Call to Action - FAA proposed amateur-built certification policy

[Low Pass]

Originally Posted by fliier

It seems the FAA is attempting to increase the proportion of work done by the builder. Not to play devil's advocate, but wouldn't raising the bar for builders be beneficial in the long run for experimental aviation?

John Allen
RV-6A

What was the problem before?? Why change?? There's NO PROBLEM! Where are the pro-built flying machines falling out of the sky into playgrounds?

The quantity of rules and laws DO NOT equate to excellence and safety.

At best this is Cirrus/Cessna/NewPiper, etc. pushing for more experimental regs to pump up sales. Most likely, it's just the cancerous government "here to help".

[Geico266]

Originally Posted by Low Pass

At best this is Cirrus/Cessna/NewPiper, etc. pushing for more experimental regs to pump up sales. Most likely, it's just the cancerous government "here to help".

BINGO!

RING THE BELL

We have a WINNER!

This is why we must fight back! Get mad, get envolved, send an e-mail GUYS & GALS!

[alcladrv]

Obviously, there are some major divisions within these forums.

I built my -7A over a 2 year period and have enjoyed flying it for 400 hrs. over the past 3 years. To me, the current regs are pretty clear: Involve yourself in over 50% of the building activity and be rewarded with an Experimental Airworthiness Certificate and a Repairman's Certificate to lower you ownership costs.

I come down on the side of enforcing the current regs. However, the FAA appears to be reacting to activity contrary to the regs. I see the FAA requiring better documentation of what it already requires. Whatever results, it will have to be enforced.

It looks like the experimental community is guilty of not policing its own. These new regs appear to be the result. I have "big" problems with the attitude displayed in the following comments:

"Personally, I don't have a problem with people / companies building experimental kit planes for sale as long as the buyer is not on the repair certificate and the plane must have the "condition inspection" (annual) performed by a licensed A&P."

The DARs and FAA inspector should have refused to issue airworthiness certificates on these aircraft. Regardless of how well built they are, they were not built within the regulations.

Consider this example: You acquire land and build a house, but you neglected to follow the laws that require getting a building permit and submit to progress inspections. You then want to sell it, but alas, your disregard for the process now deprives you of an Occupancy Permit, the very credential you need to sell or use the house for its intended purpose.

What you now have is very large and expensive lawn ornament. City Hall's ears will be deaf to your complaints about it being ably, safely and adequately built. If you don't play by the rules, expect the consequences.

I'd like to build another RV someday in the manner that I built my current plane. I just hope the professional builders haven't screwed things up by then.

Mike

[Sam Buchanan]

Originally Posted by Geico266

Below is a copy of the e-mail I sent to the FAA. Feel free to copy & paste parts of it and send ot to the FAA also.
<large snip>

Personally, I don't have a problem with people / companies building experimental kit planes for sale as long as the buyer is not on the repair certificate and the plane must have the "condition inspection" (annual) performed by a licensed A&P.
<large snip>

I'm sorry, but I have a serious problem with that view.

Larry, I appreciate you taking the time to send a note to the FAA, but the position you take sidesteps the entire problem we need to address. Those willing to adopt your "position" are most likely in clear violation of the current regs and have probably committed perjury when they submitted FAA Form 8130-12, Eligibility Statement Amateur Built Aircraft.

[Geico266]

Originally Posted by Sam Buchanan

I'm sorry, but I have a serious problem with that view.

Sam,

You say; "Those willing to adopt your "position" are most likely in clear violation of the current regs and have probably committed perjury." It is not my position, it is my opinion. How many of the people on this website have built planes and sold homebuilt aircraft? Look at their signature, some are on 5th, or 6th RV! This site allows "hired guns" to advertize! You don't seem to have called them out for what they are doing (some of them are moderators), but yet you feel compelled to call me out for expressing an opinion? I've never built and sold an RV, but the facts are builders are doing it everyday.

You are naive if you think RV's won't be built and sold. Some will be sold as flying machines, some sold in estates sales, some sold as scrape after making a smoking hole, but they will ALL be sold. I see no problems with people building RV's as long as the buyer is NOT on the repair certificate. All RV's (including yours) will be sold.

It is also my opinion that the builder of the plane should NOT be allowed to do the annual condition inspections. Familiarity breeds contempt. Having a new set of eyes look at an aircraft is always a good thing. This could be a fellow builder who signs the log book or a licensed A&P. You can't imagine the nightmares I have seen looking at RV's where the builder is the only one to have done the maintenance and condition inspections. Clearly, this is based on a few builders and not the vast majority. I agree this is not a popular position and I'm sure I will have people disagree, but quite frankly I'm tired of reading about people getting killed on this website and it is my opinion this may be a small step in that direction.

JMHO.

[Sam Buchanan]

Originally Posted by Geico266

Personally, I don't have a problem with people / companies building experimental kit planes for sale as long as the buyer is not on the repair certificate and the plane must have the "condition inspection" (annual) performed by a licensed A&P. I do however, see the need for better control over this process, but it can be accomplished with existing rules being enforced.

