Page 1 of 1
FAA to look at builder's assistance centers
Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 6:25 pm
by svanarts
Builder assistance centers are slowly coming into the FAA's field of view:
http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaane ... ights.html
The only reason I built an airplane was cost. It was a way for me to get an airplane as nice as an RV for a much lower cost than it would be to buy one of the same performance. Plus being able to do the maintenance myself is a big plus. If I had been able to afford to pay someone to complete my airplane, I certainly would have.
That was then. This is now. I did in fact complete my airplane myself and went on to fly it. This was a huge feeling of accomplishment. I built it. I tested it. I flew it. I've found that I really enjoy the building process. Do people who pay these builder's centers to do a majority of the work cheat themselves?
Maybe the FAA should consider subclasses of EXPERIMENTAL. Maybe EXPERIMENTAL - CUSTOM BUILT, and EXPERIMENTAL - AMATEUR BUILT. Is this just asking for trouble? Should we just say, if you want to build a plane, then YOU build a plane?
Interesting dilema and I'm glad I'm not on that committee.
Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 7:00 pm
by prestwich
The whole 50% rule is pretty nebulous. Matched-hole, quick-build, whatever. Some people might say that PK is the only one in this forum who's "really" building his own plane. But I agree that the professionally-built "amatuer built" plane is treacherous legal ground.
Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 10:38 pm
by Spike
I really have little patience and am probably a bit draconian when it comes to this topic. I get annoyed when I hear or see adds saying things like 'build it to your spec' or 'panel built to suite you', etc. I really feel that they are putting our passtime in jeopardy.
My solution would be to limit the number of aircraft any one person may have inspected over a certain period of time. Say 2 aircraft in a 6 or 7 year period. Id also revoke all certificates of someone caught building for hire and blacklisting the aircraft so that it may never get an airworthiness.
But then thats just me.
Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:58 am
by svanarts
A whole cottage industry has sprung up to supply the needs of the RV builder. I think that's good. Indirectly, RV's and the multitudes building them have fueled EFIS advances, autopilot advances, ignition advances, and other various neato things that just would never have happened otherwise. The RV designs have been refined and lots of great aftermarket customizations are available. There are lots of people gainfully employed because of the RV series of kit plane.
This is where I think the path diverges a bit though. I don't think RV's are the predominant culprit in the experimental airplane mills. Except for possibly now the RV-10, I think most of the "offenders" are the high-altitude, high-dollar, high-glass-content aircraft. There was a gentleman (of sorts) at my airport who had a red, turbine CompAir built (you may have seen it in KitPlanes or Sport Aviation.) He didn't build that thing. He actually imported a guy from South Africa to build it for him. He now has a red Lancair IV-P that he didn't build either. He's now making money selling air conditioners for Lancairs.
I just loved it when he walked into the EAA chapter meeting and exchanged building woes with those of us with cuts, and holes in our fingers.
I just hope the FAA uncovers this and doesn't throw a blanket over the whole industry. There are a lot of good guys out there just trying to finance their build by selling a good idea they came up with. There are also a lot of guys out there trying to make money by operating in the grey areas. Let's hope the FAA has sense enough to sort out who's who.
Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 4:30 am
by captain_john
I am really ticked off by the guys making airplanes in the Experimental category for profit. I know they are out there and so do you. It will ruin it for us. There are "builder assist centers" that do WAY MORE than assist and it ain't right!
The spirit of the category is for education and not commercial purposes.
I want to see the guys making planes for profit to get hammered for it. I am not sure how they would catch these guys, but something should be done for the sake of the hobby. It is just wrong.
Spike, maybe putting a time limit between builds would be a good choice, but it should depend on the complexity of the ships. The guys doing Part 103 stuff would need shorter time restraints. They have much shorter build times and would learn alot by building maybe 2 per year.
This proves the difficulty in regulating this industry. Someones toes would likely be stepped upon. Of course, I wouldn't like legislation. I would prefer to see some individuals get spanked and made a spectacle of so that others would not risk it.
Just my $0.02...
CJ
Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 8:17 am
by Spike
Now that brings up a really good question John. Can the FAA & EAA be effective enough within the current bounds of the governing rules to stop the infractions? That is to say how do you stop it without substantially changing the FAR's. I would think its possible, but, it boils down to one question: How does the inspector verify that an aircraft was built by the person who intends to own & fly that aircraft?
Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 8:45 am
by Wicked Stick
I like building my RV-8 and want to earn my repairmen certificate when it's done. If someone was willing to pay me a fair wage to build an RV aircraft for them, I might consider it, but I certainly wouldn't let the buyer get the credit for it, and I'd expect the repairmen certificate for that aircraft to belong to me. Wouldn't it be the same thing as when I purchased the already built RV-4 that I fly now ? I own it, and fly it, but I can't sign off the condition inspection because I didn't build it.
I don't think there's anything wrong with seeking out builders assistance, so long as it is just that...assistance and guidance. Heck we help each other out as assistants on each others project now... we just don't get paid any monetary value for it. Instead we get comradery and knowledge and great friendships.
There are shops out there that really help the newbie builder. Without them, the would-be newbie builder would probably give up and sell his empenage were it not for a builders assist shop around to help them learn the techniques and procedures.
So long as they are only helping them learn what is needed while assisting them on the tail kits, I see nothing wrong with a 2 week course and then sending them on their way to build the rest of the plane on their own.
Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 8:58 am
by papakeith
agreed Dave,
Giving instruction on how to do something is far different from having a crew of people actually doing your project for you.
Look at kit planes for the last two issues. I forget the authors name, but basically he's doing a few things here and there and putting a rivet into each assembly. But there are a flock of workers prepping everything and getting it positioned for him to actually drive the rivet or tighten the bolt.
That's not building IMHO. I think it was something like 14 days from start to maiden flight.
riiiight . . . he "built" that plane suuuure he did.
here's a link to the article:
18 day Sportsman 2+2
Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:35 am
by Spike
Wicked Stick wrote:If someone was willing to pay me a fair wage to build an RV aircraft for them, I might consider it, but I certainly wouldn't let the buyer get the credit for it, and I'd expect the repairmen certificate for that aircraft to belong to me.
But then you are building it for profit, not for education, by virtue of the fact that you were commissioned to build the aircraft.
Wouldn't it be the same thing as when I purchased the already built RV-4 that I fly now ?
I would disagree with this as the builder of your RV4 did not specifically build it to sell to you.
I don't think there's anything wrong with seeking out builders assistance, so long as it is just that...assistance and guidance. Heck we help each other out as assistants on each others project now... we just don't get paid any monetary value for it. Instead we get comradery and knowledge and great friendships.
There are shops out there that really help the newbie builder. Without them, the would-be newbie builder would probably give up and sell his empenage were it not for a builders assist shop around to help them learn the techniques and procedures.
So long as they are only helping them learn what is needed while assisting them on the tail kits, I see nothing wrong with a 2 week course and then sending them on their way to build the rest of the plane on their own.
I agree completely. I think the problem comes in with the hired guns that are purport themselves to be in the business of "builders assistance". The bottom line to me is who built 51% and what were their intentions. The latter is the really hard one to police.
Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:45 pm
by l & d lewis
Funny this thread should come up, just yesterday a friend of a co-worker called because he heard I was building the 8. He said he had purchased a completed empennage and someone in Oregon was building his wings, but he wanted to make sure he was still 51% compliant when "he" finished "his" airplane. Just doesn't seem right. I'm going to the experimental and LSA DAR training in Oak City next week. It will be interesting to see how the FAA is determining builder compliance........Larry
Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:47 pm
by svanarts
When a friend of mine was bulding his RV-8 he was approached by a gentleman who offered to buy two complete aircraft kits, avionics, engine, prop, the whole shootin' match if my friend would build it for him. He could keep the other kit and kaboodle as his "payment." He wisely bowed out.
Building a plane means something. Having all the prep work done for you so you can walk in a drive a few rivets or insert a bolt is not the same as building. That's like the big game hunting ranches that release a tiger from a crate, so you can shoot it from a safely elevated platform (also with experienced hunters standing at the ready in case you miss.) It just isn't the same.
I was for creating a categories of Experiemental - Amateur built and Experimental - Professional built. But the more I think about it, the more it sounds like a great way to close the door to amateur builders. Maybe the FAA would only let the "professionals" build airplanes because they know how to do it. Bad, bad idea.
Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:16 pm
by JohnR
Seems people always find ways around everything. There are times when I'm sure professional help is truly needed in order for some people to complete a safe aircraft. However, that should not mean that someone else builds it, only that they help oversee and ensure it is done correctly.
Just hope they few doing this don't screw it up for the rest of us.
Some Day We Will all Want to Sell our Airplanes.
Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 7:30 pm
by Bob Barrett
People who are attempting to make a business of building kit planes for resale may well create problems for all of us. Someday almost everone of us will want to sell our airplanes. I am helping my friend sell his RV-6A that was completed in 2001. Because of health and age he has it up for sale. I hope when I get to the point that I can't fly to give it to my grandchildren however circumstances may not make that possible. Then I will probably for it up for sale. Of course my biggest problem is that I have to finish and fly it first. Right now I am cursing the baffeling installation. Just got a replacement part for that.
Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 5:44 am
by Thermos
Spike wrote:Can the FAA & EAA be effective enough within the current bounds of the governing rules to stop the infractions? That is to say how do you stop it without substantially changing the FAR's.
I'm familiar with the FARs involved, having worked for the FAA Aircraft Certification Service for a few years. The regs are reasonably clear; the question is simply whether the FAA chooses to investigate and prosecute. Given their shortage of field inspectors, I don't believe they will get really serious about dropping the hammer on fraudulent 'builder assist' centers or outright build-for-hire people until the level of perceived risk increases.
But all it takes is a couple of accidents involving those built-for-hire RV-10s for that position for change - especially if politicians get involved. And once that huge bureacratic inertia gets moving, it's difficult to stop and will inflict a lot of collateral damage on those of us who are following the spirit of the FARs.
Our motto ought to be "regulate yourself lest you be regulated." It works for other groups - like amateur radio, for instance - who have avoided a lot of regulation by policing themselves. I think the EAA could do a lot more about this issue, but it seems like they aren't really interested in alienating companies who pay them a lot of money for displays at OSH.
My $0.02....
Dave
Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:34 pm
by Wicked Stick
Spike wrote:Wicked Stick wrote:If someone was willing to pay me a fair wage to build an RV aircraft for them, I might consider it, but I certainly wouldn't let the buyer get the credit for it, and I'd expect the repairmen certificate for that aircraft to belong to me.
But then you are building it for profit, not for education, by virtue of the fact that you were commissioned to build the aircraft.
Wouldn't it be the same thing as when I purchased the already built RV-4 that I fly now ?
I would disagree with this as the builder of your RV4 did not specifically build it to sell to you.
Reply from WS:
Honestly, I couldn't tell you that for certain. Perhaps the builder of the RV- 4 did build it to sell it after completion.
I don't think there's anything wrong with seeking out builders assistance, so long as it is just that...assistance and guidance. Heck we help each other out as assistants on each others project now... we just don't get paid any monetary value for it. Instead we get comradery and knowledge and great friendships.
There are shops out there that really help the newbie builder. Without them, the would-be newbie builder would probably give up and sell his empenage were it not for a builders assist shop around to help them learn the techniques and procedures.
So long as they are only helping them learn what is needed while assisting them on the tail kits, I see nothing wrong with a 2 week course and then sending them on their way to build the rest of the plane on their own.
I agree completely. I think the problem comes in with the hired guns that are purport themselves to be in the business of "builders assistance". The bottom line to me is who built 51% and what were their intentions. The latter is the really hard one to police.