Comments on: Homebuilding: Complexity is the Price of Progress

By: Chance of Better Aviation Future is 51% | RENT-A-PLANE

Chance of Better Aviation Future is 51% | RENT-A-PLANE — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 06:25:42 +0000

[...] awhile, I wasn’t so sure. The FAA’s first attempt (presented in greater depth in Homebuilding: Complexity is the Price of Progress) brought ineffective bureaucratic complexity to homebuilding. What was always simple and [...]

By: Scott

Scott — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 23:18:02 +0000

In all of my research I’ve found no evidence that manufacturers of certificated aircraft exerted any force to restrict what we today call “commercial assistance.” An era when manufacturers were building tens of thousands of small, single-engine airplanes a year, the comparative handfull, often less than a thousand, of homebuilts certificated each year posed little competition. What brought single-engine production to an end was over production, or a dearth of customers, depending one your perspective on the immutable laws of supply and demand.

There was — and still is — an opportunity to allow professional builders to build kit airplanes for sale. That was the idea of the kit airplane category that, if I remember correctly, came into being when the FAA created the primary aircraft category. It never really worked because providing the oversight of the building process, to ensure construction quality — and safety — of those airplanes was more involved, and cost more, than people were willing to pay.

It’s not an issue when the person building the airplane assumes the risk; the builder will do a good job because it is his or her life that’s on the line. When pilots buy an airplane, however, they expect a certain level of quality and safety for their money. Making sure they get it is the FAA’s job. At a fundamental level, it’s no different than a parent’s expectation that the toys they buy their children are not covered with lead-based paint.

This oversight and assurance of a minimum level of safety is what makes pro-built kit airplanes complicated and expensive. No matter the background or experience of a pro builder, there are good ones and bad ones, hence the need for minimum standards.

Homebuilts cover the range of complexity from tube and rag flivers to high-flying composite turboprops that out perform many store bought airplanes. Regardless their method of construction, poor workmanship can kill whether it is a bad weld or a sloppy layup.

In the end it all comes down to is who assumes the risk and ensuring minimum safety through regulation. And you’re right that the forthcoming FAA amateur-built certification policy is all about people breaking the 51-percent rule.

As we brace ourselves for the new policy, we should never forget that it takes two parties to break the rules, the person who builds a kit airplane for money, and the person who writes the check for it. Both are responsible, and we all pay the consequences.

By: Gig Giacona

Gig Giacona — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 21:12:15 +0000

What Progress? Most EXP-HB are no more complex than they were years ago. This entire set of rule making is because there are people breaking the rules that are already there by building ready to fly aircraft under the EXP-HB rules that are not built “for the recreation and education of the builder” but for profit for the builder.

By: Joe Casey

Joe Casey — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:52:32 +0000

I have always wondered (probably now too late) why the EAA and AOPA and everyone else in GA didnt push to re-define the 51% rule? My recollection (I am nearly 70, and been an EAA member for 40 years) is that Cessna, Piper, and Beech were building small aircraft back then, and pressed the FAA to limit outside production … sound familiar??… The big three haven’t been involved in small GA production for over 30 years, and IMHO, the best thing that could happen, would be to ALLOW certain qualified builders (i.e. IA mechanics) to construct any or all parts of approved kits… just my two cents worth.

Joe Casey.. cfi, atp, a&p, & RV builder.