Completely unbelieveable! "Government is not invariably incompetent." Wow! Only in America.
Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
New FAA Policy on Amateur Building Released
- Thread starter JerryG150
- Start date
Completely unbelieveable! "Government is not invariably incompetent." Wow! Only in America.
I got a nice reply from EAA. They are all over it. The first order of business is to get the public comment period extended to September 30. They have issues with the vague "fabrication" business. You are welcome to send comments/concerns to Joe Norris at EAA ([email protected]). There are a couple of forums planned for OSH.
Phyrcooler
Well Known Member
I received a nice reply to an email I sent to Tom Green at Van's. They too are "full tilt" in challenging these rules in conjunction with the EAA. He shares my concern on the impact to future kit designs. And lastly he states:
DJ
There has been a lot of postulating and a bit of thread drift here. If we can get back to the task at hand and get everyone to actually write the FAA and express your concerns... AND your support for rules that still allows amateur construction of kits comparable to the current quick build kits already approved.
DJ
Good read on AVWeb
Here's a great article on AVWeb about the proposed rule making by the FAA, I highly suggest all those interested in preserving homebuilding as we know it give this a read:
Backward Owner Built Rules
I'm crafting my response to the FAA now and will post it here when I send it off. I hope that you all do the same; we need to make our voices heard!
Here's a great article on AVWeb about the proposed rule making by the FAA, I highly suggest all those interested in preserving homebuilding as we know it give this a read:
Backward Owner Built Rules
I'm crafting my response to the FAA now and will post it here when I send it off. I hope that you all do the same; we need to make our voices heard!
pierre smith
Well Known Member
I say again......
......that you need to read "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross.
Regards,
......that you need to read "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross.
Regards,
sonny junell
Well Known Member
The FAA works for us
I think we all forgot that the goverment works for us "FAA"
if we don't like what there doing lets go down to out local fsdo every monday 8am.. . I pesoanly did not think there was any thing wrong with the rules that were in place,. . Isn't this expermental aviation
I think we all forgot that the goverment works for us "FAA"
if we don't like what there doing lets go down to out local fsdo every monday 8am.. . I pesoanly did not think there was any thing wrong with the rules that were in place,. . Isn't this expermental aviation
Last edited by a moderator:
Dangerous Dan
Active Member
More restrictions on flying
I agree, send letters and try to inform our law makers.
I just want to fly a cheap fast airplane I can work on and make minor alterations. Like a hot rod car owner, or motorcycle chopper. I beleive it is the essance of being american.
I am working In Iraq saving money to buy an existing vans RV-4.
Now I know why everyone freaked out when I started asking about a place to have one built with the Specifications I wanted.. I have little idea yet about "amature built" VS "experimental" or whatever. No worries I will buy a flying RV and have it modified.
My current bird, a 1960 Tri-pacer was built in a time when airplane manufacturers did things different the (fuel gages) are auto parts. The flight gages are surplus military. Just like you all do now (I think). The construction quality is probably less than the super caring builders of the average Vans plane. That was 1960 in USA. You cannot imagine the paper work to replace the old automobile gage with a new PMA certified gage... (field approval, STC, 337s) USA in 2008...
I sense that in the 1930 most towns had their home grown airplane factories. Wonder what regulations they had to deal with....
How about the "Spirt of Saint Louis" 51% I dont think so..
Cessna stopped building small airplanes due to regulations. The largest manufacturer of aircraft carberators just went out of bussiness for insurance costs.
Do you see a trend....
The old guy that is my mechanic was tought by an old guy that wrenched on Amelia Airharts plane. When the FAA came out with pilots licenses. Aerharts mechanic fought them saying "I dont need a license, I already fly and build planes". Living in West Virginia there is a farmer that sneaks his ol piper cub out for occasional flights, no license, no registraition, his air strip on the farm. The frustraited FAA is still trying to stop him.
My point is in "Our USA today" the bussiness of our govt is regulation, fees and taxes. My favorite example of our government is those elections where the people vote one way and then the state government decieds to do it the opposite anyway (State benefits to illeagal aliens in California).
I guess the answer is write and rally and communicate our goals.
Some say "its progress".
One person above wrote its better to restrict building than flying. We had a HUGE success in defeating flying user fees. I will insure my AOPA and EAA dues are paid up. I was told early on Experimentals were not allowed to be operated over populated areas.. Glad that is not the case
Maybe some day there will be so many regulations that they mostly wont have any affect on anything.. See how 337's are processed now...
