abuses and misapplications of the 51 percent rule - Page 8

tomcostanza · #71 09-07-2007, 02:17 PM

Could it be that the reason amateur built airplanes are of such high quality, is that people are building them for themselves? I wonder if the quality would remain as high if a profit motive were involved.

Rv8Dan · #72 09-07-2007, 05:22 PM

First off hello everyone, I'm new here.
A simular situation went on with special construction motorcycles. Everyone has seen the Discovery Channel with the one off custom Harleys being built. They are registered as special construction and do not need to meet EPA requirments. This was a loop hole that has allowed us to build our own bikes the way we wanted and barely legal. Because of all the shops opening up and building bikes as a business the FEDS passed a law in 2006 EPA 420 which says that you can only build one special construction bike per lifetime and you can't sell it for 5 years no exception. The shops that want to stay in business have to become a manufacturer and meet all the EPA requrements.

When the Manufactures lobby for tighter controls, the last thing we should be doing is giving them a reason to tighten the regs.

Dan

sprucemoose · #73 09-07-2007, 10:28 PM

Dan,

Welcome, and your first post was a good one! This is exactly what many of us fear will happen to our little corner of gubmint regulated paradise. Think it can't happen?

pierre smith · #74 09-08-2007, 05:36 AM

My wife, a retired Naval supply officer, asked me what the big deal was about having an airplane custom built. I immediately Googled the FARs and printed the amateur built regs and that "it should be built for the education and enjoyment...blah, blah" and handed it to her to read. She nevertheless came back with "If it's a bad regulation, then it's bound to be violated. Furthermore, is it a less-safe airplane if its built by a small shop?" My reply was that it probably will be better than a first timer building it. So she had me again. She thinks that this reg needs to be revisited since we've come a long way, baby, since 1952 when homebuilts were all essentially scratch-built.
She continued...."Where's the victim? It seems like a win-win situation to me (having an airplane built)."

She suggested that maybe the builder and the guy buying it AND the FAA should all get together and work this out.

Thoughts anyone?

I'm now getting more confused,

Pierre

N395V · #75 09-08-2007, 07:07 AM

Quote:

...."Where's the victim?

Victim #1 is the general public.

These aircraft have not been certified to meet rather rigorous standards. They may meet them in your case and mine but airplane mills would have no bodylooking over their shoulder.

Lots of unscrupulous people out there who will cut corners and build on the cheap if they do not have to maintain or fly the plane themselves.

Victim #2 are the Cessna's pipers, etc who have spent untold millions meeting these standards and now need a return.

If you want to mass produce planes there are regs in place to allow you to do it. All it takes is time and money.

If you want to build your own the curent reg works fine

Dgamble · #76 09-08-2007, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sprucemoose

Dan,

Welcome, and your first post was a good one! This is exactly what many of us fear will happen to our little corner of gubmint regulated paradise. Think it can't happen?

Yep! The old canard "be careful what you wish for" exists for a reason.

When exactly has asking/forcing the FAA and/or government in general to revisit a regulation ever resulted in less regulation than what was there before? Just hazard a guess as to who will have more say with the writing of the new rules: Textron, Cirrus, Piper, Hawker Beechcraft, et al or a few thousand "hobbyists?"

robertahegy · #77 09-08-2007, 08:07 AM

And us law biding commies will have to pay someone to do a lesser job for us.

Roberta

Mike Miller · #78 01-01-2008, 09:09 PM

So what does this mean for current Vans Quick Build builders? I am building a quick build RV-9A. Will the current Vans Quick Builds be grandfathered in? When will the FAA make the final detemination?

Mel and the other DAR's out there: What is you take on this issue? Any good news in the future? I would sure hate to spend so much time and money on completing a QB only to find that it can only be used as static display. Say it isnt so.

Mike Miller

Mel · #79 01-01-2008, 09:33 PM

The FAA is NOT after quick-build kits per sey. They are primarily after the "build it for the customer" shops. However some QB kits could be affected. I really don't think the Van's QBs will be. (But, don't quote me on that!) There are actually a few QB kits on the 51% list that can be purchased already covered and painted.
Of course, at this point, we don't have any idea what the final shake out will be.

Mike Miller · #80 01-01-2008, 11:22 PM

How does (how have they in the past) a kit manufacturer get the 51% kits certified as FAA compliant? Doesnt the FAA visit the manufacturer during the approval process and inspect the quick build kit to determine if in fact the manufacturer is only doing 49% of the required tasks?

Does anyone know the timing (estimated) of the final decision by the FAA? I see a big rush of folks getting their QB's done during the decision period. Will there be a grace period for folks already working on current kits (grandfather clause)?

Mike