Does this sound like its worth it?

Quick story: Friend of mine has a -6A, and has been building a -7A for the last 5 years. He just wants to sell the -7A but wants to finish it first. He doesn't have time to finish it (or says he doesn't) and wants to pay me to finish. Here is what he is offering:

Emp, Wings, Fuse, Panel, Wiring, & Engine are all done.

The only things he wants me to do are:

Canopy (Slider)
Baffling
Cowl
Prop (Constant Speed) & Spinner
Fairings & Fiberglass (tips also)

HE is estimating that it can easily be done in 350 hours. He has offered me $10,000 to finish it.

First, does 350 hours sound do-able? This would be my first time tackling all of the above, so I'd be a little slower, but it would also help me when it comes time to do mine.

Second, does $10k sound reasonable?

Third, $10k is all he wants to pay. So if I have to buy any special tools, it comes out of that $10k (with the exception of parts). His logic is that I'll need those same tools anyways when my build gets to that point.

He also said he would let me fly it while it is for sale. He would be keeping it in my hangar anyways.

So, should I consider doing this? Thoughts?

if you value friendship

It's more than those hours and money. I would not do it.
Just be friends...

Doesn't sound like a very good deal to me?

Why don't you just buy it and finish it yourself?

Not sure if you're looking to build the same model, but maybe you could buy his in the unfinished state, finish it at your own pace, and fly it.
Putting a fixed fee model together for something you've never done before sounds like a bad idea to me (as another "never done it before guy"). $10k is roughly $29/hr at 350 estimated hours. If it takes you twice as long because you're a first-timer working slow - or you make a mistake - are you okay with working for half that and eating the cost of the replacement parts? A new cowling isn't cheap. And what if he's unsatisfied with your finished product? How will you work that out?

Another option would be to look at his total time investment so far, establish a ratio of the remaining hours against that, finish the airplane for him for free, deduct the cost of the parts (kit, engine, avionics, interior, prop, etc.) and divide the proceeds from the sale accordingly. (though I bet you'd come out better taking the $10k)

Or maybe he should put it up for sale now and I'll buy it
Good luck.

danielhv said:

Quick story: Friend of mine has a -6A, and has been building a -7A for the last 5 years. He just wants to sell the -7A but wants to finish it first. He doesn't have time to finish it (or says he doesn't) and wants to pay me to finish. Here is what he is offering:

Emp, Wings, Fuse, Panel, Wiring, & Engine are all done.

The only things he wants me to do are:

Canopy (Slider)
Baffling
Cowl
Prop (Constant Speed) & Spinner
Fairings & Fiberglass (tips also)

HE is estimating that it can easily be done in 350 hours. He has offered me $10,000 to finish it.

First, does 350 hours sound do-able? This would be my first time tackling all of the above, so I'd be a little slower, but it would also help me when it comes time to do mine.

Second, does $10k sound reasonable?

Third, $10k is all he wants to pay. So if I have to buy any special tools, it comes out of that $10k (with the exception of parts). His logic is that I'll need those same tools anyways when my build gets to that point.

He also said he would let me fly it while it is for sale. He would be keeping it in my hangar anyways.

So, should I consider doing this? Thoughts?

Click to expand...

cattflight said:

Not sure if you're looking to build the same model, but maybe you could buy his in the unfinished state, finish it at your own pace, and fly it.
Putting a fixed fee model together for something you've never done before sounds like a bad idea to me (as another "never done it before guy"). $10k is roughly $29/hr at 350 estimated hours. If it takes you twice as long because you're a first-timer working slow - or you make a mistake - are you okay with working for half that and eating the cost of the replacement parts? A new cowling isn't cheap. And what if he's unsatisfied with your finished product? How will you work that out?

Another option would be to look at his total time investment so far, establish a ratio of the remaining hours against that, finish the airplane for him for free, deduct the cost of the parts (kit, engine, avionics, interior, prop, etc.) and divide the proceeds from the sale accordingly. (though I bet you'd come out better taking the $10k)

Or maybe he should put it up for sale now and I'll buy it
Good luck.

