[pierre smith]

For those of you who are not EAA embers yet...read this article.

Preserving Amateur-Builders? Rights
EAA Seeks New Opportunities for Fast-builds and Assistance Programs
November 21, 2007 ? EAA is supporting expansion of opportunities for enthusiasts representing a broad spectrum of aircraft building and flying interests. To that end, prior to making recommendations to the FAA on amateur-built aircraft regulations last week at the Aviation Rulemaking Committee, EAA?s board of Directors voted to preserve existing amateur-building rules:

EAA supports the intent of the experimental ?Amateur-Built? regulation and its requirement that the majority portion of the aircraft be fabricated and assembled by amateurs for their education and recreation, while maximizing safety and promoting design innovation.

?The EAA community consistently rallies behind efforts to open as many doors as possible to aviation enthusiasts of all stripes,? said EAA President Tom Poberezny. ?That?s why we want to protect the existing amateur-building rules, including the spirit of the 51-percent requirement, to preserve the nearly unlimited scope of that category. Under those rules, an innovator has the flexibility to construct virtually any imaginable flying machine. We don?t want to lose that freedom.?

EAA is also focused on the big picture: A growing number of builders want to build and fly their own airplane, but some may not want to be bound by the requirement to perform at least 51 percent of the construction tasks themselves.

In addressing that segment of amateur-built aircraft, EAA board members also voted to pave avenues for kit-building approaches and builder-assistance programs that do not meet the 51-percent criterion:

EAA supports the revision of the existing experimental ?Primary Kit Built? category to make this certification category readily available to consumers that desire to build their own personal aircraft without a restriction on the amount of commercial assistance they receive.

Accordingly, EAA Vice President of Industry and Regulatory Affairs Earl Lawrence says EAA is pushing for ?a readily available alternative for many kit manufacturers and their customers.? The alternative, he asserted, would entail a revision to the little known and under-used Experimental Primary Kit-Built Category.

In the mid-1980s, EAA advocated the creation of a category to address the unique needs of general aviation?s kit-building segment. The outcome, the Experimental Primary Kit Built Category, does not limit the amount of prefabrication, pre-assembly, or assistance allowed in the aircraft?s construction. However, the costly and burdensome requirement for manufacturers to obtain type certificates and production certificates to ensure quality standards has discouraged the category?s use.

?The breakthrough we achieved in the light-sport aircraft arena, replacing expensive government oversight with high industry consensus standards, could significantly bolster the kit-built category,? Lawrence said. ?The standards already exist. It?s just a matter of the FAA recognizing those quality and safety standards for kit-built aircraft and empowering an industry-auditing group to ensure compliance.?

Lawrence foresees growing support for this approach within the EAA community. ?As we discuss the importance of preserving the existing amateur-built rules and revising the kit-built category, our members are increasingly eager to weigh in with the FAA,? he said.

The FAA has indicated that it will issue a policy statement after the New Year, and open a comment period thereafter.

 

[gmcjetpilot]

What does it mean? FAA Privatization and USER FEES?

Thanks Pierre. Humm, there where words, smoke & circular talk, all government like. What does it really mean?

I got the threat, Obey the the 51% or the FEDs will take kit planes away. Than the rest was kind-a unclear to me, sounding too good to be true and with some potential ominous overtones.

They are working on a “Primary Kit Built” category where kit makers don't need as much regulations to sell kits which require less than 51% built by customer, without restrictions on commercial assistance? That sounds new and too good, at least for the commercial companies.

revision to the little known and under-used Experimental Primary Kit-Built Category.
Not sure what that is. Anyone?

“The breakthrough we achieved in the light-sport aircraft arena, replacing expensive government oversight with high industry consensus standards, could significantly bolster the kit-built category,”
I don't know for sure but sounds like privatization of the FAA. That is the way its going or trying to go. The FAA will just handle Airlines. When a FED uses the word "breakthrough" someone is going to get screwed. The only time the Government works fast is to take more money or do less work. So who is going to pay for the NON-government oversight? BINGO! YOU and ME BIG TIME.


“The standards already exist. It’s just a matter of the FAA recognizing those quality and safety standards for kit-built aircraft and empowering an industry-auditing group to ensure compliance.”
Again it's about the Government getting out of the GA game. I guess that might be good. Does that mean our taxes will go down? (NO!) So less services and same taxes. GREAT!

