Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

51% Rule

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Lightning-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

bandit362

Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Posts: 1

Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 4:53 am Post subject: 51% Rule

Hello Everyone,



Been lurking here for the last several months, listening to the chat.  Retired from the AF last year (flew F-4s, F-117s and F-16s) and was hired by a defense contractor here in Tucson.  Took a demo ride in Greg Hobbs Lightning last Nov and have been looking at my finances to try to squeeze money from the budget (just sold a house in Hawaii and am looking to buy here in Tucson.)  



Anyway, enough about me.  What do you think the 51% ruling is going to do for/against the Lightning?  (I am hoping for!!)

Regards,

Tim Veeder

_________________
T Veeder

N1BZRich(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:19 am Post subject: 51% Rule

Tim,

     From one retired AF fighter pilot to another -  welcome aboard.  The answer to your 51% rule question is still a bit "up in  the air" but we should have a better understanding of the new FAA proposal after  Oshkosh (I am there now).  But reading their proposal, I think the  Lightning should be OK.  Below is a summary of what the AOPA has to  say about the new proposal.  We will get the EAA's take in several  forums during the convention.

 Blue Skies, 

 Buz Rich

  

 The FAA is scrutinizing â€œfast buildâ€ homebuilt aircraft  programs and with that may come policy changes that affect future kit  designs.

  

The FAA has released several draft documents  to clarify the regulation of the homebuilt aircraft segment. The biggest  potential change is to the definition of the so-called 51-percent rule. The  FAAâ€™s original intention was that the individual would fabricate more than 50  percent and assemble more than 50 percent of the aircraft. 

The FAA became concerned when fast-build kits entered the  market where an aircraft ownerâ€™s contribution resulted in 51 percent of the  assembly only. The agency felt that this did not meet the intent of building  â€œsolely for their own education or recreation.â€ 

The FAA now defines 51 percent as the builder completing,  at a minimum, 20 percent of the assembly and 20 percent of the fabrication with  the remaining 11 percent made up from either additional assembly or fabrication.  The FAA now states that the commercial assistance or â€œfor hireâ€ building  programs will not count toward 20 percent of the assembly by the  individual. 

The policy changes would not affect those flying  traditionally certified aircraft or already completed amateur-built aircraft.  Existing kit designs essentially would be grandfathered, while new models, after  the rules go into effect, would get the extra  scrutiny.



Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.

  [quote][b]

pequeajim

Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 708
Location: New Holland, PA

Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 9:44 am Post subject: 51% Rule

You know Buz, the part of this proposal that is rough on glass kit builders is the fabrication.  Think about how most glass kits come, mostly prefabricated fuse, flying surfaces, spar box, etc.  I wonder what that would add up to in total?

   

 There are however, quite a lot of things to do from the fabrication side.  If you compare a Lightning kit to say, a quickbuilt RV, they then begin to look pretty close.  So, if the RV quickbuilt qualifys under the proposal, then the Lightning should also?

   

 Jim!

  

 



 

 On 7/25/08, N1BZRich(at)aol.com (N1BZRich(at)aol.com) <N1BZRich(at)aol.com (N1BZRich(at)aol.com)> wrote: [quote]  Tim,

     From one retired AF fighter pilot to another - welcome aboard.  The answer to your 51% rule question is still a bit "up in the air" but we should have a better understanding of the new FAA proposal after Oshkosh (I am there now).  But reading their proposal, I think the Lightning should be OK.  Below is a summary of what the AOPA has to say about the new proposal.  We will get the EAA's take in several forums during the convention.

  Blue Skies, 

 Buz Rich

  

 The FAA is scrutinizing "fast build" homebuilt aircraft programs and with that may come policy changes that affect future kit designs.

  

The FAA has released several draft documents to clarify the regulation of the homebuilt aircraft segment. The biggest potential change is to the definition of the so-called 51-percent rule. The FAA's original intention was that the individual would fabricate more than 50 percent and assemble more than 50 percent of the aircraft.  

