---------------------------------------------------------- RV-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sat 08/30/08: 70 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:06:44 AM PST US From: RICHARD MILLER 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 ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 12:22:45 AM PST US From: Jerry Springer 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 wrote: > > > >>From: Mike Divan >>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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:22:55 AM PST US Subject: RV-List: Professional Built Plane (PBP) From: "Chuck Jensen" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:05:24 AM PST US From: "Kyle Boatright" Subject: Re: RV-List: Builder Available! ----- Original Message ----- From: "RICHARD MILLER" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:56:45 AM PST US Subject: RE: RV-List: Professional Built Plane (PBP) From: "Brent P. Humphreys" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:01:11 AM PST US From: Jerry Springer Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:32:10 AM PST US From: Mike Divan Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Slick Mags 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 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 wrote: > > > >>From: Mike Divan >>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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:49:45 AM PST US From: "John Fasching" Subject: RV-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:53:17 AM PST US Subject: RE: RV-List: Professional Built Plane (PBP) From: "John Cox" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:21:14 PM PST US From: Dave Allen 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:41:17 PM PST US From: 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 12 ____________________________________ Time: 12:56:32 PM PST US From: davcor@comcast.net 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 > > > > ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 12:58:47 PM PST US From: bill@vondane.com Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:11:52 PM PST US From: Carlos Hernandez Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:13:02 PM PST US From: Dave Nellis Subject: Re: RV-List: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 --- On Sat, 8/30/08, bill@vondane.com wrote: > From: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:13:10 PM PST US From: bill@vondane.com Subject: Re: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:19:47 PM PST US From: bill@vondane.com Subject: Re: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:19:48 PM PST US From: MikeNellis Subject: Re: RV-List: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 Dave Nellis wrote: > > > --- On Sat, 8/30/08, bill@vondane.com wrote: > > >> From: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:24:45 PM PST US From: RKAlex123@aol.com Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:33:53 PM PST US From: bill@vondane.com Subject: Re: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:33:53 PM PST US From: Vinnfizz@aol.com Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:45:40 PM PST US Subject: RE: RV-List: Professional Built Plane (PBP) From: "Chuck Jensen" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:45:56 PM PST US Subject: Re: RV-List: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 From: David Karlsberg On 8/30/08 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 24 ____________________________________ Time: 02:06:48 PM PST US Subject: Re: RV-List: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 From: cbrxxdrv@aol.com -----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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:15:47 PM PST US From: "Mauri" Subject: Re: RV-List: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 ----- Original Message ----- From: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:15:47 PM PST US From: "Mauri" Subject: Re: RV-List: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 ----- Original Message ----- From: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:31:52 PM PST US From: "Robert Cutter" Subject: Re: RV-List: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 ----- Original Message ----- From: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:03:01 PM PST US From: "Dean Van Winkle" Subject: Re: RV-List: 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: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:16:05 PM PST US From: Terry Dazey Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:22:18 PM PST US From: RV6 Flyer Subject: RE: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:49:44 PM PST US From: "folgie" Subject: RE: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:58:56 PM PST US From: "Richard McBride" Subject: Re: RV-List: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 ----- Original Message ----- From: bill@vondane.com To: rv-list@matronics.com Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 3:40 PM Subject: RV-List: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 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/contribution ________________________________ Message 33 ____________________________________ Time: 04:03:45 PM PST US From: bill@vondane.com Subject: Re: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:03:59 PM PST US From: bill@vondane.com Subject: Re: RE: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:07:32 PM PST US From: bill@vondane.com Subject: Re: RE: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:16:06 PM PST US From: bill@vondane.com Subject: Re: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:21:14 PM PST US From: bill@vondane.com Subject: Re: Re: RE: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:22:45 PM PST US From: David Cudney 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 39 ____________________________________ Time: 04:25:50 PM PST US From: "Richard Dudley" Subject: Re: RV-List: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Cudney" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:35:52 PM PST US From: tom sargent Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:41:43 PM PST US From: Subject: Re: RV-List: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 ________________________________ Message 42 ____________________________________ Time: 04:49:48 PM PST US From: "S Hamer" Subject: Re: RV-List: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 ________________________________ Message 43 ____________________________________ Time: 04:50:12 PM PST US From: bob sheets Subject: RE: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:54:01 PM PST US From: D Paul Deits Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:03:08 PM PST US From: bill@vondane.com Subject: Re: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:03:23 PM PST US From: bill@vondane.com Subject: Re: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:03:45 PM PST US From: bill@vondane.com Subject: Re: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:03:47 PM PST US From: bill@vondane.com Subject: Re: Re: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:03:50 PM PST US From: bill@vondane.com Subject: Re: Re: Re: RE: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:08:53 PM PST US Subject: Re: RV-List: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 From: jvanlaak@AOL.COM -----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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:20:27 PM PST US From: Dan Subject: Re: RV-List: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 --- On Sat, 8/30/08, bill@vondane.com wrote: From: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:28:10 PM PST US From: Charlie England Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ) ________________________________ Message 53 ____________________________________ Time: 05:28:22 PM PST US From: Louis Willig Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:32:50 PM PST US From: "John Tower" Subject: Re: RV-List: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 ----- Original Message ----- From: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:47:10 PM PST US Subject: RE: RV-List: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 From: "John Cox" 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 . Directions, Traffic, Gas Prices & More! ________________________________ Message 56 ____________________________________ Time: 07:04:33 PM PST US From: Charlie England Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:31:50 PM PST US From: "richard sipp" Subject: WeRe: RE: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:26:23 PM PST US From: Jerry Springer Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:31:05 PM PST US From: Jerry Springer Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:41:13 PM PST US From: "Ralph Finch" Subject: RE: RE: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:46:52 PM PST US From: bill@vondane.com Subject: Re: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:47:06 PM PST US From: Jerry Springer Subject: RV-List: Matt 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:54:35 PM PST US From: Matt Dralle Subject: Re: RV-List: Matt 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:22:52 PM PST US From: Jerry Springer Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:27:22 PM PST US From: "David Burnham" Subject: Re: RV-List: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 2:40 PM, 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:25:14 PM PST US From: David Maib Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:58:07 PM PST US Subject: RV-List: Stainless AN fittings From: "AndrewTR30" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:59:07 PM PST US From: Carpe Diem Subject: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:27:39 PM PST US From: Kelly McMullen Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:47:19 PM PST US From: "Jeff Point" Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message rv-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/RV-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/rv-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/rv-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.