What's new
Van's Air Force

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

"Pro Shops"

KatanaPilot

Well Known Member
A recent thread about another topic mentioned an airplane built by a "Pro Shop" and later explained that this shop "in Florida was paid to build it".

I'm a little surprised and disappointed that no one has called out the apparent violation of the E-AB rules. I'm not so naive to think that build shops don't exist (I'm pretty sure I know where this particular shop is) but as a group we seem to be looking the other way.

Someone seems to be ignoring the rules, someone else is certifying that they were the builder of 51% (when they probably weren't) and some DAR or the FAA is signing off on it.

And here I worry about getting some build assistance, even though I am at the shop working on my plane anytime I have assistance and many times when I don't. MOSAIC hasn't been implemented yet and we have no idea if "pro build shops" will be approved. So why are we seemingly tolerating this?
 
I agree with you.

I am also a stickler about people being honest. When I certified my RV I built I had to sign in the log book that the airplane is airworthy (don?t recall the exact language). I don?t sign things lightly.

So obviously the owner who signs this after using a pro shop and not even properly inspecting the airplane (which is obvious based on the pictures) just lied right there. I don?t have any sympathy for an intentional liar. Not any better then the pro shop that built it in my book.

In the long run this will hurt the experimental community both from a regulatory perspective and from a aviation community perception perspective.

Oliver
 
If you search the forum archives I think you will find that anytime someone has asked about recommendations of pro build shops, etc., there is a pretty strong feed back regarding what the rules allow, etc.
I think in the case that you quoted, it was already built and the main context was not related to pro shops, so there wasn't any discussion about it.

I agree with your sentiment though. As a community over all, we need to not be tolerant of flagrant disregard of the rules.
This statement will likely cause some ruffled feathers... I.E., people that feel that it is no one else's business what they do as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

There in lays the problem. Breaking the FAA's rules does hurt others.

For those that haven't figured it out yet.... the way that the FAA (and most all of government) deals with rules being regularly broken, is to tighten them, or make new, more restrictive rules!
 
Unfortunately, there is a lot of this going on, and most of us on this site know where and who is doing it. The FAA has bigger fish to fry so they haven't had time to look at this or address it until someone get's hurt or killed.
They have counted on us to self-police, of which we aren't doing a real good job. Most of the shops hide under the guise of builder assist and take pictures when someone visits.

In some cases I have refused to license it as a DAR, but they just found someone else. In one case the shop used various parts (wings, engine, fuselage) from wrecked or previous-flown RV's and tried to pawn it off to the buyer as a new airplane. I refused the certificate but another DAR signed it off.

Seeing as everyone signs the Statement of Eligibilty and has it notarized, it's called perjury. Doesn't seem to bother everyone.

Vic
 
This is not new and has been going on for a long time. Many kit manufactures have or had "builder assist" centers. They provided space, tools and expertise assisting the owner/builder. Is it "cheating"? Think of it, reason for amateur built is learning. In a legit "builder assist" scenario the owner/builder will have hands on and learn from experienced folks. It would likely produce a superior safer airplane and meet the spirit of the regulations.

You hire a shop, "have rivet gun will travel", pay the bills and don't turn a wrench, show up last day to pop rivet data plate on with your name; yep that is violation of the intent and spirit.

Buy Van's 51% QB and have someone design, fab and install instrument panel, wire the plane (a lot people do). Then you pay someone to paint and do interior (a lot of people do). You get help to hang engine and plumb it. You get someone to help you rivet tail together and do fiberglass... Is this OK? As long as you are involved in all steps and learning it is OK. Many people build planes together doing work 50/50. What about group builds at a A&P school or at Oshkosh. Who get's their name on it or repairman certificate? The intent is education.
 
Last edited:
Van's kits (and all others on the FAA list) meet the 51% rule exclusive of engine, avionics, paint, for which you are allowed to farm out. :)

Vic
 
T... Who get's their name on it or repairman certificate? The intent is education.

Not picking on you George but just pointing out, no one needs to get the repairman's certificate.

However, FAA Form 8130-12 has you attest (and it is notarized) the following:
FAA form 8130-12 said:
I certify the aircraft identified in Section II above was fabricated and assembled by (Write your name) for my (their) education and recreation. I (we) have records to support this statement and will make them available to the FAA upon request.
 
