What's new
Van's Air Force

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

What 51% rule?

N941WR

N941WR

Legacy Member
While at SnF I was talking to one kit manufacture about the very nice aircraft they had on display. The usual, speeds, fuel, range, etc. type of questions. Mid conversation an elderly gentleman walked up and interrupted (very rudely, I might add) and asked how much for the kit. The sales guy gave him a number to which the old geezer replied, "Is that for a kit or a flying airplane?" The young sales guy said that was the kit price but if he paid him $60K on top of that he would deliver a flying airplane.

This wasn't a completion center talking; it was a sales rep for the kit company. Didn't these guys learn anything over the last few years?

That just burned me up so I walked away before I gave both of them an earful.

These guys put all kit manufactures at risk, including Van’s.
 
Maybe the sales guy meant that he can assist him on the side. :) With the new engine and a nice aviation suite plus labor, 60K is not that much.
 
Maybe they had a used plane they wanted to unload? I hope. I'm guessing this was *not* an S-LSA.
 
Alex said:
Maybe they had a used plane they wanted to unload? I hope. I'm guessing this was *not* an S-LSA.
Click to expand...
Unlikely they were trying to unload the demo aircraft and it was not an LSA but a very nice high speed cruiser.

$60K was in the ball park for this kit as it comes in a high state of completion from the factory.
 
Doesn't sound like it.

It's amazing the real lack of business accumen that you find in aviation in general and kit mfgs in particular. Have you ever seen the lists of available homebuilt airplane kits that Kitplanes mag publishes from time to time. Out of 10 pages of airplane kits (20 per page), there's only about 10 that you've actually ever heard of or seen actually completed and flying.

The industry is littered with kit plane companies that produced and delivered between 0 and 3 kits. The kind of behavior you describe is part of the reason that these guys fail.

Vans does a great job. Conservative, by the rules, smart, steady. They - and only just a few others - enjoy sucess as a result. Keep it up Van!
 
N941WR said:
The young sales guy said that was the kit price but if he paid him $60K on top of that he would deliver a flying airplane.
That just burned me up so I walked away before I gave both of them an earful.
These guys put all kit manufactures at risk, including Van?s.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I wouldn't have walked away with some kind of remark. I would have simply asked the guy; "Under what category would this airplane be certificated? That's pretty cheap for a 'Standard' Certificated airplane."
 
Another view.

N941WR said:
While at SnF I was talking to one kit manufacture about the very nice aircraft they had on display. The usual, speeds, fuel, range, etc. type of questions. Mid conversation an elderly gentleman walked up and interrupted (very rudely, I might add) and asked how much for the kit. The sales guy gave him a number to which the old geezer replied, "Is that for a kit or a flying airplane?" The young sales guy said that was the kit price but if he paid him $60K on top of that he would deliver a flying airplane.

This wasn't a completion center talking; it was a sales rep for the kit company. Didn't these guys learn anything over the last few years?

That just burned me up so I walked away before I gave both of them an earful.

These guys put all kit manufactures at risk, including Van?s.
Click to expand...

Nothing says the salesman cant build the airplane and sell it to the geezer. Done all the time. Look how many are sold here on VAF. The salesman also got rid of a tire kicker real fast.
 
I would beg to differ. If the man built the airplane to sell, that is not for "education and recreation."
Not saying that it is not done, just that it is not done legally.
Read the 8130.12 form closely.
 
Don't know which kit Bill is referring to, but if it happens to be a Lightning it's entirely possible eveything is above board. The Lightning is available as an E-AB with a basic kit price of $35,900. http://www.flylightning.net/

It's also available as an SLSA with a base price of $93,900.

http://www.flylightning.net/Lightning_files/2009 Price Sheet Light Sport.pdf

That's about 60K more. So what's not legal? Had the old guy asked a few more questions he might have found out what the total cost to complete the aircraft as an E-AB would have been.

Tony
 
DanH said:
So which kit manufacturer was it?
Click to expand...
Dan,

I don't feel comfortable posting the manufacture on an open forum. I also assured Tony it was not the Lightning.

My point in posting was that even with all the threats the FAA has made to shut down kit manufactures, this stuff still goes on.
 
Mel said:
I would beg to differ. If the man built the airplane to sell, that is not for "education and recreation."
Not saying that it is not done, just that it is not done legally.
Read the 8130.12 form closely.
Click to expand...

The builder could easily build an airplane for Education and recreation... as a builder. Whats to say that Jim Bob loves to build to just build and has not interest in flying, he may build an airplane for the education and recreation of building. When he is done building and deciedes to sell it, then he really hasn't lied on the form to the feds, the form just wasn't specific enough.

I have talked to a couple lawyers about this, and believe me they love to dig into the REGS and mold them to work for them and said that "education and recreation" can be interpreted differently.

Now, if a kit builder or anyone for that matter, accepts payment for the aircraft before it is built then that opens a whole new can of worms as not you are being paid for a service. What I have seen some guys do is have the owner purchase the kit and have it dropped off to them, someone else builds the kit and then once the airplane is done, the difference is paid to the guy as a cash deal. It may be shady yes, I agree. But in the end someone gets to fly that probably couldn't afford to fly or purchase a certified airplane and may not have the skills or time to build his own aircraft.

I have seen a lot of posts on here where someone has stated that life got in the way and wouldn't allow them to build until they were older. So if it would have cost you an extra ten thousand or whatever the price someone would charge to build an airplane to your specs that you can get in a fly when its done and you get to still have your life in the end, I really don't blame people for doing it. Supply and demand my friends, where there is a will, there is a way.
 
I know which kit manufacturer is was and I can assure you that it is not even close to a light-sport aircraft.
 
MNAv8or said:
The builder could easily build an airplane for Education and recreation... as a builder. Whats to say that Jim Bob loves to build to just build and has not interest in flying, he may build an airplane for the education and recreation of building. When he is done building and deciedes to sell it, then he really hasn't lied on the form to the feds, the form just wasn't specific enough.

I have talked to a couple lawyers about this, and believe me they love to dig into the REGS and mold them to work for them and said that "education and recreation" can be interpreted differently.

Now, if a kit builder or anyone for that matter, accepts payment for the aircraft before it is built then that opens a whole new can of worms as not you are being paid for a service. What I have seen some guys do is have the owner purchase the kit and have it dropped off to them, someone else builds the kit and then once the airplane is done, the difference is paid to the guy as a cash deal. It may be shady yes, I agree. But in the end someone gets to fly that probably couldn't afford to fly or purchase a certified airplane and may not have the skills or time to build his own aircraft.

I have seen a lot of posts on here where someone has stated that life got in the way and wouldn't allow them to build until they were older. So if it would have cost you an extra ten thousand or whatever the price someone would charge to build an airplane to your specs that you can get in a fly when its done and you get to still have your life in the end, I really don't blame people for doing it. Supply and demand my friends, where there is a will, there is a way.
Click to expand...



I don't doubt that there are plenty of lawyers out there that live for this kind of semantic battle.

However, I also believe that the spirit of the 51% rule is quite evident, and that those who violate it willfully/intentionally know exactly what they are doing. We're not talking about a project that can't be completed for whatever reason...this is something completely different.

And by doing so, they put this entire hobby/lifestyle in jeopardy. I'm with Bill, you'd think with all the talk this past 18 months, they'd learn.

Joe
 
Anybody (except Bill) care to identify the source of this:

".........................specializes in subcontracting to homebuilders and their suppliers in the construction of experimental Homebuilt aircraft. We offer services from complete build, to partial build and builder assist."

Exactly how does that fit the 51% rule?

Tony
 
Tony Spicer said:
Anybody (except Bill) care to identify the source of this:

".........................specializes in subcontracting to homebuilders and their suppliers in the construction of experimental Homebuilt aircraft. We offer services from complete build, to partial build and builder assist."

Exactly how does that fit the 51% rule?

Tony
Click to expand...

The source would be Bearcat.

http://www.bearcataviation.com/
 
All we need is just a few well publicized cases of someone losing $100,000+ because the FAA refused to grant an airworthiness cert to a pro-build ExAB.

Just once (well, actually more than once) I would like to see someone on the main page of avweb or aero-news.net or eaa.org with tears in their eyes because the $300,000+ that they "invested" in having their Lancair/Glasair/Epic/(even the occasional RV10) professionally built was lost because the FAA caught on to their attempted scam. Have that happen a few times and the pro-builders will start to dry up quickly.

Oh well. A man can dream, can't he.:(
 
Funny. In another thread a man is asking if he should build or buy. Everyone (except me, but for no related reason to this thread) advice him to buy. I know this is different somehow, because he would not actually pay any one to build it. However, in principle thinking about the intention of that law, the whole educational and recreational aspect is lost no matter when someone else is building the plane, and no matter what circumstance the build process is done under. It is only required that someone else but you built it, and the idea of that law is gone.

You could argue that when buying a used airplane made by a non-proffesional, then both the recreational and educational part is fulfilled. But it is fulfilled by him, not by you. You are only fulfilling the recreational part (at best), and that can just as well be fullfilled with a fully certified airplane. In a similar manner, you cannot argue against the fact that it is educational for a proffesional to build an airplane, and for lots of people (me included) the "day time job" also is the main recreation. Lots of people have several hobbies, and some of those they also make money of, but that doesn't make it any less recreational.

Anyway, when cutting off all semantics and disputable interpretations, what it boils down to is one question: Should it be allowed to sell non certified, experimental/amateur bult aircrafts, prototypes essentially, for recreational purposes (not experimenting or testing)? If the answer to that question is yes, then everything else is irrelevant, and certainly any high ideals about do-it-yourself educational home building put in legal form. It only becomes a matter of who is responsible for the building process, if the airplane is airworthy and the ownership/maintainence of the airplane.
 
Last edited:
Relax...

I think you guys need to relax. The 51% rule applies to the kit manufacturer, not the builder.

If a professionally built RV gets someone in the air who might not otherwise have a chance to fly, then so much the better.

Hans
 
My wife's opinion as well.....

nucleus said:
..........If a professionally built RV gets someone in the air who might not otherwise have a chance to fly, then so much the better.

Hans
Click to expand...

.....and as a retired Naval commander, has considered the 51% rule and totally disagrees with it. A very well built EAB airplane is the result of a pro building it and it may or may not be built well at all by an amateur, regardless of it getting a pink slip by a DAR.

That being said, the rules are the rules and until they change, we have to abide by them.

My .02,
 
Pierre,

Be sure your wife reads the article written by Kerry Fores in the May issue of Sport Aviation, page 114.

Tony
 
danielhv said:
The source would be Bearcat.

http://www.bearcataviation.com/
Click to expand...

Daniel and Tony would be correct in their quotes from my website.

The company and website were purchased already in existence as Excalibur Aviation with little change in content including the homepage which states complete build services are available. A statement which rightly should cause indignation.

An item on the website I will clearly have to correct.

If however you take the time to go to the "Build Services page" you will see that all that is offered are builder assist services.

Since the name and ownership change from Excalibur to Bearcat no solicitation has been made nor agreement to offer a complete build.
To the best of my Knowledge Excalibur never actually provided any services other than sales or electronics.

I appreciate Daniel finally making a post pointing out what my website was offering. I am surprised it hasn't been noted sooner nor has the FAA come a calling.

In point fact currently all Bearcat offers are services for building panels (for which we have a 3 year backlog) and sales of aircraft. In fact our phone number and address have been removed from the website because we do not have the capacity for any increased volume. (thanks to a short run ad on VAF)

In any event BearcatAviation was not the vendor referred to at SNF

There was a thread in July 2007 http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=19927&highlight=coworker addressing this issue (abuse of the 51% rule) in which I noted a coworker had paid a substantial sum to have a complete build done on a high end kit plane. The DAR refused to give him his airworthiness certificate. Ultimately the airplane factory got an AC and he got his plane.

When the recent committe was named to re write the 51% rule one of the principals of "the airplane factory" was named to the committee. My guess is they have not changed their behavior.

I used to think that if someone was doing something illegal and it clearly bothered me a quick call to the authorities was in order. Experience however has taught me that the ensuing flurry of threatened lawsuits, and physical violence followed by inaction on the part of the authorities makes this a less than useful approach.
 
Last edited:
Milt,

Good post and thanks for clarifying the wording on your website. I noticed this a long time ago, but I didn't say anything as to not "rock the boat". Maybe it's time to take it off your website. ;)

The 51% rule is everyone's responsibility in my opinion. The rules that apply to EAB are very important. It is not like flying into Class C airspace with a transponder 26 months since its last check. These are the rules that allow us the freedom to build and fly these wonderful aircraft. The pioneers to the rules worked hard with Congress and the FAA to allow us these freedoms. The feds said fine, you can build your own aircraft, but it must be for education and recreation only. The pioneers said "OK". As more and more professional builders make aircraft to order that clearly violate the rules, the feds may decide that the original agreement is no longer valid.

As for those folks that don't have the time and/or skills necessary to build, they should either buy a certified aircraft, or buy an experimental aircraft already for sale. If they want a certain aircraft built exactly to their specifications, then tough petunias.

In the thread that Milt linked to, Roberta made a very good post on the subject matter:

robertahegy said:
The whole reason for the Experimental category was to allow regular people to learn skills and aeronautical knowledge by building and flying "THEIR" airplane. The "SPECIAL AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE" ( the pink one) is awarded to those planes built by those people who do this for that purpose. Hiring a service to build an airplane usurps this concept and illegally obtains a Special AWC under false pretenses. Building an airplane with the intent to sell it for gainful profit is equally dishonest and illegal. I feel no sorrow for anyone knowingly entering into an agreement to by or build an airplane under false pretenses and gets bit.

Builders for hire should certify themselves as any other aircraft manufacturer has to. Buyers and builders best heed to warnings or be prepared for the worst. If it preserves our hobby as it was intended, I say throw the book at anyone who violates the rules.

If we allow these infractions and violations to continue, we won't only be grandfathering 51% kits, we'll be grandfathering all completed kits with AWCs and ending any future personal building under the Special AWC.

Yes, there are many entities that can build superior aircraft, but they must do it within the rules. Yes, there are those who are, or claim to be, unskilled. Then they should seek to develop skills. That is what this whole homebuilt experimental thing is all about. REMEMBER!!!!!

JMHO and the law

Roberta
Click to expand...
 
Milt, honesty, accepting responsibility, intentions to do the right thing???:eek:

You will never make it in congress unless you change your ways.:D
 
Not Quite...

nucleus said:
I think you guys need to relax. The 51% rule applies to the kit manufacturer, not the builder.
Click to expand...
There is no rule about what a kit manufacturer can offer.
There is only a rule that the applicant for an experimental amateur-built airworthiness certificate must have built a major portion of the aircraft for his/her/their own education or recreation.
 
Last edited:
Mike S said:
Milt, honesty, accepting responsibility, intentions to do the right thing???:eek:

You will never make it in congress unless you change your ways.:D
Click to expand...

Darn,

I so hoped to run as an independent this year get wealthy and retire.
 
mcjon77 said:
All we need is just a few well publicized cases of someone losing $100,000+ because the FAA refused to grant an airworthiness cert to a pro-build ExAB.

Just once (well, actually more than once) I would like to see someone on the main page of avweb or aero-news.net or eaa.org with tears in their eyes because the $300,000+ that they "invested" in having their Lancair/Glasair/Epic/(even the occasional RV10) professionally built was lost because the FAA caught on to their attempted scam. Have that happen a few times and the pro-builders will start to dry up quickly.

Oh well. A man can dream, can't he.:(
Click to expand...


yup. Government can't seem to figure out they need to enforce the existing rules instead of making new ones. I could come up with several large categories where this is applicable.

maybe it costs them to much, without enough perks.
 
Mel said:
There is no rule about what a kit manufacturer can offer.
There is only a rule that the applicant for an experimental amateur-built airworthiness certificate must have built a major portion of the aircraft for his/her own education or recreation.
Click to expand...

If you follow this rule, then you can't buy a project that is almost complete and finish it yourself, because YOU have not built a major portion of the aircraft for his/her own education or recreation. The rules are the rules as everyone says.

Some people are saying they should go buy a certified aircraft, if most people could afford the price of certified aircraft, most people wouldn't build. One reason they build is because they can't afford the high price of certified, among many other reasons of course.

As someone who works on certified airplanes for a living and restoring/building airplanes in their spare time, I have no problem building an airplane and putting it up for sale. I like to build, its my hobby, and if someone wishes to give me money for my hobby, then I will sell them the airplane. And as long as people pay for the service, it won't go away no matter how many rules the government will put into place, someone will find a way around them.
 
OK, You win!

I give up there's no such thing a an amateur-built aircraft!
 
Mel said:
I give up there's no such thing a an amateur-built aircraft!
Click to expand...

Aww come on Mel. Its just a healty discussion. :D

I'm just trying to point out that you can't push some of the rules aside and then bear down on people on other parts of the rules. If your going to follow them, then follow them. :D
 
I've worked as an A&P since 1972. I've been inspecting amateur-builts since 1984. I've been certificating them since 1999. I guess I just don't understand the rules.
 
MNAv8or said:
If you follow this rule, then you can't buy a project that is almost complete and finish it yourself, because YOU have not built a major portion of the aircraft for his/her own education or recreation. The rules are the rules as everyone says.
.
Click to expand...

Sorry friend, this is completely wrong. Any number of people can work on the airplane. It's just that the major portion of it must be built by amateurs. Now, if you want a repairman's certificate, then you as the individual must have built the major portion of the aircraft.

I really don't get how people think is is complicated at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top