abuses and misapplications of the 51 percent rule

Building our homebuilt aircraft in the futue is in jeperady.
Read the STORY:
http://www.airventure.org/2007/6fri27/amateur_built.html

At my DAR recurrent training, it was stated that the existing approved kits on the FAA list would be GRANDFATHERED under the new revisons. If you have an approved Quick Build (all of Van's models are) it will be grandfather under the new requirements but if it were to be re-evaluated, it may not qualify.

Please do NOT shoot the messagner.

Regulation. Regulation. Regulation. One day we will have no rights.

I would ask the FAA; EXACTLY what problems have you seen? Other than, you "just don't like" what you see. The current system seems to be working pretty good so leave it alone. I don't see non-amatuer built amatuer aircraft hailing from the sky. I wonder how many "off-the-record" comments (to the FAA) have been made from the likes of Cessna, Cirrus and other current and potential LSA manufacturers about this huge "problem".

I am writing my congressmen and senators about this now.

Show me the money

I'm amazed it took this long for a crackdown. There appears to be a lack of recognition of what it all looks like from the certified manufacturers' point of view. Think of the gargantuan regulatory hurdles placed in front of the Cirruses and Cessnas of the world compared to the free path enjoyed by Van's and others. If the build-for-hire and super-ultra-quick-builds are allowed to proliferate, what reason will there be for someone to spend twice as much for a (possibly) inferior certified product? Historically, the experimental side and the certified side have targeted completely different markets, but this is no longer the case.

briand said:

I wonder how many "off-the-record" comments (to the FAA) have been made from the likes of Cessna, Cirrus and other current and potential LSA manufacturers about this huge "problem".

Click to expand...

That wouldn't surprise me at all. Look at it this way: Cirrus has a potential financial liability behind the 4-seat 160 knot airplane that they sell for what, something north of $300k? They're competing with the guy that is cranking out an RV-10 and selling it at 25.0 TTSN at 1) a tremendous personal profit, and 2) $100k+ less than a Cirrus. Sure, he's at risk of being held liable if something were to happen, but what's his net worth? He isn't going to be sued for $10 million. Cirrus could be.

I can see how they would see this as the abuse of the intent of the rules that it clearly is, and object to it. Many things in flying are more or less self-policed. This should be too, but where is the peer pressure being brought against the more obvious offenders? Non-existent.

More like 35%

I can tell you as a person building a QB RV7 that there is easily 51% of a build left for a person or persons to do. Sure feels like it anyway. That said I'm not entirely sure that a completely pre-punched kit is such a great idea. Part of the learning process I feel should be creating from scratch some of the rivet holes.

briand said:

Regulation. Regulation. Regulation. One day we will have no rights.

I would ask the FAA; EXACTLY what problems have you seen? Other than, you "just don't like" what you see. The current system seems to be working pretty good so leave it alone. I don't see non-amatuer built amatuer aircraft hailing from the sky. I wonder how many "off-the-record" comments (to the FAA) have been made from the likes of Cessna, Cirrus and other current and potential LSA manufacturers about this huge "problem".

I am writing my congressmen and senators about this now.

Click to expand...

The FAA knows of one shop in Texas where THREE RVs were completed for out of state owners and flown back to the owner's base. There are Amateur Built airplanes being built by paid labor and that is against the regulations. Because of these few, we all may suffer.

The rule is 51% built by amateur or amateurs not by a PAID helper or paid builder.

Those that sign the 8130-12 are subject to a $10,000 fine and time in jail for falsification of an official government document. ALL bulders and helpers must be listed on this document. (it is ok to use an attachment if there is not enough room)

I do not think people should get off free for a lie on a government document. Bet your congressmen and senators also will think the same.

I do not see anywhere in the constitution about building an airplane as being a right. Yes anyone can build anything but if you want to fly it legally, you MUST follow regulations. Flying is not a RIGHT, it is a PRIVILEGE. There was NO Right to fly following 9-11. The privilege was temporary suspended.

Yes the present regulations are outdated and need to be updated. Fiberglass and SPACE flight in an Experimental Glider (Space Ship One) did not exist when the present Amateur Built regulations were written.

Van is one of the people on the ARC and I know that he will use his common sense approach with the committee just like he does on airplanes.

Rights and priveleges

RV6_flyer said:

...
I do not see anywhere in the constitution about building an airplane as being a right. Yes anyone can build anything but if you want to fly it legally, you MUST follow regulations. Flying is not a RIGHT, it is a PRIVILEGE. There was NO Right to fly following 9-11. The privilege was temporary suspended...

Click to expand...

I don't want to chime in on the question of the 51% rule, only on the constitution.

The constitution granted certain powers to the federal government. All other powers and rights were explicitly reserved to the people or the states. This is not me being "right wing", just history. Further, the first ten amendments were added before ratification because many even at that time wanted some rights of the people to be explicit. Even then some worried that others would not "get it" about all other rights and powers belonging to the people. And it was not about the states because the amendments that applied rights as against the states came along only after the civil war.

