[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/ultralights/amateur_built/media/ARC_FINAL_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]

Quickbuilds and grandfathering?

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]

Project by project analysis?

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]

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]

Perhaps, but a change in policy and enforcement can have the same effect

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]

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

 

[edf]

Reaction on ARC Report, Moratorium

Here is some response to the Moratorium in the February 21, 2008 EAA Hotline, with an added response from Dick VanGrunsven.

Reaction on ARC Report, Moratorium
February 21, 2008 ? Last week?s story on the FAA?s ?51 percent List moratorium? and the Amateur-Built Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) report prompted some questions and comments from EAA members. The most-asked question regarding the moratorium was also the easiest to answer: ?Does this moratorium affect previously accepted (approved) kits??

As we indicate in our Questions and Answers page, no, it does not. The list will remain exactly as is until after FAA publishes its new process revision for determining the major portion (51 percent) for amateur-builts. The FAA has left open the possibility that it may re-evaluate some approved kits after posting its new certification policy. EAA is advocating that all aircraft currently on the list should be grandfathered.

Jim Auman, an AB DAR from Illinois, mentioned he had received some calls from kit aircraft builders who thought they would be unable to certificate their finished projects. Auman assured them that this was not the case, telling them, ?It (moratorium) does not, in any way, suspend the initial airworthiness certification actions of completed amateur-built kit aircraft. FAA inspectors and DARs are ready to start the certification inspection process for your newly completed aircraft.?

We also received some suggestions to change the existing rules that regulate homebuilts: ?If it takes you longer to assemble the kit than it takes them to manufacture it, that's 51 percent homebuilt, right?? Currently, the FAA uses a task-based system to determine what qualifies under the rules. The agency is in the latter stages of revising those methods as we speak.

Another suggestion: ?Why not just change the rules from 51 percent to 40 or 35 percent?? The ARC and the FAA are both on record as being committed to preserving the 51 percent rule and that category?s inherent flexibility, which allows builders to construct virtually any imaginable flying machine. Through EAA?s participation on the ARC, FAA has made it clear that a re-examination of the 51 percent rule would likely result in fewer privileges, not more. As a result, the industry representatives of the ARC recommended exploring alternative regulatory avenues (like the Primary Kit-built category) allowing for different levels of participation in aircraft building and flying activities.

Jeremy Monnett, CEO of Sonex Aircraft, LLC, stated in a recent open letter to the public, ?Without necessarily intending it, these professional builders and companies building and selling completed and/or mostly completed aircraft are risking the entire set of Experimental Amateur-Built Rules by continuing to push them beyond their intended boundaries.? He adds, ?The key to the continued success of the Experimental-Amateur Built rules depends on the consistent enforcement of the rules already in place.?

Dick VanGrunsven, CEO of Van?s Aircraft, wrote in his essay, Look Back - Look Forward - Move Forward; The future of homebuilding: ?For those currently building, I am quite confident you have little to worry about. It is possible that by the time you are ready for final airworthiness inspection, the inspector may request more evidence that you did perform more than 50 percent of the construction. Unless you had significant levels of commercial assistance, there should be no problem.?

Joe Bartels, owner of Lancair, is not as positive when discussing the situation. He said he favors a different approach to determining the major portion. ?Have FAA come and do an audit and determine how many hours I take to build the raw components, and even some of the fast-build components,? he said. ?I don?t care if you?re a pro builder, you?re never going to be able to do it better. Thus it will take more hours and will be more than 51 percent.?

EAA continues to advocate the protection of the privileges builders currently have under the regulations and to support regulatory changes that result in lowering the barriers for members to participate in building and flying for fun. For continuing updates on the homebuilt issue, click on the Amateur-Built Aircraft menu in the left side of the EAA website?s Government Advocacy section.

 

[edf]

Look Back - Look Forward - Move Forward (Part 1)

Part 1

Look Back - Look Forward - Move Forward
The future of homebuilding

by Dick VanGrunsven, EAA 3204, Founder, Van's Aircraft

For the last 18 months, I served on the amateur-built aircraft Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC). The committee?s task was to address the problem of commercial assistance abuse and propose solutions that would allow homebuilders to continue to have reasonable freedom without causing the FAA to put new limits on homebuilt activity.

