Kyrilian:

I appreciate your comments.

What would YOU tell the FAA at this point.  Do you feel that further defining 51% is the solution, or would that just make life for honest builders more difficult?

Would it make sense to leave the regs as they are and just enforce the current guidelines?

John


On 8/3/08 11:47 AM, "Kyrilian Dyer" <kyrilian_av@yahoo.com> wrote:

John,

It seems that everyone is concerned about amateur building regulations becoming stricter, and I'm no different.  However, I don't agree with some of the presumptions and conclusions that are being drawn.

You ask why the FAA wants to curtail pure commercial assistance.  Further, you equate safety with the builders' safety.  Finally, you propose that the FAA is in bed with the certificated airframe manufacturers.  As someone involved in flight test and certification of TC'd aircraft (large military and commercial helicopters) I suggest that this is silly.

My understanding is that the regulations to which TC manufacturers must comply are largely the result of accidents.  Though perhaps imperfect, the FAA's intent for type certificated aircraft is the safety of passengers and people on the ground (ie, the unsuspecting public).  

The '51% rule' and all that's associated with the amateur built category has little to do with our (the builders') safety.  It's there, again, to protect the unsuspecting public.  This doesn't just include passengers and people on the ground, but future owners as well.  Why, do you ask, does this make any sense?

As I see it, implicit in the 51% requirement is that you have to disclose that you, an unqualified builder are building an unqualified design.  Besides disclosure, personal builders have a liability interest that a potentially fly-by-night commercial outfit may not take as seriously as an individual hobbyist.

You say that professionally built airplanes are better.  Says who?

I see so many ads for homebuilts that list them as 'professionally built'.  What does that mean?  Besides admitting to the FAA that they broke the rules (except, perhaps in the few cases where the sellers are themselves 'professional builders'), these sellers are presenting the aircraft as built by someone who is 'qualified'.  What defines a professional builder?  Someone with an A&P?  Someone who's built an airplane before?  Heck, why couldn't it be a complete novice who's simply collecting money for his/her effort?  Does money=skill?  Buyers are led to believe that these 'professionally built' airplanes are better than those built by regular people, right?  Otherwise, why mention it?  Isn't the implication here that these airplanes are built by 'qualified' builders?  Maybe I've had a sip of the Kool Aid, but I think there are good reasons that type certificated airplanes are built under direct oversight of the FAA or indirectly with production certificates.  The intent, whether perfect or not, is for the builder to meet defined and repeatable qualification standards.  Ten prior kit builds or an A&P certificate are insufficient qualifications for the manufacturers of TC'd airplanes--what's the qualification associated with 'professionally-built' homebuilts?

Note that I'm not talking about professional assistance.  The current rules allow for this, and hopefully will continue to do so.

Some people have suggested that amateur-built airplanes are just as safe as TC'd aircraft.  Is this true?  Frankly, I doubt it.  For a fair comparison one would have to compare similar aircraft on similar missions flown by similar pilots.  This may be tough to do.  What TC'd aircraft would we use as comparison?  IVPT with a TBM?  ES with a SR22 or C400?  Obviously, there are many homebuilt types for which there is no TC'd counterpart, but perhaps that's the point.  Slower, more boring handling aircraft tend to be safer.  Missions may be tough to match up as well, since by definition homebuilt aircraft shouldn't be used for business.  Finally, I'd contend that builder pilots are not the same as non-builder pilots.  I don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing though!

Perhaps I'm a pessimist, but I don't think it's smart for regulations to be optimistic--we shouldn't assume that everyone will 'do the right' thing.  Just consider the current rules that clearly lay out what we may have someone do for us, and how many people have wholly flaunted them.

While I've read that homebuilt safety has improved recently at the same time that 'professional' assistance has bloomed, I think it's foolhardy to presume that this trend (if true) has reason to continue if the regulatory climate were to change.  Here’s a hypothetical:  If some very intelligent and dedicated people got together and taught themselves medicine or law and went out and practiced diligently, it's possible that they could be very successful.  They'd be working extra hard to be perfect, because for them the cost of failure could be jail, rather than slightly higher malpractice premiums or a lawsuit.  One could argue then that if they did so and were shown to perform better than their certified counterparts that the regulations for those fields were pointless.

A string of successes shouldn't lead one to presume that bar exams, board exams, or type and production certificates are pointless.  Not everything that meets regulations is good and not all that doesn't is bad.  But most regulations were born from experience.  Let's hope that abuses of the rules don't force those rules to become excessively restrictive for those that want to meet the original intent.

I think it's interesting that many people are angry with the FAA for taking another hack at the amateur built regs, while few people have bitched about those who brought this unwanted attention.  Sure, some will argue that we have a right to do whatever we want and to heck with the government, but come on...  Then why bother getting a pilot's certificate?  Don't get me wrong though; I think it's imperative that we ensure that the resulting regulations don't change the tone of this great experience.  Hopefully the regs won't change at all, but I think we're beyond that.

 Cheers,
- Kyrilian
  L2K-236

--- On Fri, 8/1/08, John Hafen <j.hafen@comcast.net> wrote:

From: John Hafen <j.hafen@comcast.net>
Subject: [LML] Re: FAA comment on new 51%  A/B Ruling
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Friday, August 1, 2008, 1:07 PM

Re: [LML] Re: FAA comment on new 51%  A/B Ruling Mike, thanks for your comments.  You state:

“If the FAA's goal is to curtail pure commercial assistance and get back to builders building their own airplanes, the proposed changes won't get the job done.  There will still be plenty of opportunity to bend the rules and hide the commercial assistance in the paperwork.”

I agree with your statement, but what is the point of the FAA wanting to “curtail pure commercial assistance?”  Why would they care?  It can’t be about safety, because the commercial builders out there are way better at their jobs than many of us amateurs are, so what is the point???  In deed, what is the point of the 51% rule at all.

As I stated in another email, I think the whole point of the 51% rule is to protect the certified airplane builders from home-built competition.  It has nothing to do with safety.  It is government control to assure a type of monopoly owned by the certified guys.

John