None of the above factual history justifies the conclusion that "because there were no airplanes the right to fly does not exist". The federal government has only those powers granted/enumerated in the constitution and your own personal rights do not have to be spelled out. You have them because they were not given away by the constituion. Some call this concept consent of the governed.

9/11/2001 is a case of the government excercising valid emergency powers. FAA in general is probably justified under the interstate commerce clause; it would be worse if each state had its own aviation rules. The right to fly (or do anything ) versus the need to regulate. It's not really so difficult to understand.

I would like to second what hevansrv7a said. Its actually spelled out in the 9th amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I believe most everyone is caught in the middle, The FAA knows that the safety record keeps getting better every year and that some people just don't have the talent to build their own aircraft. I'm also sure the FAA is being pressured by the certified world because of all the sales they are losing to the experimental world. Then there's the EAA who has to walk a fine line because even though their name is experimental aircraft assoc. they get a lot of funding from the certified side so they have to look like they care about it. But when in reality they get more members from the more experimental aircraft flying and they get a bigger voice with the FAA. When you really look at it what is the only group affected negatively when another experimental is finished.

51% QBs

I think we are jumping the gun here assuming what action towards quick build kits will be taken. The article stated:

"SAMA Executive Director Paul Fiduccia, and others noted that the critical issue for the ABE-ARC and the 51 percent rule?the "sticking point"?came down to the question of how to measure 51 percent of the work on an amateur-built aircraft. There is currently no single standardized accounting system for assigning credit for work to the builder, the kit manufacturer, or both."

There is definitely some type of system in place to determine 51% eligibility today, quick build kits must qualify and are advertised as 51% approved.

My take on the statement in the article is the FAA will define a better, more uniform, standard for determining 51% approval. Quick build kits widely vary with aircraft manufacturer and materials of construction. As the new standards are developed the various kit manufacturers will adjust accordingly. Will there be a grace period (aka Grandfathering) to allow compliance? Of course.

Will quick build kits go away? No. 10 years from now if you purchase a Lancair quick build it might mean more work than gluing the two wing sections together (I'm generalizing here, it is probably more complicated than gluing 2 pieces together ). Heck, an RV quick build may be more complete than it is today!! (I'm allowed to dream )

Mixing up items?

sglaeser said:

My take on the statement in the article is the FAA will define a better, more uniform, standard for determining 51% approval. Quick build kits widely vary with aircraft manufacturer and materials of construction. As the new standards are developed the various kit manufacturers will adjust accordingly. Will there be a grace period (aka Grandfathering) to allow compliance? Of course.

Click to expand...

Steve,
I think there are two issues at play here, and they are sometimes getting mixed up....

1. The 51% rule on QB kits and how much the kit manufacturer can fabricate.

But this brings us to #2, since the #1 item assumes the builder does the actual work himself..

2. How much professional (paid) help can an amateur builder get.

They should be regarded as two separate items....

gil in Tucson

az_gila said:

Steve,
I think there are two issues at play here, and they are sometimes getting mixed up....

1. The 51% rule on QB kits and how much the kit manufacturer can fabricate.

But this brings us to #2, since the #1 item assumes the builder does the actual work himself..

2. How much professional (paid) help can an amateur builder get.

They should be regarded as two separate items....

gil in Tucson

Click to expand...

I agree. As I understand it, 51% must be done by the builder OR BUILDERS. You can have help. If this were not true, then a partnership would break the deal if both did equal work. Also true of a club project. It then seems to me that we come down to whether or not you are paying for the help which I see as nobody's business (just my opinion anyway, not the FAA's.) Now, if you aren't involved to a considerable extent, then you have a factory built airplane.

I found it interesting to hear how Steve Saint is helping people build RV-10's in Equador. The builder is there for the complete process and does much of the work. Those helping with the construction are local Indians who do not speak English, have no words in their language for North, S, E or W, have little understanding of money and live in a society with virtually no laws (or taxes!) I wonder if they are considered professionals! Their workmanship is outstanding.

I understand the FAA has investigated and decided this is not an infraction of their rules. It is a way to get a 10 much faster at a very reasonable price. It gives the Indians (Waodani tribe) needed work and experience.

BTW, the Waodani's were the tribe that murdered Steve's father and four other missionaries in 1955. See the movies or book "End of the Spear.)

Bob Kelly

QB

Hi Bob,
I had the opportunity to speak with Steve at Sun 'n Fun and he told us that the Waodani build the RV 10's to the quickbuild stage. Steve is a very honest gentleman and the missionary work he has done down there is a tribute to his character. They are in no way in violation of the spirit or intent of the 51% rule. The tribe gets the money for bringing the airplane to that stage instead of Van's and have thus been given what amounts to a job opportunity.

Regards,
Pierre

videobobk said:

I agree. As I understand it, 51% must be done by the builder OR BUILDERS. You can have help.

Click to expand...

The major portion must be built by AMATEURS. That is the key here.

No offense to anyone and this is more a sociological observation on community than anything else, but it cracks me up that there are two main threads going on on Planet RV right now.

