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.
However, I do not see the difference in a "habitual builder" and a so called "Pro". Does the "habitual builder" that knows he really enjoys the building aspect register his aircraft under an LLC so when he sells there will be less liability?
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
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"!
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.
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.
This entire argument is bizarre and surreal.
.....
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.
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.
Thanks Doug!...
[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]
Thanks Doug!
For the record, Jay is a "completion center", not a "do it for you" center
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]
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?
2 Weeks to TAXI-----Please
You can build a car in 4 hours if it goes down an assembly
line.
I think it's a miracle that the FAA made an exception and allows homebuilts at all.
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.
re: lawsuits.
I believe John Denver's estate sued the original builder, as well as deeper pockets such as ACS.
And note, it doesn't matter if you win or not. The cost to simply defend such a suit will bankrupt many builders.
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.
.....
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.