Protect the Current 51% Rule!

A Call To Arms

In the latest issue of the RVATOR, Van has written a good article describing the FAA's concerns with the 51% rule as it currently stands. After reading the article, I got the feeling that the FAA may act more firmly on the Vans Quick Build kits than previously thought. Is this just my feeling or are others experiencing the same gloom and doom feelings as well? Will the FAA ban all of the RV QB's currently under construction? I'm building a 9A QB, but am loosing motivation just thinking about the issue. What are the thoughts of others in this forum?

Lets all do as Van's suggests and start up a letter writing campaign to the FAA to encourage them to preserve the Vans QB's as they currently stand.

Mike Miller

This has been a part of the discussion on the RV-12 forum. But it is actually less an issue to the RV-12, and more about the remaining kits. I think it important enough to bring the topic here into "General Discussion", as the issue is critical to us all.

Originally Posted by FrankS
The potential problem (as Vans sees it) is that the FAA is starting to look at the fabricated parts. Vans example was that if the wing has 32 ribs then the amateur builder would have to form 17 of those ribs. I'm sure that is not how Vans intends on selling the kits. So until we write the FAA and convince them that prefabricating the parts at the kit manufacturer is acceptable I wouldn't count on licensing the 12 as an E-AB.

I don't mind that people start with raw materials and cut and form every part of their plane. But I also think it is just as educational to assemble parts that were fabricated at the factory with expensive production tooling (something the amateur builder cannot afford). Learning how an airplane assembles with all the plumbing, wiring, rigging, etc should be sufficient education to qualify as E-AB. If a pilot gets a basic understanding of the internal structure, systems and controls in a plane that should be the type of education that will make him a better pilot.

So get out the pen and paper and write the FAA and lets get this resolved so the 12 can be added to the E-AB approved list this year.

Frank

Click to expand...

Frank makes a good point. However, we ALL should be writing the FAA on this issue, regardless of what you are building or where you are in the process. Worse case scenario would be if they DID in fact start dividing up each and every procedure, so you were having to build half the ribs, spars, fabricate your own engine mount, etc. I would estimate that this would eliminate even the current quick-builds as we know them, and make even the basic kit much more difficult. How many builders out there would not have started a project were it not for the quick-build option? Furthermore, how many builders of either kit would not have even considered building an airplane if the production hours went way up, and fabrication of ribs, Spars (you'd have to build at least one of each!) etc. were now added to the tasks?

I honestly think a negative change in the 51% rule would significantly reduce the number of builders, which lessens the presence of Experimental Aviation and ultimately further takes general aviation out of the reach of the average person. This is important folks!

This is NOT an RV-12 approval issue. Those of us interested in the RV-12 actually have little worry - as once it is approved as an S-LSA know that we can get Airworthy Certificates with no problem as an E-LSA. It is the RV-4,7,8,9 and 10 kits that could see the most dramatic change. Yes, they probably would grandfather any existing builders out there. But who would be coming up behind you to support experimental aviation? With signicantly fewer builders... GA could be driven even closer to the grave.

While we want to think that this is an issue about the build assistance shops... we need to speak up least the ripples impact us all in ways that significantly reduce our numbers.

I don't want to sound like Chicken Little, and the sky is falling. Actually, I am optimistic that there won't be huge changes in the current Van's kits. But do you want to leave that possibility open to government bureaucrats? I work for the government. Trust me when I say, this COULD go sideways on us.

Please take the time to write not only the FAA, but also pressure your congressional representatives.

DJ

All of Van's current kits have already been approved for the 51% rule. The problem might come for future kits.

No guarantees...

TSwezey - I agree that the current kits are approved under the CURRENT rules. I am also hopeful that overall this has no effect on the industry. However, having read the latest RVator several times now... I still see a lot of "shouldn't" and "Expect" and other not-so-definite words.

This is the FAA we are dealing with. There is nothing to keep them from changing the rules. They could easily revamp the guidelines and state that any kit manufactured after XX/XX/2008 must meet these new rules. While we don't THINK that this will occur, I won't sit quietly on the sidelines under the assumption that since something is approved, it can't be changed!

I only suggest that we all participate in this, let our voice be heard. Don't leave it up to the government with words like "probably", "intent" or "expect".

DJ

Should I be building half of the radio

Discussing this with a friend much smarter than me, he stated.

