What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

New FAA Policy on Amateur Building Released

Larry is right Jerry. As long as you plan on building an ELSA...so far so good. The new plan wants am-builts to prove that they actually fabricate 20% of the aircraft (not just assemble)...that might be tough with the 12...except they are attempting to get certified as an SLSA which would give us permission to get an airworthiness cert with "no major portion requirement". See 8130.2F (141)(c)(2). You will still have to get a 16 hour repariman's cert to inspect it and certify it for your DAR.

Keep in mind it has to be built to Van's approval - no changes - until you get your airworthiness cert...then you can change it.

Anyway...thats the way I see it...if I'm wrong...someone please straighten me out...thanks

Pete
wings done...waitin on the fuse
 
To ensure consistency and standardization concerning amateur-built kit aircraft evaluations, the FAA proposes to clarify how much
fabrication and assembly must be performed by the amateur builder. The
FAA is proposing that an amateur builder fabricate a minimum of 20
percent of an aircraft and assemble a minimum of 20 percent of the
aircraft.

[RANT]
This, for example, is so ridiculous, it could only be written by someone knowing little to nothing about the process (read bureaucrat). What does this mean? How do you measure 20% of the fabrication? Is it 20% of the length, 20% of the weight? If you have 30 ribs, does the builder fabricate 6 of them? The ribs (and most other parts) of a Van's kit are "fabricated" on a CNC machine. The fabrication consists of putting a piece of aluminum in the machine and pressing a button. If I go to Van's and push the button, do I qualify as having "fabricated" the part? Do I need to buy yet another tool to fabricate it? Or, do I need to fabricate it with a hammer and hand brake? And if I do, how less safe is that part, compared to a CNC fabricated part?

These kits are designed so that someone with above average, but less than expert skills can build an airplane that is safe and affordable (barely). I agree that there is a problem with the existing situation, but I fear that this cure will become worse than the disease.

Your tax dollars at work.
[/RANT]
 
The FAA is defining "fabrication" as the following:

"Fabrication is defined as ?to construct a structure or component from raw stock or materials.? This excludes rebuilding or restoring activities.?

If amateur builders must fabricate 20% of the aircraft I don't think even the existing slow-build kits meet this criteria.
 
Thank goodness Van got all his kits grandfathered,,,I feel sorry for the people building other kits though,,,looks like their paperwork might be alot more to prove the fabrication part.
 
All previously listed kits are "grandfathered".

Thank goodness Van got all his kits grandfathered,,,I feel sorry for the people building other kits though,,,looks like their paperwork might be alot more to prove the fabrication part.

Van didn't get "his" kits grandfathered. All kits that were on the list got grandfathered.
 
Last edited:
Thank goodness Van got all his kits grandfathered,,,I feel sorry for the people building other kits though,,,looks like their paperwork might be alot more to prove the fabrication part.

That is the key, Van's kits are grandfathered.

Mostly, this FAA "clairification" is to put a hurt on hired builders, and speculation builders. Like anything there are ways around it. We'll just have to see how creative "builders" get. Maybe the new assisted builders sloagans will be something like "Four Weeks To Taxi". ;)

I think this is a good thing. The FAA could have come down with a much bigger hammer. I see this as just getting the attention of professional homebuilders.
 
I'd suggest we know little of substance until we see (1) and (2) below:

SUMMARY: This notice announces revisions to

(1) Chapter 4, Special Airworthiness Certification, Section 9 of the FAA Order 8130.2F, Airworthiness Certification of Aircraft and Related Products,

(2) Advisory Circular (AC) 20-27G, Certification and Operation of Amateur-
Built Aircraft


After these documents are published, we'll move on to the "field interpretation" phase. That's when individual FAA inspectors read the rules, put their own little twist on them, and confuse every DAR in the country with conflicting instructions <g>

If nothing less than 20% "fabrication from raw stock or materials" is going to satisfy the FAA, future kit designs are going to be a whole new deal. It is not just a quick-build issue. I don't see 20% fabrication from raw stock in a current RV slow-build kit.
 
Huh?

