X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:15:01 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-d20.mx.aol.com ([205.188.139.136] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.5) with ESMTP id 3034259 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 20 Jul 2008 10:25:07 -0400 Received: from Sky2high@aol.com by imo-d20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r9.4.) id q.bf0.30ff5ece (39330) for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2008 10:25:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Sky2high@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 10:25:01 EDT Subject: Re: [LML] 51% Rule, the FAA, and the IRS X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1216563901" X-Mailer: Unknown sub 34 X-Spam-Flag:NO -------------------------------1216563901 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit John, You must go read the history of what the EAA accomplished in getting the FAA "Experimental, Amateur Built" airworthiness category established. I believe the text was (is) something like "The builder shall do a majority of the work in constructing the plane. The purpose of the plane is for the education and recreation of the builder." Majority = 51% rule. I think the FAA has come more than 50% of the way in only requiring at least 20% of the fabrication and at least 20% of the assembly as sub-requirements of accomplishing the majority of the work. What is interesting is that the FAA has placed no safety requirements on the pilot (the insurance companies have, however). The airworthiness certificate is issued if it is an aircraft, built with reasonable standards and the engine runs. There usually is a check of the builder's log and a Q & A to determine if the builder did enough of the work (has intimate knowledge) to qualify for the repairmen's certificate - thus allowing the builder to sign off the required annual inspection. Remember that there is a placard informing occupants that the aircraft was not built to FAA standards. What more do you want? Perhaps you have yet to build an aircraft in this category? Scott Krueger AKA Grayhawk Lancair N92EX IO320 SB 89/96 Aurora, IL (KARR) Pilot not TSO'd, Certificated score only > 70%. In a message dated 7/20/2008 5:58:46 A.M. Central Daylight Time, j.hafen@comcast.net writes: As I read about fabrication versus assembly versus X percentage of building work not applying to the entire aircraft but only the "builder's portion" that is arbitrarily defined anyway, it seems to me that the FAA has complicated this issue beyond comprehension, much like the IRS has done with our tax code. I would argue that an aircraft is either certified, or it is not. Anything less that a 100% compliant aircraft is simply not certified. I question the value of the arbitrary assignment of 51%. It is still not certified. Is it "half certified?" (I would argue no, since the half that got built by an amateur still got built by an amateur, therefore, "no certification for you.") If a plane is built by an unqualified amateur, one could argue that ANY portion of the plane built by that unwashed amateur (myself in the case of LIVP N413AJ) is unsafe, or at least not certified, therefore making the entire airplane dangerous. Is "safety" the point behind the 51% rule? What is the FAA justification that makes 51 the magic number. Does 51% make it "safe?" If the amateur doesn't have to build to certification standards, why is 51 significant, relevant, or applicable? Does the FAA think that a plane that was constructed 100% (or at least 51%) by a guy who doesn't know what he is doing is safer than a plane built for pay by a shop who has done it dozens of times? Someone please tell me what I'm not seeing here. What is the FAA's rationale in assigning 51% as the magic number? Does it have any meaning what-so-ever? Why not just say it is certified, or it is not certified, plane and simple? Thanks in advance, John **************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today. (http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020) -------------------------------1216563901 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
John,
 
You must go read the history of what the EAA accomplished in getting th= e=20 FAA "Experimental, Amateur Built" airworthiness category established.
 
I believe the text was (is) something like "The builder shall do a=20 majority of the work in constructing the plane.&nb= sp;=20 The purpose of the plane is for the education and recreation of the=20 builder."
 
Majority =3D 51% rule.
 
I think the FAA has come more than 50% of the way in only requirin= g at=20 least 20% of the fabrication and at least 20% of the assembly=20 as sub-requirements of accomplishing the majority of the=20 work.
 
What is interesting is that the FAA has placed no safety requireme= nts=20 on the pilot (the insurance companies have, however).  The=20 airworthiness certificate is issued if it is an aircraft, built with reasona= ble=20 standards and the engine runs.  There usually is a check of the=20 builder's log and a Q & A to determine if the builder did enough of= the=20 work (has intimate knowledge) to qualify for the repairmen's certificat= e -=20 thus allowing the builder to sign off the required annual inspection.
 
Remember that there is a placard informing occupants that the aircraft=20= was=20 not built to FAA standards.
 
What more do you want?
 
Perhaps you have yet to build an aircraft in this category?
 
Scott Krueger=20 AKA Grayhawk
Lancair N92EX IO320 SB 89/96
Aurora, IL (KARR)

Pil= ot=20 not TSO'd, Certificated score only > 70%.
 
In a message dated 7/20/2008 5:58:46 A.M. Central Daylight Time,=20 j.hafen@comcast.net writes:
<= FONT=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size= =3D2>As I=20 read about fabrication versus assembly versus X percentage of building
= work=20 not applying to the entire aircraft but only the "builder's portion"
th= at=20 is arbitrarily defined anyway, it seems to me that the FAA has
complica= ted=20 this issue beyond comprehension, much like the IRS has done with
our ta= x=20 code.

I would argue that an aircraft is either certified, or it is=20 not.  Anything
less that a 100% compliant aircraft is simply not=20 certified.

I question the value of the arbitrary assignment of=20 51%.  It is still not
certified.  Is it "half certified?"&nbs= p;=20 (I would argue no, since the half that
got built by an amateur still go= t=20 built by an amateur, therefore, "no
certification for you.") If a plane= is=20 built by an unqualified amateur, one
could argue that ANY portion of th= e=20 plane built by that unwashed amateur
(myself in the case of LIVP N413AJ= ) is=20 unsafe, or at least not certified,
therefore making the entire airplane= =20 dangerous.

Is "safety" the point behind the 51% rule?  What is= the=20 FAA justification
that makes 51 the magic number.  Does 51% make i= t=20 "safe?"  If the amateur
doesn't have to build to certification=20 standards, why is 51 significant,
relevant, or applicable?

Does=20= the=20 FAA think that a plane that was constructed 100% (or at least 51%)
by a= guy=20 who doesn't know what he is doing is safer than a plane built for
pay b= y a=20 shop who has done it dozens of times?

Someone please tell me what I= 'm=20 not seeing here.  What is the FAA's
rationale in assigning 51% as=20= the=20 magic number?  Does it have any meaning
what-so-ever?  Why no= t=20 just say it is certified, or it is not certified,
plane and=20 simple?

Thanks in advance,

John  

 



Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
-------------------------------1216563901--