Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:28:02 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-723333@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=198.36.178.141; envelope-from=JJHALLE@stoel.com
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: FAA and Kit built A/C
Thread-Topic: lml Digest #1350
Thread-Index: AcW6C9iA49Lb0EcWTEq86DtB5nDZ7gAGd8Bw
From: "Halle, John" <JJHALLE@stoel.com>

After reading the submission below and the attached reg, I spoke with an =
FAA representative who explained as follows:

The changes in the reg. involve principally two new "Notes".  The first =
of these notes says that the builder of an eligible kit who does not use =
commercial assistance has no further issues with the 51% rule.  The =
reverse implication is simply that, if the builder has used commercial =
assistance, the DAR or FAA examiner who signs off may inquire as to the =
nature of the commercial assistance and require evidence that it was =
appropriately used.  My source tells me that, expect with respect to =
"complex kit-built aircraft" (about which much has recently been =
written) there is no change in policy relating either to the use of =
commercial assistance or what the builder must demonstrate to the =
examiner with respect to compliance with the 51% rule.

The second note does talk about an evaluation of the 51% rule where =
commercial assistance/jigs are to be used.  The note, however, is in a =
section dealing with factory prototypes and deals with what the factory =
has to do to get a determination that the kit is eligible under the 51% =
rule.  It has nothing to do with individual kits that we build =
ourselves.

The FAA understands that appropriately used commercial assistance =
benefits not only the educational purpose for which the amateur-built =
category exists but also the reliabiliy of the aircraft and therefore =
their safety.  They have been remarkably flexible in permitting the use =
of commercial assistance in appropriate circumstances, including what is =
currently being done by Lancair, Vans etc.  Recently, however, the FAA =
has been forced to consider circumstances in which the use of commercial =
assistance may have been abused.  It is doing so but, at least so far, =
in a measured response narrowly focused on what the perceived actual =
problem is.

There is, nevertheless, a lesson in all this.  The partnership between =
the kit community and the FAA requires restraint on BOTH sides.  Pigs =
get fat; hogs get slaughtered.


I was handed the attached memorandum by the Seattle MIDO last week.

Also is page 10 from Sept 2005 Sport Aviation.

My reading of this is that Lancair Kit company, RV and probably all the =
current fast build kit companies will not be in compliance.  (Maybe this =
has already gone into effect-man I hope not!!)

Further, the builder assist centers, whether factory or not, will not be =
in compliance with the 51% rule.

The FAA is trying to stop us all from building our planes.  No =
factory/commercial assistance at all on eligible kits.  No prefinished =
parts from the kit manufacturer.  No predrilled/precut materials. No =
factory one week wing close-outs to learn how to work with the =
materials. =20

The FAA is not changing the regulations, only how they interpret the =
regulations.

The EAA is making a little deal of what is a really big deal.

We need to tell the government what we want and not let the government =
tell us.

All the major kit manufacturer's need to be in on the process before =
this is adopted.  Better yet, they should be involved in the decision =
process.

This is not making the experimental's safer.  In fact, I believe that =
just the opposite will occur.

Perhaps even better would be to follow what Canada has done:  they allow =
commercial assistance and have mandatory inspections at various stages.  =
Would this be safer than taking a kit home and building it in your =
garage?  I would think so.