Tweet
The FAA is promoting new, more restrictive changes to the "51% rule" for homebuilt aircraft. This would have some effect on the construction of a normal "experimental" clipwing T-craft... but will GREATLY affect people wanting to rebuild a long wing T-craft into an experimental.
Additionally, many Taylorcraft enthusiasts are members of EAA chapters or simply know people building homebuilts. EAA has issued a call for action, asking people to write to the FAA in support of leaving the 51% rule alone and just enforcing it better. As most of you would expect from me (while rolling your eyes yet again), I wrote out a fairly strong letter to the FAA that makes it a bit more difficult to justify making new rules instead of enforcing the old rule. Please feel free to use any or all of the following letter, or forward it to your EAA chapters for any members who do not like to write letters.
-------------------------
Miguel L. Vasconcelos
Production and Airworthiness Division
AIR‐200, Room 815
800 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, D.C. 20591
Mr. Vasconcelos,
The FAA's "51% rule" for amateur built aircraft was based on good common sense and has served its function properly for 50 years. More importantly, this rule was and remains a clear example of the US government upholding one of those unique things that make America the greatest nation on Earth. It would be a gross blunder on the part of the FAA (and a legal / PR nightmare) to infringe on the ability of the law-abiding builders only because it was easier and cheaper than getting rid of the actual bad apples.
As with any rule, there will be people who try to break it. This does NOT mean the rule needs to be changed, it means the rule needs to be enforced. People drive illegally while drunk, but it's not the appropriate government response to make driving illegal or more burdensome for everyone. It is the appropriate government response to get the drunk drivers off the roads without stopping the millions of legal drivers from freely traveling on the road.
Experimental amateur built aircraft are responsible for many of the great advancements in aviation which have put and kept America in a leadership position.
1) The Wright Brothers were homebuilders, and because of them the world has powered flight.
2) The Golden Age air racers were all homebuilders, and there is a direct link between these air race experimental homebuilts and America's winning World War 2 in the air (with faster planes and better engines).
3) Burt Rutan started as a homebuilder, and thanks to this background the world saw the first un-refueled a ircraft flight around the planet and the first civilian spacecraft.
4) The vast majority of recent advances in aircraft fuel efficiency, low drag flight, and safe low cost flight were (and continue to be) developed within the experimental and homebuilt world.
5) The recent advances in electric flight, solar flight, and alternative energy flight all flourished within the experimental and homebuilt aircraft world.
6) Homebuilt aircraft have represented the fastest growing segment of the aircraft fleet for some time, and now represent the only viable "salvation" for the future of affordable personal aircraft ownership in America.
Not only does the US government and the FAA owe the experimental aircraft movement an extra measure of protection for its previous accomplishments, it needs to be understood that stifling or restricting this movement in any way will mean holding back the next great advancements in flight.
I support the EAA and FAA in all efforts to keep the existing 51% rule enforced. I do not want to allow businesses or individuals to circumvent the intent of the rule. But if the government has been lax in enforcing the 51% rule (letting people get away with breaking it), the FAA cannot burden the people who were doing it legally... just to appear to be "on top of the problem".
Mr. Vasconcelos, the people who were willing to break the original 51% rule are going to be equally willing to break any new and more restrictive rule... the net result will be a large burden on the taxpayers for administration of new rules, a large burden on the FAA for enforcement, no increase in public safety, and a far greater burden on the 51% rule compliant homebuilders who were not the problem in the first place.
The problem is not that the 51% rule has holes in it. The problem is that an appropriate existing rule was not enforced. Making another rule doesn't solve the problem. I once again support the enforcement of an existing, good rule that is rooted in common sense. I strongly oppose abandoning or adding restrictions to the 51% rule. A small number of bad apples got out of hand only because of non-enforcement of the original rule. We good apples in the experimental/homebuilt world should not bear a burden because of it.
