CHANGES TO THE FAA KIT CHECKLIST AND THE "51%" RULE
 

A new article (direct link) written by Dick VanGrunsven now online...

http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/what...ercentrule.pdf

E-mail address
 

Thanks for posting this, Doug. Watch out if you simply click on the link in the PDF to send E-mail to Miguel Vasconcelos - it has a typo. The correct address is as printed: miguel.vasconcelos@faa.gov

Trying to help
 

I want to send a note to the FAA and alcon helping "our cause" but I am new to the rules and not sure what to write.

"Amature / experimental" airplane construction seems to be treated much differently than building a kit car or chopper motorcycle. I see the need for inspections and test period but, the 51% rule seems arbitrary and capricious on the part of the FAA.

I Plan to own and fly a Vans RV-4. I would love to buy it from a bussiness that would custom build one for me. The same way Orange county choppers builds motorcycles on TV. I know its illeagle to do that VS a buyer beware purchase of a Used bird that I will have to pay A&P mechanics to modify.

What is the true spirit and intent of the 51% rule. Seems to be to protect the establsihed aircraft manufacturers. Is it possible to have it resended?

Perhaps one of the old hands can draft then post a note that I can Email and snail mail off to those folks who will decide this. Love how this post has interested person I can Email when i have the best words penned.

Thanks, Dan

EAA has posted some letter-writing guidance here:

http://www.eaa.org/news/2008/form-letter-01.pdf

I think it's well written and fair.

It protects and rewards those who have earnestly learned new skills and knowlege, and rewards them with the right fly their aircraft within a complex highly regulated airspace system.

It similarly protects above builders from losing their priveldges due to the actions of well funded persons trying to get a new high performance aircraft without paying the price of a certified aircraft.

As usual, it only takes few to ruin a good thing for everyone and this regulation seems to offer excellelant protection for the experimental aircraft community.

Writing the FAA to petition a more lenient stance will enhance profits for Vans and the like and increase the chance ALL OF US will lose the privledge of experimental flight.

I, for one, will write the FAA and support their position as it is in my best interest.

Consider carefully what you wish for.

Flame away. I built my own airplane.

Bob

Too deep for me
 

It is obvious I simply do not know enough about the rules our what is at stake to submit my comments to the FAA.

I'm a 50 year old man that has dreamed of flying his whole life. Working the war in Kosovo got me enough cash to fianlly buy a cessna 152. The struggle to earn whatever it takes to fly is not lost on me. The temendous dedication it takes to build an airplane is amazing and way beyond me for the forseeable future.

The dream of owning an super duper RV 4 and having the cash to fuel it keeps me going through these 98 hour work weeks.

I am so grateful for the guidance of this group to insure I do the right things the right way. Thanks for enduirng my inappropriate thoughts. remember my first post about external drop tanks for extra fuel on RV-51s :o

Thank you, Dan

Well written and fair? Where do you find the "well written" part when everyone from a wannabe builder (me) to the top kit manufacturer is asking for an interpretation of "fabrication"? I also do not believe that the great majority of us are asking for lenience... nor supporting the actions of the "we build it for you" shops. We are asking for a reasonable sculpting of the rules to support the actions and methods used for many years by the majority of builders out there. I believe that allowing the kit manufacturer to fabricate the parts we assemble is not diminishing the education or recreation gained, and undoubtedly provides for greater parts quality control and consistency - resulting in a safer end product.

Depending on the interpretation of this vague "fabrication" rule... there is a great possibility that the end result will be less ability for many of us to build and fly our dreams.

I am not sure why you are worried about Van's making a profit. I had the opportunity to visit the factory last week. I have to tell you I didn't see a lot of expensive cars in the parking lot. What I found was a bunch of hard working individuals from Tom Green on down... happily producing a product that they have a passion and love for. Grass roots America.

And while I am happy for you that you built and have your own plane... your post sure echos of what we call the IGM attitude. I got mine...

While you challenge others to flame you... my intention is not that... but hopefully to provide some balance to your post to many of the folks who have not had the time to research this as much as myself and others have. While I would encourage them to research and form their own opinions... I do exercise the liberty to express mine.

The FAA needs to provide a better explanation of "Fabrication"... and further it is my strongest recommendation that "fabrication" not be separately tallied from assembly. I am not advocating loosening of the standards to allow professional assembly shops to be tallied under the 51% requirement. I would encourage the FAA to instead concentrate on better documentation by the inspecting official and taking a stronger stance against the few bad apples.

Respectfully disagreeing and responding.

DJ

The Webster definition of "fabricate" is CONSTRUCT-MANUFACTURE-INVENT-CREATE.

If the term were applied to the total project and not just individual parts, I do not see a problem. The FAA needs to define just what it is they mean by fabricate and also not get too hung up with labor verses fabrication. If they don't nail it down some inspectors will interpret "fabricate" to mean building your own foundry to make the aluminum needed for various parts and a milling machine to create fasteners.

That will be the gist of my comment concerning the proposal.

WHAT!! I built mine with my own hands with no help from anyone. After spending thousands of hours building it, I don't want it grounded because a few thousand lame wannabes violate the law to have their airplanes built by hired guns. HOMEBUILT AIRPLANES ARE FOR HOMEBULIDERS.

So WHAT EXACTLY is wrong with that?

And where do you get off with this IGM foolishness?

Bob

I did not rear anything about somebody taking over a project, many have both unfinished project in varying stages people sold there projects for many reasons health divorce financial etc, how will the FAA look at that since some are beyond QB stage or beyond the 51%

ken in maine