Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - factory built RVs (wasRe: unbelievable!!!)

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

factory built RVs (wasRe: unbelievable!!!)

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:34 am Post subject: factory built RVs (wasRe: unbelievable!!!)

OK, here's my 2 pennies.  This subject is much like religion and 

politics.  We're only going to get opinions, not facts.



The FAA has blessed 'builder assistance centers', where a customer can 

go and get 'expert' guidance and training ...... and a whole lot of 

help.  Lets face it, after you've drilled, deburred, and set 100 rivets 

.... you've ceased learning and are now in repetitive mode.



Does it matter if you had contracted help on the rest of the 25,000 

rivets???



Does it matter if you've done some wiring, but contracted to have the 

panel done???



Does it matter if you just bought your engine instead of building one up 

yourself????



Does it matter if you bought your strobes instead of building them 

yourself???



I could go on, but I think the answer is no, it doesn't matter.



The sticking point seems to be the builders Repairmans Certificate.  I 

think that if the 'absent builder' can supply definitive data that the 

FAA will accept, then the problem doesn't reside with us, but with the FAA.



The builder that participates in a Builder Assistance Center has to 

gather enough knowledge and participation, and pictures etc. to satisfy 

the FAA guy on the other side of the counter no matter the depth of his 

involvement.



As to the point that a 'builder' that doesn't have the experience to 

properly do his conditional inspection is gonna crash and burn .... I 

know a lot of guys that built their own airplane and do a really lousy 

job of maintenenace ..... and inspecting ..... but they're still here to 

cause amazement in their fellow aviators.

Linn

do not archive

apilot2(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:34 am Post subject: factory built RVs (wasRe: unbelievable!!!)

I think you are missing another ingredient to the 51% rule. We are

permitted to build for our education and entertainment. For any other

purpose, such as making money, a Type certificate and production

certificate are needed. I could care less about the Repairman

certificate, I already hold an A&P/IA certificate. Just because I'm

busy with other things, I can't hire someone to build an RV-10 for me

and meet the 51% rule. You still have to show that 51% of the tasks

were done under the Amateur, home-built intent. I also don't believe

that you learn all there is to know about riveting after 100

rivets(unless they were 100 different kinds of rivets). I'm sure there

are skills you learn elsewhere in the aircraft than just what you got

out of doing the tail. I'd bet those rivets done later in the project

are also much more workman-like than your first 20-50.



On 2/13/07, linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 OK, here's my 2 pennies.  This subject is much like religion and

 politics.  We're only going to get opinions, not facts.



 The FAA has blessed 'builder assistance centers', where a customer can

 go and get 'expert' guidance and training ...... and a whole lot of

 help.  Lets face it, after you've drilled, deburred, and set 100 rivets

 ..... you've ceased learning and are now in repetitive mode.



 Does it matter if you had contracted help on the rest of the 25,000

 rivets???



 Does it matter if you've done some wiring, but contracted to have the

 panel done???



 Does it matter if you just bought your engine instead of building one up

 yourself????



 Does it matter if you bought your strobes instead of building them

 yourself???



 I could go on, but I think the answer is no, it doesn't matter.



 The sticking point seems to be the builders Repairmans Certificate.  I

 think that if the 'absent builder' can supply definitive data that the

 FAA will accept, then the problem doesn't reside with us, but with the FAA.



 The builder that participates in a Builder Assistance Center has to

 gather enough knowledge and participation, and pictures etc. to satisfy

 the FAA guy on the other side of the counter no matter the depth of his

 involvement.



 As to the point that a 'builder' that doesn't have the experience to

 properly do his conditional inspection is gonna crash and burn .... I

 know a lot of guys that built their own airplane and do a really lousy

 job of maintenenace ..... and inspecting ..... but they're still here to

 cause amazement in their fellow aviators.

 Linn

 do not archive

rv10builder(at)verizon.ne
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:48 am Post subject: factory built RVs (wasRe: unbelievable!!!)

100 rivets did nothing for me. I took the Sportair class with Dan Checkoway. 

Dan was great in giving tips and guidance to improve my process and 

technique, much like builder assists do, but that is a foundation.. I assure 

you my technique needs to vary depending on where I am working on the plane, 

there is a reason for different bucking bars, etc.. no, 100 rivets does 

nothing for the builder, I don't even think 1000 does why? the process of 

setting everything together in the plane is not repitition if it was there 

would be no benefit to this forum. There are those almost done asking for 

guidance at certain points.

I think the issue here is forgeting the purpose of building a plane. You 

want 100 rivets? take a sportair class get your quota and buy a used plane, 

why ruin it for everyone else?



Do not archive

---

pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 12:48 pm Post subject: factory built RVs (wasRe: unbelievable!!!)

