Call to Action - FAA proposed amateur-built certification policy

[jnorris]

The homebuilder community needs your help! The FAA has proposed changes to the Experimental Amateur Built rules that EAA believes will negatively impact the homebuilt movement.

We need you to do two things:

1. Comment on the FAA's proposed changes;
2. Spread the word - tell other builders and get them to comment.

The FAA's stated goal is to better control commercial activities that reduce the amateur builder's actual involvement in the project to less than the "major portion" (51%) required by the regulation (Ref: FAR 21.191(g) ).

EAA is concerned that the proposed changes place significant burdens on those who are building within the letter and spirit of the regulations while doing little to address excessive commercial assistance and "pro building".

Comments must be submitted by September 30, 2008. The main points that need to be communicated to the FAA are these:

? The amateur-built regulations as they stand right now are sufficient to stop excessive commercial assistance and "pro building". FAA should enforce the current regulation rather than implementing new policies that would have a negative impact on the entire homebuilder community.

? The regulations found in 21.191(g) only require the builder to fabricate and assemble the major portion of the amateur-built aircraft. No specific percentage of fabrication or assembly is specified. To require a specific percentage (e.g., at least 20% fabrication and 20% assembly) imposes a burden on the homebuilder community that is beyond the scope of the regulation, and is in fact regulation by policy.

EAA has prepared detailed comments and a sample letter that may help you formulate your letter to the FAA. For more info, see the following web page:

http://www.eaa.org/news/2008/2008-09-04_proposal.asp

Your comments may be submitted via email: miguel.vasconcelos@faa.gov

Please email a copy of your submission to govt@eaa.org.

Or you can mail your comments to the following address:

Miguel L. Vasconcelos
Production and Airworthiness Division
AIR-200, Room 815
800 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, D.C. 20591

If you submit via US Mail, please send a copy to me at:

Joe Norris
EAA Aviation Center
P.O. Box 3086
Oshkosh, WI 54903-3086

Remember, your comments must be sent to the FAA by September 30th, so please take time right now to provide your input on this important issue.

[Ironflight]

Hello Joe - glad to see you posting here! I just got back on line after a few days out of contact, and I think there is a long thread running on this topic (in case you want to read stuff already posted). I agree 100% that we need to make comments to the FAA on this, and I also basically agree with the feeling that we don't need new regs until the FAA has enforced the ones that they already have! What I have been pondering is the old adage that it does little good to point out a problem unless you also have suggestions for a solution.

So....does the EAA have a position on how the FAA can use/enforce the CURRENT regs better, so that they solve the problem without further rule making? Now THAT would make a valuable comment!

Paul (definitely AGAINST the new proposal...)

[fliier]

It seems the FAA is attempting to increase the proportion of work done by the builder. Not to play devil's advocate, but wouldn't raising the bar for builders be beneficial in the long run for experimental aviation?

John Allen
RV-6A

[Ironflight]

Originally Posted by fliier

It seems the FAA is attempting to increase the proportion of work done by the builder. Not to play devil's advocate, but wouldn't raising the bar for builders be beneficial in the long run for experimental aviation?

Good question John. I look at it very simply - the new rules are more complex, and therefore more difficult to interpret than the old rules. Why should we put up with more complex rules when the FAA isn't enforcing the rules that they have now? The "problem" of hired guns building airplanes for people commercially is already prohibited by the rules - yet they are doing so. Everything that the FAA needs to solve tis "problem" is already in place - they just aren't using it.

I used to live on a street where the speed limit was 20 mph. A city councilman who lived on the street didn't like the fact that people were speeding past his house at 30 - so he got the limit lowered to 15. People still sped by at 30. He couldn't figure out why nothignhad changed. The problem wasn't the number on the sign, it was that the number on the sign wasn't being enforced!

So how do we, as a builder community, help the FAA enforce the current rules, rather than have them place more restrictive rules on those who are already following the rules? That, to me, is the question.

