Posted for n427jb@bellsouth.net:

 Listers:
 
 Let me propose that you, your families and anyone else that you can think of
send the following comments to the FAA regarding the revisions to the “major
portion rule.”
 
 1)                  The “major portion rule” has been in use for in excess of
50 years;
 2)                  Since at least 1984, Lancair has produced aircraft kits
containing pre-fabricated parts made from composite materials, specifically
pre-impregnated e-glass and carbon fiber stock;
 3)                  The FAA has evaluated each of those kits and has found
them to be compliant with the “major portion rule”;
 4)                  Collectively, this means that the FAA has effectively
modified and further defined the “major portion rule” by acceptance of kit
industry manufacturing standards.  To now attempt a retreat from these
manufacturing techniques would create a substantial disincentive to further
technological change brought on by the kit industry;
 5)                  “Fabricate” means to build and/or assemble from parts…not
to manufacture from “raw goods.”
 6)                  Placing a percentage on the amount of “fabrication,” no
matter  how defined, would create a bureaucratic nightmare.  The new “8000-38”
is simply unworkable based on its complexity.  To expect one or another DAR to
use it effectively is asking that person to become more a CPA than a DAR.  The
rule has worked extremely well since its inception…we fabricate and assemble a
major portion of the aircraft for our education and recreation.  We don’t
fabricate only 20% of the whole of the aircraft for education and recreation,
nor do we assemble only 30.00000000000000000000000000000000001 percent of the
aircraft for education and recreation.  It is the whole aircraft that comes
from our fabrication and assembly efforts.  To allow for some arbitrary
percentage to be assigned “fabrication” again creates nothing but confusion;
 7)                  The FAA should credit the builder for education he
acquired during the building process.  In the current revision, the FAA has
specifically excluded such credit;
 8)                  The FAA should recognize that many customers want more
assistance than today may be legally available to them.  Since the FAA is
seeking to change the “major portion rule” to be more restrictive without
seeking legislative change, then the FAA can just as easily change the “major
portion rule” to allow for a more relaxed interpretation.  While it was never
the intent of the “major portion rule” to allow for commercial manufacture
with delivery thereafter to the customer, there is nothing wrong with allowing
some additional “builders assistance” when it denies such builder a repairmans
certificate for said project;
 9)                  Another way to accomplish the real goal of the FAA in
limiting commercial assistance is for the FAA to recognize the importance of
such assistance and creating an interpretation to the current “major portion
rule” that would allow for said commercial assistance, subject to increased
scrutiny.
 
 Please write to the FAA as well as your congressmen and senators.  This is
very important to us all as kit builders and Americans.  Our need to satisfy
our creative spirit is part of the kit building community.  The FAA has
publically stated on more than one occasion that this has nothing to do with
safety…so, why are they pushing so hard to limit kit builders.  I suggest to
you that one such reason is job security.  The FAA’s response is “…do it by TC
(type certificate) and PC (production certificate).  I dare say that Lance
Neibauer would now disagree with this philosophy.  By the way, we looked into
TC and PC for Evolution…let see, anyone have a spare $15 million for the TC
and $100 million for the PC?  Didn’t think so.  Thanks and please write.  I
would greatly appreciate a copy of your response to the FAA so that I might
have statistics of my own.
 
 Joe Bartels