What's new
Van's Air Force

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

From Aero News Net- 51% rule- very interesting

Interesting

I also read (don't recall the exact source) that the FAA is talking with EAA over concerns of amateur built aircraft for resale. Apparently the flurry of sales of kit built aircraft has caught the attention of the FAA and has caused them to believe that some folks are building for profit rather than for personal use and education.

I know this is a gray area, but the fact that the FAA is looking closely at these things indicates that some may be stepping over the fine line. I think we all agree that one thing we don't need is closer scrutiny over our actions. We can say, "yeah but," and if we want to take advantage of loopholes and ambiquities we can do so, but if the FAA thinks we are abusing our privileges, they will certainly move quickly to fill those loop holes and ambiquities and we may not enjoy the outcome.

I believe this falls into the realm of "Doctor Heal Thyself." I hope we will all do a better job of assuring, without question, that we are living up to both the spirit and the letter of the amateur homebuilt regulations. Attending a workshop in which a sample project is constructed is one thing, but building your plane in a building center with "professionals" doing a great deal of the work is another. Let's not jeopardize the wonderful privileges that we now have.

Off my soapbox now.

Regards!
 
AMEN! Many of the high performance aircraft are practicing..."build by watching". This is NOT the intent of the rule. Let's be careful out there and not give FAA more rope with which to hang us.
Mel...DAR
 
Ive wondered if the QB option would pass a close inspection of that 51% rule.

Federal inspectors have a way of interpreting rules that reflect the political tendencies of their "bosses". Ive seen complete 180 turns of what was ruled compliant during environmental inspections over the years, w/o any changes made in the applicable regulations.

The Feds tend to selectively interpret many rules as long as no one makes waves. Ive learned that it pays to be overly critical when it comes to compliance with government, to avoid the middle ground and stay completely away from the (minimum) limits.
 
Cobra,

All of Van's quickbuild kits do pass the 51% rule. Van's has had the FAA come out and evaluate their program. The QBs are on the list of kits that are certified by the FAA to meet the 51% rule.

Remember, that the 51% rule does not mean that 51% of the aircraft was built by the builder. It means that 51% of the list of required subassemblies were completed by the user. You can have parts of the subassemblies built by an outside source, and as long as you do the final work on that subassembly, you get credit for its completion. For example, you do not actually build a radio, you install it.

Tracy.
 
?????

Bob Collins said:
I wonder what boogeyman the EAA will find to blame a 51% rule crackdown on. Besides us, of course.
Click to expand...

Bob, please clarify this statement for me, I am not sure what you are saying.

In the end, I think that "WE" are indeed the ones to blame. The kits, including QB's, on the FAA list have been approved by the FAA to meet the 51% rule. As mentioned, this could change with a change in political leadership. However, at the present time, this is what we have to go by. If the FAA is currently saying a kit meets the 51% rule then this is what we should assume is going to hold true in the near to intermediate future.

However, FAA approval of a kit as meeting the 51% rule assumes that the builder will do the work as outlined in the kit. Can we ask for help? Sure! We all need bucking partners and assistance, it is part of the learning and building process. However, we need to insure that the person's name that goes on the documents and is listed on the repairman's certificate actually performed not most but materially a vast majority of the work involved. And we need to assure that we are building for ourselves and for educational reasons and not for resale. Assistance should be interpreted to mean guideance and oversite, not actual hands-on building and not retail airplane factories.

Here are some areas where I think the line gets crossed:

1) A builder works through a building center and the building center employees do a large portion of the work while the builder looks on or does less than a vast majority of the work. This is a gray area. There are several building centers who help "guide" builders and they provide a valuable service, but if the centers are actually doing the building for the builder then I think they have stepped over the line.

2) A builder buys a project that is substantially completed (i.e. QB with just the finishing kit remaining) and then claims that he/she is the builder of the kit and the repairman for the completed plane.

3) A builder builds a kit with no intent of keeping the plane and then sells it immediately after building it. Granted it is not illegal to sell an amateur built aircraft, but if the the builder is building with the intent to sell at a profit, then he/she is certainly not living up to the intent of the regulations. This is pretty easy to spot by looking at the number of planes a person claims to have built. If someone is on their 4th or 5th plane over a short period of time, they obviously are building for reasons other than educational and personal purposes.

I think this is very good and long overdue discussion. I encourage the EAA to take a more active role in bringing this issue to the forefront and edcuating all builders of the intent of the regulations. The key is education and awareness and then personal accountability and self-policing. If we don't, the FAA will do it for us.