Click to expand...

I want my own panel, engine, T/U canopy, tailwheel, etc. Plus I enjoy building.

If you really are interested in buying pm me, he doesn't think he will get his money back out of it as an unfinished kit, which is why he is wanting to finish it. It wouldn't be to the point I described in the scenario above until the end of this year. Right now, the fuse and tail is done. Wings, are ready for riveting. Panel is done. Engine is ready. comes with finish kit, prop, gov, etc. Last I remember he had a little over $50k in it.

Anyways, it was just a though, but it looks like it WOULD be best for me to pass on it. Glad I have you guys to ask these questions to!

I would pass, that kind of deal is a quick way to kill a friendship if something goes wrong.

With the exception of friendship issue, I would do it in a heartbeat.

In terms of work, I think it is very reasonable and possibly generous in terms of $$$
The only risky part is the canopy which has the risk of craking and that is high $$$ part to replace but I would still do it.

Thoughts

If the guy is serious, he should do a little digging. There are many experienced builders who are retired and repeat offenders. I would think to a repeat builder with tools and time, that is a fairly reasonable offer cash wise. I know there are builders out there who love having a job to do and help others kind of like hired guns. Their quality is great, often they have great shops and all skills.
Have your friend find one of those, get it done and pay the bill. No issues with quality or worries about your friendship being strained..and you get back to working on your bird now.

Opinion only, do what you want to do.

Does anyone else see an issue here? If he pays to have it completed will it still be considered an Amateur Built?

Regulations and liability

flytoboat said:

Does anyone else see an issue here? If he pays to have it completed will it still be considered an Amateur Built?

Click to expand...

Clearly the plan is to tell the FAA "the big lie" when it comes time for the inspection. My problem with this is that it reflects on all of us and can lead to changes in the regulations and some nasty liability issues. I know that it goes on all the time but blabbing the plan on a public forum is foolhardy. A little restraint would be prudent.


John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

How does 350 hours of hired work challenge the ammature built? It's no where close to the amount a QB eliminates. As stated above, everything else is done and completed by him. So instead of him spending 1600 hours building, he only actually does 1250 hours and that changes the rules? Someone please explain this!

danielhv said:

How does 350 hours of hired work challenge the ammature built? It's no where close to the amount a QB eliminates. As stated above, everything else is done and completed by him. So instead of him spending 1600 hours building, he only actually does 1250 hours and that changes the rules? Someone please explain this!

Click to expand...

Simple - you are accepting compensation to build - not doing it for "recreation and education". Yes, this is done every day in many shops around the country - which doesn't make it right.

If you decide to help your friend build his airplane for your own enjoyment and out of a desire to help him out, that's great! As others have said, my experience with mixing friendship and business is that it frequently ruins the friendship,and is bad business.

Paul

Ironflight said:

Simple - you are accepting compensation to build - not doing it for "recreation and education". Yes, this is done every day in many shops around the country - which doesn't make it right.

If you decide to help your friend build his airplane for your own enjoyment and out of a desire to help him out, that's great! As others have said, my experience with mixing friendship and business is that it frequently ruins the friendship,and is bad business.

Paul

Click to expand...

Ok, but this still doesn't explain how it changes the amature built category...

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), part 21, section 21.191(g), defines an amateur-built aircraft as an aircraft “the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by person(s) who undertook the construction project solely for their own education or recreation.”

How does having someone else do some fiberglass, prop, canopy, and fairings equate to the major portion not being done by him? I mean for that matter, when you buy a QB, your paying a higher price for someone else to do the work... same logic here correct? (just a MUCH smaller amount of work). Nowhere in section 21.191 does it say anything about not being able to sub out small portions, assuming you still complete the major portion (>51%) yourself... Am I looking in the wrong place?

