scottg said:
Notice the words, "who undertook the construction project solely for their own education or recreation". That's the key part. Did you start the project with $$$ in mind? You may have learned something and enjoyed the process of building, but if profit was part of the motivation to build, no matter how small of a part, then your finished aircraft should not be eligible for a C of A.
Ok, Scott, that's enough. Now, you are saying we need the "thought police" to determine if a builder had the right "intentions" when he started a project. I can see it now. A builder goes to register his finished project, and the FAA inspector takes him to an interrogation room and questions him:
FAA: "So, you say you undertook this project for the sole purpose of your own education or recreation? "
Builder: "That is correct."
FAA: "Isn't it true that you have already built 5 other airplanes?"
Builder: "What can I say, I like to build."
FAA: "Well, then how much education can you get after already building 5 airplanes?"
Builder: "Hey, I'm a slow learner. Besides, the reg says Education or Recreation."
FAA: "I see. But isn't it true that building an airplane takes a lot of time and patience?"
Builder: "Well, yes, that's true."
FAA: "And didn't you have to, basically, give up all of your free time in order to build these airplanes?"
Builder: "Well, not all of my free time, I still watched the Military Channel once-in-a-while."
FAA: "And isn't it true that you have cuts all over your hands from working with metal, and most of your clothes are covered with ProSeal?"
Builder: "Ah..."
FAA: "Frankly, I don't see much educational or recreational value here. Tell me the truth, you stated this last project with the intent of making money."
Builder: "That's not true, I really like to build."
FAA inspector now removes a cattle prod from his overcoat and zaps the builder a good one.
Builder: "Ouch!"
FAA: "Tell me the truth! You INTENDED to make money."
Builder: "No, that's not true!"
FAA inspector twists the knob on the cattle prod (it's not a normal cattle prod, it's a special version made by Cessna for the FAA), and zaps him again.
Builder: "No, no, not again! Yes, yes, I intended to make money..."
FAA: "Application denied. Bring in the next subject, ah, builder."
Give me a break. I like building. If I decide to sell the project once it is complete, and start another project, it does not matter, as long as I don't hang up a sign "Tracy's RV Factory, will build for profit", or advertise in the builder's rags, the FAA is not going to care. As long as you don't take the money before starting the project, it is within the letter and the "intent" of the law. Of course, if you are building 3 airplanes a year, I guess the FAA might take notice.
I know that you are concerned that these "hired guns" will affect our right to build an airplane in our garage. I am concerned, also. However, I think there is a big difference between a builder who solicits business prior to building and one who puts his finished projects on the market once he is done. I think the FAA will start to crack down on builders who are running an aircraft factory that advertises their services.
But, please, let's not start questioning a builder's "intent", let's concentrate on their "actions".
Cheers,
Tracy.