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

The potential benefit would be primarily one of consistency. To use
another word: standards. The feds (as representatives of both the
public's safety interests and the manufacturer's fiscal interests)
would create a more level playing field with respect to quality of
construction (similar to the whole type certification process) and the
'commissioners', for their part, would get more assurance of receiving
a product that meets a certain standard of quality/airworthiness. As
it stands now, the work of 'professional' builders is all over the
place with respect to quality. Anyone can hang out their shingle and
dupe people into believing that having completed an airplane or two,
or even having an A&P certificate, somehow implies a quality product.
Too many builders, including the pros, will take the quick route or
the cheap route to the solution of a particular building situation/
problem. There is often more than one 'right' route, but the quick or
cheap one is seldom it. There is no shortcut to craftsmanship.

Now, I'm by no means advocating this sort of additional oversight, but
merely pointing out the potential upside.

Nobody like a fraud.

That's one word for it. These people are the worst sort of liars. I
can think of one Grand Champion RV-6 from a few years ago as just one
example.

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?

Certainly not across the board by any means, though some shops are
capable of turning out a more slickly finished product than the
average homebuilder generally produces. Everyone likes to look at a
gorgeous airplane, but it's disingenuous to put those planes forward
as examples of 'homebuilding', to say nothing of the unfairness of
allowing them to compete alongside the genuine articles.

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 think that when we talk about 'validity' in this context we need to
be cognizant of the difference between a rule that is morally wrong
and one that is merely inconvenient. The lunch counter protesters,
however morally right they were, in fact were breaking the rules.
They were asserting a moral right, but definitely not a legal one.
The warrantless wiretaps you mention represent just the opposite
situation, where they are conducted as a legal right (according to you-
know-who), but are morally (and constitutionally) wrong. In one case,
it could be said that the ends justified the means, but I don't think
that most people would apply that particular reasoning to the other
case. I didn't intend to state my premise in such terms that one has
to definitively choose either side. Life is not that simple.

All of this aside, let's not put check writers skirting the intention
of the amateur-built rules for their own convenience on the same level
as Parks and King and Gandhi, for that matter.

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

Glad to contribute.

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.

Agree 100%.

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.

Why 51%? I think that brings us back to the point of the feds
protecting the investment of the manufacturers in the type
certification process. The prototypes you mention aren't registered
as amateur-built. There are a number of experimental categories and
the 51% rule only applies to amateur-built aircraft.

Ken