“As we discuss the importance of preserving the existing amateur-built rules and revising the kit-built category, our members are increasingly eager to weigh in with the FAA,”
Yea lets weigh in but what the heck are you talking about? Privatization of the FAA or looser rules on amount of work individuals need to do on kit planes, built under the amateur rules.

The FAA has indicated that it will issue a policy statement after the New Year, and open a comment period thereafter.
Read the fine print. It sounds too good to be true.

I have a funny feeling this means its going to cost us a lot of money with "A LA CART" fees. Does any one have a comment about this? I know I'm cynical, but WHY are they making the changes. I have it on good source, this is the push from within the FAA for all services. It's no secret they have wanted to privatize ATC for a long time. They really want to privatize almost all of the FAA.

It's a popular theory on how to make government smaller, farm out all services to private companies. Humm may be I should start my own "The Aviation Agency" company and get a big fat juicy Gov contract. I'm suspicious of who decides on what private companies get contracts. I'm all for LESS waste, fraud, corruption and ear marks, but sometimes the government needs to provide services and not farm them out, like military. Oh wait they already farmed that out with blackwater, never mind.

Privatization does not mean quality or elimination of fraud. Will these private aviation service companies be regulated? Who's going to regulate private companies providing essential services? More Government?

 

[plehrke]

Experimental Primary Kit-built Category

revision to the little known and under-used Experimental Primary Kit-Built Category.
Not sure what that is. Anyone?

Found this on the FAA website (regulations) for Experimental Primary Kit Built Category (notice it listed under experimental and amateur built)

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certification/sp_awcert/

Then click on the regs 21.191 and read paragraph (h)
Also check out regs section 21.184

 

[Mel]

The "primary kit" category was started several years ago. The idea was to have a manufacturer holding a production certificate to offer kits to be built by the customer, then be inspected by the manufacturer. Piper was going to do this with the "Cub". It never worked out, and to my knowledge, no one ever offered a kit. The rule may indeed be modified into something useful, but as it stands now, it just kind of takes up room in the regs.
I'm typing this from memory, so if someone knows more on the subject, feel free to correct me.

 

[rfinch]

GMC dude--whoa! Don't reach for paranoia so quick.

?The breakthrough we achieved in the light-sport aircraft arena, replacing expensive government oversight with high industry consensus standards, could significantly bolster the kit-built category,?
I don't know for sure but sounds like privatization of the FAA. That is the way its going or trying to go. The FAA will just handle Airlines. When a FED uses the word "breakthrough" someone is going to get screwed. The only time the Government works fast is to take more money or do less work. So who is going to pay for the NON-government oversight? BINGO! YOU and ME BIG TIME.

The first quote in blue is the EAA speaking, not the FAA. This has nothing to do with Bush's push to privitize ATC functions.

I have a funny feeling this means its going to cost us a lot of money with "A LA CART" fees.

Not this one. It seems like another welcome initiative by the EAA to make things easier for people like me who want a good-performing modern aircraft for under $100K and are willing to pay some extra to have others build more of it. In return, I guess, the owners of such planes would not be as free to modify their planes away from the manufacturers' specifications. That would work fine for me and many others.

In January 2008 I'll start work on an RV-9A. QB wing and fuse of course, and I'm taking Synergy Air's week-long empennage class to get that built and acquire some skills and knowledge. I'm not so interested in the building (but maybe that will change?) but rather want to get it into the air quickly and FLY! Sounds like the EAA is trying to get the FAA to lighten up a rule already on the books, but never used, so people like me could build less and fly more. Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks.

 

[rvbuilder2002]

Pretty much correct...

The "primary kit" category was started several years ago. The idea was to have a manufacturer holding a production certificate to offer kits to be built by the customer, then be inspected by the manufacturer. Piper was going to do this with the "Cub". It never worked out, and to my knowledge, no one ever offered a kit. The rule may indeed be modified into something useful, but as it stands now, it just kind of takes up room in the regs.
I'm typing this from memory, so if someone knows more on the subject, feel free to correct me.

though my memory is telling me that Piper delivered 5 or 6 cub kits that were eventually completed. I believe the program never took hold because the kits were still quite expensive, so it didn't save you a lot.
If I remember right, Piper had to send a factory DAR out to do a final inspection (and help resolve any issues they found).