I kinda see where one can be mislead by the " by person(s) who undertook the construction project solely for their own education or recreation" portion, but in the same sentence it is referring to the one building the major portion, not the one building a cowl, or some other small sub-part...

Im not trying to argue here so I want to make that clear up front. I am merely trying to understand this correctly as I do not want to do anything wrong, nor do I want to involve Doug's site in anything questionable by asking the original question...

AC 20-27G

The answers you are looking for are in AC 20-27G. Google it, it is an interesting read. The "Commercial Assistance" issue is covered starting on page 8.

From the EAA:

This is the "new" 51% rule and a few things are worth noting. Kits that were on the old approved list, and thus grandfathered in, will be "ungrandfathered" if the builder used ANY commercial assistance. This means that they must be evaluated under the new guidelines. The effect of this will vary from one builder to the next, but not being able to use the old Form 8000-38 may have negative consequences for some builders.

Record keeping and progress inspections by Tech Counselors and/or A&Ps have been emphasized, which is a good thing, but may cause some heartburn for people who have been building for a long time with sloppy records and suddenly find themselves subject to the new rules.

Implementing the new checklist in Appendix 8 (AC 20-27G) might get pretty complicated as DARs and builders debate about tenths of points in the many categories of the construction process, especially if amateur built status is a close call. Luckily builders who just build a preapproved kit as purchased won't have to do this. But it could have a chilling effect on the use of commercial assistance, or on the honesty of builders who use it.
Whether this is progress or just added complication remains to be seen. As the saying goes, time will tell.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

John Clark said:

The answers you are looking for are in AC 20-27G. Google it, it is an interesting read. The "Commercial Assistance" issue is covered starting on page 8.

From the EAA:

This is the "new" 51% rule and a few things are worth noting. Kits that were on the old approved list, and thus grandfathered in, will be "ungrandfathered" if the builder used ANY commercial assistance. This means that they must be evaluated under the new guidelines. The effect of this will vary from one builder to the next, but not being able to use the old Form 8000-38 may have negative consequences for some builders.

Record keeping and progress inspections by Tech Counselors and/or A&Ps have been emphasized, which is a good thing, but may cause some heartburn for people who have been building for a long time with sloppy records and suddenly find themselves subject to the new rules.

Implementing the new checklist in Appendix 8 (AC 20-27G) might get pretty complicated as DARs and builders debate about tenths of points in the many categories of the construction process, especially if amateur built status is a close call. Luckily builders who just build a preapproved kit as purchased won't have to do this. But it could have a chilling effect on the use of commercial assistance, or on the honesty of builders who use it.
Whether this is progress or just added complication remains to be seen. As the saying goes, time will tell.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

Click to expand...

Very good read, Thank you. So, what I gathered is that... say Vans does 40% of the mfg/fab. That leaves you with 60% to complete. You MUST complete 51%, therefore only 9% is available to be contracted out. I can understand that.

So that being said, Vans' QB kits complete the slow build kit to a point where it still leaves at least 51% to be done by the builder, yet shaves 35 - 40% off the build and STILL meets the 51% rule. So lets assume the QB is 49% done....

QB = 49% Complete, 51% to go.

SB = 14% Complete (49% - 35% the QB shaved off), so 86% to go?

If that were the case then you could sub out 35% of the work and still have 51% to do yourself...

Why are these regs so hard to understand when compared to real world situations?

I guess ultimately I just dont understand how buying a QB (which qualifies as commercial assistance according to the article) that shaves 35 - 40% (~800 hours) off the total build time (per Vans website) can still meet the 51% rule; but building a slow build and subbing out 350 hours worth of work doesn't?

Ironflight said:

Simple - you are accepting compensation to build - not doing it for "recreation and education".

Click to expand...

So is Stein and many others when they build you a panel, to pick an example... what's the difference? Where's the line?

