Roger (K8RI) wrote:
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 17:44:15 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
wrote:


"Stache" wrote in message
oups.com...
Committee To Review 51% Rule
Government, Industry Partnership To Review Amateur-Builder Statutes

The FAA is concerned that some builders-for-hire and commercial
"builder's assistance" providers are doing more that the FARs permit
when it comes to amateur-built aircraft.

According to the FAA they can do a lot. So those abusing the system
are apparently constructing major portions of the project without the
builder being involved.



snip

The Committee will meet next in November in Washington, D.C.


I'd say the 51% rule is in no danger. People who set up professional build
shops, and their customers are the ones who will suffer. Rightly so, IMO.

The FAA clarified the rule earlier this year by saying: When they say
51% they do not mean the builder actually does 51% of the labor, but
(and they clarified that by saying. If the builder does one aileron
then they know how to do an aileron and some one else may build the
other.) The basic tenant was the builder learn and do the building
requirements. OTOH it's difficult to build half a stabilizer on many
planes like the G-III where the horizontal stab is one piece when
finished. OTOH in the jump start kit the ribs are already bonded to
the top shell (bottom as jigged) and the stab is about ready to close.
For the first time builder of that plane it saves a lot of hours.


IMO the regulation needs to say that the amateur builder needs to
accomplish 51% of the total build hours and do a representative example
of each of the tasks required to go from raw material to airplane. He
may work "under the supervision of" an A&P or other professional but he
has to do it with his own physical involvement. An amateur builder
being someone who does not work as an aircraft mechanic or production
worker. They should be allowed to build an Experimental Amateur Built
for their own use but serious restrictions on how many they build, how
much they must fly it and how long they have to keep it should be
enacted to stop the hired guns cold. And the Builder Centers should be
very limited in how much of the work can be done there.

Type Certification is either good or it is bad. If it is good, and I
think it is, what we are seeing in experimental amateur built aviation
is largely a dodge around type certification. If it is bad, the EAA and
AOPA should at least have the balls to say that is their belief, either
on functional or libertarian grounds. I say we put the kibosh on this
subversion of rules that are for the benefit of everyone.

Two more things, since you love my opinions so much, one, time spent
homebuilding needs to be explicitly allowed to be applied to A&P
certification if it is done "under the supervision of", and two, the
certified engine provisions wiith regard to shorter test times need to
apply strictly to powerplants operated and maintained as certificated
engines, with the same recordkeeping and signoff requirements as those
in type certificated aircraft. That way a certified aircraft owner can
buy a homebuilt and if it is a certified engine pull its engine off and
put it on his certified aircraft. This is now "sometimes" possible
"depending on" how the locals interpret things, meaning aircraft
dealers won't look at an engine that has been on a homebuilt. My
purpose of course is to drive up costs of certified engines on used
homebuilts....