It has been an interesting and challenging project. I spent a significant amount of time and money traveling to meetings and a lot more time on phone calls, e-mails, and writing and rewriting proposals and other papers. To say I have gone to sleep and awakened thinking of these issues is no exaggeration. I?d rather be dreaming of new designs or my next soaring competition, but there is too much at stake here for the future of homebuilding.

The committee was required to reach consensus on corrective action proposals and forward them to higher levels in the FAA. As the ARC is composed of both FAA and general aviation (GA) members ? EAA and industry ? consensus could not be reached on all issues. Some proposals were agreed to by the entire ARC; others were agreed to by only the industry members. Of course, the FAA has the final authority regarding the final policy. We won?t know which proposals will be included, excluded, or changed in the final text until it is published in the Federal Register. Then there will be an opportunity for public comment.

If you have been following the EAA website, there have been a couple of interesting postings, one on November 16 and another on November 21, concerning the ARC and its impact on homebuilding. The first was basically a report of the final ARC meeting. The second led into a subject that may have a dramatic effect on the future of what we know as experimental amateur-built aircraft. That is, the prospect of using the Primary Category kit aircraft regulation as a solution to building more complex aircraft.

Something Old, Something New

The result of several years of work by EAA, the Small Aircraft Manufacturers Association (SAMA), FAA, and others, the Primary Category was established in 1992 for the purpose of creating a less complex and less costly means of certifying small aircraft for training and personal use. It included provisions for both factory-produced aircraft and kit aircraft. After all of the dust settled, certifying airplanes in the Primary Category was still quite complex and costly, so few manufacturers chose do it. One reason for the certification complexity and cost is the FAA oversight required. What I have heard over the years from those who have gone through the Primary Category certification process is that designing and testing is not as challenging as dealing with the FAA and satisfying its requirements.

The motivations behind creating the light-sport aircraft (LSA) category were similar to those for the Primary Category. The differences are not so much in the aircraft standards themselves, but in the fact that LSA are industry-certified. The presumption is that industry oversight is much less expensive and more expeditious than FAA oversight. The ASTM International process was chosen as the mechanism for setting the standards and administering them.

Primary Category kit aircraft and experimental LSA (E-LSA) ? LSA built from kits ? are similar in that they must comply with the configuration standards established during certification. Kit airplanes built in either category ? licensed experimental because they are not manufactured under a factory production certificate ? may not deviate from the original design the way experimental amateur-built can.

Because the Primary Category already exists, the difficult and slow process of rulemaking would not be necessary to resolve some of the problems resulting from abuses of the E-AB major portion rule and excessive commercial builder assistance. What is needed is for the FAA to accept the use of industry oversight of this category, just as they have in the LSA category. The limiting parameters of Primary Category aircraft are: nonpressurized, single, normally aspirated engine; maximum four seats; 2,700-pound gross weight; and a 61-knot stall speed. There is no 51-percent requirement, so commercial assistance is not an issue.

The bottom line is that implementing Primary Category kits using industry auditing could provide an alternative to major portion and commercial assistance limitations for about 93 percent of existing kit aircraft on the market. For those kit aircraft that exceed the defined limits of the Primary Category, another solution would need to be found.
Grandfathering

A report on page 9 of the December 2007 issue of EAA Sport Aviation mentioned that new FAA policy for evaluating 51-percent rule compliance may disqualify some fast-build kits, essentially partially assembled airframes. Does this mean the quick-build kits you are now building will be affected, that current fast-build kits will be affected, or that only new designs will be affected?


During our November 15 meeting in Washington, D.C., this topic came up and resulted in a rather tense exchange between industry and FAA members. As with other points discussed during the ARC process, we won?t know the final result until the FAA publishes its new policy proposals. The best that I can predict is that current builders will not be affected. It is my feeling that aircraft built from kits purchased prior to the new policy implementation date (perhaps a year or two), which have been evaluated by the FAA for major portion compliance, will be certifiable as amateur-built aircraft at any time in the future. Because it often takes a long time to complete an E-AB airplane, it is only reasonable that such grandfathering be honored.

The question of grandfathering future production of existing designs, evaluated for compliance prior to a rules change, is another issue. From what was stated and/or implied by the FAA, they do not intend to routinely re-evaluate existing major-portion compliant kits. You can only imagine the complications that might ensue if you purchased part of a kit and it was re-evaluated and found noncompliant before you purchased the remainder! I don?t think this will happen.

