P

pat

Well Known Member
This thread is Pauls idea and is meant for constructive thought and dialogue concerning "homebuilt" aircraft and it's current and future place in EAA. Notice I didnt say experimental. Like many of you, i have had the pleasure of restoring, repairing and currently building both certified and homebuilt aircraft. Nothing experimental about my repairs, building techniques, materials, flying or design build (8-A). Which brings me to my point.
The use of the terms "homebuilt" and "experimental". I understand the legacy and legality of "experimental" but the term "homebuilt" doesn't convey, to the public, what we do or what we have contributed to the advancement of air and space aviation. If you ask anyone outside our community or even many certified drivers about homebuilts they think your talking about the construction trades. I believe it's time we clearly define who we are and what we represent and to me it is "Sport Aircraft" (or something similar). I would like to hear other thoughts on this idea or other ideas of where we fit in with EAA.
 
Both "experimental" and "homebuilt" can have negative connotations.

Call aircraft like RVs "Custom"
 
Semantics

Experimental is a very broad term, including things like 787s while undergoing certification. Homebuilt is a little more to the point of what we are doing, but it has always sounded a little "flakey" to the public. My feeling is that "kit built" is closer to what is going on with RVs. So, I am stuck with calling my '8' an experimental when the FAA is listening, a homebuilt around the EAA, and a kit bulit when explaining it to someone at a cocktail party. :rolleyes:

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAAST Team Representative
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
IMHO...
Maybe we should educate the public on the safety record of experimental and homebuilt aircraft as compared to certified aircraft.

I guess I don't like the idea of changing the name because it has negative connotations. That what politicians do.

I always try to educate non-aviation people as to the differences, especially related to the maintenance & the vested interest of the pilot in providing a safe aircraft.
 
I like Experimental

Just because most of the EABs are RVs I do not think the masses should take away the oportunity and freedom that is encoded into the current rules. That is what will happen and maybe that's what you want to happen. I already see the shift in our ranks toward control and stiffling creativity and I'm sorry folks I'm not with you on this march to submission.

Experimental Aircraft Association forever!

Bob Axsom
 
DanLandry said:
IMHO...
Maybe we should educate the public on the safety record of experimental and homebuilt aircraft as compared to certified aircraft.
Click to expand...

I believe that you would make things worse since custom aircraft have a far worse safety record than certified aircraft:

From the Nall report as listed on RVFlightSafety.org

"According to the 2010 Joseph T. Nall Report

“Accidents in amateur-built aircraft remain a major contributor to the overall non-commercial accident rates. In 2009, the accident rate among amateur-built aircraft was just under four times the rate for type-certificated aircraft, and their fatal accident rate was more than six and a half times higher.” (Source: 2010 Nall Report, page 37)"
 
I'm with Bob

More than anything, the focus of the EAA should be preserving and protecting the rights of individuals to build and fly their own aircraft. I don't really care what's in the magazine, I can read it or not as I choose. They can market themselves to a wider audience than builders, as long they don't forget the "prime directive".:) I don't see any necessary conflict in this. I will continue to support the EAA as long as I feel they are advocating for us and our right to build and enjoy our aircraft.

Plus, if they can count a wider group of aviators than just builders, it gives them more clout to advocate in the political arena. The more people and money in a group, the more seriously a group is taken.

Just my 2c

Damon
 
Last edited:
Bob Axsom said:
Just because most of the EABs are RVs I do not think the masses should take away the oportunity and freedom that is encoded into the current rules. That is what will happen and maybe that's what you want to happen. I already see the shift in our ranks toward control and stiffling creativity and I'm sorry folks I'm not with you on this march to submission.

Experimental Aircraft Association forever!

Bob Axsom
Click to expand...

Concur! No bubble wrap and knitting needles for me !!!
 
N355DW said:
More than anything, the focus of the EAA should be preserving and protecting the rights of individuals to build and fly their own aircraft. I don't really care what's in the magazine, I can read it or not as I choose. They can market themselves to a wider audience than builders, as long they don't forget the "prime directive".:) I don't see any necessary conflict in this. I will continue to support the EAA as long as I feel they are advocating for us and our right to build and enjoy our aircraft.

Plus, if they can count a wider group of aviators than just builders, it gives them more clout to advocate in the political arena. The more people and money in a group, the more seriously a group is taken.

Just my 2c

Damon
Click to expand...


WELL said. Without a larger number of members, the EAA's voice will not have as much clout.

Remember Warbirds and racers are EXPERIMENTAL just like us KIT BUILT or home-builders.

All the other types that EAA has attempted to recruit are the same type of aviators that fly Experimental kit built or home built aircraft. We are all SPORT AVIATORS much like the title of the magazine Sport Aviation.

I am not second guessing what EAA HQ is doing. I believe that there are good people running EAA. Yes good people do make errors and at some time in the future be able to say that but right now without more facts, I do not believe that errors are taking place that will make OUR ORGANIZATION worse off.

EAA LIFETIME Member
 
pat said:
<snip>... I believe it's time we clearly define who we are and what we represent and to me it is "Sport Aircraft" (or something similar). I would like to hear other thoughts on this idea or other ideas of where we fit in with EAA.
Click to expand...
Pat,

Possibly the following statement from EAA will help answer your question about where "we" fit in; Excerpt taken from EAA's Mission Statement - "EAA is dedicated to serving all of aviation". Looks like anything and everything aviation fits right in.
 
Its clear

that EAA has been working toward an all encompassing aviation organization. I believe this started well before Rod did. Actually Im OK with it. But... as EAA continues to evolve, I believe its important to clearly define who we are and what we represent. Experimental is to broad, it defines the organization but not our catagory. As stated prior, warbirds are experimental but thats not who we are (just ask them!). Ask anyone what a warbird is and they can reasonably tell you. Ask the same people what a homebuilt is...
btw. I too am a lifetime EAA member.
 
Van, to both his credit and blame has created an aircraft that ?anyone? can put together. This has not only increased the number of successful experimental aircraft in the skies (a good thing), but has also allowed an increased number of ?marginal? builders to complete and fly (a bad thing). While it?s my opinion that airplanes should require significantly more effort than opening a blister pack of pre welded, powder coated parts and bolting them together - we are where we are. That said, the success of the series does not in any way allow the RV horde to redefine the Experimental category to better align with their vision. There are still many of us who still cut, weld, drill, rivet, layup and glue raw material from existing plans or those we design ourselves ? and I can assure you that ?experimental? is very much what we do and it is a source of pride.

If you all want to break off into a ?Kit Assembler? category, that?s fine with me, but please leave the E-AB category alone.
 
pat said:
"Sport Aircraft"
Click to expand...
Too similar to Light Sport Aircraft, which has a clearly defined meaning. Any new name will pick up whatever connotations attach to current names....

DanLandry said:
Maybe we should educate the public on the safety record of experimental and homebuilt aircraft as compared to certified aircraft.
Click to expand...
Ouch! Our safety record is abysmal compared to certified aircraft. Maybe educated ourselves, and improve ourselves, first.

I think the bigger thing to do, which would take some years, is to fit another legal category or two in between Certified (or is it Certificated?) and Experimental aircraft. I'm thinking specifically of pro-built kit planes. There already is demand for them and the "builders" are skirting the fringes of legality in the Experimental category.
 
We all want to educate, anyway....

Born of the need to make the distinction between my home I built and for which I am more recognized (even among my fellow aeronautical engineers) than for my "homebuilt" airplane, I initiate new conversations with the long-winded phrase "experimental category, kit-built airplane." Too much information, in this case, rarely fails to draw clarifying questions and discussion.
 
