[scrollF4]

I have a question about the businesses out there that advertise their services to build an RV for the customer. How does that work, given what I thought is an FAA rule that the owner must accomplish at least 51% of the build? How are they able to do all the work for a paying customer?

I ask because I'd LOVE to start my own family RV-based business some day when I grow up and retire from the USAF.

 

[jaredyates]

One of the guys in my chapter is using a commercial builder to finish his, since he already has much more than 51% done. But I think most of these places aren't following the intent of the rules, even if some of them are following the letter of the rule. It's all fun an games until a few folks ruin it for the rest of us- just like loud motorcycle pipes.

 

[sprucemoose]

Jared nailed it. Most of them are in violation of at least the spirit, and often the letter of the law.

Now, the RV-12 (and other E-LSA types) are a different story, since there is no 51% rule where E-LSAs are concerned. That does represent a potential business opportunity.

 

[Danny7]

i dunno, if the faa has checked off glastars two weeks to fly or however long that program is, then a good builder assist can do likewise and still follow their rules. remember, if a guy does one rib out of twenty that counts for his contribution (at least that is how i understand it) Also, having someone there who can tell you how to fix mistakes, give you the best plan of attack, and have all the tools well laid out will cut months off a guy that is doing it solo in his basement/ garage.

remember anyone can do all the avionics and engine work it doesn't have to be the builder

 

[Danny7]

How are they able to do all the work for a paying customer?

They are not supposed to be able to do all the work for a paying customer on the airframe. however i believe they can do all of the avionics work and engine mounting

 

[Mel]

Not quite!

remember, if a guy does one rib out of twenty that counts for his contribution (at least that is how i understand it)

The new checklist has you list a percentage of each task, not just "the task".
Read AC 20-27G closely. It addresses commercial assistance in depth. The new checklist is in appendix 8.

 

[PCHunt]

Growing up?

............... I ask because I'd LOVE to start my own family RV-based business some day when I grow up and retire from the USAF.

Sorry to inform you, but if you have spent a career in the military flying jets, your progression toward adulthood is forever stunted. There is no hope of ever "growing up'.

Congratulations! Who wants to grow up, anyway?

 

[Danny7]

The new checklist has you list a percentage of each task, not just "the task".
Read AC 20-27G closely. It addresses commercial assistance in depth. The new checklist is in appendix 8.

Thanks for the correction Mel. That is for all kits now? I mean, is the two week to taxi program still available? and older kits like the rv46789 have to follow that checklist?

and the other stuff i mentioned in the post, that is close to the truth?

 

[chaskuss]

AC 20-139

The new checklist has you list a percentage of each task, not just "the task".
Read AC 20-27G closely. It addresses commercial assistance in depth. The new checklist is in appendix 8.

Mel & Sid,
AC 20-139 addresses this issue directly. It might be outdated, as it was released on April 3, 1996. It is titled

COMMERCIAL ASSISTANCE DURING CONSTRUCTION OF AN AMATEUR-BUILT AIRCRAFT

Charlie Kuss
PS I have a PDF copy if anyone wants to see it.

 

[eMKay]

This is something I'm exploring, building the parts for people that they do not want to build, like fuel tanks. That is a small part of the build and would still be under the 51% rule. Also what about getting parts to quickbuild stage for people, say they send me control surfaces or even wing kits and I build them. I would then deliver them (not ship, personally deliver) Something I've been thinking about.

 

[Skysailor]

Thanks for the correction Mel. That is for all kits now? I mean, is the two week to taxi program still available? and older kits like the rv46789 have to follow that checklist?

and the other stuff i mentioned in the post, that is close to the truth?

The two weeks to taxi is for the Glastar, not the Glasair. Same company but completely different aircraft. I can tell you this with confidence as I am completing an abandoned Glasair Super II RG and have been for several years. The rest of the advice here is good. I sure hope we never lose the Experimental category because it is where all the true innovation originates.

 

[jaredyates]

Emkay, that is a great example of what I was talking about in post number two. Don't ruin it for the rest of us. Some people don't want to build, but the rest of us don't want the feds to start changing the rules more than they already have. If someone doesn't want to build, then he needs to find another hobby, which I would be glad to assist with. For instance, I would recommend skydiving. I'll provide the parachute, but I'll make it by complying with the letter of the law instead of the intent.

 

[rhill]

There are lots of ways to make a buck,building a "better mousetrap", over the years I've seen a lot of small production runs of things RV. How about a nose gear for a 7,9 A. that when it fails leaves the ship up right,like the RV-10 does?

 

[eMKay]

Emkay, that is a great example of what I was talking about in post number two. Don't ruin it for the rest of us. Some people don't want to build, but the rest of us don't want the feds to start changing the rules more than they already have. If someone doesn't want to build, then he needs to find another hobby, which I would be glad to assist with. For instance, I would recommend skydiving. I'll provide the parachute, but I'll make it by complying with the letter of the law instead of the intent.

What's the difference between me getting a component to quickbuild, and the company Vans hires to do it? From what I understand it still meets the 51% rule.

 

[scrollF4]

Growing up

Sorry to inform you, but if you have spent a career in the military flying jets, your progression toward adulthood is forever stunted. There is no hope of ever "growing up'.

Congratulations! Who wants to grow up, anyway?

I know, I know. My bride reminds me daily...

 

[scrollF4]

Answers

Mel, Charlie, Everyone,
Thanks, the E-LSA differences made it click, as I didn't grasp the significance of that segment and that the 51% rule doesn't apply the same. That explained it.

 

[wrongway john]

I have a question about the businesses out there that advertise their services to build an RV for the customer. How does that work, given what I thought is an FAA rule that the owner must accomplish at least 51% of the build? How are they able to do all the work for a paying customer?

I ask because I'd LOVE to start my own family RV-based business some day when I grow up and retire from the USAF.

A few of these places I checked on do work for you at the rate of $50.00 an hour plus for whatever stage you want them to work on, and yes they do most if not all the work, which I won't comment about the legalities. Besides, I wasn't interested in doing that way. I was particularly interested in renting out a space and doing the work myself, staying compliant with the 51% rule, but having somebody keep an eye on my work and progress. There wasn’t much interest in doing it that way.

One such place that is legal and let's the builder actually build it is this one in Boone, Iowa, which I’m really surprised hasn’t had any threads done on it on VAF. It is: WC Aircraft Works.

I just happened across this place after talking to a DAR in Iowa about it who was very happy with the way they were doing things. He described it as an RV factory. They rent you out a spot for your project for about $90.00 a month. They have TC’s that will come by to check up on your progress. If you need more help from them, they charge $35.00 an hour. Keith said if it’s just a few minutes of Q&A, they don’t run the meter on something like that. The hourly charge is when you need the TC more extensively.

They stay pretty much completely filled up, but Keith talks like they can always work another one in. This is a win win situation for everybody concerned as well as the local community. Business is booming. Cleveland Tool is also just down the street. This is what the RV world could use more of.

 

[Walt]

I was particularly interested in renting out a space and doing the work myself, staying compliant with the 51% rule, but having somebody keep an eye on my work and progress. There wasn?t much interest in doing it that way.

They rent you out a spot for your project for about $90.00 a month. They have TC?s that will come by to check up on your progress. If you need more help from them, they charge $35.00 an hour.

They stay pretty much completely filled up, but Keith talks like they can always work another one in. This is a win win situation for everybody concerned as well as the local community. Business is booming. Cleveland Tool is also just down the street. This is what the RV world could use more of.

I would love to do something like this at my airport, but the cost of buying/leasing a hanger is too high to justify doing it. With the average cost of a hanger being 200K (and up) you'd have to have 10 aircraft at $200/month basically to break even (and a 200K hanger would only fit about 5 aircraft max).

If anybody has an ideas on how this could be done for less I'd love to hear them!

 

[wrongway john]

I would love to do something like this at my airport, but the cost of buying/leasing a hanger is too high to justify doing it. With the average cost of a hanger being 200K (and up) you'd have to have 10 aircraft at $200/month basically to break even (and a 200K hanger would only fit about 5 aircraft max).

If anybody has an ideas on how this could be done for less I'd love to hear them!

Well if you did one in the D/FW area, I?d sign up. I?ve built plenty of buildings, and new hangars don?t need to be that expensive, but perhaps the land to buy them on is what is keeping the price up.

I do have an idea of how this could be done for considerably less. With commercial buildings so cheap these days, it?s probably worth considering to buy what is already out there. Having a hangar at an airport is nice, but many projects don?t need to go there until final stages. Commercial buildings are going for a song in the Wichita Falls area. One example was a 35,000 sf building that was priced at $99,000. 18 acres came with it. The metal building was solid, and over 25 feet tall. I looked at it, and had I known of some A&P?s or DAR?s that would have handled that aspect of overseeing the building aspect, I would have purchased it for that purpose.

 

[Danny7]

I would love to do something like this at my airport, but the cost of buying/leasing a hanger is too high to justify doing it. With the average cost of a hanger being 200K (and up) you'd have to have 10 aircraft at $200/month basically to break even (and a 200K hanger would only fit about 5 aircraft max).

