AviationBanter - View Single Post

**Larry Dighera** · March 7th 08, 04:07 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 07:29:20 -0800 (PST), wrote in
:

On Mar 7, 9:11*am, Larry Dighera wrote:
Personally, I see no reason for our government to intrude on our
freedom to commission the construction of an aircraft. *If the FAA is
going to permit the sale and operation by non-builders of aircraft
licensed as experimental, the ban on having one built for you seems at
least inconsistent. *And the implication that having personally
constructed the aircraft somehow enhances its performance or
suitability for operation in the NAS is ludicrous, IMO. *To me, the
51% policy smacks of protectionism for normal/utility aircraft
manufacturers. *

I realize this is probably an unpopular opinion among the majority of
armature aircraft builders, but emotional jealousy of those able to
afford commissioning the construction of an aircraft, I fail to find
an _objective_ reason for homebuilders' objections. *What am I
missing?

I do agree that it is not in our interests as homebuilders or citizens
to permit the government to intrude any further on our freedoms.

Right. Unless it can be demonstrated that such intrusion is
reasonable and Constitutionally implemented, it's abuse of power, IMO.

I also agree that the 51% policy seems to contain at least an element of
protectionism for manufacturers.

I can understand the FAA's need to provide some impetus for aircraft
manufacturers to participate in their Type Certification program, but
not at the expense of my freedom to engage in reasonable commerce.

All that said, the most common
argument (not necessarily one with which I'm in agreement) in favor of
professional builds of experimental aircraft is that the pro shops
turn out a better quality product which is less likely to injure or kill
the proverbial innocent bystander.

I hadn't heard that argument before. I suppose that would have to be
evaluated on a case by case basis, as I assume it is during the FAA
inspections.

Even if we accept that at face value
(which I certainly don't), it begs for the creation of a new
experimental sub-category, perhaps Experimental Professional Built,
with increased oversight akin to that suffered by the standard category
manufacturers in pursuing and maintaining their type certificates.

Interesting. What benefit could be expected with increased FAA
oversight of experimental aircraft production?

I have only two emotional reactions to people who've commissioned
their 'amateur built' aircraft. The first is against those who sit by their
planes at airshows and pass the work off as their own and happily
collect whatever trophies come their way.

Nobody like a fraud.

At the very least, the major shows should institute an additional judging
category, such that folks who actually constructed their own airplanes with
their own hands for the purpose of their own education and recreation are
only in competition against each other and are not up against the check
writers.

Implicit in that suggestion is the notion that "professional"
experimental aircraft "manufacturers" are able to produce a product
that is somehow superior to those constructed by less experienced
homebuilders. Do you believe that to be true?

The second is that these people (airplane 'commissioners') are simply
in violation of the existing rules. As far as I'm concerned, someone
who doesn't like the rules is free to attempt to change them within
the system, but is most certainly not free to flout them at will.

Perhaps. It sort of depends on the validity of the "rule." If the
rule is unconstitutional, violating it may be seen as an act of
asserting one's rights. Consider the lunch counter sit-ins of the
'60s for example. At the other end of the spectrum is the warrantless
wiretaps perpetrated by the current RNC regime in power in our nation.
Does the end justify the means?

I have zero sympathy for rule breakers in any context, and certainly not in
my proverbial backyard.

Ken

I wish it were that simple.

Thank you for your reasonable response, and the information it
contains.

While I have precious little exposure to homebuilding and those who do
it, I have sincere respect for anyone who applies his skills in
constructing useful things. And craftsmanship seems to be an ever
diminishing virtue in today's world, so seeing it fostered in this
context provides hope that it won't be entirely driven out of
existence by mass production.

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.

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