May I humbly suggest adding our flying concerns in your prayers. Respectfully, Dan
I agree, send letters and try to inform our law makers.
I just want to fly a cheap fast airplane I can work on and make minor alterations. Like a hot rod car owner, or motorcycle chopper. I beleive it is the essance of being american.
I am working In Iraq saving money to buy an existing vans RV-4.
Now I know why everyone freaked out when I started asking about a place to have one built with the Specifications I wanted.. I have little idea yet about "amature built" VS "experimental" or whatever. No worries I will buy a flying RV and have it modified.
My current bird, a 1960 Tri-pacer was built in a time when airplane manufacturers did things different the (fuel gages) are auto parts. The flight gages are surplus military. Just like you all do now (I think). The construction quality is probably less than the super caring builders of the average Vans plane. That was 1960 in USA. You cannot imagine the paper work to replace the old automobile gage with a new PMA certified gage... (field approval, STC, 337s) USA in 2008...
I sense that in the 1930 most towns had their home grown airplane factories. Wonder what regulations they had to deal with....
How about the "Spirt of Saint Louis" 51% I dont think so..
Cessna stopped building small airplanes due to regulations. The largest manufacturer of aircraft carberators just went out of bussiness for insurance costs.
Do you see a trend....
The old guy that is my mechanic was tought by an old guy that wrenched on Amelia Airharts plane. When the FAA came out with pilots licenses. Aerharts mechanic fought them saying "I dont need a license, I already fly and build planes". Living in West Virginia there is a farmer that sneaks his ol piper cub out for occasional flights, no license, no registraition, his air strip on the farm. The frustraited FAA is still trying to stop him.
My point is in "Our USA today" the bussiness of our govt is regulation, fees and taxes. My favorite example of our government is those elections where the people vote one way and then the state government decieds to do it the opposite anyway (State benefits to illeagal aliens in California).
I guess the answer is write and rally and communicate our goals.
Some say "its progress".
One person above wrote its better to restrict building than flying. We had a HUGE success in defeating flying user fees. I will insure my AOPA and EAA dues are paid up. I was told early on Experimentals were not allowed to be operated over populated areas.. Glad that is not the case
Maybe some day there will be so many regulations that they mostly wont have any affect on anything.. See how 337's are processed now...
May I humbly suggest adding our flying concerns in your prayers.
Respectfully, Dan
20%.....hmmm
Ok, how do you determine what is 20%.
As I reflect back, if each part is 1 piece no matter what the size, then a longeron = a motor mount = 1 skin = a spacer = a bracket.
Some wing skins are raw stock with punched holes that we had to redrill by match drilling EVERY hole.
The canopy was a piece of plexiglass that we have to do everything except the initial mold.
How many pieces did we make from raw stock and have to cut, fit, drill, etc...out of angle, bar, sheet, etc.
Even the plastic pieces used in flap mounts were nothing but blocks.
Come on folks, If you add it up, I suspect that you could blow by 20% if you added up the pieces. In just wiring alone, raw stock wire has been cut in a hundred different pieces to make connections. For the most part, Van's just gathered up the raw materials for everyone and cut much to appropoximate size to keep waste cost down.
My guess is the 20% rule is meant to suggest they don't want a builder to take all parts out of the box and bolt it together such as the flaps and ailerons are 4 pieces, not 100. If memory serves correctly, raw materials were used here. Galvanized pipe as a counter weight. Aileron mounts out of bar stock. Wasn't the skin just a flat sheet with a fold?
I have a 3 gallon bucket FULL of cut pieces of scrap which I'll put in the recycle bin when I'm finished with the plane. I dare anyone to suggest that I didn't have to handle a lot or raw materials.
Before anyone jumps up and down, start thinking about how much fabricating you did........hmmmm....1 gear leg, 1 brake line....hey that's 50% I built.
Ok, how do you determine what is 20%.
As I reflect back, if each part is 1 piece no matter what the size, then a longeron = a motor mount = 1 skin = a spacer = a bracket.
Some wing skins are raw stock with punched holes that we had to redrill by match drilling EVERY hole.
The canopy was a piece of plexiglass that we have to do everything except the initial mold.
