Protect the Current 51% Rule!

[Mike Miller]

In the latest issue of the RVATOR, Van has written a good article describing the FAA's concerns with the 51% rule as it currently stands. After reading the article, I got the feeling that the FAA may act more firmly on the Vans Quick Build kits than previously thought. Is this just my feeling or are others experiencing the same gloom and doom feelings as well? Will the FAA ban all of the RV QB's currently under construction? I'm building a 9A QB, but am loosing motivation just thinking about the issue. What are the thoughts of others in this forum?

Lets all do as Van's suggests and start up a letter writing campaign to the FAA to encourage them to preserve the Vans QB's as they currently stand.

Mike Miller

[Phyrcooler]

This has been a part of the discussion on the RV-12 forum. But it is actually less an issue to the RV-12, and more about the remaining kits. I think it important enough to bring the topic here into "General Discussion", as the issue is critical to us all.

Originally Posted by FrankS
The potential problem (as Vans sees it) is that the FAA is starting to look at the fabricated parts. Vans example was that if the wing has 32 ribs then the amateur builder would have to form 17 of those ribs. I'm sure that is not how Vans intends on selling the kits. So until we write the FAA and convince them that prefabricating the parts at the kit manufacturer is acceptable I wouldn't count on licensing the 12 as an E-AB.

I don't mind that people start with raw materials and cut and form every part of their plane. But I also think it is just as educational to assemble parts that were fabricated at the factory with expensive production tooling (something the amateur builder cannot afford). Learning how an airplane assembles with all the plumbing, wiring, rigging, etc should be sufficient education to qualify as E-AB. If a pilot gets a basic understanding of the internal structure, systems and controls in a plane that should be the type of education that will make him a better pilot.

So get out the pen and paper and write the FAA and lets get this resolved so the 12 can be added to the E-AB approved list this year.

Frank

Frank makes a good point. However, we ALL should be writing the FAA on this issue, regardless of what you are building or where you are in the process. Worse case scenario would be if they DID in fact start dividing up each and every procedure, so you were having to build half the ribs, spars, fabricate your own engine mount, etc. I would estimate that this would eliminate even the current quick-builds as we know them, and make even the basic kit much more difficult. How many builders out there would not have started a project were it not for the quick-build option? Furthermore, how many builders of either kit would not have even considered building an airplane if the production hours went way up, and fabrication of ribs, Spars (you'd have to build at least one of each!) etc. were now added to the tasks?

I honestly think a negative change in the 51% rule would significantly reduce the number of builders, which lessens the presence of Experimental Aviation and ultimately further takes general aviation out of the reach of the average person. This is important folks!

This is NOT an RV-12 approval issue. Those of us interested in the RV-12 actually have little worry - as once it is approved as an S-LSA know that we can get Airworthy Certificates with no problem as an E-LSA. It is the RV-4,7,8,9 and 10 kits that could see the most dramatic change. Yes, they probably would grandfather any existing builders out there. But who would be coming up behind you to support experimental aviation? With signicantly fewer builders... GA could be driven even closer to the grave.

While we want to think that this is an issue about the build assistance shops... we need to speak up least the ripples impact us all in ways that significantly reduce our numbers.

I don't want to sound like Chicken Little, and the sky is falling. Actually, I am optimistic that there won't be huge changes in the current Van's kits. But do you want to leave that possibility open to government bureaucrats? I work for the government. Trust me when I say, this COULD go sideways on us.

Please take the time to write not only the FAA, but also pressure your congressional representatives.

DJ

[TSwezey]

All of Van's current kits have already been approved for the 51% rule. The problem might come for future kits.

[Phyrcooler]

TSwezey - I agree that the current kits are approved under the CURRENT rules. I am also hopeful that overall this has no effect on the industry. However, having read the latest RVator several times now... I still see a lot of "shouldn't" and "Expect" and other not-so-definite words.