51% of tasks not 51% of hours

Seems like I remember reading somewhere that the 51% is not 51% of the time but rather 51% of the tasks. Mel, or someone more knowledgeable than I, correct me if I'm wrong. Also, the "40%" that you use as an example is looked upon as a degree of manufacturing from Van's the kit provider, which I would think would be looked upon with more favor than all or some part of that "40%" being done by an outside vendor.

There have been in the past, probably are in the present, and undoubtedly will be in the future situations where folks need help to finish an Experimental Amateur Built airplane. And there are folks that are set up as businesses who can provide that assistance. When that assistance crosses the line between assistance and outright contracting to build the airplane, then the FAA says that is not for "education and recreation." Rest assured that the FAA (and the NTSB investigators) read this forum.

Daniel...

As an outsider i.e. from the UK, look at it another way. The QB kit has been specifically "approved" by the FAA, and in turn therefore our CAA/LAA over here.

If you and your friend wish to revist the rules as stated above, then one could ask the FAA the same qu Vans did over the QB kit. Set out what you will do, the sum to be paid, what has been done to date, and ask them to clearly state in writing it will still count (or not) as "amateur build". My guess is that neither of you will want to go down that route, which then answers the question of whether you should go ahead

Of course, there is no illegality in you doing 350+hrs work for $10K. There might be illegality in getting the aircraft signed off (not your problem?).

Just my 2cs worth
Andy

Apples and Oranges

danielhv said:

I guess ultimately I just dont understand how buying a QB (which qualifies as commercial assistance according to the article) that shaves 35 - 40% (~800 hours) off the total build time (per Vans website) can still meet the 51% rule; but building a slow build and subbing out 350 hours worth of work doesn't?

Click to expand...

I don't think that the FAA views the 800 hours as "commercial Assistance" but rather the SB and QB as two different kits. Two different approved kits. The reality is that the numbers are very vague, the hours required are variable due to who is doing the work. Remember too, the FAA is looking at "tasks" not hours.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

Ask the DAR

I'd ask the local DAR who will do the inspection and see what he/she says. It will be up to the DAR in the end anyhow. You're not working on the plane for business; you're not a guy who's done 10 RVs and knows everything there is to know about it, making "education" a moot point. The work is an opportunity to help a friend and learn how to finish an airplane so that you will be better prepared to finish your own. It's still two people building an airplane for education and recreation with a little financial help thrown in. I think it could easily still be considered within the spirit of the 51% rule.

Just my 2$ (no cents key on the thingy!)

KatieB said:

I'd ask the local DAR who will do the inspection and see what he/she says. It will be up to the DAR in the end anyhow. You're not working on the plane for business; you're not a guy who's done 10 RVs and knows everything there is to know about it, making "education" a moot point. The work is an opportunity to help a friend and learn how to finish an airplane so that you will be better prepared to finish your own. It's still two people building an airplane for education and recreation with a little financial help thrown in. I think it could easily still be considered within the spirit of the 51% rule.

Just my 2$ (no cents key on the thingy!)

Click to expand...

Maybe....but the FAA has made it very clear they do not look at it that way.

If money changes hands, the work can not count as tasks done by an amateur builder.
Their really is no guessing or opinion needed about the subject. Get a hold of the revised Form 8000-38 and see how it would pencil out. I think there is a small variable where a few things might still be "at the discretion of the inspector" but for the most part it is pretty well defined.

danielhv said:

Here is what he is offering:

Emp, Wings, Fuse, Panel, Wiring, & Engine are all done.

The only things he wants me to do are:

Canopy (Slider)
Baffling
Cowl
Prop (Constant Speed) & Spinner
Fairings & Fiberglass (tips also)

HE is estimating that it can easily be done in 350 hours. He has offered me $10,000 to finish it.

Click to expand...

I think he's about 250 hrs short with his time estimate. He's basically offering $28.50/hr for you to do the work. If "I were you" I'd tell him "I'll do it for $28.50/hr but........my estimate is 600 (or whatever) hours @ $28.50 which will total about $17K". Hope this helps!