How many pieces did we make from raw stock and have to cut, fit, drill, etc...out of angle, bar, sheet, etc.
Even the plastic pieces used in flap mounts were nothing but blocks.
Come on folks, If you add it up, I suspect that you could blow by 20% if you added up the pieces. In just wiring alone, raw stock wire has been cut in a hundred different pieces to make connections. For the most part, Van's just gathered up the raw materials for everyone and cut much to appropoximate size to keep waste cost down.
My guess is the 20% rule is meant to suggest they don't want a builder to take all parts out of the box and bolt it together such as the flaps and ailerons are 4 pieces, not 100. If memory serves correctly, raw materials were used here. Galvanized pipe as a counter weight. Aileron mounts out of bar stock. Wasn't the skin just a flat sheet with a fold?
I have a 3 gallon bucket FULL of cut pieces of scrap which I'll put in the recycle bin when I'm finished with the plane. I dare anyone to suggest that I didn't have to handle a lot or raw materials.
Before anyone jumps up and down, start thinking about how much fabricating you did........hmmmm....1 gear leg, 1 brake line....hey that's 50% I built.
20% E-AB
This may be off course, but it seems to me that if you want to build the RV-12 as an E-AB instead of the LSA then:
You build (from scratch)
(1) Landing light box in the wing for night flight/landing.
(2) Custom fit engine mount for different engine.
(3) Bend up a new oil cooling tank.
(4) Make your own "ergonomic" seat with a nice print of your cheeks in it
(5) new cowling. (for new engine)
(6) Your own gas tank that is shaped slightly different.
(7) Perhaps your own locking mechanism for the canopy.
(8) Personalized tie downs.
(9) Build your own wheel fairings.
(10) Custom instrument panel.
(11) etc...
And now all the sudden you have actually built an E-AB instead of the exact kit that Van's sent you. Reading through the list there are always people saying "If ony it had ....", why not just build your own xxx, bolt it on and chalk up a few % points of built from scratch items? Seems to me that a case can be built for 20% just by adding a few of our own ideas to the mix.
--Jordan
This may be off course, but it seems to me that if you want to build the RV-12 as an E-AB instead of the LSA then:
You build (from scratch)
(1) Landing light box in the wing for night flight/landing.
(2) Custom fit engine mount for different engine.
(3) Bend up a new oil cooling tank.
(4) Make your own "ergonomic" seat with a nice print of your cheeks in it
(5) new cowling. (for new engine)
(6) Your own gas tank that is shaped slightly different.
(7) Perhaps your own locking mechanism for the canopy.
(8) Personalized tie downs.
(9) Build your own wheel fairings.
(10) Custom instrument panel.
(11) etc...
And now all the sudden you have actually built an E-AB instead of the exact kit that Van's sent you. Reading through the list there are always people saying "If ony it had ....", why not just build your own xxx, bolt it on and chalk up a few % points of built from scratch items? Seems to me that a case can be built for 20% just by adding a few of our own ideas to the mix.
--Jordan
Alan Gilmore
Active Member
This may be off course, but it seems to me that if you want to build the RV-12 as an E-AB instead of the LSA then:
You build (from scratch)
(1) Landing light box in the wing for night flight/landing.
(2) Custom fit engine mount for different engine.
(3) Bend up a new oil cooling tank.
(4) Make your own "ergonomic" seat with a nice print of your cheeks in it
(5) new cowling. (for new engine)
(6) Your own gas tank that is shaped slightly different.
(7) Perhaps your own locking mechanism for the canopy.
(8) Personalized tie downs.
(9) Build your own wheel fairings.
(10) Custom instrument panel.
(11) etc...
And now all the sudden you have actually built an E-AB instead of the exact kit that Van's sent you. Reading through the list there are always people saying "If ony it had ....", why not just build your own xxx, bolt it on and chalk up a few % points of built from scratch items? Seems to me that a case can be built for 20% just by adding a few of our own ideas to the mix.
--Jordan
This approach has some merit in my way of thinking and is worth discussion. I would not mind doing some of the fabrication (to obtain the 20 percent) if it gave me some more freedom for modifications later. My current approach is to follow the Vans instruction until I can determine that this approach is VERY feasable. I want to avoid going down a road that might not produce the necessary 20 percent, and then realize I cant get it licensed under either method.
So, my question is..."is the draft complete enough to determine what items can be fabricated such that the 20 percent is obtained?"
