Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Professional Built Plane (PBP)

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Professional Built Plane (PBP)

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

cjensen(at)dts9000.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 3:22 am Post subject: Professional Built Plane (PBP)

Ralph  Finch/John Cox,

  

 The  only reason that the FAA doesn't create a Professional Built Plane (PBP) is it  make too much sense (sarc).  Such a category would make honest men and  women of the builders that have a high level of interest, but not the time or  place to build a plane.  If the builder can't do 51%, the PBP would come  into play if they can document 25%.  The PBP would let the 'buyer' do  maintenance and make changes except to powerplant an flight controls but the  Conditional Inspection would have to be done by an A&P.  What to do  about the 100% PBP?  Mmmmmm.  Make them construct under the  supervision of an A&P, final inspection by an second, unrelated A&P and  then they are maintained much like a certified plane with owner maintenance  limited to oil/air/grease, except they can add/remove non-certified components  at will.

  

 There  has to be a better system than the current one that makes liars out of hundreds  of new plane buyers (masquarading as builders) every year.

  

 Chuck Jensen  

 [quote]   --

brenthumphreys

Joined: 17 Aug 2008
Posts: 21

Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 5:56 am Post subject: Professional Built Plane (PBP)

The rules are not making liars out of plane  buyers.

  

 The buyers are knowingly and intentionally committing  perjury.

  

 If they can't work within  the rules, they need to work to change the rules, or not break them.   

    

  [quote][b]

AV8ORJWC

Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 1149
Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"

Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 7:53 am Post subject: Professional Built Plane (PBP)

Chuck - your solution sounds beautifully simple.  It resembles the DMIR (Designated Manufacturers Inspection Representative) however it would attract the howls from the certified boys and probably meet a premature death.

  

 As long as the Pro builts don't award the coveted Repairman Certificate to a guy that can buy the pro aircraft, we could just go back to the purity of the OBAM intent.  The FAA should focus their effort on the DARs who award certificates to guys/gal who can't maintain their pride and joy and then those who by their actions did not Build 51% to start with.  Then they could go after all the liars who commit fraud.

  

 The public deserves a quality OBAM operating in the skies over them.

  

 John



 

  From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Chuck Jensen

Sent: Sat 8/30/2008 4:18 AM

To: rv-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Professional Built Plane (PBP)

  Ralph Finch/John Cox,

  

 The only reason that the FAA doesn't create a Professional Built Plane (PBP) is it make too much sense (sarc).  Such a category would make honest men and women of the builders that have a high level of interest, but not the time or place to build a plane.  If the builder can't do 51%, the PBP would come into play if they can document 25%.  The PBP would let the 'buyer' do maintenance and make changes except to powerplant an flight controls but the Conditional Inspection would have to be done by an A&P.  What to do about the 100% PBP?  Mmmmmm.  Make them construct under the supervision of an A&P, final inspection by an second, unrelated A&P and then they are maintained much like a certified plane with owner maintenance limited to oil/air/grease, except they can add/remove non-certified components at will.

  

 There has to be a better system than the current one that makes liars out of hundreds of new plane buyers (masquarading as builders) every year.

  

 Chuck Jensen 

 [quote] --

cjensen(at)dts9000.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 12:45 pm Post subject: Professional Built Plane (PBP)

John,  thanks for the kind words and your thoughts.  I would pass the idea along  to EAA, but they would ignore it....wouldn't make them any  money.

  

 Chuck Jensen  

 

--

ceengland(at)bellsouth.ne
Guest

Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 6:04 pm Post subject: Professional Built Plane (PBP)

A couple of thoughts.



1st, if I understand the FAA's legal charter correctly it has always 

overstepped its authority with the 51% portion of the homebuilt rule. 

The 51% rule does not add safety nor does it promote aviation. It's 

really the aviation equivalent of the military's don'taskdon'ttell rule; 

it's political maneuvering to get homebuilding past an uneducated public 

(and mfgrs who fear competition). Having said that, I'm aware that it 

isn't likely to go away. It is my opinion that the reason we are seeing 

all this activity now is that the big manufacturers are seeing the 

potential (money) in Light Sport & want all the pie instead of just 

their slice. A lot like the airlines looking at VL jets & realizing that 

if they don't get the FAA to do something to cripple them (read that 

user fees), the airlines are about to lose virtually all their 

high-dollar 1st class & business class ticket sales.



Here's what I intend to send the FAA as my 'comment'.



There is a very simple way to eliminate the abuse of the '51% rule' with 

no changes whatsoever to the rule or the methods used to determine 

compliance and without creating a new category like 'pro built' that 

would require a huge amount of $time$.



