The record of Dynon and similar seems to conflict with the idea that the
PMA/TSO/STC process makes anything safer...
Expensive and outdated, sure... Safer, no...
Right now there are a host of perfectly safe avionics products I can
legally install in the KR I'm building... That are illegal if used
According to a lot of people only rich people fly anyway. I maintain my 47
Bellanca cruiseair and My 79 Cessna 310. My AP helps me when I need help on
things that take two people my IA and I have known each other for 30 years and
he signs off my work. There are mechanics that will work with peop
I wish American owners had the same option! The restricted list of things
an owner can do under Part 43 and the requirement to have an A&P do
everything else will eventually make owning an older certificated airplane
unaffordable to anyone who's not rich (and to some extent that may already
be tru
Canadian Owner-Maintained certificated aircraft cannot (They have a reg
that lets them dispense with approved parts, STCs, and A&P-only work on
older certificated aircraft... But as a result those planes can only fly in
Canada)...
If it gets to the point where US rules are too permissive, other co
Yes it does make aviation safer to require aircraft be manufactured and
maintained by competent individuals using approved methods and
materials.Tommy W.
On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 11:01 AM Randall Smith via KRnet <
krnet@list.krnet.org> wrote:
>
> Canadian home built can fly in the US. I have a nei
Canadian home built can fly in the US. I have a neighbor flying a South Africa
registration on a glassair here in the states.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 12, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Dave Acklam via KRnet
> wrote:
>
> People who fly internationally - for the same reason owner-maintained
> Canadia
People who fly internationally - for the same reason owner-maintained
Canadian aircraft can't leave Canada. Other countries wouldn't recognize
the airworthiness of such aircraft.
Really that is where GA needs to go to survive: Certificated aircraft for
international and commercial flying, everythi
I think AVweb was the site that reported that the FAA was going to extend
the deadline for ADS-B, which turned out to be a hoax. I'll believe
they're scrapping the 51% rule when I read it in Flying Magazine or
Kitplanes.
At any rate, if a factory could build experimental planes and do an end run
I just read again today on Avweb that the FAA is doing away with the 51%
rule, leaving the door open for Steve Glover to produce fully-built KR's
and sell them as off-the-shelf airplanes - either as Experimentals or
LSA's - I don't know enough about LSA's to say which category will be
appropriate.
Randy
The 51% rule only applies to the actual construction of the kit or aircraft in
question. It is what separates a factory built aircraft kit from an amateur
built kit.
The rules concerning being approved for repairman certificate are left more on
the judgement of the Airworthiness Represent
Colin, Thank you for the information. There seems to be a large gray
area on this subject.
Randy
l Message-
From: krnet-boun...@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-boun...@mylist.net]On
Behalf Of beverlyrai...@bellsouth.net
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 1:43 AM
To: kr...@mylist.net
Subject: KR> 51% Rule
Randy
The 51% rule only applies to the actual construction of the kit or aircraft
in question
: "Brian Kraut"
To: "KRnet"
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 10:10 PM
Subject: RE: KR> 51% Rule
> Colin brings up an interresting point that I had previously clarified with
> an FAA inspector a few years ago. When you have a homebuilt you can do
> all
> of the repairs
> Brian Kraut
> Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
> www.engalt.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: krnet-boun...@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-boun...@mylist.net]On
> Behalf Of beverlyrai...@bellsouth.net
> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 1:43 AM
> To: kr...@mylist.net
> Subject: KR>
happens and you or your estate are in court and someone is
sueing.Its better to to it right to start with.
-Original Message-
>From: Brian Kraut
>Sent: Jul 25, 2006 10:10 PM
>To: KRnet
>Subject: RE: KR> 51% Rule
>
>Colin brings up an interresting point that I h
David, If you don't start now, in ten years, you will be ten years older and
still not have an airplane. I turned 70 last March and I started on my KR last
fall and have been too busy to do anything on it yet this year but I am not
going to quit until it is finished and I will fly it.
Pat Drisco
AMEN
-Original Message-
>From: Pat Driscoll
>Sent: Jul 25, 2006 11:43 PM
>To: KRnet
>Subject: Re: KR> 51% Rule
>
>David, If you don't start now, in ten years, you will be ten years older and
>still not have an airplane. I turned 70 last March and I sta
eally does depend on
it!
Have a good day,
Colin
>
> From: "Randy Powell"
> Date: 2006/07/25 Tue PM 09:09:49 EDT
> To: "KRnet"
> Subject: Re: KR> 51% Rule
>
> Colin, Thank you for the information. There seems to be a large gray
> area on this
At 10:29 PM 7/25/2006, you wrote:
>As far as working on it without a reparmen certificate goes. If you
>don't have one for the airplane in question, legally the only work
>you can do is the same work that an owner of a certified plane can
>do. And the repairmans certificate is for just that one
Pat, You have a point. Thank you for the unique insight.
Randy Powell
- Original Message -
From: "Pat Driscoll"
To: "KRnet"
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 11:43 PM
Subject: Re: KR> 51% Rule
> David, If you don't start now, in ten years, you will be t
Message -
From:
To: "KRnet"
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 11:31 AM
Subject: Re: Re: KR> 51% Rule
> Hey Randy
> The 51% rule if you notice is always applied to a kit. If over 50% is
> assisted by assemblies or professional assistance, then it is manufactured
> not a
Underwood" ; "KRnet"
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 7:22 PM
Subject: RE: KR> 51% Rule
> At 10:29 PM 7/25/2006, you wrote:
>>As far as working on it without a reparmen certificate goes. If you
>>don't have one for the airplane in question, legally the o
At 06:09 PM 7/25/2006, you wrote:
>Colin, Thank you for the information. There seems to be a large gray
>area on this subject.
No. The FAA has a very specific checklist of items evaluated in
generating the 51%. Time used does not figure in the calculation,
only % of checklist items done by t
verson
> Date: 2006/07/27 Thu PM 09:08:37 EDT
> To: KRnet
> Subject: Re: KR> 51% Rule
>
> At 06:09 PM 7/25/2006, you wrote:
> >Colin, Thank you for the information. There seems to be a large gray
> >area on this subject.
>
> No. The FAA has a very specif
>"The Amateur Builder(s) must be able to show that they have
>performed at least 60 of the 119 operations (in the case of a
>fixed-wing aircraft) in order to qualify for the repairman
>certificate, and to register their aircraft in the experimental category.
I did not list the specific numbers
Larry:
Where do I go to get the List? I assume it is available on the Net. so I am
just trying to "Shorten" the search.
Don Lively
Burlington IA 52601
larry severson wrote:
> >"The Amateur Builder(s) must be able to sho
Don and others,
Everything you need to know about amateur-built
aircraft and corresponding regulations is at
http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultralights/amateur_built/
Particularly,
http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultralights/amateur_built/amateur_regs/
talks about the regulations of cer
27 matches
Mail list logo
