• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

51%

kase

SPONSOR
Billings MT
Got this from EAA. Impression I get they are frowning on some kits that are to complete? Is something going on here or am I reading to much into it?


November 30, 2007
TO: ALL EAA CHAPTER PRESIDENTS, NEWSLETTER EDITORS
When I read through the history of your EAA, living every day for half a century plus, I truly know how time flies.
I want to share with you some of the thoughts of our members as they appeared in our Sport Aviation magazine back in 1963. The organization of dreamers, homebuilders and fellow aviation supporters building/designing their aircraft under the CAA/FAA 51% rule we worked so diligently for and earned is something to be treasured. One can build his or her airplane for educational and recreational purposes and friends can work with you for their own educational value. Really, we can build one half of it – the other half, such as engines, propellers, wheels, brakes, instruments, radios, items not normally within the capabilities of those who work with hand and mind can be purchased. Now we are faced with a situation of the FAA amateur building program being used for commercial purposes – from building complete aircraft or well over the half mark … not within the intent of the program given to us by those CAA/FAA folks who believed in us. Let’s hope we don’t lose this privilege.
Sincerely,
EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT ASSOCIATION
Paul H. Poberezny
Founder and Chairman of the Board
 
The FAA is leaning REALLY hard on the 51 % rule right at the moment. They are looking hard at quick build kits, and if I were building a Super Cub "clone" right now, I'd be REALLY nervous, and getting in touch with my elected representatives.

I'd bet the FAA is about to leap squarely on this kind of stuff, and state that the 51% rule is being abused.

Cub "clone" builders beware.

MTV
 
Your interpretation is correct. This is something the EAA has been wrestling with recently and has been mentioned recently (I think in the magazine).

Eric
 
I would much rather have a guy put together a legend quick build that is built out of quality materials than see a guy scrounge up 100s of used questionable parts and make them fly. FAA is shooting themself in the foot if you ask me.

Tim
 
behindpropellers said:
I would much rather have a guy put together a legend quick build that is built out of quality materials than see a guy scrounge up 100s of used questionable parts and make them fly. FAA is shooting themself in the foot if you ask me.

Tim

And exactly the tact we took in Canada to get 100% pro building of homebuilts legal...provided the "builder of record" is supervising his build and knows what is going on. Ie a little more than just writing the cheques (but not much!). It makes for safer airplanes...but does go outside of the original reason for homebuilts in the first place. In reality nothing has really changed. This was happening all along, just the "builder" had to move it back to his garage and mess up his garage for the inspections. No longer need to move them now.

EAA or the FAA is really working on this "issue". It's even gone as far in the last couple months to sway our Transport Canada to put a kibosh on rebuilding a once certified airplane as a homebuilt (even though the 51% work sheet shows it's well beyond 51% to do so and something we Canadians have been doing for well over 20 years), on the pretense we may fly it into the USA.
 
Legend is offering a quick build of 14 to 21 days complete at there shop, I have a hard time seeing how you can build 51% of a cub in 14 to 21 days.

A friend of mine is seriously considering doing this, he visited the shop and looked the entire operation over and he said it could be done no problem, the picture of the KIt on the web page shows the kit well along on the assembly process. If I was in the market I would do this in a heart beat.

John
72A

Chugiak
AK
 
I think the problem may have arisen from the newest program, the "two week to taxi" that are popping up. The program requires the "builder" to work 12 days over two weeks, ten hours each day with factory assist to build the aircraft. Some have a three week program with the same hours. By my math, that comes out to 120 - 180 hours to build an aircraft. This would mean that the total time required would be only 239-359 hours to build an aircraft! If that was the real time to build, than there would be manufactures building and selling planes cheaper and faster than Honda's! And yes, I know this is a very simplistic look at the build time. The problem also rests in the lap of the FAA as they are the ones allowing these planes to be certified as Experimental. I think the fast builds are ok, it still requires a lot of work on the builders part and a lot of time personalizing the aircraft with choices of equipment. If we aren't careful, we will lose the right we have to actually build our own aircraft.
 
I think Paul's concern is the professional builders doing it for a living. If we don't regulate ourselves the government eventually will. I think this is the force behind the letter. I can see both sides. I have been told by an FAA inspector that he felt better about an airplane because a professional was involved but I think there are always going to be extremes both ways. I would hate to see anything happen to more regulate the 51% rule.
 
I don't think the only issue the FAA is nosing around is the fast build kits. They are also interested in the builders who are using large numbers of pre made components to build an airplane. Like a Cub clone, where virtually the only fabrication necessary is of small parts. Ribs are pre made, and may be production parts, fuselage same, etc. The FAA has said that assembling and covering a rag and tube airplane does not constitute 51 %, though to my mind those tasks require a hell of a lot more work than many of the quick build kits do.