In my opinion, the 51% rule is just asking for people to step over that 1% safety margin. But I am not advocating that the FAA change the rule. I am suggesting we all need to police ourselves and assure that we are working within our own 70%-80% rule so that there is no question about our intentions and no need to look at our activities more closely.
 
All of Van's QB kits do qualify under the 51% rule. However they do not leave a lot of room for professional help. If you are in question about how a kit qualifies you may use FAA form 8000-38. This is the form that we DARs use when there is any question about eligibility. You can find a copy of this form in appendix 8 of AC20-27F. I'm sure that you already have AC20-27F if you are building an airplane.
Mel...DAR
 
Please correct me, since I'm by no means an expert here...but as I understand AC20-27F, to qualify for amerature built, we, as builders, must have performed 51% of the tasks required to complete the aircraft. So what are these tasks? I'm thinking they are the individual items which are listed on AC20-27F, Appendix 8, right? So, if we, as builders, perform 51% of these tasks, it?s considered an amateur built aircraft. For example, this is why the quick build kit leaves one skin off of the wing for the builder to attach. That way, the builder is performing Wing task #14?install wing covering or skin. It doesn?t matter than the other 19 wing skins were attached by someone else, as long as we, as the builder, attached one skin, then we get credit for that task. Am I close?

-Jim

BTW, here are some links:

AC20-27F [pdf]

or

http://www.checkoway.com/url/?s=d4327e56

Appendix 8 of AC20-27F:

http://img277.imageshack.us/img277/9134/ac2027f17ke.jpg
http://img277.imageshack.us/img277/3717/ac2027f26gb.jpg
http://img277.imageshack.us/img277/277/ac2027f37kn.jpg
http://img277.imageshack.us/img277/8263/ac2027f43qc.jpg
http://img277.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ac2027f50nl.jpg
 
Tom Maxwell said:
I am suggesting we all need to police ourselves and assure that we are working within our own 70%-80% rule so that there is no question about our intentions and no need to look at our activities more closely.
Click to expand...
That's pretty much what I was saying in a wise-a** way. This "skirting the rule" or at least pushing the envelope -- is the "crazy uncle in the attic" that EAA has pretty much pretended doesn't exist.

My wise-a** comment, though, alluded to the monthly column by Poberezny -- and also Phil Boyer, who actually is a better example -- in which the organizations circle the wagons against the boogeymen -- usually government, the FAA, and journalists...not necessarily in that order.
 
fehdxl said:
It doesn?t matter than the other 19 wing skins were attached by someone else, as long as we, as the builder, attached one skin, then we get credit for that task. Am I close?
Click to expand...
That's the way I've read it, Jim. I'm a slo-builder and I look at these QB kits and think "how the heck to they figure someone actually makes 51% of that? But I've neve cared that much to wait for an answer.:)

My concern is less with the folks who follow the spirit, if not the letter, of the rule, than it is with the folks who are looking for a loophole. That's the sort of thing that makes bureacrats say "you know what? This rule ain't working" and that's when the former gets screwed by the latter.
 
is this legal?

At an airport near me, I visited a commercial hanger, where an A&P was "building" not one, but two Lancairs. When I asked him about "his projects" he questioned me about who I was. When one of his helpers knew me and he found out that I was a builder, he said oh, I'm building these for Dr. so and so from somewhere, and another gentleman, both out of state. I think these are the kind of "shops" that might get the homebuilding movement in trouble. Am I wrong, .... is this guy legal?
 
All I care about is the fact that I can have a young person who is interested in learning about the building process deburr parts and help clean parts before priming. After you finish the empennage it gets real boring deburring and dimpling a few thousand holes. I am paying this young man for his efforts and teaching him the skills I've learned about building an aluminum airplane. He and his brother are hoping to start their own plane in a year or two. Other than that I am doing all the work except for the final paint job which I will farm out. I can't imagine this would be considered stepping over the line.

Jim Wright 90919 RV-9A wings Arkansas
 
There was a guy...

