John,

 

You must go read the history of what the EAA accomplished in getting the FAA "Experimental, Amateur Built" airworthiness category established.

 

I believe the text was (is) something like "The builder shall do a majority of the work in constructing the plane.  The purpose of the plane is for the education and recreation of the builder."

 

Majority = 51% rule.

 

I think the FAA has come more than 50% of the way in only requiring at least 20% of the fabrication and at least 20% of the assembly as sub-requirements of accomplishing the majority of the work.

 

What is interesting is that the FAA has placed no safety requirements on the pilot (the insurance companies have, however).  The airworthiness certificate is issued if it is an aircraft, built with reasonable standards and the engine runs.  There usually is a check of the builder's log and a Q & A to determine if the builder did enough of the work (has intimate knowledge) to qualify for the repairmen's certificate - thus allowing the builder to sign off the required annual inspection.

 

Remember that there is a placard informing occupants that the aircraft was not built to FAA standards.

 

What more do you want?

 

Perhaps you have yet to build an aircraft in this category?

 

 

As I read about fabrication versus assembly versus X percentage of building
work not applying to the entire aircraft but only the "builder's portion"
that is arbitrarily defined anyway, it seems to me that the FAA has
complicated this issue beyond comprehension, much like the IRS has done with
our tax code.

I would argue that an aircraft is either certified, or it is not.  Anything
less that a 100% compliant aircraft is simply not certified.

I question the value of the arbitrary assignment of 51%.  It is still not
certified.  Is it "half certified?"  (I would argue no, since the half that
got built by an amateur still got built by an amateur, therefore, "no
certification for you.") If a plane is built by an unqualified amateur, one
could argue that ANY portion of the plane built by that unwashed amateur
(myself in the case of LIVP N413AJ) is unsafe, or at least not certified,
therefore making the entire airplane dangerous.

Is "safety" the point behind the 51% rule?  What is the FAA justification
that makes 51 the magic number.  Does 51% make it "safe?"  If the amateur
doesn't have to build to certification standards, why is 51 significant,
relevant, or applicable?

Does the FAA think that a plane that was constructed 100% (or at least 51%)
by a guy who doesn't know what he is doing is safer than a plane built for
pay by a shop who has done it dozens of times?

Someone please tell me what I'm not seeing here.  What is the FAA's
rationale in assigning 51% as the magic number?  Does it have any meaning
what-so-ever?  Why not just say it is certified, or it is not certified,
plane and simple?

Thanks in advance,

John