Radomir said:

So is Stein and many others when they build you a panel, to pick an example... what's the difference? Where's the line?

Click to expand...

Dang good question - and I admit that I don't have the answer. But one way to figure it out is to ask the FSDO. if you already think you won't like the answer you get, then you probably know the answer already.....

Paul

Radomir said:

So is Stein and many others when they build you a panel, to pick an example... what's the difference? Where's the line?

Click to expand...

Simple...we're specifically exempted and have been for many years (as are interiors, engines, paint, props, wheels, tires, etc..).

See FAA AC 20-27G (the new one);
Section 8 - Designating & Constructing an Amateur Built Aircraft
SubSection b. - Commercial Assistant
Paragraph 2. - Identifying Which Items Can Be Installed Using Commercial Assistance. Here's the text:

"You may get unlimited commercial assistance for non-checklist items on a kit evaluated by the FAA. A non-checklist item is a task or process that is not listed on the Amateur-Built Aircraft Fabrication and Assembly Checklist (2009). These items also include painting and the installation of interior upholstery or avionics. Such a task or process would not be required to be personally completed by the amateur builder for the aircraft to receive an airworthiness certificate under § 21.191(g). Other non-checklist items include fabrication of engines, propellers, wheels and brake assemblies, and standard aircraft hardware."

Anyway, anyone conteplating arguing facts in these various points should be well versed in this AC in general. There are some opinions here which are good, and some which are way off base. For example, the 51% rule doesn't necessarily reflect 51% of the total "labor or time" it takes to build the airplane. I'd go into detail, but a bit of internet searching will turn up LOT's of reading.

Next, if you're not experienced in building multiple RV's throw ALL time estimates out the window. Building one RV an expert does not make. That's not a flame, but just a fact. I think it takes at least 3-4 of these things before you get a really good handle on them (using various models, engines, props, avionics, paint, repairs, inspections, etc..).

In the end, this is a good thread to have but sorting wheat from the chaff may take some work by the time this is all done!

My 2 cents as usual.

Cheers,
Stein

PS, the entire AC is here: http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC 20-27G.pdf

Man-o-man,

I guess I'll be the bad guy here.

The contractual arrangement that the OP posted is not only against the spirit of the FAA regs but the letter as well.

The "builder" of the plane is now getting commercial assistance to build his plane, something the FAA really frowns on. He, the builder, is going to have to lie about the help or lie about paying for it. Deliberately falsifying a FAA document is not something you really want to do, if you value flying.

The person providing the build for hire has now indeed become a professional" or "commercial assistance" and will either have to show the income or lie about it as well. It would not be unusual or unheard of, for the FAA, if they found out about it, to show up in his shop asking for details.

I would seriously consider reclassifying a friend who propositioned me with that kind of offer.

If you want to go out and build yourself an experimental airplane that is certified in a Special category as amateur-built, go for it. If you're looking to make a buck by skirting or breaking the rules, certainly don't publish it. It gives the experimental aviation community a black eye and if enough of that kind of activity goes on, it will negatively affect all of us.

Dave A.
6A build

non-regs two cents

It's a sucker's bet for you to work on a _flat_fee_ doing this for the first time on his plane. There are a hundred ways for both of you to lose this bet. Crack a canopy (or just scratch it a little). Need to order a lot of stuff. Disagreement on quality of work. Takes too long. Disagreement over scope of work. No support in fixing flaws he may have introduced. One person wants to quit in the middle and resolve partial payment amount. The list goes on...

Run away. A friendly answer might be to suggest that you'll help him with each step (maybe even do most of the work) after you've done each step on your project.

Or tell him you'll take $2500 to install the prop. Now that's a winner.

Thanks for all of the replies. My sincere apologies for mis-understanding the wording of the regs.

