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.  

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.