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
Don
Well Known Member
The argument that you don't see a need for pro help, carries little or no weight in my book. Back in Civics 101 I learned that the US government was designed to be "of the people, by the people, and for the people". The simple fact that people want to pay someone to build a kit plane that meets their need shows at least some people see the need. Since it isn't immoral, nor is it inherently unsafe (relative to average experimental amateur built plane), I see no reason the rules can't include this option. In the "land of the free" we can't legally do it now but as Paul pointed out, there are other countries where this is perfectly acceptable.
I'd like to see a substantiated position that showed how much impact professional kit builders would have on industry. I doubt that in reality it is very much. The price differential between a Cirrus and an RV-10 is enough to make them two different markets. Moreover, imo the lack of a TC and the ability to work on your own plane has a huge appeal (at least to me). Besides, if the TC can't make it without protectionist rules, then they're simply not viable. The market place can be brutal and that's the way it is, like it or not.
And just to be clear, I have had no professional help building my 9A. Over the past 1,300 hours (nearly), I have bucked or driven at least 99% of the rivets, done all of the priming, manufacture, and fitting of parts, and I've been present and actively involved in every minute (i.e., 100%) of the build. With some reservation, I'm even doing my own panel (with a Fast Stack Hub and VP-X to simplify and speed up the task). I will get help painting and possibly a little professional over-sight/inspection of the engine and appurtenances. Professional builders help isn't something I personally need or want.
The idea that the only reasons to build are recreation and education apply to E-AB. If there were an E-PB category (Experimental Pro Built), a different need would have to be identified. I'd propose, lower initial and operating costs and user modifiable/maintainable would be likely candidates. Whatever the reason, it does seem like a need that people do want (since they're at least pushing the envelope to get it) and it's a need that the FAA isn't trying to accommodate.
Where is that government I learned about in Civics 101? (Note, this isn't a political post - I'm not promoting any party, disparaging any party, or supporting or opposing any bills. I'm simply proposing that the regulatory box the FAA puts around experimental aircraft is too small and attempting an explanation as to why it is too small).
L.Adamson
Well Known Member
An LLC might not make any difference in the end. Will the "pro-builder" actually be able to provide enough liability insurance, considering the scope of business, he/she is in? Or do they just throw their hands in the air, if a catasrophy occurs...........and say they're broke? To be in a legitimate business, you really must have licensing, insurance, etc.
Personally, if I ever won a large lottery, any planes I built, would immediately be "shredded"!
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
While I also share this view, we are in a huge minority in the grand scheme of things.
byrdman36
Member
IDK
what liability does the two weeks to taxi program have? It is considered legimate from the FAA rules stand point and obviously people are using them.
what liability does the two weeks to taxi program have? It is considered legimate from the FAA rules stand point and obviously people are using them.
WingsOnWheels
Well Known Member
One point that has yet to be mentioned is that the regs have developed to the point they are now 'mostly' for good reason. The "pro-builder" as we call them here are the same as those that started airplane companies back in the '20s, '30s... The folks were building aircraft for sale, after some time there were accidents and safty regulations were put in place to protect the consumer. Over time, more regulations were added and this eventually lead to what we have today.
By making built-for-hire experimentals the norm, we undercut many of the safety regulations that have been developed for good reason. This may not be of concern for someone building a well-proven design such as the RV-10, but what about a clean-sheet design. Who is responsible to ensure that a new design is safe for sale to the general public? Maybe they should have the design reviewed by engineers and provide flight test data to a regulatory body before the aircraft can be sold, The regulator could then issue a paper saying the plane meets safety standards. Ohh, wait, this sounds familiar...
By making built-for-hire experimentals the norm, we undercut many of the safety regulations that have been developed for good reason. This may not be of concern for someone building a well-proven design such as the RV-10, but what about a clean-sheet design. Who is responsible to ensure that a new design is safe for sale to the general public? Maybe they should have the design reviewed by engineers and provide flight test data to a regulatory body before the aircraft can be sold, The regulator could then issue a paper saying the plane meets safety standards. Ohh, wait, this sounds familiar...