The first is the very predictable one about the EAA being a corporate driven group that has lost its roots as homebuilders. You know, the single homebuilder of airplanes, toiling alone in pursuit of a dream of fllight, crafting out of raw materials, the tools to make a dream come true, and overcoming the obstacles of money and time to make it happen. "Where," they ask, "is the guy who builds airplanes in his garage now?"

And the other is about how the government won't allow "homebuilders" to skirt the rules so that they can lay out a sizeable wad of cash to have some company do a bunch of work for them, to produce a plane in two weeks. Otherwise, they'd end up toiling alone in a garage, overcoming the obstacles of money and time (not to mention knowledge), crafting in one's garage, the dream of an airplane. It's amost enough to make one ask, "where's the guy who builds airplanes in his garage now?".

Bob Collins said:

The first is the very predictable one about the EAA being a corporate driven group that has lost its roots as homebuilders.

Click to expand...

Bob Collins said:

And the other is about how the government won't allow "homebuilders" to skirt the rules so that they can lay out a sizeable wad of cash to have some company do a bunch of work for them, to produce a plane in two weeks.

Click to expand...

The cause of both is identical: the exponential growth of the entire experimental industry. There's a lot of money in it these days, and where there's a lot of money, there are a lot of diverse interests at play. Think 'NCAA Sports.' Used to be about the passion for the game, now about the money.

Why the relatively rapid growth of the experimental industry? Two things: overbearing government regulation on the 'store bought' side, and high dollar lawsuit liability for the manufacturers. These two combine to make innovation risky, and product expensive. A large part of the appeal to the people that are the target market for builder assistance programs comes from the economic benefits and the more innovative products available. That's what drew me in as the buyer of an already built airplane. I don't want to build, I want to fly, and there's not much on the store bought front that provides the bang for the buck of my 6. And if there was, I wouldn't be able to afford it.

resale

One issue that complicates things keeps occuring to me. Many homebuilders (even those of us who toil away for years in our garages) may someday want to sell our RVs. If we cannot, then it becomes a much more serious financial committment to build one.
But re-selling of amateur-built airplanes creates a complication when it comes to regulations. At least in Canada. We don't ahve a "repairman's certificate", so the status as "amateur-built" stays with the airplane. That means the buyer can do his/her own maintenance. This is true regardless of whether the buyer is purchasing my RV in 40 years from now after I've been flying it for over 30 years and am just to old to fly anymore, or whether they're buying it from a "hired-gun" who just finished building it and flying-off the 25 hours.
I do think the "repairman's certificate" is a really good way around this... if you're going to buy a compelted homebuilt, you can qualify to do the repairs yourself, but only if you somehow demostrate the required knowledge-expertise. But I don't know how the certificate is really administered in the U.S. - I only think it's a good idea if the required expertise can be tested in a practical way.

No maintenance rules / speculation building for profit

prkaye said:

We don't ahve a "repairman's certificate", so the status as "amateur-built" stays with the airplane.

But I don't know how the certificate is really administered in the U.S. - I only think it's a good idea if the required expertise can be tested in a practical way.

Click to expand...

In the US the only thing that requires a repairman certificate (or A&P mechanics certificate) is the condition inspection, every 12 months.

The owner of a second hand home-built with no prior experience (skill) can do all maintenance, and they can even modify it and rebuild it with out supervision. In fact they the day after the condition inspection they can modify the plane and fly it for 12 months. However if the modification is significant, than another Phase I test period may be required by the FAA. I wounder if many buyers of experimentals know all the rules.

FAA: Experimental = No SALE?
My big concern as was expressed above, being able to sell my RV down the road. I don't really care if some one wants to build a plane for profit from a freedom standpoint, BUT if it means the FAA cracks down on sales of experimentals......I do care.

Building RV's on "speculation" is going on. I see it; you see it as well. You know what a new RV sold with 50 hours on it for sale is; it's built for speculation (profit). It's still an amateur built plane, Phase I flown off, but the key is for EDUCATION, not an airplane manufacture business. Subtle? Yea laws written for lawyers and judges.

In the past homebuilts where simple crude plans only deals. The time to build and sale price was not very attractive for making money. In fact before the RV, most homebuilts sold for less than the parts in it. Now you can go out and buy $60,000K in new parts, including a QB kit, spend 1000 hours building it, than sell it for $100,000. $40,000 or $40/hr tax free is pretty good money.

The RV-10 profit margin is even better, say $120,000-$140,000 cost and sales +$200,000. $60,000K for 6 months full time work. Most RV builders expect to make money on the sale of their plane now a days. There is a market out there. When a super nice RV-4/6/7/8 can be had for say $60-80,000 and a Cessna Skycatcher cost $110,000..... Plus maintenance rules are clearer (easier) for homebuilts than LSA's, which need a mechanic or pilot with training. I guess LSA mechanics are in deep shortage, so you will pay a A&P to work on your LSA just like any plane.

I can see the LSA lobby putting pressure on politicians to restrict or limit homebuilts more in all aspects. When money is involved.............. I think speculation building is small, but it only takes one landmark cases to make legislation.

There are the guys who love to build; they just want to build a better 2nd or 3rd plane for fun and education, selling only to finance the next project; that is cool. But some day we could be limited on how many we can build, how frequently or worse, not being able to sell at all.

