What's new
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?

...I'm sorry but this is just plain WRONG. DEAD WRONG...
Click to expand...

Yes it's wrong to hire someone to build your airplane and then perjure yourself on the paperwork, but I think you missed Bob's point: Why don't we change the rules?

I don?t like the hired gun thing but only because as the rules exist today, this activity will likely ruin my ability to build and fly anything I can dream up. But from a practical perspective, I doubt a hired gun compromises safety in any way. In fact, aren?t brand new airplanes from "legitimate" :rolleyes: ?repeat offenders? generally given a premium on this forum? Is this another double standard?

Personally, I think we should be looking for ways to reduce or eliminate regulation.
 
Mel said:
Even though this statement may appear in AC 20-27 (advisory circulars are not binding), it is NOT in the Order 8130.2 (which is what we must adhere to).
I don't know of any DAR who would accept the liability of allowing a second person during phase I flight testing in the type airplanes we a talking about.
Click to expand...

Interesting........ Since Mel brought up 8130.2, I went to start reading the document and found a gem on 4-80.

(9) During Phase I test flight operations, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only, and no person may be carried in this aircraft during flight unless that person is a required crewmember. The local FSDO must approve if a person is essential for the test flight.​

I'm intrepreting this as if I complete my flight tests with satisfactory results, I can solicit permission from the local FSDO have a second crew member to assist with testing the avionics and their interaction.

Yes, I am aware that will raise the dicussion on how long and what test cards need to be completed to have sucessfully completed flight testing. I suspect that real answer to be different with each experiment model. Some taking longer than others, with 40 hours being the arbitrary average number for all.

Just to set the record, I am not recommending nor do I advocate skipping or shortening the flight tests. I think they are essential and valuable. With that said, in technically advanced aircraft, I firmly believe there is also a requirement to fully test out all electronics prior to completing Phase I (or at least before any passengers are on board). The semantics of the discussion is whether or not these should be included as part of Phase I testing. I am also of the belief that this testing can't be sucessfully completed by a single crew member.

bob

 
rocketbob said:
My $.02...builders for hire are a good thing. Not everyone is equipped mentally to build their own airplane, and if they have the financial freedom to be able to write a big check for someone to build their airplane, more power to them. The Canadians have this figured out from a rules perspective. Why don't we here in the US?
Click to expand...

Bob, if it was legal, I'd agree. But it isn't and the first guy who puts a pro-built airplane through the roof of a school is gonna cause a backlash we won't like. So I'm in favor of changing the rule. But let's obey the rules we have until we can get the rules changed.
 
Quote: So, where does the guy fall in your view who builds an AHB kit with the intent of selling it after Phase I? Glen

Glen, the regs actually provide for this in that we are supposed to be building for education and enjoyment. Many people love building more than flying and there are many repeat offenders on this list, myself being one of them, having built 8 airplanes in 30 years. As many others have done and gone before me, it is a way to learn a lot about aircraft, from metal, to composite, to tube and fabric, as well as develop all of the skills necessary along the way. In some cases it leads to other opportunities and achievements, like A&P, DAR, and Technical Counselor roles.

However, I think if you constantly built and sold right after Phase I and especially if you were clearly set up in a production-like environment, it would certainly not be in the spirit or intent of the regulations and could probably raise some questions, especially if that was a sole/majority source of your income.

But let's not go down this path to hide from the commercial ventures we are all talking about here.

Vic
 
rleffler said:
(9) During Phase I test flight operations, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only, and no person may be carried in this aircraft during flight unless that person is a required crewmember. The local FSDO must approve if a person is essential for the test flight.​
Click to expand...


Bob, Can you tell me more specifically where you found this? Are you sure it is in the current 8130.2F?
I can't find it.

OK, I found it. Unfortunately that paragraph is under Experimental EXHIBITION, not amateur-built!
 
Last edited:
Toobuilder said:
Yes it's wrong to hire someone to build your airplane and then perjure yourself on the paperwork, but I think you missed Bob's point: Why don't we change the rules?

I don?t like the hired gun thing but only because as the rules exist today, this activity will likely ruin my ability to build and fly anything I can dream up. But from a practical perspective, I doubt a hired gun compromises safety in any way. In fact, aren?t brand new airplanes from "legitimate" :rolleyes: ?repeat offenders? generally given a premium on this forum? Is this another double standard?