This entire argument is bizarre and surreal.
I'm 'buying' an experimental a/c built professionally by the exact same people who supply the kit to be built under the amateur regs. It might be unintentionally offensive to some, but universal opinion so far is that the 'pro-built' versions are superior quality to the amateur built versions in most respects, though that's not to say the amateur built versions are not decent and perfectly acceptable (and sure, they look good from the outside).
You don't have to build your aircraft to be highly knowledgable about it (though with the right attitude this may indeed help), nor does building your aircraft make you highly competent to operate it.
Sorry. No offence intended. Just realism. There's a phobia about 'check-book' building which is really barking up the wrong tree, IMHO. It's all about the attitude of the owner. Not who builds it.
I'm 'buying' an experimental a/c built professionally by the exact same people who supply the kit to be built under the amateur regs. It might be unintentionally offensive to some, but universal opinion so far is that the 'pro-built' versions are superior quality to the amateur built versions in most respects, though that's not to say the amateur built versions are not decent and perfectly acceptable (and sure, they look good from the outside).
You don't have to build your aircraft to be highly knowledgable about it (though with the right attitude this may indeed help), nor does building your aircraft make you highly competent to operate it.
Sorry. No offence intended. Just realism. There's a phobia about 'check-book' building which is really barking up the wrong tree, IMHO. It's all about the attitude of the owner. Not who builds it.
Jamie
Well Known Member
Actually empirical data suggest that second owners of homebuilt aircraft *are* more likely to have accidents than their builders. This was just recently found in a very large study done by the FAA.
Also as anecdotal evidence I would like to point out that the absolute worst (by a far margin) RV-10 I have seen was in the state of Alabama a couple of years ago and it was a "pro-built". It was awful. Wire's everywhere and not secured. The paint was horrible. The seats and interior were removed when I saw it and the rivet work was atrocious.
Peoples' concern isn't with pro-building per se. It's the fact that pro building -- paying someone to build an amateur-built airplane for you -- is flat out no gray area allowed illegal. People who say otherwise have a serious disconnect with reality.
We simply don't want to lose this amazing freedom we have to build (and eventually sell) our own airplanes because people who have absolutely zero interest in actually building an airplane exploit the rules that allow us to do so.
The knee-jerk reaction of the FAA swings far and wide.
WhiskeyMike
Well Known Member
Very well said, and I couldn't agree more. Can you imagine being prohibited by law from hiring someone to build you a custom motorcycle based on the rationale that this activity unfairly undercuts the legacy motorcycle manufacturers? Or how about the assertion, with absolutely no supporting evidence, that such an activity poses an additional safety hazard to the public?
AMEN!
az_gila
Well Known Member
N941WR
Legacy Member
Those programs pose no liability risk to the people who run them. The FAA has gone through them with a fine tooth comb and has determined that the customer is the builder, not the staff.
The reason they get through the build so quickly is because everything is standardized. You have one choice of instruments and engines, thus all the wiring is already figured out and probably pre-made. The kits they start with are all quick build kits, already approved by the FAA.
You don’t have to hunt for tools (Oh, I can’t tell you how many hours I spent looking for my cleco pliers!) because someone hands you the right tool at the right time. You don’t have to clean up, because that happens after you leave at the end of the day. You never have to stop to search a builder’s forum, like this one, because the engineer who designed the thing is standing across the table from you telling you exactly what to do. You never have to wait for a tool or part to arrive from the manufacturer or Aircraft Spruce because they already have everything the builder needs right there in the shop.
In the end, it really is the customer who has built the plane, not the completion center.
Jay Pratt once told me how many weeks it take to build an RV-8 because he had one customer who only flew in for a few weeks at a time to work on his plane. I don’t remember the exact number but it was much lower than I was expecting. Much lower than the 2,600 hours it took to build my -9 over four years and two months.
[That customer was Will Ramsey - he built it (with Jay looking over his shoulder pointing out what to do next) in 54 days. Will worked on it from sunrise to sunset seven days a week until done. dr]
Last edited by a moderator:
Subwaybob
Well Known Member
FAA
"FAA, We're not happy till your not happy" I love that t-shirt!!!
Seriously, they are here for us not the other way around. They beat up on you to much about someone helping you do something for money (American Way) and a well placed judge of will favor the lawsuit someone will file.
This is far fetched but... What if that lady instructor that only has one arm wants an airplane built? Does she not deserve an RV? Why, yes she does. I will be the first to point her in the direction of Jay. Long live FREEDOM!!
"FAA, We're not happy till your not happy" I love that t-shirt!!!
Seriously, they are here for us not the other way around. They beat up on you to much about someone helping you do something for money (American Way) and a well placed judge of will favor the lawsuit someone will file.
This is far fetched but... What if that lady instructor that only has one arm wants an airplane built? Does she not deserve an RV? Why, yes she does. I will be the first to point her in the direction of Jay. Long live FREEDOM!!
N941WR
Legacy Member
Thanks Doug!
For the record, Jay is a "completion center", not a "do it for you" center.
[ed. You're correct Bill! I finished my RV-6 at Jay's - one of his first customers. I drove from Irving to RV Central three days a week after work for months, changing from my suit there at Jay's shop. Many times I drove home after midnight, listening to BBC's 'News of the World'. To this day when I hear that on the radio I think of that busy time in my life! dr]
Last edited by a moderator:
Subwaybob
Well Known Member
That's right bill. I didn't think of that. Whatever it/he is I can tell you he's pretty smart about the RV's. He gave me a TON of very useful info. I am building mine myself and he was very helpful regardless. Jay is a super nice guy. (Except he REALLY wants me to build an 8 instead of the 7). I wonder what he flys...
byrdman36
Member
Bill, exactly the point I am feebly attempting to make. The FAA is fine with it but yet there are people here who say it is illegal. I believe it and other of the so called pro builders that merely do the same thing and superivise the builder are making the whole process safer. On the other hand if you are a habitual builder and turn a project every three or four years fly it for a while then sell it you obviously have more liability than do the finish centers.
BTW my EI Commander is working great.
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
In an attempt to shield them from liability, we often hear of people cutting up their airplanes or part them out rather than sell them, but what IS the ratio of completed E-AB aircraft to successful lawsuits? It used to be zero ... has that changed?
Don
Well Known Member
I'd like to see those data, too.
My opinions
Right things to do:
THE GOOD
Seek out a Tech Counselor
Seek out a Flight Advisor
Transition Training
Know your DAR
Builder assistance
A Tech Counselor will lead you in the right path. He is
a phone call away or email. He is there to help you
and answer questions. You will have a million.
Your Flight Advisor will let you know if you have the
ability to do the first flight and if you need training.
Transition training is a must for everyone. This will help
on this aircraft. They are different. All of them. Insurance
had me down for 5 hours. I hear this might go to 15??
My DAR-Mel- Saw my airplane from day 1 and did the
final inspection for me.
I did 99% of the build, standard kit and also built the
engine at ECi-Tulsa. I did everything I could and would
do it again.
Mel would like to see 4 (TC) visits, and I think I had
ten+. He is very knowledgable in the RV community and
that is what I wanted. can you save SAFE.
Mel and myself went over the operating limitations at
my inspection and he WAS very clear about the one
person in phase I. I got it.
You have to police yourself because the urge is there
to take someone for a quick lap in the traffic pattern.
You get my drift on this.
POLICE YOURSELF
that will make it a better environment.
Builder assistance.
Jay is running a great operation for the RV community.
He is your TC and FA.
He knows the right way to do stuff and can get you
going on a project that is stagnant.
THE BAD:
Not knowing your limitations
Bad attitudes
KNOW everything people--EGO Types
2 Weeks to TAXI-----Please
You can build a car in 4 hours if it goes down an assembly
line.
There is know way you can build a RV in two weeks let alone
a Lancair-GLASS or Glassair--Glass in 2 weeks.
I won't vent anymore on the 2 week program because it is
sending the EAB down the wrong path in my opinion.
My .05,
Thanks for looking
Right things to do:
THE GOOD
Seek out a Tech Counselor
Seek out a Flight Advisor
Transition Training
Know your DAR
Builder assistance
A Tech Counselor will lead you in the right path. He is
a phone call away or email. He is there to help you
and answer questions. You will have a million.
Your Flight Advisor will let you know if you have the
ability to do the first flight and if you need training.
Transition training is a must for everyone. This will help
on this aircraft. They are different. All of them. Insurance
had me down for 5 hours. I hear this might go to 15??
My DAR-Mel- Saw my airplane from day 1 and did the
final inspection for me.
I did 99% of the build, standard kit and also built the
engine at ECi-Tulsa. I did everything I could and would
do it again.
Mel would like to see 4 (TC) visits, and I think I had
ten+. He is very knowledgable in the RV community and
that is what I wanted. can you save SAFE.
Mel and myself went over the operating limitations at
my inspection and he WAS very clear about the one
person in phase I. I got it.
You have to police yourself because the urge is there
to take someone for a quick lap in the traffic pattern.
You get my drift on this.
POLICE YOURSELF
that will make it a better environment.
Builder assistance.
Jay is running a great operation for the RV community.
He is your TC and FA.
He knows the right way to do stuff and can get you
going on a project that is stagnant.
THE BAD:
Not knowing your limitations
Bad attitudes
KNOW everything people--EGO Types
2 Weeks to TAXI-----Please
You can build a car in 4 hours if it goes down an assembly
line.
There is know way you can build a RV in two weeks let alone
a Lancair-GLASS or Glassair--Glass in 2 weeks.
I won't vent anymore on the 2 week program because it is
sending the EAB down the wrong path in my opinion.
My .05,
Thanks for looking
Subwaybob
Well Known Member
That's great! All I can think about is how to set up an assembley line for my 7 I'm going to build!! Maybe I can do it like I build sandwiches....
Great write up Bruce! All good info.
Vic, I applaud you for being willing to stick your neck out. But, to be a bit critical, remember the quote that evil will triumph as long as good men do nothing. I think you should call the FSDO if you see these kind of violations. The guy in the hangar across from me has lost his medical, for good reasons. I suspect he's still flying. If I actually see him, I'll call the FSDO. To protect him, to protect the public, to keep my insurance rates down. We all have something to lose here.
Folks, if you think the FAA's policies are wrong, then work to change them. But the fact is, the FAA doesn't think you should buy an aircraft that doesn't meet all their usual certification standards.
I think it's a miracle that the FAA made an exception and allows homebuilts at all. They did so under the promise of "builder's enjoyment or education" only. There was never any intention to allow 'hired guns'. My fear is that one day they will over-react in a way that's easy for them to enforce: they will require the registered owner to show proof of 51% of the work, ALWAYS. e.g., effectively ban the after-completion sale of homebuilt aircraft. And that would hurt us all, right in the pocket book.
Folks, if you think the FAA's policies are wrong, then work to change them. But the fact is, the FAA doesn't think you should buy an aircraft that doesn't meet all their usual certification standards.
I think it's a miracle that the FAA made an exception and allows homebuilts at all. They did so under the promise of "builder's enjoyment or education" only. There was never any intention to allow 'hired guns'. My fear is that one day they will over-react in a way that's easy for them to enforce: they will require the registered owner to show proof of 51% of the work, ALWAYS. e.g., effectively ban the after-completion sale of homebuilt aircraft. And that would hurt us all, right in the pocket book.
dhall_polo
Well Known Member
Miracle? Exception? Aviation was started by home builders. Now it is considered a miracle that our government allows the individual to create? I don't know if it upsets me more that you think we're lucky or that you might be right.
RV10inOz
Well Known Member
Dutchie has hit the nail on the head here, I want to bang it in a bit harder. (by the way that is cheque book for us down here
)In Mike's case he is getting a highly specialised aerbatic machine. It is probably in everyones interest that it be "pro-built", but under such circumstances he should not have the maintenance authority on it like I have on my RV10. The reason being is that a certified machine has a maintenance programme and manuals etc etc, the homebuilt not always. So the original builder has knowledge that the non builder does not. You are just relying on a LAME to have this kind of knowledge in lieu.