This:

"To ensure consistency and standardization"

seems mutually exclusive to this:

"The FAA is proposing that an amateur builder fabricate a minimum of 20
percent of an aircraft"

How does having an amateur build fabricate pieces do any but cause a loss of consistency and standardization??

I'm not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing to have a builder fabricate parts, but I am saying that it does nothing towards the stated goal. If a consistent and standard product is truly the goal, it seems to me that factory fabrication would be desireable. That is, after all, why certificated airplanes are built in factories in the first place.
 
This:

"To ensure consistency and standardization"

seems mutually exclusive to this:

"The FAA is proposing that an amateur builder fabricate a minimum of 20
percent of an aircraft"

How does having an amateur build fabricate pieces do any but cause a loss of consistency and standardization??

I'm not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing to have a builder fabricate parts, but I am saying that it does nothing towards the stated goal. If a consistent and standard product is truly the goal, it seems to me that factory fabrication would be desirable. That is, after all, why certificated airplanes are built in factories in the first place.


Well, my interpretation is that you have to understand that the FAA is NOT an aviation agency, or a safety agency - it is a regulatory agency. What they want "To ensure consistency and standardization" of is the application of regulations, not the consistency of the airplanes. It is not about airplanes - it is about regulations....as usual!

I do find it ironic that by trying to be more specific, they are actually going to create more chaos, because I have no idea how anyone would determine (consistently) what it means to fabricate 20% of the parts. Completely open to interpretation and individual judgment. Terrible regulation writing!

But we all had to know that this was going to happen, and more chaos will result. Once the FAA (or any government agency) decides that there is a "problem" and that a review is required, that guarantees that the the regs will change! Why? Because for them to do a review and then state "Oh, carry on, there is no problem here!" would mean that they had made a mistake in deciding that a review was necessary in the first place - and folks, government regulatory folks do not admit to tha kind of error. Period.

In a way, this is the fault of ALL of us. For allowing people to custom build, build to hire, or build airplanes for others; for letting this get out of hand; for tacitly accepting that "yes, it's against the rules, but it happens, we aren't our brother's keeper..."; for not taking a firmer stand before the FAA stopped in to drop the hammer - everyone that wants to build a plane in the future will have to deal with new regulations, and they will be confusing!

I, for one, believe that custom-built airplanes by boutique builders would be safer, and a great way to build up general aviation which is drowning under the high cost of regulation and certification. But unfortunately, the current regulations do not allow it. We have to live within the rules, or get the rules changed to what we want. Ignoring or going around them just makes "The Bear" mad - and we WILL be paying the price.

All my opinion,

Paul
 
Fall Out of FAA Ruling

I have seen some very "professional-looking" RV's for sale recently at the 90% completion point. I wonder if these are the professionally built models and the builder/rules breaker is trying to unload the problem on someone else.

As with all things regulatory, the FAA can not and will not catch every person abusing the rule, but will make a few individuals suffer for the abuses in the past. Then word gets out and the FAA is happy that the problem is no longer quite so bad. Bottomline: you probably have to be even more careful buying a partially built plane. And DAR's are going to want more documentation of hand's on procedures, fabrication etc.

Steve Anderson
RV 7A H-6
Finished waiting on Insurance
 
Well, my interpretation is that you have to understand that the FAA is NOT an aviation agency, or a safety agency - it is a regulatory agency. . . What they want "To ensure consistency and standardization" of is the application of regulations, not the consistency of the airplanes. It is not about airplanes - it is about regulations....as usual!
This is true. The FAA, or perhaps I should say the people who work for this government agency, for the most part, is/are not interested in anything other than their own agency survival and/or individual job survival. I made this statement on a previous thread concerning build centers. They are in essence in it for their own BUREAUCRATIC PRESERVATION. Their job is to make rules and regulations. If they do not do so on a regular basis their budgets will be cut and people will lose jobs and retirements and pensions and insurance coverage and position. If it means their paycheck they care. Otherwise, they could care less what their actions mean to the aviation community.

I, for one, believe that custom-built airplanes by boutique builders would be safer, and a great way to build up general aviation which is drowning under the high cost of regulation and certification. But unfortunately, the current regulations do not allow it. We have to live within the rules, or get the rules changed to what we want. Ignoring or going around them just makes "The Bear" mad - and we WILL be paying the price.
Yes, anyone who does not believe that someone with multiple build experience will be able to build a more consistently safe airplane than a raw amateur should not be in the business of regulating anyone!

