What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Build Center?

Status
Not open for further replies.
DanH

DanH

Legacy Member
Mentor
<<Go to http://www.assistaviation.com/builder_tips.htm to see a full description.>>

I've opened a new thread with a quote from another....topic change. Go ahead, check out the website. See "How it Works" and "Pricing".

I'm quite aware how many pro-builders are out there.....some of them are good friends. Most have the sense to run their business a lot like my uncle made moonshine.....quietly.

Sorry Bill, but I think you're way, way over the line. And please, save the "technically, it's legal" argument. The FAA is reviewing the legal aspect right now, which is why I believe your approach to be irresponsible and detrimental.....to ordinary homebuilders, other pro-builders, and to your customers.
 
After all the recent news with the FAA and this topic, I was kind of shocked when I looked at that website.
 
Wonder if the FAA has discovered VAF yet????

Posting something like the above is a pretty much ironclad admission of guilt, it would seem to me.
 
After writing letters to the FAA pleading for grandfathered kits and a sensible approach to changes to the 51% rule in an effort to ensure that my 40k half finished kit plane didn't turn into 5k of scrap aluminum, stuff like this just makes me mad. Many of us have been geniunely nervous over the fate of homebuilding for the first half of this year, and why? Because people like this manipulating the situation to turn a few bucks while putting everyone else at risk.

Bill - I think this is your que to quietly disappear.
 
What category

In what category are these aircraft going to be licensed? It sure doesn't look like education and entertainment to me.

TC
 
Short

I think this looks like a very short business venture... I would think the FAA will probably be showing face in a day or so :eek: and should for the good of all of us builders out there. :D
 
Last edited:
Seems I saw something in the last year the FAA was going to consider the number of aircraft an individual has built, sold, built, sold, built sold as evidence against "educational".

We better police ourselves before big brother steps in.
 
contact us??

ASSIST AVIATION said:
If you have an questions or comments good or bad please feel free to send me an e-mail. You can also call me at the number on the contact page. That is my personal cell phone or if you are in the area stop by for a bottle of cold water and some friendly conversation.
Click to expand...

perhaps we should send him a few emails, or give him a call... (not harassing, just informing)


ASSIST AVIATION said:
Lone Star Executive airport has over 20 RV's, many miscellaneous experimental aircraft, and EAA Chapter 302 based on the field.
Click to expand...

i wonder how EAA 302 feels about this "business venture"?

:mad:
 
has he even finished??

ASSIST AVIATION said:
I ordered the empennage kit for the RV 7 I am currently building shortly after the 7 first came out. I had just received the RV 6 builder manual when news of the RV 7 was released. The plastic around the manual had not even been broken when I called Van's and asked if I could exchange it for the RV 7 manual. They happily made that happen. When I received the empennage kit I was teary eyed from the joy of beginning a lifelong dream. However; I was a little over zealous in my prediction of how fast I would build my plane (as a lot of us are at first) and after three house moves I was able to continue the project.
Click to expand...

is he not even done his own plane yet??? :eek:

or is he done but just hasn't updated the site yet... if that's true i have a hard time believing this next quote:
ASSIST AVIATION said:
A minimum of 3 e-mails a week keeping you informed of progress.
Click to expand...
 
questions?

Just to clarify before I state anything further here, the below postulations are written to serve for "food for thought" and are not intended to garner support for or admonition toward the discussed business venture.

So, to play devil's advocate:

Why does this person's idea of this builder assist go against the rules as they are written?

Question One: Recreation and education?

One poster questioned where the education and recreation comes from in this venture. One could argue that this gentleman will garner a great deal of education in building multiple airplanes and, I might add, a great deal of education in running such a business venture at the same time.

He most certainly must be doing this with some measure of recreation as a motive also, as I would think it extremely difficult to make a comfortable long term living doing this with the current state of affairs surrounding the GA market place, let alone the experimental market. I would have a hard time believing he would make a long term career out of it. Of course I might be wrong on this point if enough people do indeed believe this would be a good idea and send him business.

Further, I would question why, or even how, the FAA deems they can or should make a determination of a person's motivation for their behavior?

Question Two: How can this person blatantly advertise a builder assist program when the FAA has expressly shown their displeasure toward these types of ventures?

This is a regulatory area that I have often felt the FAA had very little ammunition to use in arguing their case. If asked the question; "what is the purpose of the FAA and all of their many faceted rules and regulations?", I would expect that any random 10 non-aviation individuals, perhaps you, and even I would answer with; "To look out for the safety and well being of the flying and the general public!"