Build9A said:
At an airport near me, I visited a commercial hanger, where an A&P was "building" not one, but two Lancairs. When I asked him about "his projects" he questioned me about who I was. When one of his helpers knew me and he found out that I was a builder, he said oh, I'm building these for Dr. so and so from somewhere, and another gentleman, both out of state. I think these are the kind of "shops" that might get the homebuilding movement in trouble. Am I wrong, .... is this guy legal?
Click to expand...
Out here doing that with GlaStar's. He would build them to order and cranked out a good number before the FAA shut him down. The issue really isn't the builder so much as the "owner/buyer" as they are the ones who end up with an airplane they can't fly. There is a chance they can sell them overseas but who knows.

Here is another twist on this issue.

If I were to buy something like an Antonov AN-2 Colt (Which I THINK are registered in the Experimental Exhibition category or something like that. In other words, you can't take them to the beach with 12 of your best friends.), dissembled it, imported the parts, and sold it as a kit, could I then reassemble it, recover it, and register it in the Experimental, Amateur Built category?
 
N941WR said:
If I were to buy something like an Antonov AN-2 Colt (Which I THINK are registered in the Experimental Exhibition category or something like that. In other words, you can't take them to the beach with 12 of your best friends.), dissembled it, imported the parts, and sold it as a kit, could I then reassemble it, recover it, and register it in the Experimental, Amateur Built category?
Click to expand...

No, because you would not have done the "majority of the work", nor would it have been for your "education and recreation."

I'm building a QB RV-7. I'm quite confident I'll do a great deal of work on it! The structure, which is all you get with a QB, is only a fraction of the work. That hypothetical An-2 has all of the plumbing, control system, engine installation, canopy or windows, doors, interior, etc. already built, so your hypothetical builder would do very little work.
 
Build9A said:
I think these are the kind of "shops" that might get the homebuilding movement in trouble. Am I wrong, .... is this guy legal?
Click to expand...

This is the subject of some debate, but here's my take: This is absolutely against the spirit and the letter of the law. When I received my airworthiness cert, I had to sign a statement in the aircraft log stating that "I certify that I manufactured this aircraft for my own education and recreation." The "education and recreation" is the key to the Experimental- Amatuer Built catagory. Those who build to sell, or custom build for others, are clearly in violation of the intent of the reg. They are manufacturing airplanes, without complying with the requirements to be an airplane manufacturer.

None of which really matters, until the FAA comes down on an outfit like EPIC, which is so far over the line (but not much farther than some others.) And when government reacts, they often overreact, and that is certain to effect the rest of us. For example, the other poster who has some neighborhood kid deburing holes, and throws him a few bucks. I don't have any particular problem with that, and I doubt the FAA would either. But, when the feds overreact, who knows how this sort of help would be viewed. Legitimate builder's assist outfits could get caught up in the mix. How about the Sportair workshops which many here have gone to and built a tail kit? Will they be outlawed? Don't think it could happen?

Jeff Point
 
I guess this reinforces the reason for having good builder logs so you can prove that you actually built the plane and how much work you put into it. I think the FAA will be able to recognize a hobbiest from a kit building factory. Especially if the factories are turning over many airplanes beyond what a rational person would deem a hobby. This was never intended to be a "for profit venture".

JMHO

Roberta
 
robertahegy said:
I guess this reinforces the reason for having good builder logs so you can prove that you actually built the plane and how much work you put into it. I think the FAA will be able to recognize a hobbiest from a kit building factory. Especially if the factories are turning over many airplanes beyond what a rational person would deem a hobby. This was never intended to be a "for profit venture".

JMHO

Roberta
Click to expand...

Tell that to the guys selling RV-10's for $210K+ not including the panel.

PJ
RV-10
#40032
 
PJSeipel said:
Tell that to the guys selling RV-10's for $210K+ not including the panel.
Click to expand...

Another good point, and one that hits closer to home. Are these folks following the letter and spirit of the law? I do not think they are.

Jeff
 
There are people out there that are flying in the face of the 51% rule. People who "assist" builders and others who are factories pumping out planes more frequently than normal homebuilders.

When I was looking to get into the RV game, I was looking in Trade-A-Plane and was amazed at the number of aircraft that have between 50 and 90 hours on them (ie just enough to be done with the test phase plus a little to throw off the feds).

The genie is out of the bottle. No matter how much we would like to say that we will police it ourselves and no ruin it for the rest of us, that is impossibile. Those that think we should take care of it ourselves aren't the ones that are violating at least the intent, if not the letter, of the law. How many times have you seen an aircraft for sale that was just about finished, and could be "customized" before sale? We have see it on these boards, and nobody, including myself, have said anything. That would be self policing. There are legitimate people that love to build as a hobby and don't have much desire to fly, but they are the minority. Most of the low time sellers are "factories" or guys doing it for money. I know a ton of people will reply and say otherwise, and I am sure some are legit, but come on guys. It is happening, we know it and we (as a community, read guys that pay builders/EAA/"builder assitants"/etc.) allow it.

That is the reason the feds are looking so close at the 51% rule. It wasn't being self-policed. Every rule is broken at sometime or another, but in recent years it has gotten a little out of hand. And like Jeff Point said, when the feds react, they overreact. I am willing to bet somebody a paycheck that there will be significant rules revision or oversight of the 51% rule in the next few years. Something is going to have to give, I just don't know what it is.

Hell, if Van's hadn't got FAA cert on their QB's, I would be feeling kind of slimy doing my QB.

Jim
 
What does the rule say about finishing a kit started by other builder(s)?

What about purchasing a QB kit that has the tail and wings complete? Just look at Barnstormers. There are alot of RVs changing hands this way. Unlike other FAA regs that can be ignored, we all encounter the FAA(DAR) when building a kit. Most of the builders on these sites are on the up and up.

Hard Knox
 
It's interesting--and confusing--to read through Appendix 8 of FAA Form 8000-38 to see what qualifies as "accomplished by kit manufacturer" and "accomplished by amateur." All this time, I thought a guy who was working on a slow build kit would get credit for completing something like 90% of the tasks necessary to build a plane, and someone who was working on a quickbuild kit would get credit for completing just a little over 51%, but perhaps that's not true.

For example, a few of the items on the wing checklist are fabricate wing ribs, fabricate wing tips and fabricate wing spars. I would guess that neither a quickbuilder or a slow-builder would get credit for completing any of these tasks on an RV. A slow-builder would probably get credit for assembling the basic wing structure, but it sounds like both a quickbuilder and a slowbuilder would get credit for installing wing skins, even though the slow-builder has to install twice as many skins. Both builders would get credit for installing cables, wires and lines.

On the fuselage, do slow-builders get credit for fabricating bulkheads because they rivet two bulkhead halves together, or does Van's get credit for that because the slow-builder doesn't actually make the two halves from a flat sheet of aluminum? It seems pretty clear that a slow-builder would get credit for assembling the basic fuselage structure, but maybe a quickbuilder would get credit, too, because they have to assemble the forward fuselage ribs that attach to the firewall and support the front top skin.

If I am interpreting this right, it seems like in the eyes of the FAA, there really isn't that much difference between a quickbuild kit and a slowbuild kit. If that's the case, I can see why some people might be pushing the envelope a little further and using a builder's assist program.
 
Epic way over the line

Epic's website shows them flaunting the rule. Many photos of airframes in their "Customer Build Center" (not assistance or education center). Many people working in the pics, but none of them identified as customer-builders. Note that they're advertising for skilled labor on the same page.

I wonder if the dear dentist has a civil case against them based on their failure to submit their assistance program to the FAA?
 
Recently I was over at a neighboring airport (not mentioning it to protect the guilty) goofing off with a friend of mine in his old Aeronca Chief.

There was an open hangar with an RV-6A in there getting some sort of wheel work done by two 'gentlemen'. I went up and introduced myself as an RV builder, asked them about their airplane, etc. They proceeded to tell me the airplane was still in phase one (I don't remember the hours). I then asked them which one of them built it. One of the men responded, "We had it professionally built for us". Then, the kicker "we don't have time to talk right now". I've never been treated so rudely by another 'rv-er'.

I kindly explained that if they would have built the airplane like they were supposed to (or bought a completed one that had been test flown, etc), they may be able to figure out their wheel problem in a timely manner and then they would have time to talk. ;-)

These build-for-hire projects have not earned and will not receive one bit of respect from me. If you're not interested in building, buy a completed airplane. There are plenty of unpainted RV's out there for sale that the new owner can paint to his or her liking and change/upgrade to his or her content. There is absolutely no reason to hire someone to build one for you.

As grandmother always said, "one bad apple spoils the whole bunch". Every RV-er (and every true homebuilder) should openly shun and criticize these build-for-hire projects. If we do not protect out priveledge, we will definately lose it.
 
Interesting

1) An individual building an experimental/amateur plane for profit or speculation with the intent to sell their project from the get go is a NO NO, but there is nothing the FAA can do about it if the builder registers it and sell it to a 2nd hand owner. However after the same individual registers their 2nd, 3rd or 4th plane in a short period, the FAA would question it. As a builder, I sold my kit plane to build another. I love the freedom to do so, and even made a little money. However that was not the plan. Now on my 2nd plane I have no plan to sell this one, but again I want that freedom to do so. If there is too much abuse of the system the FAA will impose limits. Use you imagination how ugly that could be. Lets say I want to sell my RV-7 soon after flying off the 40 hours to build a Rocket or RV-10. I would hate to see the FAA say you can't sell it for X years. I have no plans to do that, but that could be the reality in the future.

2) The case where a factory is pretending to be customer assistance center is bold, but I knew some one would try it sooner or later. There have been hired guns (brushes) on the glass ships for a long time. I know a guy who was employed to build a Seawind. It was his job.

The customer assistance center idea makes sense for the purpose of education. However when you look at a complicated turbo prop that looks like a manufactured plane, it is obvious it is not amateur built. A plane like that may have 6,000-10,000 hours of labor. The amateur built category is not a work-around to certification. Just putting knobs on the radio does not hack it as being a builder plane. What is next a homebuilt Lear Jet or Boeing 747.

3) Turbine powered anything is in a different category in the FAA eyes, as is anything above 12,500 lbs. The FAA will look much more closely at something with a turbine (all ways).

Now you call the FAA to see your Jet rocket ship, even if you did build it, they are going to go Whaaat? They are going to want to assure you have the ability as a "repairman" to work on a turbine engine, pressurization, hydraulics and so on. Now picture Mr. Dentist standing there with manicured nails claiming he built a pressurized turbo prop in his spare time over the last year. :eek:

The down side is more regulations, restrictions and limitations. This will happen faster with abuse of the existing system, which is pretty awesome for us right now, but that can change in a heart beat.

Look back at to the early days of homebuilt planes. They where on the cover of popular mechanics, a single seat rag and tube open cockpit plane. I am sure no one envisioned they would evolve into Turbine powered pressurized 300kt plus ships.

There has always been the one off turbine plane, but with mass production of larger turbine ?KIT? planes, carrying more people with more sophisticated systems, no doubt will result in new limitations being imposed on the amateur experimental category. I just hope it does not go too far down the food chain to us little honest Guy?s and Gal?s. Dr. D's only hope is getting it certified is under a very restrictive experimental category like exhibition or flight test & training. A $1M plane you only can circle the airport with or fly to an air show and back. Ouch.
G
 
Last edited:
I'm surprised the folks at Epic were dumb enough that they didn't bring in a "ringer" DAR to sign off the airplane. Most DAR's are sticklers for the rules, but there are a few out there who inspect the airplane and paperwork and presumably are willing to sign-off on it as long as you look 'em in the eye and tell them you built it.

Otherwise, there is no way any of the pro-built shops would stay in business.
 
Several posts have mentioned policing ourselves, or shunning and criticizing builders who knowingly violate the intent of the experimental amateur-built regs. What are we as builders really going to do to make sure our privileges aren't taken away? Not much, I'm afraid. If the enforcement of these regs acquires some momentum within the government, it will be difficult to keep from going too far.

EAA could help here, but I'm not very optimistic that they will take a strong stand on this issue. If I remember correctly, Epic had a reasonably nice piece of Airventure '05 real estate, just off Aeroshell Square. That probably brought in more bucks than my yearly dues - and yours too.

Dave
 
It occurs to me that one thing we can do to keep the Feds from getting too excited is to stop crashing these things. It seems like every time I turn around I'm reading in the paper about somebody balling up a plane they "built in their garage". It makes us look like careless a**holes every time some bonehead with zero training pokes a big hole in the dirt while trying some "light acro" at pattern altitude. Get the training, fly within the plane's and pilot's limits, and for God's sake stay away from the Whitehouse. As for the 51% rule, as an RV4 builder I'm more like 91%.

Steve zicree
 
Kyle Boatright said:
I'm surprised the folks at Epic were dumb enough that they didn't bring in a "ringer" DAR to sign off the airplane. Most DAR's are sticklers for the rules, but there are a few out there who inspect the airplane and paperwork and presumably are willing to sign-off on it as long as you look 'em in the eye and tell them you built it.
Click to expand...
They might have gotten away with it this time if they had used a DAR, but probably not in the future:
From the article on ANN said:
Paskiewicz then directed FAA personnel:

3. Any request from a manufacturer for an evaluation of an aircraft meeting the definition of "complex" as defined herein must be coordinated by the receiving MIDO with AIR-200. When the evaluation is completed, the receiving MIDO and AIR-200 will review the results before the evaluation is finalized.
4. Any application for an amateur-built experimental airworthiness certificate for an aircraft meeting the definition of "complex" as defined herein must be coordinated by the receiving MIDO/FSDO with AIR-200. AIR-200 will assist the field office in determining the appropriate course of action. FAA designees will not be used. It is incumbent upon designee managing offices to contact their designees with function code 46 to inform them of this. The method of dissemination is at the field offices discretion.
Click to expand...
So if the airplane meets the definition of "complex" as set forth in that letter, then your local DAR is not authorized to sign the certificate.
 
gmcjetpilot said:
1) An individual building an experimental/amateur plane for profit or speculation with the intent to sell their project from the get go is a NO NO, but there is nothing the FAA can do about it if the builder registers it and sell it to a 2nd hand owner. However after the same individual registers their 2nd, 3rd or 4th plane in a short period, the FAA would question it.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure this would be an absolute NO NO. There are many builders out there that just love to build. They most likely start the project with the intent of someday selling. Aren't they still building for "education and recreation"? Since this isn't a full time job for them it takes an amount of time to finish so it would be impossible to predict any profit in the eventual sale. The popularity of RV's makes that very likely, though.

The companies that are "contracted" to build a plane are obviously flaunting the rule. This would include the one man shop up to the companies like Epic. They know there is going to be a profit before they start. I think the line starts being crossed with the "almost finished, pick your avionics" ads. These start becoming "custom built for the buyer" and, I believe, not following the intent of "built for education and recreation."

On the repairman certificate issue. I've read a few places that a person buying a partial kit may indeed qualify for a repairmans certificate. I think the major goal is to ensure the person applying for the certificate is familiar enough with THAT airplane to perform the condition inspection. The regs allow one person to apply for this certificate when it's a group project. That one person most likely was not involved with every step of assembling the plane. If a second builder can prove to a DAR that they know evey little nook and crany of that airplane shouldn't they qualify for the repairmans certificate?
 
Now i'm curious, I'm planning on buy a partially completed -7 to finish. I'm an A&P so I don't care about the repairmens certificate, but I'm wondering about the actual certification. If the tail is already built, and the wings are started will I still be able to register the airplane? It's a slow build, although I might buy a QB fuse.
 
taking over someone else's kit

osxuser said:
If the tail is already built, and the wings are started will I still be able to register the airplane?
Click to expand...
Sure - there does not seem to be a limit on the number of people that work on a project, just that they are all doing it for their entertainment, recreation, education, enlightment, etc.
 
flymustangs said:
There is an ad recently placed on barnstormers.com, http://www.barnstormers.com/listing.php?id=82450, that I believe crosses the line from recreation and education to professional. What do you think?
Click to expand...
Well, the line in the ad that says "Built by professional RV builder" kind of answers that question, doesn't it? If he's a professional RV builder, then he's sure not an amateur building for his own enjoyment and education.
 
Other places also

I saw a post on another list also. I would guess this type of ad will get some attention that is not actually wanted. Hopefully it doesn't cause waves that the rest of us eventually feel. :eek:
 
51% rule

The FAA Memo dated July 7, 2005 was sent to all DARs. Go back and read it as it is quoted in the link story. The memo does not apply to RVs.

The FAA has known about builder's centers where RVs have and are being built by others ("hired gun"). I spoke with one FAA Inspector from Oklahoma City twenty months ago that was in a shop in Texas where such work was being done. He did not identify that he was FAA. The work being done was not being done by the builder but for the builder.

The FAA knows about these shops and it is correct that it is only a matter of time till the FAA cracks down on them.

Van's RV Quick Builds are on the FAA Approved list. To check what aircraft are on the FAA approved list, see: http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/rec/ultralights/amateur_built/kits/media/ama-kit.pdf

If the aircraft is not on the list, it may still be certified as amateur bult if it is 51% built. To tell if it is 51%, the FAA or DAR completes FAA Form 8000-38.
http://www.alaska.faa.gov/faifsdo/Amateur/Forms/8000-38.doc

I have an RV-6A Quick Built kit in my hangar that is for sale. The owner has done some work but very little. One prospective buyer asked me if he purchased and completed the kit if he could still get the repairman certificate. I used 8000-38 to make a determination. If the buyer did all the work necessary to make the aircraft fly, he WOULD be the 51% builder based on the info I got from the 8000-38.

