Name one certified plane that you would buy IF......
 

It cost $50,000 to $75,000 less (probably smaller amounts for lower cost aircraft).

I can't think of one so the liability premium is not a factor to me.

Me either.

$50k to $75k less would make a new G1000 C-172 (they don't sell steam gauges anymore) about $145k to $170k. A new Warrior III about $25k less. Neither one will do anything the '75 Skyhawk I used to own wouldn't do - for 1/3 of the price!

Those may be reasonable prices in the market, and I understand the economics of low volume, but at those amounts the value I get for my dollar is just atrocious compared to any other product I own - heck I can get a HOUSE for that much money.

The whole reason for the Experimental category was to allow regular people to learn skills and aeronautical knowledge by building and flying "THEIR" airplane. The "SPECIAL AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE" ( the pink one) is awarded to those planes built by those people who do this for that purpose. Hiring a service to build an airplane usurps this concept and illegally obtains a Special AWC under false pretenses. Building an airplane with the intent to sell it for gainful profit is equally dishonest and illegal. I feel no sorrow for anyone knowingly entering into an agreement to by or build an airplane under false pretenses and gets bit.

Builders for hire should certify themselves as any other aircraft manufacturer has to. Buyers and builders best heed to warnings or be prepared for the worst. If it preserves our hobby as it was intended, I say throw the book at anyone who violates the rules.

If we allow these infractions and violations to continue, we won't only be grandfathering 51% kits, we'll be grandfathering all completed kits with AWCs and ending any future personal building under the Special AWC.

Yes, there are many entities that can build superior aircraft, but they must do it within the rules. Yes, there are those who are, or claim to be, unskilled. Then they should seek to develop skills. That is what this whole homebuilt experimental thing is all about. REMEMBER!!!!!

JMHO and the law

Roberta

51 Per Cent
 

AMEN Roberta!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My sentiments exactly!!!!! Wish I could have said it as well as you did.

The frog and the frying pan
 

The federal govt is out of control. I should know. Cars pass each other within inches at closing speeds of 160 mph, nobody goes crazy if someone builds a street rod in his garage. The only reason any of this is even an issue is because aviation is controlled by the federal govt. 46,000 people are killed on our nations highways every year and it is assumed to be part of the cost of living our lives. Honestly what business is it of anybodys if someone goes and safely flys his homebuilt or any other not for hire airplane? We are losing our rights daily because of the stupidity of the blind and unknowing public. The frog and the frying pan.

EXACTLY!
 

Perfectly said Roberta! Thank you for taking the time to put all that into words.

Roberta has elegantly stated her viewpoint, and I agree with much of what she says. However, I do not care for laws that require knowledge of what one's "intent" is. Who is really in a position to know the intentions of others?Should we call out the thought police?

"Intentions" also tend to change through time. Exactly how long does my intent have to be limited to personal recreational flying before I am allowed to legally sell the plane I built for the market price with a clear conscience?

I would prefer the laws focus on defining the acceptable standards for aircraft safety and stay away from guessing what our intentions may be with respect to buying and selling aircraft.

respectfully,

erich

Erich,
I, and I'm sure many others, would agree with you. The problem is, the purpose of the regs aren't to regulate you're intent. They are simply a result of the growing problem of those few who believe they have the right to do what they want and circumvent the intent of the law.

Laws that require knowledge of one's intent wouldn't exist if one would respect the intent of the law in the first place.

I Only Disagree Completely
 

Well, the builder I know doesn't seem to be awash in cash, and he very much enjoys the process, and learns from each plane. So what if he sells it? This is what allows him to build another.

If you had your way Roberta, we wouldn't have any repeat offenders, and we would be missing our on some serious knowledge than came come from building many RVs, knowledge which the factory does not possess by the way, because they have never built more than a few of each model!

If the builder holds the Repairman's Certificate, and the buyer is willing, who gets hurt? Answer: Nobody. The aircraft is still experimental, still cannot be used for commercial purposes. Don't forget an experimental category AWC is issued to prototype planes, and certified planes testing modifications.

I disagree that it is against the law, and I think that your interpretation would rob a lot of people from flying an RV built just the way they want it. How could that be good?

By the way you talk, you make it sound like you think FAA certification of airplanes has made flying airplanes safer! :eek:

I find these attitudes expressing outrage over *gainful profit* downright, well, COMMUNIST!

Nucleus
:D

Amateur built vs. manufactured
 

Nucleus and others:

It very much matters if the individual is manufacturing airplanes as a business. The regulations for amateur built aircraft do not allow it, even if the manufacturer is only running a one man shop in his garage. Roberta does not need me to defend her, but nothing she has written would limit repeat offenders, only manufacturers masquerading as amateur builders.

The other issues you and others have raised, such as "...who gets hurt?...Nobody" (highly debatable), the generally high quality of finished kit airplanes, proffitting from the sale of an amateur built airplane, or the desirability of allowing people to do whatever they want, are all completely irrelevant.

Allow me to paraphrase a Supreme Court justice and state that while I cannot define an amateur built airplane, I know one when I see one. And I know manufacturers passing themselves off as amateur builders, too. These are the people who, by abusing regulations, are inviting increased government oversight and quite possibly increased restrictions on our hobby. They are doing this for their own profit at my expense, and I very much resent it.

And, make no mistake, FAA regulation, including certification of aircraft, has made flying safer.