dedgemon
Well Known Member
No they can't. A "PRO" shop can't honestly sign the affidavit attesting to the amateur built status of the airplane. Therefore they have no mechanism to obtain an airworthiness.
"legally"
Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
So when is it going to stop?
- Thread starter vic syracuse
- Start date
No they can't. A "PRO" shop can't honestly sign the affidavit attesting to the amateur built status of the airplane. Therefore they have no mechanism to obtain an airworthiness.
"legally"
Bob Kuykendall
Well Known Member
That's right, they can't say that the major portion was constructed for the purposes of education and entertainment. Or rather, they could, but they probably wouldn't be believed.
Now that's not quite true. They can license it as Experimental, Exhibition, or Experimental, Racing, and get a pink Special Airworthiness certificate similar to that of an amateur-built airplane. However, the operating limitations for Exhibition and Racing can be pretty onerous, and often if not usually do not permit carriage of non-essential crew. That's part of why you see IAR-823s and AN-2s imported and then going unflown.
Last edited:
JonJay
Well Known Member
Then how can repeat builders? How many airplanes do you build before you are no longer an "amatuer" or is it the intent by which it is being built?
erich weaver
Well Known Member
This exactly captures my gripe about the system. The line between a repeat builder and a hired gun is so very hazy, and the distinction, if any, does not have any bearing on safety in my opinion. And I dont care for government agencies being in a position to judge what my intent was. Intent can change from day to day. The intent of a builder who isnt up to finishing the project certainly changes at some point from education/recreation to selling at the highest possible price, but that doesnt stop them from being sold.
erich
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
Right. Someone can sell their 99.9% complete RV10 "project", and it won't raise an eyebrow on this forum (or with the feds) even if the builder turns a profit.
Last edited:
WhiskeyMike
Well Known Member
Canada, South Africa and other countries have it right! The FAA’s rules should recognize and comport to actual marketplace demands, not vice versa. As others have pointed out, there is no genuine safety rationale for the EAB 51% rule…its arbitrary and political, existing only to protect certified manufacturers from free market competition. Ironically, as has also been noted, even this purpose is a canard because the marketplace for certified and EAB airplanes are largely separate.
People build (or buy) EAB aircraft because they want what the aircraft can do. It is a risk reward proposition that informed persons are willing to enter into…the risk of flying an experimental airplane whose design and construction has not been as rigorously tested as a certified bird, with the reward being the increased performance and lower costs to acquire and operate. If someone can afford to pay a builder to build them an EAB airplane they should be able to do it. My sense is that it would be a boon for EAB, as access and participation increased so would economic opportunity...not just for builders, but also for the spectrum of periphery service providers. Marketplaces generally work very well when guberments get out of the way…
People build (or buy) EAB aircraft because they want what the aircraft can do. It is a risk reward proposition that informed persons are willing to enter into…the risk of flying an experimental airplane whose design and construction has not been as rigorously tested as a certified bird, with the reward being the increased performance and lower costs to acquire and operate. If someone can afford to pay a builder to build them an EAB airplane they should be able to do it. My sense is that it would be a boon for EAB, as access and participation increased so would economic opportunity...not just for builders, but also for the spectrum of periphery service providers. Marketplaces generally work very well when guberments get out of the way…
Last edited:
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
Seems to me that if you can commission someone to build a custom motorcycle, automobile, motor home or yacht - then you should be able to do the same with airplanes. All of the existing examples have a greater potential impact to the public safety than airplanes and are also in direct competition with the "established" mass producers - all to no ill effect. Why would the "airplane" business model be any different?
Time for the feds to get on board and change the rules!
Time for the feds to get on board and change the rules!
OK, lots and lots of folks here would like to change the rules to allow what I would call "custom building" of airplanes by folks who know how to do it. The customer gets the airplane he wants, we avoid the costs of certification, we get more technologically advanced machines that can be operated safely. I'd support such a change!
So have any of you done anything about it except expounding here on VAF? DO you care enough to actually petition the government to do it, or do you just like debating the point with others in a hangar-flying session?
No, I haven't petitioned the government on it - don't have the time, and don't go on and on about it either. If you've posted several times about it - why not go and talk to the folks who can change the rules? Or don't you care that much about it?
I agree 100% with Vic and Mel on this -I was brought up to follow the rules. If you don't like the rules, you can try to get them changed, but until they change - they are the rules. That's what makes us a civilization rather than a rabble.
My opinions, of course.
Paul
So have any of you done anything about it except expounding here on VAF? DO you care enough to actually petition the government to do it, or do you just like debating the point with others in a hangar-flying session?
No, I haven't petitioned the government on it - don't have the time, and don't go on and on about it either. If you've posted several times about it - why not go and talk to the folks who can change the rules? Or don't you care that much about it?
I agree 100% with Vic and Mel on this -I was brought up to follow the rules. If you don't like the rules, you can try to get them changed, but until they change - they are the rules. That's what makes us a civilization rather than a rabble.
My opinions, of course.
Paul
WhiskeyMike
Well Known Member
Discussions like this are useful for coalescing thoughts and building a consensus of thinking around ideas. But you?re correct Paul?even the best of ideas won?t bear fruit unless actions are taken to advance them. So a call to action has been invited! I?m not in a position to initiate something at this time, but would heartily support such an effort. Timing is everything, so if someone has the time and desire to start looking seriously at this please add me to their list of interested parties!
comfortcat
Well Known Member
Call to action? What call to action? Are you suggesting we all pitch in to help folks who are making money by breaking rules, make money without breaking rules?
Am I a minority hobbyist in this discussion who wants to just build an EAB aircraft for myself?
Does everyone else in this conversation want to build aircraft for money?
I think the original intent of this forum was that folks who are blatantly breaking rules are going to cause greater pain and suffering for those of us who do not break rules. Their behavior will cause additional regulation that makes our hobby more onerous to participate in. Tons of new rules. Rules they will continue to ignore, and rules that make it more difficult to just build an experimental aircraft for education and fun?
Dkb
The OP should stand up in front of his fellow DARs during annual seminars and present the case, asking them to exercise their authority to issue a denial letter to known pro shops.
Bet you those guys will roll their eyes at the thought of giving up repetitive income.
I was brought up to do what was RIGHT not blindly follow rules.
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.
btw all our flight testing is done with two pilots even in single crew aircraft- always.
Bet you those guys will roll their eyes at the thought of giving up repetitive income.
I was brought up to do what was RIGHT not blindly follow rules.
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.
btw all our flight testing is done with two pilots even in single crew aircraft- always.
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
But expounding is what we do , Paul!
Yes, this has gone on a bit and my boredom today has certainly not helped that in any way, but we have at least resolved that this is not a significant safety issue.
What it is is a "dumb rule" issue, and that is going to cause some discussion.
BTW, I was brought up to question authority and the rules that come from it - especially dumb ones. I'm kind of conditioned to "over participate" in these kinds of discussions. I simply can't help it.
However, if nobody "quotes" me from here on, I'll stay out.
Last edited:
Subwaybob
Well Known Member
OK, I will bite. Hopefully you are saying the "Failed Aviation Authority" has made a dumb rule by telling us who can and can not build. Let's remember the Government is here to protect us from invaders and build roads and of course airports. Outside of that, heck yes, stay OUT OF MY LIFE!
BTW the FAA and every other pencil pusher makes up their own rules on a daily basis. They should protect us with MINIMAL regulations. And no (Ironflight) we don't dare bring it up to the govt. They will beat "RV Central" out of us just to watch us bleed, then go to him and file charges just because we brought it to their attention.
I am going to build my own. However kudos to the entrepreneurs out there building for those who just wanna fly! I back you.
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
Random final thoughts on the matter:
1) Hired guns and "crewmembers" in Phase 1 are not statistically significant safety issues.
2) The Feds just spent a bunch of time addressing the "hired guns issue", spent money, made rules - therefore satisfying the government's need to "do something". I suspect that they are happy for a while. I also think the continuing hired guns abuse is rare enough that it will not likely impact my right to build and fly in the near term.
3) If I'm wrong about #2, change the rules to make hired guns "ok" - problem solved.
Now I'm out!
L.Adamson
Well Known Member
How about "builder assist". I still do not agree with hired guns putting together a complete aircraft, and handing over the keys. To me, it's the same as a non licensed, and non insured contractor competing with my company.
L.Adamson
WhiskeyMike
Well Known Member
I take it from your comments that you?re not a supporter of this idea. That is your prerogative and I respect it. My belief is that ?custom building? should be permitted. So I support activities and efforts directed toward changing the rules to allow professional builders to openly provide their services to willing customers. Moreover, there is no reason why this can?t be achieved in such a way as to have zero impact on the rules pertaining to those who wish to build their own aircraft.
L.Adamson
Well Known Member
There is a major reason!
Van's isn't going to take the fall as the manufacturer, should an accident arise. Who does take the fall? Is there some type of liability insurance for hired guns? Could they afford it if there was? Would the hired gun have enough assets, without insurance? I doubt it!
Building a plane, as a hired gun, and placing the aircraft's registration in the buyers name is one thing. But do you think that certified aircraft manufactures will just stand by, and do nothing? If you do, your fooling yourselves.
L.Adamson --- RV6
WhiskeyMike
Well Known Member
I don’t think we have to reinvent anything here…just look at how our Canadian friends handle these issues.
Last edited:
Mark12A
Active Member
You'd have to ascertain why the rule was put into place at all. It seems that a lot of government regulations are in place to protect large corporations and to discourage competition. Is that a legitimate responsibility of government? A true "free market" would allow independent operators to be developed because there is apparently a market niche for them. The "free market" would deal harshly with those operators who do shoddy work or gouge the consumers.
Having said that, I'm not going to encourage anyone to violate black-letter law or flaunting regulation. I'm a pure free-market guy but I realize that there is no such animal, and wishing just won't make it so. We can moan and complain to one another and it has no impact other than to elevate blood pressures. If anyone cared enough, they'd do what Cessna and other civil aircraft producers do...they'd lobby, develop advocacy groups, and try to buy a congressman or two to sell their agenda. I've heard congressmen come cheap...
Until then, it's caveat emptor. Let's hope the FAA doesn't visit one of these commercial shops and do a strict accounting of who built what because I expect there would be great wailing afterwards...
Having said that, I'm not going to encourage anyone to violate black-letter law or flaunting regulation. I'm a pure free-market guy but I realize that there is no such animal, and wishing just won't make it so. We can moan and complain to one another and it has no impact other than to elevate blood pressures. If anyone cared enough, they'd do what Cessna and other civil aircraft producers do...they'd lobby, develop advocacy groups, and try to buy a congressman or two to sell their agenda. I've heard congressmen come cheap...
Until then, it's caveat emptor. Let's hope the FAA doesn't visit one of these commercial shops and do a strict accounting of who built what because I expect there would be great wailing afterwards...
Bob Kuykendall
Well Known Member
Here's a good article about early air commerce regulation in the US:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...in_civil_aviation#Civil_Aeronautics_Authority
Here's a good article about the early history of homebuilding in the US:
http://www.eaa.org/govt/building_rule.asp
My paraphrased short version of the early history of homebuilding:
WWI surplus Jennies in the hands of barnstormers crashed. A lot. People various thought that air commerce needed better rules and regulations in order to grow. The government, on behalf of the people they were trying to protect from falling Jennies, created agencies and rules for the licensing of both pilots and airplanes. Air commerce started to thrive. Its voice changed, and it claimed to shave twice a week.
Soon there were state-wide and then country-wide certification standards for private and commercial airplanes that threatened to cut a lot of bit players out of the aviation business. However, even though the byte was twenty years in the future, there was still room for the bit players to make airplanes for exhibition and racing like Lindbergh's (note the NX registration mark). In fact, there was plenty of room, since people were wild about air racing. However, there were restrictions on the operation of these airplanes that made them impractical for those $1 hamburger runs. And well there should have been; many of them had lousy handling and sometimes little stability and often negative stick force gradients. And some were just plain badly made. But, hey, that's racing!
And then there was WWII and nobody cared. Nobody here at least; anybody with a lick of aeronautical sense was swept up into the war machine. Anybody who could drive a rivet taught women how to drive rivets and then got out of the way; it turned out that the women by and large could do it better than them anyhow. Anybody with a license and decent eyesight became some sort of pilot; there was plenty of flying to go around.
When WWII ended, the guys came home, took over what jobs were available, and banished the women from the factories. They had fat GI BIll wallets and a taste for flying, and they made 1946 and 1947 huge production years for general aviation airplanes. Think Champ, Bonanza, and Swift. And don't forget the Navion, it had "that solid feel."
