John,
Great comments.
The "much tighter enforcement" of the 51% rule that you refer to speaks
more to the DARs than the builders in my opinion. I have to believe that
the DARs that are knowingly signing off aircraft that have barely been touched
by the "builder" and built by a professional are outside of the original intent
of the 51% rule. The original rule intended the builder to do the
building, originally from plans. The kits that we have available to us
now, like my Millennium Fastbuild ES, have bumped up against the 51% rule
limit. But that means the builder needs to do the rest to meet the 51%
rule.
Maybe some of you remember reading about the FAA sending out some of its
people to ask about kits at Oshkosh. "Do I need to build it myself?" the
FAA operatives asked. Some of the kit manufacturers responded with, "No,
there are people available to build it for you." So the FAA has been aware
of the pure commercial assistance problem for years.
AC 20-139, Commercial Assistance During Construction of Amateur Built
Aircraft, lays out the ground rules. If your kit has been approved by the
FAA and you use commercial assistance you "could put the amateur-built
status of the aircraft in jeopardy". The FAA separates commercial
assistance into two categories, when you're there helping and learning, and when
you're not there at all. If you're there working, it's not a problem, like
our build shop visits to Redmond. It's the pure commercial assistance that
they consider to be on the other side of the 51% rule. This AC has been
around for 12 years.
My DAR never asked about any commercial assistance, and I know he has
signed off some aircraft that had virtually 100% commercial assistance. I
know that the DARs are currently relying on a notarized statement of eligibility
to determine whether the 51% rule has been complied with, combined with a
possible review of builder logs and photos. This is where the FAA is
focusing its efforts in my opinion.
My comments to the FAA will be more about consistent interpretation and
enforcement of the current rules than adding additional complexity to the
certification process. If the FAA's goal is to curtail pure commercial
assistance and get back to builders building their own airplanes, the proposed
changes won't get the job done. There will still be plenty of opportunity
to bend the rules and hide the commercial assistance in the paperwork.
Before I get hammered by the guys who believe commercial assistance should
be allowed at any level, I'm just stating what I believe is the FAA's
intent. Of course I would love to see a loosening of the rules to include
commercial assistance. I have several close friends who make their livings
building airplanes for others. I just believe this is the true intent of
the FAA. I don't think the FAA wants to have us Lancair kit builders
going to Redmond to lay up a wing skin and an elevator to get the
fabrication up to 20%.
Mike Easley
Colorado Springs