FAA ARC report - some cause for concern

[Deems Davis]

The FAA recently published the final report from the Amateur Rule Making Committee. You can read it here : http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/u...NAL_report.pdf
The ARC was formed with members from a cross section of the homebuilt aviation community, including. Kit builders, builder support providers, suppliers, and the EAA. to develop a community consensus regarding how to prevent the abuses of the 51% rule. The ARC made a series of recommendations to the FAA. some of which were adopted, but others which were not. After reading the report myself and after speaking with some of the participants on the committee, I believe there is some potential for the FAA to move in a way which may likely further restrict and limit homebuilders abilities to build, fly and maintain their own aircraft.
The issue (as most) is complex and as the homebuilt community has moved from a cottage industry to a significant economic engine, there are several vested interests.
IMO it's obvious that there are some egregious abuses of the 51% rule, and the FAA has a stomach full. I have no problem with additional rules to clarify and ensure that commercial or manufacturer builder assistance does not compromise or unbalance the 51% that the FAA requires we as homebuilders provide in the completion of our projects.
My concern is that the FAA in it's zeal to go after the abusers of the rule, and having left 'too big of a hole' in it's existing rules' may move to the other extreme and limit the abilities of those who are clearly not a part of the existing 'problem' (read that you and me)
The EAA today began a communications campaign urging it members to write/contact the FAA and to provide individual feedback regarding the right to preserve our ability to continue without further restrictions. http://www.eaa.org/govt/building.asp
I'd further urge you to add your voice and let the FAA know your desire. I'm not usually a 'letter writer' but this one is close to home.

[Ron Lee]

I just read the document and I don't see a threat to Vans type aircraft. I don't know the allocation percentage to the manufacturer of a quickbuild kit, but as long as it allows reasonable help with an instrument panel and engine installation then where is the problem?

Now if the Form 8000-38 for an RV quickbuild shows that it is already at the 49% level from Vans, then I can see issues.

[Deems Davis]

I think that is exactly the major risk. As I understand it, the FAA is not agreeing to maintain the 'dual check' method of determining the 51%. They are further not agreeing to grandfather existing kits that have been 'approved' under the dual check method. Depending on what method they dictate, it potentially opens up a new can of worms that could 'undo' previous estimations.

[az_gila]

Originally Posted by Deems Davis

I think that is exactly the major risk. As I understand it, the FAA is not agreeing to maintain the 'dual check' method of determining the 51%. They are further not agreeing to grandfather existing kits that have been 'approved' under the dual check method. Depending on what method they dictate, it potentially opens up a new can of worms that could 'undo' previous estimations.

Another issue that doesn't seem to be mentioned...

What about QB type kits that meet the 49% rule, but only just?

Any minor amount of professional help (outside the instrument panel/engine that the FAA has already said is OK) could knock that particular project under the 51% amateur mark.

It seems to me that there are actually two issues, the initial kit as supplied, and then the addition of extra paid work. Every project could be different...

gil A

[steve_adams]

Originally Posted by Ron Lee

I just read the document and I don't see a threat to Vans type aircraft. I don't know the allocation percentage to the manufacturer of a quickbuild kit, but as long as it allows reasonable help with an instrument panel and engine installation then where is the problem?

The problem potentially is if they get rid of the "dual credit". Any of the tasks on the form 8000-38 that are partially done by Vans would in essence take away all credit from the builder for that task. Print out 8000-38 and honestly go through it. If Vans sends anything other than untrimed, undrilled, unformed sheets of metal, and some fiberglass cloth and epoxy, the builder could concievably get no credit at all for fabrication. If any of the parts come permanently attached to each other, you get no credit at all for assembly for the whole section. Go down the line and I would bet that none of the popular QB kits would even come close to complying with the 51% rule. Get any assistance with wiring, doing the panel, or FWF and the builder is in even worse shape since these are the areas where little is usually done by the kit manufacturer and the builder can pick up more building credit. So if you care about the ability to build from anything but a standard kit, I would be concerned and get involved before the priviledge is taken away.

Steve

[jmartinez443]

I thought I read at least twice in this report that the FAA is not interested in further rulemaking "unless a clear safety case can be made and a cost benefit analysis is provided". Maybe I misunderstood what was meant by that, but by and large I read the report as saying the status quo will prevail.

Now if a Cessna or a "plug in your favorite manufacturer" were to fund such a study and prove a benefit for further regulation, then all bets are off.

[Deems Davis]

Here's a direct quote from the report just two lines below the one about discouraging....

"The policy changes are being drafted and will be made available
for public notice and comment via the Federal Register. The final policy is targeted for
issuance by October 2008. The industry rulemaking proposal is not finalized."

If you think that there is no concern please speak with Earl Lawrence EAA's VP of government affairs and one of 2 co -chairs on the committee (the other was Van). And ask him if he believes there is reason for concern.

[Kevin Horton]

Originally Posted by jmartinez443

I thought I read at least twice in this report that the FAA is not interested in further rulemaking "unless a clear safety case can be made and a cost benefit analysis is provided". Maybe I misunderstood what was meant by that, but by and large I read the report as saying the status quo will prevail.

They are saying that the current regulation (FAR 21.191(g)) is adequate. FAR 21.191(g) says "Experimental certificates are issued for the following purposes: .... 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."

But, they can change the way the current regulation is interpreted - i.e. they could change the way that quickbuild kits are evaluated for compliance against the "major portion" (i.e. 51%) requirement. As I understand it, there is a lot of variability in the way the current rule has been interpreted. I don't believe that the FAA is really concerned about Van's quickbuild kits, as they leave quite a large amount of work for the builder to do. So I think Van will be OK. The people who should be worried are kit manufacturers with quickbuild kits that leave little work for the builder, the Two Weeks to Taxi people, the hired-gun builders, the people running builder assistance programs, and anyone who currently has an aircraft under construction at on one of these places.

The sky isn't falling for RV builders who want to build the project themselves, even with a quickbuild kit.

[DaX]

I guess this means that Two-Weeks-To-Taxi is closing their doors?

I read it and still feel safe with my slow build RV-7, unless they consider my dad "professional help".

[tomhanaway]

Mine's a RV-10 qb wing and fuselage. Govt. reviews of how they can save me from myself get me very nervous. Common sense rarely has anything to do with imposed regulations.

My letter sent to FAA with copy to EAA.

Thanks for the heads up.

Tom H.
Boynton Beach, FL