It is on the FAA's radar. No one 20 years ago imagined 5,000 RV's with average cruise speeds pushing 200 mph. A long way from a handfull of parasol wing Pietenpol Air Camper with model-A engines or a Fly Baby or two. There are now even jet/turboprop "homebuilts". The FAA has definitely put a kibosh on the bigger turbine "homebuilts". Remember the Eclipse. Is it a matter of time till they get to us?


Imagine the AOPA is in bed with the Aircraft Manufacture Association, and they don't care for or love homebuilts. AOPA is a lobby wing for the industry more than individual pilots, certainty not experimental owner/pilots. I can't prove it, but it's a gut feel and it's based on their past actions. They play lip service, but I think they are more beholding to other interest, including self interest. It's not like the NRA that has on clear vision, 2nd amendment; the AOPA has a large umbrella, and members under that AOPA umbrella have diverse goals (private individuals, manufacturers, commercial and corporate operators). To be fair AOPA is the ONLY general aviation lobby group on the hill. EAA is a non-profit and can't lobby, but they do more thru other channels for experimentals than the AOPA, which is pretty much nothing.

Thank goodness for EAA because, for all their faults they are the only ones looking out for us. Gentlemen keep it legal and clean, because if not, we may screw ourselves.

Recent ads/GA News

I noticed two classified ads recently that most people would evaluate as being built-to-sell RVs. Seems that makes the builder a non-amateur or aircraft manufacturer with whatever implications that means.

As much as that is amazing look at this article from GA News:

http://tinyurl.com/2sl577

How would a person get that RV licensed (?) if they cannot show that they built it? The aircraft manufacturer (Nys) goes into an obfuscation diatribe to justify the 51% rule. I don't buy that.

How it really works...

Okay, the 51% rule only applies to the kit manufacturer, not the buyer of the kit or the aircraft. This is how the professional builders stay legal. Also, these still end up as experimental aircraft, not certified. The A&P certificate goes to the person who builds the kit.

My builder assist guy, Noel Simmons at Blue Sky aviation has built I think 23 RV's. He holds the certificate on them, they are Simmons RV's.

I am building mine with his assistance, so it will be a Conser RV.

Even if you start with a partially built kit, the person who finishes the plane get the A&P certificate for it.


Hans Conser

gmcjetpilot said:

FAA: Experimental = No SALE?
My big concern as was expressed above, being able to sell my RV down the road. I don't really care if some one wants to build a plane for profit from a freedom standpoint, BUT if it means the FAA cracks down on sales of experimentals......I do care.

Click to expand...

There is no talk about cracking down on the sale of experimentals. The current debate is how to ensure the aircraft meets the intent of the 51% rule prior to the issuance of the Airworthiness Certificate. No new regulations, or restrictions are being proposed, just the enforcement of current regs.

Can anyone here attempt to justify that the "two weeks to taxi" program meets the 51% rule? Anyone?

Anyone can build an airplane for profit. If you want to pay someone to build an RV-10 for you, the FAA can't stop it. Just don't ask the FAA to issue a C of A for your new "static display".

Inconsistent interpretation

Scott, read what nucleus said right before your post. According to him (I don't believe it), I could have someone do 99.9998% of the work and I could add several screws, maybe attach a wire and buck one rivet and I would get the repairman's certificate.

Primary Builder....

ronlee said:

Scott, read what nucleus said right before your post. According to him (I don't believe it), I could have someone do 99.9998% of the work and I could add several screws, maybe attach a wire and buck one rivet and I would get the repairman's certificate.

Click to expand...

Ron,
FAR 65-104 would seem to agree with you....

(a) To be eligible for a repairman certificate (experimental aircraft builder), an individual must?

(1) Be at least 18 years of age;

(2) Be the primary builder of the aircraft to which the privileges of the certificate are applicable;

(3) Show to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the individual has the requisite skill to determine whether the aircraft is in a condition for safe operations; and

.....

0.0002% of the work would be a push to count as the primary builder....

gil in Tucson

nucleus said:

Okay, the 51% rule only applies to the kit manufacturer, not the buyer of the kit or the aircraft. This is how the professional builders stay legal. Also, these still end up as experimental aircraft, not certified. The A&P certificate goes to the person who builds the kit.

Click to expand...

The 51% percent rule applies to the person who signs FAA Form 8130-12, Eligibility Statement Amateur-Built Aircraft. The kit manufacturers have worked with the FAA to get an agreement that a particular kit has not already violated the 51% rule. It is the responsibility of the builder to ensure that additional hired work does not result in a violation of the 51% rule.

Professional builders are NOT legal.

A&P certificates are not issued to kit builders. It takes many years in industry, passing three written tests and finally an oral and practical exam to get an A&P certificate. Homebuilders get a Limited Repairman Certificate.

My builder assist guy, Noel Simmons at Blue Sky aviation has built I think 23 RV's. He holds the certificate on them, they are Simmons RV's.

Click to expand...

He sounds like a professional builder. Unless he is willing to obtain a Type Certificate for the aircraft he is manufacturing, I hope all future aircraft that he builds become static displays.

