Percent Fabrication and the 51% Rule

[Bugsy]

I attended the FAA brief at Oshkosh on the 51% rule and quickly noted that the most contentious issues for the FAA seems to be the portion of the kit fabricated by the builder as apposed to assembled. They were concerned that fiberglass kits (unnamed manufacturer) were 9% fabrication and aluminum kits (unnamed manufacturer were 19% fabrication. The FAA interpreted the intent of the 51% rule to imply that of that 51% we should fabricate half instead of assembling manufacture built parts. The FAA told the audience they had a goal of 20% fabrication and only the aluminum kit was close. What I got out of the brief was that the future kit certification checklist will likely have 3 columns.
1. % Manufacture/ pro built
2. % Amatuer builder assembly of manufacture built parts
3. % Amatuer builder Fabricated

The policy is in coordination and negotiation so we dont need to aurgue the merits or bash the reasoning here.

Reason for this thread is to ask our DAR breathren if we should ensure that our builder log captures not only how we put together this thing with photos of us in the picture, but also narratives and photos of fabrication.

For example:
1. I am using the terms assembly and fabrication in my narrative.
2. I am capturing the fact that I am fabricating the pitot/static out of aluminum tubing instead of assembling a factory supplied pitot/static kit.

Obviously I didnt squeeze the aluminum tube from a mold, but tube bending and flairing is more in line with fabrication that connecting the plastic tube supplied kit from Vans, and I think this will come down to a % fabricated question when we go to certification.

Do you agree with my logic and thought about capturing fabrication photos and narration in the log book?

[rvbuilder2002]

Originally Posted by Bugsy

I attended the FAA brief at Oshkosh on the 51% rule and quickly noted that the most contentious issues for the FAA seems to be the portion of the kit fabricated by the builder as apposed to assembled. They were concerned that fiberglass kits (unnamed manufacturer) were 9% fabrication and aluminum kits (unnamed manufacturer were 19% fabrication. The FAA interpreted the intent of the 51% rule to imply that of that 51% we should fabricate half instead of assembling manufacture built parts. The FAA told the audience they had a goal of 20% fabrication and only the aluminum kit was close. What I got out of the brief was that the future kit certification checklist will likely have 3 columns.
1. % Manufacture/ pro built
2. % Amatuer builder assembly of manufacture built parts
3. % Amatuer builder Fabricated

The policy is in coordination and negotiation so we dont need to aurgue the merits or bash the reasoning here.

Reason for this thread is to ask our DAR breathren if we should ensure that our builder log captures not only how we put together this thing with photos of us in the picture, but also narratives and photos of fabrication.

For example:
1. I am using the terms assembly and fabrication in my narrative.
2. I am capturing the fact that I am fabricating the pitot/static out of aluminum tubing instead of assembling a factory supplied pitot/static kit.

Obviously I didnt squeeze the aluminum tube from a mold, but tube bending and flairing is more in line with fabrication that connecting the plastic tube supplied kit from Vans, and I think this will come down to a % fabricated question when we go to certification.

Do you agree with my logic and thought about capturing fabrication photos and narration in the log book?

There is nothing wrong with what you are doing but it is not necessary...
you are building an RV-7A QB which is on the approved kit list and is grandfathered under the old rules. Even if there are rule changes that effect future RV kits, they will have no effect on you being able to certificate yours as amature built.

[noelf]

Some good questions here. Now, let me propose another scenario:

Lets say I build a kit, and get it certified under the experimental 51% rule. Once the a/c is certified, I sell the a/c to another person (this is not a discussion on liability). I then turn around and use the money to purchase another kit, build and get it certified, and ultimately sell that one also. This process continues for some number of a/c. Does this sound like a repeat offender?

Now my question. What is the difference between what I have described and a "shop" that goes way overboard in builder assistance with helping to fabricate (the same construction processes I would have done) and assemble the parts? Is the ultimate answer that the "shop" should have the a/c certified and not the final owner? What if the "shop" is just one person, or several?

It just seems like the commercial assistance side of the equation can be a bit ambiguous, when a "true" builder can buy, build, sell, buy, build,sell, ...many times.

Do the new 51% rules attempt to address these possibilities??

[JHines]

The difference between the "repeat offender" and the "overboard assistance shop" is the purpose of construction.

It is possible that the "repeat offender" is building each of those aircraft SOLELY for his own education and recreation.

Obviously that's not going to be the case for a commerical shop which is in business to make money, at least in part, by definintion.

The "repeat offenders", in my opinion, are moving into a gray area when they start doing things like advertising a partially completed aircraft and inviting a potential buyer to pick his own paint, engine, panel, etc.

[BrentHumphreys]

Oh boy, here we go again.

