FAA Suspends Review of Kits for "51% Rule"

[the_other_dougreeves]

This has a LOT of implications for kit builders and factory assistance centers. The best quote of the article: "However, the ARC has since concluded the current FAA Directives and Advisory Circulars are no longer adequate."

TODR

From Aero-News Net:

FAA Suspends Courtesy Kit Evaluations For 'Amateur-Built' Status

Fri, 15 Feb '08
ARC Will Revisit The "51-Percent" Rule

With the advent of new fabrication techniques and manufacturer-supported "builder-assist" programs, one could argue the definition of an "amateur-built" aircraft isn't what it used to be.

On Friday, the FAA posted notice in the Federal Register that, until further notice, the agency's Aircraft Certification Service has suspended courtesy inspections of aircraft kits for "amateur-built" status. The purpose of these evaluations was to indicate if a prefabricated amateur-built aircraft kit could be eligible for certification as an amateur-built aircraft.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Aircraft Certification Service established an Amateur-Built Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) on July 26, 2006. The ARC was made up of representatives from the FAA, aircraft kit manufacturers, commercial assistance center owners, and associations. The purpose of the ARC was to make recommendations regarding the use of builder or commercial assistance when fabricating and assembling amateur-built aircraft under FAR 21.191(g) -- the so-called "51 percent" rule.

FAR 21.191(g) defines an amateur-built aircraft as "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." In essence, that means for an aircraft to be declared as amateur-built, the builder must complete construction on the majority of the aircraft's components themselves -- without undue assistance from the kit's manufacturer.

That rule -- or, at least, the spirit of it -- wasn't in dispute when most 'homebuilt' planes were, in fact, completed in the builder's home, hangar, or garage... fabricated from raw materials or a finite number of preassembled components, from a set of plans. In recent years, however -- particularly with the onset of composite construction -- several kit manufacturers started shipping "quick-build" kits, with major subassemblies already fashioned.

Many of those kitmakers also launched builder assistance programs. Some even allow the builder access to a professional facility in which to complete their aircraft, all the tools they need, and assistance from company representatives. The aircraft themselves have also become far more advanced -- with companies offering 'homebuilt' high-performance, pressurized turboprops and even jets, that frankly couldn't be completed without some assistance from professionals.

Those companies maintain their programs are in keeping with the 51 percent rule, as builders still must complete the majority of assembly to the aircraft. However, the ARC has since concluded the current FAA Directives and Advisory Circulars are no longer adequate.

"Current technologies that allow for the fabrication and assembly of sophisticated amateur-built aircraft were not envisioned at the time ? 21.191(g) was promulgated or when the current forms and methodology were developed," the agency states. "Most amateur-built aircraft kits were generally simple to fabricate and assemble and did not require commercial builder assistance. FAA has provided the aforementioned amateur-built kit evaluations in response to manufacturer?s requests to determine if the percentage of the kit completed by the manufacturer would leave the major portion (51%) of the work to be completed by the amateur-builder.

"These evaluations are not a regulatory requirement," the agency adds. "Rather, these evaluations have been a courtesy that FAA has provided for the convenience of the kit manufacturers, their customers, and FAA Inspectors. These evaluations have allowed the FAA to pre-evaluate amateur-built kits to determine (when built according to the manufacturer?s instructions) if the kits could be eligible for an Experimental Airworthiness Certificate under 14 CFR Part 21 ? 21.191, Experimental Certificates. When a kit has been found to be eligible, it is added to the FAA?s kit listing, which is available via the internet to prospective buyers. These kit evaluations inform prospective applicants that they could be eligible for an experimental amateur-built airworthiness certificate if they completed their aircraft in compliance with the FAA-evaluated assembly and instruction manuals and fabricated and constructed the aircraft in compliance with 14 CFR part 21, ? 21.191(g). The method of determining what constitutes the major portion of construction has undergone several changes since the rule was first codified."

The FAA also notes manufacturers offering assistance have allowed amateur-builders to "share credit" for assembly of components with the manufacturer -- a loophole the agency says must be revisited.

"When FAA staff developed the commonly used form 8000?38, "Fabrication and Assembly Operation Checklist", to calculate major portion, the intent was that a single check mark in a column on the form would identify who did the task," the agency states. "Some manufacturers and FAA representatives calculate major portion by using a "task-based" accounting mechanism that incorporates a "dual-check" system whereby an amateur-builder may be given shared credit even if that person does not complete 50% of the task. When this is used in practice, the kit manufacturer and amateur-builder share credit on the Form 8000?38.

"It was not envisioned that credit for a task would be offered to an amateur-builder simply assisting in the fabrication and assembly, as is happening today in some cases," the FAA concludes.

The FAA plans to resume amateur-built kit evaluations after issuing final policy changes. Prior to publishing the final policy, FAA will solicit comments on draft policy, internal orders and advisory circulars through a notice in the Federal Register.

The agency stressed that while kit evaluations have been suspended, amateur-built kit manufacturers may continue to develop, manufacture, market and sell their aircraft kits. Airworthiness certifications conducted by the FAA in response to requests from amateur-builders for their individually fabricated and constructed aircraft will continue.

[az_gila]

"Airworthiness certifications conducted by the FAA in response to requests from amateur-builders for their individually fabricated and constructed aircraft will continue.


Interesting quote.... sort of implies that they will not respond to a call from a "completion center" or "hired gun".

I bet the DARs get a lot more FAA pressure....

gil A

[Rivethead]

This rule suspension has much more to do with people building ?home built' jets that include retractable gear, pressurized cabin, much higher power etc. It has much less to do with the QB's Van or Ran or Sonex etc. are selling

[Jekyll]

My read is that the FAA is only suspending the courtesy visits to the kit manufacturers to review kits. An example close to us would be a courtesy visit to Vans to look at the RV-12 to determine if it meets the 51% rule. Vans can still develop and sell the RV-12 as a 51% kit but they won't be able to say it is FAA approved as meeting the requirement (before you jump on me, I'm using this as a fictitious example, the FAA may already have visited Vans for the RV-12). Consider this as the front end of the pipe.

The last line in the notice only says it doesn't effect individual aircraft that are built and readied for FAA inspection. This is the back end of the pipe which the FAA is still ready to work with. Each builder must still prove the 51% metric.

Jekyll

[AHNC]

and build it myself, can someone say without question that the finished 9A (see how quickly I got that job done would be approved, assuming a quality build on my part? I intend to do the Alexander Tail Class this year and move ahead from there, but this ARC question has stalled any momentum I had. I and probably many others can't risk the investment without that assurance. I don't see where I have any choice but to wait out ARC's final rulings. Am I wrong there? My experience with Gov't agencies and rulings is that nothing is set until the ink is dry.

I just went through this with the DOE and their assurance that a program was good all the way to the final approval and then they jumped the benchmark at the very, very last minute. It caused major impacts on manufacturing which had moved ahead based upon their assurance and then had to stop production to change specs. Of course, the FAA wouldn't do that...

Also, if you look at the lead times on Van's site, everything is 2-3 months out. I don't think that is normal, is it? It seems they are waiting to see also.
It has to be having a heck of an impact on everyones business.

[JHines]

The 9A kit already has a "51%" letter, yes?

I don't see that the ARC would be revoking it.

[Mel]

The -9A has been on the "approved" list since 9/2001.

[Greg Arehart]

on this is that since the 9A has already been approved to the 51% rule (you should have pages in your preview plans that indicate this), you should have no worries. The small potential worries would come with a kit that has not yet been approved, but even there, if you clearly have built 51%, it should not be an issue. The bigger worries might come if you go to a 2- or 3- week quickbuild course and essentially build an airplane in that time. Even then, if you can convince the FAA that you have built 51%, it will be approved. The tough part is convincing the FAA that you have built that 51%. There are, of course, some weasel words in the original rule that allow for "professional help," which is what is causing this in the first place. Long time ago, that help may have constituted hiring a welder to do your tube frame. It then became more common to have someone help with the wiring, followed by the quickbuild concept, followed by the "builder as supervisor" concept. You can see where this is a slippery slope and it is difficult to clearly elucidate what constitutes your 51%. I suspect that defining that break point will prove to be difficult to impossible, given the variety of companies, builders, etc. out there with something at stake.

my 2c worth

greg

[gmcjetpilot]

What I get is they will not approve any more KIT's to meet 51% rule, specifically in question are the so called Quick Build kits; this is more to do with manufacturers of kits than builders. If you have a current kit approved or blessed by the FAA as meeting the 51% rule, you are golden for now. The future is what is on hold.

[BlackRV7]

Originally Posted by AHNC

Also, if you look at the lead times on Van's site, everything is 2-3 months out. I don't think that is normal, is it? It seems they are waiting to see also.
It has to be having a heck of an impact on everyones business.

Like others have said, the 9A is already on the list. The list is only a convenience for the inspection. Many kits are not on that list but get A/C's as experimental. Not a worry at all, buy and build on. As for your 2-3 month out question, that is very, very normal. Sometimes we could hope it was quicker but that is simply Van's backlog.