I am building mine with his assistance, so it will be a Conser RV.

Click to expand...

Hopefully you are doing 51% of the work.

Even if you start with a partially built kit, the person who finishes the plane get the A&P certificate for it.

Click to expand...

Wrong, again:
14 CFR 65.104(a)(2): Be the primary builder of the aircraft to which the privileges of the certificate are applicable;

By the way, as a point of information on building on spec, Noel usually sells the plane, and then builds it. This way it gets built to the owner's exact specifications.

Click to expand...

Sells then builds it? That sure sounds like the aircraft is not being built solely for his own recreation or education [14 CFR 21.191(g)]. It sounds like a business of manufacturing aircraft and falls outside the scope of ?homebuilding?. Anything he produces should not be eligible for an Airworthiness Certificate.

What he said!

Scott is dead on on every point.

Self policing..

What we have in the form of experimental airplane building is a great privilege that the rest of the world envies, with a couple of countries' exceptions. The FAA understands how life circumstances, divorce, death, etc. muddy up things and partially built kits are sold as a result thereof. That's one thing and not necessarily in violation of the 51% rule because the amateur who started building the airplane had intended to finish it but for whatever reason, didn't, so another amateur continues the amateur building. I don't have a problem with that. The part that pours sand in my shorts are the factory RV builders. I know of more than one airplane that was built 100% by a builder of airplanes that make their living doing this.

Where/how do we police this kind of activity? I can assure you that if we don't start soon, it'll be done for us and we know all too well what the result may be.

Regards,
Pierre

Where/how do we police this kind of activity?

Click to expand...

We don't.

This mass building by experimental factories is happening because they are getting away with it. The FAA needs to find one egregious example and come down hard on them.

For the FAA to sit back and watch rampant abuse and then say we have a problem and changes are needed is gross derelection of duty on their part. They know these guys are out there they just need to enforce the regs already in place.

I have no doubt that Mel can tell within the first 5 minutes of talking to a "builder" whether he built the plane or not and I am certain the mass builders would never call a guy like Mel to do the inspection.


The FAA is at fault here too. Someone or many someones with the authority are certifying these planes and FSDOs are giving out repairmans certificates.

Sure there is a problem but it is easily fixable by using current regs and punishing the guilty including those in authority either not doing their job or are profiting by looking the other way.

N395V said:

I have no doubt that Mel can tell within the first 5 minutes of talking to a "builder" whether he built the plane or not and I am certain the mass builders would never call a guy like Mel to do the inspection.

Click to expand...

Believe it or not, a few have called me. When they do, I go over, scope out the shop and ask questions. If I am uncomfortable, I refer them to their local FAA office.

Right-on Milt. Enforce the current regs. Thats all.


We do not need any new legislation or regulations. But I think that's what the LSA manufacturers want. I'm most afraid of the you-built-it-you-own-it scenario. I would like to build again someday but will not be able to if I can never sell my first.

The "Amatuer Aircraft Factories" should be dealt with. As well as the "clueless" DAR's.

I am going to build a RV and get the airworthiness cert. by flying off the hours then sell it. i see nothing wrong with this process, The only people that should have a problem with this is the manufactures because it will mean less sales for them. I am a A&P that loves aircraft and would like to do the whole process of building, mods and paint and make money doing it.

xmxpert said:

The only people that should have a problem with this is the manufactures because it will mean less sales for them.

Click to expand...

Xmxpert, you came a little late to this discussion, so not to beat up on you, but...

...everyone on this forum should have a problem with this. Your stated intentions are to build (manufacture) airplanes for profit, without having to comply with the FAA requirements to be an aircraft manufacturer. And you intend to do so by exploiting the sometimes loose application of the "51% rule," the very rule that allows the rest of us to build our airplanes in our garages for our own "eduction and recreation." And by exploiting the rule, you put the future of this rule, and the foundation of our entire hobby, at risk.

So yes, I have a problem with it. And I'm not Cessna.

and make money doing it.

Click to expand...

This is exactly the problem with it.

making money

give me a break on making money, so when you want to sell your RV your not going to make money? I will not be a manufacture, a amature builder in my shop doing what i love to do build and fly airplanes. I dont know why profit is such a bad word.

If i wanted to build one every year and sell it there is nothing illegal with this, if i put 50 hours or 500 hours on it whats the diff.

Just my $.02

xmxpert said:

give me a break on making money, so when you want to sell your RV your not going to make money? I will not be a manufacture, a amature builder in my shop doing what i love to do build and fly airplanes. I dont know why profit is such a bad word.

Click to expand...

No problem at all, if you also assume the same liability risk that other manufacturers do. You are playing both sides: you say you want to build and sell for profit, yet you also say you're doing it out of a love for flying? That seems contradictory as written. If you want to build for the love of building and flying, that indicates that you intend to keep the finished airplane for longer than the fly-off period.

What it seems that you want to do is manufacture (defined by me as "repeatedly building for profit") under a set of regulations that (to date, that could change after one high profile accident) protects you from the liabilty risk and regulatory burden of your product.