Personally, I think we should be looking for ways to reduce or eliminate regulation.
Click to expand...

My point exactly. Not saying that lying on the paperwork is right. But to bury one's head in the sand and pretend this isn't going on, or continue to go on, is ignoring the obvious. Here in the US we got a months long 51% rule review that, in its end result, did absolutely nothing in terms of safety or to make the process easier. It didn't shut down the builder assist shops.

Contrastingly the Canadians took a far more reasonable approach to hired gun activity.

Deregulating and encouraging a cottage industry for builder assist shops would be nothing less than a fantastic thing for the experimental world.
 
...But let's not go down this path to hide from the commercial ventures we are all talking about here...
Click to expand...

Why not? What is the practical difference between a ?habitual builder? and a "hired gun"?

Shouldn't we first define "The Problem"? If it's a safety issue, then let's address that. However, if it's merely a "rules" issue, let's work to update them to be more consistent with the reality of our existence.
 
Last edited:
aerhed said:
To calibrate my AOA all I had to do is fly to a stall and push a button. No calculus or wire twisting required. I don't think I needed extra "epaulets" on board to do that. How hard can it be? I'm with Vic on this one for sure. The rules are specific, and as a community we need to hang together or hang separately.
Click to expand...

I agree. At least on the Dynon, it's simple, and I did it within the first few hours. It's probably just a CYA thing for AFS.

-Rob
 
Hired Guns

The manufacturers of type-certificated aircraft have to take full responsibility for the safety and airworthiness of their products.

If the rules are changed to allow planes built for hire, are the hired guns going to be responsible, too, or will it just be "tough luck" for the purchaser when something goes wrong?

"Responsible", in this situation meaning "accountable".
 
JHines said:
The manufacturers of type-certificated aircraft have to take full responsibility for the safety and airworthiness of their products.

If the rules are changed to allow planes built for hire, are the hired guns going to be responsible, too, or will it just be "tough luck" for the purchaser when something goes wrong?...
Click to expand...

Why would it differ from buying a newly completed airplane from a habitual builder?
 
RV8R999 said:
The DAR doesn't decide who is "essential" . So who gets to decide "essential"? My opinion is YOU as the builder and PIC decide based upon the complexity of your test, the environement, systems complexity and your experience. You were the person certifying the plane as airworthy - The DAR is simply verifying conformity.

As described in a previous post, even the FAA isn't standardized in their view on this matter why would anyone else?

Personally I didn't fly with anyone until Phase 1 complete but to denegrate anyone else for doing so when the rule specifically provides for it is ridiculous.

I'd discuss with your FSDO first.
Click to expand...

This seems logical to me, if the airplane has been determined to be airworthy and additional crew can be a help in a safer flight (strong emphasis on safety rather than joy) then I wonder why NOT.

FAA is not so worried about your safety but those on the ground and if an additional crew can be a help in that regard then I will be all for it.

Also, isn?t the 51% rule more in respect to repair certificate then airworthiness? If so, shouldn?t DAR not deny application all together but only the repairman certificate?
 
Bavafa said:
Also, isn?t the 51% rule more in respect to repair certificate then airworthiness? If so, shouldn?t DAR not deny application all together but only the repairman certificate?
Click to expand...

No. ;-)

The 51% rule is to establish that the airplane was amateur built. If it is, any one of the people who worked on the airplane can get the repairman's certificate. Usually, the owner requests that it be issued to him.
 
Nope!

Bavafa said:
Also, isn?t the 51% rule more in respect to repair certificate then airworthiness? If so, shouldn?t DAR not deny application all together but only the repairman certificate?
Click to expand...

51% rule has nothing to do with the repairman certificate.
The 51% rule is to ascertain that the aircraft is amateur-built.
 
vic syracuse said:
You may not want to hear this, but calibrating your angle of attack meter is not required during Phase I. Some things may need to be left alone until you can certify that the aircraft has no known hazardous characteristics, which is the explicit purpose of the Phase I fly off period.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Vic, that sounds sensible. I just didn't want to sign off the -10 as out of Phase I (someday...;)) with some equipment known to be untested if the requirement was to have everything tested. Now my next question: Is there something which defines what things have to be part of the Phase I test explicitly? Or is it just the general 'no known hazardous characteristics'?

aerhed said:
To calibrate my AOA all I had to do is fly to a stall and push a button. No calculus or wire twisting required. I don't think I needed extra "epaulets" on board to do that. How hard can it be? I'm with Vic on this one for sure. The rules are specific, and as a community we need to hang together or hang separately.
Click to expand...

