X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:33:51 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from web36606.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([209.191.85.23] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.7) with SMTP id 3113546 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 02:21:23 -0400 Received: (qmail 55578 invoked by uid 60001); 4 Sep 2008 06:21:23 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=A83GXElvCKgm1zZPbKI1q7ioWmP4DEygdiXiX2+GYhPb4EHHSkPk3KClG71fUIMhAgD8N95smnlb/ccfZphAQfIy6n4uERnwNoPVwkXWlfgiOa2t5lpLhPzd3rvkqH9QSoyc31vXj/fWkKVtuQRPKtYEPGqx0Cy/nrS7XukOR0A=; X-YMail-OSG: Ub15bPoVM1kTfnhCMiyaXJmCmalR5JexBRSaReJkDo__aOSmfw8MMCmyFVcZECT..Lc9rU1D5aYrqtHf8X0nnWS2max.MPw.opEmmD8ysKZSor3p_72UOwnOwwbzLOi14r7lL83zR6tCqhDSX7U- Received: from [71.208.13.220] by web36606.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 03 Sep 2008 23:21:23 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.7.218.2 X-Original-Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 23:21:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Bill Hannahan Reply-To: wfhannahan@yahoo.com Subject: 51% rule X-Original-To: MAIL LANCAIR MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1410820446-1220509283=:54356" X-Original-Message-ID: <407948.54356.qm@web36606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --0-1410820446-1220509283=:54356 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =A0 Hi Guys, =A0 Get your comments in on the 51% rule by Sept 30.=20 Here is my 2 cents. =A0 Hello Miguel, =A0 I am a member of EAA. I completed a Lancair 360 in 1992 and have enjoyed ov= er 2200 hours flying it over this great country of ours. I am an EAA technical coun= selor and have inspected many projects in various stages of construction and have= yet to run into anybody trying to violate the spirit of the rules. =A0 Imposing more rules on the vast majority of builders to catch a few bad apples makes no more sense than lowering the speed limit fr= om 75 to 45 in response to a few extreme speeders. The rules for homebuilders are OK as is. =A0 An amateur builder with no skills or experience can buy an RV7 kit, build it in his back yard, and then sell it to you.=20 =A0 Dick VanGrunsven can buy a kit from his company, build it in his spare time, and then sell it to you.=20 =A0 If Dick sets up a factory to assemble RV=92s to his impeccable standards he cannot sell them, without going through a horribly expensive certification process. Does this make sense? =A0 There are several hundred million cars in America. Each car has two spindles smaller than your thumb holding the front wheels = on. If a spindle snaps off your car or that of an oncoming car, it could veer across the centerline killing you in a heartbeat. Not one of these spindle designs has been certified by government engineers. There is no paper trail certifying the materials and process used to manufacture these parts.=20 =A0 Would our quality of life be better if Ford and Chevy were building certified models of the cars they built in the 50=92s, at $200,000= a copy? =A0 Imagine a world in which the only way to obtain a high performance car was to build your own in the garage, would that make sense? Would they be safer than a Corvette or Mazda Miata? =A0 Decades of overregulation have stifled the natural evolution of general aviation technology that would have occurred in an environment o= f unfettered competition. We have become comfortable with this condition and = we strive to jump through the shrinking hoops of government regulation without getting stuck.=20 =A0 But there is a huge group of people who want a modern high performance plane and are willing to accept the potential risk of the experimental category, but lack the skill, desire or time to build their ow= n. A tiny subset of this group is willing to violate the homebuilding rules to m= eet their needs. =A0 The FAA should focus its effort on creating a new class of experimental aircraft that satisfies this market. =A0 Kit manufacturers should be able to sell kits built to any level of completion including 100%, flight tested. The planes would require annual condition inspections by certified mechanics, and buyers would be required to sign a statement that they understand that the design has not b= een through the traditional certification process and that it is not approved f= or commercial use. They would contain the usual passenger warnings found in al= l experimental aircraft. People like Van would be free to push the technology= as hard as possible while providing aircraft as safe as or more safe than true amateur built experimentals. The cash flow from this large new stream of customers can finance the research and development of light aircraft technology, accelera= ting the evolution process.=20 =A0 Homebuilt light aircraft performance has already far surpassed the traditional offerings. My Lancair has made several nonstop flights from Denver to Lakeland and one nonstop return flight at over 200mph while burning only 6 gph. No certified aircraft comes close to this performance. =A0 Safety follows performance. If the FAA allows factory produced experimentals, they will evolve to become safer than traditional certified planes. Imagine lightweight two, four and six passenger planes wi= th active control systems and artificial intelligence. They will be built with a surv= ival instinct that makes them very difficult to stall, spin, overstress, fly int= o thunderstorms, ice or fly into the ground. =A0 Some aircraft are equipped with parachutes and they have saved many lives. But there are cases where the pilot pulled the chute unnecessarily, or failed to pull it when needed. With artificial intelligen= ce the unemotional computer will deploy the chute at the optimum time. =A0 People who actually build more than 50% of their airplane should continue to get a repairman certificate. =A0 Now fast forward 15 years. The chairman of the senate transportation committee calls his local FBO and says, =93I need to charter= a fast plane to make a fundraiser 500 miles away.=94 =93Come on out senator, we have a plane ready to go.=94 The pilot = walks the senator out past a sleek, compact, Lancair jet, to a clapped out Baron. =93= Why aren=92t we taking that jet=94 the senator asks. The pilot responds =93Well= senator, that jet is twice as fast as this Baron, much more reliable, more comfortab= le, safer, quieter, easier to maintain, easier to fly, better instrumented and burns less fuel, but it=92s not certified, and we are not allowed to use no= n certified aircraft for business.=94 That=92s when things will really change= . =A0 As each non-certified aircraft design accumulates a track record that demonstrates safety equal or better than certified counterparts they will be made eligible for commercial use. The percentage of experiment= al aircraft in commercial service will expand in an orderly fashion and the pa= ce of technological evolution will accelerate. =A0 Some will say that flying is more dangerous than driving, therefore certification is required. Competition, informed customers and th= e threat of legal action will curtail the bad actors and produce the near opt= imum risk benefit ratio. Buyers will still have the option to purchase a traditi= onally certificated aircraft, manufacturers will have the option to offer new prod= ucts as certified or experimental. Let the customer decide which is best.=20 =A0 With these changes flying your own plane will become safer than driving. This rule change is needed to comply with the FAA=92s mandate= to protect and enhance public safety. =A0 Regards, Bill Hannahan =A0 =A0 =A0 e-mail: miguel.vasconcelos@faa.gov U.S. Mail: Miguel L Vasconcelos Production and Airworthiness Division AIR-200, Room 815 800 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20591 Fax: 202-267-8850=20 EAA asks that you also send your comments to govt@eaa.org.=20 To learn more about the 51 percent rule, the FAA=92s proposed new policy, and EAA=92s analysis of the proposal, or to submit a comment on the= FAA proposal, visit www.EAA.org/govt/.=20 =0A=0A=0A --0-1410820446-1220509283=:54356 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= =