MTV
 
So what's the big deal. Go Experimental/Exhibition. Under 600 HP you no longer need a program letter. You just can't get a Repairman's Certificate to do your own condition inspections.
 
My only question is, -- Why is it ok when a few are doing it, but not ok when a lot are doing it. A few have been doing it for a long time. FAA knew and still certified them. Same goes for the "built from surplus parts" certified airplanes or rebuilding an original with mostly new parts. Why now is it such a big issue. Is it because Money talks?? Even if a plane is built up from parts already made, and a bunch of mods done to it, why is that any different? The builder is still learning and experimenting with different processes, mods etc.

I understand the logic of stopping the professional "experimental shops"
but not the others.
 
I agree that this letter from Paul concerns the "hired gun" builders. It does not address the current state of quick build kits or the factory build centers. This is for the guy who contracts a shop to build a Lancair IV-P.

The FAA builders checklist spells it all out really... Even for the clones, there is quite a bit of "credit" given for the small tasks. I don't have it in front of me, but I remember there is a line item for "fuselage construction" with two boxes to check: factory built, and home built. If you have to add even one tube to this, you get to check both boxes, which makes this item a wash. However, even if you have to leave this item with only the "factory" box checked, you will have many other opportunities to "get ahead". I think there are several line items available for wingtip construction, and several more for fuel system, and more still for electrical, controls, etc. The point being, as long as you have ONE more check in the "home built" column than in "factory built", you meet the 51%. The sense that I got from this FAA derived checklist is that it is heavily slanted to HELP the home builder. In essence, the same weight is given to installing the strobes as building the fuselage.

Get a copy of this checklist and it will all become crystal clear...
 
But, the issue is that the "hired gun" can use the same checklist. So, if he or she goes through that checklist, certifies the plane, then sells it to the proud new owner, isn't that legal?

Perhaps that's what's got the FAA's underwear in a knot. Anyone can have a homebuilt airplane custom built to their specs for a price, and that runs contrary to the intent of the homebuilt regs.

The FAA obviously can't prohibit anyone with an A & P certificate from participating in homebuilding. And, I know of at least some of these hired guns that don't have an A&P certificate either.

I think EAA has a fight on their hands on this one, and I hope they prevail.

MTV
 
mvivion said:
But, the issue is that the "hired gun" can use the same checklist. So, if he or she goes through that checklist, certifies the plane, then sells it to the proud new owner, isn't that legal?



MTV

If the "hired gun" builds it in their name, not the guy paying....thats the difference.
 
behindpropellers said:
mvivion said:
But, the issue is that the "hired gun" can use the same checklist. So, if he or she goes through that checklist, certifies the plane, then sells it to the proud new owner, isn't that legal?



MTV

If the "hired gun" builds it in their name, not the guy paying....thats the difference.

Exactly my thoughts.

I think there's a big difference between building an airplane and selling it as a "used homebuilt" vs. paying someone to build on your behalf. The latter is fraud. I think that is the real problem here anyway, it's not the state of kits these days, it's people performing this activity for commercial gain rather than their own "education or enjoyment".

It's a people problem, not a hardware problem.
 
Funny this subject came up. There is a Tundra by Dream aircraft posted on Ebay at this moment that the guy is willing to build to YOUR specs. I'm actually surprised at the willingness of these guys to do this so publicly. I was always under the impression that it was illegal also.
 
I think the important thing to realize is that the activity described is against the current regulations, therefore NO CHANGES to the regulations are required. This is not a loophole or a grey area that needs tightening, It's an enforcement issue. People are actively breaking the rules, so more rules aren't going to help.

It's like passing another law against murder... It's already illegal, so what will another law do to those who are willing to break it?
 
But, the point is that all that needs to happen is that the builder of the aircraft builds it and licenses it in his name, and then sells a new airplane to the buyer. All that changes is the publicity, so to speak.

"Oh, no, Mr. FAA person, I didn't hire that guy to build me an airplane, I just fell in love with it after I traveled 700 miles, and just happened to drop in at his shop in Bumlay, AR....." :lol:

Just gotta know the right words to say, that's all.

