Tobin,
I'm not sure which discussion here on the Forums you're referring to, but I think what's being discussed with some rancor are the kits that people are building for profit and selling when finished for the sole purpose of profit.

The concern is that the buyer of such aircraft are most definitely not qualified as the "51%" builder, and there's some thought that the FAA might clamp down and initiate some regs that would affect this situation.

The problem is not that someone buys a finished homebuilt because that's done all the time when a builder loses his/her medical or faces some situation where they have to quit flying. But building for the specific purpose of reselling for profit is a violation of the "spirit" of the rules if not the "letter" of the rules.

What you linked to was simply the issue of which aircraft the manufacturers of some kits comply, as a brand new kit, as a "51%" kit.
The discussions are more about what happens after the original sale and how it's sold to buyers who had absolutely nothing to do with the build for the purpose of profit and not for "experimentation and educational" use.

My .02
 
We get a pass this time

Highflight said:
What you linked to was simply the issue of which aircraft the manufacturers of some kits comply, as a brand new kit, as a "51%" kit.
My .02
Click to expand...
True Vern, but the link Tobin post is interesting, and the 51% kit rule is somewhat interlaced with the whole broad issue of build for hire, build for profit.

I agree the link is most specific about kit manufactures that are not on or meet the approved 51% kit list, the FAA carries, but it does address builder assistance if you read further down.

If Epic would have went thru the effort to show that their kit met the 51% rule (which they made no effort to do), they may have got by with a "builder assistance center" program.

The other kicker was that the Epic is large, multi-seat, high-performance turbojet/turboprop plane. If it was a 2 seat kitfox type aircraft, even with out 51% kit status established, I guess this would never have made news or been an issue. Up to now the only turbo jet kit planes where a few 2 seat Glasairs and Lancairs. With engines that cost up to ? Mil there have been few.

Further the FAA is addressing kit aircraft policy with 5 or more seats (i.e. Epic). The FAA never envisioned decades ago our class/category of aircraft, experimental amateur built aircraft, would include large turboprop and jet aircraft with many seats. Up to just the last 10-15 years there where virtually no experimental aircraft with more than 1 or 2 seats.

The good news is this is not a regulation change, only a "policy change" or clarification internal to the FAA. Further there is no change in things that affect the current kits or ability of builders to get help with wiring avionics or painting the plane. This is all good.

It sounds like the FAA is not out to get homebuilders or change the rules. The EAA is a good advocate for us and is earning my dues. However as ignorant as the government is about general aviation and all the paranoia around planes and national security, I could see IF some restrictive policy was proposed it would pass easily. So lets not give them a reason. Lets follow the existing rules to the letter and not make any waves. ;) G
 
Last edited:
Vern,

As I said, it was related, nothing more. Additionally, notice my message was edited by Doug Reeves (his perogative). My original link was an article from Aero-news.net website. The first paragraph or so mentioned more than the EAA linked article.

Tobin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.