If anybody has an ideas on how this could be done for less I'd love to hear them!

why have it in a hanger? seems like there is going to be plenty of light industrial space available for the next 15-20 years at cheaper rent. You only need the airport for the last little bit and you could be pretty close anyway, if things were right you could still taxi a plane into the airport. It has been done in redmond.

 

[Walt]

why have it in a hanger? seems like there is going to be plenty of light industrial space available for the next 15-20 years at cheaper rent. You only need the airport for the last little bit and you could be pretty close anyway, if things were right you could still taxi a plane into the airport. It has been done in redmond.

Well I do RV maintenance and other airplane work at the airport now, I also keep my airplane in the same hanger which makes working/flying convenient (all my tools/equipment in one location).

Many of the hangers at our airport are used for non-aviation commercial businesses and I've heard it's because the cost of a hangers there are cheaper than most commercial buildings in the area when you factor in taxes and all the other expenses. This is part of the reason the hanger costs are higher than normal, if they got rid of all the "non aviation" related business on the airport there would be a lot more hanger space available for us airplane guys

I think what I need is an "investor" looking to go into the aviation business, I can provide the technical expertise and he can provide the $$$.

 

[wrongway john]

Walt, is that fairly common in the D/FW area? I do know of a few people in my area who put their motorhomes, boats, and other vehicles in them without even owning a single airplane. Sure makes hangar space scarce.

Is there any real tax breaks by having a hangar at an airport vs having a building located elsewhere? Certain airports get breaks if the city owns it. In our downtown area commercial buildings are really cheap (some large ones $1.00-$3.00 a foot) and it would probably be appraised for sales price. After that, it would be based on income generated at that location.

 

[Walt]

Walt, is that fairly common in the D/FW area? I do know of a few people in my area who put their motorhomes, boats, and other vehicles in them without even owning a single airplane. Sure makes hangar space scarce. .

Yes, probably 25% or more of the hanger space at 52F has non-aviation related businesses or used for storage.

Is there any real tax breaks by having a hangar at an airport vs having a building located elsewhere? Certain airports get breaks if the city owns it. In our downtown area commercial buildings are really cheap (some large ones $1.00-$3.00 a foot) and it would probably be appraised for sales price. After that, it would be based on income generated at that location.

Our airport is a privately owned public airport but its location is remote and the property tax rate is reasonable compared to "closer to the city" locations.

 

[cwreeves]

51% Rule

Van's has already completed 49% of the kits. The only way you can get the repairman's certificate is to complete the remaining 51%. I figured that's why most of us build the plane. We can do all the maintenance and inspections. This kinda reminds me about the guy I met at Copper State several years ago. He had beautiful new RV-10 setting on the ramp. I asked him how long it took him to build and he said 9 months. My remark was you and how many others or what army? He looked at me kinda sheepishly and replied I had lots of help. That guy could never quailfy for a repairmans certificate unless he lied to the FAA. I guess if someone has lots of money he can afford to have it built and maintained. My opinion only.
Charlie, RV-7

 

[Mel]

The only way you can get the repairman's certificate is to complete the remaining 51%.

This is a common misnomer. The 51% rule applies to certification of the aircraft in the "Experimental Amateur-Built" category. Not to the applicant of the repairman certificate.

The qualification for the repairman certificate is that you have built a sufficient portion of the aircraft to competently accomplish the condition inspection.

For example; 20 friends can build the aircraft. One of them can receive the repairman certificate. That person obviously hasn't built 51 percent.

 

[Kevin Horton]

What's the difference between me getting a component to quickbuild, and the company Vans hires to do it? From what I understand it still meets the 51% rule.

The difference is that Van has worked with the FAA to get their agreement that the quickbuild kit meets the 51% rules. So Van's customers can buy a quickbuild kit without risking running afoul of the 51% rule (assuming they don't contract out any portions of the remaining work).

In your case, you wouldn't be able to offer customers any assurance that they would be able to get an airworthiness certificate in the amateur-built category, so they would be taking a bit of a risk. The risk would be small as long as you only did a small amount of work for any given customer. If you ended up building a significant portion of the project, and the person doing the official final inspection was aware of that, the owner might find he cannot get an airworthiness certificate.

 

[scrollF4]

Evolving the basic question about pro kit building...

OK, the next questions:
For those businesses that build RV-12s for paying clients, what liability risks do they accept?
- Are they at risk for litigation from buyers' families for any mishaps?
- Are they well and sufficiently served by liability insurance?
- ... or does this insurance exist?