I don't know which AOA you are using but the AFS has you fly in a couple of envelope-edge conditions and I don't tolerate diversion of attention, even to push a single button, when I am flying like that. Their manuals are online; you are welcome to check them out.
 
FAA Order 8130.2G

This appears to be the latest Order concerning the gist of this discussion.

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/8130.2G.pdf

It is a huge document, some 318 pdf pages but not all of it is applicable here.
The part that concerns us is Section 9. Experimental Amateur-Built Airworthiness Certifications and begins on pdf page 139.

I do not envy a DAR in having to be familiar with all of its directives. It is no small feat to properly certify an amateur built experimental aircraft under this order.

Commercially building and selling an airplane built from a kit is clearly prohibited. The sticky area must be when a company brings in the customer who assists in the build and is then certified as having complied with the 51% rule. I don't see how it is done otherwise. A DAR or federal inspector has to be involved in the process.

Flight testing is as its been for at least 8 years. Item 10 is exactly the same as it was written for my limitations. 8130 is the source bible for the operating limitations.

If I have this matter in proper perspective, 8130.2G is the guidance DAR's use to do their thing and AC20-27G is the guidance builders use to do their thing. The AC does go into detail what must be done to get an airplane certified in accordance with 8130.

I have built and flown 3 airplanes not knowing all of the ramifications of doing it. There is a great deal more "guidance" today than some years back. Anyone contemplating a build today should read all this stuff and feel like he understands what must be done to do it properly. The current directives were just introduced when the last airplane was certified and I remember asking the DAR what a "program letter" was. Two previous airplanes had been certified and flown without the benefit of a "program letter". (The first was inspected and certified by a single FAA inspector. It was no a big deal at all and paper work was minimal - the good ol' days.)

There are abuses going on today because the directives are far reaching and complex and someone is not policing the activity. Clearly, not all paper submitted for certification is kosher. Phase one flight testing is also being abused.

The abuses probably won't stop until the feds lower the boom and no one will like that when it happens. So, the alternative is for EAA (us) to somehow put the kibosh on what is going on.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Risk and Reward

Toobuilder said:
Why would it differ from buying a newly completed airplane from a habitual builder?
Click to expand...

Personally, I think it has to do with the distribution of risk and reward. Ideally, a sustainable system will be one in which both the risk and the reward come as a package deal. An example of an unsustainable system will be one in which the risk is socialized but the reward is privatized. That kind of system has worked great in the short term for Wall Street, but that is a topic for another forum, not this one.

Anyhow, the manufacturer of a type-certificated airplane has demonstrated that a) the aircraft design meets the requirements set forward in 14CFR§23, and b) the specific airplane in question conforms to the compliant aircraft design. This cascade of compliances protect both pilots and the general public from the risks associated with aircraft that are unproven or are overly dangerous in either their design or construction.

I'm not a lawyer, aviation or otherwise, but to my way of thinking the regulations for homebuilt aircraft are designed to place both the reward and the risk on the shoulders of the person with the most skin in the game: The builder. If you want the reward of soaring with the eagles, you have to assume the risks, and do so in such a way as to keep those risks to yourself to the degree practical. That is the grand bargain that allows us the privilege of operating experimental aircraft for the purposes of demonstrating their safety in Phase I, and to subsequently operate them in the vicinity of the general public in Phase II.

I further propose that these rules were to some degree designed to limit the risk exposure of the general public to experimental airplanes by setting the bar high enough to deter all but the most determined. In order to operate an experimental homebuilt, first you have to build the darn thing, and then you have to either put your butt on the line by testing it out yourself, or convince someone else to do that for you. The overall effect is to generally keep the numbers of experimentals down to a dull roar.

What worries me is that the numbers are now running at a dull roar, and getting less dull by the week. I fear that we are on the cusp of falling victim to our own success at putting aircraft into the air. If something happens to put the spotlight on us, the result might be a disproportionate tightening of the rules that will not make anybody happy. And this in a regulatory environment where bureaucrats are not happy unless we're not happy. Given this environment, I would rather work in a self-policing structure, all things being equal.

