From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: FAA trying to stop us?
To: lml
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:57:43 -0400
Message-ID: <web-724291@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <auto-000000724251@logan.com>
References: <auto-000000724251@logan.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


Posted for "Larry Graves" <larry-graves@comcast.net>:

  All,
  
  I see no evidence that the FAA is "trying to stop us all from building our
  planes" whether in a builder-assist facility, our own shops or at a factory
  completion center... The FAA has always struggled with the "Major Portion"
  rule ever since it was established a couple decades ago, and the real issue
  has been for the most part a lack of uniformly interpreting the regulation,
  not the regulation itself. I don't see much of a substantive change proposed
  in this memorandum. Let me explain my thinking.
  
  In writing a business case prior to starting a custom aircraft builder
  assistance center back in the nineties, I initiated many conversations with
  the FAA both at the local FSDO and MIDO level as well as with the friendly
  folks in OKE city. I was concerned with the risk of operating a business
  that could be destroyed overnight by a capricious change in the
  interpretation of the major portion rules - what we commonly call the "51%
  Rule."
  
  The FAA first wrote the definition of an amateur-built aircraft, then wrote
  Order 8130.2 to help the local feds interpret this rule, finally adding FAA
Form 8000-38 to the stack of paper in a vain attempt to make the whole
  process one of simple black and white. There has always been a concern on
  the part of the FAA that someone would hide behind the amateur-built
  regulation to go into the business of serial manufacture of ready-to-fly
  complex aircraft with the intent of retail sale to end-users. This would be
  contrary to the only legitimate reason (and even that is arguable) for the
FAA's existence - the protection of innocent people from undue risk
  associated with unregulated manufacture or operation of aircraft.
  
  If you read the current regs, orders and forms, it is clear that there are
  over a hundred identified "fabrication and assembly operations" associated
  with building a tractor-type aircraft (canards and rotorcraft have their own
  variations) and at the end of the day, if you have checked-off more of these
  operations than your assistants have, then YOU are the manufacturer and can
  legitimately claim to have built the major portion of your kit aircraft.
  
  You can have help all along the way and with every aspect of your plane -
  you just have to be able to legitimately show that you performed more than
  50% of the fabrication and assembly operations listed on the FAA Form
  8000-38. It's really that simple. The form itself along with photos of you
  doing the things listed in the form is a PERFECT format for a builder's log,
  and is what I always used to show compliance with the regs at the time of
  final aircraft airworthiness inspection.
  
  The FAA has never even implied that we could not use entirely pre-fabricated
  items like engines, props, fuel selector valves, landing gear, brakes,
  wheels, canopies, lighting fixtures, etc., etc., etc. In fact these items
  and more are enumerated in the regs as completely allowed and not having any
  effect on the ultimate eligibility of your completed aircraft for
  amateur-built status.
  
  I suggest that before lighting the torches, grabbing our pitchforks and
  heading to the local FSDO, we air-out our concerns in writing to the FAA,
  EAA and AOPA and make it clear that we are very attentive about how all this
  is going to shake out. That said, I believe there should be LESS regulation
  of amateur-built aircraft rather than more... Nowhere is it more clear how
  government regulation stifles innovation and growth in technology than in
  the world of aircraft.
  
  Larry Graves
  larry-graves@comcast.net