On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 23:27:34 -0700, Richard Riley
wrote:

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 21:59:11 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:

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 don't think the "no corporations" rule would have the effect you
want. A "custom built" plane would almost certainly have more than
one person working on it, if there's enough volume to justify the
system. The people in charge of building would hire someone poor
(and maybe foreign) to be listed as the builder.

My thought would be to set things up so that the person(s) who built the
aircraft were clearly identified. Not necessary a "no corporations" clause, but
something to minimize the use of dummy corporations to slough off the liability
for their work. There have been cases where the product of the hired gun has
been pure crap.

It might just entail having the FAA inspector verify the status of the primary
builder or corporation as part of the certification process. Since this
category would be specifically for commercial use, have the FAA add a fee for
doing this checking.

Ron Wanttaja