A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 08:15:54 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote:

Places like this are what the FAA will really be looking at.

http://www.aircraftersllc.com/index.htm

Can I license my plane if someone else built it?

Before receiving an Airworthiness Certificate, every kitplane
builder is required to certify that he or she built "the major
portion" of the plane "for his or her own education and
recreation". At AirCrafters, we have carefully and correctly
interpreted this rule to mean that the builder must be primarily
involved in the process, but has no obligation to spend more than
50% of the time required. This leaves us in a good position to
help minimize the amount of time a builder must spend working on
the project. Our builders will always be able to certify to the
FAA, correctly and without doubt, that they built the plane.


How does the FAA view the fact that you build kitplanes?

The FAA visits our shop on a regular basis to issue Airworthiness
Certificates and just say "Hi". They tell us regularly that they
appreciate the fact that we are providing a service to the
experimental community, improving safety, and educating builders.
Please call Inspector Lee Mountz at the San Jose FSDO for more
information: 408-291-7681 X102.


How Do I Know If I've Built the Major Portion?

(It has nothing to do with the number of hours required to build!)
The following fabrication & assembly operations are listed on FAA
Form 8000-38 - these are the parts of the aircraft that FAA
Airworthiness Inspectors are concerned with when determining the
major portion status of your amateur-built experimental aircraft.
When you perform any of these operations, you earn "credit"
towards the major portion for having performed these operations
and toward establishing amateur-built status for your plane:

Fuselage Operations
Wing Operations
Flight Control Operations
Empennage Operations
Landing Gear Operations
Cockpit Operations
Propulsion Operations
Canard Operations
Main Rotor Operations
Tail Rotor Operations

Thus, in the case of a standard fixed-wing aircraft, being
involved in performing at least 60 of the applicable 119
Fabrication & Assembly Operations (51%) establishes your plane's
amateur-built status and your eligibility to apply for a
Repairman's Certificate.

Some of those 119 operations are easier than others. Some are less
critical to safety. Some require fewer special tools to complete
expertly. AirCrafters can pick the operations you do for your
particular kit that will guarantee adherence to the 51% rule, and
reduce the amount of time you spend, if that's your goal.

What if you bought the project from a previous owner who never
finished it?

It does not matter how many previous owners a project may have had
- as long as each owner intended to build the aircraft for their
own education or recreation - if you can document or show
documentation of the work that each did, it is as if YOU did the
work!

AirCrafters: Builder Education and Assistance in Custom Aircraft
Construction and Repair
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA 95076
Phone 831.722.9141 Fax 831.722.9142


So it would appear that all a wealthy pilot need do to get his kit
plane built for him, is to get some "amateur" builders to construct
various phases of the aircraft, and then sell the partially completed
kit to the next one to perform the next phase of construction, and
finally purchase the completed airplane, and produce the requisite
documentation to receive the Repairman's Certificate.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
WJRFlyBoy wrote in
:

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:53:20 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

I don't see any real change at all. they're going back to the
original
spirit of the rule.
They are significantly re-writing the rules of the market in favor
of the production aircrafters. or they are not.

Which is it?


They are not.

The amateur experimental was never written for any "market" it was
written so guys could build their own airplanes. That was what George
Bogardus and the EAA pioneers campaigned for. Not for someone to sell
airfix kits.

Like this, for instance.

http://machaircraft.com/default.aspx


I got no problem with anyone building something like this, but if
it's not amateur built, it;'s not amateur built. That was the
concession granted away back in the forties. It was never intended to
be a loophole to get around certification.


Bertie


Bertie

Places like this are what the FAA will really be looking at.

http://www.aircraftersllc.com/index.htm


Yeah, I would imagine so. I have had to get help with my project, but i
have so far avoided farming out anything. The way I look at it is, the
reason I'm building the airplane is to learn and that was the original
intent of the rule.

Bertie

Larry Dighera wrote:

So it would appear that all a wealthy pilot need do to get his kit
plane built for him, is to get some "amateur" builders to construct
various phases of the aircraft, and then sell the partially completed
kit to the next one to perform the next phase of construction, and
finally purchase the completed airplane, and produce the requisite
documentation to receive the Repairman's Certificate.

Hence the problem that the FAA is looking at correcting.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Larry Dighera wrote:

So it would appear that all a wealthy pilot need do to get his kit
plane built for him, is to get some "amateur" builders to construct
various phases of the aircraft, and then sell the partially completed
kit to the next one to perform the next phase of construction, and
finally purchase the completed airplane, and produce the requisite
documentation to receive the Repairman's Certificate.

Hence the problem that the FAA is looking at correcting.

I can't see how the changes the FAA is proposing to its form 8000-38
would correct that "problem". Specifically, the changes that the FAA is
considering to form 8000-38 don't seem to address the sequence that
Larry mentions at all.

See section 8 of FAA advisory AC 20-139 for details on multiple
builders. It also contains a copy of form 8000-38:

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/3209fec2139ccb3f862569af006ab9e9/$FILE/AC20-139.pdf

An example of an already filled out 8000-38:

http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/8000-38.htm

Jim Logajan wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Larry Dighera wrote:

So it would appear that all a wealthy pilot need do to get his kit
plane built for him, is to get some "amateur" builders to construct
various phases of the aircraft, and then sell the partially completed
kit to the next one to perform the next phase of construction, and
finally purchase the completed airplane, and produce the requisite
documentation to receive the Repairman's Certificate.
Hence the problem that the FAA is looking at correcting.

I can't see how the changes the FAA is proposing to its form 8000-38
would correct that "problem". Specifically, the changes that the FAA is
considering to form 8000-38 don't seem to address the sequence that
Larry mentions at all.

See section 8 of FAA advisory AC 20-139 for details on multiple
builders. It also contains a copy of form 8000-38:

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/3209fec2139ccb3f862569af006ab9e9/$FILE/AC20-139.pdf

An example of an already filled out 8000-38:

http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/8000-38.htm

Nobody said the FAA was going to properly correct the problem but that
is what the aim of the action is. The better way to correct the problem
would be to just have someone in OKC look through the magazines and
search the internet, find those operations that are in violation, refuse
the AW certificates of the next 3 aircraft that roll out of their hanger
and very publicly announce the action.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Nobody said the FAA was going to properly correct the problem but that
is what the aim of the action is. The better way to correct the
problem would be to just have someone in OKC look through the
magazines and search the internet, find those operations that are in
violation, refuse the AW certificates of the next 3 aircraft that roll
out of their hanger and very publicly announce the action.

Ouch. Unless I'm missing something, that appears to advocate arbitrary and
capricious use of authority.

If all these alleged rich scoundrels are already skirting the law, there is
no need to change them, right? Do you really think it is wise to promote
and encourage changes to the laws that suddenly makes a victimless activity
a criminal activity? What if it were an activity you engaged in and someone
else was trying to make it illegal?

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:19:42 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote:

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Nobody said the FAA was going to properly correct the problem but that
is what the aim of the action is. The better way to correct the
problem would be to just have someone in OKC look through the
magazines and search the internet, find those operations that are in
violation, refuse the AW certificates of the next 3 aircraft that roll
out of their hanger and very publicly announce the action.

Ouch. Unless I'm missing something, that appears to advocate arbitrary and
capricious use of authority.


It's just another of Mr. G's well considered proposals. :-(

If all these alleged rich scoundrels are already skirting the law, there is
no need to change them, right? Do you really think it is wise to promote
and encourage changes to the laws that suddenly makes a victimless activity
a criminal activity?

Hey it works for the religious right. :-)

What if it were an activity you engaged in and someone else was trying to
make it illegal?

I see this issue as a two fold _opportunity_. By virtue of its
existence, there is obviously an opportunity to legitimize this sort
of commerce, and the FAA is apparently in the mood to change its
dogma, err.. regulations. If the regulations could be changed from
prohibitive to enabling, that would be a win for all involved, IMO.
But those small minded homebuilders, who can only see the status of
their not insignificant accomplishments being eroded, impede the
potential for further FAA concessions to market forces and reduced
aircraft costs.

Jim Logajan wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Nobody said the FAA was going to properly correct the problem but that
is what the aim of the action is. The better way to correct the
problem would be to just have someone in OKC look through the
magazines and search the internet, find those operations that are in
violation, refuse the AW certificates of the next 3 aircraft that roll
out of their hanger and very publicly announce the action.

Ouch. Unless I'm missing something, that appears to advocate arbitrary and
capricious use of authority.

If all these alleged rich scoundrels are already skirting the law, there is
no need to change them, right? Do you really think it is wise to promote
and encourage changes to the laws that suddenly makes a victimless activity
a criminal activity? What if it were an activity you engaged in and someone
else was trying to make it illegal?

Excuse me? I specifically wrote that the better way was to enforce the
law as it is already written. And to pick out companies or individuals
for enforcement action who are advertising a violation of the law is
hardly arbitrary or capricious.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:19:42 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote:

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Nobody said the FAA was going to properly correct the problem but that
is what the aim of the action is. The better way to correct the
problem would be to just have someone in OKC look through the
magazines and search the internet, find those operations that are in
violation, refuse the AW certificates of the next 3 aircraft that roll
out of their hanger and very publicly announce the action.
Ouch. Unless I'm missing something, that appears to advocate arbitrary and
capricious use of authority.


It's just another of Mr. G's well considered proposals. :-(


Wow, enforce the law that is already on the books instead of creating a
new law. What a novel idea.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Nobody said the FAA was going to properly correct the problem but
that is what the aim of the action is. The better way to correct the
problem would be to just have someone in OKC look through the
magazines and search the internet, find those operations that are in
violation, refuse the AW certificates of the next 3 aircraft that
roll out of their hanger and very publicly announce the action.

Ouch. Unless I'm missing something, that appears to advocate
arbitrary and capricious use of authority.

If all these alleged rich scoundrels are already skirting the law,
there is no need to change them, right? Do you really think it is
wise to promote and encourage changes to the laws that suddenly makes
a victimless activity a criminal activity? What if it were an
activity you engaged in and someone else was trying to make it
illegal?

Excuse me? I specifically wrote that the better way was to enforce the
law as it is already written. And to pick out companies or individuals
for enforcement action who are advertising a violation of the law is
hardly arbitrary or capricious.

Okay - my misread. Sorry.