I don't know the exact shop in question, but do realize there are a lot of what I call "check book" assist being done.

It would almost make more sense for a new class to be created instead of EAB, maybe Experimental Paid (I hate to use professional) Built.
 
Don't need a new type of airworthiness certificate. Aircraft built more than 50% by a hired gun are legally licensed Experimental Exhibition.
 
Don't need a new type of airworthiness certificate. Aircraft built more than 50% by a hired gun are legally licensed Experimental Exhibition.

Actually I'm not sure that is true, Dan. It was not a few years ago. Airplanes built in other countries could be brought into the USA and licensed under "Experimental, Air Race and Demonstration" and that is how my glider is licensed. But an airplane built in the USA in an uncertified setting, I don't believe it can be licensed that way. If it is not "Amateur Built", "Market Survey", or "R&D", I don't think there is a path to licensing a professionally built Experimental in the USA.

I would love to be told I am wrong, because that would open a path for interesting projects to build for commercial gain. HP-24, for instance.
 
In response to post #1 I think most of us have a skeleton in the closet about something we do or don?t do that we don?t turn ourselves over to the po po.
 
If you search the forum archives I think you will find that anytime someone has asked about recommendations of pro build shops, etc., there is a pretty strong feed back regarding what the rules allow, etc.
I think in the case that you quoted, it was already built and the main context was not related to pro shops, so there wasn't any discussion about it.

I agree with your sentiment though. As a community over all, we need to not be tolerant of flagrant disregard of the rules.
This statement will likely cause some ruffled feathers... I.E., people that feel that it is no one else's business what they do as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

There in lays the problem. Breaking the FAA's rules does hurt others.

For those that haven't figured it out yet.... the way that the FAA (and most all of government) deals with rules being regularly broken, is to tighten them, or make new, more restrictive rules!

+1. To quote Pogo, ?We have met the enemy, and he is us.?
 
So why are we seemingly tolerating this?

Most of us don't have first hand knowledge of contract build shops and the people who do aren't keen on talking about it.

From a personal standpoint, I can make assumptions, but I'm not going to call the FAA on my assumptions. Only on direct knowledge.

The other complicating factor is the abundance of 2 week to taxi programs which are sanctioned by the FAA. In my opinion, there's no way that should be a legitimate path to an EAB. My opinion doesn't count, and the FAA has approved several of those programs. Given the FAA approval of that approach, I have no idea where to draw the boundaries today. If you can finish a Sportsman in 2 weeks with pro help, why not an RV-7? Why not a Lancair Evolution or an Epic? So when, exactly would you (or I) call in the cavalry? The boundaries are very poorly defined.

One day, someone's gonna put a pro-built airplane into an elementary school or a nunnery and the whole house of cards is going to fall. I only hope the collateral damage doesn't kill the industry and those of us who play by the rules.

One additional comment - I was glad to hear that Vic (and presumably many other DAR's) makes an effort to separate the wheat from the chaff and not approve the blatant examples of pro-built airplanes.
 
Last edited:
The other complicating factor is the abundance of 2 week to taxi programs which are sanctioned by the FAA. In my opinion, there's no way that should be a legitimate path to an EAB. .

I agree. This was a monumental screw up by a fsdo, and HQ then buried their heads in the sand.
 
Agree with comments about 2 weeks to taxi planes

This has given me more personal heartburn as a DAR than most anything else.
 
Actually I'm not sure that is true, Dan. It was not a few years ago. Airplanes built in other countries could be brought into the USA and licensed under "Experimental, Air Race and Demonstration" and that is how my glider is licensed. But an airplane built in the USA in an uncertified setting, I don't believe it can be licensed that way. If it is not "Amateur Built", "Market Survey", or "R&D", I don't think there is a path to licensing a professionally built Experimental in the USA.

I would love to be told I am wrong, because that would open a path for interesting projects to build for commercial gain. HP-24, for instance.

Actually, in this case Steve, you’re wrong - the original 10 Subsonex kits didn’t meet the 51% rule (intentionally), with the tails already built, and they were sold for licensing as “Exhibition” with no troubles - that was how what they agreed to with the FSDO (I believe). The intent was to get some out there on the airshow circuit, and in the hands of folks with more money (and desire to fly a jet) than time and/or build talent.

