Steve/Claudette Colwell wrote:

"When an approved "Amateur Experimental Homebuilt" with 6 or 7 aboard goes
in....the media will be ON "Experimental" aircraft demanding the Feds "do
something".  THAT would probably end up restricting Experimental Aircraft.
That WILL affect all of us and it will be too late to dial our Congressman."

I absolutely agree.  It is one thing for the AOPA to start a write-in campaign in support of a well staffed, well funded and well considered political initiative.  When amateurs do it, the result can be a long way from what they had in mind.  EPIC has nothing to lose at this point but the rest of us definitely do.  At the risk of making a heretical statement, it seems to me that the FAA has shown remarkable restraint and uncharacteristic common sense in enforcing the 51% rule (which, if you bother to read the actual documents that we have been discussing, is all this issue is about.)  If we make a public issue of this, the most likely result is that the FAA will be accused of laxity in the enforcement of its rules and the relatively benign atmosphere that we and our aircraft have benefited from in the past will be gone forever.  How many of you want to keep a "timecard" record or otherwise be required to sustain the burden of proof that no one worked on your airplane when you weren't there?  The FAA does not want to go there either but will surely do so if the only other alternative is to turn a blind eye to the blatant flaunting of the rule and the establishment of companies that design build and sell uncertified airplanes simply by claiming that an amateur had something to do with the construction process.