What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Airworthy Cert License to pay for services?

ty1295

Well Known Member
Had in interesting thought the other day while doing my airplane thinking. We all know as experimental during the build phase it is for education purposes and in general services cannot be paid for in the construction of the aircraft.

It occurred to me that once a plane becomes airworthy, that rule really goes away completely. From then on, there is no limit on what can be paid to have done. Rip off a wing, insurance writes a check and you CAN drop it off to be repaired for pay.

Annual, pay for them.

SB, sure if you want.

Does everyone else agree? Probably not a big news item, it just struck me as interesting. Of course I am off kilter to start with.
 
I think you're referring to the rule that says the plane must be amateur built, referred to as the 51% rule. That means at least 51% of the plane must be built by an amateur (including another amateur that you might pay to work on the plane). The other (up to) 49% could, in theory, be built by someone "professional". Personally, I think of these "professional" services as engine builders, painters (you don't want me painting anything!), perhaps avionics installers, fuel tank builders, etc. There are a lot of components of a plane that could be hired out while still maintaining 51% compliance.

But your right that once the plane is signed off, you could pay a shop to do everything from that point on if you want to.
 
This reminds me of a study I read once that said if there were a product that , used once, would prevent men from having to shave every morning, most men would still opt to shave.

That was the thought anyway as I thought about why you'd pay someone else to do the annual when you could do it for pennies.
 
That was the thought anyway as I thought about why you'd pay someone else to do the annual when you could do it for pennies.

For some folks it's not about cost, they simply have no desire to turn wrenches particularly if they weren't the builder (and I'm not talking about not having the repairman's certificate because that doesn't stop anyone from actually doing the labor, just making the logbook entry).
 
Last edited:
A quick thought.

From the FAA's perspective, if you start with a set of prints and build, you are building 100% of the airplane. When you buy a "quick build" kit, you are paying someone else to build a part of the airplane. The quick build kits being sold on the market are evaluated by the FAA for the 51% rule. If they determine that a kit meets the 51% rule, then you go and hire someone to do more, you might break the 51%.

In contrast, if you are not using a quick build kit, there is a fair bit you can hire someone to do for you.

How does that relate to paying for repairs and maint? It doesn't. The rule is basically there to prevent someone from setting up a mini factory and building airplanes without obtaining certification, and thereby keeping the builder engaged for the education.
 
For some folks it's not about cost, they simply have no desire to turn wrenches particularly if they weren't the the builder.

I was just thinking that once an experimental gets its airworthiness done, it has very little in the way of restrictions over certified. (aside from the paying for use or as a service).

So Joe Doe who has no desire to wrench, nor maybe even the skills could technically just go buy an aircraft complete for his personal use, and treat it just like any other Cesna, Piper, etc in terms of maintenance, etc. The advantage is the lower cost of operating and parts. (typically)

With GA not growing, and shrinking I see the experimental world one of the last avenues for the typical worker to afford an aircraft for personal use and not be flying a 1965 vintage bird. Not many can afford a Cirrus, diamond star, let alone the operating cost after purchase.

Just thinking out load, as I interface with pilots from both experimental and certified side that different opinions of the other side of the fence.
 
A quick thought.


How does that relate to paying for repairs and maint? It doesn't. The rule is basically there to prevent someone from setting up a mini factory and building airplanes without obtaining certification, and thereby keeping the builder engaged for the education.



But couldn't I (I have no desire at all trust me), say order 10 RV7's, build them, get airworthiness under my name, then sell them the next day?

Obviously I think if someone did exploit this, the FAA would make some changes.
 
Remember the current FARs require that the builder is building for his own pleasure or education (my words, I forget the exact FAR words). "Intent" is tough to prove in court, but someone mass producing EAB aircraft would likely be found to be not in compliance.
 
This reminds me of a study I read once that said if there were a product that , used once, would prevent men from having to shave every morning, most men would still opt to shave
Where can I buy this product?

I think you're referring to the rule that says the plane must be amateur built, referred to as the 51% rule. That means at least 51% of the plane must be built by an amateur (including another amateur that you might pay to work on the plane). The other (up to) 49% could, in theory, be built by someone "professional". Personally, I think of these "professional" services as engine builders, painters (you don't want me painting anything!), perhaps avionics installers, fuel tank builders, etc. There are a lot of components of a plane that could be hired out while still maintaining 51% compliance.

But your right that once the plane is signed off, you could pay a shop to do everything from that point on if you want to.
The 51% rule is very heavily biased towards the airframe (structure). Paying someone to do your entire FWF and panel/electrical work incurs less of a penalty than just paying someone to build your horizontal stab and elevators, despite probably taking at least as much time and effort. Maybe I'm biased being an aircraft systems engineer, but I think this could stand to be a little more balanced.
 
So Joe Doe who has no desire to wrench, nor maybe even the skills could technically just go buy an aircraft complete for his personal use, and treat it just like any other Cesna, Piper, etc in terms of maintenance, etc. The advantage is the lower cost of operating and parts. (typically)

.

Happens all the time. Conversely there are owners of standard certified aircraft that under the supervision of an A&P/IA do their own annuals and all the AP/IA does is make the log book entry.

Operating costs and parts can be a bit of mirage though. In my own plane, excluding some of the avionics, the systems and hardware are the same as what on the certified aircraft so there's not a lot of cost savings there. Gas, oil, insurance are all the same. My labor is free as long as I discount any opportunity cost, so that's about the only place I come out ahead.

Bottom line is E-AB is a means to get into the ownership game, and it does provide some advantages that you can use to save money. But make no mistake once you're in the game when costs are compared like-airframe to like-airframe, I think you'll find the differences. on average, aren't necessary as big as you think.
 
But couldn't I (I have no desire at all trust me), say order 10 RV7's, build them, get airworthiness under my name, then sell them the next day?

Obviously I think if someone did exploit this, the FAA would make some changes.

IMO, this occurs, but the builders only order one kit at a time, build it, sell it, start the next kit. A "bulk" purchase would, I assume, raise a red flag.
 
But make no mistake once you're in the game when costs are compared like-airframe to like-airframe, I think you'll find the differences. on average, aren't necessary as big as you think.

Hmmm...that's an interesting theory. Let's see:

EAB Annual (if doing your own): cost of consumables and expendables (oil, grease, rags, cotter pins, brake shoes, odd bits and pieces and the like). Mine was under a hundred bucks last year.

TC Annual: what's the minimum, say a grand? For one with essentially no squawks? And you go up from there.

Oil changes at 50 hours: EAB - cost of the oil and filter. TC - cost of the oil and filter and mechanic's time at shop rates.

Avionics upgrades (firmware or software): EAB upgrading most experimental avionics (Dynon, AFS, etc.) - free. TC - avionics shop rate with some minimum, IF they don't have to send it back to big G at *their* rate.

Routine maintenance (tires, brakes, replacing the occasional failed do-hickey like EGT probes grrrrrrr, things that are beyond what can be done by an owner of a TC plane) - generally cost of parts only for EAB, cost of parts PLUS shop charges for TC.

About the only things that aren't cheaper, and sometimes cheaper by a wide margin, for EAB are gas, oil, hangar rent and insurance. Oh, and perhaps prop maintenance if it has to go to a prop shop (but it's no more expensive for EAB than TC).

I'm a long way from engine OH, but believe me, when I get there, too, I'll enlist the aid of some very competent A&Ps I know and learn how to do it myself, again saving considerable money.
 
Happens all the time. Conversely there are owners of standard certified aircraft that under the supervision of an A&P/IA do their own annuals and all the AP/IA does is make the log book entry.

An A&P/IA cannot do this legally. He may delegate the owner to remove and reinstall panels, etc., but he cannot delegate the inspection.

To be legal he must do the inspection himself.
 
I over simplified and mischaracterized it, but owner assisted annuals happen and are legal. Yes the IA has to do the inspection but that doesn't mean they have to do all the work getting the plane opened up. What I was really getting at was correcting any discrepancies that the inspection uncovers which while technically are not part of the annual traditionally get lumped under it as it all usually happens in one shop visit.
 
If you "pay" him, he's not an amateur!

That is correct. Paying him makes him a professional.

To the OP's question, though, you are right. Once he airworthiness is issued the education/recreation requirement goes away. You can pay someone to install an interior, paint, upgrade your panel, maintain, insect, repair, etc.

As others have stated, you can hire some work done during the build, but have to do a major portion yourself. However, the way the checklist reads, you get as much credit for building an aileron as for building a wing, so there are ways to hire big portions done while doing smaller portions with the same credit yourself.
 
That is correct. Paying him makes him a professional.

To the OP's question, though, you are right. Once he airworthiness is issued the education/recreation requirement goes away. You can pay someone to install an interior, paint, upgrade your panel, maintain, insect, repair, etc.

As others have stated, you can hire some work done during the build, but have to do a major portion yourself. However, the way the checklist reads, you get as much credit for building an aileron as for building a wing, so there are ways to hire big portions done while doing smaller portions with the same credit yourself.

Here's a question related to 'assistance'... I'm pretty slow in the head, and don't really understand how that all works when it's time to register the plane and apply for the EAB airworthiness certificate so maybe someone can sort me out.

I see Jesse, Jay Pratt, Synergy, and others.... have 'completion centers', builders assistance, etc., whatever you want to call it. In my opinion this is a good thing. Presumably (I don't personally know because I haven't used them), their good reputations are based on their experience and superior workmanship (at least compared to the average builder). Certainly it's better than mine. They can also answer questions/provide guidance on how to complete a part right then and there, rather than calling back to the Vans office during work hours or to post on this website. One could argue there is a safety benefit that's gained by using these services. But can you use them and still meet the 51%? Seems like the FAA rules have nothing to do with safety but more with compliance. Of course, this is the government so logic has nothing to do with regulation. In other words, how is using the professional help "bad"? More than 1 RV has had inflight structural failure. I'm not saying that workmanship had anything to do with that; but if given the choice of a rudder built under the supervision of a professional, or my non-assisted version which would you choose? What is the FAA trying to accomplish with this rule.

As I see it, there are varying levels of help:
  1. build completely solo, no help
  2. purchase a quickbuild, but complete the rest solo
  3. get some assistance to help you finish a part (you do the work but they walk you through how)
  4. hire someone to build everything and you do nothing
There are various degrees on this list, but you can see the range.

So, my question has to do with the 51% rule and using this type of services. Say you get a quickbuild kit, and want help with the tip up canopy that you can't seem to get right, or the cowling, or whatever. Does the rule say you'd have to count any professional help as "commercial assistance" and then go to that spreadsheet to still make sure you meet the 51%? I doubt you just ship them a trim tab and say, ok fedex it back when it's done... I still feel like you're the one actually building it.

On that note, I've also heard rumors that programs like the 2 weeks to taxi are not actually commercial assistance. They hand you the correct tool when you need it, give you on the spot guidance, but you actually perform the work. Again, that seems fair to me and I don't know what that would be 'wrong' or unsafe with this approach. If you can afford to get the help, I don't see why that is regulated - it certainly doesn't appear to be a safety issue.

There was a thread a couple days ago about the quickbuild classes at Synergy air, but after reading this thread I'm all confused. Sorry for the long diatribe.
 
Last edited:
Bottom line is E-AB is a means to get into the ownership game, and it does provide some advantages that you can use to save money. But make no mistake once you're in the game when costs are compared like-airframe to like-airframe, I think you'll find the differences. on average, aren't necessary as big as you think.

Agree 100%.

:cool::cool:
 
Ntex,

My take on it is the FAA sees a difference between paying someone to educate you and monitor your performance, vs paying someone to 'show you how to do it', and walking out with the completed part he built to 'show you'.

You should also remember that just because a kit says it's 51%, it doesn't necessarily mean 49% of the work has already been done. It just means that it complies with the FAA's rule that *no more* than 49% has been commercially built. An RV-6 QB, RV-7 QB, and an RV-14 QB are all 51% kits, but the amount of work left to do varies widely among the three kits.

You're right that a fully pro-built plane would likely be safer than *some* truly amateur built planes, but then they'd be competing with Cessna, Piper, etc, and we can't have that, now, can we? Then there's possibility that you stumble upon someone who's not only in it for the money; they're *only* in it for the money. So, what to do...Regulate? Now you have a small potatos Cessna/Piper and no upside for us.

Charlie
 
Back
Top