Colyn
The rule was worked out years ago between homebuilders and the FAA. It is
one of the great freedoms we have as compared to many other countries. What
has happened is that a few individuals and companies have tried to
circumvent the requirements of the standard category airworthiness
requirements. We all know a builder who was only present to write a check
for delivery of his newly completed aircraft, and never spent a minute in
building process. We also know of a company that wanted to sell a complex
aircraft and it had to be built in their facility. These are not
homebuilders! Go back and look at the definition of homebuilt aircraft in
the rule and preamble to the homebuilt rule, then tell me that what I have
described above meets the homebuilt rule? I for one, do not want to lose my
privileges.

Now for safety. That's what we have in our Technical counselors, EAA and
experienced friends. Are homebuilt's unsafe? Don't think so. Do homebuilders
make mistakes? Sure they do. If you, as a home builder, followed all the
requirements contained in the certification regulations on your project, it
would be "maybe" marginally safer, but if you followed the advice of the
experts who oversaw your project, you would probably be just as safe from a
construction point of view. Remember, in GA, about 75% of the accidents are
the results of the guy in charge making poor decisions. Two recent accidents
come to mind, the LIV-P a week or so ago, which probably was the result of
icing, and the Columbia, last week that appears to be the result of really
bad weather at the destination. Neither was the result of who built the
aircraft.

Giff Marr
LIV-P/Mistral 70%



-----Original Message-----
From: Colyn Case on earthlink [mailto:colyncase@earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 9:46 AM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: 51% rule?

so....not to get off track here or anything.....but shouldn't the issue be
how to make the planes safe?
vs. who did the work?