Like most things involving the government, this regulation change and the regulations it is designed to replace were never intended to be rooted in safety. This is flat out an issue of government regulation designed to protect their regulatory power over the manufacturing sector of the aviation industry. If anyone can be allowed to build and then sell an airplane without following the already defined regulations of the FAA then why should the existing businesses (Cessna, Piper, etc.) have to follow the stringent certification requirements?

They would lose control over those commercial manufacturers if they allowed everyone to build and sell airplanes. Heaven forbid this to happen! How in the world could we poor soles protect ourselves from our own stupidity without a strong government and its regulatory agencies to tell us when, where, how, what we should do. Using common sense and a self-imposed sense of "not wanting to kill myself" is not adequate. No, I need these bureaucrats to tell me what is correct and appropriate in order to keep me from killing myself and all of those children in the school bus I am for sure going to crash into.

I did not intend to go off on yet another tangent, but I actually have coined my own phrase for this concept. I have become so tired of hearing all kinds of people discuss the safety of something, or explaining why they are deciding to do XYZ in terms of how it is important because we must "protect the children". I have labeled this concept as the FOR THE CHILDREN SYNDROM! The next time you watch a television news report about some accident, note how often the reporter mentions the children involved in the "whatever". "Adults? Well, I don't remember exactly how many adults were involved in the accident, but, Oh My God, can you believe there were two CHILDREN in that car!?"

Well, my .02 worth if anyone cares. After all, I am no longer a child (although I am often still treated as one) so I suppose there really is no real reason you would care?
 
What they want "To ensure consistency and standardization" of is the application of regulations, not the consistency of the airplanes. It is not about airplanes - it is about regulations....as usual!
Ah, that actually makes more sense than my initial reading, but as you say, it will be an absolute bear to implement.
 
Now is the time for comments

While we all can discuss it here... remember that it is imperative that our opinions and beliefs be sent to the FAA on this topic. That section on "Fabrication" is very troubling... and I believe needs our input.

As I have stated before... this is not an RV-12 problem. Well... at least from the standpoint that you will be able to build it as an E-LSA. If you wanted to build it as an E-AB... there may be problems.

And yes, the current kits have been grandfathered. What I am concerned about is the future of Experimental Aviation. What does this mean for the RV-14 or 15... or any other future design? While I am preparing to build a 12 for fun... the aircraft I really want isn't designed out there yet. But how many folks will attempt to build if a "20% fabrication" interpretation adds significantly to build time? For all you current "quick-builders" out there... would you have been able to attempt the project... if it took LONGER than the current SLOW builds??

Please don't have an IGM (I've got mine) attitude. Please comment on this for me and all the other builders that may want to build something in the future that isn't on today's existing 51% rule.

While I strongly agree that there is a need to reign in the problem businesses/folks... lets not let our hobby get taken backwards!

DJ
 
Why change? Why interpret? Where are the experimental planes falling out of the sky due to issues related to "hired gun" building? What is the problem?

The hired guns are working with the existing regulations. If they're not, bust them. Don't "clarify" the regulations just because the system is actually thriving and it may be threatening the authority of a federal agency. Oh my!!

The experimental homebuilt aircraft industry/world works just fine. Actually it's better than fine - it's a shining example of how technology and free-enterprise thrives WITHOUT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE.

Look at the success - a thousand new planes a year finished and flying, accident rates dropping, prices phenomenally low compared to the certified world.

Actually, I believe many in the FAA see the experimental homebuilt world as a threat to their authority and livelihood. It seriously undermines their relevance in the aircraft manufacturing/production/development side.

It's a typical make-work government folly.
 
Last edited:
What is the problem?
I think to answer that, you would have to follow my normal algorithm for determining the true reason for any gov't regulation of a market: follow the money. There are always winners and losers when the gov't regulates an industry, and this is not a deeply held secret. Everyone has a fairly good idea of where their interests lie when it comes to regulation. See the change in the mandatory retirement age for Part 121 pilots from 60 to 65, for example. As you can imagine, some are thrilled by it, but many are not.

