Professionally built?

"Bob Kuykendall" wrote in message
...
On Nov 27, 12:32 pm, es330td wrote:
I searched controller.com for lancair and found an entry that says
"Professionally built." Now I know that a homebuilt owner does not
have to build the entire thing themself but I thought it still had to
be an amateur undertaking. How does this pass muster with the FAA?

"Professionally Built" isn't a problem for Experimental aircraft. Many
aircraft were so built and subequently issued Experimental Racing and
Experimental Exhibition special airworthiness certificates.

However, it can be a big problem for an aircraft issued an
Experimental Amateur-Built special airworthiness certificate. The
rules are pretty clear that the major part of such aircraft are to be
constructed by folks who undertook the work solely for the purposes of
education and entertainment, that is, without money changing hands.
The word "Professional" implies here, as it does in the sports world,
financial transactions that likely violate the spirit if not the
letter of the Amateur-Built rules.

In at least one prior case, the FAA has moved a non-"51% rule"
aircraft out of Amateur-Built and into Racing or Exhibition. While
this is a relative non-issue for a glider or a single-seat acro
airplane, the additional operating limitations and Program Letter
requirements can put a huge onerous kink in your plans for a four-seat
cruiser.

Checking the controller.com site, I find not one but three Lancairs
that claim "professional construction," and at least one of those
lists a corporate entity as the manufacturer. Hopefully it's a non-
profit corporation...

I'm thinking that the sellers might be folks who haven't observed that
the FAA seems to have been cracking down on hired gunmanship, and that
they seem to be using sport aviation publications and circulars to do
it.

Thanks, Bob K.

From all I've read, the "51% Rule" is "clear as mud."

The owner/builder/applicant must have learned/demonstrated 51% of the
necessary tasks to assemble/build the aircraft. That might leave room for a
fascinating variety of imaginative interpretations.

Generally, I have read that the owner/builder/applicant should have
personally built/constructed at least one of 51% of the diferent items
specifically built for the aircraft. In other words; bolts, washers, and
rivets would not count. OTOH; ribs, gussets, and rivets that have been
pulled/driven would count.

Just because I intend to build it myself does not mean that it is required
by anything other than personal pride ... and bull-headedness.

Obviously, opinions vary and the issue is not likely to be fully resolved in
any of our lifetimes.

Peter
Just my $0.02

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:06:28 -0500, "Peter Dohm"
wrote:




From all I've read, the "51% Rule" is "clear as mud."

The owner/builder/applicant must have learned/demonstrated 51% of the
necessary tasks to assemble/build the aircraft. That might leave room for a
fascinating variety of imaginative interpretations.

Generally, I have read that the owner/builder/applicant should have
personally built/constructed at least one of 51% of the diferent items
specifically built for the aircraft. In other words; bolts, washers, and
rivets would not count. OTOH; ribs, gussets, and rivets that have been
pulled/driven would count.


many years ago a judge was making a determination in a case where he
needed to establish whether the chap had an interest in an aircraft.
as i recall a feature in the case was proven if the guy had built most
of the aircraft. the judge made an off the cuff decision that if the
chap had built more than half his case was accepted.
a deciding majority legally is 51%.

51% has actually no more significance than something established as
part of a case many years ago.

what is actually required is structurally safe aircraft.

the fact that 51% has taken such hold in the environment is just
nonsense. The FAA should really get some focus back in the
environment.

"51%" is a silly distraction in the world of aviation safety.

Stealth Pilot

Peter Dohm wrote:

Just because I intend to build it myself does not mean that it is
required by anything other than personal pride ... and bull-
headedness.
Obviously, opinions vary and the issue is not likely to be fully
resolved in any of our lifetimes.

The 51% rule isn't really what's in question here. It's the "education and
entertainment" clause of the rule. While I agree that too is clear as mud it
wouldn't take the FAA long to notify it DARs and FSDO to just stop issuing
AW certs to someone.

No fine needed. Somebody invests $100K in a plane they think is they are
going to sell as soon as they finish.

I have a friend that bought an RV-8 from a "professional builder." The Hobbs
and log showed a little over 40 hours and that it was out of phase 1
testing. On the way home from Chicago the engine died in flight. My friend
landed the aircraft in a field with no damage.

He had an A&P from the local airport come out and look at it and after
various items made the A&P believe that the plane had less than 10 hours on
it. A look through the memory of the EIS supported this. My friend had his
lawyer call the builder and explain that the check had had a stop pay put on
it and that the plane was at and airport in Missouri and that if my friend
ever heard from him again that the FAA would be notified of the issues. He
never heard from the builder again.