X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 22:14:27 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from QMTA05.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.48] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.5) with ESMTP id 3046428 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 01:46:26 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=76.96.30.48; envelope-from=j.hafen@comcast.net Received: from OMTA13.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.52]) by QMTA05.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id vbQ11Z00217UAYkA5hlnER; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:45:47 +0000 Received: from [10.0.1.199] ([76.22.72.149]) by OMTA13.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id vhlm1Z0013DF2e48ZhlmuH; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:45:47 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=RnOZ9p3EAAAA:8 a=QlPV3G_l0DLEVgR5U70A:9 a=AruHLZsnKda_VENtSUIA:9 a=z-KtJnxdwemYR0rZGkoA:7 a=ZNEeBKP9oHMomImClOnUy19X9RwA:4 a=LVFWH4gLBqYA:10 a=WXeBIXQGKSFtCyQdq2wA:9 a=PbK9LjWDz6vtkJNeyuUA:7 a=b0ipwfHmjubVoIrc3UDXIbqvApIA:4 a=Sz-0p1zU2dQA:10 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.11.0.080522 X-Original-Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 22:45:45 -0700 Subject: FAA comment on new 51% A/B Ruling From: John Hafen X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List X-Original-Message-ID: Thread-Topic: FAA comment on new 51% A/B Ruling Thread-Index: AcjxPlgy0T99d86xGEeSFMVAGZnacg== Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3300129947_436247" > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3300129947_436247 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Gents: FAA Director of Certification John Hickey is now on record that the FAA wants go get back to the original intent of the Experimental / Amateur-Buil= t intent (from 1952, 56 years ago), and that the new policy will mean much tighter enforcement of the 51% rule. He says its not a done deal and invites comments. The comment period has been extended to 30 Sep 08. I=B9m trying to get smarter on the docs to intelligently let my voice be hear= d and I invite you to do the same. You can start at www.faa.gov for the proposed 51% ruling for experimental aircraft. From what I=B9ve seen so far, the FAA=B9s new proposal is an unworkable mess. I=B9m not sure why the FAA feels like they have to go back to the original intent of the 1952 ruling, as if the EAA ruling was the Constitution of the United States? I will recommend that they take into account some of the things we=B9ve learned about aircraft manufacturing and aircraft safety in th= e last 56 years. I will argue that aircraft can be home built and SAFE, and that safety won=B9t be achieved by their silly recommendations. Silly. For example, the proposed ruling, as you know, says we have to =B3assemble=B2 a= t least 20% of the kit, and =B3fabricate=B2 at least 20% of the kit. If =B3you assemble your aircraft from a kit composed of completely finished prefabricated components, parts, or precut or predrilled materials, and using these materials means you did not fabricate the major portion of the aircraft, =B3 then that plane is not eligible for experimental certification. The FAA defines =B3Fabrication=B2 as =B3to construct a structure or component fro= m raw stock or materials.=B2 They don=B9t define =B3raw stock or materials=B2 but they do say, =B3the raw materials may include lengths of wood, tubing, extrusions, or similar items that may have been cut to an approximate length. We will also accept some prefabricated parts such as heat-treated ribs, bulkheads, or complex parts made from sheet metal, fiberglass, or polystyrene, and precut/predrilled material, provided you fabricate and assemble the major portion of the aircraft as required by 21.191(g), Experimental certificates.=B2 So, if I=B9m reading this correctly, you can=B9t use prefabricated components o= r precut or predrilled materials, yet you can use prefabricated parts such as heat-treated ribs, bulkheads, or complex parts made from sheet metal, fiberglass, and precut/predrilled material.....=B2 Imagine trying to a) obey and b) enforce such ill-defined, random gobbledygook. =20 In my humble opinion, an Old Testament Leviticus style definition and enforcement of the Holy 51% rule is not going to make an airplane safe, onl= y keep us out wandering around the desert a few more years. So to preserve what we are doing here in building fun fast cool experimentals, please get smart on this over the next month or so, and fill out the forms the FAA provides to critique their proposals. Thanks, John Hafen IVP 413AJ --B_3300129947_436247 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable FAA comment on new 51%  A/B Ruling
Gents:

FAA Director of Certification John Hickey is now on record that the FAA wan= ts go get back to the original intent of the Experimental / Amateur-Built in= tent (from 1952, 56 years ago), and that the new policy will mean much tight= er enforcement of the 51% rule.

He says its not a done deal and invites comments.  The comment period = has been extended to 30 Sep 08.

I’m trying to get smarter on the docs to intelligently let my voice b= e heard and I invite you to do the same.  You can start at www.faa.gov = for the proposed 51% ruling for experimental aircraft.

From what I’ve seen so far, the FAA’s new proposal is an unwork= able mess.

I’m not sure why the FAA feels like they have to go back to the origi= nal intent of the 1952 ruling, as if the EAA ruling was the Constitution of = the United States?  I will recommend that they take into account some o= f the things we’ve learned about aircraft manufacturing and aircraft s= afety in the last 56 years.  I will argue that aircraft  can be ho= me built and SAFE, and that safety won’t be achieved by their silly re= commendations.

Silly.

For example, the proposed ruling, as you know, says we have to “assem= ble” at least 20% of the kit, and “fabricate” at least 20%= of the kit.  If “you assemble your aircraft from a kit composed = of completely finished prefabricated components, parts, or precut or predril= led materials, and using these materials means you did not fabricate the maj= or portion of the aircraft, “ then that plane is not eligible for expe= rimental certification.

The FAA defines “Fabrication” as “to construct a structur= e or component from raw stock or materials.”  

They don’t define “raw stock or materials” but they do sa= y, “the raw materials may include lengths of wood, tubing, extrusions,= or similar items that may have been cut to an approximate length.  We = will also accept some prefabricated parts such as heat-treated ribs, bulkhea= ds, or complex parts made from sheet metal, fiberglass, or polystyrene, and = precut/predrilled material, provided you fabricate and assemble the major po= rtion of the aircraft as required by 21.191(g), Experimental certificates.&#= 8221;

So, if I’m reading this correctly, you can’t use prefabricated = components or precut or predrilled materials, yet you can use prefabricated = parts such as heat-treated ribs, bulkheads, or complex parts made from sheet= metal, fiberglass, and precut/predrilled material.....”

Imagine trying to a) obey and b) enforce such ill-defined, random gobbledyg= ook.  

In my humble opinion, an Old Testament Leviticus style definition and enfor= cement of the Holy 51% rule is not going to make an airplane safe, only keep= us out wandering around the desert a few more years.

So to preserve what we are doing here in building fun fast cool experimenta= ls, please get smart on this over the next month or so, and fill out the for= ms the FAA provides to critique their proposals.

Thanks,

John Hafen
IVP 413AJ




















 --B_3300129947_436247--