On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:31:14 -0500, Jim Logajan
wrote:

The PDF document of the committee's final report is he

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/u...008_report.pdf

thanks for posting this Jim.

as a interested non american can I pass some comments.

you americans have gone off on a tangent. you've forgotten what is
important here.
much of what is in this determination and the regs it relates to is
nonsense.

safe amateur construction is about the resulting aircraft being
structurally adequate for flight and having flight dynamics such that
the pilot can actually fly the aircraft.

the 50 or 51% rule is a total irrelevance. it has no direct
correlation with safety or structural adequacy.
in fact forcing a builder to do a poorer job than an expert who might
assist is plain stupid in safety terms.

the worry that people will bypass the certified manufacturing system
is just a stupid imposition of wills argument. why the hell are you
seeking to stifle enterprise? the actual requirement is that people
put structurally adequate aircraft into the air. how they do it is
only relevant if you are a jealous little dweeb.
why the worry about this? for heavens sake Cessna is about to market
the Dreamcatcher, an aircraft made in the sweatshops of china.
you havent worried about that and yet you support the stupid argument
that people can only build in the manner prescribed by a 1930's safety
approach.

if you dont frame your legislation in terms of the structural adequacy
of the final aircraft you've missed the point entirely.
the 51% rule is a crock, a legal convenience used by a judge in a
determination, why you've made this into a religion is beyond thinking
people.

sorry but you guys have missed the boat entirely with this thinking.
hopefully it wont take the rest of the century before you realise.

Stealth Pilot