The FAA became concerned when fast-build kits entered the market where an aircraft owner's contribution resulted in 51 percent of the assembly only. The agency felt that this did not meet the intent of building "solely for their own education or recreation."  

The FAA now defines 51 percent as the builder completing, at a minimum, 20 percent of the assembly and 20 percent of the fabrication with the remaining 11 percent made up from either additional assembly or fabrication. The FAA now states that the commercial assistance or "for hire" building programs will not count toward 20 percent of the assembly by the individual.  

The policy changes would not affect those flying traditionally certified aircraft or already completed amateur-built aircraft. Existing kit designs essentially would be grandfathered, while new models, after the rules go into effect, would get the extra scrutiny. 



   Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.

  	  Quote: 	
		  

	


[b]

Kayberg(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 11:12 am Post subject: 51% Rule

In a message dated 7/25/2008 1:45:27 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  pequeajim(at)gmail.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		     You know Buz, the part of this proposal that is rough on glass kit    builders is the fabrication.  Think about how most glass kits come,    mostly prefabricated fuse, flying surfaces, spar box, etc.  I wonder what    that would add up to in total?

    

   There are however, quite a lot of things to do from the fabrication    side.  If you compare a Lightning kit to say, a quickbuilt RV, they then    begin to look pretty close.  So, if the RV quickbuilt qualifys under the    proposal, then the Lightning should also?

    

   Jim!

	


 

  

 I have only read parts of the NPRM but I think the age-old question is How  much do you have to fabricate to be a fabricator?

  

 I would think that if you had to add a tad of glass somewhere it would  count as a fabrication (!!?!)

  

 Likewise an assembly.  If you had to assemble the last rivet in the  flap, you would still be the assembler.

  

 Somewhere between an aluminum smelter and a rivet lies the answer.

  

 I will try to think about it more, but we should all give it some  thought.

  

 Doug Koenigsberg



Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.

  [quote][b]

n5pb(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 2:12 pm Post subject: 51% Rule

Buz,

 This is good to know, especially since I begin my build in September at SYI!

 

 "Bear"

 

 

 --

Colin K.

Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 157
Location: Oklahoma

Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 3:06 pm Post subject: 51% Rule

Buz,

  

 I understand you have quoted the AOPA here, but are you getting  the impression that "Existing kit designs essentially would  be grandfathered" or that "Existing kit designs, already on the FAA's 51% list,  essentially would be grandfathered"?

  

 In  this case the difference could be critical because the Lightning is not already  on the FAA's 51% list.

  

  

Colin K. 

OK 

Lightning # 52 under construction. 

http://www.mykitlog.com/cojaken  

 [quote]   

   --

_________________
Colin K.
OK

dashvii(at)hotmail.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 3:37 pm Post subject: 51% Rule

Hey Tim C

     Good to have you onboard.  I think that you'll find a lot of fellow air force and/or government contract workers on here.  Too bad that you sold the house in Hawaii C but if you can get a house in Tucson and a Lightning that'd be pretty nice.  Brian W.

 	  Quote: 	
		   Subject: 51% Rule

 From: t_veeder(at)yahoo.com

 Date: Fri C 25 Jul 2008 05:53:54 -0700

 To: lightning-list(at)matronics.com

 --> Lightning-List message posted by: "bandit362" <t_veeder(at)yahoo.com>

 Hello Everyone C

 Been lurking here for the last several months C listening to the chat. Retired from the AF last year (flew F-4s C F-117s and F-16s) and was hired by a defense contractor here in Tucson. Took a demo ride in Greg Hobbs Lightning last Nov and have been looking at my finances to try to squeeze money from the budget (just sold a house in Hawaii and am looking to buy here in Tucson.) 

 Anyway C enough about me. What do you think the 51% ruling is going to do for/against the Lightning? (I am hoping for!!)

 Regards C

 Tim Veeder

 --------

 T Veeder

 Read this topic online here:

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194865#194865

 > 

With Windows Live for mobile C your contacts travel with you. Connect on the go.  [quote][b]

flying(at)qdea.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 5:34 pm Post subject: 51% Rule

I suspect "grandfathering" is more likely to apply to aircraft on the 

FAA's list, not to any kit currently being produces.



I looked through that list, and I was surprised at how few aircraft 

were on it, and how many were aircraft that no one would build today, 

like the Cirrus VK-30.



The part that I've always had trouble sorting out is what the 

percentage refers to.



It could be that a tail is considered to be 30% of the aircraft, so 

if you "fabricated" the tail, you'd be done with the fabrication 

requirement.



Is it percent of time, and if so, what time? A fuselage for a 

Lightning takes only a very few hours to "fabricate" at the factory 

once the molds have been built, so maybe it only contributes a few 

hours to the total "fabrication and assembly time" for the aircraft.



If that's the case, the lower the total number of hours needed to 

fabricate and assemble the factory-supplied parts, the fewer the 

hours the amateur builder needs to put into the aircraft to meet the 

51% rule.



That may be the saving grace for the Lightning, in that the nature of 

an airplane built from composite molds is such that there aren't that 

many total hours.



Hugh Sontag



[quote]Buz,



I understand you have quoted the AOPA here, but are you getting the 

impression that "Existing kit designs essentially would be 

grandfathered" or that "Existing kit designs, already on the FAA's 

51% list, essentially would be grandfathered"?



In this case the difference could be critical because the Lightning 

is not already on the FAA's 51% list.

Colin K.

OK

Lightning # 52 under construction.

<http://www.mykitlog.com/cojaken>http://www.mykitlog.com/cojaken



--

Colin K.

Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 157
Location: Oklahoma

Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 5:43 pm Post subject: 51% Rule

I like your thinking Hugh! 



Colin K.

OK

Lightning # 52 under construction.

http://www.mykitlog.com/cojaken

--

_________________
Colin K.
OK

jhausch

Joined: 14 Jan 2008
Posts: 35

Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:00 am Post subject: Re: 51% Rule

I shared these comments in the EAA tent at Osh yesterday, but I want to repeat here for the comment of others:



It looks like the level of completion and lack of overall builder performed glass/composite work on the Lightning might be a problem with the latest interpretation of the 51% rule.



I would suggest, as an alternative to providing components of the kit in a "less complete" format, that the FAA allow a builder to demonstrate glass/composite construction skills on a part which does not become part of the final aircraft.  



I'd gladly build a small and simple mold; lay in gelcoat, glass, resin, etc; remove and trim; attach a bracket; etc etc.



This would demonstrate to the FAA that I had the experience to work on this glass kit, but it would not require me to have large molds to do so.

sales(at)billandruth.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 4:34 pm Post subject: 51% Rule

Hello All,

 

 I just reviewed Van's quick build kits and I see very little difference between their state of completion and that of the delivered Arion Kit.  It seems to me the Lightning should have little difficulty in demonstrating that we indeed built "51%" of our kit.

 

 However, what if the FAA says that the kit does not meet the "51%" intent of the rule, what then?????

 

 Bill Applegate, Tucson, AZ with kit #49.

 

 jhausch wrote: [quote]    	  Quote: 	
		  --> Lightning-List message posted by: "jhausch" <jhausch(at)charter.net> (jhausch(at)charter.net)



I shared these comments in the EAA tent at Osh yesterday, but I want to repeat here for the comment of others:



It looks like the level of completion and lack of overall builder performed glass/composite work on the Lightning might be a problem with the latest interpretation of the 51% rule.



I would suggest, as an alternative to providing components of the kit in a "less complete" format, that the FAA allow a builder to demonstrate glass/composite construction skills on a part which does not become part of the final aircraft.  



I'd gladly build a small and simple mold; lay in gelcoat, glass, resin, etc; remove and trim; attach a bracket; etc etc.



