So when is it going to stop?

[az_gila]

Originally Posted by RV8R999

....
if I felt I needed a 2nd pilot to conduct a specific flight test more safely you can bet your tootie I'd do it and willingly accept the consequences.

.....

Unfortunately the consequences can go way beyond your own actions and acceptance.

Our Airpark, Walter Engines-US and others were sued after the fatal crash of a Legend at an EAA breakfast. It was still in Phase I and with a passenger.

The lawsuit came from the passengers widow... and cost our insurance company $20K and the others a similar amount because it was cheaper than "the cost of defense".

These "passenger" actions that you "willingly accept the consequences" of can go way beyond you.

In this case all of our insurance rates probably got affected...

The consequences of willfully violating a specific rule can hurt us all - don't bet your tootie, just get the local FSDO office to agree the extra person is really needed.

[pierre smith]

Originally Posted by Don

......... If you don't like them - move to change them. In my opinion, some of them like the 3rd class medical and the prohibition on professional builders assistance are broken and need to be changed.

Guys, I'm with Don on this one....hiring Pro builders. We've seen the EAA team up ten years ago and push for our LODA rule and many accidents were averted through Transition training.

Brazil, South Africa, Ecuador and Russia, all turn out pro-built RV's and other airplanes.... airplanes built to FAA certified standards, if not better. It's high time that the US 'catches up."

Best,

[Bob Axsom]

Originally Posted by Don

Vic,

I won't dispute the foolishness and danger involved in flying passengers during Phase I testing. However, while I know you're legally correct about professional builders assistance, I think you and the law are functionally wrong and, at a minimum, the law should change.

Practically speaking the law allows for certificated aircraft to be built to a Type Certificate and the law allows persons, like myself, to build my own plane for educational and recreational purposes. I'm building an RV-9A and it's my first homebuilt. I expect it will be at least as safe to operate as I am capable of being a safe pilot. I can say the exact same thing for the Cherokee I fly now.

As I near the end of my building process, I want to do another plane. The RV-3 is a likely candidate and the perfect mate to the 9A - one is a tricycle, the other a tail dragger, one is aerobatic, the other designed for XC. One is well equipped in terms of avionics and the other will be sparsely equipped. One thing is certain though, and that is the skills I've honed building the 9A will help me to build an even better 3.

Now what about the argument that a "professional builder" can produce a safer airplane than the average first time builder? While it certainly isn't a bullet proof argument, if the professional builder cares about what he's doing, then I suspect the argument is generally valid. That person would have skills and knowledge that a first time builder wouldn't. If they also has some good judgement, then the outcome would almost certainly be a safer plane.

I can't imagine that safer planes would cause insurance rates to go up. Most likely the FAA would like to see a safer fleet of GA planes and professionally built kit planes could move us in that direction. I'm sure pilots would like safe, high quality, and affordable planes for purchase. My Cherokee was made in 1974 and I seem to continually be paying someone to replace something.

So what's wrong with professional assistance other than it isn't legal? Sure, it puts the DAR in an ethical bind and I don't blame you for not wanting to sign one off. After all, it is illegal - I buy that argument. What I don't buy is that it should be illegal. It makes good sense in many ways, to let this practice happen in the open where it can be regulated as needed, or just treated as a "homebuilt" for which no repairman's certificate can be issued and an annual is required.

Your argument, in my opinion, falls into the category of "America: Love it or leave it." The true beauty of our system of government is that it can change to meet the needs of the people. It isn't a matter of leaving it - it's a matter of stepping up to the plate and changing it. That's democracy! In like fashion, it isn't "The FARs: love em or quite flying". If you don't like them - move to change them. In my opinion, some of them like the 3rd class medical and the prohibition on professional builders assistance are broken and need to be changed.

I respectfully disagree with your opinion and agree with the original motivation for allowing homebuilt aircraft. In fairness to the manufacturers of production aircraft you have to recognize that their business is being undercut by pseudo manufacturers that do not have to meet the standards and certification costs that they are faced with. This in turn undercuts the control that the FAA has over the safety of flight of the aircraft being flown in the US by pilots who barely meet the minimum capability standards. This instant gratification thrust could lead to a situation where the accident rate in this category of aircraft is out of proportion to the accident rate in production aircraft - OH WAIT WE ARE THERE AND THE FAA, EAA AND VAN WONDER WHY?

Bob Axsom

[DanH]

...could lead to a situation where the accident rate in this category of aircraft is out of proportion to the accident rate in production aircraft - OH WAIT WE ARE THERE AND THE FAA, EAA AND VAN WONDER WHY?

There's no evidence to suggest the percentage of accidents due to system or structure error is increased by pro-builders.....or reduced.

It was still in Phase I and with a passenger. The lawsuit came from the passengers widow...

....who would have sued anyway even if it had been in Phase II.

[John Collier]

Mel mentioned the checklist found in appendix 8 of AC20-27G. I referenced this checklist and found that there is room allowed for builders assistance. Of course, like so many other items already discussed, its up to the builder on how they fill the form out based on the tasks he/she accomplished.

