Hamid says:

<<Or should the FAA monitor the "professional builders" and make sure that they meet a certain minimum standard -- they already do, they are called certified manufacturers>>

I understand what Hamid is trying to say, and to a certain extent I agree, but there is a key element that is being swept under the rug by his analogy.

First -- and I'm not trying to be obnoxious here, but I need to provide clarification to support my later argument -- I'm not familiar with the term "certified manufacturer".  There are companies that have been awarded Type Certificates for their design, and usually they go on to earn Production Certificates for their aircraft.  We know these companies -- Cessna, Piper, Cirrus, Boeing ... I assume that this is what Hamid means by "certified manufacturer".

There are two levels of regulatory compliance at play.  The first is acknowledged by the Type Certificate, which certifies that the design complies with design standards intended to provide an agreed-upon level of safety.  And yes, the "agreed upon level of safety" is *definitely* integral to this process.  Compliance with FAR 23.1309 (or its counterpart 25.1309) is demonstrated by (making a long story short) identifying the consequences of possible failures and showing that the likelihood of those failures is below a certain threshold.  Depending on the airplane (light, heavy, few passengers, lots of passengers) those thresholds are different.  This is where the "agreed-upon level of safety" comes in.

The FAA has done a remarkable thing for us in letting us fly aircraft that do not meet that standard (or more accurately, have not demonstrated that they meet that standard).  Some homebuilt will meet that standard, some won't, and most will meet or exceed in some areas but fall short in other areas.  This, to me, was the major victory won by the EAA 50 years ago when the "experimental, amateur built" category was created.  I'm unaware of any attempts to repeal this basic concept -- that individuals may operate aircraft that do not meet the safety standards established for commecially sold aircraft. 

In their infinite wisdom, they decided this was okay as long as the person built the major portion himself (or herself).  How they ever allowed us to sell these aircraft is beyond me, but I'm glad they did.

Now for the other issue -- the Production Certificate.  This is the means for the FAA to ensure that the aircraft that is offered for sale matches the Type Design (the design specified by the Type Certificate).  More accurately, it allows the manufacturer to use his internal Q/A process to substitute for the FAA airworthiness inspection.  This whole concept is meaningless for a homebuilt aircraft, as major elements of the design are left up to the builder. 

So what is the FAA supposed to do to enforce even a basic level of safety?  That is, after all their mandate -- promoting aviation and safety.  As we all know, we have a mandatory FAA airworthines inspection (normally delegated to a DAR).  But what are they supposed to check?  They can't check conformnce to the Type Design -- there isn't one -- so all they can really do is to check workmanship and compliance with AC43.13 and such.

Those things contribute to safety.  Whether the satisfactory workmanship was completed by the person who paid for the kit, or a person that he hired, isn't really the point.  And yet, that's the whole point of this discussion.

There is no easy answer.  However, the status quo is that you do the bulk of the work yourself, and in return you get an airworthiness certificate and a repairmans certificate.  There is no legal mechanism for paying someone else to do the major portion of the work for you, but there's nothing wrong with paying someone to do 49% of it.  Frankly, I'm not sure that the system isn't set up just the way it should be.  Part of the rationale may have been that by being intimately familiar with the aircraft and its systems (because you built it) then you have an informed understanding of the risks involved in flying it.   And if your skills are not adequate to build such an aircraft, well, they let you pay someone else to do up to half of it, but not more.  If you're unwilling or unable to do 51%, that's too bad.  Buy someone else's completed airplane.

I have no objection to an "experimental, professionally built" category, but absent such a designation, paying someone else to build your airplane for you is not what the FAA intended.  The intent of the rules is clear (the builder does at least half the work) and it has been working for 50 years.  However, since the new kit are definitely pushing the 51% rule, what we need is a definition of "51%", not a repeal of the basic concept.

- Rob Wolf