G-force said:
I think the question boils down to the TWTT builder get a repairmens cert.
Click to expand...

I'm going to throw some gas on the fire and speculate that this question was asked of RV slow builders (and Q-builders, of course) by the scratch builders of the day. :eek:

I fear the industry is changing quickly and an overreaching knee jerk reaction will emanate from the FAA. Makes me want to get my house finished and get back into RV construction before the jerks happen.
 
Last edited:
I don't doubt this can be done...

Robins Air Force Base here in middle Georgia does maintenance on C5's. About five years ago it took them over a year to return a C5 to active status. They are now routinely turning them around in 160 days. They used Lean Manufacturing principles to identify and eliminate waste (non value added time) and Critical Chain Project Management techniques to better manage the work.

It is not uncommon for business processes (manufacturing, service, and adminstrative) to have 90% waste and only 10% value added. I recently heard about a hospital that looked into the time it took them to discharge a patient. From the time the MD signed the release order to the time the patient was actually rolled out the door was an average 7 HOURS! They analyzed the process and found that the time workers actually spent doing something regarding that patient was only 17 minutes. 420 minutes of time and only 17 minutes is value-added. That 4% value-added and 96% waste.

So, I can believe that if you organize the work properly and minimize the waste, you could build a QB RV in under 200 man-hours (I mean person-hours) :).

The only problem I have with this concept is (like others) regarding the repairman's (er... repairperson's) certificate. The simple solution is to not issue a repairperson's certificate to the builder unless they prove adequate skills and knowledge by other means (other than the building process). And, think about it, folks who can afford $190K RV10's probably aren't all that interested in doing their own maintenance anyway. They have "people" for that.
 
And, think about it, folks who can afford $190K RV10's probably aren't all that interested in doing their own maintenance anyway.
Click to expand...
Whoa, blanket generality in that last statement. Just because us RV-10 builders are building larger, more expensive RV's (relatively speaking) doesn't make us any less interested in the construction and maintenance of our aircraft. I would hazard to guess that most of us still want to do our own maintenance: some for the pleasure, some for the savings, and some (like me) for both. Yeah I know that no one should get into building simply to save money on ownership, but I'd be lying if I said it wasn't a big factor for me. I can afford a $150K SB RV-10, but I can't afford a $300K+ Cirrus, and maintenance is part of that equation. Folks that would buy a pre-built RV-10 for $190K-$225K possibly aren't concerned about the cost of maintenance, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't do it if they had the chance.

They have "people" for that.
Click to expand...
I'll take that as a tongue and cheek comment, but I'm still a little miffed though. I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth so I don't have "people" to do anything for me. For some reason there has always seemed to me to be this undercurrent of "if you don't build it as cheaply, as light or, or as streamlined as possible, then you have no business building an RV." A four-place $100K+ RV that can't do acro, what was Van's thinking? Now the country club set will invade our domain and they'll ruin everything, lighting their cigars with c-notes and what not.

I apologize for going on a rant and going off topic, but it feels good to vent--5 months in the desert and not building or flying will do that to a person.
 
Repairman's Certificate - who cares?

G-force said:
...but when its your doing a condition inspection, I want to have seen and touched everyone one of those rivets before and know how they looked when I first set them. I agree alot of time is spent stairing at the plans, gaining an understanding of how it all goes together...this is valuable information if your ever going to be inspecting, rebuilding, or maintaining an aircraft!
Click to expand...
I see where you're coming from, but in my opinion it's not a realistic standard.

An AP/IA that has never even seen a particular type of aircraft (certificated) can sign off on an annual inspection or major repairs, without ever having touched a single rivet or seen an original plan. Granted, he (most times) is doing this with the benefit of maintenance manuals, but the fact is that he is using general knowledge about aircraft and how they're built, not specific rivet-level knowledge gained by having driven them himself. He didn't have to make the thing himself to know how things are supposed to look or work.

In your world, a plane owned by anyone but the builder would be unmaintainable because only the builder has the depth of intimate knowledge you state as required. This would obviously decimate the market for already-built RVs, and I really don't think anyone wants that.

Now, if you want to say that a TWTT builder shouldn't have a repairman's certificate, I won't put up much of a fight. I don't have one, and it costs me $350 (I pay an IA to do my condition inspection because it makes me comfortable) a year not to have it. I can live with that.
 
Dgamble said:
I see where you're coming from, but in my opinion it's not a realistic standard.

An AP/IA that has never even seen a particular type of aircraft (certificated) can sign off on an annual inspection or major repairs, without ever having touched a single rivet or seen an original plan. Granted, he (most times) is doing this with the benefit of maintenance manuals, but the fact is that he is using general knowledge about aircraft and how they're built, not specific rivet-level knowledge gained by having driven them himself. He didn't have to make the thing himself to know how things are supposed to look or work.

In your world, a plane owned by anyone but the builder would be unmaintainable because only the builder has the depth of intimate knowledge you state as required. This would obviously decimate the market for already-built RVs, and I really don't think anyone wants that.

Now, if you want to say that a TWTT builder shouldn't have a repairman's certificate, I won't put up much of a fight. I don't have one, and it costs me $350 (I pay an IA to do my condition inspection because it makes me comfortable) a year not to have it. I can live with that.
Click to expand...
Dave,
On the other side of the coin, the AP/IA didn't get all his/her training in 2 weeks. The TWTT applicant has had nowhere near the training that the AP/IA has. This aircraft would not be unmaintainable because there is always the A&P option available.
Just another thought.
 
Me too

We built our -6A QB and I have the repairman's certificate but I still use my buddy who's an A@P, IA to check my mag timing and compressions because I don't have or need those instruments. I've driven enough rivets in my life that I don't need any more rivetting experience. I wouldn't hesitate to buy a mostly completed kit in a New York minute if the workmanship looked good.

Regards,
Pierre
 
The Real Issue...(for me)

This is really a good discussion, and I actually agree with most of the folks that say that the TWTT program is going to produce some great airplanes - no doubt, with repetition, an aircraft factory puts out good quality, and that is really what this is - an airplane factory.

I also have no issue with ANYONE owning an RV, no matter if they mined the Bauxite and built it from pirated drawings, or wrote a check and had their butler/retired ATP pick it up for them....(I know I'm being over-the top for humor here, and am going for a cheap laugh....) :p

The only issue that I have is that within the current rules, and the way they have been interpreted publicly to this point, this looks like another chance for the FAA to drop the hammer on Experimental Aviation, say that it is out of control, and that "These people need to be stopped!" That's it - one issue. I would be 100% comfortable with this if TWTT issued a press release showing their president shaking hands with the FAA administrator and quoted her saying "We at eh FAA fully support the program at TWTT as it will provide safe new airplanes of modern design and reinvigorate general aviation!"

That's all - a clear cut statement of approval from our friends at the FAA, and I am totally on board.

Great idea, great concept...just don't foul the nest for everyone else!

Paul
 
Paul,
You've hit the nail on the head. I don't know about the TWTT program, but many of these type programs are not "Blessed by the FAA". I have worked with the big guys more than once investigating build shops where the "customer" has never been seen.
 
Last edited:
Ironflight said:
This is really a good discussion, and I actually agree with most of the folks that say that the TWTT program is going to produce some great airplanes - no doubt, with repetition, an aircraft factory puts out good quality, and that is really what this is - an airplane factory.
Click to expand...
In some cases, I think the TWTT programs will produce better airplanes. Do doubt that if I built on my own, it would not be as good as building with experienced builders at my side. The same can be said of QB kits - as lots of folks have noted in the past, the QB isn't as beautiful as individuals can get it, but the work quality is (AFAIK) good.
 
Auburntsts said:
Whoa, blanket generality in that last statement. Just because us RV-10 builders are building larger, more expensive RV's (relatively speaking) doesn't make us any less interested in the construction and maintenance of our aircraft. I would hazard to guess that most of us still want to do our own maintenance: some for the pleasure, some for the savings, and some (like me) for both. Yeah I know that no one should get into building simply to save money on ownership, but I'd be lying if I said it wasn't a big factor for me. I can afford a $150K SB RV-10, but I can't afford a $300K+ Cirrus, and maintenance is part of that equation. Folks that would buy a pre-built RV-10 for $190K-$225K possibly aren't concerned about the cost of maintenance, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't do it if they had the chance.

I'll take that as a tongue and cheek comment, but I'm still a little miffed though. I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth so I don't have "people" to do anything for me. For some reason there has always seemed to me to be this undercurrent of "if you don't build it as cheaply, as light or, or as streamlined as possible, then you have no business building an RV." A four-place $100K+ RV that can't do acro, what was Van's thinking? Now the country club set will invade our domain and they'll ruin everything, lighting their cigars with c-notes and what not.

I apologize for going on a rant and going off topic, but it feels good to vent--5 months in the desert and not building or flying will do that to a person.
Click to expand...


Todd,

It was totally "tongue-in-cheek". If there was a "tongue-in-cheek" emoticon available I would have used it. :) I guess a smiley would have helped convey my intended message. :) Also, you'll get no "undercurrent" from me about having to build your aircraft in any particular way. YOUR RV should match YOUR mission.

I never said you or anyone else was born with a "silver spoon in your mouth." My comment was regarding the fact that the "target market" for these TWTT programs are mainly folks who have more money and less time. Thus, my comment that those folks are "likely" less interested in obtaining the repairperson's certificate.

Regarding the repairperson's certificate... Currently the assumption is made that someone who has gone through the normal process of building a SB or QB has picked up the necessary experience, knowledge, and skills to warrant being issued a repairperson's certificate. Much of the debate on the TWTT programs is centered around whether someone who has spent two weeks building has gained enough experience, knowledge, and skills to warrant being issued a repairperson's certificate. My view was that rather than outright deny someone using a TWTT program from getting a repair certificate, perhaps those folks just need to provide more evidence of their knowledge and skills before being issued the repair certificate. The more evidence could be in the form of a test, formal education, and/or evidence of other building experience.

Like others, I don't have any trouble with anyone owning, flying, and enjoying an experimental. You can build your own, buy someone else's, or use a TWTT. Heck, there have been a couple of times during my project that I have lusted after a completed aircraft up for sale. :D The fear that many have (including me) is that rampant disregard for the "spirit" of the 51% rule will result in the FAA taking a new look at it. The most likely result of this would not be positive.
 
Tony,
I figured as much, and my rant really wasn't directed to you or any one specific, but your post just set me off and I apologize to you and everyone here. We have a great community but sometimes I feel that we are our own worst enemy in our zeal defend our building and operational decisions/positions that I see folks taking on a "it's my way or the highway mentality". This might sound cliche, but I thought diversity and experimentation was what homebuilding was all about.

As for your perspective on the TWTT and the repairman's certificate, I agree with you 100%.

For what it's worth, if I had the money I have a Cirrus SR22 for family flying and RV-8 for weekend fun.
 
Take a pic....

Mel said:
Paul,
You've hit the nail on the head. I don't know about the TWTT program, but many of these type programs are not "Blessed by the FAA". I have worked with the big guys more than once investigating build shops where the "customer" has never been seen.
Click to expand...
...or just had one or two photos taken with a rivet gun in his/her hand.... :)

gil A
 
az_gila said:
...or just had one or two photos taken with a rivet gun in his/her hand.... :)

gil A
Click to expand...

I agree that this type of abuse is very bad for experimental aviation. However, I think that the TWWT program is most definitely not that type of situation, and meets the intent of the current regulations. It's true that nobody doing TWWT is going to have the same intimate knowledge of the aircraft that standard kit builders have. In a way it is similar to the "7 day instrument rating" courses. You get a ton of stuff thrown at you in a very short time period, are proficient at the end of the training, but will quickly loose that knowledge if not practiced on a regular basis. In that 2 week time period of building I'm sure the builder gets a pretty good idea of the aircraft systems and how things go together, but a few months later a lot of that knowledge will have been forgotton. In addition, they are probably getting very little hands on experience with the engine systems, panel and avionics wiring, and experience troubleshooting problems as we all do in the course of building in a standard fashion. For these reasons, I think that giving the builder a repairmans certificate is probably not a great idea.
 
New RV-7A for sale ad today

65 hours. Built by experienced RV builder (11 aircraft).

How does this fit in to this discussion? I would wager that it was built to be sold as opposed to his personal use. Should this type construction be halted because it may not adhere to the original intent of the experimental building process or should it be allowed because there are people like me be happy that there is another RV on the market to buy?

BTW, calling a well proven design like the RV "experimental" is misleading. As long as the builder adheres to sound construction practices, I have no problem with this type sale. Perhaps it should have one or two more inspections during the construction phase, a more rigorous single inspection, and/or a certain amount of flight time before being sold (50 hours?).
 
ronlee said:
How does this fit in to this discussion? I would wager that it was built to be sold as opposed to his personal use.
Click to expand...
It fits quite nicely into this discussion. Hired guns have been building airplanes for people, in violation of the letter and spirit of the law, for a long time, and as long as there are DARs willing to look the other way, then I think it will continue...

... until the FAA decides to step in and take action against the hired guns. And when the boot comes down, some of us may get squashed under it too. So it is really the same situation, or very similar, to TWTT.
 
steve_adams said:
In addition, they are probably getting very little hands on experience with the engine systems, panel and avionics wiring, and experience troubleshooting problems as we all do in the course of building in a standard fashion. For these reasons, I think that giving the builder a repairmans certificate is probably not a great idea.
Click to expand...

I don't know if I agree with this. Certainly a homebuilder will not get the troubleshooting aspect you refer to. But the TWTT builder will see the whole airplane, every part of it, from the inside out. If the builder is of average intelligence and mechanically inclined, I think you could make a good argument that he has a high enough level of system knowledge to work on the aircraft.

An "oral exam" by a designee should suffice to issue the repairman certificate. After all, in most cases, we are talking about very simple aircraft systems. Most pilots who encounter complex problems with their aircraft are going to get some help and advice on it. Repairman certificate or not.
 
Keep in mind...

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve_adams
In addition, they are probably getting very little hands on experience with the engine systems, panel and avionics wiring, and experience troubleshooting problems as we all do in the course of building in a standard fashion. For these reasons, I think that giving the builder a repairmans certificate is probably not a great idea.


You can take years to complete your slow build ship and still hire out the engine and avionics to someone else. I am sure that you can get your repairman certificate even if you do this.

I just completed my first conditional inspection and did things to the engine that I didn't do during the build. (IE gaped the plugs, did a compression check and timed the mags). All of these task were done by my engine builder and I just mounted the engine and made sure that it ran.

I was told by my FAA experimental examiner that he had not issued repairman certificates to people that had built their own planes before. The reason is when he ask them about how the planes system worked they didn't understand enough for him to feel that they would be able to conduct the conditional inspection correctly.
 
Experimental review group

I seem to recall reading about some group that is looking at issues like this discussion. I believe that Vans is a member. It would be nice to know what they are considering.
 
Cost comparison

Does anyone know what the cost difference is between a hired gun built RV and a TWTT built RV? If similar, it would seem to me that the TWTT program might have an advantage for some folks since they would learn much more. Of course someone who has no desire to build but who wants a plane according to their specs really has no other option than a hired gun. You can't expect to find your perfect plane on the used market.
 
ronlee said:
Does anyone know what the cost difference is between a hired gun built RV and a TWTT built RV? If similar, it would seem to me that the TWTT program might have an advantage for some folks since they would learn much more. Of course someone who has no desire to build but who wants a plane according to their specs really has no other option than a hired gun. You can't expect to find your perfect plane on the used market.
Click to expand...
Difference could be $10,000 fine, 5 years in prison, or both. Have you read the 8130-12 that you must sign for certification?
 
TWTT Costs

ronlee said:
Does anyone know what the cost difference is...
Click to expand...

TWTT:

$140K total for a carbureted fixed pitch RV7.

$155K total for a fuel injected constant speed RV7.

+5K for a RV7A
 
Well...

When the FAA realizes this undemines their entire certified aircraft process and shuts down the homebuilt aircraft provisions fought for by the EAA folks in the early 50's, I just hope they don't restrict my use of the airplane I built for my education and recreation.

Bob Axsom
 
Bob Axsom said:
When the FAA realizes this undemines their entire certified aircraft process
Click to expand...

Exactly! I expect the greatest opposition to such programs will come from the certified aircraft manufacturers. Eventually they will rightly bring a legal argument that such a playing field is nowhere near level and that will put an end to "hired gun" builders and perhaps the entire experimental category.
 
Bob Axsom said:
When the FAA realizes this undemines their entire certified aircraft process and shuts down the homebuilt aircraft provisions fought for by the EAA folks in the early 50's, I just hope they don't restrict my use of the airplane I built for my education and recreation.

Bob Axsom
Click to expand...
Just got out of DAR Recurrent training today. What Bob is saying is correct. The PAID BUILDERS must be stopped as it puts all of us that build are own airplanes at risk. There are NEW regulations comming this fall. It sounds like a lot of the aircraft that are now QuickBuilds will not be allowed under the new rules.

It is anticipated that all the existing 51% approved kits will be grandfathered.
 
RV6_flyer said:
It sounds like a lot of the aircraft that are now QuickBuilds will not be allowed under the new rules.

It is anticipated that all the existing 51% approved kits will be grandfathered.
Click to expand...

These comments seem to be contradictory. Do you mean that current RV QB kits will continue to be allowed or not?
 
RV6_flyer said:
QuickBuilds will not be allowed under the new rules.

It is anticipated that all the existing 51% approved kits will be grandfathered.
Click to expand...
Allowed to do what? Exist? Be certified as Experimental? Repairman's Certificate? That's a pretty frightening statement and I imagine many of us would appreciate a bit more detail, if available.
 
RV6_flyer said:
There are NEW regulations comming this fall. It sounds like a lot of the aircraft that are now QuickBuilds will not be allowed under the new rules.
Click to expand...
I imagine that experimental building will fall off dramatically if QBs are disallowed. What is the % of Van's sales that are QBs? Certain aircraft, like the Sportsman 2+2 are really only available as QBs. What's next, no pre-punch parts?

Is this really what the FAA wants to do? Save homebuilding by killing it?

TODR
 
I think you guys are over-thinking this thing. The FAA has no interest in condemning quick-build kits. They are after the "home-built factories". Van's quick-builds are well within the 51% rule. On the other hand there are some kit manufacturers that offer quick-build kits that are complete with fabric covering and even paint. Don't judge until you have seen the final rule.
 
Mel said:
I think you guys are over-thinking this thing. ... Don't judge until you have seen the final rule.
Click to expand...
Mel, you're right - until we see the rule, we don't know what we're in for. However, I don't exactly have the warmest and fuzziest feeling about the FAA these days.
 
OK, where is the new rule?

Will there be a comment period or is it a done deal?

I agree that not allowing the Vans type QB kits is idiotic. The people who build those are probably just as competent as any other builder and we get more planes flying. In recent years the number of RVs completed per month has almost doubled. I suspect that the QB kits play a factor in that completion rate.
 
I agree that not allowing the Vans type QB kits is idiotic.
Click to expand...

Last year at OSH (or was it two years ago?) a manufacturer of a "kit" jet aircraft had a display. Basically their plan was for the "builder" to show up at their factory, have their photo made with the plane, write a big check and fly away with their new experimental plane.

This is what the FAA is targeting. Vans' QB kits are well within the regulations of 51% and are safe from further regulation.
 
Cutting through

I think we need to cut through all the crappolla here. There is no way that anybody is building an RV (of any model) in 2 weeks. And EVERYBODY here knows that. At least anybody who has built an RV (or even half an RV) knows that.