Gary
DAR Function Code 46
 
Repairman's Certificate?

rv8ch said:
Sure - there does not seem to be a limit on the number of people that work on a project, just that they are all doing it for their entertainment, recreation, education, enlightment, etc.
Click to expand...


If the kit is finished more than 51% before it is sold, can the buyer still get a Repairman's Certificate? If not, is there another way to get the certificate? (such as take a class?)
 
Martorious said:
If the kit is finished more than 51% before it is sold, can the buyer still get a Repairman's Certificate? If not, is there another way to get the certificate? (such as take a class?)
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how many hands the kit passes through. As long as 51% of the tasks were completed by amateur builders, one of the builders is eligible for the repairman's certificate.
 
51% rule

Kyle Boatright said:
It doesn't matter how many hands the kit passes through. As long as 51% of the tasks were completed by amateur builders, one of the builders is eligible for the repairman's certificate.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. So you have an "amateur builder" build 99.5% of the plane and you put the radio knobs on, you can call it your own work and apply for the 51% repairman?s certificate? No way. It sounds like Epics logic. No sale. I would like to see that in writing. Education is the purpose of this whole category and instilling the pin strip on the wheel pants is not going to cut it.

The grey area of picking up started kits and finishing it is a real grey area, not addressed explicitly in the Regs. Your comment is opinion. The fact is if the FEDs don't know or care about the other builders that had a hand in it, than its not an issue, but if you offer up to the FED, well I bought it mostly completed, I put the interior in and painted it, they are going to say something. I guarantee it. If you say nothing you will likely slide by. I think they will be looking more closely as a fall out of epics little game.

Another example, if two builders finish a plane one gets the repairman?s certificate. Is that correct or not? G
 
Last edited:
gmcjetpilot said:
So you have an "amateur builder" build 99.5% of the plane and you put the radio knobs on, you can call it your own work and apply for the 51% repairman?s certificate?
Click to expand...

Lets get one misconception out of the way on this thread. The 51% rule has nothing to do with the repairman's certificate. They are completely different issues. One can build a scratch-build by ones self (obviously more than 51%) and not bother to apply for the repairmans cert. Or, a group of 10 amatuer builders can get together, build a quick-build, and one of them (obviously not having built 51%) can apply for and get the repairmans cert. The 51% rule is for determining whether a project meets the requirements to be licensed as an "Experimental- Amatuer Built" and nothing else.

Jeff Point
 
Hummmm Prime builder

sprucemoose said:
Lets get one misconception out of the way on this thread. The 51% rule has nothing to do with the repairman's certificate. They are completely different issues. One can build a scratch-build by ones self (obviously more than 51%) and not bother to apply for the repairmans cert. Or, a group of 10 amatuer builders can get together, build a quick-build, and one of them (obviously not having built 51%) can apply for and get the repairmans cert. The 51% rule is for determining whether a project meets the requirements to be licensed as an "Experimental- Amatuer Built" and nothing else.

Jeff Point
Click to expand...
Jeff, you are right the 51% rule applies to the Kit and status as an Experimental- Amatuer Built plane.

Than there is the builder or manufacture of the aircraft, right. The person who says they are the manufacture, builder. That would go to the primary builder, or could it be anyone of the "team" of builders? (Like the guy who put the radio knob on) The prime builder is also the one who qualifies for repairman. The idea of 10 builders is fine, but one has to be prime.

What does prime mean? The one with the money, the one who last owned and finished it or the one who did the most work (what ever the (%) is?). I think the FAA would say the one who did most of the work. In the Epic case, the Dentist was not the prime builder.


Part 65 CERTIFICATION: AIRMEN OTHER THAN FLIGHT CREWMEMBERS; Subpart E -- Repairmen Sec. 65.104

Repairman certificate -- experimental aircraft builder -- Eligibility, privileges and limitations.

(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
(4) Be a citizen of the United States or an individual citizen of a foreign country who has lawfully been admitted for permanent residence in the United States.
(b) The holder of a repairman certificate (experimental aircraft builder) may perform condition inspections on the aircraft constructed by the holder in accordance with the operating limitations of that aircraft.
(c) Section 65.103 does not apply to the holder of a repairman certificate (experimental aircraft builder) while performing under that certificate.

G
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top