I will obviously not be doing it now as I spend too much $ supporting EAA and what it stands for to do something that jepordizes our privialiges. So thanks again for the clarification.


Thanks everyone. My apologies again.

Hi Daniel,

No need to apologize to anyone. I agree some of the response were a bit low on the taste scale. Ovearall, this forum is a place where questions like this should be asked and answered with factual information by experienced people. There is always going to be personalities involved, along with varying levels of background experience....and as I said you need to sort the wheat from the chaff quite often.

Overall, there was some good information in this thread that will possibly be helpful to others who read in in the future (which is something I try to think about when I post many times), but there are also worthless responses as well.

Anyway, I don't begrudge you at all for asking - I think that's what these open forums are for. The question was not something that should have been inflammatory. I say keep pounding rivets and that at RV done! You'll be happier in he end that you spent the time on your own airplane anyway!

Cheers,
Stein

Pay it forward

Daniel, you could always jump in to help out a friend. Do it for free. You will gain valuable experience and you own build will go smoother. When you get to a point you require assistance, have your friend help you out.
also Down the road if your buddy does sell his completed plane and feels he got a fair price, maybe he'll buy you a nice radio stack for helping him out.

danielhv said:

Thanks for all of the replies. My sincere apologies for mis-understanding the wording of the regs.

I will obviously not be doing it now as I spend too much $ supporting EAA and what it stands for to do something that jepordizes our privialiges. So thanks again for the clarification.


Thanks everyone. My apologies again.

Click to expand...

Don't feel badly...a lot of other posts here also show a lot of missunderstanding.

There is actually nothing wrong with someone paying to have work done on an airplane intended to be certificated as amateur built. If there was, we would not have quick build kits (as was already mentioned). They key is the amount of work done professionally. The QB kits have been evaluated against FAA Form 8000-38 and found them to qualify for amateur built certification. A builder considering hiring some work done (or someone considering doing work for hire) should do the same thing. This is the only way to know.
People who give advice to others about what is and isn't allowed regarding hired work on amateur built aircraft need to down load a copy of Form 8000-38 and become familiar with it (make sure you get the new revised version).

The name of the new form is "Amateur-built aircraft fabrication and assembly checklist (2009)(fixed-wing)".
It is not the same as the old 8000-38.
The new form can be found in AC 20-27G, appendix 8.
If you built your aircraft from a kit, received no commercial assistance, and made no modifications, you may go by the older form 8000-38. Otherwise you must go by the new list.

Mel said:

The name of the new form is "Amateur-built aircraft fabrication and assembly checklist (2009)(fixed-wing)".
It is not the same as the old 8000-38.
The new form can be found in AC 20-27G, appendix 8.

Click to expand...

Thanks Mel, I didn't realize they totally changed the designation.

Mel said:

If you built your aircraft from a kit, received no commercial assistance, and made no modifications, you may go by the older form 8000-38. Otherwise you must go by the new list.

Click to expand...

Do you mean from any kit or a kit previously on the approved kits list?

Actually if it's on the "approved kit list" and you do no modifications and obtain no commercial assistance, you don't need either list. That's what the approved list is for.
If you started the project after September, 2009, the new list applies.

Builder for hire

Since I was one of the distasteful commentors on a previous post, I would like to apologize to those who were offended. I think it is apparent that the subject hit a nerve but still, not good form.

One thing I can't apologize for is the passion behind the statements and here's why:

Two years ago the FAA became increasingly concerned about the status of quick-build amateur kits and the use of commercial assistance to the point of temporarily suspending the evaluation of new kits until further notice. It was obvious to everyone in the industry that there were indiviuals who were simply "building for hire". (The FAA is not blind.)

Eventually a new advisory circular, 20-27G, was forged, which became effective last September. Thanks to the efforts of kit manufacturers like Vans, the EAA, and others, the freedom enjoyed by amateur builders was largely salvaged, but it was a close call.

