What's new
Van's Air Force

The definitive Van's Aircraft support community! Buying, building or flying an RV? Join our exclusive family of mentors and enthusiasts!

Builder cert

Judge_1018

Judge_1018

I'm New Here
Hi all,

If I seek a shop or someone to help complete my build, will I still qualify for a builder cert? My emp, and wings are practically done. I just received my qb fuse but my progress is going to stop do to me moving. I don’t want to lose too much time building but also want to ensure I am still putting in the work. Anyone in the MD area I can speak with?

Thanks all

Kris
 
Judge_1018 said:
Hi all,

If I seek a shop or someone to help complete my build, will I still qualify for a builder cert? My emp, and wings are practically done. I just received my qb fuse but my progress is going to stop do to me moving. I don’t want to lose too much time building but also want to ensure I am still putting in the work. Anyone in the MD area I can speak with?

Thanks all

Kris
Click to expand...
There is an FAA worksheet to determine percentages of build to get an airworthiness certificate. You could use it to see exactly how much hired help you could use without crossing the line.

On the 8130-12 you will file when done, it gives you space to list hired help . This is a legal document requiring signature under a notary with a penalty if you cheat.
 
Good faq from eaa below. I have the same question as Larry, not sure how assisted programs qualify.

The 51% Rule | EAA

The 51% Rule states if individuals build at least 51% of an aircraft, it can be registered in the Amateur-Built/Homebuilt Airplanes category.
www.eaa.org www.eaa.org
 
Mel said:
Starting with quick build doesn't leave a lot of room for paid assistance. You will need to take a look at FAAs checklist to determine 51%.
Click to expand...
Hi Mel,

Thank you for the checklist. By chance do you have a filled or sample copy?

Thanks
 
wirejock said:
How do factory assist programs get by the 51%?
Just curious.
Click to expand...
Very, very carefully…..😉

The big companies that do factory assist (Cubcrafters, Sling….) have worked with the FAA NKET team and gone through the process to prove that they meet the 51% - they get very creative doing so, but they have worked within the rules as they are written and done their homework.

The independent Builder Assist centers that I know of generally have not done so, and if they start with a QB kit that is already close to 51%, it is hard to see that they meet the letter of the law. As a DAR< I occasionally get calls from folsk that have used a builder assist. I ask a few quesitons, and it comes clear to them very quickly that they have a problem…and I never hear from them again. My guess is that they went FSDO or DAR shopping to find someone that didn’t care (or didn’t know….). Once I point folks to the Checklist, it becasome pretty clear that the factory has already optimized things.

That all said, remember that lots of things are “outside” of the checklist - panel building, engine building, painting, interior….. you can pay to have those done and it doesn’t count against you. So if you are looking to farm out some of the work, look to those things.
 
Ironflight said:
Very, very carefully…..😉

The big companies that do factory assist (Cubcrafters, Sling….) have worked with the FAA NKET team and gone through the process to prove that they meet the 51% - they get very creative doing so, but they have worked within the rules as they are written and done their homework.

The independent Builder Assist centers that I know of generally have not done so, and if they start with a QB kit that is already close to 51%, it is hard to see that they meet the letter of the law. As a DAR< I occasionally get calls from folsk that have used a builder assist. I ask a few quesitons, and it comes clear to them very quickly that they have a problem…and I never hear from them again. My guess is that they went FSDO or DAR shopping to find someone that didn’t care (or didn’t know….). Once I point folks to the Checklist, it becasome pretty clear that the factory has already optimized things.

That all said, remember that lots of things are “outside” of the checklist - panel building, engine building, painting, interior….. you can pay to have those done and it doesn’t count against you. So if you are looking to farm out some of the work, look to those things.
Click to expand...
Wow! That means I built almost 100%. Oh yea, I didn't mine the boxite. 😆
 
wirejock said:
How do factory assist programs get by the 51%?
Just curious.
Click to expand...
They cheat, plain and simple. I know of a couple of cases where the owner hired an assist facility to build their kit, and it was EAB.They never worked on the plane. Maybe some DARs look the other way around….
 
Another point to keep in mind is that the owner doesn't need to build 51% of the airplane, but has to have completed 51% of the representative tasks. Fluting, deburring, and dimpling one wing rib, for example, counts as much as doing all of them. I don't agree that this is right or at all in accordance with the original intent of EAB, but that's how it is.

Most (all?) of the builder assistance shops are cheating, plain and simple, if they're just cashing checks and still registering airplanes in the owner's name. The owner, at the very least, when he signs the registration application (nevermind if he obtains his Repairman certificate) is guilty of fraud. The industry has just winked at this sort of thing for far too long and allowed these shops and check-writing owners (they're sure not builders!) to operate with impunity and utterly free of consequences.
 
kbalch said:
Another point to keep in mind is that the owner doesn't need to build 51% of the airplane, but has to have completed 51% of the representative tasks. Fluting, deburring, and dimpling one wing rib, for example, counts as much as doing all of them. I don't agree that this is right or at all in accordance with the original intent of EAB, but that's how it is.

Most (all?) of the builder assistance shops are cheating, plain and simple, if they're just cashing checks and still registering airplanes in the owner's name. The owner, at the very least, when he signs the registration application (nevermind if he obtains his Repairman certificate) is guilty of fraud. The industry has just winked at this sort of thing for far too long and allowed these shops and check-writing owners (they're sure not builders!) to operate with impunity and utterly free of consequences.
Click to expand...
Ken, where is the example of a single wing rib you mentioned? I've read the faa instructions as each task point is an estimate to 1/10th of a task point, so if a task is fabricate wing parts, and the am. builder only does one rib etc., it would be a stretch to say 0.1 points and the assist would have 0.9? And that's assuming manuf was 0, in most cases it's not. Or am I not reading it right? The am builder can't get 1 point for doing one rib per the instructions, correct? So just making sure you saying that the example is not correct, isn't taken the wrong way by someone.
 
lipper03 said:
Ken, where is the example of a single wing rib you mentioned? I've read the faa instructions as each task point is an estimate to 1/10th of a task point, so if a task is fabricate wing parts, and the am. builder only does one rib etc., it would be a stretch to say 0.1 points and the assist would have 0.9? And that's assuming manuf was 0, in most cases it's not. Or am I not reading it right? The am builder can't get 1 point for doing one rib per the instructions, correct? So just making sure you saying that the example is not correct, isn't taken the wrong way by someone.
Click to expand...
Brian, You are correct. The form asks for percentages, not "one rib".
 
Since I asked. I will ask again. How do they get away with it. I know one BA program has a DAR on duty that signs off.
 
Getting back to the OP's question...

Kris, just take a hiatus from building for a bit. A few months of not building isn't going to stop your project, it's just a bump in the road. We've all had them. In the end, you want to be able to say that YOU built the plane, fair & square, and have the pride and knowledge that goes with it. My two cents...
 
lipper03 said:
Ken, where is the example of a single wing rib you mentioned? I've read the faa instructions as each task point is an estimate to 1/10th of a task point, so if a task is fabricate wing parts, and the am. builder only does one rib etc., it would be a stretch to say 0.1 points and the assist would have 0.9? And that's assuming manuf was 0, in most cases it's not. Or am I not reading it right? The am builder can't get 1 point for doing one rib per the instructions, correct? So just making sure you saying that the example is not correct, isn't taken the wrong way by someone.
Click to expand...
My example of the wing ribs was unfortunate (possibly a misremembered example from many years ago), so please accept my apology for misleading you on that score. That said, the current state of the 51% rule is definitely task-based. Apparently, the Amateur-Built Fabrication and Assembly Checklist was revised in 2009 and is an interesting read.

Some good Q&A to be found here, too: https://www.eaa.org/eaa/aircraft-building/builderresources/getting-started/the-51-percent-rule
 
kbalch said:
My example of the wing ribs was unfortunate (possibly a misremembered example from many years ago), so please accept my apology for misleading you on that score. That said, the current state of the 51% rule is definitely task-based. Apparently, the Amateur-Built Fabrication and Assembly Checklist was revised in 2009 and is an interesting read.

Some good Q&A to be found here, too: https://www.eaa.org/eaa/aircraft-building/builderresources/getting-started/the-51-percent-rule
Click to expand...
Actually the list was revised again in 2011.
 
kbalch said:
I don't agree that this is right or at all in accordance with the original intent of EAB, but that's how it is.
Click to expand...
The base criteria for an aircraft to be eligible for certification as an experimental amateur built is the same today as it was when the rule was originally released.

For an aircraft to be eligible, it must have been built for the sole purpose of a person’s education and recreation.
The eligibility statement that a builder has to sign is actually certifying that this statement is true.

So to some degree, your previous statement is valid.

In the context of repetitive work… The FAA considers you to have gained the education value once you have completed a specific type of task on a specific portion of the airplane project, thus making all of the repetitive instances of that task, not necessary to further your education.

Example
When the quick build kit for the RV-6 was first introduced in the early 90s, the FAA, and all of the different kit manufacturers were still trying to figure out what constituted a 51% compliant kit.
The RV-6 QB kit came with largely completed wings but the builder was required to manufacture, one wing rib on their own to install in their fully built wing by hammering out its shape on a wooden form block. That granted a lot of points with the evaluation form that was being used at that time, because the FAA was un concerned about all of the rest of the ribs being premade because once you had learned to make one, you had acquired the education of that process, and the rest were meaningless.
 
rvbuilder2002 said:
The base criteria for an aircraft to be eligible for certification as an experimental amateur built is the same today as it was when the rule was originally released.

For an aircraft to be eligible, it must have been built for the sole purpose of a person’s education and recreation.
The eligibility statement that a builder has to sign is actually certifying that this statement is true.

So to some degree, your previous statement is valid.

In the context of repetitive work… The FAA considers you to have gained the education value once you have completed a specific type of task on a specific portion of the airplane project, thus making all of the repetitive instances of that task, not necessary to further your education.

Example
When the quick build kit for the RV-6 was first introduced in the early 90s, the FAA, and all of the different kit manufacturers were still trying to figure out what constituted a 51% compliant kit.
The RV-6 QB kit came with largely completed wings but the builder was required to manufacture, one wing rib on their own to install in their fully built wing by hammering out its shape on a wooden form block. That granted a lot of points with the evaluation form that was being used at that time, because the FAA was un concerned about all of the rest of the ribs being premade because once you had learned to make one, you had acquired the education of that process, and the rest were meaningless.
Click to expand...
Now that explains it. Thanks Scott.
 
The rules also allow you to pay for commercial support on the required items as long as you are present at those times. I can pay someone to be with me to help build that one wing rib. I have always assumed they have some creative way of interpreting that rule to get away with this stuff that passes muster with the faa.
 
When I was shopping for planes I built a list of everything on the market and kept track of features/characteristics. One of the nicer and more expensive looking planes seemed as if it might have come from a professional builder. I think I heard they had several people that worked on them. Very low time hours on the engine. Repairman per FAA was not anyone I had talked to. I wondered if there were a bunch of guys in Cahoots with each other, just change names as the builder. I have zero idea where the plane actually came from. This was not anyone I had seen online before or since.

Engine source is what most concerned me.

They were willing to fly it to a prebuy but not with that guy in Georgia that writes the books...
 
lr172 said:
The rules also allow you to pay for commercial support on the required items as long as you are present at those times. I can pay someone to be with me to help build that one wing rib. I have always assumed they have some creative way of interpreting that rule to get away with this stuff that passes muster with the faa.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear for the folks with less experience Larry, this isn’t really true. You can’t just watch someone do the task while you sip coffee - you have to DO the tasks to get credit for DOING them…legally. Yes, an instructor can be there helping you, but you can’t just watch him (or her) do it - you have to have hands on the task. That said, I do know of company programs where you walk in and they keep handing you coffees while you watch - but most of those aren’t in this country. The “builder of record” still perjures themselves when signing the 8130-12 if they do so without satisfying the “51% rule” of course…..

The FAA rarely goes after the individuals doing “pro building” becasue it is hard to prove intent. If a guy with a really well equipped shop loves to build, buys a kit, builds it, licenses it, flies it, then decides he wants to build again so he needs to sell it to get the money, starting the process over…..well, that’s OK. But if he finds a buyer, says “I’ll build the airplane for you, what color and interior to do you want?”, has the buyer front the money, and is clearly building for profit, that is illegal. Trying to draw the line between those two intents in a court of law is difficult unless a person keeps a careful paper trail of their illegal activities….and most of them are smart enough not to do that. The ROI for the FAA to take enforcement action is pretty low, so they generally don’t, even though we all know it is going on. But they HAVE taken action in some cases, and I am very careful (as a DAR) to only take on licensing projects that are pretty clearly built within the letter and intent of the rules.
 
Ironflight said:
Just to be clear for the folks with less experience Larry, this isn;t really true. You can’t just watch someone do the task while you sip coffee - you have to DO the tasks to get credit for DOING them…legally. Yes, and instructor can be there helping you, but you can’t just watch him (or her) do it - you have to have hands on the task. That said, I do know of company programs where you walk in and they keep handing you coffees while you watch - but most of those aren’t in this country. The “builder of record” still perjures themselves when signing the 8130-12 if they do so without satisfying the “51% rule” of course…..

The FAA rarely goes after the individuals doing “pro building” becasue it is hard to prove intent. If a guy with a really well equipped shop loves to build, buys a kit, builds it, licenses it, flies it, then decides he wants to build again so he needs to sell it to get the money, starting the process over…..well, that’s OK. Built if he finds a buyer, says “I’ll build the airplane for you, what color and interior to do you want?”, has the buyer front eh money, and is clearly building for profit, that is illegal. Trying to draw the line between those two intents in a court of law is difficult unless a person keeps a careful paper trail of their illegal activities….and most of them are smart enough not to do that. The ROI for the FAA to take enforcement action is pretty low, so they generally don’t, even though we all know it is going on. But they HAVE taken action in some cases, and I am very careful (as a DAR) to only take on licensing projects that are pretty clearly built within the letter and intent of the rules.
Click to expand...
thanks for clarifying this and sorry if I implied what you addressed. i didn't mean to imply you could or should do nothing with paid support. just poor wording. I was just pointing out the rule about paid assistance, mostly for speculating that it was possibly where these build shops find a loophole for doing all the work when the builder isn't there.
 
Ironflight said:
Just to be clear for the folks with less experience Larry, this isn;t really true. You can’t just watch someone do the task while you sip coffee - you have to DO the tasks to get credit for DOING them…legally. Yes, and instructor can be there helping you, but you can’t just watch him (or her) do it - you have to have hands on the task. That said, I do know of company programs where you walk in and they keep handing you coffees while you watch - but most of those aren’t in this country. The “builder of record” still perjures themselves when signing the 8130-12 if they do so without satisfying the “51% rule” of course…..

The FAA rarely goes after the individuals doing “pro building” becasue it is hard to prove intent. If a guy with a really well equipped shop loves to build, buys a kit, builds it, licenses it, flies it, then decides he wants to build again so he needs to sell it to get the money, starting the process over…..well, that’s OK. Built if he finds a buyer, says “I’ll build the airplane for you, what color and interior to do you want?”, has the buyer front eh money, and is clearly building for profit, that is illegal. Trying to draw the line between those two intents in a court of law is difficult unless a person keeps a careful paper trail of their illegal activities….and most of them are smart enough not to do that. The ROI for the FAA to take enforcement action is pretty low, so they generally don’t, even though we all know it is going on. But they HAVE taken action in some cases, and I am very careful (as a DAR) to only take on licensing projects that are pretty clearly built within the letter and intent of the rules.
Click to expand...
+1. An excellent summary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mel
lipper03 said:
Ken, where is the example of a single wing rib you mentioned? I've read the faa instructions as each task point is an estimate to 1/10th of a task point, so if a task is fabricate wing parts, and the am. builder only does one rib etc., it would be a stretch to say 0.1 points and the assist would have 0.9? And that's assuming manuf was 0, in most cases it's not. Or am I not reading it right? The am builder can't get 1 point for doing one rib per the instructions, correct? So just making sure you saying that the example is not correct, isn't taken the wrong way by someone.
Click to expand...
Example..... On the RV6 QB kit, the wing had one rib on each side that needed to be installed by the builder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top