Paul
 
Last edited:
Does anyone really think that Vans would be happy(er) selling less kits if the Pro shops were shut down? I feel we all benefit from more flying examples than less.

-Marc
 
Does anyone really think that Vans would be happy(er) selling less kits if the Pro shops were shut down? I feel we all benefit from more flying examples than less.

-Marc

And there it is, the fundamental issue: the perception that if there?s something in it for us, then it must be okay.
 
Actually, in this case Steve, you’re wrong - the original 10 Subsonex kits didn’t meet the 51% rule (intentionally), with the tails already built, and they were sold for licensing as “Exhibition” with no troubles - that was how what they agreed to with the FSDO (I believe). The intent was to get some out there on the airshow circuit, and in the hands of folks with more money (and desire to fly a jet) than time and/or build talent.

Paul

Hmmm. So we could sell fully assembled, test-flown HP-24 gliders as Experimental race and demonstration? And Greg Cole could sell fully assembled, test-flown Duck-Hawks as Experimental race and demonstration?
Could I actually go into serial production of RV-8s and sell them fully assembled and flying, and buyers would license them as Experimental race and demonstration?

That category does come with additional burdens, namely a Program Letter each year where you identify what races and demonstrations you will fly in, and defines a "home base" (in my case 300 n.mi radius around Air Sailing, NV) in which you can operate for practice without notifying FSDO. As a practical matter, this requirement is no particular burden other than remembering to send the Program Letter to the FSDO each year.
 
Last edited:
burdens

...

That category does come with additional burdens, namely a Program Letter each year where you identify what races and demonstrations you will fly in, and defines a "home base" (in my case 300 n.mi radius around Air Sailing, NV) in which you can operate for practice without notifying FSDO. As a practical matter, this requirement is no particular burden other than remembering to send the Program Letter to the FSDO each year.
I recall that there are other restrictions, but don't have the reg at hand. For example, can you fly across the country like you could with a normal EAB? What about to Canada? Bahamas? Mexico?
 
And there it is, the fundamental issue: the perception that if there?s something in it for us, then it must be okay.

Wow, that's a stretch! I'm just pointing out *one* possible benefit. Not everyone is a builder.

The EAA has the Young Eagles program because they know that having more pilots is good for the aviation community as a whole. It's not a giant leap to apply the same quantitative reasoning to aircraft.

-Marc
 
Hmmm. So we could sell fully assembled, test-flown HP-24 gliders as Experimental race and demonstration? And Greg Cole could sell fully assembled, test-flown Duck-Hawks as Experimental race and demonstration?
Could I actually go into serial production of RV-8s and sell them fully assembled and flying, and buyers would license them as Experimental race and demonstration?

That category does come with additional burdens, namely a Program Letter each year where you identify what races and demonstrations you will fly in, and defines a "home base" (in my case 300 n.mi radius around Air Sailing, NV) in which you can operate for practice without notifying FSDO. As a practical matter, this requirement is no particular burden other than remembering to send the Program Letter to the FSDO each year.

Yes, actually, you can - you just have to put up with the potential for significant restrictions if they are actually enforced. I was talking to several glider sales guys that said many of the European ships Are licensed that way here in the US precisely so they don?t have to go to the expense and effort of cross certification. The volume is to low to make that worthwhile.

I think if you set up a factory to produce RV-8?s, the FAA might take notice (and exception). You might also find it not to be profitable!

The alternative Experimental categories could potentially be exploited in very narrow windows - but not widely.
 
...
I would love to be told I am wrong, because that would open a path for interesting projects to build for commercial gain. HP-24, for instance.
I followed your development on the web and it sounds like an amazing ship Steve!

...
The other complicating factor is the abundance of 2 week to taxi programs which are sanctioned by the FAA. In my opinion, there's no way that should be a legitimate path to an EAB. ..
Having spoken to a few people who have been through the Glastar and Velocity Vtwin program, they will tell you, and I believe them, they are the ones who built their planes. The advantage is that the factory has the tools, jigs, and knowledge required to complete the plane in two weeks. Yes, they are there to answer question, demonstrate techniques, and hand you tools. Also, they have all the spares we had to wait to arrive from Van's or Aircraft Spruce. The three guys I have spoke to said it was exhausting as they were working more than 12 hour days but they got 'er done!

