This has been a part of the discussion on the RV-12 forum. But it is actually less an issue to the RV-12, and more about the remaining kits. I think it important enough to bring the topic here into "General Discussion", as the issue is critical to us all.
Originally Posted by
FrankS
The potential problem (as Vans sees it) is that the FAA is starting to look at the fabricated parts. Vans example was that if the wing has 32 ribs then the amateur builder would have to form 17 of those ribs. I'm sure that is not how Vans intends on selling the kits. So until we write the FAA and convince them that prefabricating the parts at the kit manufacturer is acceptable I wouldn't count on licensing the 12 as an E-AB.
I don't mind that people start with raw materials and cut and form every part of their plane. But I also think it is just as educational to assemble parts that were fabricated at the factory with expensive production tooling (something the amateur builder cannot afford). Learning how an airplane assembles with all the plumbing, wiring, rigging, etc should be sufficient education to qualify as E-AB. If a pilot gets a basic understanding of the internal structure, systems and controls in a plane that should be the type of education that will make him a better pilot.
So get out the pen and paper and write the FAA and lets get this resolved so the 12 can be added to the E-AB approved list this year.
Frank
Frank makes a good point. However, we
ALL should be writing the FAA on this issue, regardless of what you are building or where you are in the process. Worse case scenario would be if they DID in fact start dividing up each and every procedure, so you were having to build half the ribs, spars, fabricate your own engine mount, etc. I would estimate that this would eliminate even the current quick-builds as we know them, and make even the basic kit much more difficult. How many builders out there would not have started a project were it not for the quick-build option? Furthermore, how many builders of either kit would not have even considered building an airplane if the production hours went way up, and fabrication of ribs, Spars (you'd have to build at least one of each!) etc. were now added to the tasks?
I honestly think a negative change in the 51% rule would significantly reduce the number of builders, which lessens the presence of Experimental Aviation and ultimately further takes general aviation out of the reach of the average person. This is important folks!
This is NOT an RV-12 approval issue. Those of us interested in the RV-12 actually have little worry - as once it is approved as an S-LSA know that we can get Airworthy Certificates with no problem as an E-LSA. It is the RV-4,7,8,9 and 10 kits that could see the most dramatic change. Yes, they probably would grandfather any existing builders out there. But who would be coming up behind you to support experimental aviation? With signicantly fewer builders... GA could be driven even closer to the grave.
While we
want to think that this is an issue about the build assistance shops... we need to speak up least the ripples impact us all in ways that significantly reduce our numbers.
I don't want to sound like Chicken Little, and the sky is falling. Actually, I am optimistic that there won't be huge changes in the current Van's kits. But do you want to leave that possibility open to government bureaucrats? I work for the government. Trust me when I say, this COULD go sideways on us.
Please take the time to write not only the FAA, but also pressure your congressional representatives.
DJ