On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 10:59:03 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:


I guess the real question is why does the FAA feel it's necessary for
a homebuilder to have done 51% of the work? Is it to protect him from
himself, or to protect the public from him, or are there other
reasons? What of the prototypes built by Lockheed or Boeing; 51% of
them aren't constructed by a single individual.

Those aircraft aren't certified under Experimental-Homebuilt. The only
place the 51% rule applies. And for the record the rule isn't that the
plane be built 51% by Joe T. Nomebuilder it is that 51% of the TASKS
have to be done by Joe or others for Education and Recreation.


From what authority does our government's power to demand how a
citizen recreates or educates himself emanate? It seems the FAA may
be overstepping their authority in making such demands if there is no
rational reason for it. Is there evidence that 51% constructed
aircraft provide some measure of safety to the public that aircraft
manufactured by a third party don't?

The real question is why does the FAA feel it's necessary for a
homebuilder to have done 51% of the work? Does it make the public
safer, and if you think so, how? It seems absurd to me.

The FAA should inspect the completed aircraft, and if it isn't deemed
to be a hazard to the public, it should be permitted to operate within
the NAS, period. Is there some history of a policy such as that
causing problems?



It seems that there is some fundamental assumption that I am
overlooking, because the current FAA 51% mandate seems arbitrary and
unfounded to me.

Congress passed the law requiring the FAA to create the regulations.
That's how it works in Washington.

Have you any idea what prompted Congress to pass such a law concerning
homebuilt aircraft? Is there a good reason for it, one that makes the
public safer?

The law was designed to allow home builders to do exactly that "For
recreation and education.

I find it curious that the FAA is able to regulate the _motivation_ of
homebuilders. That seems spurious on face. From my point of view,
the FAA's role is to attempt to assure that folks aren't creating an
aerial hazard to the public, nothing more. Why should we permit the
FAA to tell us what to think or demand that we have self-education as
our motivation? If that sort of government scrutiny is permitted
today, how far away are the thought-police?

When it was first passed the way it was
implemented in the real world was Joe T. Homebuilder bought some plans
or even designed it himself and then went to the hardware store and
bought what he needed an built the plane.

As time passed companies started putting to kits of all the parts (in
very unfinished form) needed to build their plans and selling that along
with the plans. All is good at this point because buying raw material
isn't really either education and it certainly isn't recreational.

More time passed and those kits of parts started becoming more and
complete and finished.

I fail to see any problem with that. The kit manufacturers are
providing a reasonable service. They complete some of the more arcane
construction that may demand specific skills or tools. Is that a bad
thing? Why?

The FAA saw the problem and modified the
regulation with the completely reasonable 51% rule.


Well, it seems you and the FAA see a problem, but I don't.

The "problem" being that the homebuilder hadn't done a significant
portion of the work. So what? Why is that a problem? I just fail to
understand the FAA's rational for demanding that the homebuilder do
the majority of the work. It may be reasonable, but no one has
provided a logical rational for it yet in this discussion.