Let's keep thinking about this!
RudiGreyling
Well Known Member
Hi Guys,
My being from South Africa have read this and think you USA guys are on a very slippery road downhill ;-). Your FAA is losing sight of fundementals! (Not that ours is in SA is any better, just much slower, and in the end ours will addopt something simliar to yours, so PLEASE STOP this EARLY!)
I think the Van's proposal to time to build (effort HOURS) allocated is the easiest and most elegant method.
1) Scatch build builder A that does everything from plans and sources and manufucatures from real raw materials by hand takes 1000H to complete = he gets 100%
2) Builder B that let a company (Vans) source and form the raw materials in shapes ready to use to assemble airplane. Vans time to mass produce components with machinery (200H). Builder puts it together (400H) builder gets 400H of 600H credit i.e. 66% still good he spend major portion as ametuer builder.
3) Builder C that gets company Vans to form raw materials (200H) and Company ACME to assemble most of airplane (quick build) (200H), and only spend (200H) himself to complete. He can only get 200H of 600H credit i.e. 33% sorry you are not really an amateur builder in the strict rule of the word ie spend more than 50% of the effort...BUT YOU did SPEND 25% - 50% of the effort! Give you some credit!
Now from a SAFETY perspective which the FAA should enforce, everything being equal, same builder same skills, same company manufactering parts, and a company that assembles many same kits, should have better safety record than a first time builder.
Builder C has the Safest airplane, Followed by B, and lastly by A.
I think FAA should ecourage mass production of preformed parts, the quality and hence the safety is just so much better, But it should watch out for hired guns abusing the rule and selling Almost Ready to Fly airplanes.
So that bring me to the last category ALMOST READY to FLY airplanes...they should be treated in another matter, becuase the actual owner spend less than 25% of the actual HOUR effort, but arguably could have the safest airplane by far!
Allocation of actual Build Hour effort Makes much more sense to categorise things!
The current FAA checklist is unmanagable it creates more confusion
PS: How long is it suppose to take is matter for another discussion, it took me 2500 hours to build my RV while Vans estimated 1300-1400 hours.
Regards
Rudi
My being from South Africa have read this and think you USA guys are on a very slippery road downhill ;-). Your FAA is losing sight of fundementals! (Not that ours is in SA is any better, just much slower, and in the end ours will addopt something simliar to yours, so PLEASE STOP this EARLY!)
I think the Van's proposal to time to build (effort HOURS) allocated is the easiest and most elegant method.
1) Scatch build builder A that does everything from plans and sources and manufucatures from real raw materials by hand takes 1000H to complete = he gets 100%
2) Builder B that let a company (Vans) source and form the raw materials in shapes ready to use to assemble airplane. Vans time to mass produce components with machinery (200H). Builder puts it together (400H) builder gets 400H of 600H credit i.e. 66% still good he spend major portion as ametuer builder.
3) Builder C that gets company Vans to form raw materials (200H) and Company ACME to assemble most of airplane (quick build) (200H), and only spend (200H) himself to complete. He can only get 200H of 600H credit i.e. 33% sorry you are not really an amateur builder in the strict rule of the word ie spend more than 50% of the effort...BUT YOU did SPEND 25% - 50% of the effort! Give you some credit!
Now from a SAFETY perspective which the FAA should enforce, everything being equal, same builder same skills, same company manufactering parts, and a company that assembles many same kits, should have better safety record than a first time builder.
Builder C has the Safest airplane, Followed by B, and lastly by A.
I think FAA should ecourage mass production of preformed parts, the quality and hence the safety is just so much better, But it should watch out for hired guns abusing the rule and selling Almost Ready to Fly airplanes.
So that bring me to the last category ALMOST READY to FLY airplanes...they should be treated in another matter, becuase the actual owner spend less than 25% of the actual HOUR effort, but arguably could have the safest airplane by far!
Allocation of actual Build Hour effort Makes much more sense to categorise things!
The current FAA checklist is unmanagable it creates more confusion
PS: How long is it suppose to take is matter for another discussion, it took me 2500 hours to build my RV while Vans estimated 1300-1400 hours.
Regards
Rudi
Last edited:
BrentHumphreys
Well Known Member
First. I don't think that is necessarily true. As the builder, and pilot of the aircraft I have more of a vested interest in the quality of the finished product than anyone else. That doesn't necessarily mean I am going to build the safest builder either.