The FAA must change its focus from an incorrect course of action which will burden innocent people, to doing the right thing and seeing that the guilty people are held responsible. Thank you for your consideration of my point of view, and for an open door to the FAA to be able to present it.
Sincerely,
Additionally, many Taylorcraft enthusiasts are members of EAA chapters or simply know people building homebuilts. EAA has issued a call for action, asking people to write to the FAA in support of leaving the 51% rule alone and just enforcing it better. As most of you would expect from me (while rolling your eyes yet again), I wrote out a fairly strong letter to the FAA that makes it a bit more difficult to justify making new rules instead of enforcing the old rule. Please feel free to use any or all of the following letter, or forward it to your EAA chapters for any members who do not like to write letters.
-------------------------
Miguel L. Vasconcelos
Production and Airworthiness Division
AIR‐200, Room 815
800 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, D.C. 20591
Mr. Vasconcelos,
The FAA's "51% rule" for amateur built aircraft was based on good common sense and has served its function properly for 50 years. More importantly, this rule was and remains a clear example of the US government upholding one of those unique things that make America the greatest nation on Earth. It would be a gross blunder on the part of the FAA (and a legal / PR nightmare) to infringe on the ability of the law-abiding builders only because it was easier and cheaper than getting rid of the actual bad apples.
As with any rule, there will be people who try to break it. This does NOT mean the rule needs to be changed, it means the rule needs to be enforced. People drive illegally while drunk, but it's not the appropriate government response to make driving illegal or more burdensome for everyone. It is the appropriate government response to get the drunk drivers off the roads without stopping the millions of legal drivers from freely traveling on the road.
Experimental amateur built aircraft are responsible for many of the great advancements in aviation which have put and kept America in a leadership position.
1) The Wright Brothers were homebuilders, and because of them the world has powered flight.
2) The Golden Age air racers were all homebuilders, and there is a direct link between these air race experimental homebuilts and America's winning World War 2 in the air (with faster planes and better engines).
3) Burt Rutan started as a homebuilder, and thanks to this background the world saw the first un-refueled a ircraft flight around the planet and the first civilian spacecraft.
4) The vast majority of recent advances in aircraft fuel efficiency, low drag flight, and safe low cost flight were (and continue to be) developed within the experimental and homebuilt world.
5) The recent advances in electric flight, solar flight, and alternative energy flight all flourished within the experimental and homebuilt aircraft world.
6) Homebuilt aircraft have represented the fastest growing segment of the aircraft fleet for some time, and now represent the only viable "salvation" for the future of affordable personal aircraft ownership in America.
Not only does the US government and the FAA owe the experimental aircraft movement an extra measure of protection for its previous accomplishments, it needs to be understood that stifling or restricting this movement in any way will mean holding back the next great advancements in flight.
I support the EAA and FAA in all efforts to keep the existing 51% rule enforced. I do not want to allow businesses or individuals to circumvent the intent of the rule. But if the government has been lax in enforcing the 51% rule (letting people get away with breaking it), the FAA cannot burden the people who were doing it legally... just to appear to be "on top of the problem".
Mr. Vasconcelos, the people who were willing to break the original 51% rule are going to be equally willing to break any new and more restrictive rule... the net result will be a large burden on the taxpayers for administration of new rules, a large burden on the FAA for enforcement, no increase in public safety, and a far greater burden on the 51% rule compliant homebuilders who were not the problem in the first place.
The problem is not that the 51% rule has holes in it. The problem is that an appropriate existing rule was not enforced. Making another rule doesn't solve the problem. I once again support the enforcement of an existing, good rule that is rooted in common sense. I strongly oppose abandoning or adding restrictions to the 51% rule. A small number of bad apples got out of hand only because of non-enforcement of the original rule. We good apples in the experimental/homebuilt world should not bear a burden because of it.
The FAA must change its focus from an incorrect course of action which will burden innocent people, to doing the right thing and seeing that the guilty people are held responsible. Thank you for your consideration of my point of view, and for an open door to the FAA to be able to present it.
Sincerely,
Comment