A litteral interpretation wouldnt include just the ribs but would mean I should build one of the 2 spars and shouldnt I be required to wire my own radio or at least half. perhaps mold one of the tires. This is obviously silly and unsafe.

I will be writing however, I worry that my DAR may take a different approach to my grandfathered QB project than those already flying and that has me concerned.

I've tried to stay out of this,

but you guys are getting out of hand. First off, if you don't understand how the "list" works, then don't comment on it. Before you go writing to the FAA make sure you know what you are talking about. Otherwise your comments will not be taken seriously. No one ever said you had to build 1/2 the ribs, or 1/2 the radio, or 1/2 the canopy, or 1/2 of anything. The statement simply said that if you want 1/2 the credit, you should do 1/2 the task. Explaining how the list works would take more room than is available here.
The people who are protesting most are the very people who got us into this mess in the first place. It is these guys that are trying to sell factory built airplanes and pass them off as amateur-builts.
I know I'm probably going to tick a lot of people off, but if we are going to preserve our rights to build aircraft, we're going to have to "build our aircraft!" Not let some factory build them and then claim that we built them for education and recreation.
I know many of you will disagree with me and that's your right. But if you are going to protest, please make sure that you know what the basis of your protest really is.
Sorry to sound so demeaning, but I've been building and inspecting aircraft for over 25 years and I have seen the extremes.
OK. I'm through. You can have your thread back.

Mel said:

The people who are protesting most are the very people who got us into this mess in the first place. It is these guys that are trying to sell factory built airplanes and pass them off as amateur-builts.
I know I'm probably going to tick a lot of people off, but if we are going to preserve our rights to build aircraft, we're going to have to "build our aircraft!" Not let some factory build them and then claim that we built them for education and recreation.
I know many of you will disagree with me and that's your right. But if you are going to protest, please make sure that you know what the basis of your protest really is.
Sorry to sound so demeaning, but I've been building and inspecting aircraft for over 25 years and I have seen the extremes.
OK. I'm through. You can have your thread back.

Click to expand...

I don't think there are very many here who can disagree with these statements. I certainly don't. I certainly don't want to lose my right to experiment and build an airplane because some "homebuilder" is mass producing planes to avoid the certification process.

Another OPINION

Mel, I agree with your comments overall.

I would only comment that for those out there that are HONESTLY following the rules, a more clear statement from the FAA could have been stated to assure the current builders of a Vans 'X' QB kits ( or similar 51% listed QB kits ) will have nothing to worry about. I believe I have read it carefully, and there are too many "if, ands, and maybes" statements to leave honest QB builders feeling comfortable. As per usual, everyone pays for the misdeeds of a few.

John Bender
Iowa

I certainly can't answer for the FAA, However,

I don't think that any of Van's kits are in danger.
Are you aware that there are QB kits on the market that can be bought with the fabric installed and painted and are on the "approved 51% list?"
At one time the Weedhopper was on the list. This kit could be built in 8 hrs.
The problem with the approved list is that is has been conducted by different people without a good standard.
I have had to determine the eligibility of several kits myself in the field. It's not an easy task.

Mel said:

Before you go writing to the FAA make sure you know what you are talking about. Otherwise your comments will not be taken seriously.

Click to expand...

Please don't misinterpret this. I certainly don't want to discourage anyone from making comments. We all need to do that. I'm just trying to make sure that these comments are based on facts. For example; If you go into the tax assessor's office claiming your taxes are too high. You won't get very far. But if you have researched and can show that property values are lower than what they claim, you will probably come out with a lower tax bill. I do this pretty much every year and almost always come out a little ahead.

Nobody would argue that the initial ?intent? of the FAA is to reign in the ?2-days-to-take-off? type shops. I am fully aware of how the list works. Yes, I oversimplified the issue with referencing the building one of two main wing spars, or half the ribs. I also took Bugsy?s post as more tongue in cheek than anything. Van also references the potential literal RE-interpretation of the rules in the article he wrote ? even mentioning the counting of the ribs. Letter of the law vs. Intent of the law (or spirit of the code as we reference it) could significantly alter the format and use of the 8000-38 form.

If the ?single check? system is used as is referenced in the RVator ? it could quite possibly have dramatic impacts on the quick-build type kits. Go down the checklist originally done for the RV-7 that Van?s posted, and look at all the boxes wherein both the manufacturer and the builder received credit. What happens when only one OR the other gets the check? It is quite possible that the quick-build would be not so quick! And like it or not? the availability of quick-build kits is what makes this a ?do-able? project for many. While I don?t think that Van?s would release specifics, I am guessing that QB wings and/or fuselages make up a good chunk of their business. Read carefully what Van says in the RVator:

Most current Fast Build kits would probably not qualify under a strict LETTER of the rule examination. If the builder were required to perform the major portion of all fabrication tasks as well as assembly tasks, even a present day standard kit might not qualify as ?Major Portion?. ​

Click to expand...

I?m thinking that since Van was one of the members of the committee that worked with the FAA on this? we should listen to what he advises us. He didn?t say? ah? no biggie? don?t worry about it. The article he wrote is titled: ?A CALL TO ARMS?. Sort of a serious title don?t you think?

From the RVator:

To help convince the FAA of the "Major Portion" legitimacy of current kit practices, we feel that public comment to the FAA would be very beneficial. We feel that builder experience and opinion is credible to the FAA, perhaps even more so than that of the kit manufacturers. Thus, we are asking that you contact the FAA and share your experience, comments, and requests with them. <snip>? Let?s get as many letters as we can to the FAA in the next couple of weeks.

Click to expand...

If nothing else? take Mr. VanGrunsven?s word? and HIS request to contact the FAA.

Mel kind of gave a bit of a lashing back there? but he brings up a good point. We need to be careful how we write our letters, and ensure that we are intelligently addressing the issues. In the RVator Van gives some advice in regards to what he feels the content of the letters should be. Let?s voice our opinions to the FAA.

Respectfully - DJ

I sent my input to Mr. Paskiewicz

I sent a message to Mr. Paskiewicz today. I gave him the facts of my experience building the plane and flying it. I received significant education in the process and I am using the plane for travel recreation. In my case the intent of the "51 % rule" has been met with a quick built kit. I am sure that he will see that.

Bob Axsom

Major portion

There is an interesting question on intent (or how to count) when the FAA breaks down the task to the lowest parts.

Take the lowly wing rib...

If I had to make one (in the manner of early T-18 kits) I would have to trim and then beat aluminum around a wooden form block and then perform the present RV work of edge smoothing, fluting and dimpling.

The hours would be very high to get it to the QB stage compared to the Present QB rib work needed.

Now if the wing ribs come to me stamped and formed, how do you measure this work? If a team of those famous "little men" were beating it around form blocks, then many man hours would be expended, and my work would pale in comparison.

But if Van just loads a sheet of aluminum into his wizz-bang CAD/CAM Cherry 2000 Machine, presses a button, and picks up gobs of ribs spewing out of the end, then he has expended probably less man hours per rib than my hand work on the edges, fluting and dimpling....

It may all boil down to how you count "work" before you can determine who did the "major work" on any part.

The results will be interesting....

gil A

PS ... if you find a T-18 or Smith Sindwinder builder, ask them what work they did to make their planes... you will be amazed!

Tongue in cheek

thanks for understanding my tongue in cheek as apposed to foot in mouth. Next time I'll check my sarcasm at the door or include a at the end.

Of course the rule wont be interpreted as literally as i mentioned. We wont be required to build half our radios, mold one of 2 wheels etc. but the community wont be allowed the status quo, which has a great deal of variance. So where we end up on that continuum will be with us for a long time, and i am concerned that it wont look the way we want.

Vans note stated that we should say more than that we support the 51% rule and asked us to demonstrate support for the safe, professional manufacture of certain subassemblies while maintaining the spirit of 51% of the entire project.

You have to be careful not to get too theoretical.

We were talking about home-made guns the other day at work, which are prefectly legal to make as a hobby, but are completely non-transferrable. I asked a guy at work if he had a CNC mill, and wrote a CAM program to mill out a receiver for a rifle (the receiver is the part that is considered the firearm, has the SN, etc) wouldn't it count as ME making the gun if I loaded the material in the machine and punched "start" on his program?????