So, who stands to gain from making it harder to sell an airplane with the capabilities of say, a Cirrus, for half the cost of say, a Cirrus?

Who stands to lose?

Who has the deeper pockets for lobbyists? Who has the ear of the local Senators? Who has access to influentional FAA bureaucrats?

Hint: It's not Van's.
 
Larry is right Jerry. As long as you plan on building an ELSA...so far so good. The new plan wants am-builts to prove that they actually fabricate 20% of the aircraft (not just assemble)...that might be tough with the 12...except they are attempting to get certified as an SLSA which would give us permission to get an airworthiness cert with "no major portion requirement". See 8130.2F (141)(c)(2). You will still have to get a 16 hour repariman's cert to inspect it and certify it for your DAR.

Keep in mind it has to be built to Van's approval - no changes - until you get your airworthiness cert...then you can change it.

Anyway...thats the way I see it...if I'm wrong...someone please straighten me out...thanks

Pete
wings done...waitin on the fuse

Pete:

As I understand the E-LSA regulations, you CANNOT made a change to your E-LSA after it has been certificated! IT MUST be maintained in accordance with the instructions set forth by the designer.
 
<<Hint: It's not Van's>>

Well, not entirely true. Want to compete with Van? Under the new rules, forget it. Van has a nice list of grandfathered kits. Your new kit will require customers to fabricate 20% from scratch.
 
<<Hint: It's not Van's>>

Well, not entirely true. Want to compete with Van? Under the new rules, forget it. Van has a nice list of grandfathered kits. Your new kit will require customers to fabricate 20% from scratch.
LOL, that's a good point! I imagine Lancair wouldn't be overly bereft either. Although.... I wonder if cutting and laying glass is "fabrication." See how this stuff gets tricky in a hurry? And you have to pay lawyers and bureaucrats to figure it all out, and more lawyers to appeal their decisions.
 
Bad, bad, bad.

No other way to put it.

Certainly this will have a stifling effect on any new kits brought to the market, since they won't be able to compete with existing kits...

The whole premise on why they wanted to revise the amateur-built rules (to prevent hired guns from building planes) is stupid... it caused absolutely no one any harm. I say let hired guns build, the more the better.

I guess everyone in the future will get stuck building brand-V airplanes, unless you enjoy scratch-building...
 
<<The whole premise on why they wanted to revise the amateur-built rules (to prevent hired guns from building planes) is stupid... it caused absolutely no one any harm. I say let hired guns build, the more the better.>>

It really didn't cause anyone any harm, and in truth the FAA hasn't pursued them. Think about it. If the FAA wanted to clamp down on pro-builders, you would have seen grounded airplanes all over the place. The old "don't crash in my schoolyard" thing has been SOP a long time....don't embarrass us and we'll leave you alone.

The embarrassment started with the rise of factory builder assist centers. Two weeks to taxi? Yeah, right. If a builder spends two weeks, 7 days a week, 10 hours a day, his own little hands worked 140 hours. The rest was rules-twisting. The straw that broke the camel's back was a factory assist center for a jet kit.

Standard smart bureaucratic politics; (1) divide and conquer, and (2) put in a juicy bone for the biggest players so they will get on board. Van's doesn't have a builder-assist center, and all his kits are grandfathered or LSA. Meanwhile, the competition gets a huge profit center kicked out from under them.
 
Gary,

Concerning the modification of an ELSA that has been certified. My understanding from the EAA is that similar to an AMBLT you can modify an ELSA once certified simply because there is nothing that says you cannot. In other words, with your airworthiness cert comes a certificate of operating limitations for your aircraft. Within that you may be instructed to test fly any modifications that you make and log such. Of course you would not be allowed to leave the parameters of the LSA guidelines. An example may be to place a 496 in place of the 296...after certification.

Again...I don't see this in writing anywhere but would certainly appreciate your thoughts and anyone elses'.

THx

Pete
 
EAA information is incomplete; better link found.