No argument, Kelly.  However, if you remove the Repairmans Certificate 

from the equation, then there is little difference from a group of guys 

(we'll use 10 good friends ..... at the start) building the airplane in 

ones garage and selling the plane ..... and a group of 'employees' 

(could be the same 10 friends) at a Builder Assistance Center building 

an airplane and then selling it.

The FAA has already come down on one company (name and airplane escapes 

me right now) that were building to order.  Definitely a no-no.  TC and 

PC required.  The difference is that a builder assistance center 

requires your presence ...... and you take home an unfinished 

kit/part/subassembly .... whatever.

My take on the 51% rule is that it's changed over the years.  But it's 

still rather neulous, and loosely defined.  51% of the tasks MIGHT just 

boil down to the basics.  Aluminum cutting, aluminum forming, riveting 

(which might contain the drilling and deburring ops), hardware, wiring, 

and painting.

When I built my Pitts, there was not such thing as a quick-build kit.  

And now there's no pre-cover or pre-closeout inspections.

As for the 100 rivets .... I just picked out a number.  But you're right 

.... the last 100 sure look a lot better than the first 100 ..... but 

you haven't learned anything more except finesse .... which does come 

from practice.

My whole point is that I'd rather have somebody 'get away' with building 

a plane for income (and exploit the system) than have the FAA become the 

'builder police'.

Linn

do not archive

Kelly McMullen wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 I think you are missing another ingredient to the 51% rule. We are

 permitted to build for our education and entertainment. For any other

 purpose, such as making money, a Type certificate and production

 certificate are needed. I could care less about the Repairman

 certificate, I already hold an A&P/IA certificate. Just because I'm

 busy with other things, I can't hire someone to build an RV-10 for me

 and meet the 51% rule. You still have to show that 51% of the tasks

 were done under the Amateur, home-built intent. I also don't believe

 that you learn all there is to know about riveting after 100

 rivets(unless they were 100 different kinds of rivets). I'm sure there

 are skills you learn elsewhere in the aircraft than just what you got

 out of doing the tail. I'd bet those rivets done later in the project

 are also much more workman-like than your first 20-50.

 On 2/13/07, linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net> wrote:

> 

> <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net>

>

> OK, here's my 2 pennies.  This subject is much like religion and

> politics.  We're only going to get opinions, not facts.

>

> The FAA has blessed 'builder assistance centers', where a customer can

> go and get 'expert' guidance and training ...... and a whole lot of

> help.  Lets face it, after you've drilled, deburred, and set 100 rivets

> ..... you've ceased learning and are now in repetitive mode.

>

> Does it matter if you had contracted help on the rest of the 25,000

> rivets???

>

> Does it matter if you've done some wiring, but contracted to have the

> panel done???

>

> Does it matter if you just bought your engine instead of building one up

> yourself????

>

> Does it matter if you bought your strobes instead of building them

> yourself???

>

> I could go on, but I think the answer is no, it doesn't matter.

>

> The sticking point seems to be the builders Repairmans Certificate.  I

> think that if the 'absent builder' can supply definitive data that the

> FAA will accept, then the problem doesn't reside with us, but with 

> the FAA.

>

> The builder that participates in a Builder Assistance Center has to

> gather enough knowledge and participation, and pictures etc. to satisfy

> the FAA guy on the other side of the counter no matter the depth of his

> involvement.

>

> As to the point that a 'builder' that doesn't have the experience to

> properly do his conditional inspection is gonna crash and burn .... I

> know a lot of guys that built their own airplane and do a really lousy

> job of maintenenace ..... and inspecting ..... but they're still here to

> cause amazement in their fellow aviators.

> Linn

> do not archive

jesse(at)saintaviation.co
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:07 pm Post subject: factory built RVs (wasRe: unbelievable!!!)

Enter the "Two Weeks to Taxi" program.



Do not archive.



Jesse Saint

Saint Aviation, Inc.

jesse(at)saintaviation.com

www.saintaviation.com

Cell: 352-427-0285

Fax: 815-377-3694



--

deej(at)deej.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:10 pm Post subject: factory built RVs (wasRe: unbelievable!!!)

Jesse Saint wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 Enter the "Two Weeks to Taxi" program.


	


	...which falls under the "FAA blessed 'builder assistance centers'".

The FAA has physically inspected the operation at the Glasair Aviation

facility and approved the TWT program.



	I've personally talked to a Sportsman builder that lives nearby that

went through the program.  It is a VERY busy program, but there is no

question in his mind (or in mine after talking to him) that the builder

does more than 51% of the operations required by the FAA, and it is well

documented so there should not be any problem obtaining the repairman

certificate.



	I was seriously considering the TWT program at one time, and did a lot

of personal research on it.  There may be some "questionable" builder

assist centers out there, but I don't think the TWT program is one of them.



-Dj

jesse(at)saintaviation.co
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:20 pm Post subject: factory built RVs (wasRe: unbelievable!!!)

My point exactly.  Thanks.  I think it's a great program and a fantastic

example of the best of both worlds.  Yes, the builder builds enough to

safely be the builder/maintainer of the airplane.  Not only this, but he is

taught things in the program that he might not be taught elsewhere that will

benefit him in maintenance.  This opens the world of experimental aviation

to more people than those who have the 2,000 hours to put into a build

project, and it makes them much safer, IMHO, than many of the Cessna drivers

out there who don't know a bolt from a rivet or a cylinder from a sump.  For

those who want to know, that is exactly what Saint Aviation is doing with

the -10.  We are working on the blessing part now.



Do not archive.



Jesse Saint

Saint Aviation, Inc.

jesse(at)saintaviation.com

www.saintaviation.com

Cell: 352-427-0285

Fax: 815-377-3694



--

rvbuilder(at)sausen.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 7:08 am Post subject: factory built RVs (wasRe: unbelievable!!!)

That is good news.  If you have time, let us know when you have

signoff by the feds and how the process went.  I've said it before, I at

least respect the intentions that you have in doing this as part of your

mission.  But turnkey is turnkey regardless of intentions.  It is very

good to hear you are working with the feds.



Michael



--

james.k.hovis(at)gmail.co
Guest

Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 9:57 am Post subject: factory built RVs (wasRe: unbelievable!!!)

Let me say up front, I think the 51% rule is good and needs to

continue as is so those of us who WANT to build a good airplane can

continue to do so. Perhaps the key to all this is what reasonable

level of Federal oversight can be tolerated without damaging the

industry, but keeping the bad players from totally ruining it as

stated by others (insurance rates, etc.). Most aircraft experimenters

come into the process with an idea (I hope) of what is expected and a

willingness to get their hands dirty. By putting in the sweat equity,

they deserve the benefits of ownership of their creations such as a

fine machine no spam-can company has been willing to take the time and

money to develop for the last several years and reduced future

maintenance costs. However, I think there is a segment of the

population out there that looks at the offerings in the experimental /

kitplane market and just drool, but they have NO desire or time to put

in the sweat equity needed to get the benefits. That's where the shady

operations are getting customers and where the FAA and the 51%

committee should focus its efforts.



 The FAA is somewhat in a quandary, it has a mandate to promote

aviation while at the same time protect the safety of the general

public. Sometimes those two mandates conflict with each other. I think

we can all agree we don't want to see crapily built aircraft out

there, but keeping those airplanes out of the air may result in

over-regulation that'll kill off a significant portion of the

industry. Perhaps a re-shuffling of the regulations might come out

that keeps the 51% rule intact for the true builder working for his

own education and recreation with the goal of long-term ownership of

his creation. Also, let's look at "builder assist". If the guy who

bought the kit is actually getting his hands dirty, but having someone

looking over the shoulder and helping with rivet bucking etc., he

probably should qualify for an "Experimental –Amateur-Built"

airworthiness certificate and then a repairman's cert after the

project is done. This seems to me is what Jesse's working on and

getting the Feds to review. The "pros" doing the help is what maybe

the Feds need to review, maybe something similar to a repair station

certification.



What needs to be addressed is what I mentioned in the first paragraph,

that segment of the market who wants to circumvent the 51% rule. Here

I suggest a new category for airworthiness that will satisfy the

market and help the FAA in performing its two prime mandates. Why

can't rules be set-up that would allow a kitplane owner "Joe

Sixbanger" to buy a kit from someone like Van's, drop-ship it to,

let's say "Bud's Airplane Shop", and "Bud's" crew of aviation

professionals build the ship for a fee and get it ready for DAR review

and delivery to "Joe"? This would qualify for that new category –

"Experimental – Commercial Built". And in order to qualify for

"Commercial Build" cert., the shop would have to comply with a set of

regulations that maybe falls somewhere in between Production Cert

under part 21 and a repair station. But, "Joe" in no way qualifies for

a repairman's cert., the airplane would need inspection just like any

TC ship. In order to eliminate the danger behind something like the

subject aircraft that started this thread, when the DAR reviews the

build, he also reviews any deviations from the published kit specs

supplied by the original designer and will only sign off if "Bud's"

shows that there is legitimate engineering justification behind the

modifications. This proposal doesn't require any change nor has any

affect on the real home-builder.



I'm afraid trying to eliminate the "hired-guns", will end up hurting

the entire homebuilt aviation industry. The market is there for the

hired-gun, so maybe we should embrace it. Afterall, more good quality

kitplanes flying will only help the insurance pool too.



Kevin Hovis.

RV-10 in the future….

On 2/14/07, RV Builder (Michael Sausen) <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net> wrote:

[quote] 

 <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net>



   That is good news.  If you have time, let us know when you have

 signoff by the feds and how the process went.  I've said it before, I at

 least respect the intentions that you have in doing this as part of your

 mission.  But turnkey is turnkey regardless of intentions.  It is very

 good to hear you are working with the feds.



 Michael



 --

Deems Davis

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 925

Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:32 am Post subject: factory built RVs (wasRe: unbelievable!!!)

I think that we're making this too complicated, it's clear to me what 

the purpose and intent if the 51% rule is.

I believe it to be a generous rule. i.e. it could have been 100% or 75% 

or ?

It's also clear to me that the 3 week to taxi programs notwithstanding 

the FAA's review/tacit approval go way beyond the purpose and intent of 

the 51% rule. there is NO WAY that in 504 hours (3 sleepless weeks) you 

can build and debug a safe airplane.

Judging what is 51% is clearly discretionary. IMO that should be left up 

to the DAR.

If there is a dispute it could be appealed, just like a medical review 

issue.

Seems to me we have the regulations we just need to enable an 

enforcement of them.



IF someone believes that there is a need for an additional Category of  

certificating, let them petition for it separately similar to the LSA.

Don't screw up the existing Experimental class  by bastardizing it to 

accommodate a segment of the market that wants to fit in between the 

price/performance of fully certified aircraft and run under the guise of 

being Experimental. These people have more time than money. Let them 

spend their money wisely and let the insurance underwriters price the 

risk accordingly as the history develops.



Deems Davis # 406

Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! )

http://deemsrv10.com/

AV8ORJWC

Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 1149
Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"

Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 5:26 pm Post subject: factory built RVs (wasRe: unbelievable!!!)

Kevin, an excellent assessment but one where you presented a conflict.

"Let's have no more new restrictive regulations; Let's create some new

regulations for hired guns".  For anyone who has not already deleted the

read on this topic, you will need to understand exactly what led to the

Federal order of review on the 51% rule.  Regulations by their nature

are RESTRICTIVE.  They neither encourage nor promote General Aviation

except for the possible exception of increasing operational safety.



A Florida gun slinger was jealous of Rick Schramech (of Nevada)

inventing a computer conceived, Lancair IV on steroids (The Epic), which

could carry 6 POB and use a recycled and mothballed PT-6 powerplant from

the former Beech Starship.  Rick successfully obtained Oregon Lottery

dollars, similar to the same source of dollars that VAN used to move

from Forest Grove, OR to Aurora, OR and expand his operations for all of

us.  Dr. Carl Cadwell, a Pacific NW builder and operator of a Lancair

IVP, plucked down the money (more than a million)and brought a team of

friends over to build the dreamship in the Epic LT facility in Bend, OR.

They thoroughly documented that it was an OBAM project and fully

compliant with the existing 51% rule.  The jealous Kit Manufacturer in

Florida could see where this was going - he called attorneys, he called

politicians, he called the EAA and the FAA.



Techniques have improved, fast build kits have become a way of

completion. This is no longer a fabric and wood industry or a steel tube

and simple VFR putter.  The list of 51% tasks and those things not

considered became Obsolete. Wannabe Builders with money have motivation

to fly. Builders with experience and desire for money want to build for

profit.  No it is not for their education, enjoyment or flying.

Electronic Gee Whiz and composite construction along with feature

comforts have left Spam Can manufacturers scrambling.



The regulations exist today.  Produce more than one, get a Production

Certificate.  Make the second, third and beyond, get a TC. Subject it to

production testing, spend millions, invest years, hope people will spend

the exorbitant inflated cost - then wait for the market to respond. And

oh how it does.  The problem has become so perverse that Schrameck has

built a major production facility in Canada, a country whose lawyers

have not yet totally distorted this pursuit. The Carnahan lawsuit

shocked manufacturers.  The Lycoming crankcase lawsuit has not helped.



In the US of A, you can operate under the radar screen and twist the

intent all you want.  Get attention, even with one single builder, Dr.

Cadwell and the rest is where we are going next week and next month.

IMHO, I don't think we need more or new regs.  I think as long as the

dynamic for gain is present we need to tighten the ability of DARs to

grant airworthiness certificates to the violators.  Ethics, honesty and

intent get distorted due to the large sums a gunslinger can make.



I think the OBAM rules should be for single individuals and can identify

those who are making multiple copies for gain.  Now at this juncture in

time it is the manufacturers of kits who are the majority on the

committee who will determine Chapter 2 - stay tuned.



Oh by the way.  Dr. Cadwell is selling his pristine Lancair IVP, won his

lawsuit, got his Epic approved under OBAM and is thrilled with the rules

that allow him to "Live his Dream". Live your's too, build it yourself.



John Cox



--

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-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 can download files in this forum