|
|
Re: [LML] 51% Rule, the FAA
Jim: I love it when people get emotional. And don’t worry about being terse.
In reply to your note below:
- The serious overtones are intended.
- Certified is highly regulated, clearly defined, and precise. It’s clearly understandable. You can comply with it because it is clear.
- I don’t consider the FAA as “generous” in taking my rights away. You and I come from different starting points on this issue. You start from the point that you have no rights, and the government grants you some rights. I start from the point of having inalienable rights and freedom, at which the government chips away.
- If “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” is how you feel, I recommend you not do it. And I recommend you not do it because you choose not do do it out of common sense and self preservation rather than having the Feds micro-manage you and tell you personally not do do it.
- You say “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’re missing the point. There is already a strict, precise, exact definition of 51%. And it doesn’t keep us from building planes in the kitchens (picture my wife’s face when she found a hardened blue glob of Hysol in her sink). My point, is that it is a strict and precise definition of the indefinable. 51% of arbitrary is still arbitrary.
- You say, “The regs are there to protect us not to inhibit us.” Do you know what “regulation” means? (a principle, rule or law for controlling behavior. A governmental order with the force of law.) Regulations are inhibiting by definition. Regulations don’t allow you to do things. Regulations regulate. They proscribe. They control. They inhibit. Experimental aircraft building is all about getting out from beneath the jack boot of governmental regulatory control.
- You say, “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.” Ignoring your patronization, my desire is to follow the rules. Exactly. My frustration is not that they are poorly written (I think they are well written), but that they are illogical. They pretend to be able to quantity the unquantifiable. The unquantifiable is “what does it mean for a guy to build 51% of an airplane?” There is “build.” There is “assemble.” There is “manufacture.” There is “construct.” There is “fabricate.” 51% cannot be precisely defined, and that’s the whole problem. If the Feds can’t define what they want us to do, then they should not impose regulations based on the indefinable.
Of all the Federal Regulations that come to mind (tax code, import export laws, visas, etc.), experimental aircraft regulations are probably the most difficult to clearly understand, and therefore comply with.
If the FAA gives us a fuzzy definition of 51%, the best we can do is to comply fuzzily.
Cheers,
John
On 7/23/08 7:29 PM, "Jim Nordin" <panelmaker@earthlink.net> wrote:
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> .
|
|