The EAA article includes a link to a text-only web page that contains only part of the proposed changes. I did a bit of searching and found the following FAA web page that contains links to three PDF documents containing the entirety of the proposed changes and (more importantly) an e-mail address where comments may be directed:

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/display_docs/index.cfm?Doc_Type=Pubs

Hopefully this will help.
 
Looks like Van's Recommendations Weren't Adopted

Those of you who have followed Van's publications on this issue will recall that he argued that the fabrication of a component is composed of many steps in going from raw material to an airworthy part.

His contention was that the CNC stamping, punching of matched-holes for assembly, and other "factory labor" represent a very small part of the overall labor required to build a component. He also argued that it is not economical for a homebuilder to own the equipment required to consistently and economically produce these components, and that the homebuilder's labor, which includes drilling, dimpling, deburring, prep, assembly, and painting require MUCH more labor than the raw production (stamping) of the part from raw stock. He also argued that for the FACTORY to perform all of this extra labor would make parts prohibitively expensive (Cessna). He argued that the 51% rule should apply to the LABOR in producing a part, a little bit of labor from the factory, but MOST from the homebuilder. He proposed a chart showing labor percentages from the homebuilder and the factory, all tallied up to see whether the homebuilder met the 51% or not.

His argument made a lot of sense to me.

The thing most apparent to me in reading about the new requirement for 20% of parts to be fabricated FROM RAW MATERIAL or STOCK means that Van's argument somehow fell on deaf ears. :(

To me, this is the biggest failing of the FAA proposal, and I think we need to mobilize to provide comment to this effect. Think about it, if Vans takes 39 seconds to produce a wing rib, and you take 2 hours to make it airworthy, haven't you done more than 51%? This is the argument that needs to be made, IMHO.

Yes I realize that the existing RV kits will be grandfathered. But the development of future kits could be a dark one if this interpretation, and if the 20% "fabricated from raw stock" is allowed to stand.
 
The hired guns are working with the existing regulations. If they're not, bust them. Don't "clarify" the regulations just because the system is actually thriving and it may be threatening the authority of a federal agency...

I have to agree with Bryan. The current regulations haven't been enforced. We don't need new rules, we need to enforce the rules we already have.

This is very analogous to gun control. Many gun laws are ignored and not enforced but the gun control lobby wants lots of new laws to control those horrible guns. How about enforcing the existing laws? Ever think of that?

Karl

Now in Sandpoint, ID :)
 
Yeah, the changes are sad, but change is change sometimes (only after we, myself included, are done lobbying and complaining)... Did you submit a letter many months ago when the comments were solicited? I did.

I'm envisioning a new market and some new ingenuity needed for cheap simple tools to make it possible for the individual to easily stamp and form parts such as bulkheads and ribs. Obviously the kit manufacturer will have to design with the new rules in mind.

You can pick up a 20 ton press for dirt cheap at Harbor Freight, with a little bit of pneumatics it can work at the press of a button. Then we just need to produce a set of cheap dies that wear ok for two or three airframes. Ok, it isn't having it all delivered to you from Vans right off of their gazillion dollar cnc punch press, but it also isn't like having to hammer each rib from scratch.

Unfortunately it seems as if we're going to have to go back a little bit in order to move forward. There is always a way, and it will still be super fun! That is about all the optimism I can muster for you right now :).
 
Last edited:
Man this will change the face of the market for new QB designs. Van's SB's just ain't that far off with all the darn "Make From's". How do you justify 20%? By weight, total time spent building, size of the parts ??????

This has to be a love/hate scenerio for Van. This almost guarantee's him strong future kit sales on existing kits but on the other hand will truly tie his hands on future development.

This is a major step backwards and for nothing. How would you like to be Van who has spent a lifetime developing processes, tooling and a design around being able to provide a kit builder with a kit that can be assembled without a million dollars worth of mills, lathes, presses, brakes, shears, special jigs, tooling ect.
 
Last edited:
Ok, here come the flames!

Let me preface this with the fact that I am certainly not a fan of more regulation, more bureaucracy, more tax dollars wasted, and so forth. I also don't regularly trust the "wisdom" of our government agencies and policies. But I fail to see why we should be in such an uproar over this probable regulation change.

It is obvious, both from the FAA statement regarding the need for clarification and from the actual proposal that this is a crackdown (shakedown) on businesses and individuals that have been flatly DEFYING current regulations in order to sell more kits (make more money). Don't get me wrong, profit is not a dirty word. But I have to obey both federal and state regulations every day in my job whether or not I agree with them. I could certainly make more money if I chose to disregard those regulations and then use the argument that "It ain't hurtin' nobody!"

Paying someone to show you how to build an airplane does not seem to be a violation of either the old regulations or the new clarifications. Paying someone to build an airplane for you and hand you the paperwork to sign that says you built it IS a violation of both. Frankly, most of us are well aware of places/people who effectively offer to build a kit for you, hand you the paperwork to sign that says you built it, collect their $$, and call it "builder assistance". As Van has suggested all along, these folks have been pushing the limits, and by supporting them and/or turning our heads we have now attracted the attention of those who are in charge of regulating those limits.

Is it inherently safer for an experienced builder to assemble a kit than someone who can't fix a lawnmower. Yes, obviously. But it certainly doesn't meet the spirit of the regulations that have for decades allowed individuals to build and fly their own airplanes with the FAA's blessing. We haven't been up in arms over those regulations and their intent for the last 50 years, why are we now choking on the fact that they will be enforced?

As for this "20% of the fabrication" issue, I am sure a little ingenuity by kit manufacturers will result in no real undue hardship on anyone. Some clarification of whether this is by parts count or physical dimension or weight might help, but it doesn't sound unreasonable to me to expect a builder to actually build parts. Cutting two inches off a length of aluminum angle and drilling holes in it counts as fabrication.

I know this may not set well, and maybe I am looking at this wrong. I'm ready, hit me with it!

Roger
-9A QB
 
Fabrication

Flame me if you will, but how many people actually took the time to sit down and read the draft FAA documents, and how many are commenting solely based on the EAA press release?

The fabrication piece actually looks a whole lot worse than it probably is, at least for the slow-builders. If you review the checklist and look at say, fabricate the wing ribs:

Sure, Van's gets credit for forming them, heat treating them, and drilling the pilot holes, but I fluted them, deburred them, match drilled them, drilled holes for wiring, primed them, etc. Since each point on the checklist can be divided into tenths, I give Van's .4 as the manufacturer and me .6 under fabrication for the wing ribs. I'm well on my way to 20% fabrication.​

Sure it's subjective depending on who's evaluating the kit, but if I deburred, drilled, fluted, cut, modified that part in any way, shape, or form before assembling it to the aircraft, then I participated in the fabrication of that part and deserve some of the credit. And since Van's only pressed a button then they did less of the work than I did.

Where I see this having an effect is on the quick-built and builder assist industries. On a slow built, I did those fabrication tasks on each and every wing rib. On the quick-built, it's not so clear cut because the factory did it for many of them.

PJ Seipel
RV-10 #40032
 
Since each point on the checklist can be divided into tenths, I give Van's .4 as the manufacturer and me .6 under fabrication for the wing ribs. I'm well on my way to 20% fabrication.

PJ, can you tell us where it says this? Many of us (myself included) haven't had time to read through everything yet.

Thank you,
 
It's called "ENFORCEMENT"

rrd1_99 said:
It is obvious, both from the FAA statement regarding the need for clarification and from the actual proposal that this is a crackdown (shakedown) on businesses and individuals that have been flatly DEFYING current regulations in order to sell more kits (make more money).../QUOTE]

I agree that people are abusing the system and I agree that something needs to change. BUT... you can change the rules to anything you like, if you don't enforce the rules, it don't mean squat.

The feds are will have to enforce the rules for it to make a difference. So why don't the just enforce the current rules? That would sure be simpler than all this fuss with interpretting new rules that are suppose to accomplish the same thing as the old rules.

Karl

Now in Sandpoint, ID :)
 
OK, so lets say the new regs get passed, and it clearly doesn't benefit us. The only people these rules benefit is the bureaucracy of the FAA. Great, so now they have some precedent to start making some more changes. What's next? Limits on speed, number of seats, horsepower? Don't think it can happen? Think again. Its been thrown around in FAA circles.