Inquiring minds (mindful of the coming day when I must grow up) want to know.

 

[Danny7]

OK, the next questions:
For those businesses that build RV-12s for paying clients, what liability risks do they accept?
- Are they at risk for litigation from buyers' families for any mishaps?
- Are they well and sufficiently served by liability insurance?
- ... or does this insurance exist?

Inquiring minds (mindful of the coming day when I must grow up) want to know.

you are asking legal advice. the only legal advice i can give you is you should ask a lawyer in your state.

 

[scrollF4]

you are asking legal advice. the only legal advice i can give you is you should ask a lawyer in your state.

Danny,
You're right, I am so advised.

 

[Gary 40274]

I am not a Lawyer

Having been in business for 30 years I have learned a few legal things though. Anyone can sue you for any reason. You will need to pay for your legal defense even if you are innocent.

In my mind the greatest risk is from some one else' insurance company. For example, you do work for someone else and they have an accident and their insurance company pays for the loss. Then that insurance company goes looking for someone to make them whole (subrogation). They obviously have lots of legal folks on staff and can really cause lots of grief.

Also, in most states it is not an effective defense to have a signed liability waver.

I am sure we have a few Lawyers around on the list that can expand on this.

Gary Specketer

 

[wrongway john]

In my mind the greatest risk is from some one else' insurance company. For example, you do work for someone else and they have an accident and their insurance company pays for the loss. Then that insurance company goes looking for someone to make them whole (subrogation). They obviously have lots of legal folks on staff and can really cause lots of grief.

Also, in most states it is not an effective defense to have a signed liability waver.

Texas is the most litigious state if my insurance company is correct, and they certainly don’t mind pointing that out. No lawyer here either, however, but more than just a few told me I’d be more likely to be sued if I had liability insurance, and questioned why I even had it. I dropped that option many years ago. I do feel like most insurance companies and their lawyers and others are far more likely to go after other people who have it. I also know of quite a few businesses that also prefer to lease their buildings instead of buy, I suppose, to further distance themselves from a potential lawsuit. I've talked to one man in the gyrocopter business that wasn't the least bit concerned about a lawsuit. He didn't own the building, he contracted out all of the parts, and I think even assembly. I think what assests he had, would have been difficult for the lawyers to get ahold of, and I'm guessing he figured the lawyers had easier and bigger fish to fry.

For those businesses that build RV-12s for paying clients, what liability risks do they accept?
- Are they at risk for litigation from buyers' families for any mishaps?
- Are they well and sufficiently served by liability insurance?
- ... or does this insurance exist?

Not just the 12’s, but for any amateur built plane, I suspect some of these for hire companies that are doing a great deal of the work for somebody else are protecting themselves by having the builder say they did it. And I imagine quite a few of the builder/builders are all too happy to say so, so that at least one of them will be able to do their own conditional inspections.

 

[flion]

This is a common misnomer. The 51% rule applies to certification of the aircraft in the "Experimental Amateur-Built" category. Not to the applicant of the repairman certificate.

The qualification for the repairman certificate is that you have built a sufficient portion of the aircraft to competently accomplish the condition inspection.

For example; 20 friends can build the aircraft. One of them can receive the repairman certificate. That person obviously hasn't built 51 percent.

Mel, you triggered an interesting question in my head: do you think, in the above example that the FAA/FSDO might decide that no one was qualified for the Repairman Certificate? I think some builders think that if they certify the aircraft, they automatically qualify even though they may only have fitted the fairings while previous builders did all the basic work. When I got my certificate for 156PK, I submitted my logs and photos to the FSDO showing me actually working on the plane in order to qualify. I guess what I'm asking is, and knowing that you can't speak for the FAA, how much of a rubber stamp is the application process for the Repairman Certificate?

 

[Mel]

Typically the FAA has been pretty lenient on the matter of the repairman certificate. That's not to say that it's a "rubber stamp" by any means.
The requirement of the FAA is to interview the applicant and determine if he/she built a sufficient portion of the aircraft to be able to competently accomplish the condition inspection.
I have not heard of a situation where no one was found eligible.
As always, your mileage may vary!
My $.025 worth.

 

[tejasflyer]

My repairmans certificate

Was very straight forward to get. Mel did my inspection, and provided me with all the information needed. Mel also included a list of things to expect. During the application process, the FAA guy asked quite a few "casual" questions about the build, and the build process. How did you accomplish this? What type of connector did you use here? It was more like a casual interview than anything else. Pressure was minimal, as it takes very little to get me to talk about my plane. this was in the Houston FSDO.

KB