Does anyone really think that Vans would be happy(er) selling less kits if the Pro shops were shut down? I feel we all benefit from more flying examples than less.

-Marc
I thought there was some discussion going on to allow some of the kits to be "factory" built. The idea being something along the line of the factory built RV-12's. They would all be identical and up to a common (safe) specification.

Do any of you know what happened to this initiative?
 
Not taking sides, but I'm curious. How does a project that takes most guys 2000-3000 hours or more translate to a two week program?
 
Not taking sides, but I'm curious. How does a project that takes most guys 2000-3000 hours or more translate to a two week program?

I agree, even at 16 hours a day you would only accumulate 224 hours over two weeks. I'd hardly call that building your own plane. :confused:
 
I recall that there are other restrictions, but don't have the reg at hand. For example, can you fly across the country like you could with a normal EAB? What about to Canada? Bahamas? Mexico?

IIRC, the primary practical requirement is filing an annual program letter for FSDO approval, stating all the destinations where the operator intends to "exhibit" the aircraft. Not surprisingly, most owners list every local airport and all the fly-in destinations. Local flying is allowed for proficiency. There are probably variations between FSDOs, but it's my understanding that most will allow the addition of a destination with little more than a 24-hour faxed request.

I have no idea about operation across borders.
 
to post #1

I don't think it is what was intended with the liberties that we have with EAB. But I also feel like my opinion doesn't matter much. And we should not do anything that will make these privileges disappear. Most of us here build and help others building because we love it. And it is a beautiful thing!

I agree, even at 16 hours a day you would only accumulate 224 hours over two weeks. I'd hardly call that building your own plane. :confused:
I agree.
Some people build a few planes per year and some may even make a profit out of this. I guess you could call that "pro build" planes. But I have seen at least one these and corners were cut here and there. De burring is definitely one area where you can save a ton of time. Some people don't even final drill the wholes on the 7-8-9 and just slap the parts together. No de burring and no primer nothing. just "dimple rivet-go"
 
But I have seen at least one these and corners were cut here and there. De burring is definitely one area where you can save a ton of time. Some people don't even final drill the wholes on the 7-8-9 and just slap the parts together. No de burring and no primer nothing. just "dimple rivet-go"

I guess that makes me feel a little better - wondering as I build if each and every deburred edge and hole is perfect, double checking if each and every rivet is perfect. If these things stay in the air with the slapdash construction you describe, hopefully my best attempts won't result in the wings coming off.
 
Not picking on you George but just pointing out, no one needs to get the repairman's certificate.

However, FAA Form 8130-12 has you attest (and it is notarized) the following:
That is true. Repairman is a separate request. However that is the beauty of amateur built being able to do your own condition inspections.

PRO SHOPS... Van's kits are so good now that even a mediocre builder can turn out a reasonable safe airworthy example at least structurally. Everyone knows about RV-3 wing failures. Van did redesign the wing, however most if not all failures were builder error (or pilot error), and at least two of the accident RV-3's were built by the same PRO builder which he later sold.

Flying Magazine Vol 126, Issue 10: "It was the second RV-3 Duci built, and he went on to build a third. ... Several (including two of the three built by Duci) have suffered wing failures in flight"
Flying Magazine

There was another PRO BUILDER back in the day; two of his planes he built and sold had in-flight breakups. I recall they were Mustang II's but could be wrong.
 
Last edited:
Not taking sides, but I'm curious. How does a project that takes most guys 2000-3000 hours or more translate to a two week program?

I agree, even at 16 hours a day you would only accumulate 224 hours over two weeks. I'd hardly call that building your own plane. :confused:

These are "Two Week to Taxi" shops, not two weeks to fly.

Also, the aircraft that do it in two weeks are not RV's.

Say you are building a Lancair, glue the wings together, glue the fuselage together, install the control systems, plug and play a premade panel, etc. and you can get it ready to taxi in two weeks.
 
Back
Top