That's probably NOT the debate we'd want with the FAA, but it's a fair point; if Van's can use 10 man hours and advanced tooling to do what it'd take me 100 hours to do in my basement, should it count as the same thing? I'd argue that as long as the builder get's to bend/pound'shape at least SOME metal, then he'll have an appreciation for that aspect of construction. I'd be against van's selling a kit that was literally an assemble and go kit, where you punch in some rivets, run some wires, bolt some parts in, fire it up and fly away (even if all that DID take 5000 hours). Mechanics assemble, builders BUILD.

Where is the 15 Feb Federal register link?

I will google it to try to find it but if someone already has it that would help.

Reading what they say before I write a letter is important.

This reminds me of the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB). Those in favor of regulations or profit from love the FAA telling people how much work they are permitted to do. The CAD was abolished in favor of freedom. The FAA should be concerned with safety only.

I disagree

The FAA has raised the level of product reliability and consistency to a level that we now take for granted. Left to their own devices many businessmen, engineers and production workers would sluff standards for profit, schedule, ease of getting through the day at work and to cover up technical ignorance. This is not an issue about the FAA but the specific future of the "51%" rule. Have you written the FAA as requested by Van to give some practical substance to the value of the existing rule in providing aircraft design and construction education and recreation? This is not the time for a logical or political vent.

The e-mail address is [email protected]

Bob Axsom

Current FAA stance on radios.

Bugsy said:

Discussing this with a friend much smarter than me, he stated.

A litteral interpretation wouldnt include just the ribs but would mean I should build one of the 2 spars and shouldnt I be required to wire my own radio or at least half. perhaps mold one of the tires. This is obviously silly and unsafe.

I will be writing however, I worry that my DAR may take a different approach to my grandfathered QB project than those already flying and that has me concerned.

Click to expand...

Anyone who thinks I misspeak here feel free to interject your comments to my post.

According to the current "51% rule" instruments, interior (seats, floor covering, etc.), paint or engine construction do not count for or against the 51% rule. We currently are within our legal rights to hire out these tasks to professionals.

I for one have no desire to build my own engine so will have a professional engine shop do so. Others of you may feel perfectly at home building your own engine. Whichever road one takes the task of engine building has no bearing on determining whether the aircraft meets the "51% rule". This applies to the radios and any other instruments we may choose to have professionally built for our panels. I think the FAA recognizes the need for professional builders for these types of systems.

RVbySDI said:

According to the current "51% rule" instruments, interior (seats, floor covering, etc.), paint or engine construction do not count for or against the 51% rule. We currently are within our legal rights to hire out these tasks to professionals.

Click to expand...

Actually, the current rule, FAR 21.191(g), says very little.

FAR 21.191 said:

Experimental certificates.

Experimental certificates are issued for the following purposes:
...
(g) Operating amateur-built aircraft. Operating an aircraft the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by persons who undertook the construction project solely for their own education or recreation.

Click to expand...

That is all the rule says. The FAA has said that the rule won't change, but they may change the way that they interpret it. The wording of the rule is so vague that there could be many very different ways to interpret it, some of which we might like, and some of which we wouldn't like at all.

I am very happy that this situation has been side-stepped up here in Canada, as Transport Canada recognized that safety could be improved if a builder could contract qualified people to provide professional assistance. Hired gun help was legalized many years ago on our side of the border. And the sky hasn't fallen.

RVbySDI said:

Anyone who thinks I misspeak here feel free to interject your comments to my post.

According to the current "51% rule" instruments, interior (seats, floor covering, etc.), paint or engine construction do not count for or against the 51% rule. We currently are within our legal rights to hire out these tasks to professionals.

Click to expand...

Van's check sheets for the 7(A) standard and quick builds seem to give the builder credit for engine, exhaust and prop fabrication and assembly. How many of us actually fabricated their engine let alone their prop? Some have indeed fabricated their engines and props ( a major accomplishment in themselves) but for the majority I doubt that they can say they even assembled their engines. Looking over the check list, if I give the kit manufacturer full credit and the builder no credit for those items getting shared credit, the quick builds do NOT meet he 51% rule (59 mfg/46 bldr). So Van will have to change the way he packages the quick builds (if the partial credit is disallowed). Further, if the engine, propellor, induction and exhaust fabrication credits are applied appropriatly I don't think a quick build as we see them today is even possible.
These are only my observations and it is very possible that I am not seeing something/everything? But just food for thought.

An article in AVWEB said that congress is putting pressure on the FAA to resume courtesy inspections of kits for compliance with the 51% rule while the rule is being revised.