X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.9) with ESMTP id 1088637 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 02 May 2006 11:24:59 -0400 Received-SPF: softfail receiver=logan.com; client-ip=171.68.10.87; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.223.137]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 May 2006 08:24:12 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.05,80,1146466800"; d="scan'208"; a="272193161:sNHT30842256" Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k42FO4Vg011229 for ; Tue, 2 May 2006 08:24:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 2 May 2006 11:24:08 -0400 Received: from [10.82.216.68] ([10.82.216.68]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 2 May 2006 11:24:08 -0400 Message-ID: <44577998.8070200@nc.rr.com> Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 11:24:08 -0400 From: Ernest Christley Reply-To: echristley@nc.rr.com User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.4.1 (X11/20050929) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Engine Run and Static RPM Report References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 May 2006 15:24:08.0641 (UTC) FILETIME=[74DC2B10:01C66DFC] Bob White wrote: >On Tue, 2 May 2006 07:45:59 -0700 >"Joe Hull" wrote: > > > >>>This is somewhat of a gray area, isn't it? >>> >>>Suppose you buy pieces of an experimental to assist in the building of >>>yours. How many 'pieces' can you buy before you can't get the repairman >>>certificate? >>> >>> >>Exactly 49% ! Now, how that 49% is calculated is not grey - it's >>non-existent! You take your best guess at the total labor that would be >>involved in the original kit or plans and then deduct the estimated labor to >>build the parts you bought. You, the builder, are supposed to have invested >>51% of the effort. >> >> >> >Hi Joe, > >There is a difference between the 51% rule and the requirements for a >repairman's certificate. 10 people can build an airplane as a group >and use their combined effort to meet the 51% rule (what ever that >51% is). One and only one of the group can get the repairman's >certificate even if that person only did a small percentage of the >total work. > >Bob W. > And there's the gray area, Bob. 8*) "even if that person only did a small percentage of the total work." Maybe all he did was bolt the prop on 8*) Anyway, please don't suggest the FAA make the laws simple. I prefer the laws that I live under to be murky and unintelligible. Where the fun in the safety and security of KNOWING when your breaking the law? Where is the excitement in KNOWING what your rights are? Let's just keep the status quo, where any FSDO can do as it d8mn well pleases...until someone with enough lawyers and money to pay them comes along. I prefer my method anyway. Build everything up from a pile of mill-cut tubes so that there is no question from the FAA or the Oshkosh judges. -- ,|"|"|, Ernest Christley | ----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder | o| d |o www.ernest.isa-geek.org |