Amateur Built

Joe Perkel · 9 October 2009, 03:14 AM

For those not receiving updates on regs or may not have otherwise heard, our right to produce amateur built aircraft in the U.S. has been "preserved." Considering the nature of the "Birth of Aviation" and the Spirit of Adventure that is embedded in our culture, I had little doubt that the detractors would be silenced.

Here are the appropriate references.......

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...C%2020-27G.pdf

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...F%20Ch%204.pdf

TSJohnson · 15 October 2009, 07:28 PM

Thanks Joe,

For those of us on this forum who reside in the USA and wish to build and fly aircraft of our own creation this is very good news. If you don't belong to the EAA - The Spirit of Aviation - Oshkosh, WI or the AOPA Online: Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association I strongly suggest you join and be an active advocate for our freedoms.

Brad · 16 October 2009, 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSJohnson

Thanks Joe,

For those of us on this forum who reside in the USA and wish to build and fly aircraft of our own creation this is very good news. If you don't belong to the EAA - The Spirit of Aviation - Oshkosh, WI or the AOPA Online: Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association I strongly suggest you join and be an active advocate for our freedoms.

The EAA has gone off the deep end IMHO. They spend all their time and efforts on $500,000 "fast glass" and have little interest in the "little guy." I let my membership lapse for that reason. I used to be a very strong supporter of the EAA and in fact was a local chapter VP. I just think they've lost touch with what grassroots aviation is all about.

Those $500,000 "Experimentals" are nothing but a way around the current regulations, and do as much harm to sport aviation as anything else does... yet that is the EAA's main focus now.

Sorry, I'm just really irritated with the direction the EAA has taken.

Joe Perkel · 16 October 2009, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad

The EAA has gone off the deep end IMHO. They spend all their time and efforts on $500,000 "fast glass" and have little interest in the "little guy." I let my membership lapse for that reason. I used to be a very strong supporter of the EAA and in fact was a local chapter VP. I just think they've lost touch with what grassroots aviation is all about.

Those $500,000 "Experimentals" are nothing but a way around the current regulations, and do as much harm to sport aviation as anything else does... yet that is the EAA's main focus now.

Sorry, I'm just really irritated with the direction the EAA has taken.

Brad,

A.O.P.A as well, sometimes I wonder who all this hardware is meant for, certainly out of my league.

Trouble is, both organizations is all the little guy has to lobby for him. I suppose what's good for G.A. in general, is good for us as well. At least our experimental category is still intact.

These days, when I see a fire breathing mega-bucks monster on the cover, I just pitch the mag.

TSJohnson · 17 October 2009, 12:58 PM

I belong to these two organizations because they lobby for us against those in government who would like nothing more that to deny our right to build and fly aircraft of our own making.

Visiting with the vintage and restoration groups at Oshkosh the past few years I found them to be friendly and very helpful. They were excited about my project and were eager to help.

I have zero interest in the superfast $500K clorox bottles with avioinics that make NASA blush. That isn't my mission profile. I want to fly low and slow and enjoy the scenery, fly something unique and that pays homage to the early days of aviation.

Joe Perkel · 17 October 2009, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSJohnson

"....I have zero interest in the superfast $500K clorox bottles with avioinics that make NASA blush...."

"....I want to fly low and slow and enjoy the scenery..."

Hmmm,...I must admit that I would do both if I could. A nice ride through the stratosphere on a magic carpet now and then wouldn't be so bad. I can only just imagine what it would be like being able to hop over to Belize or Bermuda on a whim.

airknocker · 17 October 2009, 02:40 PM

EAA has tried to appeal to everyone in general aviation and we know how difficult that task. As a member for nearly forty years, I've seen the changes and challenges to both promote and protect our interests. Without EAA the Sport Pilot program would have never come about and many of us would remain groundbound in our advancing years. I realize those on this forum have little interest in pressurized mach one plastic zoomers, but look around most airports and you'll see more spam cans than SPADs. The average private pilot desires not only the freedom of flight, but the ability to carry loved ones to faraway places.
When an aviation oriented film or news takes place the media goes to EAA for answers and when responding they know not to sensationalize and therefore present us in the proper perspective.
Yes, EAA has become a large organization, but where can a young person be exposed to both the future and the past of aviation in a single source.
For my money, membership in EAA has been the best investment I could make.

van der Laan · 18 October 2009, 07:02 AM

I agree with both sides. In the last 10 years the EAA has abandoned the lightweight conventional build majority, in favor of the half million dollar glass crowd and with good reason: EAA is not about promotion of building aircraft as much as they are about SURVIVAL as a family income initiative and opportunity. The glass bird market pays the advertising to keep it alive whereas the WAG Aero types like me do not. There is a lot of margin in the high dollar glass market to pay for this stuff and there is no margin or little at all in the tube and stick market. At this point, that high gloss magazine is worthless to me.

We really cannot expect anything better unless we create it and fund it our self, and as time has illustrated most us will not. So EAA is all we got, but it is clear at this point they do have our back legally with congress which is its own animal. If we were split asunder we would never be heard.

I say stick it out. Tell ‘em to keep the high gloss sales AD venue as it will save EAA money and understand we are funding a Lobby Group and the most we should expect is a PDF now and again via email.

My 2 cents!

drrivah · 18 October 2009, 09:53 AM

The current issue of Sport Aviation has articles on the Gilmore Charger (biplane), restoration of a PT-23 and a run-down on the Sport Pilot program, as well as a homebuilt engine dehydrator that looks a lot more efficient than silica-filled dehydrator plugs, but is well within the capabilities of anyone here who needs to keep an engine dry. The article on the world's first "almost-commercial" electric-powered sport aircraft and ultralight adds spice to the mix.

WW1 replicas are not commonly covered, but there have been a few articles.

Granted, the most completed homebuilts featured in SA are largely RVs, but for anyone who has flown one, it is easy to understand why so many are flying.

Doesn't EAA have a "Vintage" specialty magazine? Can anyone comment on that: is it worth the extra subscription?

-pete

RobW · 18 October 2009, 10:24 AM

Pete,
I subscribe to EAA's Vintage in lieu of Sport Aviation... it is considerably smaller than Sport Aviation. The content for the last few years has been a bit on the light side... but I think that was because the key folks were going through some significant life experiences... this year the content seems to have improved a bit.

You can save on your EAA subscription if you substitute the vintage magazine for sport aviation. You are not losing anything because Sport Aviation is available online.

If you like, I could loan you a couple of Vintage issues so you can see if it works for you...

Rob