In my opinion, the FAA is out to shut down the practice of hiring a plane built for you. The problem is, the rules changes are going to do nothing to stop those that thumb their nose at the existing rule as it stands.
Last edited:
Mike S
Senior Curmudgeon
Please send your comment
Please send your comment to the FAA.
The EAAs site has a link that you can use for sending your comment.
Time is running out for the comment period.
This doesnt take a lot, here is the entire text of my message.
From: Mike Starkey [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 09:35
To: '[email protected]'
Cc: '[email protected]'
Subject: Proposed changes to "51%" rule.
I am opposed to the proposed changes to the existing “51%” rule.
Please leave things as they have been.
If you really want to stop the practice of “hired guns” building for others, I would suggest you send out inspectors posing as customers. After they make a deal with a “hired gun”, put the person in handcuffs, and take them to jail.
It won’t take many repetitions of this action to put this practice to an end. This is a small community, and the word will spread like wildfire.
Please don’t make the vast majority of homebuilders suffer for the actions of a few.
Thank you, Mike Starkey
Please send your comment to the FAA.
The EAAs site has a link that you can use for sending your comment.
Time is running out for the comment period.
This doesnt take a lot, here is the entire text of my message.
From: Mike Starkey [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 09:35
To: '[email protected]'
Cc: '[email protected]'
Subject: Proposed changes to "51%" rule.
I am opposed to the proposed changes to the existing “51%” rule.
Please leave things as they have been.
If you really want to stop the practice of “hired guns” building for others, I would suggest you send out inspectors posing as customers. After they make a deal with a “hired gun”, put the person in handcuffs, and take them to jail.
It won’t take many repetitions of this action to put this practice to an end. This is a small community, and the word will spread like wildfire.
Please don’t make the vast majority of homebuilders suffer for the actions of a few.
Thank you, Mike Starkey
Last edited:
The person building the aircraft for hire isn't breaking any laws. The person breaking the law is the person who signs the 8130-12 stating that he/she built a major portion of the aircraft for education or recreation.
Here's the text of my comments. In further conversations I think they might be considering addressing it with the DAR's who are licensing the commercially-built aircraft. That would be the easy way to stop it, save a lot of tax dollars with a re-write of the regulations, and not make it harder for those who are already complying.
Vic
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 7:47 pm
Subject: Comments to Amateur-Built draft policy
Miguel, I would like to express some thoughts regarding the proposed Amateur Built Aircraft policy. I am currently a DAR for the Atlanta MIDO, and have been for almost 2 years. I have been actively involved in aviation an an Amateur Aircraft builder for almost 30 years. I am an EAA Technical Counselor, EAA Flight Advisor, and Commercial Pilot, and an A&P. I am also an Executive at a Fortune 100 company. So I hope that speaks to my credentials.
While the proposed policy is very well written, it seems that you have gone to a lot of trouble to address a known problem with regards to Amateur built aircraft---that of commercial assistance which is flagrantly violating the intended purpose of the Amateur Built classification. The proposed policy is only going to make our jobs as DAR's very difficult is assessing whether someone has really built 51% of their airplane, and will take away valuable time that could, and should, be spent inspecting the aircraft and insuring that it is in an airworthy condition. I have found all of my inspections except one to be a very enjoyable visit with the builders. I can assess very quickly whether the builder is knowledgeable about his/her aircraft from a building standpoint without the use of a checklist. I have been able to guide builders towards correcting deficiencies in a very constructive manner. The policy currently works as it was intended EXCEPT for a few people who think the rules don't apply to them.
I am very active in the Sport Aviation Community, and 99.9% of the people there are very upset at the flagrant violators and don't understand why we need more rules for those who ALREADY are complying with them. The people that are not complying with the rules today will not comply any better with a new set of rules tomorrow.
thanks for your time. I would certainly be willing to speak further with you at your convenience.
Best Regards,
Vic Syracuse
404-307-5133
Vic
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 7:47 pm
Subject: Comments to Amateur-Built draft policy
Miguel, I would like to express some thoughts regarding the proposed Amateur Built Aircraft policy. I am currently a DAR for the Atlanta MIDO, and have been for almost 2 years. I have been actively involved in aviation an an Amateur Aircraft builder for almost 30 years. I am an EAA Technical Counselor, EAA Flight Advisor, and Commercial Pilot, and an A&P. I am also an Executive at a Fortune 100 company. So I hope that speaks to my credentials.