Even though everybody was tired from the war and wanted a beer and a cozy suburban home and a TV and another beer, even though America was settling into what became the Age of Conformity, there was still an undercurrent of change, uncertainty, and innovation in the arts, in culture, and in technology. The war had done terrible things to a terrible number of people, and it took a while to process it, to integrate it. Some people turned into sullen drunks, some went crazy, and some turned their hands to cars and airplanes. The Hot Rod went from icon of juvenile delinquence to respectable hobby. Popular Mechanics and similar magazines published plans for go-karts, boats, wheelbarrows, and patio decks. And people built them.
In this environment, people like Bogardus and Poberenzy petitioned the CAA in the late 1940s for an exception to the certification rules to allow routine operation of airplanes built by amateurs. By 1952 they succeeded, and by the way, created the EAA in the process.
Last edited:
Ron Lee
Well Known Member
Supposedly the Two Weeks to Taxi is acceptable to the FAA. I doubt that the "builder" does anymore than he might do with a hired gun. So where is the difference?
Flyfalcons
Well Known Member
Is this a statement of someone educated about the program, or someone who is guessing?
jetjok
Well Known Member
Since this thread now seems to be focusing on the topic of "hired guns", i wanted to repost a portion of Vic's original message, and ask some questions.
Let me start by stating that I believe that all of the issues that Vic puts forward in his initial post are worthy of debate. He makes some very valid points, and all of us would be wise to reflect accordingly.
On the topic of "owner assist", "hired guns" whatever you want to call it, the thoughts and opinions expressed in many of the previous 124 responses show that there is merit to the opinions on both sides of the fence.
The argument that a second crewmember is required to for calibration or flight safety is absolute "meadow muffins"! I do not have experience in calibrating EFIS in a homebuilt, but reading Jeremy Constant's posting confirms that it is possible to set up the systems so as to be completely safe for flight without having to have a First Officer. The subject of instrument calibration leads to another of Vic's concerns.
There have been multiple accidents/incidents caused by failures of components/systems that should not be failing early on in the life of an aircraft. This leads me to question if some DAR's are not giving the scrutiny that should be applied when inspecting a new plane. Just a few for example;
1. An RV-10 accident where the plane made it's first flight with clecos holding parts of the airframe together. The EFIS systems in this plane were never calibrated and gave continuos erroneous information and warnings. There were multiple other issues with this plane, many of which were completely beyond the control of ANY DAR, but somebody signed this plane off for flight with the above issues.
2. Multiple issues of doors leaving the airframe inflight on the RV-10. While not a -10 builder/owner, I am aware that there is a mod to the system. Are DAR's checking to make sure that this is done and rigged correctly?
3. Several incidents of fires erupting in new planes due to loose fuel lines.
There can be no doubt that Mel, Vic, and the highly skilled DAR's that we have in our midst do absolutely everything in their power to assure that a plane is safe for flight. However, just like any group that is tasked with a certain duty, there are always bad apples, and there can be no doubt that their lack of attention was causal to the accident/incident. There was a question of DAR accountability posed in a previous post, that was never answered. I will ask it from another position. When a new plane experiences a system failure or accident/incident, and it becomes apparent that a DAR was remiss in his/her duties, what do you guys do? Is there any "peer policing" in your group?
One can only imagine the difficulties that a DAR might encounter when performing an inspection. There can be no doubt that trying to balance the "is is safe" decision with the "that's not the way I would have done it" can be a real conundrum.
Anyway, I hope that I have not put a target on my back, but Vic's statements does open up this topic.
Lastly, if the builder is inexperienced enough to require a flight instructor to accompany him/her when flying the plane, that makes the flight instructor the proxy PIC, and the builder an illegal passenger. If one honestly believes that their instructor/mentor is a required crewmember because they don't yet have the skills to fly their RV, that is really twisted logic! Phase I is for proving the aircraft, not gaining the experience that the pilot should have had prior to ever leaving the ground for the initial flight!
Thanks
Last edited:
Ron Lee
Well Known Member
Ryan, reread my statement. Appropriate words included to show lack of knowledge and asking of a suitable question.
kentb
Well Known Member
What is the DAR's duty.
When I had my plane inspected, it was with a very knowledgeable FAA inspector. He had built a number of RV's and I knew him for a number of years while I was building my plane.
I had 4 EAA tech advisor inspection as my work progressed.
Although my FAA guy did check my plane from some construction errors and made a couple of recommendations, he told me that his duty was to make sure that my plane was legal to be flown. He was not required to make sure the the systems were correct or construction was done to the ACS standards.
I was glad that he went beyond this.
I don't know what the FAA charges the DAR with as to their duty, but my guess is that they need to make sure the that plane is legal. Has the right paper work, right placards, has the correct equipment.
I don't think that they are required to make sure that you tightened all the fittings or calibrated any instruments. That is your responsibility as the test pilot to make sure that the plane is suitable to do the flight. Not only the first flight, but all flights.
Kent
When I had my plane inspected, it was with a very knowledgeable FAA inspector. He had built a number of RV's and I knew him for a number of years while I was building my plane.
I had 4 EAA tech advisor inspection as my work progressed.
Although my FAA guy did check my plane from some construction errors and made a couple of recommendations, he told me that his duty was to make sure that my plane was legal to be flown. He was not required to make sure the the systems were correct or construction was done to the ACS standards.
I was glad that he went beyond this.
I don't know what the FAA charges the DAR with as to their duty, but my guess is that they need to make sure the that plane is legal. Has the right paper work, right placards, has the correct equipment.
I don't think that they are required to make sure that you tightened all the fittings or calibrated any instruments. That is your responsibility as the test pilot to make sure that the plane is suitable to do the flight. Not only the first flight, but all flights.
Kent
Like Kent says......
MUCH of what Vic, myself, and many other conscientious DARs cover within our Airworthiness Inspection is voluntary.
We want to do our best to see that the aircraft is indeed in a condition for safe operation.
Actually that responsibility falls directly on the builder. Before we inspect it, the build has signed a statement that he has "inspected the aircraft, and it is in a condition for safe operation."
Our job, officially, is to confirm that the aircraft meets the rules and regulations.
We typically go way our of our way to assist the builder in finding problems before the aircraft gets into the air. Problems in the air are much bigger than in the hangar.
MUCH of what Vic, myself, and many other conscientious DARs cover within our Airworthiness Inspection is voluntary.
We want to do our best to see that the aircraft is indeed in a condition for safe operation.
Actually that responsibility falls directly on the builder. Before we inspect it, the build has signed a statement that he has "inspected the aircraft, and it is in a condition for safe operation."
Our job, officially, is to confirm that the aircraft meets the rules and regulations.
We typically go way our of our way to assist the builder in finding problems before the aircraft gets into the air. Problems in the air are much bigger than in the hangar.
Great questions about the DAR responsibilities, and Mel already said it. Our job is to make certain the aircraft is legal. At the end of the Day, that is the FAA's prime responsibility (safety of the public), and we are Designated Representatives. A number of us actually expose ourselves by going beyond our responsibilities and do what we can to insure a safe aircraft. While I can only speak for myself here, I know I am not the only DAR who does this because we care, and we have to live with ourselves at the end of the day. Most of the ones I have inspected REALLY want the extra set of eyes, and I do my best to make it an enjoyable experience. Those who only want the paperwork inspection end up with another DAR.
And no, I won't be involved with the commercial build shops, but you've probably already surmised that.
Vic
And no, I won't be involved with the commercial build shops, but you've probably already surmised that.
Vic
jetjok
Well Known Member
Vic and Mel,
Thanks for the great replies. Once someone has been given DAR status, who keeps tabs on them? Is there any time where the FAA accompanies the DAR to oversee their inspection methodology and practices? Is there an annual refresher or time where you all try to gather to discuss what you are seeing? It seems to me that there should be a review of a DAR that signed off a plane that had obvious mechanical defects and has an accident/incident in Phase I. Let me ask my question a different way. If you became aware of an aircraft that has been signed off by a less than thorough, knowledgeable, or scrupulous DAR, what are your avenues for remedy, or are you just left to shake your head and walk away?
Please understand that I am in no way trying to back you guys in a corner in any way. You are two of the many folks on this forum that cannot be thanked enough for your contributions to keeping our passions (building, flying, or both!), as safe and enjoyable as possible!
The above having been said, I want to add something to Vic's "when is it going to stop" list....
When are we experienced builders (I am not) and pilots (I guess I sorta fall into the class) going to stop turning our eyes from things we see that are not right? Are we that afraid of hurting someone's feelings, or irritating them? I am not intending to advocate a "big brother" mentality, rather when we see something that can't be justified now matter which way you look at it. I am here to tell you that if you have any conscience at all, keeping your mouth shut to an obvious problem can haunt you for the rest of your life!