I realize that there is a grey line here, however the repeat offender you describe is not a commercial operation, he/she is
* Registering the aircraft with the actual builder doing the work
* Since not operating as a business, this person is doing the building for recreation/education

This is my own opinion, but here are some scenarios where the line is crossed/not crossed.

OK - Buyer buys kit, buddy who enjoys building builds with or without assistance of owner. Buddy is the builder. Owner does not get repairman certificate

BAD - Buyer buys kit, pays someone to build. In this case it doesn't matter who applies for the repairman certificate since the aircraft cannot qualify for Amateur built.


Again, my own opinion.

The EAB rule is intended to relax airworthiness requirements for Amateur builders as a means to promote innovation and education. I think we can all see that even with kit airplanes there is a large amount of innovation and education involved in building these aircraft.

When a commercial interest comes into play, the requirements to get an Airworthiness certificate are increased considerably to prevent the commercial profit motive from introducing cost cutting, and safety reducing practices.

Obviously, there are probably repeat offenders that are out there doing this for a profit motive. I have not certified an airplane, but I believe that there are some affidavits that are part of the paperwork where the builder certifies that they are the builder, and that the aircraft was built in compliance with the E/AB rule. If that is the case, then there is certainly a moral issue if that builder knowingly falsifies that document.

I agree with Jhines that some builders are moving into a Grey area with advertising custom completion.

[scottg]

Originally Posted by BrentHumphreys

Oh boy, here we go again.

If that is the case, then there is certainly a moral issue if that builder knowingly falsifies that document.

Moral issues? Try legal issues.

In order to obtain an experimental airworthiness certificate for a homebuilt, one must fill out FAA Form 8130-12, ?Eligibility Statement Amateur-Built Aircraft?. Part III of this form states,

?I certify the aircraft identified in Section II above was fabricate and assembled by _______________ for my (their) education or recreation. I (we) have records to support this statement and will make them available to the FAA upon request.

-NOTICE-
Whoever in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or who makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both (U.S. Code, Title 18, Sec. 1001.)

APPLICANT'S DECLARATION
I hereby certify that all statements and answers provided by me in this statement form are complete and true to the best of my knowledge, and I agree that they are to be considered part or the basis for issuance of any FAA certificate to me. I have also read and understand the Privacy Act statement that accompanies this form. ?


IMHO, all it would take is the permanent denial / revocation of airworthiness certificates that were issued to aircraft that came from these ?factories?. The person who signs this form indicates that records exist to support the recreation / education aspect. Let?s see ?em.

[noelf]

scottg...you may have hit on what I was looking for.

So it does appear that there may be a way for FAA to decide if any one a/c or multiple a/c's originating from a given person, or group of persons, to raise more that an eyebrow's attention. Of course, this action would be purely subjective and potentially costly to defend on the part of the "repeat offender". But it looks like there is a way for us true recreational builders to build and dispose of current a/c in order to make way for the next one.

Thanks for the insight...

[Bugsy]

Back on track.

I understand that existing kits are grandfathered, but want to ensure that when the DAR applies the new guidance that in order to prove I accomplished the portion of the kit agreed to previously that I have evidence to support.

I suspect that the new policy will break out manufactured, assembly and fabrication. This breakout will most certainly be applied to new kits applying for approval under the 51% rule. My concern is that it may also be part of the DAR checklist used to ensure compliance. I'm not complaining just want to make sure that I can take credit for items that I fabricated if asked.

If the DARs amoungst the crowd believe that kits grandfathered for initial approval will also be grandfathered in application of new airworthyness certification, the point is moot. If their is a slight possibility the DAR may ask me to prove I fabricated something I want to be ready with evidence.

[rvbuilder2002]

Originally Posted by Bugsy

Back on track.

I understand that existing kits are grandfathered, but want to ensure that when the DAR applies the new guidance that in order to prove I accomplished the portion of the kit agreed to previously that I have evidence to support.

I suspect that the new policy will break out manufactured, assembly and fabrication. This breakout will most certainly be applied to new kits applying for approval under the 51% rule. My concern is that it may also be part of the DAR checklist used to ensure compliance. I'm not complaining just want to make sure that I can take credit for items that I fabricated if asked.

If the DARs amoungst the crowd believe that kits grandfathered for initial approval will also be grandfathered in application of new airworthyness certification, the point is moot. If their is a slight possibility the DAR may ask me to prove I fabricated something I want to be ready with evidence.

I am not sure that they can apply the new check list to a kit that is grandfathered.
Lets assume your kit does not meet the 20% fabrication rule. The FAA has grandfathered it under the old rules so why would the new form be used to evaluate it?

[BrentHumphreys]

It is my understanding that the form is used when evaluating the Kit, at the kit manufacturers site. This is used to qualify for the FAA's list of approved kits.

The form is not used for evaluating individual aircraft.