What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

How much documentation is enough (or too much)?

M

MechaSteve

Active Member
I have started building my tail kit, and I want to make sure I am adequately documenting my build, before I get too far along.

Complicating matters is I have an old + new kit. Most of the kit is late 2018, but I also have newer bits (updated HS-00007 drill guide, SB-00053, etc.).

My background includes Quality Engineering, and so I made validation documents to go along with my KAI. (see attached, minor typo in Step 3 - Left)

The KAI gives rather vague advice about documentation from what I can find.
Is there a particular section that details documentation standards?
What needs to be verified and documented and what is considered proper?


My logic is that my validation document meets ALCCOA standards (and yes I know Van's mostly uses Kaiser, lol) :

- Attributable: the name and initials of the person who checked the step is given for each step.
Repeated steps are listed explicitly. Section, Page, and Step numbers match the KAI.
- Legible: a printed document is easy to read, and the name of the person checking is printed (not an illegible signature).
Date is in an unambiguous format.
- Contemporaneous: Each step is signed off as it is completed.
- Complete: Every step is documented.
Validation section and page numbers ensure that nothing is missing.
- Original: The validation document is a separate document from the KAI.
This allows the validation to be maintained as an original document, without needing to make additional copies for reference.
- Accurate: Steps are corrected from the original KAI to reflect corrections and updated parts.
Even if steps are completed out of order (e.g. machining all parts in a section before assembly) they can still be documented on the day the step was actually completed.
 

Attachments

  • IMG-0378.jpg
    IMG-0378.jpg
    331.4 KB · Views: 102
Last edited:
In general, a few hundred pictures on your smartphone will be enough to convince whoever inspects your aircraft that you built it. I'm sure it has happened, but I'm not aware of anyone who made the slightest effort to document their project being turned away when it was time to register the aircraft.

Better documentation may help you sell the aircraft one day, but I'd rather see the airplane than the build log.
 
FAA experience

Can’t speak for DAR approach, but the FAA FSDO inspection was very brief. I had dated notebook log of build . Entries approximately monthly. I had a digital pic file on disk for illustrating details primarily for my own benefit, but roughly covered all major components in process. I offered them for inspection and they were not interested.

They said they were not there to assure the airplane was assembled properly or would fly, that was my responsibility. They did make some observations and suggestions that were relevant and useful. One guy looked for deadly omissions in the flight controls as I recall because I gave him a creeper to look in the wing at aileron belcrank terminations.

YMMV
 
There is no rule on the style or amount of documentation you must submit. You simply need to convince your inspector that you built the aircraft. He/She will know if you built the aircraft just by talking with you for about 10 minutes.

Your documentation meeds to include a chronological order of the built with pictures of you building. The FSDO inspector will also probably want to see this documentation before he/she issues the Repairman Certificate.

I and many other DARs also issue a "Letter of Recommendation" stating that you have presented documentation sufficient to the requirement. This usually gives the FSDO inspector a "Warm, Fuzzy" feeling and aids with the issuance of the Repairman Certificate.
 
Technically speaking, if your goal is an E-LSA certification, there’s no 51% rule or documentation required, so what you document is at your discretion. Progressive build photos will be helpful down the road when you’ll want to look back on key areas, especially when the inevitable service bulletins come out, but there’s no legal criteria for an E-LSA aircraft.
 
Builder log

In order to get a EAB plane certified the applicant will be required to use a FAA web portal called AWC. One of the required uploads is the builder log. Of course, it is very impractical to upload many whole builder log records. The Atl FSDO accepts a random sampling of pix typically showing the builder making parts.
 
My FAA airworthiness inspector casually looked at my photos for about 30 seconds. I showed him my reports from my tech counselor visits and that was enough for him. He put everything into that AWC portal and returned a month later with both my airworthiness and repairman certificates.
 
Documentation

Others have discussed both ends of the documentation spectrum. A couple not mentioned.
1. Resale value. If you were shopping, what would you want to see in a builder log?
2. Repairs. If you need to work on it, what would you want for reference? I know we don't forget anything right?
To that end, my blog is on Blogger. It's pretty extensive. I also draw schematics and drawings. I've written a few articles for Kitplanes so many tips and processes are preserved.
 