We expect that kits for new designs entering the market after the implementation of any new policy will be evaluated under the new guidelines, whatever these may be. If the new policy is more restrictive, it will probably mean that some new fast-build kits may no longer be preassembled to the degree they are now. This might result in fewer kits being sold, and development of new designs might be stifled ? unless the Primary Category kit idea takes root.

Right now we are in a holding pattern regarding what the new policy will be. We must wait for the FAA to decide what it wants, and then publish it. Then we will have the opportunity to submit comments and recommendations if warranted. We at Van?s Aircraft, and I?m sure those at EAA, are anxiously awaiting this. Through our newsletter and website, we will make the new FAA policy available to you, along with our interpretations, comments, and recommendations. Until then, keep checking the EAA website for updates, maintain an awareness of the gravity of the issue, and discuss it with other pilots and builders of E-AB aircraft so that there is a broad awareness of its importance.

Summarizing the above: For those currently building, I am quite confident you have little to worry about. It is possible that by the time you are ready for final airworthiness inspection, the inspector may request more evidence that you did perform more than 50 percent of the construction. Unless you had significant levels of commercial assistance, there should be no problem.

 

[edf]

Look Back - Look Forward - Move Forward (Part 2)

Part 2

Look Back - Look Forward - Move Forward
The future of homebuilding

by Dick VanGrunsven, EAA 3204, Founder, Van's Aircraft

Looking at Both Sides

We are all familiar with homebuilts and homebuilding from our involvement in EAA and the greater Van?s Aircraft RV fraternity. We all have experienced the great joy and satisfaction of building and flying homebuilt aircraft, and relating with each other in our special world. We see amateur-built aircraft as overwhelmingly positive. We are insiders; we know and understand this specialized segment of aviation. But what about those on the outside who do not have the background and awareness to appreciate the merits of our world?

Consider the viewpoint of those in the highest levels of the FAA or perhaps in Congress. They might ask, ?What?s this we hear about this special category of experimental airplanes that are not required to meet normal design and manufacturing standards? I hear there are now more than 25,000 of them registered, and that some of them are being commercially built. How safe are they??

Brief answer: In 1947, the FAA created the E-AB category, probably with much less effort than that expended in the recent FAA ARC process. Normal safety standards, the need to comply with the type certificate/production certificate process, were waived so that amateurs would have the freedom to construct their own aircraft, for ?education and recreation.? In the ensuing years, a fleet of aircraft recently reported as numbering more than 25,000 has evolved. What about safety? Generally, year by year, E-AB safety had been improving. However, over the past several years, the E-AB accident rate has remained fairly constant. This rate is more than 200 percent higher than for overall GA aircraft.

Now, back to the inquisitor: ?So, 60 years after the creation of this category, this growing fleet of airplanes is still less than half as safe as production aircraft, and an increasing number are being commercially built. What are you doing about that??

Brief Answer: The FAA ARC committee was formed.

What Do You Think?

What would you do if you were the FAA and had been directed to ?do something?? What rules and policies would you make that would accommodate the greatest proportion of your constituency and still address the problems that concern you and those whom you answer to?

I don?t want your answers now. I just want you to think about it. There will probably come a time when public input may make an impact on the direction the rules governing homebuilt airplanes will take. When that time comes, well-considered and carefully reasoned opinions will help guide us toward what the FAA, the EAA, the industry, and aircraft builders all want: an environment that allows experimentation, promotes safety, and keeps the spirit of the E-AB category that has served us well for almost 60 years.

A personal observation: I have had the opportunity to work with Earl Lawrence, EAA?s vice president of industry and government affairs, over a number of years and watch him in action at many FAA policy meetings, including the recent ARC meetings. He knows his stuff, and is a hard worker. I know we are getting our money?s worth from Earl. Sometimes we may question whether EAA is still devoted to the cause of homebuilders. Surveys have shown that only about one-third of EAA members have any interest in building their own airplanes and fewer are actually involved. Despite our minority position, I am convinced that our interests are being served by EAA. The AOPA also looks after our GA interests and deserves our support. But, for our special interests, EAA is the only show in town. Though EAA now represents many other aviation special interest groups, they are still supporting the interests of homebuilders.


To read Dick?s previous article on this subject, visit www.VansAircraft.com and click on ?Pokin? the Bear.?