much). John Like you=E2=80=99 I=E2=80=99m not TSO certified either. Only >70%. On 7/21/08 10:15 AM, "_Sky2high@aol.com_ (mip://04866250/Sky2high@aol.com) "= =20 <_Sky2high@aol.com_ (mip://04866250/Sky2high@aol.com) > wrote: John, You must go read the history of what the EAA accomplished in getting the FA= A=20 "Experimental, Amateur Built" airworthiness category established. I believe the text was (is) something like "The builder shall do a majority= =20 of the work in constructing the plane. The purpose of the plane is for the= =20 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 20% of the fabrication and at least 20% of the assembly as sub-requirements= =20 of accomplishing the majority of the work. What is interesting is that the FAA has placed no safety requirements on th= e=20 pilot (the insurance companies have, however). The airworthiness certificat= e=20 is issued if it is an aircraft, built with reasonable standards and the=20 engine runs. There usually is a check of the builder's log and a Q & A to=20 determine if the builder did enough of the work (has intimate knowledge) to= qualify=20 for the repairmen's certificate - thus allowing the builder to sign off the= =20 required annual inspection. Remember that there is a placard informing occupants that the aircraft was=20 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,=20 _j.hafen@comcast.net_ (mip://04866250/j.hafen@comcast.net) writes: As I read about fabrication versus assembly versus X percentage of buildin= g 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 done wi= th our tax code. I would argue that an aircraft is either certified, or it is not. Anythin= g 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 argue no, since the half tha= t 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, on= e could argue that ANY portion of the plane built by that unwashed amateur (myself in the case of LIVP N413AJ) is unsafe, or at least not certified, therefore making the entire airplane dangerous. Is "safety" the point behind the 51% rule? What is the FAA justification that makes 51 the magic number. Does 51% make it "safe?" If the amateur doesn't have to build to certification standards, why is 51 significant, relevant, or applicable? 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? 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 meaning what-so-ever? Why not just say it is certified, or it is not certified, plane and simple? Thanks in advance, John =20 =20 ____________________________________ Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy =20 Football today=20 <_http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=3Daolspr00050000000020_ (http:/= /www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=3Daolspr00050000000020) > . **************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for=20 FanHouse Fantasy Football today. =20 (http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=3Daolspr00050000000020) -------------------------------1216908712 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en
John,
 
I only I could grant wishes.............
 
Here is the issue - builders, kit manufacturers, builder assist sh= ops,=20 guns for hire and other factors have pushed the FAA into a corner. =20 "Majority of work" and "education and recreation" are terms with some fluidi= ty=20 that have been, uh, stretched to the extreme with respect to the Experimenta= l,=20 Amateur Built category. 
 
There are many of us that would prefer that this category is not messed= up=20 with further regulation. It has served us admirably over the years.  Wh= at=20 is preferable is another category, say "Experimental, professionally built"=20= with=20 all the necessary regulations to assure that professionals are, uh, acting=20 professionally.
 
Grayhawk
 
 
In a message dated 7/23/2008 9:04:01 A.M. Central Daylight Time,=20 j.hafen@comcast.net writes:
<= FONT=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size= =3D2>Grayhawk:

I spent two years full time (I=20= quit=20 my day job) building IVP 413AJ.  I have about 75 hours on it now and=20= I=20 love it.

I will confess to you that I cheated the system because I=20= did=20 not build the plane for education and recreation purposes.  Nothing e= lse=20 was available with the performance of a IVP for anywhere near the price.=20  I just wanted the price/performance ratio provided by a LIVP.=20  Please don=E2=80=99t tell the FAA because that makes me illegal.=20  

You ask, =E2=80=9CWhat more do  you what?=E2=80=9D
<= BR>Well, if you are=20 the genie and I get some wishes, here goes.  I would like some honest= y=20 from the FAA that a strict definition of who built what and or percentages= =20 etc., is simply unrealistic, unworkable, unenforceable, pointless, and=20 therefore silly and unnecessary.   They should regulate certifie= d=20 airplanes, and control controlled airspaces, and get their noses out of=20 everything everything else.  If I am bold enough to strap some kind o= f=20 flying machine onto my butt and jump off a hill, and I don=E2=80=99t endan= ger others=20 by doing so, my wish to you, mister genie, is that I don=E2=80=99t want th= e federal=20 government (FAA) telling me I can=E2=80=99t because I didn=E2=80=99t build= enough of it.=20  

There should be two categories: Certified, and NSM (Not So=20 Much).

