[LettersFromFlyoverCountry]

Is there a breakdown somewhere of how many of the winners actually built their airplanes?

{ed: These posts were moved from a thread intended to recognize the OSH 2011 Award winners. The subject quesiton was throwing questions upon compeletely innocent , legitimate winners who deserved recognition. }

 

[jrouault]

Is there a breakdown somewhere of how many of the winners actually built their airplanes?

Can't speak for the others, but I built mine.

 

[Danny7]

Is there a breakdown somewhere of how many of the winners actually built their airplanes?

That is an interesting statement coming from someone that wouldn't be finishing his airplane without lots of help from others, paid or otherwise, if the things i read on this and other internet sources are true.

Now before i get jumped on for "attacking" a loved member of the site and press (don't attack those guys...) whats the difference (between Mr. Collins getting help (paid or not) and other builders getting help (paid or not)? I think it is mostly the amount of money some people have, not breaking the regulations. Mr. Collins has been a pay as you go kind of guy for the vast majority of his build, and if he had just a little more money, wasn't looking at different employment (pay) possibilities and health care issues coming up he probably wouldn't of had to accept help from any of the caring members of the vans homebuilder community.

Some people have so much more money than that they value their time much more than doing a build for five or ten years and want their plane flying in 6 months. Is there something wrong with that? some might say it is going to threaten our ability to build, if they don't build any of it themselves. In other words, they break the law. well i say punish those that break the law, but don't restrict all the others that follow the law, even if they are paying money to get done faster! Do we think jay pratts customers are breaking the law because they get done fast and the planes look good? No! further, don't cast doubt on a whole class of award winners because there is a possibility some of them paid for help on their builds!

maybe i'm sensitive after the twtt thread but the comments that cast derision on the whole class of award winners really seem to raise my ire... i've neber built a good enough plane for an award, but i've worked on them a little. its a lot of work. they have my congratulations...

now, the most prominent (in my mind) is the orange (tangerine) rocket that was recently in kitplanes (and i believe tragically burned recently: maybe it would have been good to have some paid help looking over the fuel connections?) and was an award winner (09 copperstate flyin) and probably would have done well at oshkosh, if it wasn't tragically burned.

whats the point? Mr Johnson took 8 years and 6500 hours, along with his build partner. they are both first time builders, not repeat offenders...

 

[Captain Avgas]

That is an interesting statement coming from someone that wouldn't be finishing his airplane without lots of help from others, paid or otherwise, if the things i read on this and other internet sources are true.

Now before i get jumped on for "attacking" a loved member of the site and press (don't attack those guys...) whats the difference (between Mr. Collins getting help (paid or not) and other builders getting help (paid or not)? I think it is mostly the amount of money some people have, not breaking the regulations. Mr. Collins has been a pay as you go kind of guy for the vast majority of his build, and if he had just a little more money, wasn't looking at different employment (pay) possibilities and health care issues coming up he probably wouldn't of had to accept help from any of the caring members of the vans homebuilder community.

You're getting hopelessly confused between two entirely different issues. One issue is whether cheque-book building in the Experimental category is morally/legally legitimate. That issue has been exhaustively dealt with in numerous, lengthy Vans Airforce threads and needs no further discussion here.

The second, and more relevant issue (considering that this is a thread about aircraft awards) is whether it is morally/legally legitimate for a cheque-book builder to win an award for his aircraft. This is the question that Bob Collins has astutely raised.

The answer to this second question depends purely on what is being judged....the owner's aircraft or the owner's workmanship.

In Australia the Sport Aircraft Association of Australia (SAAA) makes it quite clear in their annual Experimental aircraft judging that it is the owner's workmanship that is being judged. Consequently the SAAA entry form requires that "builders" sign a statutory declaration stating quite clearly what parts of the aircraft construction they did (or did not) perform themselves.

This is based on the obvious fact that one cannot provide evidence of widespread building skills if one has not performed widespread building tasks. Winners can subsequently be stripped of awards if it turns out that they have misrepresented their contribution to the build process.

Personally I'm inclined to believe that most people would support the idea that Experimental awards should be a recognition of building skills rather than a recognition of who has the most money to direct towards obtaining professional building assistance.

 

[Danny7]

You're getting hopelessly confused between two entirely different issues. One issue is whether cheque-book building in the Experimental category is morally/legally legitimate. That issue has been exhaustively dealt with in numerous, lengthy Vans Airforce threads and needs no further discussion here.

The second, and more relevant issue (considering that this is a thread about aircraft awards) is whether it is morally/legally legitimate for a cheque-book builder to win an award for his aircraft. This is the question that Bob Collins has astutely raised.

the only thing hopeless (in my mind) was the idea that the original statement will be recognized by some people for managing to cast doubt on the whole of the award winners, by questioning who was completely self built and who received paid help. We've already had several people comment on how their awards were for things they've done, and they did it themselves. The statement managed to paint with a broad brush that might of had some specific point to it, but it makes in general some people think "did any of the award winners really deserve that award"? I don't really care if it was in australia or new zealand or GB or germany or wherever, i thought it rather careless of a member of the press and a "regular" vaf member to dirty the whole of the award winners with the idea that some of them didn't deserve it.

I mentioned the twtt because it was related, but it was not my concern whether there are people out there entering judging competitions with such aircraft or aircraft that received significant paid help in the competitions. I can think of one aircraft that if i had to put some money on received major help. That doesn't mean i doubt any of the award winners because i know *someone had extra help

 

[LettersFromFlyoverCountry]

Aw, c'mon, folks. Dial it back. It's just a joke.

Feel the love, man. There are so many more important things in the world to waste time getting outraged about than perceived -- wrongly so, by the way -- slights on an Internet board.

For the record. I'm very happy for the help I've received in building my RV-7A. I like to think I've returned the favor from time to time.

Let's leave it at that and move on. Go back to your homes. There's nothing to see here.