The TWTT program is simply building custom built planes for people with the money to have a factory do the construction for them.

It is patently absurd for anyone to suggest that any owner can have any meaningful input over a 2 week period to the building of an RV. Let's call a spade a spade.

I'm not condemning the TWTT program, nor am I condoning it. It may be a good thing...or it may bring the wrath of the Gods upon us. Others can judge that.

But for goodness sake let's stop pretending that this is an "assisted" building program. You can see by the amount of money being charged who is actually doing all the building.

If it wasn't for the legalities of the Experimental rules I would suggest that the TWTT people would prefer that the owner of the plane didn't turn up and get in their way during construction.

I mean look at the engine build programs offered by Mattituck etc. They actually charge you MORE for the completed engine if you want to go to their factory and supply the labor to put it together yourself. That's because it costs them more to have you assemble the engine than it would if they assembled it without you.
 
Last edited:
Captain Avgas said:
You can see by the amount of money being charged who is actually doing all the building.
Click to expand...
Captain Avgas said:
That's because it costs them more to have you assemble the engine than it would if they assembled it without you.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I got a chuckle out of that. :) The difference is, of course, between fabricating/fitting/riveting and attaching a bunch of engine parts together, not to mention the scale of the task, so your point is valid.

I think the TTWT programs are in general a good thing, but would be comfortable with defining them as not 51% compliant and having Repairman's Certificates not awarded to the customer.

I would prefer that a distinction like that be made by the industry/DARs or whomever, rather than the FAA getting reg happy. That never seems to turn out all that well.
 
Last edited:
builder assist

I attended a 7 day builder assist for my tail kit, and it was a full week of 12+ hour days. There was no waiting around, hunting for tools, or lollygagging. I just finished the tail kit at the end of the 7th day. We had to do the work ourselves, but the excellent instructors gave hints, tips, and helped drive rivets.

Even with a lot of help, I doubt I could have been taxiing in 7 more days.
 
More Info

Ok, here's some more info from TWTT via AvWeb. A snippet from the article:

As Aero-news reported, Glasair announced the addition of the popular Van's RV-10 and RV-7 to their unique line of builder assist programs. Two Weeks to Taxi will purchase the kits directly from Van's, and the buyer will meet their future airplane for the first time at the Two Weeks to Taxi facility in Arlington, WA.

"Two Weeks to Taxi was created because a high percentage of the over 1000 kits sold each year are not completed by the original buyer. We wanted to know what the industry could do to change that," Via said. "We determined that buyers often have a false sense of the time and expense involved with building an airplane. They know the cost of the kit, engine, and avionics. What they don't realize is the cost of induction and exhaust systems, spinner, brakes, windows, interior, light, and all of the other little things that drive the cost up.

"They also misjudge the cost of equipping a workshop and/or hangar," added Via (above). "They also don't consider the amount of time to set up a shop, building jigs, cleaning up and setting up for the next piece to assemble."

Initially developed for Glasair's Sportsman 2+2 model, Two Weeks to Taxi is designed to present an organized work area where all parts and tools are at the builder's fingertips, and expert assistance is available to help the builder. By eliminating delays associated with missing parts or hardware and removing the uncertainty of "Am I doing this right?", TWTT believes they can save from 70 to 90 percent of the time lost to these delays.

Well, not having built several (any!) airplanes, I can't say whether they're right. However, if everything is ready to go, no waiting for parts or tools, then they have a point. 2 weeks is debatable, but it would be a good way to build.

No word on whether you need to bring completed tailfeathers. I would think that having them completed - either on your own of through a class - would be most useful and maximize your time with them. This is more of an undertaking for the -10 crowd, but again, it would help you take advantage of your time with them.

TODR
 
No rides

When we allow these quickbuild programs we are allowing them to sell completed planes as if they are certified. In other words they are the manufacturer without the testing that a certified airplane goes thru.
Now with your repairmans certificate in hand you can do a condition inspection on something you know nothing about. No rides for me!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.