This is the FAA we are dealing with. There is nothing to keep them from changing the rules. They could easily revamp the guidelines and state that any kit manufactured after XX/XX/2008 must meet these new rules. While we don't THINK that this will occur, I won't sit quietly on the sidelines under the assumption that since something is approved, it can't be changed!

I only suggest that we all participate in this, let our voice be heard. Don't leave it up to the government with words like "probably", "intent" or "expect".

DJ

[Bugsy]

Discussing this with a friend much smarter than me, he stated.

A litteral interpretation wouldnt include just the ribs but would mean I should build one of the 2 spars and shouldnt I be required to wire my own radio or at least half. perhaps mold one of the tires. This is obviously silly and unsafe.

I will be writing however, I worry that my DAR may take a different approach to my grandfathered QB project than those already flying and that has me concerned.

[Mel]

but you guys are getting out of hand. First off, if you don't understand how the "list" works, then don't comment on it. Before you go writing to the FAA make sure you know what you are talking about. Otherwise your comments will not be taken seriously. No one ever said you had to build 1/2 the ribs, or 1/2 the radio, or 1/2 the canopy, or 1/2 of anything. The statement simply said that if you want 1/2 the credit, you should do 1/2 the task. Explaining how the list works would take more room than is available here.
The people who are protesting most are the very people who got us into this mess in the first place. It is these guys that are trying to sell factory built airplanes and pass them off as amateur-builts.
I know I'm probably going to tick a lot of people off, but if we are going to preserve our rights to build aircraft, we're going to have to "build our aircraft!" Not let some factory build them and then claim that we built them for education and recreation.
I know many of you will disagree with me and that's your right. But if you are going to protest, please make sure that you know what the basis of your protest really is.
Sorry to sound so demeaning, but I've been building and inspecting aircraft for over 25 years and I have seen the extremes.
OK. I'm through. You can have your thread back.

[TSwezey]

Originally Posted by Mel

The people who are protesting most are the very people who got us into this mess in the first place. It is these guys that are trying to sell factory built airplanes and pass them off as amateur-builts.
I know I'm probably going to tick a lot of people off, but if we are going to preserve our rights to build aircraft, we're going to have to "build our aircraft!" Not let some factory build them and then claim that we built them for education and recreation.
I know many of you will disagree with me and that's your right. But if you are going to protest, please make sure that you know what the basis of your protest really is.
Sorry to sound so demeaning, but I've been building and inspecting aircraft for over 25 years and I have seen the extremes.
OK. I'm through. You can have your thread back.

I don't think there are very many here who can disagree with these statements. I certainly don't. I certainly don't want to lose my right to experiment and build an airplane because some "homebuilder" is mass producing planes to avoid the certification process.

[JBPILOT]

Mel, I agree with your comments overall.

I would only comment that for those out there that are HONESTLY following the rules, a more clear statement from the FAA could have been stated to assure the current builders of a Vans 'X' QB kits ( or similar 51% listed QB kits ) will have nothing to worry about. I believe I have read it carefully, and there are too many "if, ands, and maybes" statements to leave honest QB builders feeling comfortable. As per usual, everyone pays for the misdeeds of a few.

John Bender
Iowa

[Mel]

I don't think that any of Van's kits are in danger.
Are you aware that there are QB kits on the market that can be bought with the fabric installed and painted and are on the "approved 51% list?"
At one time the Weedhopper was on the list. This kit could be built in 8 hrs.
The problem with the approved list is that is has been conducted by different people without a good standard.
I have had to determine the eligibility of several kits myself in the field. It's not an easy task.

[Mel]

Originally Posted by Mel

Before you go writing to the FAA make sure you know what you are talking about. Otherwise your comments will not be taken seriously.

Please don't misinterpret this. I certainly don't want to discourage anyone from making comments. We all need to do that. I'm just trying to make sure that these comments are based on facts. For example; If you go into the tax assessor's office claiming your taxes are too high. You won't get very far. But if you have researched and can show that property values are lower than what they claim, you will probably come out with a lower tax bill. I do this pretty much every year and almost always come out a little ahead.