X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 18:11:37 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from QMTA06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.56] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.6) with ESMTP id 3062622 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 13:53:15 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=76.96.62.56; envelope-from=j.hafen@comcast.net Received: from OMTA10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.28]) by QMTA06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id yfG51Z0080cZkys56hsb11; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 17:52:35 +0000 Received: from [10.128.88.86] ([206.191.160.125]) by OMTA10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id yhsS1Z0092idoaN3WhsUAK; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 17:52:33 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=JQ4BVus3ZjsA:10 a=k9mVkUl9rbMA:10 a=RENRJ8E55LBPKgm47xsA:9 a=2OInpjgj_3Ef5YK9MtAA:7 a=QzxNMRcQeIH4ccVrTLi6UcajrmEA:4 a=rC2wZJ5BpNYA:10 a=si9q_4b84H0A:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=ndPCQh-60WQA:10 a=J9a0cceJgoXVAKE41hQA:9 a=1il8dbaE-0YRc5RmkvsA:7 a=H_vzPr7R7iCduZdC6tcYrGllmYMA:4 a=Sz-0p1zU2dQA:10 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.11.0.080522 X-Original-Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 10:52:25 -0700 Subject: Re: [LML] Re: FAA comment on new 51% A/B Ruling From: John Hafen X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List X-Original-Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [LML] Re: FAA comment on new 51% A/B Ruling Thread-Index: Acj3JAS2YBZlBO84AkuX3E1hbkCD3A== In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3300778353_368215" > 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_3300778353_368215 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Kyrilian: I appreciate your comments. What would YOU tell the FAA at this point. Do you feel that further defining 51% is the solution, or would that just make life for honest builders more difficult? Would it make sense to leave the regs as they are and just enforce the current guidelines? John On 8/3/08 11:47 AM, "Kyrilian Dyer" wrote: > John, >=20 > It seems that everyone is concerned about amateur building regulations > becoming stricter, and I'm no different. However, I don't agree with som= e of > the presumptions and conclusions that are being drawn. >=20 > You ask why the FAA wants to curtail pure commercial assistance. Further= , you > equate safety with the builders' safety. Finally, you propose that the F= AA is > in bed with the certificated airframe manufacturers. As someone involved= in > flight test and certification of TC'd aircraft (large military and commer= cial > helicopters) I suggest that this is silly. >=20 > My understanding is that the regulations to which TC manufacturers must c= omply > are largely the result of accidents. Though perhaps imperfect, the FAA's > intent for type certificated aircraft is the safety of passengers and peo= ple > on the ground (ie, the unsuspecting public). >=20 > The '51% rule' and all that's associated with the amateur built category = has > little to do with our (the builders') safety. It's there, again, to prot= ect > the unsuspecting public. This doesn't just include passengers and people= on > the ground, but future owners as well. Why, do you ask, does this make a= ny > sense? >=20 > As I see it, implicit in the 51% requirement is that you have to disclose= that > you, an unqualified builder are building an unqualified design. Besides > disclosure, personal builders have a liability interest that a potentiall= y > fly-by-night commercial outfit may not take as seriously as an individual > hobbyist. >=20 > You say that professionally built airplanes are better. Says who? >=20 > I see so many ads for homebuilts that list them as 'professionally built'= . > What does that mean? Besides admitting to the FAA that they broke the ru= les > (except, perhaps in the few cases where the sellers are themselves > 'professional builders'), these sellers are presenting the aircraft as bu= ilt > by someone who is 'qualified'. What defines a professional builder? Som= eone > with an A&P? Someone who's built an airplane before? Heck, why couldn't= it > be a complete novice who's simply collecting money for his/her effort? D= oes > money=3Dskill? Buyers are led to believe that these 'professionally built' > airplanes are better than those built by regular people, right? Otherwis= e, > why mention it? Isn't the implication here that these airplanes are buil= t by > 'qualified' builders? Maybe I've had a sip of the Kool Aid, but I think = there > are good reasons that type certificated airplanes are built under direct > oversight of the FAA or indirectly with production certificates. The int= ent, > whether perfect or not, is for the builder to meet defined and repeatable > qualification standards. Ten prior kit builds or an A&P certificate are > insufficient qualifications for the manufacturers of TC'd airplanes--what= 's > the qualification associated with 'professionally-built' homebuilts? >=20 > Note that I'm not talking about professional assistance. The current rul= es > allow for this, and hopefully will continue to do so. >=20 > Some people have suggested that amateur-built airplanes are just as safe = as > TC'd aircraft. Is this true? Frankly, I doubt it. For a fair compariso= n one > would have to compare similar aircraft on similar missions flown by simil= ar > pilots. This may be tough to do. What TC'd aircraft would we use as > comparison? IVPT with a TBM? ES with a SR22 or C400? Obviously, there = are > many homebuilt types for which there is no TC'd counterpart, but perhaps > that's the point. Slower, more boring handling aircraft tend to be safer= . > Missions may be tough to match up as well, since by definition homebuilt > aircraft shouldn't be used for business. Finally, I'd contend that build= er > pilots are not the same as non-builder pilots. I don't know if this is a= good > thing or a bad thing though! >=20 > Perhaps I'm a pessimist, but I don't think it's smart for regulations to = be > optimistic--we shouldn't assume that everyone will 'do the right' thing. = Just > consider the current rules that clearly lay out what we may have someone = do > for us, and how many people have wholly flaunted them. >=20 > While I've read that homebuilt safety has improved recently at the same t= ime > that 'professional' assistance has bloomed, I think it's foolhardy to pre= sume > that this trend (if true) has reason to continue if the regulatory climat= e > were to change. Here=B9s a hypothetical: If some very intelligent and > dedicated people got together and taught themselves medicine or law and w= ent > out and practiced diligently, it's possible that they could be very > successful. They'd be working extra hard to be perfect, because for them= the > cost of failure could be jail, rather than slightly higher malpractice > premiums or a lawsuit. One could argue then that if they did so and were > shown to perform better than their certified counterparts that the regula= tions > for those fields were pointless. >=20 > A string of successes shouldn't lead one to presume that bar exams, board > exams, or type and production certificates are pointless. Not everything= that > meets regulations is good and not all that doesn't is bad. But most > regulations were born from experience. Let's hope that abuses of the rul= es > don't force those rules to become excessively restrictive for those that = want > to meet the original intent. >=20 > I think it's interesting that many people are angry with the FAA for taki= ng > another hack at the amateur built regs, while few people have bitched abo= ut > those who brought this unwanted attention. Sure, some will argue that we= have > a right to do whatever we want and to heck with the government, but come = on... > Then why bother getting a pilot's certificate? Don't get me wrong though= ; I > think it's imperative that we ensure that the resulting regulations don't > change the tone of this great experience. Hopefully the regs won't chang= e at > all, but I think we're beyond that. >=20 > Cheers, > - Kyrilian > L2K-236 >=20 > --- On Fri, 8/1/08, John Hafen wrote: >> From: John Hafen >> Subject: [LML] Re: FAA comment on new 51% A/B Ruling >> To: lml@lancaironline.net >> Date: Friday, August 1, 2008, 1:07 PM >>=20 >> Re: [LML] Re: FAA comment on new 51% A/B Ruling Mike, thanks for your >> comments. You state: >>=20 >> =B3If the FAA's goal is to curtail pure commercial assistance and get back= to >> builders building their own airplanes, the proposed changes won't get th= e job >> done. There will still be plenty of opportunity to bend the rules and h= ide >> the commercial assistance in the paperwork.=B2 >>=20 >> I agree with your statement, but what is the point of the FAA wanting to >> =B3curtail pure commercial assistance?=B2 Why would they care? It can=B9t be >> about safety, because the commercial builders out there are way better a= t >> their jobs than many of us amateurs are, so what is the point??? In dee= d, >> what is the point of the 51% rule at all. >>=20 >> As I stated in another email, I think the whole point of the 51% rule is= to >> protect the certified airplane builders from home-built competition. It= has >> nothing to do with safety. It is government control to assure a type of >> monopoly owned by the certified guys. >>=20 >> John >>=20 >>>=20 >> =20 >=20 >=20 --B_3300778353_368215 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Re: [LML] Re: FAA comment on new 51%  A/B Ruling Kyrilian:

I appreciate your comments.

What would YOU tell the FAA at this point.  Do you feel that further d= efining 51% is the solution, or would that just make life for honest builder= s more difficult?

Would it make sense to leave the regs as they are and just enforce the curr= ent guidelines?

John


On 8/3/08 11:47 AM, "Kyrilian Dyer" <kyrilian_av@yahoo.com> wrote:

<= SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'>John,

It seems that everyone is concerned about amateur building regulations beco= ming stricter, and I'm no different.  However, I don't agree with some = of the presumptions and conclusions that are being drawn.

You ask why the FAA wants to curtail pure commercial assistance.  Furt= her, you equate safety with the builders' safety.  Finally, you propose= that the FAA is in bed with the certificated airframe manufacturers.  = As someone involved in flight test and certification of TC'd aircraft (large= military and commercial helicopters) I suggest that this is silly.

My understanding is that the regulations to which TC manufacturers must com= ply are largely the result of accidents.  Though perhaps imperfect, the= FAA's intent for type certificated aircraft is the safety of passengers and= people on the ground (ie, the unsuspecting public).  

The '51% rule' and all that's associated with the amateur built category ha= s little to do with our (the builders') safety.  It's there, again, to = protect the unsuspecting public.  This doesn't just include passengers = and people on the ground, but future owners as well.  Why, do you ask, = does this make any sense?

As I see it, implicit in the 51% requirement is that you have to disclose t= hat you, an unqualified builder are building an unqualified design.  Be= sides disclosure, personal builders have a liability interest that a potenti= ally fly-by-night commercial outfit may not take as seriously as an individu= al hobbyist.

You say that professionally built airplanes are better.  Says who?

I see so many ads for homebuilts that list them as 'professionally built'. =  What does that mean?  Besides admitting to the FAA that they brok= e the rules (except, perhaps in the few cases where the sellers are themselv= es 'professional builders'), these sellers are presenting the aircraft as bu= ilt by someone who is 'qualified'.  What defines a professional builder= ?  Someone with an A&P?  Someone who's built an airplane befor= e?  Heck, why couldn't it be a complete novice who's simply collecting = money for his/her effort?  Does money=3Dskill?  Buyers are led to be= lieve that these 'professionally built' airplanes are better than those buil= t by regular people, right?  Otherwise, why mention it?  Isn't the= implication here that these airplanes are built by 'qualified' builders? &n= bsp;Maybe I've had a sip of the Kool Aid, but I think there are good reasons= that type certificated airplanes are built under direct oversight of the FA= A or indirectly with production certificates.  The intent, whether perf= ect or not, is for the builder to meet defined and repeatable qualification = standards.  Ten prior kit builds or an A&P certificate are insuffic= ient qualifications for the manufacturers of TC'd airplanes--what's the qual= ification associated with 'professionally-built' homebuilts?

Note that I'm not talking about professional assistance.  The current = rules allow for this, and hopefully will continue to do so.

Some people have suggested that amateur-built airplanes are just as safe as= TC'd aircraft.  Is this true?  Frankly, I doubt it.  For a f= air comparison one would have to compare similar aircraft on similar mission= s flown by similar pilots.  This may be tough to do.  What TC'd ai= rcraft would we use as comparison?  IVPT with a TBM?  ES with a SR= 22 or C400?  Obviously, there are many homebuilt types for which there = is no TC'd counterpart, but perhaps that's the point.  Slower, more bor= ing handling aircraft tend to be safer.  Missions may be tough to match= up as well, since by definition homebuilt aircraft shouldn't be used for bu= siness.  Finally, I'd contend that builder pilots are not the same as n= on-builder pilots.  I don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing= though!

Perhaps I'm a pessimist, but I don't think it's smart for regulations to be= optimistic--we shouldn't assume that everyone will 'do the right' thing. &n= bsp;Just consider the current rules that clearly lay out what we may have so= meone do for us, and how many people have wholly flaunted them.

While I've read that homebuilt safety has improved recently at the same tim= e that 'professional' assistance has bloomed, I think it's foolhardy to pres= ume that this trend (if true) has reason to continue if the regulatory clima= te were to change.  Here’s a hypothetical:  If some very int= elligent and dedicated people got together and taught themselves medicine or= law and went out and practiced diligently, it's possible that they could be= very successful.  They'd be working extra hard to be perfect, because = for them the cost of failure could be jail, rather than slightly higher malp= ractice premiums or a lawsuit.  One could argue then that if they did s= o and were shown to perform better than their certified counterparts that th= e regulations for those fields were pointless.

A string of successes shouldn't lead one to presume that bar exams, board e= xams, or type and production certificates are pointless.  Not everythin= g that meets regulations is good and not all that doesn't is bad.  But = most regulations were born from experience.  Let's hope that abuses of = the rules don't force those rules to become excessively restrictive for thos= e that want to meet the original intent.

I think it's interesting that many people are angry with the FAA for taking= another hack at the amateur built regs, while few people have bitched about= those who brought this unwanted attention.  Sure, some will argue that= we have a right to do whatever we want and to heck with the government, but= come on...  Then why bother getting a pilot's certificate?  Don't= get me wrong though; I think it's imperative that we ensure that the result= ing regulations don't change the tone of this great experience.  Hopefu= lly the regs won't change at all, but I think we're beyond that.

 Cheers,
- Kyrilian
  L2K-236

--- On Fri, 8/1/08, John Hafen <j.ha= fen@comcast.net> wrote:
<= SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'>From: John Hafen <j.hafen@comcast.net>
Subject: [LML] Re: FAA comment on new 51%  A/B Ruling
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Friday, August 1, 2008, 1:07 PM

Re: [LML] Re: FAA comment on new 51%  A/B Ruling Mike, thanks for your= comments.  You state:

“If the FAA's goal is to curtail pure commercial assistance and get = back to builders building their own airplanes, the proposed changes won't ge= t the job done.  There will still be plenty of opportunity to bend the = rules and hide the commercial assistance in the paperwork.”

I agree with your statement, but what is the point of the FAA wanting to &#= 8220;curtail pure commercial assistance?”  Why would they care? &= nbsp;It can’t be about safety, because the commercial builders out the= re are way better at their jobs than many of us amateurs are, so what is the= point???  In deed, what is the point of the 51% rule at all.

As I stated in another email, I think the whole point of the 51% rule is to= protect the certified airplane builders from home-built competition.  = It has nothing to do with safety.  It is government control to assure a= type of monopoly owned by the certified guys.

John



=

--B_3300778353_368215--