Onto the folk like Jay and others who provide a professional building service to others who need help in certain areas......ALL THE SAFER, because chances are they would be far higher risk profiles for planes built without such expert help. I had plenty, I did not need it for avionics and engine but the rivetting etc I did.
So....a fully cheque book built aeroplane is fine, and much safer in most cases if it does not include a maintenance authority. A professionally assited build is probably the optimum for all but the serial builders who have done it all over and over, so long as they are not producing junk in the first place.
Some 100% owner/homebuilts I would not fly or stand too close to, in fact would rather they be in another country altogether
.DB
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
The mere possibility of a lawsuit does not in itself increase your risk. In the US we can be sued by anybody for anything so we are ?at risk? as soon as we get out of bed. You could be sued by the next owner of your current car, or you could be sued because your last post has offended someone... Why should a homebuilt airplane be any different? After all, lawsuits are expensive for both parties, so there needs to be some assurance that the lawsuit will not only succeed, but also pay off. In other words, it needs to be a good financial investment for the plaintiff. If we?ve learned anything, it?s that the risk of a lawsuit is directly proportional to the certainty of a judgment and the size of the potential payout. It makes very little sense to sue someone if: (A) there is essentially no case law supporting a favorable judgment; and (B) the defendant has very little money.
Considering the litigious nature of the US, I see it as a good sign that homebuilders continue to be poor targets for successful lawsuits.
az_gila
Well Known Member
Two items
1 - The grieving widow on the stand makes for a sympathetic jury even with a weak case, and a wish for insurance companies to pay out rather than go to trial - the quite objectionable "cost of defense" pay-out.
2 - Even if the defendants have no money, throw in a few more on the list to be sued and some states (CA is one) will make then pay all even if they are only 1% liable - the "deep pockets" rule.
In the Airpark lawsuit I was involved with, Walter Engines US paid out a substantial sum over a Legend accident. The amazing thing (to me as an engineer, not a lawyer) was the they had never touched the engine in question. It was bought as a communist govt. air force run-out before the main Walter plant even existed as a private company.
Last edited:
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
Unfortunately, grieving widows and mothers testify in jetski, motorcycle, car, skiing, etc, accidents as well. And it is even more unfortunate that there are lawyers out there who will use every conceivable angle to ensure they both get a big payday.
My point was not that we in the homebuilt world are free from the risk of being sued, rather, we seem to be better off than most. The sad truth is that we are at risk of being sued for dozens of actions we perform every day? Just keeping it in perspective, that?s all.
My point was not that we in the homebuilt world are free from the risk of being sued, rather, we seem to be better off than most. The sad truth is that we are at risk of being sued for dozens of actions we perform every day? Just keeping it in perspective, that?s all.
az_gila
Well Known Member
I agree... but "following the rules" is usually a pretty good defense...
Which is what this thread is about.
lolachampcar
Member
First, these things can kill you. I approached my first flight, continue to approach the rest of phase 1 flights and will approach all phase 2 flights with this in mind. I survived bikes, cars, certified and now working on surviving experimental aircraft keeping this in mind.
Second, flying is about the last bastion of personal responsibility. No one is really watching over your shoulder because you are expected to act like an adult and do what you say you will do. If WE act like children we will loose the privilege of being treated like an adult. If you get nailed it is your fault and no one else's. I only hope it does not blow back on the rest of those out there trying to do things the right way.
I am grateful the FAA provides the ambiguity they do in their rules along with a good bit of freedom to interpret those rules. It has been my experience that more rules (or more specificity in a rule) means less freedom.
Thank you for the original post
.
Second, flying is about the last bastion of personal responsibility. No one is really watching over your shoulder because you are expected to act like an adult and do what you say you will do. If WE act like children we will loose the privilege of being treated like an adult. If you get nailed it is your fault and no one else's. I only hope it does not blow back on the rest of those out there trying to do things the right way.
I am grateful the FAA provides the ambiguity they do in their rules along with a good bit of freedom to interpret those rules. It has been my experience that more rules (or more specificity in a rule) means less freedom.
Thank you for the original post
.
