X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:21:33 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-d03.mx.aol.com ([205.188.157.35] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.5) with ESMTP id 3048409 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:38:40 -0400 Received: from MikeEasley@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r9.4.) id q.c6d.2dfe1ff0 (29672) for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:38:31 -0400 (EDT) From: MikeEasley@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:38:32 EDT Subject: Re: [LML] FAA comment on new 51% A/B Ruling X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1217432312" X-Mailer: Unknown sub 34 X-Spam-Flag:NO -------------------------------1217432312 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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. _http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/3 209fec2139ccb3f862569af006ab9e9/$FILE/AC20-139.pdf_ (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/3209fec2139ccb3f862569af006 ab9e9/$FILE/AC20-139.pdf) 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 **************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today. (http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020) -------------------------------1217432312 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
John,
 
Great comments.
 
The "much tighter enforcement" of the 51% rule that you refer to speaks= =20 more to the DARs than the builders in my opinion.  I have to believe th= at=20 the DARs that are knowingly signing off aircraft that have barely been touch= ed=20 by the "builder" and built by a professional are outside of the original int= ent=20 of the 51% rule.  The original rule intended the builder to do the=20 building, originally from plans.  The kits that we have available to us= =20 now, like my Millennium Fastbuild ES, have bumped up against the 51% rule=20 limit.  But that means the builder needs to do the rest to meet the 51%= =20 rule.
 
Maybe some of you remember reading about the FAA sending out some of it= s=20 people to ask about kits at Oshkosh.  "Do I need to build it myself?" t= he=20 FAA operatives asked.  Some of the kit manufacturers responded with, "N= o,=20 there are people available to build it for you."  So the FAA has been a= ware=20 of the pure commercial assistance problem for years.
 
AC 20-139, Commercial Assistance During Construction of Amateur Built=20 Aircraft, lays out the ground rules.  If your kit has been approved by=20= the=20 FAA and you use commercial assistance you "could put the amateur-built=20 status of the aircraft in jeopardy".  The FAA separates commercial=20 assistance into two categories, when you're there helping and learning, and=20= when=20 you're not there at all.  If you're there working, it's not a problem,=20= like=20 our build shop visits to Redmond.  It's the pure commercial assistance=20= that=20 they consider to be on the other side of the 51% rule.  This AC has bee= n=20 around for 12 years.
 
http://rgl.faa.= gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/3209fec2139ccb3= f862569af006ab9e9/$FILE/AC20-139.pdf
 
My DAR never asked about any commercial assistance, and I know he has=20 signed off some aircraft that had virtually 100% commercial assistance. = ; I=20 know that the DARs are currently relying on a notarized statement of eligibi= lity=20 to determine whether the 51% rule has been complied with, combined with a=20 possible review of builder logs and photos.  This is where the FAA is=20 focusing its efforts in my opinion.
 
My comments to the FAA will be more about consistent interpretation and= =20 enforcement of the current rules than adding additional complexity to the=20 certification process.  If the FAA's goal is to curtail pure commercial= =20 assistance and get back to builders building their own airplanes, the propos= ed=20 changes won't get the job done.  There will still be plenty of opportun= ity=20 to bend the rules and hide the commercial assistance in the paperwork.
 
Before I get hammered by the guys who believe commercial assistance sho= uld=20 be allowed at any level, I'm just stating what I believe is the FAA's=20 intent.  Of course I would love to see a loosening of the rules to incl= ude=20 commercial assistance.  I have several close friends who make their liv= ings=20 building airplanes for others.  I just believe this is the true intent=20= of=20 the FAA.  I don't think the FAA wants to have us Lancair kit build= ers=20 going to Redmond to lay up a wing skin and an elevator to get the=20 fabrication up to 20%.
 
Mike Easley
Colorado Springs



Get=20= fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for Fan= House Fantasy Football today.
-------------------------------1217432312--