Originally Posted by Sam Buchanan

I'm sorry, but I have a serious problem with that view.

Larry, I appreciate you taking the time to send a note to the FAA, but the position you take sidesteps the entire problem we need to address. Those willing to adopt your "position" are most likely in clear violation of the current regs and have probably committed perjury when they submitted FAA Form 8130-12, Eligibility Statement Amateur Built Aircraft.

Originally Posted by Geico266

Sam, How many of the people on this website have built planes and sold them? You don't seem to have called them out for what they are doing (some of them are moderators), but yet you feel compelled to call me out for expressing an opinion? The facts are builders are doing it everyday. Anyone who as built an RV and sold and made a profit it is committing perjury?

If a "company" builds an RV, whether or not the buyer is listed as the holder of the repairman's certificate is a concern, but not the one I addressed. Somebody had to submit FAA Form 8130-12, Eligibility Statement Amateur Built Aircraft wherein a signature was attached that signifies the person submitting the form asserts that more than 49% of the aircraft was constructed by an amateur builder. I guess we must decide if a "company" cranking out several RVs a year is indeed an "amateur builder".

Whoever signs Form 8130-12 for an aircraft that was professionally built has committed purgery because they.........lied.

The fact that RVs are bought and sold has absolutely nothing to do with the point I raised.

[Geico266]

Originally Posted by Sam Buchanan

Take a deep breath, Larry!

Can I exhale now? Please?

Sorry Sam, it's been a long day. Certainly, nothing personal, just too much caffeine.

We need to speak up and let the FAA know how we feel about the proposed changes to the regulations. My apologies to Joe for this thread creeping off his topic.

Agree! Lets focus.

[L.Adamson]

Originally Posted by Geico266

Below is a copy of the e-mail I sent to the FAA. Feel free to copy & paste parts of it and send ot to the FAA also.

I have been involved in Van's RV series kit building aircraft for about 10 years. We don't need another layer of rules, we need enforcement of the rules we have. I see nothing wrong with the present system and making the rules tougher for the average homebuilder is counter productive to what the FAA wants to accomplish.

Personally, I don't have a problem with people / companies building experimental kit planes for sale as long as the buyer is not on the repair certificate and the plane must have the "condition inspection" (annual) performed by a licensed A&P. I do however, see the need for better control over this process, but it can be accomplished with existing rules being enforced.

The safety record of experimental home built aircraft rivals that of certified aircraft in incidents. In fact, I believe they are identical. This would indicate the kit homebuilt aircraft industry is well ahead of the safety "curve" as compared to certified aircraft over the last 50 years.

The recent strides in experimental safety equipment, EFIS engine monitoring systems, and GPS navigation systems are clearly more sophisticated than many / most currently flying commercial airliners. This is due to the market place deciding what components are the best value for homebuilders. The current quality of engines, and the choices homebuilders have is due to the demand for safer and more reliable power plants. The free market place decides what will be the "best deal" for the homebuilders.

It is an exciting time in "experimental" general aviation. Homebuilt kit aircraft have been shown to be safe, reliable, and a huge boost to the US economy and research and development of better aviation gizmos. Please tread lightly and with deliberation before enacting new rules, and before fully enforcing the old ones. Please take great care not to "throw the baby out with the bath water". Any new rules could have a very chilling effect on experimental kit built aircraft, the companies, and their employees that make them.

What ever you guys do PLEASE send an e-mail to the FAA and let them know how you feel.

Nope..........

It's unfair competition. The hired guns will never be subject to the liabilities that certified aircraft builders are.

This is NOT a case of "free market". The certified aircraft producers get hit with all the rules of regulations of certification, as well as liabilities and cost; while the hired gun shops just rake in the dough.

Personally, I don't mind the "hired gun shops", because I do think it could add some safety value, as these people have most likely built enough airplanes to become quite proficient at it.

However, the scales would certainly be in favor of the hired gun build it shops, versus certified aircraft. This does NOT equate to "free market", and I feel that most can easily see this. I doubt that hired guns would want to take on the litigation that commercial aircraft builders constantly face.

L.Adamson

edit: I take this position as a business owner for 25 years. It's just simply unfair competition, and does away with the original intent of homebuilding.........whether I believe the hired guns might produce a better aircraft.....or not.

[Geico266]

Sam, Mike, Larry A.,

It keeping with the theme of this very important thread it may be more useful to post what you sent to the FAA in hopes of inspiring more VAF members to actually send an e-mail. Criticizing what I wrote is counter productive to the goal we seek.

[Mike S]

Originally Posted by Geico266

Sam, Mike, Larry A.,

It keeping with the theme of this very important thread it may be more useful to post what you sent to the FAA in hopes of inspiring more VAF members to actually send an e-mail. Criticizing what I wrote is counter productive to the goal we seek.

Well said Larry.

Please folks, expend your typing efforts in the direction of the FAA.