I might question what aspect of protecting the safety of the flying or general public would be violated by having a highly skilled experienced builder construct an airplane over that of an amateur who had never taken on that adventure before?

Would it not be much safer to have a well-heeled builder construct such a complicated instrument of transportation? If not, then why would you think your building process would be safer?

There is some wording in the text of this website eluding to who would be designated as the builder of this aircraft. This gentleman has stated he would be the designated builder of record with the FAA and therefore the Repairman Certificate and all the privileges and responsibilities associated with that certificate would belong to him the builder. Is this not what was intended by the FAA when making such rulings about who would be given the Repairman Certificate of an Amateur built aircraft? If he is the builder is he not entitled to be so designated by the FAA?

So then, what happens once he builds it and flies off the Phase I time, then wishes to sell it? How many out there have done just that, then turned around to build another aircraft? Where is the difference? Other than this person's advertising that this is indeed his goal? How is this different than many others out there currently building who have no commercial intentions whatsoever, but feel that they will eventually sell their aircraft?

Perhaps saying this one individual or any others that may be like him must be stopped just because we are afraid they will close the doors for all of us should be well evaluated. We should not become so emotionally charged that we refuse to examine all of the aspects of the situation.


There may be some merits in arguing against the FAA's stance on this issue rather than backing down from the "ANGRY BEAR".

Ok, again before anyone decides to "jump down my throat" for supporting this endeavor, please re-read my first sentence above.

Live Long and Prosper!
 
not "jumping down your throat" but a few observations...

as i read his sight, he didn't sound like an "experienced builder" he mentioned his dream of building his own plane, and he then mentioned his "tears of joy" as he realized the dream when the [brand new] RV-7 emp kit showed up.... THEN he says that he's CONTINUING to build.....

kinda seems like that's his FIRST project, and still yet to be finished.... you can even check his "progress pics" page, his wings aren't yet finished..

IMHO he doesn't sound like an experienced builder.


and yes, many people may sell their completed airplane, and yes, there will be some profit margin, BUT those personal projects aren't built with SPECIFIED labor cost's...

and aside from all that... doesn't it defeat the entire purpose of BUILDING YOUR OWN PLANE??
 
Well, I think it's pretty well summed up in the category name -- experimental/amateur-built. By definition, something done with a profit motive is not recreation, it's profession.

There's very little gray area here.
 
RVbySDI said:
Just to clarify before I state anything further here, the below postulations are written to serve for "food for thought" and are not intended to garner support for or admonition toward the discussed business venture.

<SNIP>

Question One: Recreation and education?

One poster questioned where the education and recreation comes from in this venture. One could argue that this gentleman will garner a great deal of education in building multiple airplanes and, I might add, a great deal of education in running such a business venture at the same time.

He most certainly must be doing this with some measure of recreation as a motive also, as I would think it extremely difficult to make a comfortable long term living doing this with the current state of affairs surrounding the GA market place, let alone the experimental market. I would have a hard time believing he would make a long term career out of it. Of course I might be wrong on this point if enough people do indeed believe this would be a good idea and send him business.

Further, I would question why, or even how, the FAA deems they can or should make a determination of a person's motivation for their behavior?
Click to expand...

There's a key word in FAR 21.191(g): "Operating amateur-built aircraft. Operating an aircraft the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by persons who undertook the construction project solely for their own education or recreation." [Emphasis added.]

Courts and regulatory agencies can and do determine intent from the totality of the circumstances, all the time. Mind-reading is not required. The website plainly states this is the builder's "full time job".

Question Two: How can this person blatantly advertise a builder assist program when the FAA has expressly shown their displeasure toward these types of ventures? <SNIP>
Click to expand...
I'm just surprised by the directness of the advertisement. My concern would be, what happens when someone purchases the plane only later to maybe have the EAB certificate yanked? This might leave the buyer with a five-figure paperweight, or something only flyable for exhibition or demonstration.
 
Re: Food for Thought

RVbySDI said:
Just to clarify before I state anything further here, the below postulations are written to serve for "food for thought" and are not intended to garner support for or admonition toward the discussed business venture.

So, to play devil's advocate:

Why does this person's idea of this builder assist go against the rules as they are written?

Question One: Recreation and education?

One poster questioned where the education and recreation comes from in this venture. One could argue that this gentleman will garner a great deal of education in building multiple airplanes and, I might add, a great deal of education in running such a business venture at the same time.

He most certainly must be doing this with some measure of recreation as a motive also, as I would think it extremely difficult to make a comfortable long term living doing this with the current state of affairs surrounding the GA market place, let alone the experimental market. I would have a hard time believing he would make a long term career out of it. Of course I might be wrong on this point if enough people do indeed believe this would be a good idea and send him business.