I am surprised this thread isn't getting more activity. This issue could be huge in regards to our homebuilding futures depending on which way the FAA leans regarding the suggestions of the study group.

I recently heard about a petition that EAA is going to file with the FAA, that will possibly have a very positive effect on this whole issue depending on what the FAA does with it. Stay tuned....

 

[DanH]

The only detail issue I see right now has to do with a possible kit manufacturer oversight requirement, ie you can hire somebody to build it, but the kit supplier has to approve the end result. It sounds like the model would be the current S-LSA regs in which the LSA manufacturer (not the FAA) is responsible for continuing airworthiness, approval of modifications, etc. Bottom line would be that your hired gun couldn't build you a custom airplane. He would have to build it like the kit supplier says to build it.

At first glance that seems quite reasonable. However, the S-LSA regulation model is quite a bit more restrictive than you may realize. For example, the S-LSA I've been flying lately has tight manufacturer-imposed limits on propeller choices, avionics choices, you name it. To make any mod you request it in writing and wait for a yes/no written response, and there doesn't seem to any provision for appeal. That includes the correction of design screw-ups or the replacement of low-quality components with better stuff.

Put this in the context of the familiar. Vans is among the best, but like any group of engineers they have both personal preferences and business considerations. How long did it take to acknowledge a nose gear issue? Don't think it is an issue? Too bad, because in the S-LSA model it would be a mandatory correction when finally acknowleged. You want a Whirlwind prop, but perhaps you hear "Sorry, we only approve Hartzell, and by the way, we're having a sale this month." Andair fuel valves, electronic ignition, exhaust systems, induction mods, cooling mods, Showplanes canopy kits, extra fuel, autopilot choices, even gasket-proseal-or-both on your fuel sender plate.....everything becomes manufacturer choice, backed by law.

I'm with George.....better watch what you ask for, because you might not like it when you get it. Remember, the "driver's license medical" idea turned into a 452 page final rule with a lot of bugs....and a lot of guys still can't fly.

Frankly I don't think there is much wrong with the current system. The FAA could fix the hired gun "problem" with only one new rule; make hired guns responsible for 51% violations and subject to sanction, just like the aircraft owner than hired him. Want have an airplane built for you, all above board? License it "experimental exhibition".

 

[smoore]

I would expect to see a liability displacement from kit manufacturer to hired gun.

It would still be lawyers trying to get blood from a turnip but the hired guns might not like how this hashes out.

 

[pierre smith]

Me too

.

........., so people like me could build less and fly more. Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks.

I agree with Ralph on this one. I've seen several "hired gun" built airplanes and they were absolutely wonderful. My wife, Jenny, a retired Naval officer and pretty sharp, defends this view of hired guns being better qualified and able to turn out safer, better built airplanes than a first timer. If only for this reason, this has a lot merit.

Regards,

 

[Ron Lee]

Reason for few responses

Those who build their plane fall under the current...not likely to be changed...51% rule.

Others, like me, buy such planes.

 

[Kevin Horton]

I've seen several "hired gun" built airplanes and they were absolutely wonderful. My wife, Jenny, a retired Naval officer and pretty sharp, defends this view of hired guns being better qualified and able to turn out safer, better built airplanes than a first timer. If only for this reason, this has a lot merit.

This is the reason that "hired gun" builder support was legalized last year up here in Canada. The feds felt that with the increasingly complex amateur built aircraft, it was safer to allow the builder to pay someone to build as much of the aircraft as he wanted, rather than force him to muddle through it himself.

 

[DanH]

<<"hired gun" builder support was legalized several years ago up here in Canada.>>

I could support such an exemption here in the US, if it was done as simply as the Canadian example.

Kevin, did a bunch of new (or previously underground) shops spring up after the exemption was published?

 

[Kevin Horton]

<<"hired gun" builder support was legalized several years ago up here in Canada.>>

I could support such an exemption here in the US, if it was done as simply as the Canadian example.

Kevin, did a bunch of new (or previously underground) shops spring up after the exemption was published?

I know one local guy who is busy based on word of mouth advertising, another local guy that started a full time "hired gun" business, and another shop in the Toronto area that has sprung into existence. To be honest though, I have probably missed some, as I haven't paid too much attention.