[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]

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]

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

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]

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.

 

[Vern]

Certification questions

I attended the DAR renewal training at Oshkosh with about 22 other DARs. Similar questions were asked among DARs and FAA folks. There was no consensus about how some of these things would play out (in my opinion).

In my opinion, the resulting answers to our questions may come out after our comments are considered by the FAA. They extended the initial 30 day comment period for this reason. So, RV'ers, make your comments on the proposed changes to reflect what you think will make our hobby better and protect our homebuilders rights.

 

[JHines]

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?

I really hope that is so, but the thing that is worrisome is the chart in the proposed rule that indicates building "a modified kit" would require an evaluation for 51% compliance

Are the "grandfathered" kits "totally" grandfathered even if modified?

 

[vic syracuse]

I am a DAR,a nd was at the Oshkosh recurrent training. This topic was 95% of the class time, and basically it is a rat's nest. They are still looking for our inputs, so please provide yours. I provided mine already. In a nutshell, they are trying to change the rules to address the rule breakers today. Seems silly to me, and I told them so. Why would any one not following the rules today fell compelled to follow a new set of rules tomorrow. I think the answer is that they are going to take the DAR's to task, especially the ones who are knowingly certificating the commercially-built airplanes.
Yes, ALL of the RV's are grandfathered, as are ALL of the other kits that are currently on the FAA "approved" 51% list. Depending on the final rule, it will remain to be seen how future developed kits are dealt with. Not future sales of current kits. They are apporved.
I think most, if not all, DAR's are not going to have any problem at all with RV's (and a number of other kits). Just keep your builder logs, photos, etc, and you will be fine.
And yes, you can build one, get it licensed, build another one, license it, repeat as often as you would like. That's how some people relax, learn, or enjoy life, and that's what experimental aviation is all about. Let's work hard to keep that privelege available to us. Advertising and building for others, especially for financial gain/benefit, is not in the spirit of the regs. Period.
We have some pretty blatant abusers out there (including some in the RV family), who were very visible at Osh and right in the FAA's face. Not cool.

Vic

 

[Bugsy]

Thanks guys

Thanks guys,
I feel more confident, that my logbook will suffice, but still intend to log fabrication stuff, can't hurt.

I like others sent a letter to the FAA a few months ago when Vans provided a template. Seems like more has come to light since the original call to action. Would you recommend we write another letter to the FAA commissioner? If so how do we frame this to speak with one voice?

 

[RatMan]

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.

Gray area......

Right now, on a very popular aircraft sales site an RV-12 is being offered for sale by someone that claims to have built almost 20 RVs in the last 5 years.

Same site another repeat offender's ad says, get your RV kick started. Order your emp kit and have it delivered to him and he will build it for a grand.

I sometimes wonder how successful these ads are but I guess there is a market out there.

 

[frazitl]

A couple of things...

from the FAA/EAA 51% seminar at KOSH.

I asked a question about builder modifications to a 51% kit resulting in total new review by the FAA. Their immediate response was that the small changes we make to an approved kit shouldn't cause any problem. Their concern was about changes to an approved kit that resulted in a reduction of builder fabrication below the magic 20% number. They asked for comments on this issue.

Regarding kits on the currently approved list; I think builders who use significant commercial help will have problems in the future. Our QB kits are very close to the 20% limit envisioned by the FAA. Any COMMERCIAL help that reduces builder fabrication could cause a grandfathered kit to not pass inspection IMHO. The FAA didn't come out and say this directly, but it seems obvious from the direction things are going...

 

[avpro56]

I attended the DAR renewal training at Oshkosh with about 22 other DARs. Similar questions were asked among DARs and FAA folks. There was no consensus about how some of these things would play out (in my opinion).

In my opinion, the resulting answers to our questions may come out after our comments are considered by the FAA. They extended the initial 30 day comment period for this reason. So, RV'ers, make your comments on the proposed changes to reflect what you think will make our hobby better and protect our homebuilders rights.

I fully agree. To summarize, I think that builders need to know the following:

1) If the kit being built is not on the approved list, then the DAR is tasked with completing the 8000-38 applicability checklist, which is currently being revised. Note that the RV-12 is not on the approved list, but it is highly likely that this will not prove to be a problem.

2) As an example, if a builder buys a quick build kit and then hires out someone to assist in completing the aircraft, it is likely that the 51% requirement is not being satisfied.

3) As another example, a DAR cannot allow credit to a builder if he attends a builders assistance center and completes certain parts there that will be used on the aircraft. So if you buy an RV-7 quickbuild kit and attend a builders center in order to complete your empennage, the DAR cannot allow credit for the empennage constuction. In theory, the application of the 51% rule is not being met in such a case.

4) Recently, FAA investigated one builders assitance center and found six RV's under construction; all were owned by out of state builders and none of the builders were present, yet the aircraft were being woked on.

In addition to DAR recurrent training, I also attended the 51% forum at Oshkosh. To be sure, it is not against the law to hire out work on a builders project. As made plain by Scott G, the law breaking occurs when the builder completes an 8130-12 form stating that they built the aircraft when they in fact did not. It is evident that FAA will soon be looking to make examples out of those that may perjure themselves when completing the 8130-12 form.

To put things into perspective, the composite builders have more of a problem with the new proposed guidance than metal builders do. This is because the definition of "fabricate" is not wholly clear. Still, I do feel FAA has been reasonable and that it is the abuse of a few that have brought this situation into the spotlight.

The issue of a clearer definition of precisely what "fabricate" means is really necessary to complete the new guidance. This is where comments from all of us to FAA will go a long way towards resolving these issues.

 

[BrentHumphreys]

We need definitions of several terms. Three that I can think of
Commercial Assistance - When is it assistance, and when might it be instruction. There are workshops where you complete your rudder as a part of the course. At what point does it become commercial assistance.

Fabrication - There have been lots of opinions on here as to what constitutes fabrication

Raw Materials - How will the determination of raw materials be made. One extreme would have us mining our own ore.

Without a suitable definition of these terms, too much is left open to interpretation... and it still won't fix the problem of people disregarding the rules. The FAA needs to understand that it's failures to enforce the existing rules does not mean that they need to make them more restrictive.

 

[Webb]

Percentage

How do you compare parts for fabrication?

Does size matter?

Is it one part = one part

Ok, then my motor mount is one part is commercially fabricated. My wire than connects the each landing light are 2 amateur build parts. So far I'm at 66.67% fabricated form raw materials on a parts count.

My longerons are 2 pieces that I fabricated from raw stock....You have 2 main landing gear and 2 mounts with 2 brake lines for 33%......you get the picture.

I hate to guess how many pieces I have made from raw materials such as angle stock, j-channel, z-channel, bar stock, flat sheet, tubing, hinges, and wiring. Heck - if each piece of wire counts as a fabricated part, I have close to 20% covered in that alone.

Keep on building.

 

[thallock]

...

Raw Materials - How will the determination of raw materials be made. One extreme would have us mining our own ore.

...

Brent,

I think you are being overly dramatic here. I'm pretty sure we will not have to actually mine our own ore. I suspect the FAA will be satisfied if we just smelt the raw bauxite and produce aluminum ingots. Heck, they are pretty agreeable guys, they may just be satisfied if we go directly to aluminum sheets from the ingots.

Tracy.

 

[hydroguy2]

future kits

This will be starting point for future kits:

Building your RV...Chapter 1

 

[noelf]

For those true builders that choose to process raw bauxite into aluminum, here are a few things to consider.
1. the bauxite-to-aluminum ratio is about 4.5 to 1. That is, you need to start with about 3375 lbs of the dirt to end up with 750 lbs of aluminum...not counting do-overs.
2.The good news it that the reduction process only takes about 4 to 5Volts. The bad news is that you need somewhere between 50 to 150 thousand amps.
3.Your largest kitchen crock pot needs to be able to hold up to sustained 1800 degF temperatures.

Once you get the al ingots, you need to proceed through the different alloying elements. Then hot / cold rolling for different thicknesses. Oh, and don't forget to set aside material for the different rivets that you will want to fabricate.

Be sure to take plenty of pictures for the FAA so that you can show that you were the fabricator of the materials that were used in the construction of your a/c.

 

[Danny7]

I am a DAR,a nd was at the Oshkosh recurrent training. This topic was 95% of the class time, and basically it is a rat's nest. They are still looking for our inputs, so please provide yours. I provided mine already. In a nutshell, they are trying to change the rules to address the rule breakers today. Seems silly to me, and I told them so. Why would any one not following the rules today fell compelled to follow a new set of rules tomorrow. I think the answer is that they are going to take the DAR's to task, especially the ones who are knowingly certificating the commercially-built airplanes.
Yes, ALL of the RV's are grandfathered, as are ALL of the other kits that are currently on the FAA "approved" 51% list. Depending on the final rule, it will remain to be seen how future developed kits are dealt with. Not future sales of current kits. They are apporved.
I think most, if not all, DAR's are not going to have any problem at all with RV's (and a number of other kits). Just keep your builder logs, photos, etc, and you will be fine.
And yes, you can build one, get it licensed, build another one, license it, repeat as often as you would like. That's how some people relax, learn, or enjoy life, and that's what experimental aviation is all about. Let's work hard to keep that privelege available to us. Advertising and building for others, especially for financial gain/benefit, is not in the spirit of the regs. Period.
We have some pretty blatant abusers out there (including some in the RV family), who were very visible at Osh and right in the FAA's face. Not cool.

Vic

typical government action- instead of tracking down whoever should be enforcing the current rules and having a little talking to, the come up with a whole new system that doesn't even seem to address the problem- the DAR's that are signing off on obvious or known abuses.

 

[Danny7]

I fully agree. To summarize, I think that builders .....

4) Recently, FAA investigated one builders assitance center and found six RV's under construction; all were owned by out of state builders and none of the builders were present, yet the aircraft were being woked on.

huh. i wonder where that is. for real.

To put things into perspective, the composite builders have more of a problem with the new proposed guidance than metal builders do. This is because the definition of "fabricate" is not wholly clear. Still, I do feel FAA has been reasonable and that it is the abuse of a few that have brought this situation into the spotlight.

The issue of a clearer definition of precisely what "fabricate" means is really necessary to complete the new guidance. This is where comments from all of us to FAA will go a long way towards resolving these issues.

Lancair is probably jumping through some serious hoops to make sure the evolution is ok'd.

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

For those true builders that choose to process raw bauxite into aluminum, here are a few things to consider.

Smelting aluminum is a ugly, messy process. I spent many hours of my former job working for aluminum smelting clients in the PNW before the 2000 power crisis put them out of business (thanks, Enron).

Why not require people to smelt aluminum, draw copper wire and make their own carbon fiber fabric? Won't you learn a lot about how aluminum works when you alloy it wrong and it fails the QA test? Isn't, in the definition of the term, the point of experimentals to be educational, either for the builder or aviation in general? Learning a lot and winding up with a quality product are not the same thing; we learn a lot in engineering from failure, perhaps more than from success.

Seriously, if the FAA wants us to "fabricate" 20% of the parts, what does "fabricate" mean? Well, it means what they want it to mean, but what's magic about 20%? Do more user-fabricated parts result in a more airworthy aircraft?

Sorry, the whole thing is discouraging to me. Sounds like the FAA is killing homebuilts in order to save them.

TODR

 

[tomcostanza]

Seriously, if the FAA wants us to "fabricate" 20% of the parts, what does "fabricate" mean? Well, it means what they want it to mean,...

My issue is, we don't even know what they WANT it to mean. How do I intelligently comment on something, when I don't know what I'm commenting on?

 

[JHines]

tell the FAA that

My issue is, we don't even know what they WANT it to mean. How do I intelligently comment on something, when I don't know what I'm commenting on?

1. Point out the inherent confusion, focusing on the fact that an ambiguous defition is not only hard on builder, but also makes it hard for the FAA to administer the rule.

2. Recommend your own reasonable definition of "fabricate".