Further, I would question why, or even how, the FAA deems they can or should make a determination of a person's motivation for their behavior?

Question Two: How can this person blatantly advertise a builder assist program when the FAA has expressly shown their displeasure toward these types of ventures?

This is a regulatory area that I have often felt the FAA had very little ammunition to use in arguing their case. If asked the question; "what is the purpose of the FAA and all of their many faceted rules and regulations?", I would expect that any random 10 non-aviation individuals, perhaps you, and even I would answer with; "To look out for the safety and well being of the flying and the general public!"

I might question what aspect of protecting the safety of the flying or general public would be violated by having a highly skilled experienced builder construct an airplane over that of an amateur who had never taken on that adventure before?

Would it not be much safer to have a well-heeled builder construct such a complicated instrument of transportation? If not, then why would you think your building process would be safer?

There is some wording in the text of this website eluding to who would be designated as the builder of this aircraft. This gentleman has stated he would be the designated builder of record with the FAA and therefore the Repairman Certificate and all the privileges and responsibilities associated with that certificate would belong to him the builder. Is this not what was intended by the FAA when making such rulings about who would be given the Repairman Certificate of an Amateur built aircraft? If he is the builder is he not entitled to be so designated by the FAA?

So then, what happens once he builds it and flies off the Phase I time, then wishes to sell it? How many out there have done just that, then turned around to build another aircraft? Where is the difference? Other than this person's advertising that this is indeed his goal? How is this different than many others out there currently building who have no commercial intentions whatsoever, but feel that they will eventually sell their aircraft?

Perhaps saying this one individual or any others that may be like him must be stopped just because we are afraid they will close the doors for all of us should be well evaluated. We should not become so emotionally charged that we refuse to examine all of the aspects of the situation.


There may be some merits in arguing against the FAA's stance on this issue rather than backing down from the "ANGRY BEAR".

Ok, again before anyone decides to "jump down my throat" for supporting this endeavor, please re-read my first sentence above.

Live Long and Prosper!
Click to expand...

Not to "jump down your throat", but to counter some of your points:
First, the rules are for AMATEUR built aircraft - not commercial/professional builders. There are other rules for this type of operation. (Ask Cessna and Piper about these rules.) the FAA (or anyone) can see this is not just a hobby since he is putting a price on his labor. (The IRS would get involved here also, but that's for another forum). So I believe your arguments for "educational and recreational" are not really pertinent here. Clearly not his intent.

Second, how do we know this person is a "highly skilled experienced builder"? That's why we have CERTIFIED airplanes. To ensure builders are skilled and experienced. From his web site, it doesn't appear he has even finnished one RV... I can't argue that a kit built by someone who has built before MAY be safer than someone who is a first timer, but again, that is not what the amateur rules are about. And this is also why there are EAA sanctioned tech advisors to look over one's shoulders and help you build a safe airplane.

I agree there may be very close lines of distinction between what is a commercial operation and a habitual builder. Bottom line is there are regulations that allow people to build airplanes as a business and if you fall into that realm, you should follow the rules and compete on equal footing with those who do.
No flames, just my opinion...
 
lightning said:
as i read his sight, he didn't sound like an "experienced builder" he mentioned his dream of building his own plane, and he then mentioned his "tears of joy" as he realized the dream when the [brand new] RV-7 emp kit showed up.... THEN he says that he's CONTINUING to build.....

kinda seems like that's his FIRST project, and still yet to be finished.... you can even check his "progress pics" page, his wings aren't yet finished..

IMHO he doesn't sound like an experienced builder.


and yes, many people may sell their completed airplane, and yes, there will be some profit margin, BUT those personal projects aren't built with SPECIFIED labor cost's...

and aside from all that... doesn't it defeat the entire purpose of BUILDING YOUR OWN PLANE??
Click to expand...
I agree with you on the point of building your own airplane. However, I know there are many out there who are not builders. Do they forgo the opportunity to fly an experimental airplane because no one who builds one should be allowed to sell one if the "FAA Motivation Police" designate the builder as not building with the correct reasons in mind?

Jamie said:
Well, I think it's pretty well summed up in the category name -- experimental/amateur-built. By definition, something done with a profit motive is not recreation, it's profession.

There's very little gray area here.
Click to expand...
So then, if this person prices his assistance so that he gains no monetary profit in it he would be allowed to assist someone?