Getting back to the original issue, I have to admit that I'm actually still a bit ambivalent about the hired-gun thing, since the kit sailplane that I am developing hews awful close to the centerline of "major portion." The nature of high-performance sailplanes is such that they have to be pretty slippery in order to perform to a worthwhile degree, and the most effective way to get that kind of smoothness is with molded shapes made in big tools and assembled with other big tools. I haven't yet decided on a specific approach, but whatever we do will probably involve builders coming to my shop to get their (gloved and Tyvek'd) hands dirty in the process of making the parts for their glider or at least one just like it. I think an approach like this will connect the risk and the reward to a degree acceptable to all.

Thanks, Bob K.
 
Last edited:
Okay, I read through the AFS AOA calibration checklist and its not too different. Same same. Just an extra calibration point. If your extra "crewmember" knew exactly what he was doing it might be faster if you don't count distractions. Still, all you do is start the calibration, fly to the reqiurement and push a button. The clunky store function can be done after the maneuver, so I don't see the fuss. Seems you could practice the procedure on the ground and get slick faster than you could get a copilot up to speed.
 
type of problem re: hired gun assembly

JHines said:
The manufacturers of type-certificated aircraft have to take full responsibility for the safety and airworthiness of their products.

If the rules are changed to allow planes built for hire, are the hired guns going to be responsible, too, or will it just be "tough luck" for the purchaser when something goes wrong?

"Responsible", in this situation meaning "accountable".
Click to expand...

So, can I read the above as a suggestion there is a 'who can be blamed' problem? The fact is ANYONE can be blamed: ask Van about this. I know a little about this 'problem' too. This trail leads nowhere.

Ya know, come to think about it, I know a little bit about this Hired Gun stuff....

I think it (Hired Gun activity) is a rule problem, and it can be corrected, or more accurately, made to be correct.

Semi-useful input:
If the Canadians can do it (rule change to permit a cottage industry, specifically aircraft assembly), we can too. Our problem will be the lobbyists representing C, P, B, and others.

Liability: the folks doing the assembly will have to put up with the liability, much the same as they are now. So, no real change there.

Safety (workmanship): I suspect MOST hired guns use a fair amount of due diligence, tho like with doctors and lawyers (pick ANY profession) there are bad apples.

Quality (appearance): previous work is viewable to prove, or disprove, ability in this arena. Piece o cake.

Ability (business): running a business is not easy. A track record is invaluable for this evaluation. Talk to previous customers.

Bottom line: why not make it legal to produce EAB aircraft for profit? Who is it gonna hurt, in terms of business? If your concern is physical harm to the aircraft occupants, you would want to start with Ford, GM, Chrysler, Mercedes, Porsche, Cessna, Piper, Beechcraft, Boeing, Airbus, etc: how many folks die inside their products per year....you get the picture?

I submit the entire discussion of Hired Gun Building is moot, as it is legal within the rules:
An easy path around any discussion of hired gun work legality, if a person sincerely wants to do that sort of thing, is to build the thing, get its Pink Slip in hand, and sell it. There are no rules concerning this activity, so it must be legal? Heck, the 'buyer' was probably 'directing' the build anyway!

I don't recall any limit to the number of aircraft a person could build, and subsequently sell. So, using the above mentioned procedure, the process would continue, legally, under a different shade of 'The Rules'.

Another path is to sign on as co-builder, unless I misunderstand that rule. Mel?

BEST idea: A fella could rent hangar space to anyone who would want it; they could bring their kit into that space, and the hangar owner could assist them in assembling their aircraft. I'm pretty sure this is legal, and falls within the 'spirit' of the rules, too. Jay?

If I'm wrong about any of this, let me know.

Carrying a PAX during Phase One? I can see reasons, but none of 'em are good enough.

Carry on!
Mark
 
Bavafa said:
...if the airplane has been determined to be airworthy...
Click to expand...

A minor nitpick, but the word "airworthy" has a specific meaning when it is used in regulatory contexts, so it sometimes pays to use it carefully.

Mel or other DARs, please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that at least so far as the FAA is concerned, an aircraft is airworthy only if it conforms to a type certificate issued pursuant the regulations in 14CFR?23 or similar Parts.