If you want the profit without the liability risk, well, that seems to be taking advantage of a set of regulations that were intended to give people a chance to assume their own risk in building their own airplane, a practice that is possibly to the detriment of all when the Feds are forced to re-think their position due to the proliferation of "amateur manufacturers."

This is separate and distinct from someone building a plane with the intent to keep it, but selling at a later date due to loss of medical, divorce, or upgrade to a more capable airplane. There is the letter of the law, and there is the spirit of the law. You openly state that you intend to leverage the letter and violate the spirit.

In my opinion, anyway, which is worth exactly what you paid for it.

This must be the problem facing amateur built aircraft

xmxpert said:

I am going to build a RV and get the airworthiness cert. by flying off the hours then sell it. i see nothing wrong with this process, The only people that should have a problem with this is the manufactures because it will mean less sales for them. I am a A&P that loves aircraft and would like to do the whole process of building, mods and paint and make money doing it.

Click to expand...

You are clearly doing it to make money. You thus are not an amateur. You are a manufacturer. I am glad that some folks who build eventually sell....for whatever reason. It allows non-builders like me a chance to have a great airplane. But when you see comments like yours and the GA News article about a guy building aircraft using obfuscation reasoning to justify it, it may well endanger this process.

Legislating "intent"

Is always difficult. Plenty of builders say to themselves, "I want to build an nice airplane". The "education and recreation" portion never enters their mind at this point.

As they learn more, the value of their labor begins to enter the equation. IE, I'm going to work on this thing for x thousand hours. What is that worth?

Fact is, you cannot build an airplane without getting educated. Even if you built the same airplane 100 times, you would learn something new on each and every one.

The definition of recreation is: "a means of refreshment or diversion" IE, a hobby.

No law prohibits a hobby (or other form of recreation) from being profitable.

So the law is gray.

If a person takes money from someone, in advance, to build an airplane for them, that is most definitely against the spirit of the law, but does it violate the letter of the law? I don't know.

Thats for lawyers and courts to decide.

In point of fact, it is probably within the letter of the law to build an airplane with the intent to sell it later, hopefully at a profit, as long as you:

1. Enjoyed building it (recreation)
2. Learned something from the process (education)

I intend to build another airplane. I may in fact sell it so I can get money to build yet another airplane, and so on, ad nauseum.

Am I an "airplane factory"? Would I be breaking the law?

Bear in mind, this is all just MHO. I am not a lawyer.

xmxpert said:

give me a break on making money, so when you want to sell your RV your not going to make money? I will not be a manufacture, a amature builder in my shop doing what i love to do build and fly airplanes. I dont know why profit is such a bad word.

If i wanted to build one every year and sell it there is nothing illegal with this, if i put 50 hours or 500 hours on it whats the diff.

Click to expand...

The issue is not about making money when selling a homebuilt; the issue is how it will initially be certified, as in Certificate of Airworthiness. The entire 51% rule is centered on 14 CFR 21.191(g), which states:

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.

Notice the words, "who undertook the construction project solely for their own education or recreation". That's the key part. Did you start the project with $$$ in mind? You may have learned something and enjoyed the process of building, but if profit was part of the motivation to build, no matter how small of a part, then your finished aircraft should not be eligible for a C of A.

Homebuilding is about the freedom to build and fly your own airplane, not about manufacturers attempting to circumvent the requirement of obtaining a Type Certificate for their product!!!

Word has it that additional policy on this subject is coming. I look forward to the day when these factories are shut down.

really?

I'm on fence about this kinda of thing. Just because someone enjoys the building process and KNOWS that he will make money when he goes to sell DOES NOT mean he's breaking the law. I wouldn't be building right now if the market is like it is for say, a Thorp T-18, where the aircraft isn't worth the price of the engine you put in it when you go to sell.

Part of the appeal of the RV is that at any time during the build process or after you are done, you can sell it for close to what you have into it. I love building, and I want to build more airplanes than just one, maybe many different types. Does your second airplane automatically not make you an amatuer? No.

So I know that when my -7 is done, i'll be able to sell it for around $85K, if I have 50K into it, I make money. Does that mean i'm not an amatuer? No.

Obviously we can all get into cases where we KNOW that it's crosses the line (Selling the airplane BEFORE it's built?)

Where do we draw that line? We don't, the FAA needs to draw it very clearly, then enforce it. That would end many of the arguements had here.

I'm considering taking on a partner in my airplane so I can afford to build faster. He puts in the money, I put in the build time, and it's a 50/50 partnership. Would that be crossing the line? And if yes, is that considering that I want to fly the airplane for 2-3 years before selling it?

i see this is a very grey subject, one of the reasons i am doing a RV is the value, it will be worth something when i am done in case i need to sell it.
I dont want to get you guys mad at me this early in the game, i am sure you will be my lifeline in the future of my project.

The only reason i posted anything about building more that one is so i could show my wife it would not be a waste of money and i would be building something of value and if needed we could get our money back (or at least most of it). i am sure some of you know how women can be.

i look foward to getting to know all of you in the future

Thanks...Jason

scottg said:

Notice the words, "who undertook the construction project solely for their own education or recreation". That's the key part. Did you start the project with $$$ in mind? You may have learned something and enjoyed the process of building, but if profit was part of the motivation to build, no matter how small of a part, then your finished aircraft should not be eligible for a C of A.

Click to expand...

Ok, Scott, that's enough. Now, you are saying we need the "thought police" to determine if a builder had the right "intentions" when he started a project. I can see it now. A builder goes to register his finished project, and the FAA inspector takes him to an interrogation room and questions him:

FAA: "So, you say you undertook this project for the sole purpose of your own education or recreation? "

Builder: "That is correct."

FAA: "Isn't it true that you have already built 5 other airplanes?"

Builder: "What can I say, I like to build."

FAA: "Well, then how much education can you get after already building 5 airplanes?"

Builder: "Hey, I'm a slow learner. Besides, the reg says Education or Recreation."

FAA: "I see. But isn't it true that building an airplane takes a lot of time and patience?"

Builder: "Well, yes, that's true."

FAA: "And didn't you have to, basically, give up all of your free time in order to build these airplanes?"

Builder: "Well, not all of my free time, I still watched the Military Channel once-in-a-while."

FAA: "And isn't it true that you have cuts all over your hands from working with metal, and most of your clothes are covered with ProSeal?"

Builder: "Ah..."

FAA: "Frankly, I don't see much educational or recreational value here. Tell me the truth, you stated this last project with the intent of making money."

Builder: "That's not true, I really like to build."

FAA inspector now removes a cattle prod from his overcoat and zaps the builder a good one.

Builder: "Ouch!"

FAA: "Tell me the truth! You INTENDED to make money."

Builder: "No, that's not true!"

FAA inspector twists the knob on the cattle prod (it's not a normal cattle prod, it's a special version made by Cessna for the FAA), and zaps him again.

Builder: "No, no, not again! Yes, yes, I intended to make money..."

FAA: "Application denied. Bring in the next subject, ah, builder."


Give me a break. I like building. If I decide to sell the project once it is complete, and start another project, it does not matter, as long as I don't hang up a sign "Tracy's RV Factory, will build for profit", or advertise in the builder's rags, the FAA is not going to care. As long as you don't take the money before starting the project, it is within the letter and the "intent" of the law. Of course, if you are building 3 airplanes a year, I guess the FAA might take notice.

I know that you are concerned that these "hired guns" will affect our right to build an airplane in our garage. I am concerned, also. However, I think there is a big difference between a builder who solicits business prior to building and one who puts his finished projects on the market once he is done. I think the FAA will start to crack down on builders who are running an aircraft factory that advertises their services.

But, please, let's not start questioning a builder's "intent", let's concentrate on their "actions".

Cheers,
Tracy.

now that was funny
I like you Tracy

veryfunny!

but why was the cattle prod built by Cessna?

what is the difference legally or technically?

I've been away from flying for 5 years and did not complete my first attempt at a homebuilt (Long-EZ) although I enjoyed trying! I don't understand what the difference is between the scenarios below and how they relate to the 51% rule. I'm not trying to stir anything up, I just want to understand the rules.

1) buying a RV-8 from a man who built it and flew it for 250 hours and decided he liked flying a Champ better

2) buying a RV-8 from a professional builder

Either way I'm flying something someone else built.

Tracy,

I believe that we are on the same page here. My response was to a builder who indicated that the reason he wanted to build was to make money at it. This sort of abuse could result in a knee-jerk reaction that jeopardizes the entire homebuilt community. What we don?t need is additional regulations, just the enforcement of the existing ones.

Keep homebuilding what it was intended to be, amateurs building aircraft for their own enjoyment. Let the factories build under a Type Certificate. If a guy wants to build multiple aircraft, that?s fine. There will always be builders who are on the edge of the regulations. That?s fine also. There is currently too much abuse in this area that must be addressed.

BTW, that was some funny stuff. Don't give Cessna or the FAA any ideas though.

Dave,

Because Cessna (Piper, Cirrus, etc.) has a vested interest in us not being able to build and register airplanes. In the past, I suspect that the homebuilt community took away very little of their business. However, with the newer quick builds and LSA, Cessna and the others may start to feel some pressure.

Cessna's first response looks to be to join the LSA movement and try to compete there. If they are not successful, then they might start lobbying for more regulation of the LSA movement. At the same time, if the homebuilt movement continues to grow, they may come after us. In that case, I can see them building the cattle prods for the FAA. Of course, it would cost $3000, but that is not an issue, because they would be selling them to the goverment, which is used to paying $600 for a flash light.

Let's just hope that the airlines do not get some kind of idea about using cattle prods on GA pilots. Maybe, they might lobby for some sort of regulation that a pilot must under go 12 seconds at 400 volts in order to pass their flight physical, or something like that. Of course, to protect their own interests, all First Class medicals would be exempt from this requirement.

Tracy.

Scott,

I agree that we agree. Obviously, my post was done a little tongue-in-cheek. I just wanted to inject a little humor to bring us back on track. I think it is ok to worry about a builder who is pumping out three airplanes a year, because that gets the attention of the FAA, and it obviously jeopardizes our rights as homebuilders. In order to protect our rights, we have a right to complain about these guys, and ask that people avoid using them.