However, the issue of commercial assistance has not completely gone away and IMO, still remains a big concern for the FAA. So much so, that the AC requires notification to the FAA if commercial assistance is to be obtained and that any assistance is completely documented. If the assistance is deemed excessive an airworthiness certificate will not be issued.

The bigger underlying issue that was really not openly discussed and which is the root cause of all this, is the exponential growth in the experimental category of aircraft. Experimental aircraft are being manufactured in incredible numbers. I suspect the total is way more than type-certificated single- engine models. This is beginning to have a big impact everywhere in aviation.

This explosive growth has also done several things. One, some of the pizzazz has come back to GA. Those forum members old enough to remember the devastation of the general aviation industry from the onslaught of liability claims in the 70's and 80's will tell you that it never ever really recovered even after the Congressional Revitalization Act of 1994.

Two, it made several hard-working entrepeneurs very successful, perhaps millionaires, for all their efforts.

Three, it spawned a host of cottage industries and services who cater to, and make a living from, the experimental world. Virtually every aspect of the experimental building process that can be legally exploited, has been. Instrument manufacturers, avionics shops, engine builders, paint shops, interior fabrication, etc. have all profited considerably from the experimental world. Even the owner of this forum makes a small sum from managing it (and he earns it).

This exploitation is a good thing. It is a pure, classic example of the free enterprise system at work. Look at the innovation that has come out of experimental aircraft. Almost every day some new device appears that makes building or flying better and safer. I suspect that it is this reason that the FAA is willing to give experimental builders a measure of freedom to innovate.

It would not be unfair to say that in some aspects, the experimental world is driving the certified aircraft sector. However, all of that vigor and exuberance could go away very quickly if the FAA decides that the experimental category is simply an avenue for "one-off" or small time manufacturers to use to skirt Part 23 certification. So beware of what you look the other way from.

I don't make a living from the RV phenomenon. My motive is purely self-serving. I have wanted to build and fly my own aircraft since the early nineties but job pressures, military service and a sackful of other issues were always in the way, just like a lot of other folks. Now, I am finally getting close and I don't want a few individuals who want a hired gun to build their plane for them to take that away. Unfortunately, I believe the practice is still going on and is still considered as business as usual by some.

So, the next time someone off the street approaches you, knowing you are an "experienced" builder, and offers to pay you to build his plane for him, I hope your response is as passionate.

Dave A.
6A build

This week, I should pass 2,200 hours on my Rv-7a project which i started in 2001. I'm at that "chicken and egg" stage (as Checkoway described it) where everything depends on something else getting done first, which depends on something else getting done first, which depends on something else getting done first).

It's extremely frustrating and I've thought, "I wish I had the money for someone to either finish this thing, or stand there and tell me what I need to do next."

and it occurs to me that the only thing at this point that 's keeping me going is the knowledge that someday, *I'm* going to fly this thing. I don't know how I'd keep at it if it was going to be someone else's plane.

I don't think people realize how much work is involved here.

did he really say those things still to be done "can easily be done in 350 hours?"

did he really use the term "easily."

if so, I'd get the money up front.

What happens if a plane is found to NOT meet the 51% requirement?

Does it become a lawn ornament?

Mel said:

Actually if it's on the "approved kit list" and you do no modifications and obtain no commercial assistance, you don't need either list. That's what the approved list is for.
If you started the project after September, 2009, the new list applies.

Click to expand...

Mel,

I am well aware of that.
The discussion was in the context of commercial builders assistance so I assumed you would understand that my question was in that context.

So to clarify the original question...

Person building an RV-7 (on approved kit list). Project was started in 2005. Project has been stalled but nearly completed so builder hires a pro to finish.

Which check list gets used?

koda2 said:

Since I was one of the distasteful commentors on a previous post, I would like to apologize to those who were offended. I think it is apparent that the subject hit a nerve but still, not good form.