I wouldn’t need to see any build logs to make a purchase decision on an airplane. Good Airframe, Engine, and Prop logs along with a good POH is all I care about. Same stuff you would look for in a certified aircraft.
If you want to see a good POH, along with much more value added info, look up Randy Lervold’s RV3B at Romeo Lima on the web. It is less of a build manual and more of a description of special systems, construction techniques, and such. I am sure that aided in the sale of his machine.

For the OP - if you can, get to know, or at least introduce yourself, to your DAR or inspector. Ask them what they want to see. If they at least have met you and you briefly talked about your build, they probably won’t even ask for your build logs. Mine didn’t.
Also, like Mel said, he can tell in ten minute of conversation if you built it.

Some folks take great personal pride in documenting their builds. I respect that. My build log consisted of check marks next to each paragraph in the standard Vans build manual. Check - done….. I even quit putting time and dates down because it was depressing me!
With the new plans and integrated manual, all the easier. I could envision the plans as being the build manual with appropriate notes as you moved along.
 
documentation

I keep it simple with iphone photos and reference the pages in an excel file. I also wrote on the plans small comments. Included the excel file along with the other pdf documents as part of a package to the DAR
 

Attachments

  • A8A80AE3-DB66-48B4-ADD7-72C9E0C197B9.jpg
    A8A80AE3-DB66-48B4-ADD7-72C9E0C197B9.jpg
    214.4 KB · Views: 87
Most of these posts are making me feel bad about my documentation habits.
All I'm doing is checking off individual instructions as I finish them, and signing off on sections once they are complete.
 
rv12is said:
Most of these posts are making me feel bad about my documentation habits.
All I'm doing is checking off individual instructions as I finish them, and signing off on sections once they are complete.
Click to expand...

If you are building E-LSA, that's enough.
 
Thank you for all the responses!

This is very helpful to better calibrate the level of documentation I am doing.

I'll continue with the consolidated validation document.
Making them is super helpful to think ahead in the assembly process.

I will get in contact with my local DAR and make sure I am preparing what they will need to see.

It sounds like a good minimum would be:
- Keeping records of when I complete a step, but needn't be exhaustive.
- Take pictures regularly, at least one for each page of the KAI.
- Maintain all pictures in a durable, and easily accessible manner.
 
MechaSteve said:
Thank you for all the responses!

This is very helpful to better calibrate the level of documentation I am doing.

I'll continue with the consolidated validation document.
Making them is super helpful to think ahead in the assembly process.

I will get in contact with my local DAR and make sure I am preparing what they will need to see.

It sounds like a good minimum would be:
- Keeping records of when I complete a step, but needn't be exhaustive.
- Take pictures regularly, at least one for each page of the KAI.
- Maintain all pictures in a durable, and easily accessible manner.
Click to expand...

You have never mentioned whether you plan to certify your RV-12 as an ELSA. If so, and as already mentioned, there is no requirement for having a build log or other documentation.
 
I built E-LSA, so I'll put my 2 cents in..

Any area which was going to be closed up (e.g. inside the wing) or not easily inspected/viewable (inside the tailcone), I took lots of video and photos. The idea is that if I ever have a question down the road as to whether I put all the rivets in.. or .. you get the idea.. I have something to refer back to. If I ever have a crack.. I can at least look back and maybe see that something was amiss when I was building.. maybe a tooling mark was left behind, etc. I guess really just to satisfy my own curiosity 5 or 10 years down the road.

I don't think it adds anything at all to the resale value.
 
I’ve built both EAB and ELSA. The DAR for ELSA only required what was in the Vans document package. I built 3 EABs and the depth of document review and physical inspection varied quite a bit.
 
I am planning on building as ELSA, as of now.
However, if the cost of the powerplant and avionics keeps rising, that could change.

Also, the previous builder of this kit had some significant misses while building, like ribs missing rivets attaching to the spar.
So, I'm making a point to ensure that everything is done right.



I am a little bothered by:
- FAA says ASTM standards assure aircraft is airworthy.
- Kit Manufacturer assures KAI meets ASTM standards.
- The builder OUGHT TO(1) follow KAI.
- ????
- Airplane is airworthy

(1) as defined in RFC 6919 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6919)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top