I think we have the two extremes in this debate...allow complete builder's assistance (2-weeks to taxi) and the absolutely no builders assistance whatsoever crowd.

From my perspective, it appears there is some room for assistance...help hanging the engine...having an A&P build the right wing and you build the left...etc.

Doesn't this really boil down to a basic level of KNOWLEDGE?? Shouldn't a builder have a basic set of skills and certain knowledge base if he/she really did 51% of the work? I take a knowledge test and practical test for an aeronautical rating...why don't I have to do this to show evidence and give the DAR a level of confidence that I participated (regardless of assistance) in the building of my experimental?

You can show me all the pictures you want with a rivet gun in your hand...but if you can't answer -AND- demonstrate basic sheet metal techniques, describe how the systems on your aircraft work, and recite the specifications for your aircraft...then does it matter how much work you did?

Wouldn't it be better for a builder to recognize his limitations...seek professional help...learn from that help....and have a safe airplane? Wouldn't it be better for a builder to say "I've never mounted an engine...maybe an A&P should be hired to mount my engine on my single-engine RV"?

The BL: I don't see assistance as wholly bad and I don't think the FAA (per the AC) does either. In my opinion, its the builder who doesn't participate in the construction, doesn't learn from the experience, and doesn't have the necessary knowledge to have the repairman's certificate.

[WingsOnWheels]

As John noted, professional assistance is perfectly acceptable per the current regs. If you are building a "slow" build RV, there is quite a lot of room for pro help and still meet the 51% rule. I don't see what argument can be made that more assistance is required. The core of the EAB rules is "education and recreation" If someone has 90% of the AC built by a pro, where is the education? If the core purpose of the EAB was to "Have a plane cheaper than a factory GA" the the issue would be different. If someone has their plane professionally built it is no longer an EAB. It does not meet the intent, spirit, or letter of the law.

The law in this case doesn't need to change, there are plenty of ready-built new type-certificated or used EAB planes available for purchase for those with more money than time. For those that feel they lack the skill to build, professional assistance is available to help them along while meeting the regs. Building an EAB isn't all that difficult, but it take dedication and time, the skills can be learned. Isn't that the point of this entire category?

[David-aviator]

A successful, safe build requires proper tools and materials and a knowledge of how to use them. The whole effort is an exercise of getting it done safely within the confines of the regulations that permit doing it in the first place.

Engine mounts come pre welded and ready to install, no learning experience there. The elevator trim tab must be bent by the builder, there is a learning experience there. Its approved by the FAA and we get on with it. Seems reasonable enough.

But if I go out and hire a guy to bend the trim tab, I am pushing the regulation envelope. It is a game and some are breaking the rules. I guess that's what this thread is all about.

Like the young girl in my wife's kindergarten class many years ago who complained to her mother, all we have are "wules, wules, wules....".

Like all efforts, it is impossible to write perfect policy or guidance. And what really effects the circumstance of the issue is money. That's what is behind all that is going on. That and human impatience in wanting something really special and not paying the personal price of doing it yourself.

[Toobuilder]

...In fairness to the manufacturers of production aircraft you have to recognize that their business is being undercut by pseudo manufacturers that do not have to meet the standards and certification costs that they are faced with...

True, they don't need to meet the certification standards, but as a consequence their products don't get a Type Certificate either. While we are all proud of our experimental airplanes and often expound on their virtues compared to the factory built "junk", I think we forget that we are in fact the red headed stepchildren of the aviation world. Our lack of a type certificate is a HUGE discriminator in the market. And for those that can remember back that far, "product differentiation" is one of the key elements of Marketing 101. That hard won and expensive Type Certificate is what puts that C-182 in a whole different market than any "pro built" RV-10.

I don't care how well our airplanes perform compared to those with a TC, we're still going to be second class citizens. I'd say the established manufacturers have little to worry about from any future "pro builder" legislation.

[L.Adamson]

Originally Posted by Toobuilder

I don't care how well our airplanes perform compared to those with a TC, we're still going to be second class citizens. I'd say the established manufacturers have little to worry about from any future "pro builder" legislation.

Want to bet on that?

I believe they'd have lots to say about it. Much, would be from a liability standpoint.

L.Adamson

[Bob Axsom]

Originally Posted by Toobuilder

True, they don't need to meet the certification standards, but as a consequence their products don't get a Type Certificate either. While we are all proud of our experimental airplanes and often expound on their virtues compared to the factory built "junk", I think we forget that we are in fact the red headed stepchildren of the aviation world. Our lack of a type certificate is a HUGE discriminator in the market. And for those that can remember back that far, "product differentiation" is one of the key elements of Marketing 101. That hard won and expensive Type Certificate is what puts that C-182 in a whole different market than any "pro built" RV-10.

I don't care how well our airplanes perform compared to those with a TC, we're still going to be second class citizens. I'd say the established manufacturers have little to worry about from any future "pro builder" legislation.

I can only judge for myself, but If I am given a choice between two personal aircraft that I know well and one is more current design, sleeker, faster and cheaper, the type certificate doesn't even register on the selection scale. Someone making a choice for fleet or utility use would think more about the type certificate and all that means I'm sure.

Bob Axsom