![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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. All aircraft are licensed under one of a limited set of rules before being allowed to enter our airspace. The only exception to this is a class of flying machines, called "ultralights" that fall under part 103. These aircraft are exempted from some of the oversight because they are so lightweight that they do not present a serious danger to people who are not committing the unnatural act of flight in one of the contraptions. All larger and heavier aircraft can endanger people on the ground who have a right to be protected from fools falling out of the sky into their homes. Theoretically, anyway. The 51% rule has applied since the EAA was first founded back in 1953. Interestingly, building either wings or a fuselage is considered 51% of the aircraft? The idea was to allow the builder to utilize scrounged aircraft parts, and to use standard aircraft engines and propellors. Why is it reasonable? Simple. To license an airplane as Experimental - Amateur built the amateur in question must build a substantial portion of the aircraft. Otherwise it is NOT "amateur built" and must be licensed in some other category, such as Experimental - Exhibition, or Standard Type Certified or some such. How can it possibly be "unconstitutional" to restrict aircraft licensed as "amateur built" to only aircraft that were built by amateurs. By definition "Professionally Built" does NOT fit into this license category and should be licensed in one of the other categories. And can be under the existing rules. All that it requires is compliance with the appropriate regulations to ensure safe operation and acceptable construction standards. Highflyer |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Flew home and boy are my arms tired! | Steve Schneider | Owning | 11 | September 5th 07 12:16 AM |
ASW-19 Moment Arms | jcarlyle | Soaring | 9 | January 30th 06 10:52 PM |
[!] Russian Arms software sale | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 18th 04 05:51 PM | |
Dick VanGrunsven commutes to aviation | Fitzair4 | Home Built | 2 | August 12th 04 11:19 PM |
Small arms locker questions | Red | Naval Aviation | 4 | July 30th 03 02:10 PM |