The thing that gets me is how the various letter groups have gotten themselves in bed with the FAA and try to make you think they've accomplished something. If these new rules go into effect, the EAA hasn't done a thing IMO. These changes should be fought.
 
Karl is absolutely right

Couldn't agree with you more. Your comparison to gun control issues is right on the money. But I can see where the "old" regs left a significant gray area that was exploited by some, with full knowledge they were operating outside the intent and spirit of the law. It appears to me that the new proposals are little more than a clarification of the intent and purpose of the original regulations.

Roger
 
PJ, can you tell us where it says this? Many of us (myself included) haven't had time to read through everything yet.

Thank you,

Sure, check out: http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/media/Amateur-BuiltAssemblyChecklist.pdf

and then read the notes at the bottom. Here's part of it, sorry I don't know how to make it bigger:

2675468920_e2bb409b45_b_d.jpg


They need to do a much better job of defining "fabrication" in my opinion.
 
I agree that people are abusing the system and I agree that something needs to change. BUT... you can change the rules to anything you like, if you don't enforce the rules, it don't mean squat.

The feds are will have to enforce the rules for it to make a difference. So why don't the just enforce the current rules? That would sure be simpler than all this fuss with interpretting new rules that are suppose to accomplish the same thing as the old rules.

Karl


In both principle and belief, I am 100% in agreement with you Karl - enforce the rules you have, don't make new ones! Unfortunately, in this particular case, that ship has sailed. As I postulated earlier, the FAA has already decided that the rules have changed. Complaining about that won't help. We can only look forward - how do e comment on the proposals to make things best for us in the future....and then how do we make sure that those rules are enforced?

I also like PJ's interpretation of fabrication - if we can get the authorities to see it that way, then there will be little change for the real homebuilders.

Paul
 
A big thanks to JimLogajan for the FAA link to the actual publications.

I see nothing abut grandfathering. Did I miss it?

Couple of interesting things I did find in the Section 9 draft document:

See 148 (a)(3): You're expected to get approval from the AIR-200 guys before construction if you intend to modify the as-approved kit. I can't imagine how any modification would reduce builder participation, but heads up, RV-8 fastback builders. Also see 152(c), which includes the word "require".

149(e)(2): Appears to include an editorial error. I think the word "deducted" was intended as "added".

152(e)(4): Surprise! In-process inspections become required rather than recommended, and the signature of the inspector must be in your builder's log. Unfortunately, there is no guidance about how often you need an inspection during the build process. It does state "other builders" can do the inspections, so apparently calling a TC or A&P is not strictly necessary.

It is important to remember these are draft documents, the comment period is open, and this may or may not be the final deal.
 
doing at least 20% of the fabrication does not mean that you have to fully fabricate 20% of the parts. It means that given the steps between raw materials and a finished component, at least 20% of the cumulative fabrication for the aircraft must be done by the builder.

When it comes to regulatory interpretation, a careful read is critical. If the FAA meant to require that a builder completely fabricated 20% of the components...the order would require a builder to "completely fabricate 20% of components".

But they require 20% of the "fabrication" which is defined as the process wherein raw stock becomes a finished component. Combining the rule with the definition, the amatuer builder must be responsible for 20% of the work to take raw stock and complete a component. This is a cumulative number accounting for all the fabrication in the craft, certainly some components will be more than 20% some less.

The FAA has repeatedly said that they do not intend the new rules to create restrictions which would have excluded the grandfathered kits, but rather to come up with a more clear set of rules using the currently approved kits (honestly built) as a guidpost. This is further underscored by the description of the regulation as a clarification and not as a further or more strict new regulation.

The ability of a federal agency to fabricate new law from whole cloth is limited, but their ability to clarify and refine the enforcement of existing law is granted wide deference, hence clarifications and enforcement decisions rather that entirely new law.
 
When it comes to regulatory interpretation, a careful read is critical. If the FAA meant to require that a builder completely fabricated 20% of the components...the order would require a builder to "completely fabricate 20% of components".