Owner Built

Bob Nuckolls refers to "homebuilt" aircraft as OBAM - Owner Built and Maintained. It would separate us from the X-planes.
 
How about "Personal Aircraft"? "Custom" has been suggested as well, but custom is kind of understood in a general sense to describe a product built by someone else for you. With a personal aircraft you are making all of the decisions including how much you experiment, how much you design yourself,and how much you sub out to someone else.

I am not sure it is important to separate them as a separate category, though. It will draw more attention to the category if it sticks but that could be good or bad. It is the only segment of aviation that is growing, even if it is growing verrry slowly, this makes some folks happy and some folks nervous.

Tim
 
tjo said:
How about "Personal Aircraft"? "Custom" has been suggested as well, but custom is kind of understood in a general sense to describe a product built by someone else for you.
Click to expand...
"Experimental - Amateur Built" works for me and describes my airplane well. For those who prefer different regs or who would prefer a professional-built airplane, CFR Part 23 has been around for a long time.
 
to clarify

in my previous statements i was referring to "we" as all EAB planes not just RV's. To get back to my original point, we as a group are known as homebuilders. As EAA is overt in plans to encompass all aviation (warbirds, ultralights, antique/classic, space, VLJ, corporate, certificated, homebuilts etc...) does the term homebuilt adequately portray who we are? I believe we (EAB) have accomplished more to advance aviation than any other group. I dont believe the term homebuilt gives the builder/experimentor or businesses that support us adequate representation. The term says nothing regarding the vast resources of intellectual, experimental, financial and loss of life that has been expended getting us to where we are today. To me, its just the opposite. Homebuilt annotates the idea that these planes were just thrown together last weekend in our garage. Yes, educating the public is vital but why start the conversation by justifying that we didnt just whip this plane together. Many thanks to all that have replied.
 
I?m having a hard time figuring out what problem we are trying to solve here. While it?s true that many pilots look down their noses at us, that?s simply going to happen as long as we are building our own airplanes rather than buying them from Cessna, Piper, Beech or TBM? And when you look at the broader view, the general public views ANY airplane with a propeller as ?old?, ?scary? or ?small?. While many of us would consider it the ultimate in luxury to arrive in our own King Air or TBM, the majority of the travelling public would consider that mode of transportation an insult and/or dangerous.

It?s my opinion that no matter what kind of brand management you apply here, as long as we keep building our own airplanes, we are still going to be labeled insane at cocktail parties.

...and I'm perfectly OK with that!
 
Bob Axsom said:
Just because most of the EABs are RVs I do not think the masses should take away the oportunity and freedom that is encoded into the current rules. That is what will happen and maybe that's what you want to happen. I already see the shift in our ranks toward control and stiffling creativity and I'm sorry folks I'm not with you on this march to submission.

Experimental Aircraft Association forever!

Bob Axsom
Click to expand...

Toobuilder said:
I’m having a hard time figuring out what problem we are trying to solve here. While it’s true that many pilots look down their noses at us, that’s simply going to happen as long as we are building our own airplanes rather than buying them from Cessna, Piper, Beech or TBM… And when you look at the broader view, the general public views ANY airplane with a propeller as “old”, “scary” or “small”. While many of us would consider it the ultimate in luxury to arrive in our own King Air or TBM, the majority of the travelling public would consider that mode of transportation an insult and/or dangerous.

It’s my opinion that no matter what kind of brand management you apply here, as long as we keep building our own airplanes, we are still going to be labeled insane at cocktail parties.

...and I'm perfectly OK with that!
Click to expand...

+ a lot

Wouldn't any separation just be a request to add more restriction and regulation to your build? Less freedom and ability to.....experiment and modify? If you don't want to do that, just don't.

Why do we want this? Sure a lot of kit builds are not all that experimental -- but any changes at the regulation level will likely either add restriction to our kit builts or "more experimental" EAB, or both.

Now I know this was in the context of the EAA not FAA...but...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.