And then there is that "/" in that definition. To me that implies there is a designation difference between the meaning of the word "experimental" and the word "amateur" such that the FAA felt it important to include the "/". I would therefore infer from the designation that there is a defined difference between an experimental airplane and an amateur-built airplane that needs to be spelled out so that the rule would cover both types of aircraft.

I cannot help but wonder if it is something other than an issue of SAFETY that is motivating this kind of scrutiny by the FAA. My cynical nature believes it is more likely a combination of ECONOMICS driven by the industry and a strong need for BUREAUCRATIC PRESERVATION that fuels these rules. The FAA does have to justify its rulings somehow. If that branch of the government is tasked with the safety of flight in our country and they make rules based on ideas other than the safety of the public, they will have to justify their rulings somehow.

Now, again, please believe me on this. I truly have no dog in this fight. Or. . ., maybe now that I think about it, I may have a dog. I am building my own airplane. In actuality, I am building my second airplane now. I have just sold my first airplane that I built, registered and flew for almost 4 years. I would hate to think that the FAA would ever criminalize me for selling my Experimental/Amateur-Built aircraft. I see a fine line being drawn with this issue.

As stated before "food for thought".
 
economics

RVbySDI said:
... My cynical nature believes it is more likely a combination of ECONOMICS driven by the industry and a strong need for BUREAUCRATIC PRESERVATION that fuels these rules. The FAA does have to justify its rulings somehow. If that branch of the government is tasked with the safety of flight in our country and they make rules based on ideas other than the safety of the public, they will have to justify their rulings somehow. ...
Click to expand...
If the certified manufacturers were not complaining to the FAA, would we be having this discussion? I doubt it.

About government justifying their rules and rulings - the trend is fast moving away from that. Money talks, and we the sheeple don't seem to mind or just aren't paying attention.
 
RVbySDI said:
<SNIP>

And then there is that "/" in that definition. To me that implies there is a designation difference between the meaning of the word "experimental" and the word "amateur" such that the FAA felt it important to include the "/". I would therefore infer from the designation that there is a defined difference between an experimental airplane and an amateur-built airplane that needs to be spelled out so that the rule would cover both types of aircraft.

<SNIP>
Click to expand...

It's not an "or" relationship; rather amateur-built aircraft are a type of experimental. There are several types of experimental operations for which the FAA issues airworthiness certificates:

(a) Research and development;
(b) Showing compliance with regulations;
(c) Crew training;
(d) Exhibition;
(e) Air racing;
(f) Market surveys;
(g) Operating amateur-built aircraft;
(h) Operating primary kit-built aircraft; and
(i) Operating light-sport aircraft [built from a kit].

For example, many warbirds are operated as Experimental-Exhibition. They operate under substantially different conditions and restrictions than E-AB aircraft.
 
More than the particulars of this one pro builder, I'm interested in the pro builder concept and some other issues.

- I hope the FAA will add another category of building to allow pro building to occur. Some kind of examining and licensing of the builders, and some kind of training of owners before they could repair their aircraft. There is space in the GA marketplace for pro built kit planes, let's legitimize this instead of bashing it.

- I'd like to see some kind of removal or reduction of legal liability for the truly amateur built aircraft that is sold. Numbers of builders have commented on their concern for their liability should they sell their airplane, and it's crossed my mind as well. I'd like to see something like the time limit certificated airplanes have, except instead of 18 years, maybe 3-5 years.
 
It is clear that I have made a decision to bring out points on the opposite side of an extremely unpopular concept. My intention was to attempt to look at both sides of the issue. Not just let my emotions run how I think about this topic. It is like the tail wheel proponent refusing to acknowledge there are benefits to a nose wheel. I try to use my mind as God intended when making decisions on my actions. My involvement with this thread is motivated by my desire to exercise my mind in order to better understand this topic.

Label me a rebel if you will but I do not wish to live in a world where I do not have the freedom to examine or even question some authority over the reasons for their actions when they feel it appropriate to do that very same thing concerning my actions!
 
rfinch said:
More than the particulars of this one pro builder, I'm interested in the pro builder concept and some other issues.

- I hope the FAA will add another category of building to allow pro building to occur. Some kind of examining and licensing of the builders, and some kind of training of owners before they could repair their aircraft. There is space in the GA marketplace for pro built kit planes, let's legitimize this instead of bashing it.

- I'd like to see some kind of removal or reduction of legal liability for the truly amateur built aircraft that is sold. Numbers of builders have commented on their concern for their liability should they sell their airplane, and it's crossed my mind as well. I'd like to see something like the time limit certificated airplanes have, except instead of 18 years, maybe 3-5 years.
Click to expand...
Now this was what I wanted to spur on for discussion on this topic when I decided to write my comments!:D

Not just to have some poor unsuspecting sole bashed to death for having a different idea about builder assistance. I think this could go a long way toward legitimizing our amateur built airplane world.
 