On the other hand, if a guy is building an airplane every three years, and selling them, then it is questionable if this is a business or a hobby. If we have to analyze the wording of the regulations and try to get him on a technicality by trying to guess his "intent", then we are targeting our efforts at the wrong person. There are plenty of builders out there who are obviously violating the regulations and putting our rights at risk.

I grew up in the 60's and the idea of the fear of the "thought police" is ingrained into my psyche. The interesting thing here is that XMXPERT has not even built an airplane, and we are attacking him because he is thinking about building and selling. I think it is fair for us to encourage him to be careful in this endeavour, and discuss why it might bother some of us. But until he is cranking out these things in his shop, once a month, he is just another builder trying to justify to his wife why she should let him fork over $1500 for an empenage kit and another $2000 in tools. If he really is successful at turning this into a business, then we can start posting his picture with a target on it.

BTW, I didn't have to justify buying the empennage to my wife. I just had to pull out my credit card and place the order, after I called her to let her know what I was thinking about doing. Now, when she got back from Houston and found out that I wasn't kidding, yeah, I had to do some explaining, but by then the empennage was "in the mail", so to speak. The bad thing was that it arrived on our door step on her birthday. That didn't go over too well, either.

Tracy (in the dog house for the last 4 years).

We already have "thought police". Ever heard of a "Hate-Crime"?

Bubblehead said:

what is the difference legally or technically?

I've been away from flying for 5 years and did not complete my first attempt at a homebuilt (Long-EZ) although I enjoyed trying! I don't understand what the difference is between the scenarios below and how they relate to the 51% rule. I'm not trying to stir anything up, I just want to understand the rules.

1) buying a RV-8 from a man who built it and flew it for 250 hours and decided he liked flying a Champ better

2) buying a RV-8 from a professional builder

Either way I'm flying something someone else built.

Click to expand...

Technically, there is no difference at all.

Legally, the first one can legally receive an airworthiness certificate as an Experimental - Amateur-Built, and the second one can't, unless you are willing to perjure yourself when you fill out the application for the airworthiness certificate.

Personally, I believe the current regs need a complete rethink. To put this in context, I am employed by Transport Canada, and work in Aircraft Certification. I've been in this job for 13 years. I've seen how the system works, and the system does a very good job of stifling innovation. It is common to be working on an approval for some new technology avionics system, and to have an avionics engineer who figures he can't sign off on the new system unless it is 100.000% perfect. Achieving this level of perfection would drive the price through the roof, and mean that very few private owners could afford the new technology. I've been in countless battles where I've had to describe how pilots are doing the same task today that the new system, imperfect as it is, could do much, much safer in the future (think handheld GPS vs ADF approaches). Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose.

I can perhaps understand an arguement for type-certificated aircraft for commercial operations, as paying passengers expect the aircraft to meet some recognized design standard. But, for private operations (FAR 91 in the USA), pretty much anything should go, as long as all the FAR 91 equipment requirements are met. If someone wants to have a hired-gun build him an aircraft, I see no harm in that.

The one area where all aircraft should have to meet certain standards is where the item could affect the rest of the air traffic system. E.g. COM radios should have TSOs, to ensure they don't have off-frequency transmissions that affect other users. Transponders and encoders should have to be TSO'd (let's drop the weasel words of "meet the requirements of the TSO" - how the heck do I do that?). Static systems for aircraft that have altitude reporting transponders should have to be checked to ensure the static source position error is within certain limits, to ensure the aircraft is at the altitude it claims to be, to ensure that TCAS works as expected (note that this proposed requirement goes beyond what is required today).

What are the odds of the above happening? It depends on where you live. In Canada, it is now legal to have a hired gun build you an aircraft, as long as you supervise his work (simplified version of a complicated rule). It was finally recognized that with the more complicated, higher performance designs that are now on the market, it would be safer to allow the builder to contract professional assistance rather than force him to do it himself, all to keep his part greater than 51%. In the US, I don't see any chance of a similar rule change in the next decade, as the manufacturers are afraid of losing market share. The manufacturers don't realize that most gen av pilots are scared to death of homebuilt aircraft, and they would rather buy a Cessna than pay half as much for twice the aircraft.

All of the above is my opinion, and is guaranteed to not represent the opinion of my employer.

Read the regs, call EAA for advice, etc...

Some of the posters on this thread would do well to simply read the applicable reg or AC, and/or pick up the phone and call an EAA flight advisor, tech counselor, DAR, perhaps their kit mfgr, etc., if applicable. This assumes that they really want THE answer to whatever question they really have re the so called 51% rule.

I attended a very good forum at OSH re this subject, so the answers are available.

Back to retirement fm online forums.....

wv4i said:

Some of the posters on this thread would do well to simply read the applicable reg or AC, and/or pick up the phone and call an EAA flight advisor, tech counselor, DAR, perhaps their kit mfgr, etc., if applicable.

Click to expand...

Because all of the EAA Flight Advisors, Tech Counselors, and DARs who have posted on this topic are all wet?