Printable View
The requirement of 51% amateur construction appears to ensure that a kit built aircraft is more unsafe, which doesn't make sense to me. Why is the FAA rabidly insistent on it? What possible logic is it based upon that a pro mechanic isn't better than Joe Schmo with his Walmart tool box? I have noodled it tenaciously & followed the $$$...Might it be the certificated aircraft manufacturers have lobbied it into some kind of rationale to limit competition?
p.s., my apologies to Mr Schmo
It's called "Experimental Amateur-Built" for a reason. It exists to give the average Schmo a chance to build an airplane his way, without bureaucratic hurdles.Quote:
Originally Posted by DixieDarter
It is recognized that there are safety drawbacks to this process. Hence the process is designed so that only the builder's life is at risk until the aircraft has proven itself.
There have been arguments for a long time that a new category is needed... something along the lines of "Experimental Custom-Built"; that would allow professionals to build kit aircraft for hire. The problem is justifying the program as being for the greater good, rather than just a loophole to please a few rich individuals.
There are "hired gun" builders now, operating beyond the limit of E-AB and subject to having the Airworthiness of their products pulled if the FAA finds out. Most of them probably WON'T support a "Experimental Custom-Built" category...because if they operate openly, they will incur a massive amount of liability. Right now, most "hired gun" airplanes get licensed with the customer's name as the builder. It's tough to sue the hired gun when his name doesn't appear in the legal records.
And even if the hired gun is listed as the builder, it's *still* legally "Amateur Built". No one listed as the builder of an amateur-built aircraft has ever lost a liability lawsuit. Only one or two have even been filed.
Ron Wanttaja
Ron beat me to it, so I'll add this- your premise that a "pro" mechanic is automatically a better builder than an "amateur" is demonstrably false. Anyone who has been around homebuilding will attest that there are some real dogs out there built by A&Ps, just as there are many Lindy trophies in the shops of first time amateur builders.
To add to what others have said above, certificating an aircraft under Part 23 is a massively complex and expensive process. Even the new ASTM standards are daunting. To allow people to professionally build and sell aircraft outside that framework means that larger manufacturers would doubtless try to use that process to do an end run around the certification requirements.
Of course there is a third legal way of getting the best of both worlds, and that's the builder assist and the Pro From Dover.
I used the builder's assist program Airdrome Airplanes has for their kits, which is really more of a hands-on ninja course on the how's and best practices of tube and gusset construction (within the WWI replica community it's affectionately known as "Robert Baslee's House of Pain"). The key is that it's a true builder's assist - the builder does the bulk of the work with Robert and Jim overseeing and lending a hand. I can't remember the name of the form, but both of their names are on mine as assistants in building.
I know a guy that did not trust his welding abilities and after putting everything into jigs hired a welder to throw the beads. This is also legal and well within the intent of the 51% rule; most of the fuselage work is actually in the setup to the welding, not the welding itself. Plus loads of guys hire out to get their planes painted.
In my case I'm also bringing in a Pro From Dover for my engine, fuel, and electrical installation stuff. I could suss it out myself, but why not take advantage of an expert in my EAA chapter who's willing to help out? His name will go on the doofy little form, too; but I'll be right there doing as much of the work as I can. Since he'll be working without pay he's an amateur as well, so all those tasks - even if he did it with me watching while drinking coffee - are 100% amateur built.
49% of a construction job done by professionals is a lot, when one thinks about it. And by professional I mean "farmed out." More than a few kits come with the fuselage frame completed, and that meets the rules no problem, as that's just the starting point on it.
While one could build their aircraft in a vaccuum by themselves, few do. Between build groups in person and on the Internet to technical counselors from the EAA there's a lot of opportunities to ensure one is doing things correctly. The thing I've found out about homebuilders is while we're full of confidence and optimists by nature we're also very cautious and prudent in making build decisions. There have been many delays in my own build because I hit a task or procedure that I was unsure of how to do properly (or at all) and had to seek out someone to either tell or show me how to do it.
It was this need and desire for homebuilders to have a network of other builders to be a resource for ensuring they were doing things properly (and come out with safe aircraft) that some guy named Paul gathered up some of his nutter builder friends in his basement for regular meetings back in 1953....
If you have not been in the aircraft building business, you should definitely learn about what to do or not to do at an EAA workshop on the type of aircraft considered before attempting to build a plane. There are many subtile factors that can cause short plane life made by people with insufficient backgrounds in aircraft technology. Having an A&P license may not mean too much if a metals oriented guy is asked to build a composite plane. And always consult with Tech Counselors before starting a project to assure you are going in the right direction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DixieDarter
The difference between the "pro" A&P and the amateur is the "pro" has proven they have received and demonstrated knowledge of all reasonable pertinent aviation knowledge (like a doctor they may choose to do shoddy work but at least they proved during testing they knew how to do it right). An A&P must continue to use reasonable industry standards even when working on amateur built or they can have their license revoked - this is an attempt to maintain a higher standard and protect the public to some higher degree.
A DIY builder has very little government oversight and there is quit a bit less public protection. An A&P (with reasonable limitations) is authorized to work on anything from a balloon to the space shuttle - the amateur is only expected to keep a minimum proficiency for one aircraft... the one they "built" (they did build it?).
