 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 2:11 pm Post subject: Builder Available! |
 |
|
Bret Smith wrote:
| Quote: |
Bob,
I am assuming that Richard is referring to inspecting homebuilt or
OBAM aircraft that do not meet the standards of AC43-13. My feeling
is that any aircraft that do not meet the minimum standards should NOT
be signed-off, whether homebuilt or certificated.
Bret Smith
RV-9A "Wiring & FWF"
Blue Ridge, GA
www.FlightInnovations.com
Hmmm. I disagree .....a little. Since 43-13 was born, we've improved
|
on a lot of the materials used for construction. Even invented new
ones. I'd rather say that I would EXPECT construction to follow 43-13
.... but remember that these are EXPERIMENTAL aircraft ..... and who
are we to frown on anyones experiment??? My Pitts is pretty much per
plans, and so will be my -10 ...... but I won't take kindly to negative
comments because something I may do won't meet 43-13. Where's the
'experiment' in that??? Of course I'd welcome constructive criticism if
I did something that could shorten my lifespan. My logic (outside of
43-13) may not be perfect.
Linn
do not archive
| | - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
timb
Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 77
Location: Frankston, Texas
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:29 am Post subject: Builder Available! |
|
|
Linn,
I am not an A&P but I think that was exactly Richards point. If an A&P is
required to inspect in "accordance with" AND experimental are "allowed to
experiment" then how do you as an A&P inspect an experimental and keep both
in perspective. I don't think he was saying experimental must meet AC43-13.
I do agree with your statement with regards to Bret's comments below and in
line with Richards comments.
Do Not Archive
Tim Bryan
RV-6 Flying
N616TB over 100 hours now
[quote] --
| | - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
_________________
Tim Bryan
RV-6 Flying
N616TB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jsflyrv(at)verizon.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 8:43 am Post subject: Builder Available! |
|
|
Remember it is an "ADVISORY" circular not the bible and to say that an
aircraft that does not
meet AC43-13 should not be signed off is BS. There are many acceptable
ways to accomplish
tasks that may not be the way the gov does it but are still safe methods.
do not archive
Tim Bryan wrote:
[quote]
Linn,
I am not an A&P but I think that was exactly Richards point. If an A&P is
required to inspect in "accordance with" AND experimental are "allowed to
experiment" then how do you as an A&P inspect an experimental and keep both
in perspective. I don't think he was saying experimental must meet AC43-13.
I do agree with your statement with regards to Bret's comments below and in
line with Richards comments.
Do Not Archive
Tim Bryan
RV-6 Flying
N616TB over 100 hours now
>--
| | - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
timb
Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 77
Location: Frankston, Texas
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:36 am Post subject: Builder Available! |
|
|
True, but what standard are A&P's taught to expect when signing off an
annual for instance? Do they have a standard to follow for experimental
aircraft?
[quote] --
| | - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
_________________
Tim Bryan
RV-6 Flying
N616TB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rickpegser(at)yahoo.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 12:38 pm Post subject: Builder Available! |
|
|
guys
to say that i don't like experimental aircraft is wrong, a properly built rv is one hell of an aircraft, and damn fun to fly. where i have most of my problems with conditionals is wiring, the next most often is avionics mounts that are not up to strenght, after that improper hardware most good dars catch this one, followed i say by wrong type of hoses. i find that most of the problems with conditionals are as a result of someone tryng to save that last five percent of money, or they got in a rush when trying to finish that last five percent that takes 25% of the time.
reference experimental components
some of the new avionics that have come out are great and i would love to have them in every aircraft. the cheap fuel injection systems are even better.
unique builder mods.
this is the one that gives i/a's the worst nightmares, what you think you might have done right and looks good, might be an accident waiting to happen. i know that vans stressed everything they designed, but how do i know that you did, or in this case the prior builder. and i have no history to work from.
rick
jerry i asked a+e or a+p because i don't know the canada, europe rules
and assumed that you where from there.
--- On Tue, 9/2/08, Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)verizon.net> wrote:
| Quote: | From: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Builder Available!
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2008, 11:10 PM
<jsflyrv(at)verizon.net>
Picky picky picky would you have rather I had said A&P?
do not archive
RICHARD MILLER wrote:
>
<rickpegser(at)yahoo.com>
>
>jerry
>
>i assume that you are not from the states using a+e,
but if you are, look at it from my point of view. if i have
to sign off the aircraft, it has to follow the rules, and
since i have no rules that tell me autozone parts are ok or
not for flight i am stuck in the possition of approving a
flying bar stool for flight. i think the faa screwed the
pooch here. Second owner on an experimental aicraft puts the
i/a in an almost imposible situation. we are not jealous, we
just want to keep our tickets. and not get sued.
