Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
West Texas XET flying
#1
YouTube: RotorLyfe
Owner N315FC   XET built by Scott Seaner
CFI/CFII, LCDR USNR
Line pilot at Air Evac Lifeteam, AE63 Abilene, TX

YouTube/iG : RotorLyfe
Reply
#2
Thumbs Up 
So Cool!
Reply
#3
Very cool.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Fly Navy,

Scott Langley
MCSE CEH CISSP

XET #1337 N334HY
Start: NOV 2018
Reply
#4
Could you explain why you have your XET is for sale at $85k on BS when a new factory built machine is $65k ? I don't see $20k in options on yours. Also the engine isn't quite as nice as the one in the 2 pics I posted. The 3rd pic is yours.            
Jim
Reply
#5
I dunno, seems fair to me, to me “factory built” also means “illegally flying” as well, so I consider that extra $20k to be a part of paying someone to build and register and test fly  your aircraft so if the FAA ever comes knocking, it won’t be a “fine” day ;P

*edit!*

After a lovely little phone-call with Mr. Flyguy I have realized that it may seem like I'm referring to the factory-assist build process as "illegal flying", but I just want to clarify that when I say "Factory Built" I mean actually an XET built by the factory, therefor bypassing the 51% FAA rule, therefor leaving the aircraft unregistered, therefor being illegal to fly, therefor my use of the term "illegally flying" lol! And yes, I know you people who ignore the laws are out there(you know who you are  Dodgy ).
"Into the fires of forever we will fly through the heavens
With the power of the universe we stand strong together
Through the force in our power, it will soon reach the hour
For victory we ride, Fury of the Storm!" 
Reply
#6
(10-10-2018, 05:35 PM)Casey Wrote: I dunno, seems fair to me, to me “factory built” also means “illegally flying” as well, so I consider that extra $20k to be a part of paying someone to build and register and test fly  your aircraft so if the FAA ever comes knocking, it won’t be a “fine” day ;P

*edit!*

After a lovely little phone-call with Mr. Flyguy I have realized that it may seem like I'm referring to the factory-assist build process as "illegal flying", but I just want to clarify that when I say "Factory Built" I mean actually an XET built by the factory, therefor bypassing the 51% FAA rule, therefor leaving the aircraft unregistered, therefor being illegal to fly, therefor my use of the term "illegally flying" lol! And yes, I know you people who ignore the laws are out there(you know who you are  Dodgy ).

I don' think the "factory" would be on board with what you are suggesting. Good luck with the sale!
Reply
#7
(10-13-2018, 10:25 PM)RotorTim Wrote:
(10-10-2018, 05:35 PM)Casey Wrote: I dunno, seems fair to me, to me “factory built” also means “illegally flying” as well, so I consider that extra $20k to be a part of paying someone to build and register and test fly  your aircraft so if the FAA ever comes knocking, it won’t be a “fine” day ;P

*edit!*

After a lovely little phone-call with Mr. Flyguy I have realized that it may seem like I'm referring to the factory-assist build process as "illegal flying", but I just want to clarify that when I say "Factory Built" I mean actually an XET built by the factory, therefor bypassing the 51% FAA rule, therefor leaving the aircraft unregistered, therefor being illegal to fly, therefor my use of the term "illegally flying" lol! And yes, I know you people who ignore the laws are out there(you know who you are  Dodgy ).

I don' think the "factory" would be on board with what you are suggesting. Good luck with the sale!

What do you mean? Of course they're on board for selling helicopters lol. The 51% rule, the registration process, all of those FAA hoops to jump through are 100% the responsibility of the purchaser. Composite FX isn't an enforcement agency and is perfectly capable and willing to sell completed helicopters because that part of the process is legal. Now if someone were to fly a helicopter that should be registered as Experimental without without 51% or registration, etc. then that person is the one who is in big trouble. But CFX will absolutely sell you a completed helicopter, they even make more money off of them that way over the Factory Assist build as they can complete the copters is some ridiculous time like 2 weeks, instead of having a customer in their shop for weeks and weeks, pulling away valuable resources from other jobs not to mention safety concerns as well. Ha, don't take my word for it, call them and ask them hehe  Tongue

That's also why a Factory Assist fee is the exact same as the Factory Built fee, because even at the same price they make a lot less money off of FA than FB...kinda a shame really...FAA really could give us a category like LSA has so that the factory could sell 100% completed and registered ships....
"Into the fires of forever we will fly through the heavens
With the power of the universe we stand strong together
Through the force in our power, it will soon reach the hour
For victory we ride, Fury of the Storm!" 
Reply
#8
Is it really illegal to fly a factory-built machine, on one’s own property, in a manner which causes no risk or disturbance to any third party? Well, it is obviously contrary to the US FARs, but are they enforceable?

In Europe the answer is probably that no such “taking” or restriction of use of property is enforceable, because the Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights includes the right to peaceful enjoyment of property, and that Charter takes precedence over all other Union or national Regulations.

In the US Constitution (and here I plead ignorance of any relevant case law) the protection of property does not seem to be quite so explicitly stated - perhaps because it is such a fundamental principle of common law. Still, I think that one could argue that private use of a single-seat helicopter at, say, “crop dusting” height and at a safe distance from any person, vessel, vehicle or any structure not owned or occupied by the pilot, is protected by the fifth amendment as well as by common law.

At least, if some US airman had deep enough pockets, it would make an interesting case for the new Supreme Court to chew on...
Reply
#9
You do not own the airspace above your home....so yes, it is enforceable.
Reply
#10
Just my own observation here....

It is enforceable, but not really practical for the FAA to go looking for it. If they get enough complaints then maybe...

Its a lot like the no cell phone use while driving laws here in California... it has not stopped most people from doing it, because the police are not everywhere to see it, or are more concerned with speeders and light runners.

Daryl
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)