|
|
 Up |
  |
|
Author: Jim LogajanJim Logajan Date: Jul 16, 2008 01:51
|
| |
| 19 Comments |
|
|
Author: Ernest ChristleyErnest Christley Date: Jul 16, 2008 15:22
Jim Logajan wrote:
Welcome to "Joe's House of Incomplete Aircraft". We're all having a good time.
I do like the part about requiring the inspector to question the builder about the build process. Even if I do pay
someone to help me, I should at least know what is going on. I wished the EAA did more to question builders before
handing out awards. Beyond insuring that they're giving awards to amateurs, it would go a long way to promoting their
goal of education.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: BobRBobR Date: Jul 16, 2008 16:35
On Jul 15, 6:51 pm, Jim Logajan Lugoj.com> wrote:
We should all be very happy that the government worked so hard and
spent so much of our tax dollars to finally make everything perfectly
CLEAR.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Jim LogajanJim Logajan Date: Jul 16, 2008 20:00
Jim Logajan Lugoj.com> wrote:
"The FAA is proposing that an amateur builder fabricate a minimum of 20
percent of an aircraft and assemble a minimum of 20 percent of the
aircraft."
Mixing objective measures (e.g. percentages or fractions) without objective
definitions is absurd. Are those 20%% numbers to be determined by weight, by
volume, by part count, by cost, by width, by height, by length, by labor
hours worked or avoided, or what?
They never knew what they wanted amateurs to prove and they still don't.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Jim LogajanJim Logajan Date: Jul 16, 2008 20:27
Jim Logajan Lugoj.com> wrote:
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Vaughn SimonVaughn Simon Date: Jul 16, 2008 21:47
"Jim Logajan" Lugoj.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9ADD7008D647FJamesLLugojcom@216.168.3.30...>
> They never knew what they wanted amateurs to prove and they still don't.
I think that their real objective is shut down aircraft factories
masquerading as homebuilders. I don't think that is an unreasonable goal, but
it may be up to us to figure out how they can do that without stepping on the
toes of honest homebuilders and honest suppliers, and then convincing them.
Vaughn
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Stealth PilotStealth Pilot Date: Jul 17, 2008 11:25
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:47:20 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
att.FAKE.net> wrote:
>
>"Jim Logajan" Lugoj.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns9ADD7008D647FJamesLLugojcom@216.168.3.30...>>
>> They never knew what they wanted amateurs to prove and they still don't.
>
> I think that their real objective is shut down aircraft factories
>masquerading as homebuilders. I don't think that is an unreasonable goal, but
>it may be up to us to figure out how they can do that without stepping on the
>toes of honest homebuilders and honest suppliers, and then convincing them.
>
>Vaughn
>
>
why would they or you want to????
surely the goal for aircraft building is structurally sound aircraft.
|
| Show full article (1.28Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Vaughn SimonVaughn Simon Date: Jul 17, 2008 14:25
"Stealth Pilot" aeroplanes.com.au> wrote in message
news:ni3u74h9kr38bkh6nibmg2be15l4h7m6l0@4ax.com...> if the 'aircraft factories masquerading as homebuilders' are producing
> sound aircraft why do you seek to stop them? jealousy? envy?
The quality (or lack of) of the product produced by these unofficial
"aircraft factories" is not the issue.
Those folks are abusing regulations that are designed to allow amateur design
and construction of experimental aircraft. The FAA wants to stop that. One way
or another, the FAA WILL stop that. The easiest way for the FAA to proceed is
to produce new regulations that will make things just as hard on the true
amateurs as it will on the rogue "aircraft factories".
Don't get me wrong. I feel that the availability of CNC-made predrilled
kits and parts to the amateur is a wonderful thing and probably produces a safer
aircraft compared to a true one-off build. I would hate to see the practice
regulated out of existence because a few folks are abusing the system.
I would simply prefer for those "aircraft factories" to make their own case
to the FAA if they feel that they should be allowed to operate and (more
importantly) for the true amateur who has been operating within the spirit of
the regulations to be left alone.
|
| Show full article (1.52Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Stealth PilotStealth Pilot Date: Jul 17, 2008 15:58
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:25:55 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
att.FAKE.net> wrote:
>
>"Stealth Pilot" aeroplanes.com.au> wrote in message
>news:ni3u74h9kr38bkh6nibmg2be15l4h7m6l0@4ax.com...>> if the 'aircraft factories masquerading as homebuilders' are producing
>> sound...
|
| Show full article (2.16Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: BobRBobR Date: Jul 17, 2008 16:12
On Jul 17, 8:58 am, Stealth Pilot aeroplanes.com.au>
wrote:> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:25:55 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
>
>
>
>
>
> att.FAKE.net> wrote:
>>>"Stealth Pilot" aeroplanes.com.au> wrote in message
>>news:ni3u74h9kr38bkh6nibmg2be15l4h7m6l0@4ax.com...>>> if the 'aircraft factories masquerading as homebuilders' are producing
>>> sound aircraft why do you seek to stop them? jealousy? envy?
>
>> The quality (or lack of) of the product produced by these unofficial
>>"aircraft factories" is not the issue.
>
>> Those folks are abusing regulations that are designed to allow amateur design
>>and construction of experimental aircraft. The FAA wants to stop that. One way ...
|
| Show full article (2.55Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
