Actually the term "amateur" isn't necessarily derogatory, as in many
amateur vs. pro sports, the latter being sellouts for the money. But
"OBAM" wouldn't necessarily be accurate either. Completed
experimentals are bought and sold, in which case the owner neither
built it nor may be doing other than simple maintenance. It also
legitimizes those people who hire professionals to totally build their
kits but will never admit it.
What the general public thinks doesn't particularly bother me, since
most of those who would not board a plane built in a garage wouldn't
climb inside a ratty C-172 either (or maybe even a new one). Fact is
many pilots distrust experimentals too. Bob is absolutely right about
kitplanes and internet-based support groups. It's contributing to the
decline of many EAA chapters. Bad for EAA, but better for quality and
airworthiness than random, individual skills within a typical chapter
could ever achieve.
I'm not on the AeroElectric list, so feel free to suggest something
else. Can't think of one right now.
Regards,
Fred F., A063, N3EU
Eddie and Sue Lindsay wrote:
>
> Thought this might be of interest. - Ed Lindsay -
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
> >
> > OBAM is the seed of an idea that I thought I'd plant and see what
> > happens. For years, we've been pretty proud of "amateur built" or
> > "home built" as terms to describe our craft. Problem is, if you use
> > these terms in conversation with the average person on the street
> > you get a response that is less than positive.
> >
> > "You mean these airplanes are built in somebody's house?" or
> > "My gawd, I'd never set foot in an airplane built by an AMATEUR."
> >
> > Using the word "experimental" isn't any better. So how about
> > Owner Built and Maintained aircraft?
> > ....
|