Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:06 AM - Re: Builder Available! (RICHARD MILLER)
2. 12:22 AM - Re: Re: Slick Mags (Jerry Springer)
3. 04:22 AM - Professional Built Plane (PBP) (Chuck Jensen)
4. 06:05 AM - Re: Builder Available! (Kyle Boatright)
5. 06:56 AM - Re: Professional Built Plane (PBP) (Brent P. Humphreys)
6. 08:01 AM - Re: Builder Available! (Jerry Springer)
7. 08:32 AM - Re: Re: Slick Mags (Mike Divan)
8. 08:49 AM - Re: Builder Available (John Fasching)
9. 08:53 AM - Re: Professional Built Plane (PBP) (John Cox)
10. 12:21 PM - (Dave Allen)
11. 12:41 PM - Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (bill@vondane.com)
12. 12:56 PM - Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (davcor@comcast.net)
13. 12:58 PM - Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (bill@vondane.com)
14. 01:11 PM - Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (Carlos Hernandez)
15. 01:13 PM - Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (Dave Nellis)
16. 01:13 PM - Re: Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (bill@vondane.com)
17. 01:19 PM - Re: Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (bill@vondane.com)
18. 01:19 PM - Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (MikeNellis)
19. 01:24 PM - Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133... (RKAlex123@aol.com)
20. 01:33 PM - Re: Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (bill@vondane.com)
21. 01:33 PM - Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133... (Vinnfizz@aol.com)
22. 01:45 PM - Re: Professional Built Plane (PBP) (Chuck Jensen)
23. 01:45 PM - Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (David Karlsberg)
24. 02:06 PM - Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (cbrxxdrv@aol.com)
25. 02:15 PM - Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (Mauri)
26. 02:15 PM - Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (Mauri)
27. 02:31 PM - Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (Robert Cutter)
28. 03:03 PM - Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (Dean Van Winkle)
29. 03:16 PM - Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (Terry Dazey)
30. 03:22 PM - Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (RV6 Flyer)
31. 03:49 PM - Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (folgie)
32. 03:58 PM - Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (Richard McBride)
33. 04:03 PM - Re: Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (bill@vondane.com)
34. 04:03 PM - Re: Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (bill@vondane.com)
35. 04:07 PM - Re: Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (bill@vondane.com)
36. 04:16 PM - Re: Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (bill@vondane.com)
37. 04:21 PM - Re: Re: Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (bill@vondane.com)
38. 04:22 PM - Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (David Cudney)
39. 04:25 PM - Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (Richard Dudley)
40. 04:35 PM - Re: dual brakes vs. single (tom sargent)
41. 04:41 PM - Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 ()
42. 04:49 PM - Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (S Hamer)
43. 04:50 PM - Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (bob sheets)
44. 04:54 PM - Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (D Paul Deits)
45. 05:03 PM - Re: Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (bill@vondane.com)
46. 05:03 PM - Re: Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (bill@vondane.com)
47. 05:03 PM - Re: Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (bill@vondane.com)
48. 05:03 PM - Re: Re: Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (bill@vondane.com)
49. 05:03 PM - Re: Re: Re: Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (bill@vondane.com)
50. 05:08 PM - Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (jvanlaak@AOL.COM)
51. 05:20 PM - Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (Dan)
52. 05:28 PM - Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (Charlie England)
53. 05:28 PM - Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (Louis Willig)
54. 05:32 PM - Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (John Tower)
55. 05:47 PM - Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (John Cox)
56. 07:04 PM - Re: Professional Built Plane (PBP) (Charlie England)
57. 07:31 PM - WeRe: Re: Builder Available! (richard sipp)
58. 08:26 PM - Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (Jerry Springer)
59. 08:31 PM - Re: Professional Built Plane (PBP) (Jerry Springer)
60. 08:41 PM - Re: Re: Builder Available! (Ralph Finch)
61. 08:46 PM - Re: Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (bill@vondane.com)
62. 08:47 PM - Matt (Jerry Springer)
63. 08:54 PM - Re: Matt (Matt Dralle)
64. 09:22 PM - Re: Builder Available! (Jerry Springer)
65. 09:27 PM - Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (David Burnham)
66. 10:25 PM - Re: Builder Available! (David Maib)
67. 10:58 PM - Stainless AN fittings (AndrewTR30)
68. 10:59 PM - Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 (Carpe Diem)
69. 11:27 PM - Re: Builder Available! (Kelly McMullen)
70. 11:47 PM - Re: Professional Built Plane (PBP) (Jeff Point)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Builder Available! |
guys:
one or two kits a year coming out of a shop that does not advertise as a builder.
and claims that those kits were used for training purposes for its employees,
is relativly safe. since the same fsdo will not be seeing the aircraft.
and as long as primary source of income does not come from kit sales. but god
alone will help you if you advertise.
rick
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Richard are you new to the Experimental aircraft movement? Electronic
ignition has been around for years and years and used successfully.
RICHARD MILLER wrote:
>
>MIKE
>
> we would all love to have fadec systems for our aircraft. and electronic ignition.
but it comes to a comfort factor. electronics fail in worse case mode
95% of the time. while mags when they fail tend to do so slowly and if you know
what to look for you can find it before total failure.
>
> the next problem with fadec type controls is lightnining, have a billion volts
of electricity running thru your electronics, can cause a bad day. i have
seen holes as big as 1/2 inch burned in to commercial airframes from this. but
to be honest most just look like arc hits and can be drilled out with a 3/16
bit.
>
> with proper burnin and testing electronic work great, but i don't have enough
history with the E+P mags, to say which way i would go. i do know that this
testing is expensive and it has taken slick and bendix many years to develope
like type equipment. ie get it right enough to go to market. i like the idea
i do not know yet if i like the approach.
>
> So what would the great slick hater do if it was my aircraft. if i won the lotto
i would buy a gulfstream and never have to worry about slicks again, but
since this will not happen, and i don't have an extra 2400$ lieing around to change
to bendix. inspection is the way to go. look at it and cleanup the carbon
dust that will prolong the life of your mag more then anything else. figure
100 hr inspection include the mag for cleanup and inspection. if you start to
see carbon tracking/ arc damage it is time to replace/repair. that is the time
you should start thinking about replacement
>
> i wish that could help you more with the e+p mags, but with my limited experience
with them, i can only say that it is an idea whose time has come but lets
see if they really work in the field.
>rick
>
>
>--- On Fri, 8/29/08, Mike Divan <n343fd@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>From: Mike Divan <n343fd@yahoo.com>
>>Subject: Slick Mags
>>To: rickpegser@yahoo.com
>>Date: Friday, August 29, 2008, 5:20 PM
>>Rick
>>
>>Thanks for your last reply to the list. It sure changed my
>>impression of you. Everyone has bad days so no big deal.
>>
>>Now that you have posted a more reasoned response as to why
>>you do not like the Slick Mags I have a question for ya. I
>>have new Slick's on my RV6 about a year old with 70
>>hours more or less on them. I pulled them apart with a
>>A&P (a young and relative new A&P but he has more
>>experience than me) and they did not look bad (again I am
>>NEW at this). Some ware on the brushes but it was hard to
>>determine from the drawing in the SB if it was bad or
>>not.Pulled apart some mags that were before the SB (about
>>100 hr on them) and mine looked better so I decided to put
>>mine back into service. HOWEVER it does concern me that they
>>are having these problems. Not sure what it takes to switch
>>over to the Bendix but the thought of chucking over $1000 in
>>a year is not sitting well with me. My plan at the moment is
>>pull them apart ever 100 or annual whichever comes first.
>>Next time with the help of a more experienced A&P. OK my
>>question is what experience (if any) do you
>> have with those E & P-mags (http://www.emagair.com/).
>>If I need to throw away all that money I want to "up
>>grade" to something better. And at lest from reading
>>those seem like the simplest upgrade to electronic ignition.
>>
>>I ask your opinion because there at the end you had (to me)
>>a reasoned and well thought reason for your opinion.
>>
>> Mike Divan
>>N64GH - RV6,flying :)
>>EAA - 577486
>>FREEDOM IS NOT FREE - THANK THE AMERICAN SOLDIER FOR YOURS!
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| 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
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ralph Finch
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 10:00 PM
Subject: RE: RE: RV-List: Builder Available!
Wrong conclusion. In your example the aircraft owner did only 10% of
the build, obviously not meeting the 51% minimum.
In the class or workshop that I took, it was 50-50, there was one pro
guy per amateur owner-builder. And that was not normal, usually more
amateurs than pros. Anyway we all worked like dogs the whole week. If
I stopped more than 20 secs to catch my breath the pro guy was on my
case! As an office worker I hadn't done so much physical work for
decades.
I learned great mechanical skills about riveting, squeezing, grinding,
etc., all things I really needed since I didn't know squat going in.
The only thing I didn't get was time puzzling through the plans and
figuring things out, there was just no time for that. We amateurs came
out with real, new skills and well-built empennages. Now I am toiling
in my garage with help from VAF, this list, and a couple of buddies in
town who are also building RVs. But the beginning workshop was a huge
help and confidence builder for guys like me, who don't have any
handyman background at all. I didn't even own a shop vac!
The TWTT and its kind are clearly frauds and I don't understand how
they're still in business. Why the FAA has to promulgate new amateur
rules instead of enforcing the current ones is a mystery to me. Though
I do think the FAA should generate new rules allowing the completely
pro-built experimental aircraft but demanding very high, factory-like
build standards and of course no repairman's certificate for the owner.
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Cox
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 6:09 PM
Subject: RE: RE: RV-List: Builder Available!
If the owner is always working and doing 10% of the build and the other
six builder assist employees (ie TWTT) do 90% of the build, but the
owner was learning by watching, listening and writing a check, do I
conclude that you think this qualifies?
The wide spread misunderstanding provides a solid base for the FAA to
implement a new policy.
I still love those guys toiling in their garage with little outside
assistance who pose questions and become the intent and integrity of
this great ole abused rule.
John Cox
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Builder Available! |
----- Original Message -----
From: "RICHARD MILLER" <rickpegser@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 3:00 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Builder Available!
>
> guys:
>
> one or two kits a year coming out of a shop that does not advertise as a
> builder. and claims that those kits were used for training purposes for
> its employees, is relativly safe. since the same fsdo will not be seeing
> the aircraft. and as long as primary source of income does not come from
> kit sales. but god alone will help you if you advertise.
>
> rick
>
Safe?
My suggestion is that if people want pro-builders, they should work to get
the laws changed, not intentionally break the existing laws, thereby
jeopardizing the entire homebuilt community.
Don't forget the government's ability to over react to a problem and
implement a solution that is so poorly thought-out that it doesn't
accomplish what it sets out to do yet seriously interferes with whaterver it
was designed to help. (See: TSA)
All it would take would be a pro-built airplane having a high visibility
crash and all heck would break loose on the homebuilt/experimental
community.
KB
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| 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.
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Builder Available! |
RICHARD MILLER wrote:
>
>guys:
>
> one or two kits a year coming out of a shop that does not advertise as a builder.
and claims that those kits were used for training purposes for its employees,
is relativly safe. since the same fsdo will not be seeing the aircraft.
and as long as primary source of income does not come from kit sales. but god
alone will help you if you advertise.
>
>rick
>
>
>
You do know that we have a great FAA inspector that has built a couple
RVs reading this list right :-)
do not archive
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
WOW - I thought I sent this to you privatively. And I must agree with Jerry and
conclude that you are new to "EXPERIMENTAL" aircraft. I will stick with the tried
and true people like Sam B and others. I was just "kicking the tires" on
another source of information. But I like the old hands the best.
Thanks
Mike Divan
N64GH - RV6,flying :)
SLOW 7 Builder :(
EAA - 577486
FREEDOM IS NOT FREE - THANK THE AMERICAN SOLDIER FOR YOURS!
----- Original Message ----
From: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@verizon.net>
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 12:20:39 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Slick Mags
Richard are you new to the Experimental aircraft movement? Electronic
ignition has been around for years and years and used successfully.
RICHARD MILLER wrote:
>
>MIKE
>
> we would all love to have fadec systems for our aircraft. and electronic ignition.
but it comes to a comfort factor. electronics fail in worse case mode
95% of the time. while mags when they fail tend to do so slowly and if you know
what to look for you can find it before total failure.
>
> the next problem with fadec type controls is lightnining, have a billion volts
of electricity running thru your electronics, can cause a bad day. i have
seen holes as big as 1/2 inch burned in to commercial airframes from this. but
to be honest most just look like arc hits and can be drilled out with a 3/16
bit.
>
> with proper burnin and testing electronic work great, but i don't have enough
history with the E+P mags, to say which way i would go. i do know that this
testing is expensive and it has taken slick and bendix many years to develope
like type equipment. ie get it right enough to go to market. i like the idea
i do not know yet if i like the approach.
>
> So what would the great slick hater do if it was my aircraft. if i won the lotto
i would buy a gulfstream and never have to worry about slicks again, but
since this will not happen, and i don't have an extra 2400$ lieing around to change
to bendix. inspection is the way to go. look at it and cleanup the carbon
dust that will prolong the life of your mag more then anything else. figure
100 hr inspection include the mag for cleanup and inspection. if you start to
see carbon tracking/ arc damage it is time to replace/repair. that is the time
you should start thinking about replacement
>
> i wish that could help you more with the e+p mags, but with my limited experience
with them, i can only say that it is an idea whose time has come but lets
see if they really work in the field.
>rick
>
>
>--- On Fri, 8/29/08, Mike Divan <n343fd@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>From: Mike Divan <n343fd@yahoo.com>
>>Subject: Slick Mags
>>To: rickpegser@yahoo.com
>>Date: Friday, August 29, 2008, 5:20 PM
>>Rick
>>
>>Thanks for your last reply to the list. It sure changed my
>>impression of you. Everyone has bad days so no big deal.
>>
>>Now that you have posted a more reasoned response as to why
>>you do not like the Slick Mags I have a question for ya. I
>>have new Slick's on my RV6 about a year old with 70
>>hours more or less on them. I pulled them apart with a
>>A&P (a young and relative new A&P but he has more
>>experience than me) and they did not look bad (again I am
>>NEW at this). Some ware on the brushes but it was hard to
>>determine from the drawing in the SB if it was bad or
>>not.Pulled apart some mags that were before the SB (about
>>100 hr on them) and mine looked better so I decided to put
>>mine back into service. HOWEVER it does concern me that they
>>are having these problems. Not sure what it takes to switch
>>over to the Bendix but the thought of chucking over $1000 in
>>a year is not sitting well with me. My plan at the moment is
>>pull them apart ever 100 or annual whichever comes first.
>>Next time with the help of a more experienced A&P. OK my
>>question is what experience (if any) do you
>> have with those E & P-mags (http://www.emagair.com/).
>>If I need to throw away all that money I want to "up
>>grade" to something better. And at lest from reading
>>those seem like the simplest upgrade to electronic ignition.
>>
>>I ask your opinion because there at the end you had (to me)
>>a reasoned and well thought reason for your opinion.
>>
>> Mike Divan
>>N64GH - RV6,flying :)
>>EAA - 577486
>>FREEDOM IS NOT FREE - THANK THE AMERICAN SOLDIER FOR YOURS!
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | re: Builder Available |
I spend almost 4 years building my slow-built RV6A. I had PLENTY of help
- almost none of it wanted!
It seems that visitors could never resist telling me how to do things
better, faster, and more airworthy. None of them had ever built an
airplane, but there seems to be a built in desire to impress someone --
I finally gave up. I would just reply, "That's fine. When you build your
airplane you should do it that way." It usually shut them up.
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| 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@matronics.com on behalf of Chuck Jensen
Sent: Sat 8/30/2008 4:18 AM
Subject: RV-List: 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
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ralph Finch
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 10:00 PM
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RE: RV-List: Builder Available!
Wrong conclusion. In your example the aircraft owner did only 10% of
the build, obviously not meeting the 51% minimum.
In the class or workshop that I took, it was 50-50, there was one pro
guy per amateur owner-builder. And that was not normal, usually more
amateurs than pros. Anyway we all worked like dogs the whole week. If
I stopped more than 20 secs to catch my breath the pro guy was on my
case! As an office worker I hadn't done so much physical work for
decades.
I learned great mechanical skills about riveting, squeezing, grinding,
etc., all things I really needed since I didn't know squat going in.
The only thing I didn't get was time puzzling through the plans and
figuring things out, there was just no time for that. We amateurs came
out with real, new skills and well-built empennages. Now I am toiling
in my garage with help from VAF, this list, and a couple of buddies in
town who are also building RVs. But the beginning workshop was a huge
help and confidence builder for guys like me, who don't have any
handyman background at all. I didn't even own a shop vac!
The TWTT and its kind are clearly frauds and I don't understand how
they're still in business. Why the FAA has to promulgate new amateur
rules instead of enforcing the current ones is a mystery to me. Though
I do think the FAA should generate new rules allowing the completely
pro-built experimental aircraft but demanding very high, factory-like
build standards and of course no repairman's certificate for the owner.
________________________________
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Cox
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 6:09 PM
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RE: RV-List: Builder Available!
If the owner is always working and doing 10% of the build and the
other six builder assist employees (ie TWTT) do 90% of the build, but
the owner was learning by watching, listening and writing a check, do I
conclude that you think this qualifies?
The wide spread misunderstanding provides a solid base for the FAA to
implement a new policy.
I still love those guys toiling in their garage with little outside
assistance who pose questions and become the intent and integrity of
this great ole abused rule.
John Cox
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.
com/Navigator?RV-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
It's time for me to buy a metal prop for my standard RV9A project.
I have a new 160 HP ECi engine.
Van's recommends their new Sensenich with a pitch of 79 inches for $2100.
I have a chance to buy a low time damaged/repaired Sensenich from an RV6A that
has been repitched to 77 inches for about half the price.
How much difference will the 2 inches make? Will I be able to tell any difference,
etc.
Lets hear some of your thoughts about this -- both pro and con.
Thanks in advance for you help.
Dave Allen
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000 spam/junk emails
per week I am now forced to use a verification program to keep my inbox from
filling up...
So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I get your
massage...
To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the subject
line intact.
Thanks!
-Bill
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: bill@vondane.com
>
> I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000 spam/junk
> emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program to keep my inbox
> from filling up...
>
> So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I get your
> massage...
>
> To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the
> subject line intact.
>
> Thanks!
> -Bill
>
>
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
This message is a reply to Bill VonDane's email verifcation message.
No action is needed on your part.
Thanks!
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
I'm not spam really! I'm a lurker... :-)
Carlos Hernandez
bill@vondane.com wrote:
>
> I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000 spam/junk emails
per week I am now forced to use a verification program to keep my inbox
from filling up...
>
> So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I get your
massage...
>
> To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the subject
line intact.
>
> Thanks!
> -Bill
>
>
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
--- On Sat, 8/30/08, bill@vondane.com <bill@vondane.com> wrote:
> From: bill@vondane.com <bill@vondane.com>
> Subject: RV-List: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Date: Saturday, August 30, 2008, 3:40 PM
>
> I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting
> over 2000 spam/junk emails per week I am now forced to use a
> verification program to keep my inbox from filling up...
>
> So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a
> human before I get your massage...
>
> To complete this verification, simply reply to this message
> and leave the subject line intact.
>
> Thanks!
> -Bill
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
This message is a reply to Bill VonDane's email verifcation message.
No action is needed on your part.
Thanks!
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
This message is a reply to Bill VonDane's email verifcation message.
No action is needed on your part.
Thanks!
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
Dave Nellis wrote:
>
>
> --- On Sat, 8/30/08, bill@vondane.com <bill@vondane.com> wrote:
>
>
>> From: bill@vondane.com <bill@vondane.com>
>> Subject: RV-List: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9
>> To: rv-list@matronics.com
>> Date: Saturday, August 30, 2008, 3:40 PM
>>
>> I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting
>> over 2000 spam/junk emails per week I am now forced to use a
>> verification program to keep my inbox from filling up...
>>
>> So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a
>> human before I get your massage...
>>
>> To complete this verification, simply reply to this message
>> and leave the subject line intact.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> -Bill
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133... |
In a message dated 8/30/2008 12:42:40 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
bill@vondane.com writes:
--> RV-List message posted by: bill@vondane.com
I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000 spam/junk
emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program to keep my
inbox from filling up...
So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I get
your massage...
To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the
subject line intact.
Thanks!
-Bill
**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
deal here.
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
This message is a reply to Bill VonDane's email verifcation message.
No action is needed on your part.
Thanks!
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133... |
In a message dated 8/30/2008 4:25:48 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
RKAlex123@aol.com writes:
In a message dated 8/30/2008 12:42:40 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
bill@vondane.com writes:
--> RV-List message posted by: bill@vondane.com
I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000 spam/junk
emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program to keep my
inbox from filling up...
So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I get
your massage...
To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the
subject line ========================
____________________________________
It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal _here_
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047) .
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
deal here.
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| 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
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of John Cox
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 11:52 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: 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@matronics.com on behalf of Chuck Jensen
Sent: Sat 8/30/2008 4:18 AM
Subject: RV-List: 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
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ralph Finch
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 10:00 PM
Subject: RE: RE: RV-List: Builder Available!
Wrong conclusion. In your example the aircraft owner did only 10% of
the build, obviously not meeting the 51% minimum.
In the class or workshop that I took, it was 50-50, there was one pro
guy per amateur owner-builder. And that was not normal, usually more
amateurs than pros. Anyway we all worked like dogs the whole week. If
I stopped more than 20 secs to catch my breath the pro guy was on my
case! As an office worker I hadn't done so much physical work for
decades.
I learned great mechanical skills about riveting, squeezing, grinding,
etc., all things I really needed since I didn't know squat going in.
The only thing I didn't get was time puzzling through the plans and
figuring things out, there was just no time for that. We amateurs came
out with real, new skills and well-built empennages. Now I am toiling
in my garage with help from VAF, this list, and a couple of buddies in
town who are also building RVs. But the beginning workshop was a huge
help and confidence builder for guys like me, who don't have any
handyman background at all. I didn't even own a shop vac!
The TWTT and its kind are clearly frauds and I don't understand how
they're still in business. Why the FAA has to promulgate new amateur
rules instead of enforcing the current ones is a mystery to me. Though
I do think the FAA should generate new rules allowing the completely
pro-built experimental aircraft but demanding very high, factory-like
build standards and of course no repairman's certificate for the owner.
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Cox
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 6:09 PM
Subject: RE: RE: RV-List: Builder Available!
If the owner is always working and doing 10% of the build and the other
six builder assist employees (ie TWTT) do 90% of the build, but the
owner was learning by watching, listening and writing a check, do I
conclude that you think this qualifies?
The wide spread misunderstanding provides a solid base for the FAA to
implement a new policy.
I still love those guys toiling in their garage with little outside
assistance who pose questions and become the intent and integrity of
this great ole abused rule.
John Cox
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.
com/Navigator?RV-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.
com/Navigator?RV-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
ontribution
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
On 8/30/08 12:40 PM, "bill@vondane.com" <bill@vondane.com> wrote:
>
> I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000 spam/junk
> emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program to keep my inbox
> from filling up...
>
> So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I get
> your massage...
>
> To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the
> subject line intact.
>
> Thanks!
> -Bill
>
>
>
>
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
-----Original Message-----
From: bill@vondane.com
Sent: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 3:40 pm
Subject: RV-List: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9
I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000 spam/junk
emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program to keep my inbox
from filling up...
So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I get your
massage...
To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the
subject line intact.
Thanks!
-Bill
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
----- Original Message -----
From: <davcor@comcast.net>
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Your email requires verification
verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9
>
>
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: bill@vondane.com
>>
>> I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000
>> spam/junk
>> emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program to keep my
>> inbox
>> from filling up...
>>
>> So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I
>> get your
>> massage...
>>
>> To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the
>> subject line intact.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> -Bill
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Checked by AVG.
> 6:12 PM
>
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
----- Original Message -----
From: <bill@vondane.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 1:40 PM
Subject: RV-List: Your email requires verification
verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9
>
> I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000
> spam/junk emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program to
> keep my inbox from filling up...
>
> So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I
> get your massage...
>
> To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the
> subject line intact.
>
> Thanks!
> -Bill
>
>
> --
> Checked by AVG.
> 6:12 PM
>
>
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
----- Original Message -----
From: <bill@vondane.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 3:40 PM
Subject: RV-List: Your email requires verification
verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9
>
> I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000
> spam/junk emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program to
> keep my inbox from filling up...
>
> So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I
> get your massage...
>
> To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the
> subject line intact.
>
> Thanks!
> -Bill
>
>
>
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
Bill
Yes, I am human. My ISP has a very aggressive spam filter that reduced Spam
to essentially zero. It also has a black list and a white list to allow
each client to further control any possible Spam or Junk mail. Previously,
when I was using the "net" sufix, the ISP was just distributing the messages
coming from another provider. With the change to the "org" suffix, all
messages are filtered through our own ISP's system.
Best Regards
Alden Dean Van Winkle
dvanwinkle@royell.org
RV-9A 50 %
----- Original Message -----
From: <bill@vondane.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 2:40 PM
Subject: RV-List: Your email requires verification
verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9
>
> I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000
> spam/junk emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program to
> keep my inbox from filling up...
>
> So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I
> get your massage...
>
> To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the
> subject line intact.
>
> Thanks!
> -Bill
>
>
>
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
-----Original Message-----
>From: bill@vondane.com
>Sent: Aug 30, 2008 12:40 PM
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9
>
>
>I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000 spam/junk emails
per week I am now forced to use a verification program to keep my inbox from
filling up...
>
>So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I get your
massage...
>
>To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the subject
line intact.
>
>Thanks!
>-Bill
>
>
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Gary A. Sobek
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell=2C
2=2C063 + Flying Hours So. CA=2C USA
> From: bill@vondane.com
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6tw
bdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9
> Date: Sat=2C 30 Aug 2008 15:40:22 -0400
>
>
> I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000 spam/ju
nk emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program to keep my
inbox from filling up...
>
> So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I g
et your massage...
>
> To complete this verification=2C simply reply to this message and leave t
he subject line intact.
>
> Thanks!
> -Bill
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Talk to your Yahoo! Friends via Windows Live Messenger. Find out how.
http://www.windowslive.com/explore/messenger?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_messenger_
yahoo_082008
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of bill@vondane.com
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 12:40 PM
Subject: RV-List: Your email requires verification
verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9
I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000 spam/junk
emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program to keep my
inbox from filling up...
So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I get
your massage...
To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the
subject line intact.
Thanks!
-Bill
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
6:12 PM
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
----- Original Message -----
From: bill@vondane.com<mailto:bill@vondane.com>
To: rv-list@matronics.com<mailto:rv-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 3:40 PM
Subject: RV-List: Your email requires verification
verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9
bill@vondane.com<mailto:bill@vondane.com>
I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000
spam/junk emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program
to keep my inbox from filling up...
So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before
I get your massage...
To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave
the subject line intact.
Thanks!
-Bill
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List<http://www.matronics.com/Navig
ator?RV-List>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution<http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on>
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
This message is a reply to Bill VonDane's email verifcation message.
No action is needed on your part.
Thanks!
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
This message is a reply to Bill VonDane's email verifcation message.
No action is needed on your part.
Thanks!
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
This message is a reply to Bill VonDane's email verifcation message.
No action is needed on your part.
Thanks!
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
This message is a reply to Bill VonDane's email verifcation message.
No action is needed on your part.
Thanks!
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
This message is a reply to Bill VonDane's email verifcation message.
No action is needed on your part.
Thanks!
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
On Aug 30, 2008, at 12:40 PM, bill@vondane.com wrote:
>
> I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000
> spam/junk emails per week I am now forced to use a verification
> program to keep my inbox from filling up...
>
> So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human
> before I get your massage...
>
> To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and
> leave the subject line intact.
>
> Thanks!
> -Bill
>
>
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Cudney" <yenduc@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 7:22 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Your email requires verification
verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9
>
>
> On Aug 30, 2008, at 12:40 PM, bill@vondane.com wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000
>> spam/junk emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program
>> to keep my inbox from filling up...
>>
>> So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I
>> get your massage...
>>
>> To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave
>> the subject line intact.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> -Bill
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: dual brakes vs. single |
FWIW: I removed the right side brake cylinders, pedals, nuts, bolts,
tubing etc., and weighed it all very carefully. The weight saving was 2
pounds exactly.
--
Tom S., RV-6A
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
HUMAN
> From: bill@vondane.com
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6tw
bdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9
> Date: Sat=2C 30 Aug 2008 15:40:22 -0400
>
>
> I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000 spam/ju
nk emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program to keep my
inbox from filling up...
>
> So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I g
et your massage...
>
> To complete this verification=2C simply reply to this message and leave t
he subject line intact.
>
> Thanks!
> -Bill
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
See what people are saying about Windows Live. Check out featured posts.
http://www.windowslive.com/connect?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_connect2_082008
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
On Aug 30, 2008, at 3:48 PM, folgie wrote:
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of bill@vondane.com
> Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 12:40 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Your email requires verification
> verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9
>
>
> I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000
> spam/junk
> emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program to
> keep my
> inbox from filling up...
>
> So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human
> before I get
> your massage...
>
> To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and
> leave the
> subject line intact.
>
> Thanks!
> -Bill
>
>
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> 6:12 PM
>
>
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
This message is a reply to Bill VonDane's email verifcation message.
No action is needed on your part.
Thanks!
Message 46
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
This message is a reply to Bill VonDane's email verifcation message.
No action is needed on your part.
Thanks!
Message 47
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
This message is a reply to Bill VonDane's email verifcation message.
No action is needed on your part.
Thanks!
Message 48
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
This message is a reply to Bill VonDane's email verifcation message.
No action is needed on your part.
Thanks!
Message 49
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
This message is a reply to Bill VonDane's email verifcation message.
No action is needed on your part.
Thanks!
Message 50
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
-----Original Message-----
From: bill@vondane.com
Sent: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 3:40 pm
Subject: RV-List: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9
I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000 spam/junk
emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program to keep my inbox
from filling up...
So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I get your
massage...
To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the
subject line intact.
Thanks!
-Bill
Message 51
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
--- On Sat, 8/30/08, bill@vondane.com <bill@vondane.com> wrote:
From: bill@vondane.com <bill@vondane.com>
Subject: RV-List: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9
I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000 spam/junk
emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program to keep my inbox
from filling up...
So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I get
your massage...
To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the
subject line intact.
Thanks!
-Bill
Message 52
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
bill@vondane.com wrote:
>
> I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000 spam/junk emails
per week I am now forced to use a verification program to keep my inbox
from filling up...
>
> So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I get your
massage...
>
> To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the subject
line intact.
>
> Thanks!
> -Bill
Let me guess.... you're using Outlook or some variation of it, right?
If you switch to a non-microsoft email client like Thunderbird,
Seamonkey, etc that has a smart spam filter built in, you'll only see a
couple per day get past the filter. And it won't spam every list you're
subscribed to, like your new band-aid software is doing. :-(
Charlie
(cleaning up emails because you aren't flagged as spam <yet>)
Message 53
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
At 03:40 PM 8/30/2008, you wrote:
>
>I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000
>spam/junk emails per week I am now forced to use a verification
>program to keep my inbox from filling up...
>
>So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human
>before I get your massage...
>
>To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and
>leave the subject line intact.
>
>Thanks!
>-Bill
>
Message 54
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
----- Original Message -----
From: <bill@vondane.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 3:40 PM
Subject: RV-List: Your email requires verification
verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9
>
> I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000
> spam/junk emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program to
> keep my inbox from filling up...
>
> So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I
> get your massage...
>
> To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the
> subject line intact.
>
> Thanks!
> -Bill
>
>
>
Message 55
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
cbrxxdrv@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Your email requires verification
verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9
-----Original Message-----
From: bill@vondane.com
Sent: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 3:40 pm
Subject: RV-List: Your email requires verification
verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9
I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000
spam/junk
emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program to keep my
inbox
from filling up...
So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I
get your
massage...
To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave
the
subject line intact.
Thanks!
-Bill
________________________________
Get the MapQuest Toolbar
<http://mapquest.com/toolbar?ncid=mpqmap00050000000010> . Directions,
Traffic, Gas Prices & More!
Message 56
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 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:
> 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@matronics.com on behalf of Chuck Jensen
> *Sent:* Sat 8/30/2008 4:18 AM
> *To:* rv-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* RV-List: 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
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]*On Behalf Of *Ralph Finch
> *Sent:* Friday, August 29, 2008 10:00 PM
> *To:* rv-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* RE: RE: RV-List: Builder Available!
>
> Wrong conclusion. In your example the aircraft owner did only 10%
> of the build, obviously not meeting the 51% minimum.
>
> In the class or workshop that I took, it was 50-50, there was one
> pro guy per amateur owner-builder. And that was not normal,
> usually more amateurs than pros. Anyway we all worked like dogs
> the whole week. If I stopped more than 20 secs to catch my breath
> the pro guy was on my case! As an office worker I hadn't done so
> much physical work for decades.
>
> I learned great mechanical skills about riveting, squeezing,
> grinding, etc., all things I really needed since I didn't know
> squat going in. The only thing I didn't get was time puzzling
> through the plans and figuring things out, there was just no time
> for that. We amateurs came out with real, new skills and
> well-built empennages. Now I am toiling in my garage with help
> from VAF, this list, and a couple of buddies in town who are also
> building RVs. But the beginning workshop was a huge help and
> confidence builder for guys like me, who don't have any handyman
> background at all. I didn't even own a shop vac!
>
> The TWTT and its kind are clearly frauds and I don't understand
> how they're still in business. Why the FAA has to promulgate new
> amateur rules instead of enforcing the current ones is a mystery
> to me. Though I do think the FAA should generate new rules
> allowing the completely pro-built experimental aircraft but
> demanding very high, factory-like build standards and of course no
> repairman's certificate for the owner.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of
> *John Cox
> *Sent:* Friday, August 29, 2008 6:09 PM
> *To:* rv-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* RE: RE: RV-List: Builder Available!
>
> If the owner is always working and doing 10% of the build and
> the other six builder assist employees (ie TWTT) do 90% of the
> build, but the owner was learning by watching, listening and
> writing a check, do I conclude that you think this qualifies?
>
>
>
> The wide spread misunderstanding provides a solid base for the
> FAA to implement a new policy.
>
>
>
> I still love those guys toiling in their garage with little
> outside assistance who pose questions and become the intent
> and integrity of this great ole abused rule.
>
>
>
> John Cox
>
>
>
Message 57
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Builder Available! |
Well said my friend and I could not agree more. The whole idea of
homebuilding is the education and enjoyment of the builder not an
alternative path to
aircraft ownership. Their are legitimate assistance programs IE Sport
Air Workshops, but those building complete airplanes for customer hire
shop apply for a type
certificate like the other manufacturers.
For another take on the subject talk to the EAA judges. Some owners of
beautiful airplanes submitted for judging are not real sure how to get
the cowling off of the airplane.
Dick Sipp
----- Original Message -----
From: John Cox
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 11:13 PM
Subject: RE: RE: RV-List: Builder Available!
Okay, I'll play Ralph.
You did (50-50) or 25.51% of the total assembly, the hired
professionals did 25.49% for an exact cut of > 51.00% of the assembly.
Congrats! Fabrication by the manufacturer of parts did <48.99%. Result
100.00% of the final product. Step to the window for you Lottery
Winnings.
The FAA is working with manufacturer's of approved OBAM kit aircraft
to establish the Fab percentage. Existing kit approvals will fall below
49.0% and may be as little as 0.5% for Plans built. Under the new
proposed Policy (not a rule) the documentation of Build Assist will
require a new more specific written log of Builder Assist (not just
hired guns). Under the new rules, how will you reach 51.0% or better
from the work that you personally do? Not what your check wrote. Not
that you also might want the DAR to process your request to be called a
Repairman so you can complete Conditional Inspections.
Many kits require 2000+ man/hours to complete (the RV-10 more like
2500-2750 hours). Your 25.51% would equal 550 hours spread over two
weeks is 275 hours per week. You were on the floor maybe 40 hours (lets
make that 60 hours per week) of the most physical work you have done in
decades with only 20 seconds to catch your breath. Two weeks = 120
hours to Taxi. I am now lost and confused how you met the 550 hours (I
lost 175 hours somewhere) of build other than the exhausting effort to
write the check for the TWTT program. Now don't read too much into the
above math. Marc Cook, Editor of Kitplanes thinks this is complaint
(and Ethical) with the intent of amateur built kit manufacture. Van
sells more kits, Stein sells more avionics, Abby sells more interiors,
the US aviation industry sells more hardware.. life is GOOD.
You say you didn't even own a shop vac. Many builders will acquire
more than $2,000 of build tools that no amount of effort will cause them
to pry from their "Cold, Dying Hand". I have tried to buy some of them,
boy was that an insult.
Now here is the rub. I went over to the dark side in 2001 to become a
legitimate "Real" kit builder. Quit my career, attended A&P school (at
more than 50 years old), completed Orals and Practicals. Got my IA,
became an EAA Tech Advisor, have help scores of builders and went to
work for the airlines to gain even more tribal knowledge. Most - but
not many OBAM builders are prideful and think they have a handle on the
knowledge to maintain their pride and joy. They have a right to sell it
to John Q. Public with a willingness to write a check in that pursuit.
I will offer than many do little to show any DAR that they know squat as
to how to maintain let alone troubleshoot, life altering mechanical
issues that tend to arise. Now, don't go ballistic here..I am reading
about that damned Slick Mag bulletin with my other eye. I acknowledge
the system worked well until the money created the "Professional Build
Assist". Oh by the way, the Professional field it is totally
unregulated and uses untrained Professional worker, many are not US
citizens. I just have trouble swallowing how this TWTT and hired guns
are helping this avocation that led me to leave a lucrative career to
pursue what my heart told me was what my Walter Mitty side wanted me to
go out the door with.
The problem is not with you the builder. It is with the
bastardization by the EAA, the FAA and the DARs who would sell out their
neighbor to make a buck. Now let's hear more dialog on how much time,
how much money and how many questions the typical OBAM kit builder
answers in an Orals & Practicals Exam in front of their DAR. Wouldn't
the world be perfect if the OBAM builder could match skills in
maintaining his pride and joy with those damned A & Ps that I resemble
in my day job.
My answer, if a Pro touches it move to the other window and make it a
Primary Aircraft. If an Amateur Builder does >51.0% , tip your hat and
smile. you are a Builder/Aviator of the First Order. if you can't
complete a comprehensive review by the DAR on the skills to maintain it,
waive goodbye to that coveted Repairman Certificate. Most DARs don't
even complete a comprehensive safety inspection let alone an Oral
towards granting a Repairman Certificate. It is all about review of
correctly processed FAA mandated paperwork.
As an EAA Tech Advisor, I keep pinching my check, telling myself
"There is no standard" for OBAM. Shut Up, Smile and help by pointing
out kernels of wisdom that might lower the accident rate for the
insurance pool that we all pay for. For those guys and gals with more
money than smarts, I say Primary Aircraft. leave us struggling kit
Builders alone. When I engage in conversations with respected Kit
builders, it becomes clear they have the best interests of their family,
their community and all of us at stake. Professionals please leave the
arena.
Oh, did I mention there are 30 days left to make courtesy comment to
the FAA on this Rule (Policy) Change.
John Cox
Do not Archive
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph Finch
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 7:00 PM
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RE: RV-List: Builder Available!
Wrong conclusion. In your example the aircraft owner did only 10% of
the build, obviously not meeting the 51% minimum.
In the class or workshop that I took, it was 50-50, there was one pro
guy per amateur owner-builder. And that was not normal, usually more
amateurs than pros. Anyway we all worked like dogs the whole week. If
I stopped more than 20 secs to catch my breath the pro guy was on my
case! As an office worker I hadn't done so much physical work for
decades.
I learned great mechanical skills about riveting, squeezing, grinding,
etc., all things I really needed since I didn't know squat going in.
The only thing I didn't get was time puzzling through the plans and
figuring things out, there was just no time for that. We amateurs came
out with real, new skills and well-built empennages. Now I am toiling
in my garage with help from VAF, this list, and a couple of buddies in
town who are also building RVs. But the beginning workshop was a huge
help and confidence builder for guys like me, who don't have any
handyman background at all. I didn't even own a shop vac!
The TWTT and its kind are clearly frauds and I don't understand how
they're still in business. Why the FAA has to promulgate new amateur
rules instead of enforcing the current ones is a mystery to me. Though
I do think the FAA should generate new rules allowing the completely
pro-built experimental aircraft but demanding very high, factory-like
build standards and of course no repairman's certificate for the owner.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Cox
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 6:09 PM
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RE: RV-List: Builder Available!
If the owner is always working and doing 10% of the build and the
other six builder assist employees (ie TWTT) do 90% of the build, but
the owner was learning by watching, listening and writing a check, do I
conclude that you think this qualifies?
The wide spread misunderstanding provides a solid base for the FAA
to implement a new policy.
I still love those guys toiling in their garage with little outside
assistance who pose questions and become the intent and integrity of
this great ole abused rule.
John Cox
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-Listhttp://forums.matronics.comhttp
://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 58
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
Now you are spamming my mailbox so far over 60 of your stupid messages
do not archive
bill@vondane.com wrote:
>
>This message is a reply to Bill VonDane's email verifcation message.
>
>No action is needed on your part.
>
>Thanks!
>
>
>
>
Message 59
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Professional Built Plane (PBP) |
Once again 51% rule has nothing to do with repairman certficate!!!!
John Cox wrote:
> 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@matronics.com on behalf of Chuck Jensen
> Sent: Sat 8/30/2008 4:18 AM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: 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
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ralph Finch
> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 10:00 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RE: RV-List: Builder Available!
>
> Wrong conclusion. In your example the aircraft owner did only 10%
> of the build, obviously not meeting the 51% minimum.
>
> In the class or workshop that I took, it was 50-50, there was one
> pro guy per amateur owner-builder. And that was not normal,
> usually more amateurs than pros. Anyway we all worked like dogs
> the whole week. If I stopped more than 20 secs to catch my breath
> the pro guy was on my case! As an office worker I hadn't done so
> much physical work for decades.
>
> I learned great mechanical skills about riveting, squeezing,
> grinding, etc., all things I really needed since I didn't know
> squat going in. The only thing I didn't get was time puzzling
> through the plans and figuring things out, there was just no time
> for that. We amateurs came out with real, new skills and
> well-built empennages. Now I am toiling in my garage with help
> from VAF, this list, and a couple of buddies in town who are also
> building RVs. But the beginning workshop was a huge help and
> confidence builder for guys like me, who don't have any handyman
> background at all. I didn't even own a shop vac!
>
> The TWTT and its kind are clearly frauds and I don't understand
> how they're still in business. Why the FAA has to promulgate new
> amateur rules instead of enforcing the current ones is a mystery
> to me. Though I do think the FAA should generate new rules
> allowing the completely pro-built experimental aircraft but
> demanding very high, factory-like build standards and of course no
> repairman's certificate for the owner.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Cox
> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 6:09 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RE: RV-List: Builder Available!
>
> If the owner is always working and doing 10% of the build and
> the other six builder assist employees (ie TWTT) do 90% of the
> build, but the owner was learning by watching, listening and
> writing a check, do I conclude that you think this qualifies?
>
>
>
> The wide spread misunderstanding provides a solid base for the
> FAA to implement a new policy.
>
>
>
> I still love those guys toiling in their garage with little
> outside assistance who pose questions and become the intent
> and integrity of this great ole abused rule.
>
>
>
> John Cox
>
>
>
>
>
>
>href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
>href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>
>
>==========
>href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
>==========
>href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
>==========
>href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>==========
>
>
Message 60
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Builder Available! |
I'm really not sure what game you're playing.
I went to a workshop/build class that started with my empennage in kit form
and after 6 days of instruction and building left with a nearly completed
emp. I and the instructor worked about 45 hours each on the building, for a
total of 90 hours--just for the emp. An interesting data point, because the
other builders I've talked to that did all the emp work themselves and also
of course were self-taught took several times 90 hours; 200-300 I think.
Which goes to show that hours of building is very dependent on skill and
prior knowledge.
You say you are confused. I say you are a fanatic: extremely devoted to a
cause and disapproving, even angry, of those who do not share your level of
commitment to that cause.
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Cox
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 8:13 PM
Subject: RE: RE: RV-List: Builder Available!
Okay, I'll play Ralph.
You did (50-50) or 25.51% of the total assembly, the hired professionals did
25.49% for an exact cut of > 51.00% of the assembly. Congrats! Fabrication
by the manufacturer of parts did <48.99%. Result 100.00% of the final
product. Step to the window for you Lottery Winnings.
The FAA is working with manufacturer's of approved OBAM kit aircraft to
establish the Fab percentage. Existing kit approvals will fall below 49.0%
and may be as little as 0.5% for Plans built. Under the new proposed Policy
(not a rule) the documentation of Build Assist will require a new more
specific written log of Builder Assist (not just hired guns). Under the new
rules, how will you reach 51.0% or better from the work that you personally
do? Not what your check wrote. Not that you also might want the DAR to
process your request to be called a Repairman so you can complete
Conditional Inspections.
Many kits require 2000+ man/hours to complete (the RV-10 more like 2500-2750
hours). Your 25.51% would equal 550 hours spread over two weeks is 275
hours per week. You were on the floor maybe 40 hours (lets make that 60
hours per week) of the most physical work you have done in decades with only
20 seconds to catch your breath. Two weeks = 120 hours to Taxi. I am now
lost and confused how you met the 550 hours (I lost 175 hours somewhere) of
build other than the exhausting effort to write the check for the TWTT
program. Now don't read too much into the above math. Marc Cook, Editor of
Kitplanes thinks this is complaint (and Ethical) with the intent of amateur
built kit manufacture. Van sells more kits, Stein sells more avionics, Abby
sells more interiors, the US aviation industry sells more hardware.. life is
GOOD.
You say you didn't even own a shop vac. Many builders will acquire more
than $2,000 of build tools that no amount of effort will cause them to pry
from their "Cold, Dying Hand". I have tried to buy some of them, boy was
that an insult.
Now here is the rub. I went over to the dark side in 2001 to become a
legitimate "Real" kit builder. Quit my career, attended A&P school (at more
than 50 years old), completed Orals and Practicals. Got my IA, became an
EAA Tech Advisor, have help scores of builders and went to work for the
airlines to gain even more tribal knowledge. Most - but not many OBAM
builders are prideful and think they have a handle on the knowledge to
maintain their pride and joy. They have a right to sell it to John Q.
Public with a willingness to write a check in that pursuit. I will offer
than many do little to show any DAR that they know squat as to how to
maintain let alone troubleshoot, life altering mechanical issues that tend
to arise. Now, don't go ballistic here..I am reading about that damned
Slick Mag bulletin with my other eye. I acknowledge the system worked well
until the money created the "Professional Build Assist". Oh by the way, the
Professional field it is totally unregulated and uses untrained Professional
worker, many are not US citizens. I just have trouble swallowing how this
TWTT and hired guns are helping this avocation that led me to leave a
lucrative career to pursue what my heart told me was what my Walter Mitty
side wanted me to go out the door with.
The problem is not with you the builder. It is with the bastardization by
the EAA, the FAA and the DARs who would sell out their neighbor to make a
buck. Now let's hear more dialog on how much time, how much money and how
many questions the typical OBAM kit builder answers in an Orals & Practicals
Exam in front of their DAR. Wouldn't the world be perfect if the OBAM
builder could match skills in maintaining his pride and joy with those
damned A & Ps that I resemble in my day job.
My answer, if a Pro touches it move to the other window and make it a
Primary Aircraft. If an Amateur Builder does >51.0% , tip your hat and
smile. you are a Builder/Aviator of the First Order. if you can't complete
a comprehensive review by the DAR on the skills to maintain it, waive
goodbye to that coveted Repairman Certificate. Most DARs don't even
complete a comprehensive safety inspection let alone an Oral towards
granting a Repairman Certificate. It is all about review of correctly
processed FAA mandated paperwork.
As an EAA Tech Advisor, I keep pinching my check, telling myself "There is
no standard" for OBAM. Shut Up, Smile and help by pointing out kernels of
wisdom that might lower the accident rate for the insurance pool that we all
pay for. For those guys and gals with more money than smarts, I say Primary
Aircraft. leave us struggling kit Builders alone. When I engage in
conversations with respected Kit builders, it becomes clear they have the
best interests of their family, their community and all of us at stake.
Professionals please leave the arena.
Oh, did I mention there are 30 days left to make courtesy comment to the FAA
on this Rule (Policy) Change.
John Cox
Do not Archive
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph Finch
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 7:00 PM
Subject: RE: RE: RV-List: Builder Available!
Wrong conclusion. In your example the aircraft owner did only 10% of the
build, obviously not meeting the 51% minimum.
In the class or workshop that I took, it was 50-50, there was one pro guy
per amateur owner-builder. And that was not normal, usually more amateurs
than pros. Anyway we all worked like dogs the whole week. If I stopped
more than 20 secs to catch my breath the pro guy was on my case! As an
office worker I hadn't done so much physical work for decades.
I learned great mechanical skills about riveting, squeezing, grinding, etc.,
all things I really needed since I didn't know squat going in. The only
thing I didn't get was time puzzling through the plans and figuring things
out, there was just no time for that. We amateurs came out with real, new
skills and well-built empennages. Now I am toiling in my garage with help
from VAF, this list, and a couple of buddies in town who are also building
RVs. But the beginning workshop was a huge help and confidence builder for
guys like me, who don't have any handyman background at all. I didn't even
own a shop vac!
The TWTT and its kind are clearly frauds and I don't understand how they're
still in business. Why the FAA has to promulgate new amateur rules instead
of enforcing the current ones is a mystery to me. Though I do think the FAA
should generate new rules allowing the completely pro-built experimental
aircraft but demanding very high, factory-like build standards and of course
no repairman's certificate for the owner.
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Cox
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 6:09 PM
Subject: RE: RE: RV-List: Builder Available!
If the owner is always working and doing 10% of the build and the other six
builder assist employees (ie TWTT) do 90% of the build, but the owner was
learning by watching, listening and writing a check, do I conclude that you
think this qualifies?
The wide spread misunderstanding provides a solid base for the FAA to
implement a new policy.
I still love those guys toiling in their garage with little outside
assistance who pose questions and become the intent and integrity of this
great ole abused rule.
John Cox
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 61
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
This message is a reply to Bill VonDane's email verifcation message.
No action is needed on your part.
Thanks!
Message 62
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Cut Bill Vondane off the email list tell he fixes his problem
this is killing my email. I know I should just block him but it sucks to
come home and open my email and see his spam over and over again.
Jerry
Message 63
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Hum, good idea. Done.
Matt
At 08:45 PM 8/30/2008 Saturday, you wrote:
>
>Cut Bill Vondane off the email list tell he fixes his problem
>this is killing my email. I know I should just block him but it sucks to
>come home and open my email and see his spam over and over again.
>
>Jerry
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle@matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
Message 64
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Builder Available! |
I find that a lot of A&Es and AIs are just a tad bit jealous of home
builders. Some are even down right hostile
and do not think it is right that we should be able to work on an
aircraft when they have spent a sizable
amount of time and money getting their certficates. Now this statment
really gets me going.
"Now here is the rub. I went over to the dark side in 2001 to become a
legitimate "Real" kit builder. "
Like I am not a "real legitimate kit builder"?
Jerry
Ralph Finch wrote:
> I'm really not sure what game you're playing.
> I went to a workshop/build class that started with my empennage in kit
> form and after 6 days of instruction and building left with a nearly
> completed emp. I and the instructor worked about 45 hours each on the
> building, for a total of 90 hours--just for the emp. An interesting
> data point, because the other builders I've talked to that did all the
> emp work themselves and also of course were self-taught took several
> times 90 hours; 200-300 I think. Which goes to show that hours of
> building is very dependent on skill and prior knowledge.
> You say you are confused. I say you are a fanatic: extremely devoted
> to a cause and disapproving, even angry, of those who do not share
> your level of commitment to that cause.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Cox
> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 8:13 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RE: RV-List: Builder Available!
>
> Okay, I'll play Ralph.
>
> You did (50-50) or 25.51% of the total assembly, the hired
> professionals did 25.49% for an exact cut of > 51.00% of the
> assembly. Congrats! Fabrication by the manufacturer of parts did
> <48.99%. Result 100.00% of the final product. Step to the window
> for you Lottery Winnings.
>
> The FAA is working with manufacturer's of approved OBAM kit
> aircraft to establish the Fab percentage. Existing kit approvals
> will fall below 49.0% and may be as little as 0.5% for Plans
> built. Under the new proposed Policy (not a rule) the
> documentation of Build Assist will require a new more specific
> written log of Builder Assist (not just hired guns). Under the new
> rules, how will you reach 51.0% or better from the work that you
> personally do? Not what your check wrote. Not that you also might
> want the DAR to process your request to be called a Repairman so
> you can complete Conditional Inspections.
>
> Many kits require 2000+ man/hours to complete (the RV-10 more like
> 2500-2750 hours). Your 25.51% would equal 550 hours spread over
> two weeks is 275 hours per week. You were on the floor maybe 40
> hours (lets make that 60 hours per week) of the most physical work
> you have done in decades with only 20 seconds to catch your
> breath. Two weeks = 120 hours to Taxi. I am now lost and confused
> how you met the 550 hours (I lost 175 hours somewhere) of build
> other than the exhausting effort to write the check for the TWTT
> program. Now don't read too much into the above math. Marc Cook,
> Editor of Kitplanes thinks this is complaint (and Ethical) with
> the intent of amateur built kit manufacture. Van sells more kits,
> Stein sells more avionics, Abby sells more interiors, the US
> aviation industry sells more hardware. life is GOOD.
>
> You say you didn't even own a shop vac. Many builders will acquire
> more than $2,000 of build tools that no amount of effort will
> cause them to pry from their "Cold, Dying Hand". I have tried to
> buy some of them, boy was that an insult.
>
> Now here is the rub. I went over to the dark side in 2001 to
> become a legitimate "Real" kit builder. Quit my career, attended
> A&P school (at more than 50 years old), completed Orals and
> Practicals. Got my IA, became an EAA Tech Advisor, have help
> scores of builders and went to work for the airlines to gain even
> more tribal knowledge. Most - but not many OBAM builders are
> prideful and think they have a handle on the knowledge to maintain
> their pride and joy. They have a right to sell it to John Q.
> Public with a willingness to write a check in that pursuit. I will
> offer than many do little to show any DAR that they know squat as
> to how to maintain let alone troubleshoot, life altering
> mechanical issues that tend to arise. Now, don't go ballistic
> here.I am reading about that damned Slick Mag bulletin with my
> other eye. I acknowledge the system worked well until the money
> created the "Professional Build Assist". Oh by the way, the
> Professional field it is totally unregulated and uses untrained
> Professional worker, many are not US citizens. I just have trouble
> swallowing how this TWTT and hired guns are helping this avocation
> that led me to leave a lucrative career to pursue what my heart
> told me was what my Walter Mitty side wanted me to go out the door
> with.
>
> The problem is not with you the builder. It is with the
> bastardization by the EAA, the FAA and the DARs who would sell out
> their neighbor to make a buck. Now let's hear more dialog on how
> much time, how much money and how many questions the typical OBAM
> kit builder answers in an Orals & Practicals Exam in front of
> their DAR. Wouldn't the world be perfect if the OBAM builder could
> match skills in maintaining his pride and joy with those damned A
> & Ps that I resemble in my day job.
>
> My answer, if a Pro touches it move to the other window and make
> it a Primary Aircraft. If an Amateur Builder does >51.0% , tip
> your hat and smile you are a Builder/Aviator of the First Order.
> if you can't complete a comprehensive review by the DAR on the
> skills to maintain it, waive goodbye to that coveted Repairman
> Certificate. Most DARs don't even complete a comprehensive safety
> inspection let alone an Oral towards granting a Repairman
> Certificate. It is all about review of correctly processed FAA
> mandated paperwork.
>
> As an EAA Tech Advisor, I keep pinching my check, telling myself
> "There is no standard" for OBAM. Shut Up, Smile and help by
> pointing out kernels of wisdom that might lower the accident rate
> for the insurance pool that we all pay for. For those guys and
> gals with more money than smarts, I say Primary Aircraft leave us
> struggling kit Builders alone. When I engage in conversations with
> respected Kit builders, it becomes clear they have the best
> interests of their family, their community and all of us at stake.
> Professionals please leave the arena.
>
> Oh, did I mention there are 30 days left to make courtesy comment
> to the FAA on this Rule (Policy) Change.
>
> John Cox
>
> Do not Archive
>
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph Finch
> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 7:00 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RE: RV-List: Builder Available!
>
> Wrong conclusion. In your example the aircraft owner did only 10%
> of the build, obviously not meeting the 51% minimum.
>
> In the class or workshop that I took, it was 50-50, there was one
> pro guy per amateur owner-builder. And that was not normal,
> usually more amateurs than pros. Anyway we all worked like dogs
> the whole week. If I stopped more than 20 secs to catch my breath
> the pro guy was on my case! As an office worker I hadn't done so
> much physical work for decades.
>
> I learned great mechanical skills about riveting, squeezing,
> grinding, etc., all things I really needed since I didn't know
> squat going in. The only thing I didn't get was time puzzling
> through the plans and figuring things out, there was just no time
> for that. We amateurs came out with real, new skills and
> well-built empennages. Now I am toiling in my garage with help
> from VAF, this list, and a couple of buddies in town who are also
> building RVs. But the beginning workshop was a huge help and
> confidence builder for guys like me, who don't have any handyman
> background at all. I didn't even own a shop vac!
>
> The TWTT and its kind are clearly frauds and I don't understand
> how they're still in business. Why the FAA has to promulgate new
> amateur rules instead of enforcing the current ones is a mystery
> to me. Though I do think the FAA should generate new rules
> allowing the completely pro-built experimental aircraft but
> demanding very high, factory-like build standards and of course no
> repairman's certificate for the owner.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Cox
> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 6:09 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RE: RV-List: Builder Available!
>
> If the owner is always working and doing 10% of the build and
> the other six builder assist employees (ie TWTT) do 90% of the
> build, but the owner was learning by watching, listening and
> writing a check, do I conclude that you think this qualifies?
>
> The wide spread misunderstanding provides a solid base for the
> FAA to implement a new policy.
>
> I still love those guys toiling in their garage with little
> outside assistance who pose questions and become the intent
> and integrity of this great ole abused rule.
>
> John Cox
>
>
>
>
>
>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
>
>http://forums.matronics.com
>
>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
>
>href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
>href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>
>
Message 65
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 2:40 PM, <bill@vondane.com> wrote:
>
> I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000 spam/junk
> emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program to keep my
> inbox from filling up...
>
> So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I get
> your massage...
>
> To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the
> subject line intact.
>
> Thanks!
> -Bill
>
>
Message 66
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Builder Available! |
Ralph, you hit the nail square on the head!
David Maib
do not archive
On Aug 30, 2008, at 10:37 PM, Ralph Finch wrote:
I'm really not sure what game you're playing.
I went to a workshop/build class that started with my empennage in
kit form and after 6 days of instruction and building left with a
nearly completed emp. I and the instructor worked about 45 hours each
on the building, for a total of 90 hours--just for the emp. An
interesting data point, because the other builders I've talked to
that did all the emp work themselves and also of course were self-
taught took several times 90 hours; 200-300 I think. Which goes to
show that hours of building is very dependent on skill and prior
knowledge.
You say you are confused. I say you are a fanatic: extremely devoted
to a cause and disapproving, even angry, of those who do not share
your level of commitment to that cause.
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Cox
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 8:13 PM
Subject: RE: RE: RV-List: Builder Available!
Okay, I'll play Ralph.
You did (50-50) or 25.51% of the total assembly, the hired
professionals did 25.49% for an exact cut of > 51.00% of the
assembly. Congrats! Fabrication by the manufacturer of parts did
<48.99%. Result 100.00% of the final product. Step to the window
for you Lottery Winnings.
The FAA is working with manufacturer's of approved OBAM kit aircraft
to establish the Fab percentage. Existing kit approvals will fall
below 49.0% and may be as little as 0.5% for Plans built. Under the
new proposed Policy (not a rule) the documentation of Build Assist
will require a new more specific written log of Builder Assist (not
just hired guns). Under the new rules, how will you reach 51.0% or
better from the work that you personally do? Not what your check
wrote. Not that you also might want the DAR to process your request
to be called a Repairman so you can complete Conditional Inspections.
Many kits require 2000+ man/hours to complete (the RV-10 more like
2500-2750 hours). Your 25.51% would equal 550 hours spread over two
weeks is 275 hours per week. You were on the floor maybe 40 hours
(lets make that 60 hours per week) of the most physical work you have
done in decades with only 20 seconds to catch your breath. Two weeks
= 120 hours to Taxi. I am now lost and confused how you met the 550
hours (I lost 175 hours somewhere) of build other than the exhausting
effort to write the check for the TWTT program. Now don't read too
much into the above math. Marc Cook, Editor of Kitplanes thinks this
is complaint (and Ethical) with the intent of amateur built kit
manufacture. Van sells more kits, Stein sells more avionics, Abby
sells more interiors, the US aviation industry sells more hardware=85.
life is GOOD.
You say you didn't even own a shop vac. Many builders will acquire
more than $2,000 of build tools that no amount of effort will cause
them to pry from their "Cold, Dying Hand". I have tried to buy some
of them, boy was that an insult.
Now here is the rub. I went over to the dark side in 2001 to become
a legitimate "Real" kit builder. Quit my career, attended A&P school
(at more than 50 years old), completed Orals and Practicals. Got my
IA, became an EAA Tech Advisor, have help scores of builders and went
to work for the airlines to gain even more tribal knowledge. Most -
but not many OBAM builders are prideful and think they have a handle
on the knowledge to maintain their pride and joy. They have a right
to sell it to John Q. Public with a willingness to write a check in
that pursuit. I will offer than many do little to show any DAR that
they know squat as to how to maintain let alone troubleshoot, life
altering mechanical issues that tend to arise. Now, don't go
ballistic here=85.I am reading about that damned Slick Mag bulletin
with my other eye. I acknowledge the system worked well until the
money created the "Professional Build Assist". Oh by the way, the
Professional field it is totally unregulated and uses untrained
Professional worker, many are not US citizens. I just have trouble
swallowing how this TWTT and hired guns are helping this avocation
that led me to leave a lucrative career to pursue what my heart told
me was what my Walter Mitty side wanted me to go out the door with.
The problem is not with you the builder. It is with the
bastardization by the EAA, the FAA and the DARs who would sell out
their neighbor to make a buck. Now let's hear more dialog on how
much time, how much money and how many questions the typical OBAM kit
builder answers in an Orals & Practicals Exam in front of their DAR.
Wouldn't the world be perfect if the OBAM builder could match skills
in maintaining his pride and joy with those damned A & Ps that I
resemble in my day job.
My answer, if a Pro touches it move to the other window and make it a
Primary Aircraft. If an Amateur Builder does >51.0% , tip your hat
and smile=85 you are a Builder/Aviator of the First Order. if you
can't complete a comprehensive review by the DAR on the skills to
maintain it, waive goodbye to that coveted Repairman Certificate.
Most DARs don't even complete a comprehensive safety inspection let
alone an Oral towards granting a Repairman Certificate. It is all
about review of correctly processed FAA mandated paperwork.
As an EAA Tech Advisor, I keep pinching my check, telling myself
"There is no standard" for OBAM. Shut Up, Smile and help by pointing
out kernels of wisdom that might lower the accident rate for the
insurance pool that we all pay for. For those guys and gals with
more money than smarts, I say Primary Aircraft=85 leave us struggling
kit Builders alone. When I engage in conversations with respected
Kit builders, it becomes clear they have the best interests of their
family, their community and all of us at stake. Professionals please
leave the arena.
Oh, did I mention there are 30 days left to make courtesy comment to
the FAA on this Rule (Policy) Change.
John Cox
Do not Archive
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph Finch
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 7:00 PM
Subject: RE: RE: RV-List: Builder Available!
Wrong conclusion. In your example the aircraft owner did only 10% of
the build, obviously not meeting the 51% minimum.
In the class or workshop that I took, it was 50-50, there was one pro
guy per amateur owner-builder. And that was not normal, usually more
amateurs than pros. Anyway we all worked like dogs the whole week.
If I stopped more than 20 secs to catch my breath the pro guy was on
my case! As an office worker I hadn't done so much physical work for
decades.
I learned great mechanical skills about riveting, squeezing,
grinding, etc., all things I really needed since I didn't know squat
going in. The only thing I didn't get was time puzzling through the
plans and figuring things out, there was just no time for that. We
amateurs came out with real, new skills and well-built empennages.
Now I am toiling in my garage with help from VAF, this list, and a
couple of buddies in town who are also building RVs. But the
beginning workshop was a huge help and confidence builder for guys
like me, who don't have any handyman background at all. I didn't
even own a shop vac!
The TWTT and its kind are clearly frauds and I don't understand how
they're still in business. Why the FAA has to promulgate new amateur
rules instead of enforcing the current ones is a mystery to me.
Though I do think the FAA should generate new rules allowing the
completely pro-built experimental aircraft but demanding very high,
factory-like build standards and of course no repairman's certificate
for the owner.
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Cox
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 6:09 PM
Subject: RE: RE: RV-List: Builder Available!
If the owner is always working and doing 10% of the build and the
other six builder assist employees (ie TWTT) do 90% of the build, but
the owner was learning by watching, listening and writing a check, do
I conclude that you think this qualifies?
The wide spread misunderstanding provides a solid base for the FAA to
implement a new policy.
I still love those guys toiling in their garage with little outside
assistance who pose questions and become the intent and integrity of
this great ole abused rule.
John Cox
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://
www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
Message 67
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Stainless AN fittings |
They cost a lot more, but I'm wondering if there is a good reason or benefit to
using stainless fittings under the cowl?
Along the same lines, what about the Earls Ano-Tuff (type III hard anodized) line
of fittings? Anyone used these in any application?
--------
Andrew Rayhill
RV-10 40078
Phoenix
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 1752#201752
Message 68
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
On 30/08/2008, at 11:40 , bill@vondane.com wrote:
>
> I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000
> spam/junk emails per week I am now forced to use a verification
> program to keep my inbox from filling up...
>
> So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human
> before I get your massage...
>
> To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and
> leave the subject line intact.
>
> Thanks!
> -Bill
>
>
Message 69
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Builder Available! |
John speaks from real involvement and concern for where the FAA will
take the 51 % rule. For sure it will require more fabrication.
I don't think there is anything wrong with the Sport Air classes, nor
the other initial builder assist. Looked long and hard at them myself.
Big difference getting help doing the empennage, where there is more
teaching than someone doing the work for you. You are paying for
learning, in the spirit of the rule, for your education and recreation,
as opposed to the two weeks to taxi programs where the client does maybe
150 hours of work on the completed aircraft, that we all know takes a
minimum of something over 1000 hours, and probably a lot over that
figure. Very different from what you did.
I don't know what I will have in empennage yet, but for RV10 vert stab
it will probably come in around 20 hours.
Kelly
RV10
A&P/IA
PS, contrary to other assertions, no jealousy of other unlicensed
builders. I'm doing it for my enjoyment, in my retirement, doing EAA
Tech Counselor for those that want the advice, ignoring the rest. Just
be grateful that Van's kits have the 51 percent approval. Any new
approvals will require more work.
Ralph Finch wrote:
> I'm really not sure what game you're playing.
> I went to a workshop/build class that started with my empennage in kit
> form and after 6 days of instruction and building left with a nearly
> completed emp. I and the instructor worked about 45 hours each on the
> building, for a total of 90 hours--just for the emp. An interesting
> data point, because the other builders I've talked to that did all the
> emp work themselves and also of course were self-taught took several
> times 90 hours; 200-300 I think. Which goes to show that hours of
> building is very dependent on skill and prior knowledge.
> You say you are confused. I say you are a fanatic: extremely devoted
> to a cause and disapproving, even angry, of those who do not share
> your level of commitment to that cause.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *John Cox
> *Sent:* Friday, August 29, 2008 8:13 PM
> *To:* rv-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* RE: RE: RV-List: Builder Available!
>
> Okay, I'll play Ralph.
>
> You did (50-50) or 25.51% of the total assembly, the hired
> professionals did 25.49% for an exact cut of > 51.00% of the
> assembly. Congrats! Fabrication by the manufacturer of parts did
> <48.99%. Result 100.00% of the final product. Step to the window
> for you Lottery Winnings.
>
> The FAA is working with manufacturer's of approved OBAM kit
> aircraft to establish the Fab percentage. Existing kit approvals
> will fall below 49.0% and may be as little as 0.5% for Plans
> built. Under the new proposed Policy (not a rule) the
> documentation of Build Assist will require a new more specific
> written log of Builder Assist (not just hired guns). Under the new
> rules, how will you reach 51.0% or better from the work that you
> personally do? Not what your check wrote. Not that you also might
> want the DAR to process your request to be called a Repairman so
> you can complete Conditional Inspections.
>
> Many kits require 2000+ man/hours to complete (the RV-10 more like
> 2500-2750 hours). Your 25.51% would equal 550 hours spread over
> two weeks is 275 hours per week. You were on the floor maybe 40
> hours (lets make that 60 hours per week) of the most physical work
> you have done in decades with only 20 seconds to catch your
> breath. Two weeks = 120 hours to Taxi. I am now lost and confused
> how you met the 550 hours (I lost 175 hours somewhere) of build
> other than the exhausting effort to write the check for the TWTT
> program. Now don't read too much into the above math. Marc Cook,
> Editor of Kitplanes thinks this is complaint (and Ethical) with
> the intent of amateur built kit manufacture. Van sells more kits,
> Stein sells more avionics, Abby sells more interiors, the US
> aviation industry sells more hardware. life is GOOD.
>
> You say you didn't even own a shop vac. Many builders will acquire
> more than $2,000 of build tools that no amount of effort will
> cause them to pry from their "Cold, Dying Hand". I have tried to
> buy some of them, boy was that an insult.
>
> Now here is the rub. I went over to the dark side in 2001 to
> become a legitimate "Real" kit builder. Quit my career, attended
> A&P school (at more than 50 years old), completed Orals and
> Practicals. Got my IA, became an EAA Tech Advisor, have help
> scores of builders and went to work for the airlines to gain even
> more tribal knowledge. Most - but not many OBAM builders are
> prideful and think they have a handle on the knowledge to maintain
> their pride and joy. They have a right to sell it to John Q.
> Public with a willingness to write a check in that pursuit. I will
> offer than many do little to show any DAR that they know squat as
> to how to maintain let alone troubleshoot, life altering
> mechanical issues that tend to arise. Now, don't go ballistic
> here.I am reading about that damned Slick Mag bulletin with my
> other eye. I acknowledge the system worked well until the money
> created the "Professional Build Assist". Oh by the way, the
> Professional field it is totally unregulated and uses untrained
> Professional worker, many are not US citizens. I just have trouble
> swallowing how this TWTT and hired guns are helping this avocation
> that led me to leave a lucrative career to pursue what my heart
> told me was what my Walter Mitty side wanted me to go out the door
> with.
>
> The problem is not with you the builder. It is with the
> bastardization by the EAA, the FAA and the DARs who would sell out
> their neighbor to make a buck. Now let's hear more dialog on how
> much time, how much money and how many questions the typical OBAM
> kit builder answers in an Orals & Practicals Exam in front of
> their DAR. Wouldn't the world be perfect if the OBAM builder could
> match skills in maintaining his pride and joy with those damned A
> & Ps that I resemble in my day job.
>
> My answer, if a Pro touches it move to the other window and make
> it a Primary Aircraft. If an Amateur Builder does >51.0% , tip
> your hat and smile you are a Builder/Aviator of the First Order.
> if you can't complete a comprehensive review by the DAR on the
> skills to maintain it, waive goodbye to that coveted Repairman
> Certificate. Most DARs don't even complete a comprehensive safety
> inspection let alone an Oral towards granting a Repairman
> Certificate. It is all about review of correctly processed FAA
> mandated paperwork.
>
> As an EAA Tech Advisor, I keep pinching my check, telling myself
> "There is no standard" for OBAM. Shut Up, Smile and help by
> pointing out kernels of wisdom that might lower the accident rate
> for the insurance pool that we all pay for. For those guys and
> gals with more money than smarts, I say Primary Aircraft leave us
> struggling kit _Builders _alone. When I engage in conversations
> with respected Kit builders, it becomes clear they have the best
> interests of their family, their community and all of us at stake.
> Professionals please leave the arena.
>
> Oh, did I mention there are 30 days left to make courtesy comment
> to the FAA on this Rule (Policy) Change.
>
> John Cox
>
> Do not Archive
>
> *From:* owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Ralph Finch
> *Sent:* Friday, August 29, 2008 7:00 PM
> *To:* rv-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* RE: RE: RV-List: Builder Available!
>
> Wrong conclusion. In your example the aircraft owner did only 10%
> of the build, obviously not meeting the 51% minimum.
>
> In the class or workshop that I took, it was 50-50, there was one
> pro guy per amateur owner-builder. And that was not normal,
> usually more amateurs than pros. Anyway we all worked like dogs
> the whole week. If I stopped more than 20 secs to catch my breath
> the pro guy was on my case! As an office worker I hadn't done so
> much physical work for decades.
>
> I learned great mechanical skills about riveting, squeezing,
> grinding, etc., all things I really needed since I didn't know
> squat going in. The only thing I didn't get was time puzzling
> through the plans and figuring things out, there was just no time
> for that. We amateurs came out with real, new skills and
> well-built empennages. Now I am toiling in my garage with help
> from VAF, this list, and a couple of buddies in town who are also
> building RVs. But the beginning workshop was a huge help and
> confidence builder for guys like me, who don't have any handyman
> background at all. I didn't even own a shop vac!
>
> The TWTT and its kind are clearly frauds and I don't understand
> how they're still in business. Why the FAA has to promulgate new
> amateur rules instead of enforcing the current ones is a mystery
> to me. Though I do think the FAA should generate new rules
> allowing the completely pro-built experimental aircraft but
> demanding very high, factory-like build standards and of course no
> repairman's certificate for the owner.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of
> *John Cox
> *Sent:* Friday, August 29, 2008 6:09 PM
> *To:* rv-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* RE: RE: RV-List: Builder Available!
>
> If the owner is always working and doing 10% of the build and
> the other six builder assist employees (ie TWTT) do 90% of the
> build, but the owner was learning by watching, listening and
> writing a check, do I conclude that you think this qualifies?
>
> The wide spread misunderstanding provides a solid base for the
> FAA to implement a new policy.
>
> I still love those guys toiling in their garage with little
> outside assistance who pose questions and become the intent
> and integrity of this great ole abused rule.
>
> John Cox
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> **
>
> * *
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
Message 70
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Professional Built Plane (PBP) |
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
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|