A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

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

the 51% rule only applies to amateur-built aircraft.


Why? That seems a little arbitrary to me. If one group is enjoined
from employing others to construct an aircraft, why should another
group be permitted to do the same thing with impunity?



Any individual or group can construct an aircraft. No one has been told
they cannot construct an aircraft. The only thing they are being told is
that it is illegal to attempt to license an aircraft in the official
specific license category of "Experimental - Amateur Built" that wan NOT in
fact, built by an amateur. I do not have a problem with that. Any
aircraft not built by an amateur can indeed be licensed, but only in the
appropriate category. If they proceed to license the aircraft correctly
there is no problem and no objection. The only problem is with people who
make known false official statements to allow an outcome they deem
favorable, if illegal.

Rather like saying "I didn't make enough money last year to file income tax.
All those W-2's with my name on them are really not mine or are mistaken and
should be ignored."

Highflyer

It may be reasonable, but no one has
provided a logical rational for it yet in this discussion.



If you believe that, you cannot read. By the way, rational is used
incorrectly in that sentence. It is used as "rationale" instead of it own
meaning. :-)

Highflyer

Larry Dighera wrote: One of his stupidest post ever. And that's saying
something.


Larry I have no problem with Kit Built at all. I'm building one myself.

As far as where the US Government gets it's authority to regulate our
airspace I would assume it is from the same place where it gets it
authority to create the Department of Transportation which is probably
the Interstate Commerce clause of the constitution. I really don't have
either the time or desire to look it up.

But just so you know you probably won't find it worded very clearly. The
reason for that is because there was little war in the mid 1800s that
changed the face of what the federal government can an can't do. If you
don't like well either build a time machine and go sign up to fight for
the South.

Blueskies wrote:

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
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" in my message means that you pay someone to build it.

Ron Lee

Why should this not be allowed? This is a free country, maybe...

It is allowed. They jet have to get it certified.

cavelamb himself wrote:


Wouldn't you love to see the RV-6 as a certified airplane!

Sure. It would cost $300K though.

WJRFlyBoy wrote:

Cessna goes to China to get the Skyscraper at a reasonable price. Yet we
have USA built planes off better value that are restricted from my purchase
because I can't flip fiberglass?

Here's the problem. You can buy a completely built EXP-HB completely
legally. You just can't buy it from someone that didn't build it for
"Recreation and Education."

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 06:45:03 GMT, wrote:

In rec.aviation.piloting WJRFlyBoy wrote:

Yet I can't buy a completely built kit/plans plane.
Sure you can.

See any airplanes for sale web site.

You just can't buy one and have the same privilges as the original builder.

--
Jim Pennino

Ok, what rights do I lose and why do I lose them?

The ability to get the repairman's certificate. Which basically makes
you an IA for that particular aircraft.

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
WJRFlyBoy wrote in
:

On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 06:45:03 GMT, wrote:

In rec.aviation.piloting WJRFlyBoy
wrote:

Yet I can't buy a completely built kit/plans plane.
Sure you can.

See any airplanes for sale web site.

You just can't buy one and have the same privilges as the original
builder.

--
Jim Pennino
Ok, what rights do I lose and why do I lose them?

the origianl builder is the manufacturer. He can effect any maintenance
or repeair on the airplane he likes...You buy it , you can't.


That's not exactly right Bertie. You can work on the plane, anyone can,
what you can't do is sign off the annual inspection.

WingFlaps wrote:
On Mar 8, 5:36 am, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote:

He got his money back in the deal after his lawyer made it very clear
that there would either be a wire in the buyers account that day or a
call would be made to the FAA.- Hide quoted text -

Isn't that blackmail?

Cheers


Yes, it is. But then so is your average plea bargain.