Mailing List lml@lancaironline.net Message #46286
From: <marknlisa@hometel.com>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: RE: 51% Rule
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:13:47 -0500
To: <lml@lancaironline.net>
This issue is NOT about flight safety, it's about fair play. Those arguing an airplane completed with builder's assistance is safer have allowed themselves to be distracted.
 
I'll suggest an aircraft built by an amateur MAY or MAY NOT be as safe as an FAA-blessed and certified aircraft -- hell it could be safer (let's not get into how one would quantify that). We would all probably agree that SOME builder assistance in critical areas is a GOOD THING as regards flight safety -- especially in the case of someone with no engineering or manufacturing background.
 
It's when builder assistance morphed into builder REPLACEMENT that fair play became the issue forcing the FAA to act. Why should Cessna, who followed all the rules and paid all the costs to attain FAA certification for its products have to compete with Billy Bob's Airplane Factory churning out "amateur-built" kitplanes?
 
Personally, I could care less whether anyone else wants to have their kit assembled built by a "professional." That's not why I PERSONALLY became involved in this hobby, but my motivations are not everyone's. Likewise, I could care less if the FAA were no longer involved in aircraft certification. I think the market would soon force out any company building a substandard product, with or without FAA involvement.
 
But if ONE company building airplanes for profit must pay certification costs, then ALL must. Suggesting the business of building airplanes from kits for clients should be allowed because it improves safety only diverts attention from the real issue; it's not fair.
 
Discussing the motivations of businesses who provided said builder's assistance is a waste of time -- only they know why. What's important is it gave the APPEARANCE -- right or wrong -- of attempting to circumvent the rules.
 
Rules regarding the sale of amateur-built aircraft from one individual to another need no review as long as the rules regarding its initial construction are observed. If a person purchases an "experimental" aircraft without due diligence... well, let's all remember the last half of the word is "mental," we all have to be a little bit to get involved in this hobby!
 
At any rate, it sounds as if the industry/government committee called to study the situation agreed on this point; a rule-change regarding "professionally-built experimental aircraft" is coming down the pike. Unfortunately, the scrutiny of one issue (fairplay) generated further scrutiny of another -- what is 51%? Sadly, since the committee wasn't able to agree on a definition, the FAA will now develop and apply its own without industry input -- any discussion here on the LML is moot.
 
Personally I'm surprised anyone might be surprised. Bureaucracies have ever responded thus to rule-skirting. Anyone who grew up with brothers and/or sisters or who enjoyed Basic Military Training as a member of the armed services recognizes the cycle -- someone pushes the envelope and everyone suffers.
 
Regards,
 
Mark Sletten
Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster