I’ve delayed sending this as I though
it a bit terse but I just can’t let this stand as it is. And I realize it’s
a “want list” you’re talking about here but there are serious
overtones that should be addressed.
John, you point out (wish) that the FAA
should get out of everything that isn’t “Certified”. Well the
plane you built is “certified” if you had it inspected. It’s
in the Experimental category, Amateur built. The FAA is very generous (with the
dedicated help of the EAA) in allowing us to build airplanes that have the
capability of flying 300 mph, over heavy populated areas, in IMC, and the other
conditions that would challenge the guy at the wheel to the point of
destruction. A strict definition of who built what or percentages would
strangle the homebuilder to the point you would not be able to build a plane in
your garage or anywhere else. You would be required to have certifications to
build airplanes the same as standard category airplanes. It’s too bad you
don’t want the feds telling you that you can’t do something because
you didn’t measure up to the regs. I don’t want you flying things
that don’t measure up. The regs are there to protect us not to inhibit
us. Naive? Hardly. I’ve built airplanes and know the complexity and
truly appreciate the rules and regs for what they allow us to do. You want to
jump off a hill with a sheet for a wing (your example)… the FAA has no
problem with that … go for it. That’s a hell of a lot different
than flying a 3,000 pound 300mph machine over populated areas at night in IMC …
the FAA could make that much more problematic. They could make it impossible to
fly VMC in a 60hp single passenger machine you built when flying over the
unpopulated desert only on Saturday mornings when the bp is above 30”!
The FAA could just do away with the option altogether. All this said I would
not discourage you to wish all you want. Give a good shot at abiding by the
rules too, poorly written as they may be. Take them seriously for they are
constructive and well meaning.
Jim
From: Lancair Mailing
List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf
Of John Hafen
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008
9:03 AM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: 51% Rule, the
FAA, and the IRS
Grayhawk:
I spent two years full time (I quit my day job) building IVP 413AJ. I
have about 75 hours on it now and I love it.
I will confess to you that I cheated the system because I did not build the
plane for education and recreation purposes. Nothing else was available
with the performance of a IVP for anywhere near the price. I just wanted
the price/performance ratio provided by a LIVP. Please don’t tell
the FAA because that makes me illegal.
You ask, “What more do you what?”
Well, if you are the genie and I get some wishes, here goes. I would like
some honesty from the FAA that a strict definition of who built what and or
percentages etc., is simply unrealistic, unworkable, unenforceable, pointless,
and therefore silly and unnecessary. They should regulate certified
airplanes, and control controlled airspaces, and get their noses out of
everything everything else. If I am bold enough to strap some kind of
flying machine onto my butt and jump off a hill, and I don’t endanger
others by doing so, my wish to you, mister genie, is that I don’t want
the federal government (FAA) telling me I can’t because I didn’t
build enough of it.
There should be two categories: Certified, and NSM (Not So Much).
John
Like you’ I’m not TSO certified either. Only >70%.
On 7/21/08 10:15 AM, "Sky2high@aol.com"
<Sky2high@aol.com> wrote:
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?
Scott Krueger AKA Grayhawk
Lancair N92EX IO320 SB 89/96
Aurora, IL (KARR)
Pilot not TSO'd, Certificated score only > 70%.
In a message dated 7/20/2008 5:58:46 A.M. Central Daylight Time, j.hafen@comcast.net writes:
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
Get fantasy football with free live
scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today <http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020>
.