E-AB

RVbySDI said:
Now this was what I wanted to spur on for discussion on this topic when I decided to write my comments!:D

Not just to have some poor unsuspecting sole bashed to death for having a different idea about builder assistance. I think this could go a long way toward legitimizing our amateur built airplane world.
Click to expand...

But then it would no longer be Amateur Built...
 
Exercise is great!

RVbySDI said:
It is clear that I have made a decision to bring out points on the opposite side of an extremely unpopular concept. My intention was to attempt to look at both sides of the issue. Not just let my emotions run how I think about this topic. It is like the tail wheel proponent refusing to acknowledge there are benefits to a nose wheel. I try to use my mind as God intended when making decisions on my actions. My involvement with this thread is motivated by my desire to exercise my mind in order to better understand this topic.

Label me a rebel if you will but I do not wish to live in a world where I do not have the freedom to examine or even question some authority over the reasons for their actions when they feel it appropriate to do that very same thing concerning my actions!
Click to expand...

I don't have a dog in this fight either, other than I will be extremely irritated if the FAA, responding to the actions of a relatively small number of people, shuts down my ability to build (MYSELF) and operate the plane I want, which I have just started to do. I've already had the chance to "assume the position" and "experience" certified ownership, and I would "not like another", sir.

I would just like to mark a clear line between what "is" and what "could" or "should" be. The fact that there are perhaps many reasons for allowing pro builders does not change the fact that it's not currently permitted. I don't think that just barging right through the existing regulations is somehow going to help that case.

If we all want pro builders to be allowed, then let's make the case to the FAA. After all, they are not set in stone. Witness E-SLA and Primary kit built, which did not even exist in the past, right?
 
RVbySDI said:
Which, if I read his post correctly, is what Mr Finch was discussing. Why not a new designation? "Experimental/Professional-Built"
Click to expand...
Yes. Like others, I don't want the actions of a few blatant pro builders to damage my own ability, under existing rules, to build, fly, and repair my amateur built, experimental airplane. And I'd agree that simply launching pro builder businesses is probably not the best way to bring about a new designation. OTOH, there surely is a demand for this, which I really hope the FAA and the amateur industry recognize and encourage.

The FAA has a dual role, or perhaps a single role: to promote aviation and flight safety. Perhaps only the first role, because aviation must be first safe for the public to accept it and use it, and therefore safety can be seen as merely a component of promotion. At any rate promotion of aviation is a major role of the FAA and professional builders of kit planes is a valid market that now needs to be correctly promoted.

Likewise encouraging a secondary market for amateur built planes is something I wish the EAA and FAA would work on. It would be to the builders' and buyers' interests if the legal uncertainties regarding liability of second hand amateur planes could be cleared up. It goes again to promoting aviation.
 
This just really gets me.

I am not against the guy who finances and builds his own aircraft, and get's so much enjoyment out of the build process that he sells his plane, and builds another.

Where I start to get concerned is when a builder wants to take payment for parts and labor up front, with no guarantee of refund, to build and certify an aircraft.

...and I get really concerned when
a) said builder has no demonstrated experience in completed an aircraft
b) The purchaser (who likely has more money than brains) has no protection in the event the builder starts making modifications (or shortcuts) in the build process.

I think we dodged a bullet with the 51% rule on existing kits, and I am not sure what the future holds. This sort of activity doesn't do anything to help.
 
My thought is that if someone wants to be a pro builder, that's fine. Find a section of the regulations which allow that and proceed. If one doesn't exist, invest the time and effort to get one created. Didn't the EAA do just that to get Amateur/Experimental (Am/Ex) created?

On the other hand, it is reprehensible when pro builders jeopardize the Am/Ex category by pretending to operate within its guidelines. All that does is create the potential for Am/Ex to be redefined more strictly or eliminated.

Oh, and by the way, I think it is wrong when a pro-built aircraft is entered into judging at SnF, Oshkosh, etc. That's an insult to folks who did it the right way.
 
REMEMBER

"The Agony of Poor Quality lingers long after the Sweetness of Cheap Price has worn off."
 
gvgoff99 said:
"The Agony of Poor Quality lingers long after the Sweetness of Cheap Price has worn off."
Click to expand...

