westexflyboy

westexflyboy

Active Member
O.K., so I've read "Pokin the Bear" and the most recent "EAA Voices" both by Dick VanGrunsven, and I must admit that I still don't fully understand. My understanding is that the FAA feels compelled to end professional building of kit airplanes licensed in the Experimental Amateur-Built (Ex-AB) category. If that understanding is wrong, somebody please stop me right there.

I see two possibilties as definitions of professional building.

Definition 1: A kitplane is built in large part by a professional and a different person, the owner/buyer, is listed as the builder in all paperwork even though he/she, the owner/buyer, was not present during hundreds of hours of work; or,

Definition 2: A person (builder) assembles several kitplanes over a period of years and sells each one as the airplanes are completed. This person's name is shown as the builder on all paperwork, and he/she unquestionably built the airplane. The ultimate owner of the airplane (buyer) is not the builder.

In case #2, the buyer is not eligible for the repairman's certificate and must hire either the builder or an A&P to do condition inspections, and the builder could conceivably be held liable for any flaws in a civil suit. Please help me keep these two topics OUT of this discussion, and somebody start another thread if you wish to talk about either.

I'm trying to figure out where/why/how the FAA plans to change to the regulation. I am fairly certain FAA wishes to eliminate case #1 above. But would I be wrong to believe that Ex-AB (new certificates) will continue to be issued after the NPRM? Assuming we still have Ex-AB, will "repeat offenders" such as the #2 case above be able to continue to build and sell RV's?

Chase Snodgrass
Presidio, Texas
http://www.flybigbend.com/html/videos.html
 
Last edited:
#1 does not follow the intent of the rules or the spirit. The idea is that the airplane is built for the experience of building, not for profit.

#2 as far as I can tell does follow the intent, mostly because it's kinda hard to make enough money to make a living doing it this way, if you make money at all. I know a guy that has built a bunch of Lancairs and parts of Lancairs, but its not his job, and the airplanes he turns out benefit greatly from his experience... I think this still follows the spirit and intent of the law, but YMMV.
 
The intent of the Amateur-Built/Experimental category is education. Paying someone else to build your airplane isn't educational.
 
It's not so much that they are looking at changing the rules, but more that they are going to enforce the existing rules, which have been very loosely enforced for a long time. This loose enforcement has led to the situation where both of your scenarios have been allowed to happen, even though both of them are against both the spirit and letter of the law.

In scenario 1, the owner is signing legal paperwork attesting to the fact that he is the builder, when in fact this is not true. Aside from being against FAA regs, this is a felony in most if not all states.

In scenario 2, the pro-builder is, for all purposes, manufacturing airplanes for sale, just like Cessna, without complying with the FAA requirements for airplane manufacturers.
 
Last edited:
sprucemoose said:
In scenario 2, the pro-builder is, for all purposes, manufacturing airplanes for sale, just like Cessna, without complying with the FAA requirements for airplane manufacturers.
Click to expand...

Tony Bengilis and many other retirees have built many planes and continue to be repeat offenders (I'm talking about 5 or more). I don't see how that breaks the rules. If I totally enjoy the building process, how is that wrong? Isn't that the second half of "Education and Recreation?"

I don't see how the FAA or any one else can try to read the mind of the builder and say "your building this for money so its now lawn art."

I believe that if the builder is using his own money to build the plane, he is within the rules. If he is taking someone else's money during the build process, he is a professional builder.

Just my opinion...

Karl
 
All about regulating manufacturers

Why should Cessna or any other manufacturer spend millions of dollars certifying both the design and manufacturing of an airplane, when Joe RV builder-for-hire doesn't need to? Both are manufacturers.

As others have said, if someone wants to follow the rules about who built the plane, and then sell it on the open (or not so open) market, that is just fine, as long as the actual builder is the one listed on the paperwork. You can have people help you build your plane as long as you don't pay them.

The homebuilding exemption is a truly unique (in all of government regulation, I believe) situation, but it can so easily be put in jeopardy by this issue. The number of people (and politicians) who couldn't care less about our arrangement out number us about tens of thousands to one. Governments like to regulate things out of existence - the only question is how long it takes.
 
In the first scenario above, what is the likelyhood that the owner ( not builder) will go over the AC with a fine tooth comb. But in the second case, I'm sure any diligent buyer, (second owner) would and from that inspection he will find education?
 
I see it as a blurred line. We all buy aircraft engines and install them, we don't build our own engines from scratch. Auto pilots, radios, instruments, metal parts, we know how they work, and rely on a manufacturer to built it right in accordance with st rick standards, but we don't make our own. We assemble pieces and parts until it flies.

If someone "buys" an RV who does it hurt? The factory built RV gets the same FAA scrutiny as any other RV. In fact, most of the innovations we enjoy come from "professional" builders learning how to do things better and building a "better mouse trap". Maybe if you "buy" an RV make it mandatory that the buyer attend EAA sponsored workshops and seminars on building? Mandatory OSH! Now we're talking!

Who is to say building 5 RV's qualifies you as a professional builder? Because you have built 4?

As far as comparing a "Certified Cessna" and the millions of $$$ spend on certification, I think was can all agree that is a total waste of money & resources, and has nearly killed general aviation. We have all seen what "certified" parts cost laying next to same exact "experimental" parts. It's a crime. Homebuilding has breathed new life into a dying industry.

Does there need to be new regulations? NO! Just don't have the new "buyer / builder" sign the forms saying he/she built it, end of story.
Just "Don't Poke The Bear"! http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/what-new.htm#bear
 
Last edited:
I think scenario #2 breaks down into two categories: 1) the folks who love building, build the airplane, fly it, and then decide to sell it later so they can build another one 2) the folks who build the airplane, advertise it as "call me before it's complete and I'll customize the panel, paint, etc", fly off the 40 hours, and immediately sell it for 50%-100% over what they put into it.

I think the folks who fall into the 1st category are within the rules, while the folks in the second category are (in my opinion) clearly outside it. I can argue that because if they're advertising that they'll customize the panel, paint, etc then their motive for building it is to sell it.

As far as the "If someone 'buys' an RV who does it hurt?" question, it hurts Cessna and Piper and Cirrus and all of the other certified aircraft manufacturers. Sure the amount they charge is a crime, caused by the FAA requirements for certification. So fix that. Don't put them in a position where they have to compete with Joe RV Builder who doesn't have to spend millions on certification

PJ Seipel
RV-10 #40032
 
Last edited:
Chase,

Your getting that close to retirement when you finally see the light at the end, aren't you? I wish I was in your shoes!
 
Certification

PJSeipel said:
As far as the "If someone 'buys' an RV who does it hurt?" question, it hurts Cessna and Piper and Cirrus and all of the other certified aircraft manufacturers. Sure the amount they charge is a crime, caused by the FAA requirements for certification. So fix that. Don't put them in a position where they have to compete with Joe RV Builder who doesn't have to spend millions on certification...
Click to expand...
I could be wrong, but my guess would be that the companies that are already producing certified aircraft would not want the rules changed to make it easier to manufacture aircraft. They have already passed that barrier, and they would not want it lowered or eliminated since it will create more competitors for them. This is most likely why they are all over the FAA to go after so-called professional builders.

These days investing money in getting more government regulations to protect or help your business is very common practice, to the detriment of everyone else.
 
RVs and light sport not really the issue

From my basic understanding ,all this started when large complex turbine powered experimental aircraft (columbia?) continued to complete airplane after airplane claiming experimental status thus circumventing the expensive certification process. This in turn caught the attention of cessna and others and eventually the FAA. Cirrus, I assume, read the writing on the wall and went through the certification process, others are late in coming. Im not convinced the recent attention to all this was to stop repeat RV builders. I would hope there could be a compromise in the production rate, I would hate to see Bryan and Butch Milani from showplanes out of work,they are truly artists and have added to quality and options available to our RV communtiy.
 
RV Quote

Pokin' the Bear quote by Dick VanGrunsven:

"There is nothing inherently illegal about performing commercial assistance to a homebuilder, or even completely building the aircraft for the owner. However, it can become fraudulent and illegal if a person attests to the FAA that he built an airplane, when in fact someone else commercially built it for him."

Does anybody here take issue with this quote?

Chase Snodgrass
Presidio, TX
http://flybigbend.com
 
westexflyboy said:
Does anybody here take issue with this quote?
Click to expand...
With which part? I think he was being a bit overly technical in the first part of the statement, but the second part is undeniably true from a legal sense.

I think what he means in the first part is, it is perfectly legal to pay someone to build you an RV (or whatever) providing you then use it for static display, a lawn ornament or whatever. This is a bit of hyperbole, since obviously no one is going to do this, but if they did, it would be perfectly legal.
 
I disagree with that last statement. I don't think Dick is saying it has to be a lawn ornamnet at all, just don't say you built it when all you did was write the check!!
 
Dick's point is that the paid builder is not breaking any rules by building the airplane. The problem comes when the owner signs a statement that he built it for "education or recreation." Even the builder cannot rightly sign the statement that he built it for education or recreation. He built it for pay. Therefore the airplane cannot legally be issued an amateur-built airworthiness certificate by either party.
Before it can be issued an amateur-built airworthiness certificate, someone has to sign the 8130.12. And in doing so, someone is going to be lying!
 
Mel said:
Dick's point is that the paid builder is not breaking any rules by building the airplane. The problem comes when the owner signs a statement that he built it for "education or recreation." Even the builder cannot rightly sign the statement that he built it for education or recreation. He built it for pay. Therefore the airplane cannot legally be issued an amateur-built airworthiness certificate by either party.
Before it can be issued an amateur-built airworthiness certificate, someone has to sign the 8130.12. And in doing so, someone is going to be lying!
Click to expand...

I agree with you on this Mel. We will lose our ability to experiment and learn if people continue to misuse the experimental rule.
 
Mel said:
Dick's point is that the paid builder is not breaking any rules by building the airplane. The problem comes when the owner signs a statement that he built it for "education or recreation." Even the builder cannot rightly sign the statement that he built it for education or recreation. He built it for pay. Therefore the airplane cannot legally be issued an amateur-built airworthiness certificate by either party.
Before it can be issued an amateur-built airworthiness certificate, someone has to sign the 8130.12. And in doing so, someone is going to be lying!
Click to expand...

How does the Glastar "two weeks to taxi" program get around this? It seems ridiculous to claim that anyone could have built 51% of any airplane in two weeks (~100 hours?).
 
Glastar fantasy

Alan Carroll said:
How does the Glastar "two weeks to taxi" program get around this? It seems ridiculous to claim that anyone could have built 51% of any airplane in two weeks (~100 hours?).
Click to expand...

Exactly the issue that Mr. VanGrunsven is addressing in "poking the bear." Fifty one percent of the build in 80 hours? This is the sort of thing that could bite us all.

John Clark
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
John Clark said:
Exactly the issue that Mr. VanGrunsven is addressing in "poking the bear." Fifty one percent of the build in 80 hours? This is the sort of thing that could bite us all.

John Clark
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
Click to expand...

100% right on the money. They are poking the heck out of the bear!
 
To understand the current rules you need to look at the history of home building.

Shortly after the Wright Brothers proved to the world that Man could fly, every hack out there started building planes. Some good, some not so good.

These "Home Builts" were used for commercial endeavors such as airline services, hauling passengers AKA airline services, etc. You name a purpose, these early planes were used for it.

The problem was that there was no regulations regarding airworthiness. Heck, the OX-5 used in Jennys and may other airplanes only had one ignition system and many early airplanes used motorcycle and auto engines engines. (Sorry, no Subarus were around at that time.)

Needless to say, there were a LOT of accidents due to structural and engine failures, not to mention pilot failure.

The Air Commerce Act of May 20, 1926 eventually lead to the creation of the Civil Aeronautics Authority (CAA) in 1938. The CAA became the FAA in 1958.

The CAA band homebuilt aircraft as a hazard. It wasn't until Paul and company came along with the EAA that homebuilts were allowed on a national level.

What the FAA is afraid of is a bunch of guys turning out homebuilts (Don't forget, they don't differentiate kit built RV's from plans built Pietenpols or Lycoming from Subaru conversions.) that don't meet the minim of controllability standards, documentation, etc. and these airplanes once again crashing into a school bus full of kids.

PS. Did you now the "C" in an NC1776 type N-number stands for Commercial? (NC1776 belongs to a J-3 Cub BTW.)
 
FAA PLACES MORATORIUM ON NEW ADDITIONS TO 51 PERCENT APPROVED LIST

Amateur-Built ARC Report Published
The FAA today issued the final report of the Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) that it appointed more than 18 months ago to investigate and make recommendations regarding the interpretation and enforcement of the amateur-building "51 percent Rule." Concurrently, the FAA also placed a moratorium on its customary practice of providing to aircraft kit manufacturers and builders courtesy evaluations of new kits' compliance with the 51 percent requirement.
The moratorium means FAA has temporarily suspended amateur-built aircraft kit evaluations. No new kits will appear on the "51 percent approved list" until the FAA has completed its new process revision for determining the major portion (51 percent). The new policies will be printed in a future Federal Register notice. EAA estimates that notice will be published in the April-May time frame. That notice will provide the public an opportunity to comment on the various changes........ end quote.

The above is part of an email received from EAA this evening. Wonder what effect it will have on the RV12 being available this spring?
 
Link to the report

Hal-san said:
Amateur-Built ARC Report Published
The FAA today issued the final report of the Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) that it appointed more than 18 months ago to investigate and make recommendations regarding the interpretation and enforcement of the amateur-building "51 percent Rule."
Click to expand...

Here's a link to the FAA report:

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultralights/amateur_built/media/ARC_FINAL_report.pdf

-John
Planning to build an RV....someday:rolleyes:
 
jtrusso said:
Here's a link to the FAA report:

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultralights/amateur_built/media/ARC_FINAL_report.pdf

-John
Planning to build an RV....someday:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

More info on upcoming FAA changes (Quoted from AvWeb.com http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1054-full.html#197175 )

New Guidance For Kitbuilt Aircraft On The Way

" On Friday, the FAA published the final report (for PDF see John's link above) from the Amateur-Built Aircraft Aviation Rulemaking Committee that outlines plans to keep the "home" in homebuilt. There will be a public comment period, which EAA predicts will be announced in April or May, and the FAA intends to have a final rule by October. The report follows months of work by the FAA and industry representatives in an attempt to curb flagrant violations of the experimental/amateur-built rules, which state that individuals must complete a ?major portion? of the aircraft to be eligible for registration in that category. The report acknowledges that some companies provide de facto manufacturing facilities for kitbuilt aircraft in which the builder does little actual work. ?In the most extreme cases, other persons fabricate and assemble the major portion of an amateur-built aircraft for the applicant,? according to the report.

To curb these abuses, the FAA has proposed changes to the guiding documents rather than a rewrite of the FARs that govern the category. Specifically, changes are expected to Advisory Circulars 20-27 and 20-139 that more accurately tally and identify outside commercial assistance on the forms used by the builder and the final inspector of the aircraft. The intention is, according to Earl Lawrence, vice president of industry and government affairs at the EAA, to clarify which parts of the airplane are completed by the builder, what is done by the factory as part of the original kit, and what has been done by commercial assistance. Now, for example, a kit manufacturer can construct all but one wing rib while the builder ?fabricates? the remaining rib, and both entities get credit for all the work. There is also no requirement to state which parts of the aircraft have been fabricated or assembled by third-party commercial assistance. The revised ACs are expected to address these issues with specific guidance.

?The vast majority [of the report] is what we expected. We still don?t know what the FAA intends,? said Michael Via, of Glasair Aircraft. ?We?re waiting to see what the policies and orders state. Nothing here affects our existing customers.? Jeremy Monnett, of Sonex Aircraft, said his company has always taken the 51 percent rule to heart and enforcement is the key to ensuring all kit manufacturers and builders adhere to the rules. ?The resources required to carry out this enforcement have not been made available by the FAA over the last few years,? Monnett said in a news release. ?Without these resources, enforcement loosens and the rules are pushed beyond their spirit and intent, compromising the rules' continued existence.? The FAA has proposed forming a group of Aviation Safety Inspectors to validate a manufacturer?s claims that its kit allows the builder to complete the ?major portion? of the aircraft. In addition to publishing the report, the FAA announced Friday that it was temporarily suspending inspection of aircraft kits for inclusion on the ?51% list.? This does not impact local inspections of completed airplanes. The move halts inspection of designs at the manufacturer level until the final rulemaking is published."
 
rracer10 said:
.....The FAA has proposed forming a group of Aviation Safety Inspectors to validate a manufacturer?s claims that its kit allows the builder to complete the ?major portion? of the aircraft. In addition to publishing the report, the FAA announced Friday that it was temporarily suspending inspection of aircraft kits for inclusion on the ?51% list.? This does not impact local inspections of completed airplanes. The move halts inspection of designs at the manufacturer level until the final rulemaking is published."
Click to expand...

How will this affect the RV-12 (halting all inspections for manufacturer's designs) :confused: Will this delay it's release? Has anyone heard anything from Van ?
 
re: heard from Van

rracer10 said:
How will this affect the RV-12 (halting all inspections for manufacturer's designs) :confused: Will this delay it's release? Has anyone heard anything from Van ?
Click to expand...

I have strong feelings that Van will be, really probably already is, very "versed" on the rules & won't do anything to jepordize the company reputation. I think he'll pretty much do his homework, maybe even go so far as to meet one-on-one
with the feds to be sure the 12 is in compliant.
This is only, of course, my own opinion, based on the short, limited conversations I've had with him at OSH in the past. He's a VERY smart man.

Marshall Alexander
 
Van has been deeply "in the mix" ...

RV10Man said:
I have strong feelings that Van will be, really probably already is, very "versed" on the rules & won't do anything to jepordize the company reputation. I think he'll pretty much do his homework, maybe even go so far as to meet one-on-one
with the feds to be sure the 12 is in compliant.
This is only, of course, my own opinion, based on the short, limited conversations I've had with him at OSH in the past. He's a VERY smart man.

Marshall Alexander
Click to expand...

Don't forget, he "Co-Chaired" the activity leading up to this.

The real issue is not what companies like Van's are doing. It is what some others are doing and what some individuals are doing **WITH** offerings like Van's and others.

Think of it another way ... the guy that goes back to the shop and has another airfoil considered so he can get that extra 1-2 knots for compliance is going to make sure all the "i's" are dotted and "t's" are crossed.

Van's Aircraft (and its products) is the LAST company I would worry about.
 
From the ARC report:

The purpose of the Committee was to make recommendations regarding the use of builder or commercial assistance when fabricating and assembling amateurbuilt aircraft.

This regulation permits someone to build an aircraft that, ??the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by persons who undertook the construction project solely for their own education or recreation.

So we buy a quickbuild kit, in reality, the major portion of the aircraft has just been professionally built??..

It?s going to be very interesting to see the outcome of this.

Steve
 
Major portion has been interpreted as a bit and piece of each component, when it should be at least half the work on each component right? But is using a preformed rib considered to be too much? Too hard to define. I don't think Van's QB kits leave that much to do, but they still leave enough so the builder gets a great feel for the airplane. I think his kits will be fine.
 
jclark said:
Don't forget, he "Co-Chaired" the activity leading up to this.

The real issue is not what companies like Van's are doing. It is what some others are doing and what some individuals are doing **WITH** offerings like Van's and others.

Think of it another way ... the guy that goes back to the shop and has another airfoil considered so he can get that extra 1-2 knots for compliance is going to make sure all the "i's" are dotted and "t's" are crossed.

Van's Aircraft (and its products) is the LAST company I would worry about.
Click to expand...

Forgot about him co-chairing.:)
Ditto the comment about Van's being the last co. to worry about.

Marhall
 
FAA may resume ?courtesy inspections? of new homebuilt designs

Today's post on AvWeb suggests that the FAA will resume the ?courtesy inspections? again:

"The FAA may resume ?courtesy inspections? of new homebuilt designs after the Congressman representing the district that is home to Lancair and Epic Aircraft complained that the freeze on inspections could harm the companies. The FAA halted the inspections as part of a review of homebuilt rules ..."

Not sure what this means considering the recent moratorium... any ideas?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.