Just to clarify before I state anything further here, the below postulations are written to serve for "food for thought" and are not intended to garner support for or admonition toward the discussed business venture.
So, to play devil's advocate:
Why does this person's idea of this builder assist go against the rules as they are written?
Question One: Recreation and education?
One poster questioned where the education and recreation comes from in this venture. One could argue that this gentleman will garner a great deal of education in building multiple airplanes and, I might add, a great deal of education in running such a business venture at the same time.
He most certainly must be doing this with some measure of recreation as a motive also, as I would think it extremely difficult to make a comfortable long term living doing this with the current state of affairs surrounding the GA market place, let alone the experimental market. I would have a hard time believing he would make a long term career out of it. Of course I might be wrong on this point if enough people do indeed believe this would be a good idea and send him business.
Further, I would question why, or even how, the FAA deems they can or should make a determination of a person's motivation for their behavior?
Question Two: How can this person blatantly advertise a builder assist program when the FAA has expressly shown their displeasure toward these types of ventures?
This is a regulatory area that I have often felt the FAA had very little ammunition to use in arguing their case. If asked the question; "what is the purpose of the FAA and all of their many faceted rules and regulations?", I would expect that any random 10 non-aviation individuals, perhaps you, and even I would answer with; "To look out for the safety and well being of the flying and the general public!"
I might question what aspect of protecting the safety of the flying or general public would be violated by having a highly skilled experienced builder construct an airplane over that of an amateur who had never taken on that adventure before?
Would it not be much safer to have a well-heeled builder construct such a complicated instrument of transportation? If not, then why would you think your building process would be safer?
There is some wording in the text of this website eluding to who would be designated as the builder of this aircraft. This gentleman has stated he would be the designated builder of record with the FAA and therefore the Repairman Certificate and all the privileges and responsibilities associated with that certificate would belong to him the builder. Is this not what was intended by the FAA when making such rulings about who would be given the Repairman Certificate of an Amateur built aircraft? If he is the builder is he not entitled to be so designated by the FAA?
So then, what happens once he builds it and flies off the Phase I time, then wishes to sell it? How many out there have done just that, then turned around to build another aircraft? Where is the difference? Other than this person's advertising that this is indeed his goal? How is this different than many others out there currently building who have no commercial intentions whatsoever, but feel that they will eventually sell their aircraft?
Perhaps saying this one individual or any others that may be like him must be stopped just because we are afraid they will close the doors for all of us should be well evaluated. We should not become so emotionally charged that we refuse to examine all of the aspects of the situation.
There may be some merits in arguing against the FAA's stance on this issue rather than backing down from the "ANGRY BEAR".
Ok, again before anyone decides to "jump down my throat" for supporting this endeavor, please re-read my first sentence above.
Live Long and Prosper!