MTV
 
There has been a lot written about the cost of a production aircraft being so high because of product liability insurance. When I finish my 2+2, I am the manufacturer of record and assume the liability. If I sell the aircraft, some of that liability stays in my name. That is why many home builders will not sell a completed home built. Many builders prefer to sell as parts so the next owner takes on some of the manufacturing liability. If a “hired gun” builds a plane and sells it, he is listed as the manufacturer and assumes the liability, correct? So, if Joe Homebuilder hires out his project but lists his own name as the manufacturer (as mentioned before, this is fraud) he is assuming the liability from the hired gun. Something else to think about here, who did required 25-40 hours of initial flying, hired gun or new owner? I sure would not want my assets tied up in that kind of a mess. I think it comes down to who REALLY built the plane and who assumes the liability for said aircraft. I agree, the quick build kits require a lot of time to complete and allow the guy who doesn’t have specific skills to still participate in home building an aircraft. We just need to be careful however regarding how quick of a build.
 
mvivion said:
But, the point is that all that needs to happen is that the builder of the aircraft builds it and licenses it in his name, and then sells a new airplane to the buyer. All that changes is the publicity, so to speak.

"Oh, no, Mr. FAA person, I didn't hire that guy to build me an airplane, I just fell in love with it after I traveled 700 miles, and just happened to drop in at his shop in Bumlay, AR....." :lol:

Just gotta know the right words to say, that's all.

MTV

From a PRACTICAL standpoint, the two situations you describe are identical, I admit. I'll also say that there is really no safety issue either. But from a regulatory standpoint, the difference is black and white.

Consider this- how many true amateurs have built an airplane, sold it, and come out ahead financially? Not very many. If you sell an RV-8 for market value, you likely have a lot more than that wrapped up in it when you include your labor. So that becomes the "self regulating" part of the build/sell cycle. Some people love to build, and that is the only reason they do it. On the other hand, the hired guns are booking normal labor rates for their "assistance" and are in effect, small-scale, unregulated aircraft manufacturers. The airplanes might be comparable for either case, but the regulation is clearly being ignored. That's the issue

I think with the high quality of kits and components available today, we are all feeling a little guilty about our level of participation in the build process. After all, if the fuse, tail and wings are available off the shelf, how can we say we built "most" of it? The fact is, the determination has been made by the FAA in the form of the checklist. Your project will either meet the rule, or it will not. We need to put our "guilt" aside and focus on the real problem, which is the people willing to pay their way out of the build process and falsify the certification/registration documents.
 
It's folks like EPIC ( www.epicaircraft.com ) that seem to have really pushed the limit on the quick-build programs that are putting everyone in jeopardy. The feds originally would not certify the first couple of customer built airplanes, but somehow they got it worked out. This will bite everyone in the ass in the end.
 
I'm sure the feds are being pushed hard by the certified guys who have all those nearly half-million dollar spam cans sitting around waiting for buyers. On the other hand, I can see the FAA's point because many companies are pushing the limit to make their airplanes more attractive to perspective buyers who don't want to wait years for a flyable airplane. Personally, I think a guy or gal who buys a shake and bake homebuilt and then gets a repairman certificate for it when all he did was hang the prop and sew up the upholstery or maybe stand around watching while pros put it together is ripping the rest of us off. The idea always has been to learn something. How does handing someone a socket add to the new guy's knowledge base? Next thing you know he's out there replacing a failed mixture cable with a lawnmower part -- It looks the same, doesn't it? -- and ends up crashing and killing people and we ALL get a black eye as well as higher insurance rates, more rules, etc. I'm certain the FAA, back when they really were here to help, was counting on a builder's sweat equity. Nowadays, people spend more time and effort trying to circumvent the system than it would have taken them to do a thing to begin with. I say if you want to fly but don't want or can't afford a certificated airplane, build a homebuilt. If you don't want to build something but still want to own something that flies, then go fly your computer and leave the rest of us alone.
 
Are you telling us that Piper didn't use lawnmower parts for mixture cables? Next, you will be telling us that brake hoses are not from an old Plymouth or something.
 
bob turner said:
Are you telling us that Piper didn't use lawnmower parts for mixture cables? Next, you will be telling us that brake hoses are not from an old Plymouth or something.

The brake master cyls on my SNOW are from a Studebaker, the Filters are from NAPA ( and listed as such in the parts book). Lot of Delco Remy parts direct from autos running around on aircraft too.
 
Snert said:
So what's the big deal. Go Experimental/Exhibition. Under 600 HP you no longer need a program letter. You just can't get a Repairman's Certificate to do your own condition inspections.

Lots more flight restrictions on an exp/exh than an amateur built. Plus no repairman's certificate.

I'd like to see an"owner maintenance" category like Canada has now. Take your factory airplane out of the certificated category & do what you want to it. Like losing your virginity, though, there's no going back.

Rooster
 
One point I think people are missing:

I believe the FAA INTENDED that Experimental - Amateur Build were supposed to be built for "fun" and educational purposes.

If someone is in business building airplanes that's a commercial venture and the FAA has rules in place for that.

John Scott
 
Back
Top