X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 13:07:32 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from QMTA01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.16] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.5) with ESMTP id 3050395 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:11:28 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=76.96.62.16; envelope-from=j.hafen@comcast.net Received: from OMTA10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.28]) by QMTA01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id wg1P1Z03F0cZkys51lAcXr; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:10:36 +0000 Received: from [10.128.88.86] ([206.191.160.125]) by OMTA10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id wlAd1Z00b2idoaN3WlAhUC; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:10:48 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=JQ4BVus3ZjsA:10 a=k9mVkUl9rbMA:10 a=RnOZ9p3EAAAA:8 a=HfFIh8YyAAAA:8 a=kf38_1XtDYDFsp0ycPwA:9 a=aeV9BIvp0Q3-19Y3oUMA:7 a=oMiH_mGF3VU48R9XlxgHOlKlM7QA:4 a=U8Ie8EnqySEA:10 a=0dRpvnS4h04A:10 a=qos1zMbQmECtFWmtHs8A:9 a=abJFErbu0l-5RrAYFLAA:7 a=QoG3rBExZyEWH71e99JeKKgM_GQA:4 a=Sz-0p1zU2dQA:10 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.11.0.080522 X-Original-Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:10:36 -0700 Subject: Re: [LML] Re: FAA comment on new 51% A/B Ruling From: John Hafen X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List X-Original-Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [LML] Re: FAA comment on new 51% A/B Ruling Thread-Index: AcjzUeA8AfCMDrf/9kysDEe31XcUUQ== In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3300358246_740552" > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3300358246_740552 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Mike, thanks for your comments. You state: =B3If 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.=B2 I agree with your statement, but what is the point of the FAA wanting to =B3curtail pure commercial assistance?=B2 Why would they care? It can=B9t be about safety, because the commercial builders out there are way better at their jobs than many of us amateurs are, so what is the point??? In deed, what is the point of the 51% rule at all. As I stated in another email, I think the whole point of the 51% rule is to protect the certified airplane builders from home-built competition. It ha= s nothing to do with safety. It is government control to assure a type of monopoly owned by the certified guys. John On 7/31/08 12:21 PM, "MikeEasley@aol.com" wrote: > John, > =20 > Great comments. > =20 > The "much tighter enforcement" of the 51% rule that you refer to speaks m= ore > 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 m= y > 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. > =20 > 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, the= re > are people available to build it for you." So the FAA has been aware of = the > pure commercial assistance problem for years. > =20 > AC 20-139, Commercial Assistance During Construction of Amateur Built > Aircraft, lays out the ground rules. If your kit has been approved by th= e 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 t= here > 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 conside= r to > be on the other side of the 51% rule. This AC has been around for 12 yea= rs. > =20 > http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf= /0/32 > 09fec2139ccb3f862569af006ab9e9/$FILE/AC20-139.pdf > =20 > My DAR never asked about any commercial assistance, and I know he has sig= ned > 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 foc= using > its efforts in my opinion. > =20 > 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 pro= posed > changes won't get the job done. There will still be plenty of opportunit= y to > bend the rules and hide the commercial assistance in the paperwork. > =20 > Before I get hammered by the guys who believe commercial assistance shoul= d 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 Redmon= d to > lay up a wing skin and an elevator to get the fabrication up to 20%. > =20 > Mike Easley > Colorado Springs >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy > Football today=20 > . >=20 --B_3300358246_740552 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Re: [LML] Re: FAA comment on new 51%  A/B Ruling Mike, thanks for your comments.  You state:

“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 ge= t the job done.  There will still be plenty of opportunity to bend the = rules and hide the commercial assistance in the paperwork.”

I agree with your statement, but what is the point of the FAA wanting to &#= 8220;curtail pure commercial assistance?”  Why would they care? &= nbsp;It can’t be about safety, because the commercial builders out the= re are way better at their jobs than many of us amateurs are, so what is the= point???  In deed, what is the point of the 51% rule at all.

As I stated in another email, I think the whole point of the 51% rule is to= protect the certified airplane builders from home-built competition.  = It has nothing to do with safety.  It is government control to assure a= type of monopoly owned by the certified guys.

John


On 7/31/08 12:21 PM, "MikeEasley@aol.com<= /a>" <MikeEasley@aol.com> wrote:=

J= ohn,
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 bel= ieve that the DARs that are knowingly signing off aircraft that have barely = been touched by the "builder" and built by a professional are outs= ide 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 th= e rest to meet the 51% rule.
 
Maybe some of you remember reading about the FAA sending out some of its pe= ople to ask about kits at Oshkosh.  "Do I need to build it myself?= " the FAA operatives asked.  Some of the kit manufacturers respond= ed with, "No, there are people available to build it for you." &nb= sp;So the FAA has been aware of the pure commercial assistance problem for y= ears.
 
AC 20-139, Commercial Assistance During Construction of Amateur Built Aircr= aft, lays out the ground rules.  If your kit has been approved by the F= AA and you use commercial assistance you "could put the amateur-built s= tatus 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 prob= lem, like our build shop visits to Redmond.  It's the pure commercial a= ssistance that they consider to be on the other side of the 51% rule.  = This AC has been around for 12 years.
 
http://rgl.fa= a.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/3209fec2139cc= b3f862569af006ab9e9/$FILE/AC20-139.pdf
 
My DAR never asked about any commercial assistance, and I know he has signe= d off some aircraft that had virtually 100% commercial assistance.  I k= now that the DARs are currently relying on a notarized statement of eligibil= ity 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 enf= orcement of the current rules than adding additional complexity to the certi= fication process.  If the FAA's goal is to curtail pure commercial assi= stance and get back to builders building their own airplanes, the proposed c= hanges won't get the job done.  There will still be plenty of opportuni= ty 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 co= mmercial assistance.  I have several close friends who make their livin= gs building airplanes for others.  I just believe this is the true inte= nt of the FAA.  I don't think the FAA wants to have us Lancair kit buil= ders going to Redmond to lay up a wing skin and an elevator to get the fabri= cation up to 20%.
 
Mike Easley
Colorado Springs



Get fantasy football with free live = scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today <http://www.fanhouse.c= om/fantasyaffair?ncid=3Daolspr00050000000020> .

--B_3300358246_740552--