>rick
>
>
>--- On Sat, 8/30/08, Jerry Springer
<jsflyrv(at)verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>From: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)verizon.net>
>>Subject: Re: Builder Available!
>>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>>Date: Saturday, August 30, 2008, 9:20 PM
>>
>><jsflyrv(at)verizon.net>
>>
>>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(at)matronics.com
>>> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]
On
>>>
>>>
>>Behalf Of John Cox
>>
>>
>>> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 8:13 PM
>>> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>>> Subject: RE: RE: 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(at)matronics.com
>>> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]
On
>>>
>>>
>>Behalf Of Ralph Finch
>>
>>
>>> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 7:00 PM
>>> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>>> Subject: RE: RE: 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(at)matronics.com
>>>
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On
>>>
>>>
>>Behalf Of John Cox
>>
>>
>>> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 6:09 PM
>>> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>>> Subject: RE: RE: 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
| | - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sbuc(at)hiwaay.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 2:13 pm Post subject: Builder Available! |
|
|
RICHARD MILLER wrote:
| Quote: |
guys
to say that i don't like experimental aircraft is wrong, a properly
built rv is one hell of an aircraft, and damn fun to fly. where i
have most of my problems with conditionals is wiring, <snip>
|
It's *CONDITION* inspection....not conditionals, or conditional
inspection........or annual......
If we are going to set ourselves up as an authority, let's get the
terminology correct.
Thank you. 
Sam Buchanan
| | - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jsflyrv(at)verizon.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 6:52 pm Post subject: Builder Available! |
|
|
| Quote: |
jerry i asked a+e or a+p because i don't know the canada, europe rules
and assumed that you where from there.
From nether of those places but am old enough to know where the term
|
A&E originated from
and it is still commonly used today but old timers.
Jerry
do not archive
| | - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jsflyrv(at)verizon.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 7:19 pm Post subject: Builder Available! |
|
|
Jerry Springer wrote:
| Quote: |
>
>
> jerry i asked a+e or a+p because i don't know the canada, europe rules
> and assumed that you where from there.
>
>
>
From nether of those places but am old enough to know where the term
A&E originated from
and it is still commonly used today but old timers.
Jerry
do not archive
obviously should have said "BY" old timers
|
do not archive
| | - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
n395v
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 450
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 4:33 am Post subject: Re: Builder Available! |
|
|
My hat is off to any A&P or IA who is willing to inspect and sign off on a non builder owned experimental aircraft.
For them the risk and liability are huge and the financial reward small.
| | - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
_________________
Milt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 6:00 am Post subject: Builder Available! |
|
|
N395V wrote:
| Quote: |
My hat is off to any A&P or IA who is willing to inspect and sign off on a non builder owned experimental aircraft.
For them the risk and liability are huge and the financial reward small.
I agree with the small financial reward, but question the risk and
|
liability. I think they are perceived. How many A&Ps or IAs do you
know of that have been sued because they signed off on an experimental
airplane??? Just sued, not ruled against. Just my thought.
Linn
| | - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
timb
Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 77
Location: Frankston, Texas
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 6:24 am Post subject: Builder Available! |
|
|
| Quote: | I agree with the small financial reward, but question the risk and
liability. I think they are perceived. How many A&Ps or IAs do you
know of that have been sued because they signed off on an experimental
airplane??? Just sued, not ruled against. Just my thought.
Linn
> --------
> Milt
> 2003 F1 Rocket
> 2006 Radial Rocket
|
[Tim] Unfortunately if you are sued you already lost. The cost to defend
even a frivolous lawsuit can take your entire retirement. I know. Judges
don't throw out very many suits these days. But that said, the point was
about if they are liable and I understand your comments.
Thanks!
Do Not Archive
| | - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
_________________
Tim Bryan
RV-6 Flying
N616TB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
n395v
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 450
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 6:33 pm Post subject: Builder Available! |
|
|
I had no problem understanding why they are concerned about liability.
No matter what the trade, if you're in a service industry, you're
between a rock and a hard place. The threat of legal action is one of
the reasons I gave up my consulting business. No matter how well I
wrote a contract and followed it ..... All a customer had to do is file
suit for non-performance and I was hosed. Right or wrong, doesn't
matter. Milt's right ... there is good reason to be concerned. I lay
the blame on the legal profession that can dismiss people on the jury
for no explained reason (but it was really because they were
knowledgeable) so you end up with OJ Simpsons jury ...... and the fact
that it's less costly to capitulate when you're right. The suit
against EAA for a crash at a fly-in and the one against the vacuum pump
manufacturer are prime examples. And the newest one against the carb
manufacturer. Nobody is immune. And that's going to ruin this country.
Linn
do not archive
N395V wrote:
| | - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