While the proposed policy is very well written, it seems that you have gone to a lot of trouble to address a known problem with regards to Amateur built aircraft---that of commercial assistance which is flagrantly violating the intended purpose of the Amateur Built classification. The proposed policy is only going to make our jobs as DAR's very difficult is assessing whether someone has really built 51% of their airplane, and will take away valuable time that could, and should, be spent inspecting the aircraft and insuring that it is in an airworthy condition. I have found all of my inspections except one to be a very enjoyable visit with the builders. I can assess very quickly whether the builder is knowledgeable about his/her aircraft from a building standpoint without the use of a checklist. I have been able to guide builders towards correcting deficiencies in a very constructive manner. The policy currently works as it was intended EXCEPT for a few people who think the rules don't apply to them.
I am very active in the Sport Aviation Community, and 99.9% of the people there are very upset at the flagrant violators and don't understand why we need more rules for those who ALREADY are complying with them. The people that are not complying with the rules today will not comply any better with a new set of rules tomorrow.
thanks for your time. I would certainly be willing to speak further with you at your convenience.
Best Regards,
Vic Syracuse
404-307-5133
Last edited:
Alan Gilmore
Active Member
51 percent
Pondering the intent of the law, I have considered a brand new approach:
The FAA could dust the airplane, and see if 51 percent of the fingerprints are mine ;-)
Pondering the intent of the law, I have considered a brand new approach:
The FAA could dust the airplane, and see if 51 percent of the fingerprints are mine ;-)
Mel, there is a lot of truth in your comments, and I appreciate and repect your views. Now, I know that you have looked at the RV-12 and I, for one would like to hear your take on this kit. If a builder did do all of the work, recoreded it to your satisfaction and you were comfortable that it was indeed all in the interest of education, and not in any way supported by a hired gun, would your be comfortable in signing it off as an EAB?
That is pretty much a straight forwad question.
Thanks
Tom
Yes, that is a straight forward question. Unfortunately, there is no straight forward answer. If a kit is not on the 51% approved list, we must make a determination of whether or not it qualifies. As the rule stands now, we are limited to using the 8000.38 list. Since the complete kit is not yet available, this determination cannot be made at this time.
I agree with the point you are making, and would have no problem with it. However, we are bound by the rules and must make an honest decision. If the kit meets 800.38 then you're good to go. If not, there is nothing I can do. If and when the rules change, we will be bound to go by the new rules.
A good example is the Texas Sport kit. I worked with the kit manufacturer and they have achieved 51%. But just barely. If the rules tighten up any at all, they will have to go back and redo some of their kit. They were not able to get the kit on the "list" because of the recent proposed changes.
We are on your side. Believe me, we want these kits to be eligible as amateur-built, but we must adhere to the rules. I will not "fudge" because I enjoy very much what I do and won't do anything to jeapordize my designation.
I agree with the point you are making, and would have no problem with it. However, we are bound by the rules and must make an honest decision. If the kit meets 800.38 then you're good to go. If not, there is nothing I can do. If and when the rules change, we will be bound to go by the new rules.
A good example is the Texas Sport kit. I worked with the kit manufacturer and they have achieved 51%. But just barely. If the rules tighten up any at all, they will have to go back and redo some of their kit. They were not able to get the kit on the "list" because of the recent proposed changes.
We are on your side. Believe me, we want these kits to be eligible as amateur-built, but we must adhere to the rules. I will not "fudge" because I enjoy very much what I do and won't do anything to jeapordize my designation.
Mel, Thank you, so much, for your cander. I understand thoroughly and respect your position. Many of us are holding our breath for the final rule and the associated defintions that we can understand and work with. Time will tell.
By the way, I have my order in. Kit number 119, and I plan to give EAB a try!
Wish me luck!!
Tom
To be totally honest, my feelings are that the FAA will back down somewhat on the new proposed rulings and that the RV-12 will qualify. BUT, that is speculation on my part.
I think that the FAA came out hard initially to give them some "wriggle out" room for the final rule. AGAIN, speculation on my part.
I think that the FAA came out hard initially to give them some "wriggle out" room for the final rule. AGAIN, speculation on my part.
tomcostanza
Well Known Member
Too funny!
Priceless !!
Priceless !!