All that's needed is a change to the operating limitations for the 

Experimental Exhibition category to be the same as Experimental Amateur 

Built. The big problem with Exhibition is the 300nm radius, home airport 

only limit. If the oplims were simply changed to match EAB, the mfgrs 

would still get their protection because there could be no 'for hire' 

operation just like EAB, and guys that want to pay someone else (or that 

*should* pay someone else due to their lack of skills) would have no 

motivation to 'abuse' the 51% rule. If you choose an incompetent 'pro' 

to do your work, it would be no different than choosing a bad guide when 

you go mountain climbing or a bad car builder if you go racing. Danger 

to people 'on the ground' really won't be any greater than these other 

activities (quite a few spectators & rescue workers have died due to 

other sports).



Oplims can be revised at-will by FAA without any public comment (meaning 

very inexpensively). They've done it with EAB several times in the last 

decade.



Charlie

John Cox wrote:

[quote] Chuck - your solution sounds beautifully simple.  It resembles the 

 DMIR (Designated Manufacturers Inspection Representative) however it 

 would attract the howls from the certified boys and probably meet a 

 premature death.

  

 As long as the Pro builts don't award the coveted Repairman 

 Certificate to a guy that can buy the pro aircraft, we could just go 

 back to the purity of the OBAM intent.  The FAA should focus their 

 effort on the DARs who award certificates to guys/gal who can't 

 maintain their pride and joy and then those who by their actions did 

 not Build 51% to start with.  Then they could go after all the liars 

 who commit fraud.

  

 The public deserves a quality OBAM operating in the skies over them.

  

 John



 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

 *From:* owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Chuck Jensen

 *Sent:* Sat 8/30/2008 4:18 AM

 *To:* rv-list(at)matronics.com

 *Subject:* Professional Built Plane (PBP)



 Ralph Finch/John Cox,

  

 The only reason that the FAA doesn't create a Professional Built Plane 

 (PBP) is it make too much sense (sarc).  Such a category would make 

 honest men and women of the builders that have a high level of 

 interest, but not the time or place to build a plane.  If the builder 

 can't do 51%, the PBP would come into play if they can document 25%.  

 The PBP would let the 'buyer' do maintenance and make changes except 

 to powerplant an flight controls but the Conditional Inspection would 

 have to be done by an A&P.  What to do about the 100% PBP?  Mmmmmm.  

 Make them construct under the supervision of an A&P, final inspection 

 by an second, unrelated A&P and then they are maintained much like a 

 certified plane with owner maintenance limited to oil/air/grease, 

 except they can add/remove non-certified components at will.

  

 There has to be a better system than the current one that makes liars 

 out of hundreds of new plane buyers (masquarading as builders) every year.

  

 Chuck Jensen



     --

jsflyrv(at)verizon.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 7:31 pm Post subject: Professional Built Plane (PBP)

Once again 51% rule has nothing to do with repairman certficate!!!!

John Cox wrote:



[quote] Chuck - your solution sounds beautifully simple.  It resembles the 

 DMIR (Designated Manufacturers Inspection Representative) however it 

 would attract the howls from the certified boys and probably meet a 

 premature death.

  

 As long as the Pro builts don't award the coveted Repairman 

 Certificate to a guy that can buy the pro aircraft, we could just go 

 back to the purity of the OBAM intent.  The FAA should focus their 

 effort on the DARs who award certificates to guys/gal who can't 

 maintain their pride and joy and then those who by their actions did 

 not Build 51% to start with.  Then they could go after all the liars 

 who commit fraud.

  

 The public deserves a quality OBAM operating in the skies over them.

  

 John



 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

 From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Chuck Jensen

 Sent: Sat 8/30/2008 4:18 AM

 To: rv-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Professional Built Plane (PBP)



 Ralph Finch/John Cox,

  

 The only reason that the FAA doesn't create a Professional Built Plane 

 (PBP) is it make too much sense (sarc).  Such a category would make 

 honest men and women of the builders that have a high level of 

 interest, but not the time or place to build a plane.  If the builder 

 can't do 51%, the PBP would come into play if they can document 25%.  

 The PBP would let the 'buyer' do maintenance and make changes except 

 to powerplant an flight controls but the Conditional Inspection would 

 have to be done by an A&P.  What to do about the 100% PBP?  Mmmmmm.  

 Make them construct under the supervision of an A&P, final inspection 

 by an second, unrelated A&P and then they are maintained much like a 

 certified plane with owner maintenance limited to oil/air/grease, 

 except they can add/remove non-certified components at will.

  

 There has to be a better system than the current one that makes liars 

 out of hundreds of new plane buyers (masquarading as builders) every year.

  

 Chuck Jensen



     --

jeffpoint

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 72
Location: MKE

Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 10:47 pm Post subject: Professional Built Plane (PBP)

--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)verizon.net (jsflyrv(at)verizon.net)>



Once again  51% rule has nothing to do with repairman certficate!!!!



 Very true, and one of the most common  misconceptions which is thrown around in this debate.

  

 Another, and closely related misconception, is that  the DAR can issue a repairman's cert.  Only the FSDO can do this, the DAR  may or may not have anything to do with it.  Unscrupulous DARs issuing  airworthiness certs to pro-builds is the very heart of this issue, but really  has nothing to do with repairman's certs.

  

 Jeff Point

 RV-6 built and flying/ RV-8 building

 RLU-1 underway

 Milwaukee

 do not archive

 

   [quote][b]

_________________
Jeff Point
RV-6
Milwaukee WI

n395v

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 450

Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 6:45 am Post subject: Re: Professional Built Plane (PBP)

The heart of the issue is $$$$$$$$



The old (existing) rules worked just fine until the amateur built factories popped up.



The FAA and DARs had a large degree of latitude in their inspections and awarding of  airworthiness certificates as well as repairman's certificates.



Unfortunately a few kit manufacturers and small shops stepped over the line hired some DARs and started assembly lines.



This got the attention of the manufacturers of certified planes and resulted in the lobbying that will ultimately lead to a rule change.



The really sad thing is that, I suspect, at least one of the most egregious offenders participated in formulating the new rules.



I had a co worker who spent a year writing checks to have a plane built.

Once every 3 months he flew to the factory and had his picture taken next to his project with a tool in his hand. He filled out and signed the affidavit, applied for the N number, and showed up for the inspection with the DAR 1 year after the aircraft started construction. (Yes for this 2500hr plus airplane his builders log was compressed into 12 months)



I assumed the hired DAR would sign his papers and voila he was a builder.



Much to my surprise the DAR took his check, asked a few questions and said, "it is obvious you did not build this plane and I am not going to approve it".  



Now at this point my coworker should have gone to jail for falsifying the affidavit, instead nothing happened to him and the plane got certified with someone else's name as the builder.



Enforcement of the existing rules would suffice and if applied in this case with legal action against my coworker and the "factory" would have ended the problem.



Instead we have new scrutiny in a time when the press, the general public,

and many politicians would just love to see us and all of general aviation dissappear.



It would be so refreshing to see the EAA step in and demand vigorous enforcement of the existing rules. But thats not going to happen is it?

_________________
Milt

rickpegser(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:54 am Post subject: Professional Built Plane (PBP)

milt



   it is nice to see that at least one dar has the backbone to do what is right. The only future that i see with builder assist centers that i see is a "rent a shop" type ideas with "tech advisors" on site. but even that would only help in areas with high builder density and cheap floor space. some thing like the military base autoshops that had all the equipment for you and all you did was rent a stall to work on your car.

rick

--- On Sun, 8/31/08, N395V <Bearcat(at)bearcataviation.com> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   From: N395V <Bearcat(at)bearcataviation.com>

 Subject: Re: Professional Built Plane (PBP)

 To: rv-list(at)matronics.com

 Date: Sunday, August 31, 2008, 7:45 AM

 

 <Bearcat(at)bearcataviation.com>

 

 The heart of the issue is $$$$$$$$

 

 The old (existing) rules worked just fine until the amateur

 built factories popped up.

 

 The FAA and DARs had a large degree of latitude in their

 inspections and awarding of  airworthiness certificates as

 well as repairman's certificates.

 

 Unfortunately a few kit manufacturers and small shops

 stepped over the line hired some DARs and started assembly

 lines.

 

 This got the attention of the manufacturers of certified

 planes and resulted in the lobbying that will ultimately

 lead to a rule change.

 

 The really sad thing is that, I suspect, at least one of

 the most egregious offenders participated in formulating the

 new rules.

 

 I had a co worker who spent a year writing checks to have a

 plane built.

 Once every 3 months he flew to the factory and had his

 picture taken next to his project with a tool in his hand.

 He filled out and signed the affidavit, applied for the N

 number, and showed up for the inspection with the DAR 1 year

 after the aircraft started construction. (Yes for this

 2500hr plus airplane his builders log was compressed into 12

 months)

 

 I assumed the hired DAR would sign his papers and voila he

 was a builder.

 

 Much to my surprise the DAR took his check, asked a few

 questions and said, "it is obvious you did not build

 this plane and I am not going to approve it".  

 

 Now at this point my coworker should have gone to jail for

 falsifying the affidavit, instead nothing happened to him

 and the plane got certified with someone else's name as

 the builder.

 

 Enforcement of the existing rules would suffice and if

 applied in this case with legal action against my coworker

 and the "factory" would have ended the problem.

 

 Instead we have new scrutiny in a time when the press, the

 general public,

 and many politicians would just love to see us and all of

 general aviation dissappear.

 

 It would be so refreshing to see the EAA step in and demand

 vigorous enforcement of the existing rules. But thats not

 going to happen is it?

 

 --------

 Milt

 2003 F1 Rocket

 2006 Radial Rocket

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 1796#201796

n395v

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 450

Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 9:14 am Post subject: Re: Professional Built Plane (PBP)

 	  Quote: 	
		  it is nice to see that at least one dar 	


I think 99% of DARs  are honest, dedicated professionals who would also do the right thing. It is the 1 % that give the bad impression being generated by this controversy. Every DAR I have ever met is an honest hardworking individual who plays by the rules.



I have absolute and immense respect for all the DARs out there.

_________________
Milt

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum