Thanks Tony and all.
If the very first post is read, you will notice that I stated that the aircraft was a "Cessna".
No mention of Condition Inspections and Experimental Aircraft was made.
I realize that this IS an EAA forum but not all members fly ONLY Experimental Aircraft.
The Question WAS answered early in the posts.
Game over!
Let it Lie.
Go help someone that needs help. Please.
Bob Doughty
Originator of this Thread.
Originally Posted by BCAIRPORT
yes I noticed this after I posted. Thanks for not ripping me a new one over that. I have read threads from others whom state the EAA has gone GA.
Tony Sweet
Last edited by 1600vw; 11-30-2013 at 05:23 PM.
I am not sure I understand " EAA has gone GA".
I have always been "both" as are most.
I would guess that fewer had their first airplane ride in an Experimental and did their initial flight training in an Experimental.
I also fly a Marquart Charger MA5 and am the Owner/Moderator of the MA5 Group on YAHOO! Groups.
The Experimental Group are the movers and shakers of the General Aviation World.
BUT....There should be no separation if we are to keep our rights to break free of the bonds of gravity.
Bob Doughty
I believe if the founder wanted the GA world to be part of this it would be the EAA-GA. I do not believe the founder had GA in mind when he started this club. I believe GA was left outside and only experimentals was the subject at hand.
Now correct me on this and set me straight for I am sure I am wrong and Paul was all about GA and wanted this club to be more General Aviation based.
Tony
I'm sure Paul never ran out to a guy flying a certified aircraft while waving his arms shouting "oh, hail noes!" at any fly-in or meeting.
The EAA has always been inclusive, though its primary focus was on homebuilding, because Paul and crew believed it was the most cost effective way for the Average Joe to get up in the air.
Similarly, folks that restore certified aircraft are homebuilders on steriods. Not only do they do all the same things that homebuilders do, they have to put up with a huge amount of trouble meeting the design specs and procedures.
The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.
Frank with all respect I must disagree. Someone rebuilding or restoring a Certified airplane plays by a complete different set of rules then a man building a HB. Nothing on a HB is airworthy. Everything on a Certified airplane is airworthy and must come tagged to prove it. Also it takes an A&P to work on a Certified airplane. My 5 year old Grand daughter could work on my airplane and its legal.
Nothing about the two are the same.
Whats the same about the two? You get in, start it, get the engine running, point them into the wind, get them moving fast enough to produce lift, and you leave earth. Everything else is different.
Last edited by 1600vw; 12-01-2013 at 07:23 AM.
It takes an A&P to approve for return to service work done on a Certified airplane. Your 5-year-old Grand daughter can work on a certified airplane as long as her work is signed off by a mechanic.I restored my certified glider before I had my airframe certificate...
Paul said from the very beginning "There is room for everyone." If you have not read his book you might want to consider it. Don't forget, his first airplane was a production airplane. Over the years he flew every type of aircraft...certified production, military and EAB. One thing for certain, Paul did not and would not discriminate.
Another poster from IL. If nothing else we got you talking...This is great..
Yes I believe Dave you are correct, but the subject was and is Experimental. I believe the General Aviation sector brings great wisdom along with them, but we do play by a different set of rules. We have those and maybe I am one of them whom do not want these rules to be intermingled or become one.
Tony
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote