Aircraft owners thoughts on IA requirement for annual inspection

[Half Fast]

....going from private property to private property in class G (or at least not A B or C air spaces) then what could the FAA do if there are no criminal incidents.

Considering that the FAA has jurisdiction over the airspace above and between the two properties, regardless of whether the airspace is controlled, they could do quite a bit unless the guy is teleporting himself via some other dimension. "Criminal incidents" is beside the point; the FAA can regulate who flies what anywhere in the US.

 

[Doc Holliday]

The FAA could issue a violation, fines, suspension, revocation…

Or turn it over to the OIG who will refer it to the US Attorneys to prosecute.

 

[Dan Thomas]

I think in all reality all we have to do is wait a little longer for the continued assault on the administrative state. I am extremely excited to see these administrations dissolved completely, Chevron was just the beginning. Everyone, even all-in pilots and mechanics whose incomes depends on the FARs have to know that this nations regulatory burdens are making us non-competitive globally.

So you want to go back to the unregulated early days of aviation? Really?? Sure, the regulations are getting a bit onerous, but the discarding of them all would kill an awful lot of people. From a Wiki article on the history of aviation safety:

In 1926 and 1927, there were a total of 24 fatal commercial airline crashes, a further 16 in 1928, and 51 in 1929 (killing 61 people), which remains the worst year on record at an accident rate of about 1 for every 1,000,000 miles (1,600,000 km) flown. Based on the current numbers flying, this would equate to 7,000 fatal incidents per year.

For the ten-year period 2002 to 2011, 0.6 fatal accidents happened per one million flights globally, 0.4 per million hours flown, 22.0 fatalities per one million flights or 12.7 per million hours flown.....

.....During the 1920s, the first laws were passed in the United States of America to regulate civil aviation, notably the Air Commerce Act of 1926, which required pilots and aircraft to be examined and licensed, for accidents to be properly investigated, and for the establishment of safety rules and navigation aids; under the Aeronautics Branch of the United States Department of Commerce (US DoC).

After WW1, you could buy war-surplus aircraft cheaply, notably trainers, and fly without a license or any formal training. Lots of dead people resulted. The airplanes were not properly maintained and regularly failed in flight. With so many accidents, public outcry forced the government to start regulating it. Pilots had to have training and be licensed. Airplanes had to be inspected regularly and maintained to published minima. The accident rate fell sharply, flying became more popular, and many companies were formed to build and sell light airplanes. Most didn't survive---there were too many of them, and the depression of the 1930s made money hard to come by---but the airplanes were stout and much safer than they had been a few years previously. Rules of the air kept the midair crashes to a minimum, pilot understanding of basic aerodynamics such as angle of attack reduced the stupid loss-of-control crashes, and so on.

Ignorance of all this just feeds the tear-it-all-down philosophy so popular these days. But believe me, if you get what you're demanding, you'll wish you had never asked for it. No laws make you fair game for the predators that are out there.

Do you even have a pilot license?

America already has the most permissive aviation culture in the world. Some countries forbid private flying, and in many others it's really expensive, and in some it's the extremely strict regulations doing it. America could get like that if enough scofflaws start doing their own thing. Some of the population already resent "rich" pilots and aircraft owners, and they'd happily demand the grounding of private aircraft.

 

[Salty]

Careful what you wish for. Before getting rid of IA, the Faa is more likely to get rid of A&P. Everyone has to be an IA.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Regulation and bureaucracy is the American way.

 

[Bell206]

So they can jump fences and pry open doors or trespass with no legal warrents or obvious probsble cause?

Depends on the purpose behind the inspection/investigation as there are FARs that provide an “anytime and anyplace” ability for an ASI to check things. However, have no fear, if you block an ASIs access to your property, etc., they prefer to maintain your 4th ammend rights as the FAA will gladly pursue other legal options to ensure they can complete their work which can include search warrants and other visits by some special people.

The funny thing is most FAA checks/enforcements can be handled with a simple face-to-face meet or FSDO office visit. However, some people prefer to poke the bear for reasons that most others can’t fathom why.

i have no interest in aviation other than to take off from one air strip fly aerobatics and land at the same air strip.

So why not put your aircraft under Experimental Exhibition or build/buy a E/AB aerobatic aircraft and fly the way you want to vs trying to change a system most have no issue with?

 

[Magman]

OP. has the option of flying to other places for the Annual.

Many folks are not aware of just who may join an investigation.

Since they are a Federal Agency a participant may be the

Federal Bureau of INVESTIGATION ( FBI).

They are the folks that will get motel receipts to prove you were In a

certain location or talk to your neighbors and associates.

Hint: If you ever tell the FAA to “ prove it” you may be taking on

the entire United States Government!

 

[StraightnLevel]

Imagine if every one that owned a car had to get a costly “annual” every year to use there car from a special govt sanctioned mechanic, that would go over like a lead balloon.

The right to use my own property with out being compelled by the govt to do business with a 3rd party

Have you never had to get an emissions test done on your car?

Nearly anyone who drives used cars has dealt with a failed emissions test that ended up costing many thousands of dollars to resolve.

 

[Half Fast]

Have you never had to get an emissions test done on your car?

Anyone who drives used cars has dealt with a failed emissions test that ended up costing many thousands of dollars to resolve.

No such thing in FL. Don't know about other states.

 

[StraightnLevel]

No such thing in FL. Don't know about other states.

Most states require it, at least in metro areas.

https://www.findlaw.com/traffic/drivers-license-vehicle-info/state-emissions-standards-and-testing.html

 

[wanttaja]

No such thing in FL. Don't know about other states.

Washington State eliminated its emission testing four years ago. Kinda surprising, considering it's Washington.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Tools]

Using an IA isn’t the only way to get an annual done on a certificated airplane.

Go to a part 145 repair station… they don’t have to have one!

Problem solved… whoda thunk?

 

[wanttaja]

So you want to go back to the unregulated early days of aviation? Really?? Sure, the regulations are getting a bit onerous, but the discarding of them all would kill an awful lot of people.

Eliminating Federal oversight of aviation just leaves the door open for the States. By WWII, homebuilt aircraft were banned in every state but one.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[MauleSkinner]

By WWII, homebuilt aircraft were banned in every state but one.

That gives good context for the birth of EAA.

Which state?

 

[Bell206]

Eliminating Federal oversight of aviation just leaves the door open for the States.

And not to mention, the near-death or death of the domestic aviation industry from a global aspect and quite contrary to what the US basically started at the 1944 Chicago Convention....

 

[aterry1067]

That gives good context for the birth of EAA.

Which state?

Oregon.

Homebuilts in Oregon - Hangar Flying

The Oregon Aviation Historical Society celebrated the state’s rich homebuilt history with a recent fly-in.

inspire.eaa.org

 

[akmetal]

Is OP an A&P that is concerned about 3 year requirement to be an IA

in order to perform Annual?

I take “3000 just for the inspection” as opening, cleaning, servicing ,

repairs and closing are NOT included.

I’m not a “Pitts Person” and therefore not really familiar with all

Inspection Requirements but it seems the time should be similar to

a Cherokee or 172.

The first time an IA performs an Inspection a lot of time is expended

on paperwork research. In subsequent years this time should be drastically

reduced. Is OP getting a new IA every year?

Pitts is a difficult plane to fly but very simple mechanically (other than rigging work), or the wood and fabric if you ever found damage with a bore scope), all wiring and tubing is in the open so very little has to be “opened up”.

IAs keep retiring at alarming rates, FSDO claims there are 500+ in my area but made me do a foia request to get the info

Because of lack of hangar space and how busy the IAs are they stack your planes up on the ramp to wait, well you can’t do that with a wood wing Pitts, it has to be hsngared

I have had to find new IAs like 3 times in the last 10 years because they are old and retired, great guys who helped me get my 8610-2 signed off. $1000 for the annual plus training me. Now the ones I’m talking to want 3k with me opening it up

 

[akmetal]

The FAA could issue a violation, fines, suspension, revocation…

Based on what if they have no access to the plane or the property?

 

[ateamer]

Have you never had to get an emissions test done on your car?

Nearly anyone who drives used cars has dealt with a failed emissions test that ended up costing many thousands of dollars to resolve.

We had three different used vehicles over the years, for a total,of 26 years of ownership in California. Only one had a smog problem. That was my first vehicle, a ‘66 Chevy pickup that I owned for a few months in ‘85. Even though it was made before smog equipment existed, it had to get a smog check for some reason. It failed, and the mechanic’s solution was to cap off the vacuum spark advance. 15 minutes later, smog certificate in hand, I was at Kragen buying a piece of hose and reconnecting it.

Rumor was - never tried or needed to try it myself - that a case of beer would improve a car’s smog check performance in the days before the results were transmitted online to DMV in real time.

 

[Gary Ward]

We had emissions testing here for a short time. They built these large 4-5 bay brick buildings all round town for testing. It was only a year or 2 and they stopped testing and then those tax payer buildings sat vacant for years.

I had to take my hot rod car over there with a huge overlapping cam, giant 4 barrel carburetor, exhaust headers with just header mufflers running straight leaded racing gas. That car stunk like hell from the leaded racing gas and the huge racing cam. It passed the test easily and showed lower readings than many cars I was told.
That whole thing was BS and a huge waste of money.

 

[akmetal]

So you want to go back to the unregulated early days of aviation? Really?? Sure, the regulations are getting a bit onerous, but the discarding of them all would kill an awful lot of people. From a Wiki article on the history of aviation safety:

In 1926 and 1927, there were a total of 24 fatal commercial airline crashes, a further 16 in 1928, and 51 in 1929 (killing 61 people), which remains the worst year on record at an accident rate of about 1 for every 1,000,000 miles (1,600,000 km) flown. Based on the current numbers flying, this would equate to 7,000 fatal incidents per year.

For the ten-year period 2002 to 2011, 0.6 fatal accidents happened per one million flights globally, 0.4 per million hours flown, 22.0 fatalities per one million flights or 12.7 per million hours flown.....

.....During the 1920s, the first laws were passed in the United States of America to regulate civil aviation, notably the Air Commerce Act of 1926, which required pilots and aircraft to be examined and licensed, for accidents to be properly investigated, and for the establishment of safety rules and navigation aids; under the Aeronautics Branch of the United States Department of Commerce (US DoC).

After WW1, you could buy war-surplus aircraft cheaply, notably trainers, and fly without a license or any formal training. Lots of dead people resulted. The airplanes were not properly maintained and regularly failed in flight. With so many accidents, public outcry forced the government to start regulating it. Pilots had to have training and be licensed. Airplanes had to be inspected regularly and maintained to published minima. The accident rate fell sharply, flying became more popular, and many companies were formed to build and sell light airplanes. Most didn't survive---there were too many of them, and the depression of the 1930s made money hard to come by---but the airplanes were stout and much safer than they had been a few years previously. Rules of the air kept the midair crashes to a minimum, pilot understanding of basic aerodynamics such as angle of attack reduced the stupid loss-of-control crashes, and so on.

Ignorance of all this just feeds the tear-it-all-down philosophy so popular these days. But believe me, if you get what you're demanding, you'll wish you had never asked for it. No laws make you fair game for the predators that are out there.

Do you even have a pilot license?

America already has the most permissive aviation culture in the world. Some countries forbid private flying, and in many others it's really expensive, and in some it's the extremely strict regulations doing it. America could get like that if enough scofflaws start doing their own thing. Some of the population already resent "rich" pilots and aircraft owners, and they'd happily demand the grounding of private aircraft.

Hello Dan, I agree the problem is once a reg exists or a 3 letter agency exists they never go away they just grow until no one can do anything.

So reform would be great, how well do you think say enough signatures would get the A&p ia combined with just a single written exam and 2 years exp? (that’s roughly what is required for a professional engineer)

So the regs just grow and grow, and that’s on top of the prohibitive expenses of air port hangar space which is a whole other discussion … due to regs and special fire protection eng being required.

 

[akmetal]

We had emissions testing here for a short time. They built these large 4-5 bay brick buildings all round town for testing. It was only a year or 2 and they stopped testing and then those tax payer buildings sat vacant for years.

I had to take my hot rod car over there with a huge overlapping cam, giant 4 barrel carburetor, exhaust headers with just header mufflers running straight leaded racing gas. That car stunk like hell from the leaded racing gas and the huge racing cam. It passed the test easily and showed lower readings than many cars I was told.
That whole thing was BS and a huge waste of money.

Cost you 3k EVERY year? So your mad about the im but big money for an aircraft annual is reasonable?

 

[Dan Thomas]

So reform would be great, how well do you think say enough signatures would get the A&p ia combined with just a single written exam and 2 years exp? (that’s roughly what is required for a professional engineer)

Reform, yes. But what you were advocating was this;

I think in all reality all we have to do is wait a little longer for the continued assault on the administrative state. I am extremely excited to see these administrations dissolved completely, Chevron was just the beginning.

Dissolved, you said. That would imply either no regulation, or no enforcement of the regs, which comes to the same thing.

Getting more A&Ps to become IAs won't be easy. Some won't want the extra responsibility. Many of them hate reading, and detest doing AD searches or checking the regs or researching STCs or service bulletins, or anything else that the IA looks after. Too many are content with the paycheck and just want to go home and watch the football game.

BTW, a "professional engineer" is not an IA or an Canadian AME like me. The pros are the mechanical, structural, chemical, electrical engineers and the like that spent six or more years in university, not a year or two in some community college.

So the regs just grow and grow, and that’s on top of the prohibitive expenses of air port hangar space which is a whole other discussion … due to regs and special fire protection eng being required.

The regs keep growing because people keep coming up with new stupidities. One bit of wisdom I learned long ago: You can come up with idiot-proof airplanes, but the world just keeps coming up with better idiots. Accidents make people feel vulnerable to that mechanical thing flying overhead, so they demand more controls and restrictions on it, and politicians or bureaucrats respond with more rules.

In past generations, fewer laws were required because Common Sense was common. People knew enough not to try dumb stuff because they knew it might hurt, and the wiser ones watched others wreck themselves and so avoided doing such stuff.

It's vastly different now. Just watch Fail videos on YouTube and see. Or read aviation accident reports. How many VFR-only pilots have flown into cloud and figured that they'd pop out the other side real soon? Too many of them found cumulogranite inside that cloud, or their inner ears lied to them and they got vertigo and lost control and spiralled in.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Based on what if they have no access to the plane or the property?

Based on the fact that the airplane was flown in Federal airspace.

Who says they have no access?

 

[wanttaja]

That gives good context for the birth of EAA.

Which state?

As Aterry said, Oregon. Here's a write-up from my EAA Chapter newsletter:

Eighty years ago, homebuilts were basically illegal. One man—with his little homebuilt, dubbed "Little Gee Bee"—helped bring about the freedoms we know today.

Homebuilding had boomed in the 1920s and 30s. While the Civil Aeronautics Authority (CAA, the FAA's predecessor) established aircraft engineering and test standards, its jurisdiction was limited to aircraft used commercially. People were free to design and build their own airplanes for personal use.

But like ultralights in the mid-1980s, homebuilding became a victim of its own popularity. Accident rates surged as marginal designs hit the market and people who didn't know any better used substandard materials in construction.

Individual states got involved. They passed laws requiring that all aircraft in their states meet CAA design requirements. The result: By World War II, homebuilt aircraft had been banned in nearly every state of the Union.

Oregon was an exception. The state's laws still permitted people like Les Long to build their own airplanes, though they couldn't be flown outside the state.
Despite being crippled by agoraphobia (fear of unfamiliar surroundings), Long had designed, built, and flown seven aircraft. He also led the Amateur Aircraft League, a national organization for homebuilders.

Long died just as WWII was ending, and fellow Oregonian George Bogardus stepped into the leadership spot. He reorganized the group as the American Airmen's Association (AAA) and mobilized the membership. Changing laws of each state would be impossible, but if they could convince the CAA to give amateur-built aircraft official status, the federal law would trump the individual states. He and his fellow AAA members started to pester the CAA, both the local and national offices.

Bogardus' lobbying found some sympathetic CAA officials. In 1946, the CAA agreed to grant Experimental certificates to planes built before the war, and Bogardus was invited to return the next year to discuss the AAA's proposal for an Experimental Amateur-Built category.

In anticipation of the new category, Bogardus decided to buy a homebuilt. Just prior to the war, a man named Tom Story had built one of Long's designs, a low-wing, wire-braced, 65 HP single-seat airplane called "Wimpy." Bogardus restored the plane, renaming it "Little Gee Bee."


Impressed with the performance of the tube-and-fabric bird, Bogardus decided to fly Little Gee Bee from Oregon to Washington DC for the CAA discussions on the AAA's amateur-built aircraft proposals. After making a few changes, such adding a long-range fuel tank, Bogardus was on his way.

Two weeks later, after dropping in on AAA members across the country, he arrived safe and sound in Washington DC. The little wood and welded-steel homebuilt had proved that amateur-built aircraft weren't the deathtraps they were so often painted.

The CAA got the point. They immediately instituted temporary provisions for licensing homebuilt aircraft and began work on developing a formal certification category. It took four years, but in September of 1952, the Experimental/Amateur-Built category was officially adopted, its provisions remarkably similar to what we still have today.

The next time you stroll through the sleek aluminum and fiberglass birds at Oshkosh, remember: They're really just the descendants of a tough little fabric-covered single-seater. And without the intense lobbying of a dedicated Oregonian, homebuilding today would be quite a bit different.

Restored by EAA Chapter 105, Little Gee Bee is now on display in the Udvar-Hazy branch of the Smithsonian.

By the way, Tom Story, who originally built "Little Gee Bee," built two very similar aircraft, "Story Special" serial #1 and #2. At the time the EAA announced its design context in 1958, S/N 2 was co-owned by Peter Bowers. His Fly Baby duplicated the Story Special/Little Gee Bee's configuration, albeit with some structural differences.



Ron Wanttaja

 

[Doc Holliday]

Based on what if they have no access to the plane or the property?

Here's a few facts for you:

Title 49, Subtitle VII, Part A, subpart iii, Chapter 447, 44709

(a)Reinspection and Reexamination.—
(1)In general.—
The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may reinspect at any time a civil aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, design organization, production certificate holder, air navigation facility, or air agency, or reexamine an airman holding a certificate issued under section 44703 of this title.
(2)Notification of reexamination of airman.—Before taking any action to reexamine an airman under paragraph (1) the Administrator shall provide to the airman—
(A)
a reasonable basis, described in detail, for requesting the reexamination; and
(B)
any information gathered by the Federal Aviation Administration, that the Administrator determines is appropriate to provide, such as the scope and nature of the requested reexamination, that formed the basis for that justification.
(b)Actions of the Administrator.—The Administrator may issue an order amending, modifying, suspending, or revoking—
(1)any part of a certificate issued under this chapter if—
(A)
the Administrator decides after conducting a reinspection, reexamination, or other investigation that safety in air commerce or air transportation and the public interest require that action; or
(B)
the holder of the certificate has violated an aircraft noise or sonic boom standard or regulation prescribed under section 44715(a) of this title; and
(2)
an airman certificate when the holder of the certificate is convicted of violating section 13(a) of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742j–1(a)).

This is federal law, not administrative.

So the Administrator sends you a LOI and request you present your aircraft and log books to him for examination, you are required under the above statute. If you want to be cocky and claim they can't, go right ahead but be prepared for what's coming.

 

[Magman]

How about:

Splitting A & P into 4 certificates:

Airframe - non-pressurized

Airframe - Pressurized

Powerplant- Piston

Powerplant - turbine


So take your pick of what you see for a career and go for it.

Should be some decrease in experience or school time required.

So if someone would want light aircraft they would get non-pressurized

and piston. Part 147 schools would still have to do the “ General”

so it would be about 70% of time to get all. Scheduling would be tough.


Oh wait; this was proposed many years ago ( FAR Part 66 maybe)

and went nowhere.

 

[Bell206]

Oh wait; this was proposed many years ago ( FAR Part 66 maybe) and went nowhere.

It made it to the NPRM stage. But in one of the few times the entire aviation industry banded together on a common topic, to include the private GA side, it was finally dropped after several attempts following extensive revisions.

One of the problems with dividing the A&P as you show, or as the FAA Part 66 attempt did, was it would require a similar division/expansion further up the mx oversight food chain, thus creating a similar overly-complex system like the EASA Part 66 which until recently (2020) was very “hostile” to private aircraft owners in the EU.

Personally, I think one of the reasons MOSAIC is delayed is they are working on an expansion of the LSA LSRI/M system that may include any aircraft that meets the revised LSA definition. Needless to say, there are some interesting statements in the NPRM that give that impression especially when you read some the comments addressing those statements. Time will tell.

 

[Half Fast]

Personally, I think one of the reasons MOSAIC is delayed is they are working on an expansion of the LSA LSRI/M system that may include any aircraft that meets the revised LSA definition. Needless to say, there are some interesting statements in the NPRM that give that impression especially when you read some the comments addressing those statements. Time will tell.

The piece I hope gets changed is the prohibition on SPs doing preventive maintenance on certificated aircraft. As it stands today, a SP can change the oil on his own SLSA but not on his own certificated LSA (Ercoupe, Cub, etc.). A PP gets no more maintenance training than a SP, yet the PP can maintain his own certificated plane.

Makes no sense.

 

[Gary Ward]

Cost you 3k EVERY year? So your mad about the im but big money for an aircraft annual is reasonable?

Probably more than 3K a year in taxes and they wasted our tax dollars.
At least there is a choice in aviation, get a experimental aircraft.

 

[Half Fast]

Based on what if they have no access to the plane or the property?

This is akin to saying the highway patrol can't enforce driving or vehicle violations against you after you drive on public roads, just because you park the car on your private property. Let me know how that works out for you.

ANY air vehicle enters FAA jurisdiction the moment it leaves the ground. Violations in that airspace provide cause for warrants.

 

[Bell206]

A PP gets no more maintenance training than a SP, yet the PP can maintain his own certificated plane.

The difference is that a PP has the Part 43 authorization to approve an aircraft for return to service. Nothing more. Its more related to the type of AWC issued than anything else.

 

[Ed Haywood]

As Aterry said, Oregon. Here's a write-up from my EAA Chapter newsletter:

Eighty years ago, homebuilts were basically illegal. One man—with his little homebuilt, dubbed "Little Gee Bee"—helped bring about the freedoms we know today.

Homebuilding had boomed in the 1920s and 30s. While the Civil Aeronautics Authority (CAA, the FAA's predecessor) established aircraft engineering and test standards, its jurisdiction was limited to aircraft used commercially. People were free to design and build their own airplanes for personal use.

But like ultralights in the mid-1980s, homebuilding became a victim of its own popularity. Accident rates surged as marginal designs hit the market and people who didn't know any better used substandard materials in construction.

Individual states got involved. They passed laws requiring that all aircraft in their states meet CAA design requirements. The result: By World War II, homebuilt aircraft had been banned in nearly every state of the Union.

Oregon was an exception. The state's laws still permitted people like Les Long to build their own airplanes, though they couldn't be flown outside the state.
Despite being crippled by agoraphobia (fear of unfamiliar surroundings), Long had designed, built, and flown seven aircraft. He also led the Amateur Aircraft League, a national organization for homebuilders.

Long died just as WWII was ending, and fellow Oregonian George Bogardus stepped into the leadership spot. He reorganized the group as the American Airmen's Association (AAA) and mobilized the membership. Changing laws of each state would be impossible, but if they could convince the CAA to give amateur-built aircraft official status, the federal law would trump the individual states. He and his fellow AAA members started to pester the CAA, both the local and national offices.

Bogardus' lobbying found some sympathetic CAA officials. In 1946, the CAA agreed to grant Experimental certificates to planes built before the war, and Bogardus was invited to return the next year to discuss the AAA's proposal for an Experimental Amateur-Built category.

In anticipation of the new category, Bogardus decided to buy a homebuilt. Just prior to the war, a man named Tom Story had built one of Long's designs, a low-wing, wire-braced, 65 HP single-seat airplane called "Wimpy." Bogardus restored the plane, renaming it "Little Gee Bee."
View attachment 132208

Impressed with the performance of the tube-and-fabric bird, Bogardus decided to fly Little Gee Bee from Oregon to Washington DC for the CAA discussions on the AAA's amateur-built aircraft proposals. After making a few changes, such adding a long-range fuel tank, Bogardus was on his way.

Two weeks later, after dropping in on AAA members across the country, he arrived safe and sound in Washington DC. The little wood and welded-steel homebuilt had proved that amateur-built aircraft weren't the deathtraps they were so often painted.

The CAA got the point. They immediately instituted temporary provisions for licensing homebuilt aircraft and began work on developing a formal certification category. It took four years, but in September of 1952, the Experimental/Amateur-Built category was officially adopted, its provisions remarkably similar to what we still have today.

The next time you stroll through the sleek aluminum and fiberglass birds at Oshkosh, remember: They're really just the descendants of a tough little fabric-covered single-seater. And without the intense lobbying of a dedicated Oregonian, homebuilding today would be quite a bit different.

Restored by EAA Chapter 105, Little Gee Bee is now on display in the Udvar-Hazy branch of the Smithsonian.

By the way, Tom Story, who originally built "Little Gee Bee," built two very similar aircraft, "Story Special" serial #1 and #2. At the time the EAA announced its design context in 1958, S/N 2 was co-owned by Peter Bowers. His Fly Baby duplicated the Story Special/Little Gee Bee's configuration, albeit with some structural differences.


Ron Wanttaja

Great story, thanks for posting!

In some ways, it is a miracle that we have the freedom to aviate in this country that we do.

We have a guy from Bolivia who runs a flight school at our airfield. Well, that is overselling it. He has a ragged out 172, and Bolivian kids will come here to fly 100 hours so they can progress to the next stage in their airline training. That would take 2 years in Bolivia, because each flight plan must be approved by the government and the lead time is a week.

 

[Half Fast]

The difference is that a PP has the Part 43 authorization to approve an aircraft for return to service. Nothing more. Its more related to the type of AWC issued than anything else.

Yes, but in terms of who turns which wrench on what airplane, it makes no practical sense and should be fixed.

 

[akmetal]

Fed

As Aterry said, Oregon. Here's a write-up from my EAA Chapter newsletter:

Eighty years ago, homebuilts were basically illegal. One man—with his little homebuilt, dubbed "Little Gee Bee"—helped bring about the freedoms we know today.

Homebuilding had boomed in the 1920s and 30s. While the Civil Aeronautics Authority (CAA, the FAA's predecessor) established aircraft engineering and test standards, its jurisdiction was limited to aircraft used commercially. People were free to design and build their own airplanes for personal use.

But like ultralights in the mid-1980s, homebuilding became a victim of its own popularity. Accident rates surged as marginal designs hit the market and people who didn't know any better used substandard materials in construction.

Individual states got involved. They passed laws requiring that all aircraft in their states meet CAA design requirements. The result: By World War II, homebuilt aircraft had been banned in nearly every state of the Union.

Oregon was an exception. The state's laws still permitted people like Les Long to build their own airplanes, though they couldn't be flown outside the state.
Despite being crippled by agoraphobia (fear of unfamiliar surroundings), Long had designed, built, and flown seven aircraft. He also led the Amateur Aircraft League, a national organization for homebuilders.

Long died just as WWII was ending, and fellow Oregonian George Bogardus stepped into the leadership spot. He reorganized the group as the American Airmen's Association (AAA) and mobilized the membership. Changing laws of each state would be impossible, but if they could convince the CAA to give amateur-built aircraft official status, the federal law would trump the individual states. He and his fellow AAA members started to pester the CAA, both the local and national offices.

Bogardus' lobbying found some sympathetic CAA officials. In 1946, the CAA agreed to grant Experimental certificates to planes built before the war, and Bogardus was invited to return the next year to discuss the AAA's proposal for an Experimental Amateur-Built category.

In anticipation of the new category, Bogardus decided to buy a homebuilt. Just prior to the war, a man named Tom Story had built one of Long's designs, a low-wing, wire-braced, 65 HP single-seat airplane called "Wimpy." Bogardus restored the plane, renaming it "Little Gee Bee."
View attachment 132208

Impressed with the performance of the tube-and-fabric bird, Bogardus decided to fly Little Gee Bee from Oregon to Washington DC for the CAA discussions on the AAA's amateur-built aircraft proposals. After making a few changes, such adding a long-range fuel tank, Bogardus was on his way.

Two weeks later, after dropping in on AAA members across the country, he arrived safe and sound in Washington DC. The little wood and welded-steel homebuilt had proved that amateur-built aircraft weren't the deathtraps they were so often painted.

The CAA got the point. They immediately instituted temporary provisions for licensing homebuilt aircraft and began work on developing a formal certification category. It took four years, but in September of 1952, the Experimental/Amateur-Built category was officially adopted, its provisions remarkably similar to what we still have today.

The next time you stroll through the sleek aluminum and fiberglass birds at Oshkosh, remember: They're really just the descendants of a tough little fabric-covered single-seater. And without the intense lobbying of a dedicated Oregonian, homebuilding today would be quite a bit different.

Restored by EAA Chapter 105, Little Gee Bee is now on display in the Udvar-Hazy branch of the Smithsonian.

By the way, Tom Story, who originally built "Little Gee Bee," built two very similar aircraft, "Story Special" serial #1 and #2. At the time the EAA announced its design context in 1958, S/N 2 was co-owned by Peter Bowers. His Fly Baby duplicated the Story Special/Little Gee Bee's configuration, albeit with some structural differences.

View attachment 132209

Ron Wanttaja

Fed Law should never trump state law unless it is a power expressly allowed by the constitution. This is a big reason we are in the situation we are in today

Unless the airport gets federal funding or your crossing state lines while commiting a crime the feds should have 0 jurisdiction

Not that this would fix anything but state level legislation is the way it should be per our own constitution

 

[akmetal]

This is akin to saying the highway patrol can't enforce driving or vehicle violations against you after you drive on public roads, just because you park the car on your private property. Let me know how that works out for you.

ANY air vehicle enters FAA jurisdiction the moment it leaves the ground. Violations in that airspace provide cause for warrants.

Yes that’s correct, just because you don’t have a licence or an annual does not mean you cause a violation while flying, only a corrupt judge would give a warrent for a fishing expedition

If you have an incident then that’s an entirely different matter.

It’s like the dea walking by your house and thinking “ this guy has drugs, I can feel it in my bones” that’s going to go over like a lead balloon.

 

[akmetal]

Great story, thanks for posting!

In some ways, it is a miracle that we have the freedom to aviate in this country that we do.

We have a guy from Bolivia who runs a flight school at our airfield. Well, that is overselling it. He has a ragged out 172, and Bolivian kids will come here to fly 100 hours so they can progress to the next stage in their airline training. That would take 2 years in Bolivia, because each flight plan must be approved by the government and the lead time is a week.

Sure that’s what happens in corrupt communist countries. What about Belize or phillipines or even Mexico? Pretty sure all countries are not equal

 

[Skymac]

Instead of that, what about just making it a little easier to get a basic A&P certificate. In comparison to a pilots certificate… Wait, there’s not even a ball park comparison.

 

[akmetal]

This is akin to saying the highway patrol can't enforce driving or vehicle violations against you after you drive on public roads, just because you park the car on your private property. Let me know how that works out for you.

ANY air vehicle enters FAA jurisdiction the moment it leaves the ground. Violations in that airspace provide cause for warrants.

Also if you committed the violation on a private ranch and the cop was driving on your property without permission he couldn’t bust you for even a dui because the first question is why did he blow past the no trespassing signs with out a warrant or probable cause?

 

[akmetal]

Instead of that, what about just making it a little easier to get a basic A&P certificate. In comparison to a pilots certificate… Wait, there’s not even a ball park comparison.

The check ride for the ppl is also a hustle. The FAA has a very tiny number of people they approve (sorta like dmes) so they have outragious fees.

Because the FAA can’t be bothered to do it themselves

It’s not about ease it’s about cost and the arbitrary 2 year time to sit for the IA, I checked with the FSDO it’s 2 years not 3 for the asi to approve you

Then you have to wait 90 days to retest … what why?