This would demonstrate to the FAA that I had the experience to work on this glass kit, but it would not require me to have large molds to do so.





Read this topic online here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=195758#195758



  	
 [b]

IFLYSMODEL(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 1:39 am Post subject: 51% Rule

Hey Bill: I agree that we may have a problem. With all the changes in  fabrication techniques between glass and aluminum, it is difficult to prove the  51% rule. I must admit that I could not believe how easy it was to work with  fiberglass, compared to aluminum. I think the real effort must be shown in the  difference in the materials and applications. IF, and I think that is a big IF,  the FAA (I use that term loosely because it all depends on the individual doing  the evaluation) can be shown the ease of operation/application I think it can be  shown that the completion of the kit will fall within the 20% indicated in their  press release.

  

 >> To ensure consistency and standardization concerning amateur-built  

kit aircraft evaluations, the FAA proposes to clarify how much  

fabrication and assembly must be performed by the amateur builder. The  

FAA is proposing that an amateur builder fabricate a minimum of 20  

percent of an aircraft and assemble a minimum of 20 percent of the  

aircraft. The FAA also clarifies the role of commercial assistance,  

which includes both the pre-fabrication of parts and direct assistance  

to the builder, as part of the remaining 49 percent (manufacturer and  

commercial assistance). <<

  

 Lynn Nelsen



Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.

  [quote][b]

info(at)flylightning.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 5:37 am Post subject: 51% Rule

To Group,



Arion aircraft will post a longer more detailed read in the next news

letter, but here are a few thoughts. First the "approved" list is not a

prerequisite for and EAB inspection or certificate, it only makes the DARs

job easier in determining who did the major portion of the work. With this

in mind keep very detailed builders logs of what you are doing why and how

and you will not have a problem. This was discussed in length at several

forums at EAA (forgive me if I do not call it Airventure) and this was the

general consensus. There is nothing wrong with the current rule however

determining major portion and how to enforce it has loosened. This is the

focus and it was made clear that those building aircraft at home weather on

the list or not, if showing proof thru builders logs or photos and notes

would not have a problem showing that they did the work and would not have a

problem receiving there AWCs. The FAA has extended the comment period for

the proposed policy, This is key, it is a policy and not a rule, they do not

even have to show it to us if they want, but they are. So email

miguel.vasconcelos(at)faa.gov with your comments. Please do not send screamers.

They will not listen to them and they made that very clear. When sending a

comment make it clear what you think is wrong and than propose how it could

be fixed or adjusted this is what they want to see. It is our privilege to

build these aircraft at home and it is our job to help the FAA understand

that and keep it alive.

Nick Otterback

Arion Aircraft, LLC



--

pete(at)flylightning.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:30 am Post subject: 51% Rule

The initial issue that caused the FAA to look at the Amateur built rule was

that some companies offering commercial assistance were way over the line.

There is a company that will complete a Glastar in two weeks.  That is a

3500 hour build and there is no way that a builder can have enough input to

even come to a 10% involvement let alone 51%.



However, instead of shutting down the commercial operations the FAA has

focused on kit manufacturers and is trying to control the amount of

prefabrication in the kit.  This approach will do nothing except encourage

more commercial assistance since there will be more to do to complete the

plane.  



The message delivered in the two forums at OSH on the subject is that the

kits are not the problem but commercial assistance is and that the FAA

should focus on commercial assistance.



I believe the FAA people in attendance took that message to heart.  As a

result of comments so far the FAA has extended the comment period until Sept

30.  It is very important to make your voice heard by the FAA.  I would

encourage everyone to comment on the proposal.  I will be posting my

comments to the FAA on this list and I would hope that others will post here

as well.



Please be specific in your comments.  Cite a paragraph from the proposal and

tell them if you agree or disagree and why.  The offer an alternative

solution or approach.



Look for some additional info from Nick soon.



Pete Krotje

Arion Aircraft, LLC



--

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Lightning-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum