It has been suggested that a contractor-built kitplane will always be safer than an owner-built airplane.  I don't agree.  Some builder support centers provide first-class workmanship.  The one I went to (Aircrafters) was certainly one of those.  I have also visited private individuals who build airplanes for other people and seen excellent work being done.  However, just because someone is charging for their services doesn't make them an expert.  We've all seen good car mechanics and bad ones.  And we've been shown several pictures on this forum of some pretty shoddy workmanship done by "professionals" (or at least people who got paid to do it).  So charging for building services is no guarantee of safety.

If we were going to claim that builder support shops always provide airworthy services, we'd have to insist that they be regulated and licensed.  But wait, the FAA does that already, don't they?  It's called an A&P certificate.  Would we be willing to say that the owner can purchase as much support as he wants, as long as it is done under the supervision of an A&P?  That might work.

How about motivation?  The owner wants to stay alive -- the builder support center wants to get paid.  Who is more motivated towards safety?  You do the math.

What about resale?  Suppose I buy a plane that someone else built?  Why is that okay when paying someone to build it for me is not?  Isn't it really the same thing?  The answer is simple -- presumably it has flown enough that it's airworthiness has been demonstrated.

As far as contractor help is concerned, I only have a problem with awarding a repairman's certificate to an owner who paid a guy to build his airplane for him. Unless the owner is an A&P, they may not know enough to maintain it.  But letting someone buy assistance -- that should be fine, as long as it is done under the supervision of an A&P.  And if you don't do "the majority" then you don't get a repairman's certificate.

- Rob Wolf