• 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!

Professional builder /builder assist

hotrod180 said:
It seems to me that an airplane built by a hired gun would still qualify as an E-AB, as long as the checklist showed over 51%.
The only issue is that the hired gun should be listed as builder, & should be the only one qualified to get the repairman certificate.
The one issue I have with "owner assist" programs some kit manufacturers have is that they skirt around that aspect,
when the owner (who generally speaking didn't do much on the build) is listed as builder.
Click to expand...

If the "hired gun" builds the airplane, then all those tasks he completes go in the commercial assistance column and don't count towards the 51%. Any tasks that are paid for are commercial assistance, not builder tasks. Column B on the checklist, not columns C and D. Only the points in C & D as compared to the total of columns A,B,C, and D count towards the 51%.

The only way that would work is if the "hired gun" purchased the kit, then did all the work for his "Entertainment and education", then sold the airplane after it was completed. Problem there, it falls into the same grey area as straw purchases with guns.
 
TreeTopFlyer33 said:
I personally think the rules and regulations regarding the repairman’s certificate and the “51%” rule is outdated and serves no purpose other than generating bureaucratic paperwork.

If the airplane is registered as an experimental, than it needs to be experimental. Remember, the repairman’s certificate has absolutely nothing to do with repairing and maintaining the aircraft, and it only becomes relevant one time per year when some stranger that probably knows nothing about your airplane and very possibly has never work on your particular type of aircraft, will give it their blessing.

I think a smarter way to insure safety would be to have an owner go through some kind of maintenance course or pass a test to evaluate their knowledge. I’ve known very knowledgeable people that have built many aircraft and could maintain them while blindfolded, but would have to go through the same old song and dance once per year and have to get an A&P to sign off on the logbooks merely because “they” weren’t the builder and didn’t possess the repairman’s certificate. These same people are even knowledgeable enough to do pre-buy inspections for other people looking at purchasing an airplane. Once again, I think some kind of written test or possibly a week long maintenance course, similarly to what’s in place for light sport, would be a much more valuable tool to insure safety rather than a random snapshot in time when an A&P comes out to sign your logbook.
Click to expand...

In many ways I tend to agree, but then you would not be talking about an Amateur Built airplane. The problem is that the current FAA rule for Experimental aircraft has no option other than the current 9 purposes listed in 21.191. To change it requires rulemaking, and that is a 5+ year timeframe and lots of $ of our tax dollars. Feel free to petition FAA to change the rules, but I don't see it happening in my lifetime.
 
TreeTopFlyer33 said:
I personally think the rules and regulations regarding the repairman’s certificate and the “51%” rule is outdated and serves no purpose other than generating bureaucratic paperwork.

If the airplane is registered as an experimental, than it needs to be experimental. Remember, the repairman’s certificate has absolutely nothing to do with repairing and maintaining the aircraft, and it only becomes relevant one time per year when some stranger that probably knows nothing about your airplane and very possibly has never work on your particular type of aircraft, will give it their blessing.

I think a smarter way to insure safety would be to have an owner go through some kind of maintenance course or pass a test to evaluate their knowledge. I’ve known very knowledgeable people that have built many aircraft and could maintain them while blindfolded, but would have to go through the same old song and dance once per year and have to get an A&P to sign off on the logbooks merely because “they” weren’t the builder and didn’t possess the repairman’s certificate. These same people are even knowledgeable enough to do pre-buy inspections for other people looking at purchasing an airplane. Once again, I think some kind of written test or possibly a week long maintenance course, similarly to what’s in place for light sport, would be a much more valuable tool to insure safety rather than a random snapshot in time when an A&P comes out to sign your logbook.
Click to expand...

A real life example of this problem:

I have CNC'd a large number of parts specific to my airplane many experimental (but tame) in nature. While no A&P has ever believed any of my modifications cause any reason to be concerned about safety, finding an A&P to sign his name on the liability line has gotten harder and harder every year. I absolutely appreciate all A&Ps and welcome review of my work. For someone mechanically and intellectually capable to have the inability to get the repairman cert on a pre-cert'd airplane they own, they have designed and rebuilt most if not all systems on, is maddening.

I will build another airplane to solve this issue, but the lack of a path to a repairman cert without a full A&P ticket is something that faces many experimental aircraft owners. I will gladly explain every part/system/assembly and sit for any test on my own airplane. My life depends on my ability to do so as I am the one sitting at the controls.
 
Colorado-Cub said:
A real life example of this problem:

I have CNC'd a large number of parts specific to my airplane many experimental (but tame) in nature. While no A&P has ever believed any of my modifications cause any reason to be concerned about safety, finding an A&P to sign his name on the liability line has gotten harder and harder every year. I absolutely appreciate all A&Ps and welcome review of my work. For someone mechanically and intellectually capable to have the inability to get the repairman cert on a pre-cert'd airplane they own, they have designed and rebuilt most if not all systems on, is maddening.

I will build another airplane to solve this issue, but the lack of a path to a repairman cert without a full A&P ticket is something that faces many experimental aircraft owners. I will gladly explain every part/system/assembly and sit for any test on my own airplane. My life depends on my ability to do so as I am the one sitting at the controls.
Click to expand...

All that work you did on your aircraft can at least in part qualify you to take the test for being a mechanic. For the A&P, you need to show the equivalent of 30 months full time work, or about 5000 hours practical experience.

I know it can be frustrating, but there are A&Ps that are willing to help. You did hit the nail on the head though, a lot of guys are risk averse, and don’t want to put their name in a log book. Don’t blame the A&Ps, blame the lawyers and their clients. They are the ones that have created the environment where nobody wants to put their name on anything.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
I don't blame the A&Ps one bit. They are put into such a tough spot yet every one I have met has gone out of their way to help and provide guidance.
 
Colorado-Cub said:
finding an A&P to sign his name on the liability line has gotten harder and harder every year.
Click to expand...

dgapilot said:
I know it can be frustrating, but there are A&Ps that are willing to help. You did hit the nail on the head though, a lot of guys are risk averse, and don’t want to put their name in a log book. Don’t blame the A&Ps, blame the lawyers and their clients. They are the ones that have created the environment where nobody wants to put their name on anything.
Click to expand...
dgapilot is absolutely correct on this subject. Every other year (except this year) the IAs need to meet with the FAA in March to renew their authorizations. Often the FAA legal department will make a presentation. After sitting through this presentation, it is a wonder every IA in the room doesn't stand up, throw his ticket on the table and walk out. Lawyers and sue happy people have made the profession in which most of us involved do it for the love of aviation, a very litigious occupation. It is not unusual for an unlicensed aircraft owner to accomplish something "not according to Hoyle" on his airplane. Then he presents it to the mechanic expecting the mechanic to bless it. Hopefully the mechanic finds it. Sometimes it doesn't make it's presence known until it breaks creating legal problems for the mechanic. It just is not something a mechanic should be expected to sign away his life savings upon.
 
stewartb said:
When I had my repairman’s certificate interview I was in a conference room in FSDO with two inspectors who conducted a very detailed interview. Not an interrogation but they definitely were looking for knowledge and familiarity. That would have been hard to bluff and pass. In the end I learned from them and enjoyed that process, too.
Click to expand...

My experience was very different. My FSDO inspector had read the FAA order and knew that all he had to do was see the build log and check list. I submitted both by email and, since FSDO office was closed due to COVID, met the inspector in the parking lot for required signatures. I would have been willing to submit to a much more rigorous process but it's not required.

Edited - Build log and checklist were not submitted by email. The inspector pulled them from the FAA aircraft records. I only had to submit the application and a signed copy of the "bill of rights"
 
Last edited:
Someone is building 51% of a javron type build. I think the work around cubcrafters is using is having an LLC build the airplane and then after its sold the "owner" of the LLC is changed to the current owner of the airplane and he can annually inspect it. I think that is what i have heard
 
RaisedByWolves said:
Someone is building 51% of a javron type build. I think the work around cubcrafters is using is having an LLC build the airplane and then after its sold the "owner" of the LLC is changed to the current owner of the airplane and he can annually inspect it. I think that is what i have heard
Click to expand...

Multiple people can participate in a CubCrafters factory assist build. These people may, or may not, be members of an LLC. The LLC can be the registered builder, and the registered owner, but only one individual can be the holder of the repairman certificate. The repairman certificate should only be granted to an individual who can prove participation in the build.
 
The LLC is set up to protect the purchaser's heirs in case something happens to the builder before the aircraft is complete.
 
I understand the checklist points system and have used it several times. Anyone who has built a plane from an approved kit knows there is something wonky with the two week program of the big guys, no way 51% of the tasks can be accomplished in two weeks. So why does the FAA 'work' with the big guys on this and we get scolded for even thinking about it? Serious question for DGA. What am I missing? The fact that this discrepancy exists makes some guys just fly under the radar and do what they want. It seems to come down to the willingness of the DAR being used to interpret rules since they are the only FAA reps we ever interact with.
 
Bearhawk Builder said:
..... Anyone who has built a plane from an approved kit knows there is something wonky with the two week program of the big guys, no way 51% of the tasks can be accomplished in two weeks. So why does the FAA 'work' with the big guys on this .......
Click to expand...

A certain kit manufacturer's "two weeks to taxi" comes to mind.
I'm pretty sure the airplane owners come out of that with a repairman's certificate in hand.
I don't have a problem with getting qualified airplane builders to do the work,
I just don't think the owner should get the repairman's certificate for basically just footing the bill.
 
Bearhawk Builder said:
no way 51% of the tasks can be accomplished in two weeks.
Click to expand...

A home builder may fabricate every rib by hand. A participant in the CubCrafters factory assist program presses a button to start the CNC router and all the ribs are cut while the "builder" does something else. Each rib still has to be pressed though and the day spent doing that seemed to be the longest.

The factory assist build is carefully choreographed so the the "builder" is at the CNC router to start cutting the next batch of parts as soon as the raw stock is mounted on the table. Who made those parts - the builder, the person who mounted the raw stock, the person who programmed the CNC router, someone else?

As I said in an earlier post I would like to have done much more of the work myself. Perhaps the biggest disappointment was that I didn't do any fabric work except to cut the pieces from the roll. I had also hoped to fabricate at least some of the wiring harnesses. Had to wait till I got home to do that.

The ultimate build experience would be to do the first week build and then have all the parts shipped as a kit. EX kit builders don't press any ribs, don't build the ailerons and flaps, don't fabricate any of the carbon parts, don't lay up the tail feathers and fuselage in the welding jigs, etc etc.

At CubCrafters the same factory production line is used for "factory assist" and standard cert aircraft. The factory assist builder's parts feed that production line in the same way factory built parts would.

A factory assist build is certainly not the same experience as a kit build or plans build. I'm glad the factory assist option was available.
 
Last edited:
And I can tell you most of those Cub Crafters owners do not get the repairman's certificate. I do the inspection on a lot of those airplanes.
 
I should have said labor. Can you say that you did 51% of the labor to build your Carbon Cub? Of course not, but you’re named as the builder, right?
 
stewartb said:
I should have said labor. Can you say that you did 51% of the labor to build your Carbon Cub? Of course not, but you’re named as the builder, right?
Click to expand...

I see that on my project from the other angle (scratch built): according to the checklist, I already have more than 60% in points. But I don't think I'm half done.
 
Bearhawk Builder said:
I understand the checklist points system and have used it several times. Anyone who has built a plane from an approved kit knows there is something wonky with the two week program of the big guys, no way 51% of the tasks can be accomplished in two weeks. So why does the FAA 'work' with the big guys on this and we get scolded for even thinking about it? Serious question for DGA. What am I missing? The fact that this discrepancy exists makes some guys just fly under the radar and do what they want. It seems to come down to the willingness of the DAR being used to interpret rules since they are the only FAA reps we ever interact with.
Click to expand...

Couldn’t agree more. The rules (whatever they are) should be applied across the board to all builders.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
With all due respect it seems the inconsistency is on the DAR side. If Cubcrafters and other manufacturers have established builder assist programs that are accepted and/or approved for 51% construction? I'd think other DARs should be learning from it. It isn't that the rules are different, the application of the rules is.
 
When I first contacted my DAR we talked about professional assistance. He encouraged me to use it. He didn't expect any private guy with a full time career to know everything or be good at everything that building an airplane requires. In the end some pro assistance makes for a better, safer airplane. That seems like a good idea.

Is the market value of an FX airplane better than an EX when equally equipped with equal hours?
 
From my experience the FX brings more than the EX equivalent. Found the battery cables wire tied to the torque tube on an EX and the DAR missed it. Felt weird to me when manipulating the controls.

Did you get the repairman certificate for your airplane?
 
Yes, and the interview process was pretty darn thorough. I think they were trying to weed out guys who don’t know the airplane. Turns out one of the FSDO guys was building an RV. It was fun comparing notes.
 
My builder assist program was all of you on sc.org as well as many good seminars and you tube. I managed to build the airplane and troubleshoot issues, perform maintenance, fabricate, cover, paint….it might not win a Lindy, but It’s a nice, safe, well built airplane and I built it…I painted it, I did everything. Thanks to sc.org for all the good help. Starting a build thread here was the best thing I could have done…my DAR is a member and he followed along the entire build…that made it pretty nice. What I’m saying is Thank You guys! Thank you very much….and I’m sure others learned along the way just by following.
 
I might take a little exception to the comment "He didn't expect any private guy with a full time career to know everything or be good at everything that building an airplane requires. In the end some pro assistance makes for a better, safer airplane. That seems like a good idea.". I took the same approach as Dan did above. I also had friends at the airport that would come by and check out the build. I always offered the 'look it over' and if you see anything tell me! A good friend of mine is an A&P (not active anymore) and gave me a nice compliment;"I'd fly anything you build".

So I think you can get the same, possible better, plane from a amature build. But not everyone has the time, desire, patience to learn and problem solve to build and finish a kit plane.

But to Steve's experience, a DAR can't see everything and I know of a few homebuilt's at the field I wouldn't ride in.

My DAR inspection was straight forward as was the application for the repairman.

I think all builder assist programs are great! What a good way to have people learn more about internal workings of their plane, be engaged, and promote GA.
 
Last edited:
Everyone is certainly entitled to their own opinion regarding builder assist programs and proving who does what percentage of this and that and what task took “X” amount of time, etc. etc., but it sounds like a lot of people are mixing apples and oranges with regards to how they think about this and who should be granted the repairman’s certificate. I’ll go back to my original argument in that none of this makes a difference and certainly doesn’t make for a safer aircraft. That repairman’s certificate only grants you permission to sign that logbook/condition inspection once per year. It has absolutely nothing to do with working on/maintaining that aircraft. I kind think of it like a physical. Your Dr. does a quick exam on you once a year, but it’s up to you to keep yourself healthy for the rest of the year. That physical, just like the annual condition inspection, is just a snapshot in time. It’s only valid for that one brief moment when your Dr. or A&P is checking things out. It’s totally up to you to maintain yourself….or in this case you’re airplane, for the rest of the year. I try to look at things from a common sense point of view rather than who made up some rule. Should some people probably not even be changing the oil in their airplane much less maintaining it all year?….absolutely!….but than there’s certainly other’s who may not possess the repairman’s certificate that are more than qualified to sign their logbook once a year for the condition inspection. Just my opinion….which isn’t worth much.
 
I agree that there is great benefit to having someone more knowledgeable look over a project. That's why there is the EAA Tech Counselor program. We no longer do inspections other than the final inspection for certification, and we are not supposed to have the applicant open more than what we feel necessary to make a safe for flight determination. Remember that the builder needs sign for the same as a condition inspection before the DAR shows up to do the certification, and the DAR is accepting that inspection to a large degree.

As for the quick builds - 2 weeks to fly, or whatever, I've never been involved with them, but I do use the checklist religiously if it is a kit that isn't on the kit list, or any time "commercial assistance" is used. Everyone needs to understand the purpose of Experimental Amateur Built. It is to allow someone to build an aircraft for education and entertainment, and then allow them to fly that aircraft. It is NOT intended to allow someone to go out and pay someone to built a non-certified aircraft for them, and does not fit the intent of 14 CFR 21.191(g). If you want to pay someone to build an aircraft for you, there is no real "purpose" that covers that within 21.191, so about the only option would be "Exhibition" with the appropriate operating limitations. How places like CubCrafters and the DAR that works with them gets away with it, I have no idea. Have the exploited the checklist to it's fullest, or are they fraudulently filling out things that were paid for and attributing them to the owner builder? I have no idea. The checklist is pretty liberal in what credit is given for, so they may actually be in compliance.
 
frequent_flyer said:
Edited - Build log and checklist were not submitted by email. The inspector pulled them from the FAA aircraft records. I only had to submit the application and a signed copy of the "bill of rights"
Click to expand...

There's no way your construction records (aka "builder's log") were pulled from FAA records. Construction records are not submitted to the FAA. They are reviewed by the inspector (DAR or FAA) during the airworthiness inspection, and should be reviewed again by the FSDO inspector during the repairman certificate interview.

If a fabrication/assembly checklist was required for the inspection, and was completed, that could be found in the FAA records. However, the checklist in and of itself does not directly impact the issue of the repairman certificate. The checklist only impacts the issuance of the airworthiness certificate. The FSDO inspector is still supposed to verify that the repairman certificate applicant is the "primary" builder of the aircraft. There are some cases where the applicant is NOT the primary builder, although these cases are somewhat rare. But that's what the interview process is supposed to establish.
 
jnorris said:
There's no way your construction records (aka "builder's log") were pulled from FAA records. Construction records are not submitted to the FAA.
Click to expand...

This is a direct quote from the FAA inspector's email exchanged during my application for the repairman certificate -

"I was able to see the build log and eligibility statement on line, so we are good to go there."

What on line source do you suppose this FAA inspector would have been able to access? How do you know what documentation the inspection DAR submitted to FAA?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
Super Legend HP builder experience
Replies
8
Views
3K
neck101
N
bamendala
Building a javron with no plans
Replies
22
Views
2K
Scott A
Scott A
R
cool plane builder website with lots of good ideas....
Replies
2
Views
3K
rrb
rrb
S
Javron, Dakota, Carbon Cub: The build experience?
2
Replies
52
Views
32K
stewartb
S
sj
Cubcrafters annonces carbon cub fx builder assist program
Replies
5
Views
5K
stewartb
S
Back
Top