Two Weeks To Taxi RV-10

[Phil]

I know Tobin. I'm not arguing the legality of anything.

I'm saying that the math doesn't make any sense and I can't understand how the FAA could reasonably justify signing off to support a TWTT program when you start with a 49% complete airplane. You can't start with 49%, add the services of TWTT, and expect that completion number to stay at 49% from the "who built it and recieves the repairman certificate" perspective. If they do anything at all it pushes the kit beyond 49% complete. From a simple math perspective it doesn't make sense when you combine the two.

I'm not saying it's illegal. I would just like to hear their perspective on how they could justify their ruling. If they'd publish a justification summary we'd have several answers about their logic and stop the speculation.

Phil

[flytoboat]

I've seen it explained on here before that the 51% rule doesn't have anything to do with how long it takes to build an airplane. Instead it has to do with the tasks involved in building an airplane. For example, if you debur and flute one wing rib, you have met the requirements for that task and someone else can do the rest of the ribs.

[Phil]

That's how I understand it too.

[Russ McCutcheon]

Originally Posted by Phil

But that doesn't mean you have the experience to make those decisions. You are driving home my point.

Without having your own builder experiences to rely on it doesn't matter what the spirit of the regulation says. You aren't actually qualified even though you're perfectly legal.

This is a free country and the freer we keep it the better off we are. I bought an RV-4 in 2005 and have managed to operate it safely for 1200 hours including doing all maintenance myself which has included an engine O/H, mag timing and inspections, a couple prop R&Rs for service and replacing or repairing about everything that can wear out on an old airplane, as well as ties, oil, loose rivets and on and on. I?ve learned a lot over the past six years about my airplane (first and only airplane) and do my own work for my recreation and education as well as the fact that I know how it has been maintained. Don?t tell me I?m not smart enough to maintain and or learn to maintain my airplane safely and legally.

As for the TWTT program, it just means more people coming in to the community, more kits Van?s can sell and more people able to make a living working for and vending for Van?s and companies like Van?s, more wealth in the GA community witch is largely a starving proposition, sounds ok to me.

[Phil]

I think we need a new forum under the Never Ending Debate section dedicated to the FAA. This would be a great primer thread to get that section kicked off and running with spirit.

[Tandem46]

Originally Posted by Phil

I think we need a new forum under the Never Ending Debate....This would be a great primer thread to get that section kicked off and running with spirit.

Yes! I love these debates! Pure entertainment! I hate when the moderators shut down debates like these. It's like taking the crashes out of NASCAR, too boring without them!

[MU2flyer]

Originally Posted by scard

You sound like a good candidate to purchase a flying RV. There are plenty available. Then just spend as much or as little time as you want becoming intimately familiar with it. Take it apart, put it back together (with oversight), poke it, tinker with it, review the plans in detail, put eyeballs on each and every nut, bolt, and rivet, build a relationship with it... and eventually, it will become YOUR RV. You still won't be the builder, but we all have the choice to be as educated as we choose. Heck, even order the practice kit for the heck of it after your purchase, just to have a tiny appreciation of the process?

I've thought about just buying one, but feel uneasy about not knowing how it was put together. I'm guessing that TWTT even with its limitations would be better in terms of knowing the airplane. Interestingly, the estimates of prices I've seen to build a 10 via TWTT are more than the asking prices for completed aircraft.

[ScottSchmidt]

I can see the points of both sides and I am sure there are safety concerns from planes that are built and maintained by the builder and planes that are built and maintained from a TWTT program. It totally depends on the individual.
I know when I built my RV-10 (slow build) the early RV-3/Long-EZ builders were telling me the exact same thing that many of you are saying about the TWTT program. "Your not building a plane, your putting parts together mindlessly!" I was sure happy I did not have to bend and make my own ribs. The kits that Van's makes have made airplanes so much safer, reliable and can be built by a much larger diversity of individuals and skill sets. What if Van's had a kit that could be built in 10 hours because of improvements in the kits and involved 90% of the assembly? Would that be OK then? I can see this happening as kits, engine firewall kits and avionics packages continue to improve. (The RV-12 is getting close to this. I tell people it builds itself.)

I am very happy I built my plane and love knowing all the things I do about the plane but I cannot say I would not have known the same things if I did the TWTT program. I can see a knowledge advantage with a TWTT program.
I would be open minded to a program like this until I completed one and learned how much assembly I did and what I learned from the team I worked with. I also agree that if programs like this prove to supply a safe aircraft to a qualified pilot then why not?

[alpinelakespilot2000]

Originally Posted by Russ McCutcheon

This is a free country and the freer we keep it the better off we are.

Agreed. What is surprisingly missing from this thread is a bit of history about which many newer builders or buyers of pre-built planes may not be aware. I don't think anyone is arguing that getting more safe aircraft into the market is not a good thing. To this end, the TWTT program is good for general aviation.

What is at stake is the freedom we have under the amateur built rule. When I started building 7+ years ago, the RV world was almost awash in "professional" builders who were building planes for profit and everyone knew it. (Back when building an RV actually could generate some significant profit. ) At the same time, the TWTT program was just getting off the ground, using the legalities of the 51% rule to do so. They saw an opportunity and took it... no issue there. Some in the certificated manufacturing community, however, began to get concerned (rightly, in my opinion), and they began voicing those concerns, that they could not remain competitive if they had to follow rigorous, expensive, certification processes to build a plane when professional-built experimental category aircraft did not have to meet any such onerous requirements. Thus, many builders became concerned that the privileges they enjoyed, following both the letter and spirit of the experimental/amateur built category, would become a casualty of the excessive leeway granted to professional builders and programs like TWTT who might have been legal, but were pushing the boundaries of the spirit. Rest assured, the job-creating lobbies of Cessna, Cirrus, and others have a lot more clout that we do in general aviation. If they should choose to challenge the current interpretations of the 51% rule, you can bet TWTT would be exhibit number one in making their case. However, would it stop there? Would the certificated lobby help rewrite the rules such that (even unintentionally), we lost some of the tremendous privileges we have under the amateur built category?

In sum, I think it's fair to say that many who have expressed concerns here have little qualms about programs like the TWTT program SO LONG AS they were practiced under a category other than experimental/amateur built. (And yes, a new category might need to be created.) That way, we don't become a target too. This isn't about feeling sorry for ourselves just because we couldn't afford to avail ourselves of this program. Neither is it sour grapes that us "real" builders actually built our planes. (We all know that it's the scratch builders who are the "real builders anyway.) It's just a concern about protecting the privileges we have with the category under which we build.

[ScottSchmidt]

I hope the market is big enough that Cessna, Cirrus and others don't worry about it. It would be too bad if they went after the "experimental" market because of lost revenue. They need to learn that their pricing is the driving force though. My wife and I were blown away at the pricing of a new Cirrus, $683,000 at Oshkosh. We both could not believe it. Who can afford a plane at that price? (not many) It seems to me that the disparity in the price between a certified and experimental continue to grow. At the current pace I can see why people want their planes built for them, right or wrong. I like building but love flying and understand that there are people out there who love flying as much as me but hate building.
Hopefully the kits continue to improve and make it easier for builders to build a safe and reliable plane.