An amateur-built experimental airplane is therefore not ever really "airworthy." It doesn't get an annual airworthiness inspection, it just gets an annual condition inspection that validates that it is in a condition for safe operation. And that's why we get pink Special Airworthiness certificates for the purposes of operating an aircraft that has not actually been proven airworthy in the eyes of 14CFR?23.

Again, apologies for the nitpick.

Thanks, Bob K.
 
David-aviator said:
I have built and flown 3 airplanes not knowing all of the ramifications of doing it. There is a great deal more "guidance" today than some years back. Anyone contemplating a build today should read all this stuff and feel like he understands what must be done to do it properly. The current directives were just introduced when the last airplane was certified and I remember asking the DAR what a "program letter" was. Two previous airplanes had been certified and flown without the benefit of a "program letter". (The first was inspected and certified by a single FAA inspector. It was no a big deal at all and paper work was minimal - the good ol' days.)
Click to expand...

Not sure who did your earlier inspections but I've been doing this since 1999 and the program letter has always been a requirement since then.
I do know that there have been many audits of experimental amateur-built aircraft files in Oklahoma City, and they always come up with around 80% with errors of some kind.
 
Last edited:
YEP!

Bob Kuykendall said:
A minor nitpick, but the word "airworthy" has a specific meaning when it is used in regulatory contexts, so it sometimes pays to use it carefully.

Mel or other DARs, please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that at least so far as the FAA is concerned, an aircraft is airworthy only if it conforms to a type certificate issued pursuant the regulations in 14CFR§23 or similar Parts.

An amateur-built experimental airplane is therefore not ever really "airworthy." It doesn't get an annual airworthiness inspection, it just gets an annual condition inspection that validates that it is in a condition for safe operation. And that's why we get pink Special Airworthiness certificates for the purposes of operating an aircraft that has not actually been proven airworthy in the eyes of 14CFR§23.

Again, apologies for the nitpick.

Thanks, Bob K.
Click to expand...

CORRECTAMOONDO! (Had to make the word "correct" longer to meet stupid posting rule)
 
AFS AOA is easy.

I did mine on my third test flight. I could have left this test to after phase I if I wanted. I (you) don't need to test all possible thing in the plane to complete phase I.

When I started testing my AP I was have trouble making it work in all the modes. I ask the FSDO if I could take a second pilot with me to help with this task and was told NO! I just deferred working on this until after phase I was completed, and then had a friend go with me to track down the problem.

Having the AP not working correctly was not a problem to complete phase I, I just turned it off.

The plane must be proven to fly correctly and safely through out is normal range of usage. I know that I didn't quote this correctly, but that is the idea.

Think about, if you add an AOA after your in phase II are you going to go back into phase I?

Vic is right on this. Too many pilots are deciding the rules don't apply to them. I agree that some of the rules should be changed, but until they do we all should follow the rules that we have.

Kent
 
Mel said:
Not sure who did your earlier inspections but I've been doing this since 1999 and the program letter has always been a requirement.
I do know that there have been many audits of experimental amateur-built aircraft files in Oklahoma City, and they always come up with around 80% with errors of some kind.
Click to expand...

Earlier on in the last century - When I built my first plane in 1977 a Program letter was not required - heck even DARs were not required, the FAA did actual inspections, including pre-cover inspections...:)
 
Mel said:
Not sure who did your earlier inspections but I've been doing this since 1999 and the program letter has always been a requirement.
I do know that there have been many audits of experimental amateur-built aircraft files in Oklahoma City, and they always come up with around 80% with errors of some kind.
Click to expand...

The first was in 1983 by the FAA, no program letter.

The second was 1998, DAR, no program letter.

The third was in 2003, same DAR, program letter but old operating limitations requiring re-certification with a major change - got that changed after another inspection by the FAA later. Not surprised there are errors in the records. Things change and not everyone is quickly spun up on those changes.

Experimental aviation regulation is complex today, not sure this is good or bad. The federal bureaucracy is growing like kudzu and there is more hand ringing than ever over the accident rate.
 
Looking back in my records, I show the first aircraft that I did containing the paragraph allowing the owner to put the aircraft back into phase I himself was December of 1999. And BTW, it was an RV-6A.
If you had one in 2003 without that paragraph, it was issued incorrectly. And as I said before, this is NOT unusual.
 