Paul

[aeropunk]

Paul, I've been poring over the documents on the EAA and FAA sites for the past couple of days trying to make sense of this proposal, in order to better understand the FAA's motivations and to more effectively compose my letter to Mr. Vasconcelos. Your speed-limit anecdote is the clearest and most easily-grasped analogy I've seen yet! I wish I'd read it before I mailed my letter! Oh well, thanks for the chuckle.

[Geico266]

This thread needs a bump.

Please send the FAA an e-mail with your thoughts on this subject.

Come on guys, e-mails are pretty cheap.

[Buggsy2]

Originally Posted by Ironflight

Good question John. I look at it very simply - the new rules are more complex, and therefore more difficult to interpret than the old rules. Why should we put up with more complex rules when the FAA isn't enforcing the rules that they have now? ...
I used to live on a street where the speed limit was 20 mph. A city councilman who lived on the street didn't like the fact that people were speeding past his house at 30 - so he got the limit lowered to 15. People still sped by at 30. He couldn't figure out why nothing had changed. The problem wasn't the number on the sign, it was that the number on the sign wasn't being enforced!

What if the speed limit was simply "don't drive unsafely". Everybody cited for "unsafe driving" contested the charge, arguing their driving was in fact safe. Because the law was very ambiguous and subjective, the city tried to replace the vague law with something less ambiguous and better defined and measurable: a speed limit.

That's what I see is happening here. Before automatically assuming the FAA change is wrong, maybe we should understand why they are proposing it. What are they trying to accomplish? Why did they feel the old regs weren't working?

[Geico266]

Originally Posted by Buggsy2

What if the speed limit was simply "don't drive unsafely". Everybody cited for "unsafe driving" contested the charge, arguing their driving was in fact safe. Because the law was very ambiguous and subjective, the city tried to replace the vague law with something less ambiguous and better defined and measurable: a speed limit.

That's what I see is happening here. Before automatically assuming the FAA change is wrong, maybe we should understand why they are proposing it. What are they trying to accomplish? Why did they feel the old regs weren't working?

Using your analogy the city is trying to close the street to all traffic, when all the city needed to do is enforce the existing speed limit of 25MPH.

[vic syracuse]

I agree with the thread of enforcing the current rules, and it was the main point in my comments back to the FAA. There is another way that can put it completely to rest---address it with the DAR's and FAA inspectors who are granting the airworthiness certificates. Pretty simple.

Vic

[Geico266]

Below is a copy of the e-mail I sent to the FAA. Feel free to copy & paste parts of it and send ot to the FAA also.

I have been involved in Van's RV series kit building aircraft for about 10 years. We don't need another layer of rules, we need enforcement of the rules we have. I see nothing wrong with the present system and making the rules tougher for the average homebuilder is counter productive to what the FAA wants to accomplish.

Personally, I don't have a problem with people / companies building experimental kit planes for sale as long as the buyer is not on the repair certificate and the plane must have the "condition inspection" (annual) performed by a licensed A&P. I do however, see the need for better control over this process, but it can be accomplished with existing rules being enforced.

The safety record of experimental home built aircraft rivals that of certified aircraft in incidents. In fact, I believe they are identical. This would indicate the kit homebuilt aircraft industry is well ahead of the safety "curve" as compared to certified aircraft over the last 50 years.

The recent strides in experimental safety equipment, EFIS engine monitoring systems, and GPS navigation systems are clearly more sophisticated than many / most currently flying commercial airliners. This is due to the market place deciding what components are the best value for homebuilders. The current quality of engines, and the choices homebuilders have is due to the demand for safer and more reliable power plants. The free market place decides what will be the "best deal" for the homebuilders.

It is an exciting time in "experimental" general aviation. Homebuilt kit aircraft have been shown to be safe, reliable, and a huge boost to the US economy and research and development of better aviation gizmos. Please tread lightly and with deliberation before enacting new rules, and before fully enforcing the old ones. Please take great care not to "throw the baby out with the bath water". Any new rules could have a very chilling effect on experimental kit built aircraft, the companies, and their employees that make them.

What ever you guys do PLEASE send an e-mail to the FAA and let them know how you feel.