One thing I can't apologize for is the passion behind the statements and here's why:

Two years ago the FAA became increasingly concerned about the status of quick-build amateur kits and the use of commercial assistance to the point of temporarily suspending the evaluation of new kits until further notice. It was obvious to everyone in the industry that there were indiviuals who were simply "building for hire". (The FAA is not blind.)


So, the next time someone off the street approaches you, knowing you are an "experienced" builder, and offers to pay you to build his plane for him, I hope your response is as passionate.

Dave A.
6A build

Click to expand...

I am in totally in agreement with you Dave. I am a big proponent of following the rules, and I preach it constantly.
It is important to keep in mind though, that under the rules (even the new ones) you can pay for some professional construction work. The important thing is to be using the check list, and probably consult with the inspector or DAR that will do your certification to make sure everyone is in agreement that the airplane is in compliance.

The quick answer is "Yes"...

RVnoob said:

What happens if a plane is found to NOT meet the 51% requirement?

Does it become a lawn ornament?

Click to expand...

..I remember an incident wherein a fiberglass airplane was built for someone and the owner simply wrote a check. The inspector started asking the owner a few direct questions regarding the build, which made it obvious to the inspector that the guy didn't have a clue and denied the certificate.

Mel, do you recall an incident that you did the same?

Best,

Do it for free or not at all. Have your friend buy all the parts and tools and you build. If you don't really love to build, you won't like building for pay. It would be a lot of fun building without worry about paying for anything. No problems with the FAA and if you keep your name off the logs, no liability problems either. Maybe he would let you keep the tools too.

rvbuilder2002 said:

Person building an RV-7 (on approved kit list). Project was started in 2005. Project has been stalled but nearly completed so builder hires a pro to finish.
Which check list gets used?

Click to expand...

Anytime modifications are done, and/or commercial assistance is used, the project automatically goes to the "new" list, regardless of when it was started.

The only time the "old" list may be used is if the project was started before 9/09, no changes to the original kit were made, and no commercial assistance was used.

What if...

What if I built my airplane for my recreation and education, registered myself as the builder, and decided I did not like it after 100 hours? 25 hours? 5 hours? Zerp hours and lost medical? If I sell it does that make me a professional builder for hire? I do not think so. What if I did that a couple of times? I am just saying there is an inevitable gray area here. We should definitely follow the regs and not falsify anything but the line is sometimes blurry. Obviously only the builder is able to get the repairmans certificate which removes some peoples interest in this.
If you believe that
1. ANYONE (even if they have built 10 or 15 already) should be able to build an airplane if they want to.
2. And that they should be able to sell it if they want/need to (once properly registered.)

Then there is a loophole that would be difficult to close.

Loophole?

n981ms said:

What if I built my airplane for my recreation and education, registered myself as the builder, and decided I did not like it after 100 hours? 25 hours? 5 hours? Zerp hours and lost medical? If I sell it does that make me a professional builder for hire? I do not think so. What if I did that a couple of times? I am just saying there is an inevitable gray area here. We should definitely follow the regs and not falsify anything but the line is sometimes blurry. Obviously only the builder is able to get the repairmans certificate which removes some peoples interest in this.
If you believe that
1. ANYONE (even if they have built 10 or 15 already) should be able to build an airplane if they want to.
2. And that they should be able to sell it if they want/need to (once properly registered.)

Then there is a loophole that would be difficult to close.

Click to expand...

I don't think this is the issue that the FAA was trying to address. There is no restriction on selling a completed, registered E/AB aircraft. As you noted, the only restriction is the Repairman Certificate. There are two issues, people building an airplane as a "hired gun" and letting the customer get the repairman's certificate. Or, and I know this has been proposed, setting up a "factory" and building airplanes to order. The spirit of the law is clear to me, the FAA doesn't want complete "experimental" airplanes being built and sold to the general public for profit. There are a number of reasons for this position including liability, but that is for another thread.

We need to remember that we have a pretty good deal under the present rules and should be concerned about keeping the status quo.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA