John,

 

I only I could grant wishes.............

 

Here is the issue - builders, kit manufacturers, builder assist shops, guns for hire and other factors have pushed the FAA into a corner.  "Majority of work" and "education and recreation" are terms with some fluidity that have been, uh, stretched to the extreme with respect to the Experimental, Amateur Built category. 

 

There are many of us that would prefer that this category is not messed up with further regulation. It has served us admirably over the years.  What is preferable is another category, say "Experimental, professionally built" with all the necessary regulations to assure that professionals are, uh, acting professionally.

 

Grayhawk

 

 

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> .