Last edited:
erich weaver said:
.................
While I am not advocating a 2nd person on aboard, and flight training on first flights is certainly out of the question, I think a reasonable argument could be made that a 2nd person was necessary for data collection. Those first flights are awfully busy, and data collection is certainly part of flight testing. Bottom line though, if FAA wants to be clear, they need clear language. How hard is it to say "no more than one person (the pilot) may be on board during phase 1 testing".

I'm just glad I have Mel et al to tell me what these rules really mean :)

Erich
Click to expand...

Ahh....I would like to hear that opinion being made to an ALJ. If you need someone to scribe your data points during a flight, give them a handheld and a soda and they can do it from the comfort and safety of your hangar!
BTW...I have sat with a very popular builder of props, being his radio operator while he transcribed data from the pilot into his computer as a new prop was being evaluated.
 
Toobuilder said:
Why not? What is the practical difference between a ?habitual builder? and a "hired gun"?

This continues to be a wonderful discussion, and just to answer this question, and perhaps provide a little bit of levity, I can absolutely tell you the difference between a hired gun and a habitual builder. From personal experience, it is the thinning of the wallet over time. :) We are so upside down from a financial perspective because I love to put all of the toys in my airplanes, and have sold all of them except one at a loss, usually around 20%-30%.
I do tell everyone that the real reason I work at a real job is so that I can build and fly airplanes. And it's why I became a DAR. I love aviation, and I love helping others. I assure you the DAR work I do is not very profitable either, but I enjoy the people I meet and the chance to see a lot of different airplanes and methods of construction.
It's the same reason Boards like VAF are so successful, along with so many of the cottage industries that have sprung up as a result of Experimental aviation like Steinair, Avery Tools, Flightline Interiors, etc... there are so many of us who do this out of passion and love for aviation. And we enjoy an IMMENSE amount of freedom to do what we do. My fear, and what started all of this, is that a few people are going to ruin it for all of us. We really don't need more rules. As someone already pointed out, the Order is already too complicated.
Click to expand...
 
vic syracuse said:
Toobuilder said:
Why not? What is the practical difference between a ?habitual builder? and a "hired gun"?

...This continues to be a wonderful discussion, and just to answer this question, and perhaps provide a little bit of levity, I can absolutely tell you the difference between a hired gun and a habitual builder...
Click to expand...

While we all recognize the levity, the motivation of the builder does not fundamentally change the end product. My point was simply that the finished kit airplane does not carry any more or less risk to the end user or general public. Aside from the stroke of a lawmaker?s pen, a habitual builder and the hired gun are the same.
Click to expand...
 
Toobuilder said:
vic syracuse said:
While we all recognize the levity, the motivation of the builder does not fundamentally change the end product. My point was simply that the finished kit airplane does not carry any more or less risk to the end user or general public. Aside from the stroke of a lawmaker?s pen, a habitual builder and the hired gun are the same.
Click to expand...

Michael, I disagree wholeheartedly, but ONLY from my viewpoint. As a habitual offender I build the airplanes the way I want them to be built, and on my time schedule. I learn along the way, make mistakes, share ideas, etc. I can tell you from my perspective that I would NOT get the same enjoyment having to build an airplane for someone else to their spec's, trying to meet their schedule, and potentially needing to worry about making a profit.
Is there more or less risk to the end user? I think perhaps there is demonstrated rushing through the Phase I portion by hired guns that might be increasing the risk, as opposed to flying them for a few years and then selling them. My experience has been that the first 100 hours of any airplane (standard or amateur-built) are usually the most revealing about reliability and potential areas of problems.

Vic
Click to expand...
 
Toobuilder said:
Aside from the stroke of a lawmaker?s pen, a habitual builder and the hired gun are the same.
Click to expand...

How about the fact that the habitual builder has his/her name listed as builder of the aircraft. The hired gun does not.
 
Mel said:
How about the fact that the habitual builder has his/her name listed as builder of the aircraft. The hired gun does not.
Click to expand...

I don?t follow you Mel?

Aside from a premium given to products from a particularly well respected builder, does the original builder?s name have anything to do with the airplane? There are plenty of RV?s on their 2nd (or more) owners? As long as it is built correctly, who cares who actually built it?
 
vic syracuse said:
...Michael, I disagree wholeheartedly, but ONLY from my viewpoint...
Click to expand...

