On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 23:29:41 -0400, "Roger (K8RI)" wrote:

Although I can't afford to hire some one to build for me, I don't see
a so called "hired gun" any different than purchasing a used home
built. One of the main reasons for building is being able to do your
own maintenance. Whether you hire one built or purchase used you do
not have that option.

Not quite true. Anyone can *maintain* a homebuilt aircraft. The annual
condition inspection, however, must be performed by a qualified individual (A&P
or the Repairman Certificate for that aircraft).

The biggest problem in the "hired gun" building is the perjury that is entailed
if the owner certifies it in the Experimental/Amateur-Built category. The FAA
needs a new subcategory equivalent to Amateur-Built...."Custom-Built" or some
similar verbiage. No 51% rule, no Repairman Certificates, maintenance can be
performed by owner, annuals must be by A&P.

Manufacturer's name on the registration to be listed as the actual name (e.g.,
no corporations or other liability dodges) of the primary builder. If certified
parts are used, they have full AD vulnerability. If a non-certified engine is
used, again, the builder's name is listed as the engine manufacturer.

I'd couple this with some additional restrictions on Experimental Amateur-Built
to force things back to Education/Recreation. Maybe scale back some of the
recent 51% rule interpretations. Maybe eliminate turbine engines,
turbochargers, and pressurization, or just limit them to planes of two seats or
less.

Ron Wanttaja