Ah yes... " the bitterness of poor quality and service remains long after the sweetness of the low price" . There's a few of these sayings out there. This business will never get off the ground! Next Subject... :eek:
 
.gov agencies

RVbySDI said:
I cannot help but wonder if it is something other than an issue of SAFETY that is motivating this kind of scrutiny by the FAA. My cynical nature believes it is more likely a combination of ECONOMICS driven by the industry and a strong need for BUREAUCRATIC PRESERVATION that fuels these rules. The FAA does have to justify its rulings somehow. If that branch of the government is tasked with the safety of flight in our country and they make rules based on ideas other than the safety of the public, they will have to justify their rulings somehow.
Click to expand...

when you put it that way, it makes the FAA sound an awful lot like the BATFE

I agree with this idea of the motivation of the governing agency. interpreting the rules one way or the other for this guy isn't interesting to me.

*airplanes are dangerous, and most citizens are not capable of producing a safe airplane.*
 
rfinch said:
More than the particulars of this one pro builder, I'm interested in the pro builder concept and some other issues.

- I hope the FAA will add another category of building to allow pro building to occur. Some kind of examining and licensing of the builders, and some kind of training of owners before they could repair their aircraft. There is space in the GA marketplace for pro built kit planes, let's legitimize this instead of bashing it.
Click to expand...

do you think cessna and other certificate holders will go for this? they tend to have big pockets for lobyists and i think would persuade the law makers very hard to not go for this.

- I'd like to see some kind of removal or reduction of legal liability for the truly amateur built aircraft that is sold. Numbers of builders have commented on their concern for their liability should they sell their airplane, and it's crossed my mind as well. I'd like to see something like the time limit certificated airplanes have, except instead of 18 years, maybe 3-5 years.
Click to expand...

that would be nice, but in reality, is that kind of liability really a problem? a Kitplanes article recently said (from my wet drive, may be in error) that no one has every been sued or sued successfully for liability after building and selling an EAB. and also discussed some very simple and commonsense ways to drastically reduce any liability.
 
<<Why not a new designation? "Experimental/Professional-Built">>

Why not use "Experimental/Exhibition", as quite a few of the truly professional builders do? Or, if you really want to build airplanes for a living, why not get into the SLSA business?

Well, because both have restrictive rules and requirements. Start a new category, and it too will come with new rules. To avoid the restrictions and professional requirements, the same guys will still ignore or game the current E/AB rules. A new category won't reduce pro-building in E/AB.....and the FAA people know it. An E/AB re-write is going on right now. I predict you're not going to like it when you see it. I hope to be wrong.

Back in the good 'ole days, the FAA pretty much gave the ultralight industry a wink and a nod regarding two-place machines. The industry sold 10 times more two-place kits than single-place kits....but of course they were all used for "training". Few of the single-seaters would pass the scale test or the speed tests, but that was OK too. Just don't crash in a schoolyard. Don't embarrass us. Don't make waves.

Everybody had fun and freedom. Cheap flying was possible. Life was good.

Then, at S&F in 2000, a few fools decided to show everyone how cool they were. They entered their "ultralight trainers" in the S&F air race and blew past the finish line going 115 or so. That little straw broke the camel's back. The offenders were grounded on the spot, and for the first time in memory, the inspectors invaded Paradise City with badges out. It was NOT a happy time.

Six years later the wraps came off a wonderful new category, Light Sport, aka ELSA and SLSA. The carrot (and all you heard about from the start), was the "driver's license medical". However, formal flight training by certificated instructors in formal airplanes was required. Formal school attendance was required for maintenance privileges, even if you built it. You can't modify it without the permission of the manufacturer. All the existing two-place "trainers" got an N-number or got grounded....they're now scrap. The ones that got transfered can't be used as trainers in the near future....gotta support our "new" SLSA industry. Both Paradise City and the Red Barn are dead as canned tuna. And the driver's license medical? Turned out to be true only if you had never failed a medical.

Call me Jacob.....Jacob Marley.
 
It doesn't pencil out...

Putting the FAA issues aside, Assist Aviation's program just won't work. First, the quoted labor charges just aren't enough to make this work as a business. Take the advertised labor charge and divide it by a rational time number and look at the hourly amount. Using his RV8 number of $19500, if it takes him 2500 hours (good luck) the hourly rate is $7.80. You can't run a business an that kind of money. Now put your own hour figure in and have a laugh. Another issue is overhead. The cost of the shop, supplies, insurance, employee benefits, taxes, and utilities are not mentioned so I assume that the labor cost will cove all these expenses. These are the things that will eat your lunch in business.

My guess is that in his vast experience in the automobile business he never owned the business. I will be charitable and assume that this is just naivet?, but I have my doubts. Also of concern is the "payment plan." No one in their right mind would pay all the money up front, not to mention putting the kit in someone else's name. Oh yeah, and he has never built an RV before.

John Clark
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
There are those who want to build and those who want to buy. Buying a used amateur built experimental is one thing...however

...a "contract build center" is openly attempting to perpetrate the myth that the "buyer" is actually the builder. That just isn't right. It violates the spirit (and the freedom, such as it is today) of the laws that allow and govern the amateur built experimental category of aircraft. It is clearly an open and bold attempt to circumvent existing law.

Given our nature to push every boundary we come across, I'm not surprised to see this development...but I am saddened. No good will come of this venture...to anyone...builders, buyers, vans, the homebuilt movement, VAF.

No matter what your thoughts are on this issue, it will mean more scrutiny for us and the planes we love. This will become another example of a few ruining it for the many...
 
John Clark

John Clark, I would like to shake your hand. You get it!

Hope to see you at LOE. OSH, Or some where?
 
RVbySDI said:
It is clear that I have made a decision to bring out points on the opposite side of an extremely unpopular concept. My intention was to attempt to look at both sides of the issue. Not just let my emotions run how I think about this topic. It is like the tail wheel proponent refusing to acknowledge there are benefits to a nose wheel. I try to use my mind as God intended when making decisions on my actions. My involvement with this thread is motivated by my desire to exercise my mind in order to better understand this topic.

Label me a rebel if you will but I do not wish to live in a world where I do not have the freedom to examine or even question some authority over the reasons for their actions when they feel it appropriate to do that very same thing concerning my actions!
Click to expand...

please don't read me wrong!! i'm not labeling you a rebel or being aggressive toward you OR "bill the builder"...

i very simply wanted to point out the facts from bill's ASSIST AVIATION website... and bring up points that he appears to be a first time builder and claims to be an expert and highly experienced builder...

i'm not here to "bash" the "pro builder", BUT i don't think it's a good idea, ESPECIALLY in light of the current issues with the FAA..

AND, i want to point out any anomaly's that may exist in his presentation of his business, TO PREVENT ANY UNSUSPECTING CUSTOMER FROM BLINDLY PAYING TO HAVE THEIR RV "PROFESSIONALLY BUILD" BY A POSSIBLE AMATEUR.


i'm neither for nor against his desire to build for people, but i want everyone to be well informed about exactly WHO will be building their plane.


(i mean ALL these post's with NO animosity, just want to know all the facts) :cool:
 
What surprises me most...

....was that his original post wasn't axed immediately by a moderator, given the past debate on this subject and his intentional flaunting of the rules and asking the builder/buyer to be a co-conspirator.

Regards,
 
i know he's in the houston area, is it this guy? or his son...

or a family member.... on the [assist aviation] website, he says he has extensive auto industry experience..

and has work in sales positions, in MANY different platforms... (not very convincing that he's a "highly experienced" aircraft builder)

http://www.billheardchevrolet.com/site/index.aspx chevy dealer in southwest houston..


on a different note

he mentions "Doug Reeves Vans Airforce website"..
ASSIST AVIATION said:
There is one MUST SEE link and that is Doug Reeves' Van's Air Force. It is filled with outstanding information, forums, pictures, and fun stuff. While you are browsing through his site please take the opportunity to purchase a VAF t-shirt and/or VAF hat. All profits go to the Make A Wish Foundation. There is not a better RV related website on the internet.
Click to expand...


i wonder if Tink wants to be associated with this "build center".........
 
Last edited:
lightning said:
or a family member.... on the [assist aviation] website, he says he has extensive auto industry experience..

and has work in sales positions, in MANY different platforms... (not very convincing that he's a "highly experienced" aircraft builder)

http://www.billheardchevrolet.com/site/index.aspx chevy dealer in southwest houston..


on a different note

he mentions "Doug Reeves Vans Airforce website"..



i wonder if Tink wants to be associated with this "build center".........
Click to expand...

Bill Heard also has dealerships in the Metro-Atlanta, GA area.
 
The car guy has a cr@pload of dealerships and is William T. Heard. The airplane guy seems a little less business-savvy and is William L. Heard. I especially like the part where it says that there are no refunds but that if you decide to stop the project, we'll decide together what to do next. Sounds worse than a divorce!
 
Yearly Salary

In the guys own words - in 8 months or less.

In 8 months, you will work approximately 1370 hours @ 40 hours per week. A 7/8/9 build is is $19.5K. Based on a work year of 2080 hours (no vacation, holidays, etc...). This is a yearly salary of just over $29.5K or an average hourly rate of $14.22 just in labor cost. That's no taxes coming out either.

Only way to make money on this builder program is to either take short cuts or raise the fee.

Don't know about you boys, but it is my fanny at risk up there and when Vans said to do it, I did it.

Do you realize that for every hole you drilled, you had to debur both sides which means if you drill matched 14,000 rivet holes, you spun a drill bit by hand 28,000 times....probably more since you had 2 pieces of metal there. I also wonder how many inches of edges I polished with a scotch brite wheel or by hand.

One other point - If I could get my plane built for less than 20 grand, I could go out and pick up relief work (I'm a pharmacist) and my hours worked in my profession vs time worked on the plane would be a fraction of the time I have invested up to this point. And after working on the fiberglass fairings, I could be persuaded to pay someone 14 bucks an hour to finish them (did I say I hate working with fiberglass).

Besides - I like building "stuff". It it ain't a plane, it's furniture.
 
Suckers!

I think you guys may have totally missed it on this one! Whoa, don't confuse me with someone who supports this guy. That's not what I mean. No, I think this website may be a total hoax. That's right, this guy put together this website just to suck you all in and then he sat back and watched the debate. Probably having a good laugh right now.

Or maybe, this website was put together by the FAA just to see how much interest there was in violating the regulations. Kind of like dressing up as a hooker and arresting johns. I can see the news report now:

"This just in, the FAA has arrested 23 people in a build-for-hire sting. The unsuspecting non-builders all sent in more than $19000 each in an attempt to secure the services of a professional RV builder, who would allegedly build them an RV of their dreams for that sum. Said one FAA official, 'I cannot believe there are that many stupid people out there willing to violate the FAA Experimental/Amature-built rules just so they can have an airplane built to their own specifications. I mean, you can legally just purchase an already built experimental aircraft. Who really believes they can get someone to build an airplane for $19000 plus the cost of materials? I mean, that comes to something like $15 per hour. My maid charges more than that!''"

I wouldn't put it past them...

Or, maybe this website is a total ripoff. Yep, he has those ridiculously low prices just to sucker in some unsuspecting non-builder. How many suckers would he have to scam before he walked off with all of the upfront money and then shut down the website and disappear. He could actually take money from 10 guys and string them all along for 8 months while he built just one airplane and sent the same email and pictures to all 10 guys. ****, with the service that some guys give, he could keep their money for 8 months without even starting to build.

After finishing the airplane, he could put it on the market and pick up another $100,000 profit (remember, the suckers pay for the parts as he builds, so he is out nothing). Wouldn't it be funny to watch the 10 guys all show up at the hangar to take delivery of their new airplane?

Just food for thought.


Tracy.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Tracy

Something just doesn't smell right. I contacted 2 FBO's on the field and neither of them were aware of the business.

Also if you look at the pictures, I saw hanger, garage, workroom, multiple types of drill presses and bench grinders.

Anybody around Lone Star (KCXO) near Houston and want to check it out next time they go flying.

The address is:

Phone: 713-503-0770
E-mail: [email protected]
Location: Lone Star Executive Airport
10002 Dorbandt Building B Hangar 4
Conroe, TX

If you google the phone number, it comes up as:
http://dontmoveitsellit.com/contact.htm
and the website hits the Assist Aviation

With only 244 hits when I looked, it is obviously a new site.

If this is on the level, I wish the guy well and good luck. I won't be using his services, however anybody who has the guts to set foot out there and strike out on their own deserves a bit of respect.

If this is a farce, then they can hang 'em high since it's in Texas.

As P.T. Barnum once said, "there's a sucker born ever day"
 
Conroe

There are a BUNCH of RV'ers at Conroe, and I figure that either:

1) They know this guy, have knowledge of it all, and don't want to comment do to numerous reasons.

2) They are as mystified by this as we are

or

3) they are sitting back and laughing at everyone that has gotten taken in by a practical joke!

Or it could be a dozen other things - anyways, there is a big RV presence up there, but not a lot of web participation - they're all out flying!

Paul
 
Peer Review

This thread is one of the reasons I really like VAF and other narrowly focused forums. Fast and intense peer review. Although I haven't been here long, I see the same kind of camaraderie and expertise that I did on a car forum my son and I found when we rebuilt/souped-up his 72 Dodge Dart for his senior year in high school. Not only is there help available for almost any question, but the scammers and crooks are quickly brought to light.
 
Little gets by

One thing I learned with this crowd is very little gets by.

I would venture to say the brain trust is alive and intact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top