While it may be true in your particular case Vic, I don?t think it is an accurate assumption that hired guns generally produce inferior (read- unsafe) aircraft compared to those turned out by ?legitimate? serial builders. At any rate, this is certainly not the case for the majority of the used market dominated by first time builders. There are some very poor examples lurking on the used market, which we (as a forum) enthusiastically point to as an ?alternative? to hired guns.:confused:
 
Toobuilder said:
I As long as it is built correctly, who cares who actually built it?
Click to expand...

The certified aircraft manufacturers will care. They're the ones that have to jump through all the hoops. This is direct competition, with very little liability. Competition is good, but not when the hired gun has such an upper hand in regards to the liability question.

L.Adamson
 
L.Adamson said:
The certified aircraft manufacturers will care...
Click to expand...

That is a different discussion from "risk", but I can say that the certified products offer a tangible benefit in the form of testing, certification, warranty, etc that a cottage "kit plane assembler" could never touch. There may be a few crossover customers, but for the most part it is a completely different customer base. It's like Gulfstream being worried about a spike in TBM 850 sales... It's whole different customer.
 
Toobuilder said:
I don?t follow you Mel?
Click to expand...

I think that Mel's point is very clear. The issue is who is the builder of record. I have no problem with someone building an airplane, registering it in their name, flying off the phase one, and then selling it. A classic case of someone that likes building more than flying. The other scenario is setting up shop and taking an order from a customer for "their" airplane, and building it to their tastes. Then registering it in the customer's name, flying off the phase one, and presenting the finished airplane to customer along with a bill. This is against the letter and spirit of the rules. Rules, I might add, that are really unlikely to change. If you want to see the clout of the established manufacturers, give it a try, but I think you will find yourself facing a bunch of expensive attorneys and well connected lobbyists.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAAST Team Representative
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
Toobuilder said:
While it may be true in your particular case Vic, I don?t think it is an accurate assumption that hired guns generally produce inferior (read- unsafe) aircraft compared to those turned out by ?legitimate? serial builders. At any rate, this is certainly not the case for the majority of the used market dominated by first time builders. There are some very poor examples lurking on the used market, which we (as a forum) enthusiastically point to as an ?alternative? to hired guns.:confused:
Click to expand...

Please, I was not in any way insinuating that the hired guns are building inferior products. Potentially, they could and should be much better due to the constant learning and building. And I agree that there are terrible examples out there of all types of amateur-built aircraft.


At the end of the day, rules are being flagrantly broken and people are getting hurt, some as a direct consequence, and some not. But it is bringing visibility, and consequences (increased insurance, bad reputation for experimental aircraft, etc.). And I doubt Cessna, Piper, Cirrus, you name it, are going to sit around and continue to let the hired-gun shops turn out RV-10's in direct competition with their products for 1/3 of the cost, a lot of which has to do with the cost of certification and liability. We either police ourselves or we are going to get help, and frankly, I think we get enough "help" already.

Vic
 
Back to the “safety” crutch some might use to justify a second person during Phase 1. Personally I do not recall ever making a flight where “safety” was the mission/objective. Safety is an overriding evaluation when determining if the flight will be conducted and is often the reason for canceling a flight.

The NTSB report states: “According to the pilot, the purpose of the flight was to familiarize himself with the experimental amateur-built airplane.” So in this case you can’t use “safety” to justify another at risk person on-board during Phase 1.

I have only flown Phase 1 for one aircraft and in that case never felt that a second person would have been that useful. I collected data safely...although often times it was not my best penmanship.

The larger concern I had after hearing about this event was whether there was an in-flight fire. There seems to be some concern about the tunnel if the term is correct. There was no info forthcoming from either pilot on what happened. From the NTSB report:

“....as the pilot slowly increased engine power they heard a loud bang from the engine and oil began covering the windscreen. He noted that the engine continued to run erratically, but engine speed could not be controlled using the throttle or propeller controls.”

From this I would gather that there was no in-flight fire. Something broke. Whether it was a component failure, poor installation of a component or some other factor is unknown and at this point I am not sure what possible scenarios would account for the “reported” symptoms. Unless the smoking gun was incinerated by the post-impact fire, it would be nice if the builder or NTSB could identify the failure. I do not know if the NTSB will bother doing that in this case.
 
Last edited:
John Clark said:
...This is against the letter and spirit of the rules.
Click to expand...


This was addressed on page 4, post 36 of this thread. "Change the rules"

Since then we've been discussing the risk of such a change.

Nobody is debating whether a hired gun is within the current rules - we all know they are not.
 
vic syracuse said:
...At the end of the day, rules are being flagrantly broken and people are getting hurt, some as a direct consequence, and some not...
Click to expand...

We are in complete agreement Vic. However, the rules are being broken due to some particularly strong market forces. Further, this wrongdoing does not seem to have practical risks to safety ? only our freedom to build. So why not embrace the situation and change the rules, as Canada has done, and instantly correct ?the problem?. Seems like this is going to be a much easier solution than trying to chase down every wannabe owner with a fat checkbook.
 
vic syracuse said:
We either police ourselves or we are going to get help, and frankly, I think we get enough "help" already.

Vic
Click to expand...

By "We" do you mean DARs who sign-off on hired-gun aircraft? Other than that you nor anyone else can police anyone without authority to do so...we have an agency to do the policing - they are called the FAA. They don't seem overly concerned.

Insurance rates have been going down (check recent thread).

So what is broken here?

As long as the demand exists, supply will accomodate.
 
Mel said:
Not sure who did your earlier inspections but I've been doing this since 1999 and the program letter has always been a requirement since then.
I do know that there have been many audits of experimental amateur-built aircraft files in Oklahoma City, and they always come up with around 80% with errors of some kind.
Click to expand...

In a discussion this morning with another builder, we talked about several instances in which a FSDO granted an aircraft with a YIO-540-D4A5 and an AirFlow Fuel Injection a 25 hour Phase 1.

I suspect this is one type of error you are referencing.

Other than it's the current rules we have to follow, I'm struggling with the differences in the IO-540 and the YIO-540, and perhaps other similiar substitutions that requires an additional 15 hours of flight testing. Other than the data plate, there really isn't a difference in the two engines.

What additional tests would you conduct to consume an additional 15 hours that you hadn't already performed in the first 25 hours? I think this is why we sometimes get builders that just end up boring holes in the sky rather than conduct usefull testing.

It just seems strange that we can't justify the use of a second crewmember in the assistance of testing the avionics in a technology advanced aircraft in Phase I during the 25-40 hour test period. I know that isn't the current rules, but I think it should be allowed.

bob
 
rleffler said:
Other than it's the current rules we have to follow, I'm struggling with the differences in the IO-540 and the YIO-540, and perhaps other similiar substitutions that requires an additional 15 hours of flight testing. Other than the data plate, there really isn't a difference in the two engines.
Click to expand...

The difference is in the paperwork. The YIO engine does not include the paperwork to meet a type certificate.
 
Ron Lee said:
Back to the ?safety? crutch some might use to justify a second person during Phase 1. Personally I do not recall ever making a flight where ?safety? was the mission/objective. Safety is an overriding evaluation when determining if the flight will be conducted and is often the reason for canceling a flight.....
Click to expand...

I rezemble the implication safety is a crutch or a crutch is safety. :)

The prime objective of any flight it's safe conclusion. PERIOD.

I believe the term "essential to the purpose of the flight" was put in there by a very wise person. We should not be so wimpish about using it. We should also not abuse the fact it is there.

No one in aviation has ever been crucified for facilitating the safe conclusion a flight.
 
Mel said:
The difference is in the paperwork.
And THAT is the meat of this debate. We're not really talking about a safety issue. What we are talking about is following the rules at the expense of safety.

The FAA would rather I fly a 40 year old Bonanza that someone signed off as airworthy rather than hiring a talanted (but possibly unliscensed) builder to construct a cutom RV-10 for me. Safety is second. Common sense is third. Compliance is first.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
vic syracuse said:
At the end of the day, rules are being flagrantly broken and people are getting hurt, some as a direct consequence, and some not.
Vic
Click to expand...

I think there is some confusion having this part of the argument in the Safety category as it relates to the rules violations of the build for hire shops. You certainly can argue that our industry or others are being hurt ( I am not entering into that one), but I dont think there is a Safety issue with the products I have seen produced by the "pro builders".
So I think this part of the argument has been miscategorized and has confused some of the points trying to be made.

My two cents; You can't do anything without the DAR sign off, so frankly I put this whole issue back on them. Don't sign the paper work. The pro shop can always put the aircraft under thier name and sell it under contract. They just have to be willing to accept the liability. That $200k RV-10 just became a lot more expensive.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top