John

Like you=E2=80=99 I=E2=80=99m not TSO certified=20= either.  Only=20 >70%.


On 7/21/08 10:15 AM, "Sky2high@aol.com" <Sky2high@aol.com>=20 wrote:
John,

You must go read the history of what the E= AA=20 accomplished in getting the FAA "Experimental, Amateur Built" airworthin= ess=20 category established.
 
I believe the text was (is) something= =20 like "The builder shall do a majority of the work in=20 constructing the plane.  The purpose of the plane is for the educat= ion=20 and recreation of the builder."
 
Majority =3D 51%=20 rule.
 
I think the FAA has come more than 50% of the way in=20= only=20 requiring at least 20% of the fabrication and at least 20% of the= =20 assembly as sub-requirements of accomplishing the majority= of=20 the work.
 
What is interesting is that the FAA has placed no= =20 safety requirements on the pilot (the insurance companies have, however)= .=20  The airworthiness certificate is issued if it is an aircraft, buil= t=20 with reasonable standards and the engine runs.  There usually is a=20 check of the builder's log and a Q & A to determine if the builder d= id=20 enough of the work (has intimate knowledge) to qualify for the repairmen= 's=20 certificate - thus allowing the builder to sign off the required annual=20 inspection.
 
Remember that there is a placard informing=20 occupants that the aircraft was not built to FAA=20 standards.
 
What more do you want?
 
Perhaps you=20= have=20 yet to build an aircraft in this category?
 
Scott Krueger AKA Grayhawk
Lancair N92EX IO= 320 SB=20 89/96
Aurora, IL (KARR)

Pilot not TSO'd, Certificated score on= ly=20 > 70%.

I= n a=20 message dated 7/20/2008 5:58:46 A.M. Central Daylight Time, j.hafen@comcast.net=20 writes:
As I &nbs= p;read=20 about fabrication versus assembly versus X percentage of building
w= ork=20  not applying to the entire aircraft but only the "builder's=20 portion"
that  is arbitrarily defined anyway, it seems to me t= hat=20 the FAA has
complicated  this issue beyond comprehension, much= =20 like the IRS has done with
our tax  code.

I would argue= =20 that an aircraft is either certified, or it is  not.=20  Anything
less that a 100% compliant aircraft is simply not=20  certified.

I question the value of the arbitrary assignme= nt=20 of  51%.  It is still not
certified.  Is it "half=20 certified?"   (I would argue no, since the half that
got=20 built by an amateur still got  built by an amateur, therefore,=20 "no
certification for you.") If a plane is  built by an=20 unqualified amateur, one
could argue that ANY portion of the=20  plane built by that unwashed amateur
(myself in the case of L= IVP=20 N413AJ) is  unsafe, or at least not certified,
therefore makin= g=20 the entire airplane  dangerous.

Is "safety" the point behi= nd=20 the 51% rule?  What is the  FAA justification
that makes=20= 51=20 the magic number.  Does 51% make it  "safe?"  If the=20 amateur
doesn't have to build to certification  standards, why= is=20 51 significant,
relevant, or applicable?

Does the  FAA=20 think that a plane that was constructed 100% (or at least 51%)
by a= guy=20  who doesn't know what he is doing is safer than a plane built=20 for
pay by a  shop who has done it dozens of times?

Som= eone=20 please tell me what I'm  not seeing here.  What is the=20 FAA's
rationale in assigning 51% as the  magic number?  D= oes=20 it have any meaning
what-so-ever?  Why not  just say it i= s=20 certified, or it is not certified,
plane and=20  simple?

Thanks in advance,

John=20   

 
 



Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantas= y=20 Football today <http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=3Daolspr00050000000020>= =20 .




Get fantasy football with free liv= e scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
-------------------------------1216908712--