CHANGES TO THE FAA KIT CHECKLIST AND THE "51%" RULE

[Buggsy2]

for this thread to begin the deterioration into a flame war.

Not having studied either the current regs, nor the proposed new ones, nor the EAA or Vans responses, I take no side yet. But here's a thought I've not seen expressed.

As I understand the current regs have their roots from the 1950s, when amateur built aircraft were legally recognized and started in the USA. At that time there were no kits! You got some plans and had to fabricate everything from raw materials.

Things changed and now we have the spectrum from plans-built to Quick Build kits with one-week learn-to-build classes that you leave with a finished empennage. Then add in pre-fabbed wire harnesses, fuel lines, perfect-molded fiberglass, built-to-order panels, engines set up and even broken in for you. Yes, there's a big secondary market supporting "amateur" built with all manner of manufactured short cuts.

The FAA has also noticed this. Let's forget the obvious pro-builders for a moment. What about the amateur builders who do more check writing than fabricating and building? The proposed regs look to guide our hobby back to the original intent first. Then deal with the pro builders.

Sure, the FAA should define "fabrication", yada yada. But they don't deserve the libel and vituperation expressed in this and other forums. Then what about handling the pro-builders? I believe that's a legitimate business but it should be far more regulated than truly amateur build aircraft.

[BlueSky]

I'm an attorney. Can someone please send me a link to the proposed rules - saves time searching. I would like to take a look at the entire proposed rules just to see if there are any 'holes' we can widen.

[Mel]

Originally Posted by Plane krazy

I did not rear anything about somebody taking over a project, many have both unfinished project in varying stages people sold there projects for many reasons health divorce financial etc, how will the FAA look at that since some are beyond QB stage or beyond the 51%

ken in maine

Ken, There is nothing in the new proposal that changes the fact that the aircraft is to be "amateur-built". Just as before, it does not mean one person. Any number of persons can be amateur builders on one project. A project can be passed down several times so long as all of the builders are amateur builders.

[jtrusso]

Originally Posted by Buggsy2

What about the amateur builders who do more check writing than fabricating and building?

It sounds like you're under estimating the amount of work required to take a quick build kit and make it fly. Sure the wings are mostly done and a good portion of the fuselage. If the builder then buys a completed panel and engine/prop there is still quite a bit of work remaining to make that plane fly, and that builder is living by both the letter and intent of the current 51% rules.

Not trying to flame you or sound testy, that's not the purpose of this post. However I must say your statement quoted above sounds a bit flipant.

In my opinion the new proposed rules do nothing to prevent the violation of the current rules. By adding in new vague requirements it merely makes it more difficult for those who are living by the letter and intent of the law. Those who have found a way to circument the current rules will find ways to get around the new ones.

Just my 2 cents.

[tomcostanza]

I agree that it's the "fabrication" language that is the scariest. I've said before, the components that come from Van's are produced on CNC machines. An operator loads a sheet of aluminum into the machine, and presses a button. He/she just "fabricated" that part "from raw stock". If I pressed that same button, I would have "fabricated the component from raw stock". How does that solve the problem of commercial builders producing amateur experimental planes? How would it add to my "education or recreation"? If I wanted to skirt the law, why couldn't I just hire someone else to "fabricate from raw stock" my portion of the kit? According to the proposed changes, if I did 100% of the assembly (not a trivial task on a slow-build kit), and 19% of the fabrication, I would not be elligible for an airworthiness certificate. That's nonsense. When my plane is finished, I will have set every rivet, torqued every bolt, and soldered every wire in the airframe and engine. But I may not have "fabricated" 20% of the parts. Now if the 20% fabrication means 20% of everything necessary to take a part from raw stock to an installable part, MAYBE I would agree. Even after Van's sells me a part, I still have to drill, deburr, flute, and in my case, prime that part. If that counts as part of the 20% I might agree. But we still don't know what "fabricate" means, and we still don't know what "20%" means.

Like some gun control laws, when some people break the law, the government mentality is to pass more laws. Those new laws may do nothing to hinder the law breakers. They only make it harder for the law abiders to stay within the law. The existing rules would work just fine if the FAA would ENFORCE them.

My appologies if I sound like a Ron Paul ad.

Clear skies,

[Buggsy2]

Originally Posted by jtrusso

It sounds like you're under estimating the amount of work required to take a quick build kit and make it fly.

Yes, I was exaggerating to make the point that maybe the FAA thinks even well intentioned amateurs are getting near the 49/51 border and is trying to head off crossing it. It's still a puzzle to me: starting with a QB which I know is OK, but then going to an emp-building workshop, then having panels, etc build for me; at what time do I cross the line? Seems to me the FAA is trying to clear that up. Then they can deal with the pro-building issue.

In my opinion the new proposed rules do nothing to prevent the violation of the current rules.

OK. But the FAA had a reason for what they did. What was it? Well, maybe I'll read the docs this weekend and be better informed.

[Kevin Horton]

Originally Posted by tomcostanza

I agree that it's the "fabrication" language that is the scariest. I've said before, the components that come from Van's are produced on CNC machines. An operator loads a sheet of aluminum into the machine, and presses a button. He/she just "fabricated" that part "from raw stock". If I pressed that same button, I would have "fabricated the component from raw stock".

Hmm. We need a bunch of the Oregon RV builders who will volunteer to go down to Vans, and out of the goodness of their heart, and just for their own education, push that button on the CNC machine. That way those parts would be fabricated by amateurs.

[Geico266]

Originally Posted by Kevin Horton

Hmm. We need a bunch of the Oregon RV builders who will volunteer to go down to Vans, and out of the goodness of their heart, and just for their own education, push that button on the CNC machine. That way those parts would be fabricated by amateurs.

That is a great idea!

[N395V]

Call me naieve but in my opinion we do not want a strict definition of the term fabricate.

When all is said and done the system will still require our existing Army of DARs to inspect the plane and paperwork and make a determination as they always have. Seems to me the more nebulous the word fabrication the more leeway the DAR has. It is not in the interest of DARs in general to start en masse refusing to certify aircraft that meet the spirit and intent of the regulations as opposed to strict detailed criteria.

The FSDOs currently do not have the manpower, interest, budget, desire, nor political pressure to get deeply involved in regulating and directly inspecting homebuilts. It is in our best interest to keep it that way.

At the end of the day I predict nothing will have changed other than the government form number on the paperwork we will fill out.

[rv8ch]

Originally Posted by Buggsy2

... It's still a puzzle to me: starting with a QB which I know is OK, but then going to an emp-building workshop, then having panels, etc build for me; at what time do I cross the line? ...

QB+builder workshop+pre-built panel - Just toss the parts into the garage and out comes an aircraft! Looks easy!

I sure like Kevin's idea!