Thanks for the great replies. Once someone has been given DAR status, who keeps tabs on them? Is there any time where the FAA accompanies the DAR to oversee their inspection methodology and practices? Is there an annual refresher or time where you all try to gather to discuss what you are seeing? It seems to me that there should be a review of a DAR that signed off a plane that had obvious mechanical defects and has an accident/incident in Phase I. Let me ask my question a different way. If you became aware of an aircraft that has been signed off by a less than thorough, knowledgeable, or scrupulous DAR, what are your avenues for remedy, or are you just left to shake your head and walk away?
Please understand that I am in no way trying to back you guys in a corner in any way. You are two of the many folks on this forum that cannot be thanked enough for your contributions to keeping our passions (building, flying, or both!), as safe and enjoyable as possible!
The above having been said, I want to add something to Vic's "when is it going to stop" list....
When are we experienced builders (I am not) and pilots (I guess I sorta fall into the class) going to stop turning our eyes from things we see that are not right? Are we that afraid of hurting someone's feelings, or irritating them? I am not intending to advocate a "big brother" mentality, rather when we see something that can't be justified now matter which way you look at it. I am here to tell you that if you have any conscience at all, keeping your mouth shut to an obvious problem can haunt you for the rest of your life!
DARs must be "audited" on at least two inspections per year by their "FAA supervisor". We MUST attend a seminar at least every 3 years. (Most DARs attend every year because we want to be "up-to-date"). The seminar is conducted by the FAA and a test must be passed.
A DAR may have his/her designation revoked at any time for any or no reason. IT DOES HAPPEN! More often than you might think. I personally have known of several. I know of one DAR who issued an airworthiness certificate to an airplane that hadn't yet been covered. He is no longer a DAR.
Typically every FSDO/MIDO has at least an annual meeting where all DARs get together and discuss problems found in the field.
As to the question about "after the crash", I had issued the A/W on a Special Light-Sport aircraft that crashed killing both the student and instructor.
I had the pleasure of having a sit-down discussion with the NTSB. Even though the crash had nothing to do with what I did, they have to talk with everyone whose name is in the aircraft records.
Bottom line; we are not just issued a designation and left to ourselves. We are monitored regularly.
A DAR may have his/her designation revoked at any time for any or no reason. IT DOES HAPPEN! More often than you might think. I personally have known of several. I know of one DAR who issued an airworthiness certificate to an airplane that hadn't yet been covered. He is no longer a DAR.
Typically every FSDO/MIDO has at least an annual meeting where all DARs get together and discuss problems found in the field.
As to the question about "after the crash", I had issued the A/W on a Special Light-Sport aircraft that crashed killing both the student and instructor.
I had the pleasure of having a sit-down discussion with the NTSB. Even though the crash had nothing to do with what I did, they have to talk with everyone whose name is in the aircraft records.
Bottom line; we are not just issued a designation and left to ourselves. We are monitored regularly.
Last edited:
Seems like Vic's fundamental issue (pro built airplanes) leads directly back to the DAR community. Somebody is licensing pro-builts. Most are pretty darn obvious.....and chances are all the locals know which DAR is involved.
If it's not legal, why doesn't the local FAA office simply jerk DAR credentials for licensing them?
If it's not legal, why doesn't the local FAA office simply jerk DAR credentials for licensing them?
Kyle Boatright
Well Known Member
I suspect the issue is proving that an airplane is pro-built. The owner/builder (wink) has signed a statement indicating the airplane was amateur built. He probably has a few pictures of him, an airplane, and a rivet gun.
So how does the FAA pull the "sketchy" DAR's ticket? The DAR's defense is "He signed the document, showed me his build log, and talked the talk. How was I supposed to know?"
sprucemoose
Well Known Member
I used to have these same thoughts. Then, a couple of years ago at Oshkosh, I had a very spirited conversation with a well known DAR and member of this forum. I attacked the ethics of the DARs who signed off on these aircraft, and he fired back on me with stories of DARs who had tried to do the right thing, only to be slapped down by the FAA and told to issue the ticket. I'm a stubborn person and not easy to persuade, but I came away from this talk with a whole 'nuther perspective.
I think the root of this problem is the FAA, in typical fashion, talking out of both sides of their mouth. Reminds me a lot of the LODA debate for transition training.
jetjok
Well Known Member
You hit the nail on the head there!
Mel and Vic...Thanks for fielding my questions. As is the case with any group, a few bad apples stink up the whole basket. As DAR's, you guys have an opportunity to be an advocate for both the builder and the FAA. Thanks for your efforts!
Thanks for the kind complements towards Mel and myself. Jeff, I would have loved to have met the DAR you are referring to, as well as to really understand the situation he/she must be in. While I have not yet had to issue a denial, I feel very strongly that if I did it would be fully supported. I'm sure Mel must feel the same.
Don't forget though that the DAR's are in fact being presented with documents, some of which are even notarized, that the aircraft is as represented. Quite candidly, there is a whole lot of falsification going on here.
I found the mention of "passenger" in the NTSB record mentioned earlier in this thread quite interesting, given it was still in Phase I. The second person wasn't even referred to as a crew member, not that it should matter. I'd be willing to bet someone has not heard the last of this one.
Vic
Don't forget though that the DAR's are in fact being presented with documents, some of which are even notarized, that the aircraft is as represented. Quite candidly, there is a whole lot of falsification going on here.
I found the mention of "passenger" in the NTSB record mentioned earlier in this thread quite interesting, given it was still in Phase I. The second person wasn't even referred to as a crew member, not that it should matter. I'd be willing to bet someone has not heard the last of this one.
Vic
walkman
Well Known Member
Because in the US there is an all too common mentality of "It's bad because it's illegal" whereas in a sane regulatory environment it should only be "Illegal because it's bad".
Note: Build for hire and the granting of repairman certificates are in my mind two different issues.
What's Right
First flight of my -8A was 3 April 2011. Gary Sobek was the DAR. During the course of two inspections (because I tend to have this recurring need to investigate if life really is harder when you're stupid) Gary provided great insight into the FAA-dictated responsibilities of a DAR and his own personal standards and processes. The former focused on compliance with legalities; the latter on producing a better airplane. The former would be "good enough"; the latter provided value-added recommendations and heads-up what if scenarios. Just my opinion - but I don't think all DARs are created equal. I'm sure if you were only focused on the paperwork, you can find someone to accomodate you without challenging your building logic.
As for two people in the cockpit during Phase 1: If your test plan requires two people, then it's way too ambitious. Slow down; separate the test maneuvers; reduce the number of data point objectives for the flight. I also did AFS 4500 AOA cals. Don't have the test page if front of me but it was in no way edge of the envelope stuff: 1 second (?) zero g maneuver clean and dirty with a button push to record, followed by a 1.10 (or 1.15?) Vs and Vso descent. Two people in the cockpit for RV Phase 1 testing is one too many.
First flight of my -8A was 3 April 2011. Gary Sobek was the DAR. During the course of two inspections (because I tend to have this recurring need to investigate if life really is harder when you're stupid) Gary provided great insight into the FAA-dictated responsibilities of a DAR and his own personal standards and processes. The former focused on compliance with legalities; the latter on producing a better airplane. The former would be "good enough"; the latter provided value-added recommendations and heads-up what if scenarios. Just my opinion - but I don't think all DARs are created equal. I'm sure if you were only focused on the paperwork, you can find someone to accomodate you without challenging your building logic.
As for two people in the cockpit during Phase 1: If your test plan requires two people, then it's way too ambitious. Slow down; separate the test maneuvers; reduce the number of data point objectives for the flight. I also did AFS 4500 AOA cals. Don't have the test page if front of me but it was in no way edge of the envelope stuff: 1 second (?) zero g maneuver clean and dirty with a button push to record, followed by a 1.10 (or 1.15?) Vs and Vso descent. Two people in the cockpit for RV Phase 1 testing is one too many.
Don
Well Known Member
A different perspective
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.
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.
az_gila
Well Known Member
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.
Last edited:
pierre smith
Well Known Member
Yep
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,
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,
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
John Collier
Active Member
Assistance...it is allowed per the AC...right?
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.
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
Well Known Member
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?
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
Well Known Member
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.
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
Well Known Member
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.
Last edited:
L.Adamson
Well Known Member
Want to bet on that?
I believe they'd have lots to say about it. Much, would be from a liability standpoint.
L.Adamson
The type certificate means nothing to me - obviously
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
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