The FAA does apportion some marketing wage control. For example a A&P may perform 100hr inspections on commercial aircraft which are identical to annual inspections - but the FAA only allows an IA to sign (hence, paid for) the annual inspection. This is to funnel some $funds$ towards the IA - it does not effect safety in any way. (This law is being considered for change)
"The FAA does apportion some marketing wage control. For example a A&P may perform 100hr inspections on commercial aircraft which are identical to annual inspections - but the FAA only allows an IA to sign (hence, paid for) the annual inspection. This is to funnel some $funds$ towards the IA - it does not effect safety in any way. (This law is being considered for change)[/QUOTE]
You know not of what you speak, Mr Zumwalt. I have taken many FAA tests, besides pilot tests through the ATP, the Flight Engineer and A&P tests. The Inspection Authorization tests were the absolute hardest of them all. There are 3 of them and you must pass one before you are allowed to take the second and likewise the third portion. Its showing that you can determine the legality of a repair or alteration and that the aircraft is airworthy by meeting its type certificate or properly altered state and is in a condition for safe operation, whereas the 100 hour inspection determines that the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation. Its true, Part 43, Appendix D lists the required inspections that must be done for the 100 and annual inspections and they are identical, but in addition, the I.A. must also determine if any repairs or alterations are done in accordance with the pertinent regulations. In addition, an I.A. is required to have available all of the A.D.'s and regulations plus he/she must either do at least 4 annual inspections or 8 major repair or alteration approvals a year or attend 8 hours of education yearly to renew his I.A. certificate, which the FAA, in their wisdom says can only be done during the month of March each year. Personally, I wish they would do away with annual inspections on the older small 2 to 4 place aircraft and let A&P's do a condition inspection on them much like is allowed for homebuilts. In fact, it wouldn't hurt my feelngs at all if owners were able to opt to put their aircraft in an experimental category much like amateur builts so the owner could work on it legally. I would give up my I.A. in a New York second if they did, because keeping it is a pain in the rear, besides that, I don't charge for annuals.
EAA 22313 Lfetime. Chapter 405 Tech Counselor.
Quote:
...
This is required for a 100hr too. Both require the same determination and compliance to the type design, TCDS, equipment list, placarding, AD's, discrepancy list, and airworthiness (return to service), including 337's (FAR 91.409) - I find it hard for an IA not to know this.Quote:
but in addition, the I.A. must also determine if any repairs or alterations...is required to have available all of the A.D.'s and regulations plus
A test question on the IA test is "... what is the difference between a 100hr and annual inspection?" the answer is "Period of time".
If a part 135 aircraft is flown under 100hrs, the annual counts as the first 100hr and another annual will be needed the next year.
If an aircraft is flown 101 hrs during a year, it will require an annual then a 100hr and then another annual for the next year - all are exactly the same inspection procedure but are given a different name to correspond to their purpose.
I was a Part 135 maintenance director for Alaska bush operations and shift supervisor for maintenance at Continental - part 121 (now United).
The proposal before the FAA right now is to allow A&P's to perform annuals on private aircraft. The A&P is is already qualified to do 100hr (and get paid for it) on part 135 which is the same as an annual inspection! Currently, the FAA has decided an A&P may be paid for a 100hr (higher risk to the public ) but not an annual on a private plane (lower risk to public), even though the work is exactly the same! It's like telling a doctor they can do brain surgery but not give somebody an aspirin.
Okay Dixie, add this to your noodling: what satisfaction would be involved in NOT building your own homebuilt? How much knowledge would you gain by having someone else do it? How many new skills would you develop? What knowledge could you contribute to the homebuilt community based upon your building experience? How many new friends would you make, people you honestly admire and respect, from NOT building your own aircraft? None, none, none, none, none (it sounds like I'm in a convent!)! All the above questions are based upon building very safe aircraft in the comfort and convenience of your own living room, if you so wish (and your spouse is as enthusiastic as you are)--aircraft that are: inspected by others and well documented throughout the construction process, registered with the FAA, inspected by the FAA or a DAR, and flown as an Experimental-Amateur Built.
Where is the paradox? Homebuilt aircraft aren't even on GAMA's radar, so there's no "follow-the-money" conspiracy here. 51% is the compromise the FAA agreed to when all these kits started coming out, providing the builder with aircraft quality materials, hardware, and sub-assemblies. Your noodle must agree that by building the difficult stuff for the builder in a process controlled facility is safer than Joe Schmo's trying to figure it our for the first time in his garage. Would you prefer an airplane made from Home Despot materials, or one made from aircraft quality stuff? Would Joe Schmo be able to properly grade spruce, if he was even able to find some, at his local lumber yard? That's how it used to be done before the Irwin's started Aircraft Spruce & Specialty. I've built a lot of ribs from ripped porch boards, and laminated a few spars from them, too. I've seen a few Pietenpols with spars made from lumber yard Douglas fir that fly just fine, despite the extra weight.
The goomers who built all these birds learned a lot, earned a lot of friendships, and are now regular contributors to our tiny community. They actively promote safe practices--much more than the goomers who run, what the FAA refers to, in-house, as chop-shops, assembling kits for those with more money than brains, discipline, tenacity, and definitely honesty, as they willingly commit fraud when signing the FAA affidavit. The chop-shops are for-profit, and many cut corners, so they don't always build aircraft that are safer than those that Joe Schmo would build in his basement.
If you are convinced that you will always lack the ability to build a safe airplane: buy one that was made in a factory and maintained by certificated mechanics, or at least had her parts replaced by AMT's. There are plenty of light planes out there that will cost you less than $20K to buy. Then go fly her, and please use your noodle to fly her safely.