 

Hi Guys,

 

Get your comments in on the 51% rule by Sept 30.

Here is my 2 cents.

 

Hello Miguel,

 

I am a member of EAA. I completed a Lancair 360 in 1992 and hav= e enjoyed over 2200 hours flying it over this great country of ours. I am an EAA technical coun= selor and have inspected many projects in various stages of construction and have= yet to run into anybody trying to violate the spirit of the rules.

 

Imposing more rules on the vast majority of builders= to catch a few bad apples makes no more sense than lowering the speed limit fr= om 75 to 45 in res= ponse to a few extreme speeders. The rules for homebuilders are OK as is.

 

An amateur builder with no skills or experience can = buy an RV7 kit, build it in his back yard, and then sell it to you.

 

Dick VanGrunsven can buy a kit from his company, bui= ld it in his spare time, and then sell it to you.

 

If Dick sets up a factory to assemble RV=92s to his = impeccable standards he cannot sell them, without going through a horribly expensive certification process. Does this make sense?

 

There are several hundred million cars in America. Each car has two spindles smaller than your thumb holding the front wheels = on. If a spindle snaps off your car or that of an oncoming car, it could veer across the centerline killing you in a heartbeat. Not one of these spindle designs has been certified by government engineers. There is no paper trail certifying the materials and process used to manufacture these parts.

 

Would our quality of life be better if Ford and Chev= y were building certified models of the cars they built in the 50=92s, at $200,000= a copy?

 

Imagine a world in which the only way to obtain a hi= gh performance car was to build your own in the garage, would that make sense? Would they be safer than a Corvette or Mazda Miata?

 

Decades of overregulation have stifled the natural e= volution of general aviation technology that would have occurred in an environment o= f unfettered competition. We have become comfortable with this condition and = we strive to jump through the shrinking hoops of government regulation without getting stuck.

 

But there is a huge group of people who want a moder= n high performance plane and are willing to accept the potential risk of the experimental category, but lack the skill, desire or time to build their ow= n. A tiny subset of this group is willing to violate the homebuilding rules to m= eet their needs.

 

The FAA should focus its effort on creating a new cl= ass of experimental aircraft that satisfies this market.

 

Kit manufacturers should be able to sell kits built = to any level of completion including 100%, flight tested. The planes would require annual condition inspections by certified mechanics, and buyers would be required to sign a statement that they understand that the design has not b= een through the traditional certification process and that it is not approved f= or commercial use. They would contain the usual passenger warnings found in al= l experimental aircraft. People like Van would be free to push the technology= as hard as possible while providing aircraft as safe as or more safe than true amateur built experimentals.


The cash flow from this large new stream = of customers can finance the research and development of light aircraft technology, accelera= ting the evolution process.

 

Homebuilt light aircraft performance has already far surpassed the traditional offerings. My Lancair has made several nonstop flights from Denver to Lakeland and one nonstop return flight at over 200mph while burning only 6 gph. No certified aircraft comes close to this performance.

 

Safety follows performance. If the FAA allows factor= y produced experimentals, they will evolve to become safer than traditional certified planes. Imagine lightweight two, four and six passenger planes wi= th active control systems and artificial intelligence. They will be built with a surv= ival instinct that makes them very difficult to stall, spin, overstress, fly int= o thunderstorms, ice or fly into the ground.

 

Some aircraft are equipped with parachutes and they = have saved many lives. But there are cases where the pilot pulled the chute unnecessarily, or failed to pull it when needed. With artificial intelligen= ce the unemotional computer will deploy the chute at the optimum time.

 

People who actually build more than 50% of their air= plane should continue to get a repairman certificate.

 

Now fast forward 15 years. The chairman of the senat= e transportation committee calls his local FBO and says, =93I need to charter= a fast plane to make a fundraiser 500= miles away.=94 =93Come on out senator, we have a plane ready to go.=94 The pilot = walks the senator out past a sleek, compact, Lancair jet, to a clapped out Baron. =93= Why aren=92t we taking that jet=94 the senator asks. The pilot responds =93Well= senator, that jet is twice as fast as this Baron, much more reliable, more comfortab= le, safer, quieter, easier to maintain, easier to fly, better instrumented and burns less fuel, but it=92s not certified, and we are not allowed to use no= n certified aircraft for business.=94 That=92s when things will really change= .

 

As each non-certified aircraft design accumulates a = track record that demonstrates safety equal or better than certified counterparts they will be made eligible for commercial use. The percentage of experiment= al aircraft in commercial service will expand in an orderly fashion and the pa= ce of technological evolution will accelerate.

 

Some will say that flying is more dangerous than dri= ving, therefore certification is required. Competition, informed customers and th= e threat of legal action will curtail the bad actors and produce the near opt= imum risk benefit ratio. Buyers will still have the option to purchase a traditi= onally certificated aircraft, manufacturers will have the option to offer new prod= ucts as certified or experimental. Let the customer decide which is best.

 

With these changes flying your own plane will become= safer than driving. This rule change is needed to comply with the FAA=92s mandate= to protect and enhance public safety.

 

Regards,

Bill Hannahan

 

 

 

e-mail: miguel.vasconcelos@faa.gov

U.S. Mail:
Miguel L Vasconcelos
Production and Airworthiness Division
AIR-200, Room 815
800 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20591

Fax: 202-267-8850

EAA asks that you also send your comments to govt@eaa.org.


To learn more about the 51 percent rule, the FAA=92s pro= posed new policy, and EAA=92s analysis of the proposal, or to submit a comment on the= FAA proposal, visit www.EAA.org/govt/.=



=0A=0A=0A=0A --0-1410820446-1220509283=:54356--