A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 17:01:42 +0000, Acepilot
wrote:

What is a "Pro Built"? I would take it to mean that an experimental
"kit" was built by somebody like Cessna or Piper, etc. As an amateur
builder, am I a "novice" when I complete it? Will I turn pro after I
finish a second one? I'd tend to say that an airplane built by Joe Blow
for somebody else is still amateur built, but the owner who applies for
the repairman certificate should not be able to get it if they
themselves did not build 51%.

Scott


Pro Built is very easy to define. It's a plane licenced in the
experimental/amateur built catagory that was built by someone hired by
another to build it. Once someone accepts money to build someone
else's plane, he becomes a professional builder. How many planes the
pro builder has built in the past isn't part of the definition.
What irks me is when after this process is finished, some of the
persons that own the plane and didn't build it, put their name down as
the builder and get the repairman certificate, and later do
maintanence on this plane with questionable ability to perform it.
It's crap like this that puts the homebuilt/amateur catagory in
jepordy, and is now bringing on the wrath of the FAA.
Now, if the name of the pro builder is put down as the builder, it's
not as bad. But even this practice was not part of the original intent
of the homebuilt regulations. Probably the best way for Pro builders
to exist is if they built the plane for no one, then sold it. Similar
to when a house contractor builds a spec house, and sells it
afterwards. I would think that if the FAA had forseen what is going on
now with homebuilts, they probably never would have written the rule
at all or it would have been much more restrictive. Van's call to
arms is falling on a lof of deaf ears.