But they require 20% of the "fabrication" which is defined as the process wherein raw stock becomes a finished component. Combining the rule with the definition, the amatuer builder must be responsible for 20% of the work to take raw stock and complete a component. This is a cumulative number accounting for all the fabrication in the craft, certainly some components will be more than 20% some less.

If that indeed turns out to be true, then I take back my previous rant. But I'm still apprehensive.
 
A big thanks to JimLogajan for the FAA link to the actual publications.

<SNIP>

See 148 (a)(3): You're expected to get approval from the AIR-200 guys before construction if you intend to modify the as-approved kit. I can't imagine how any modification would reduce builder participation, but heads up, RV-8 fastback builders. Also see 152(c), which includes the word "require".

<SNIP>

It is important to remember these are draft documents, the comment period is open, and this may or may not be the final deal.

This item needs to be commented upon strongly. "Prior to construction" - what does that mean? Do we have to lock in and document all possible modifications before build day 1?

Let's see, my quadrant might end up in a custom center console and I'm only 1/2 way through the empennage. Do I need to stop riveting, fire up my CAD package, and start guessing on dimensions?

What's the consequence of not complying? Oops, I didn't decide on a James plenum until after I hung the engine. Does that mean the whole plane falls off the "51% list" and has to go through an individual evaluation?
 
Fabricate from Raw Stock

From the FAA document: "The major portion of a kit should be composed of raw stock, such as lengths of wood, tubing, extrusions, etc., which may have been cut to an approximate length."

So if I use leather seats, is raw stock the cow, the hide, the tanned and finished leather, or what? If I buy already-finished seats, how much does it count against the majority part that I build?

Or, if I use an EFIS or auto-pilot, what portion of the software I am required to write myself? If so, should I write it raw machine code (no assembler or compiler allowed), so that I'm using the "raw stock" level of the computer in the EFIS? If I just use the software supplied by Dynon or TruTrak, does this count against my 51 percent?

Or, if the major portion should be "raw stock", I am required to fabricate some portion of the rivets from "raw stock"? I'm guess that way over 80% of a kit just consists of already fabricated rivets. This has me worried.

Or, to look at things differently, maybe rivets, EFIS systems, auto-pilots, and seats don't really count as part of the stuff that I'm supposed to fabricate. So what does? Is this clearly spelled out? Ribs count but rivets don't?

Please help me understand.
 
Please help me understand.
I think your questions are at least a little bit tongue-in-cheek, but they bring up valid points. To address a few:

1. Upholstery is one of the items specifically excluded from the 51% rule under the current rules. You could hire the whole thing out, or weave your own fabric, and it makes not one whit of difference.

2. Ditto avionics. You can legally hire out the entire panel/ wiring process and not run afoul of the 51% rule. That's how businesses like Steinair can fo what they do and are 100% legit, as compared to the "hired guns" that build airframes.

3. The rules specifically allow for use of off the shelf hardware such as rivets, nuts and bolts, etc. No need to turn out each rivet by hand; conversely, no credit towards building would be granted even if you did.

Clear as mud?
 
If these new rules go into effect, the EAA hasn't done a thing IMO. These changes should be fought.
Hasn't done a thing? What do you think the new rules would look like if EAA (and Van and others) hadn't been involved? Much more onerous, I can guarantee you that.

As I read this (and I've only skimmed, haven't read it cover to cover yet) had these rules been in effect 10 years ago, it would have affected my first build absolutely zero, nor does it seem to affect either of my current projects. So I'm not too upset.
 
Hasn't done a thing? What do you think the new rules would look like if EAA (and Van and others) hadn't been involved? Much more onerous, I can guarantee you that.

As I read this (and I've only skimmed, haven't read it cover to cover yet) had these rules been in effect 10 years ago, it would have affected my first build absolutely zero, nor does it seem to affect either of my current projects. So I'm not too upset.

In the 5th paragraph of the first RVAtor of the year Van stated "A number of statements made emphasized the FAA position and sometimes minimized or
omitted the industry position". To me this says they got ignored.

If you had a kit thats not on the 51% list like I do you would be a little more than upset.

I haven't seen one statement from the EAA that says anything they suggested was adopted by the FAA. The FAA simply doesn't work that way, they do what they want...not the way you and I want them to.
 
Back
Top