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