 |
Matronics Email Lists Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Tim(at)MyRV10.com Guest
|
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 8:55 am Post subject: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
|
|
Well, one catch is that if you're building it for money, then
it no longer is "amateur" built experimental. Here's
Webster's definition: (or one of them)
2 (a): participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or
field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs <a professional
golfer>
2 (c) : engaged in by persons receiving financial return
<professional football>
It would seem to me that one doesn't even need to build more
than one aircraft to fit into this category, if the intention
is the financial gain.
As a side note, and this is more related to the forced landing
topic than this one, so please don't think I'm implying that
in that case it was not owned/flown/built by the kit builder,
I did hear from someone (so it's just rumor) that the forced
landing incident involved an RV-10 that was being flown outside
of it's flyoff area, and happened during the flyoff period.
It would just be nice to see all of the rules being followed
not only for the sake of the people who want to comply
and enjoy the hobby, but for the sake of our insurance.
In fact, much of the discussion about the poor workmanship
we talked about in the evenings was canted towards worry
about how it would affect our insurance rates and abilities...
seeing as though with only 41 listed flying right now, and
already having one damaged plane, it won't take long to
gather a track record....especially if there are quality
of work issues, and related to mass production.
To some people, these issues mean nothing. To others, they
are critical.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:
[quote]
We are kind of side stepping the real problem. It's not that they are
not building 51%, it's how do you prove that they are not doing it for
their own education or enjoyment?
Yes, it's painfully clear that some of the guys like John Nys and
Jessie are doing it at least partially for the financial aspects of
resale. The difference is at least Jessie is teaching the people
working on it a skill so I think it still meets the intent of the rule.
I would like to see them registered out of the US though but that's my
opinion. John is a little different story as he is clearly motivated by
profit. But there is nothing in that fact that directly violated the
rule as long as he is doing it primarily for his education or enjoyment.
So how do you prove it?
Many people on these lists are repeat offenders and I can guaranty
that most of them have sold their original aircraft. I myself may build
more aircraft after the -10 because I enjoy the building process. I'm
certainly not going to keep more than one aircraft but does that mean I
am violating the rule? I don't think so because I am doing it for
education and enjoyment and not profit. Will I make a profit? I hope so
as I certainly don't want to loose money and it would be nice to get
something for my time.
Sorry Jessie, not trying to pick on you but the only immediate
examples I know of are you and John Nys. Feel free to correct me
anywhere above.
Now to Van being on this committee. Keep in mind that Van runs a
business and I seriously doubt he is on the committee to help curb this
activity but rather to find a compromise that won't kill his business.
After all Van's Aircraft knows exactly how many kit's they are shipping
to the repeat offenders. I did see Van over by Jessie's and the other
-10's parked there making notes. What does that mean? Got me, he might
have just been a proud papa.
I'm not trying to raise any backsides but the outcome of a new rule
interpretation won't be good for any of us. The FAA just has no good
way to set a precedent without killing a good number of us that really
are not financially motivated. We saw this last year with the EpicLT.
The FAA tried to interpret the rule to the disadvantage of the builder
and lost. And in that case the builder was doing it for himself and not
for immediate resale. We need to be careful.
I have nothing against someone mass producing kitplanes, just do it
out of the country so it doesn't screw up the already fragile laws for
the other 99.5% of us.
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 Fuselage
--
| - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
james.k.hovis(at)gmail.co Guest
|
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:10 am Post subject: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
|
|
Michael,
I agree, but if there is going to be a change in the rules then maybe a further refinement such as what I allude to could be a good compromise and not bring down some draconian rule that hurts guys building now and those of us who wish to start in the near future. Something like 80 - 90% of the test flight time has to be done by the builder/owner (or one of them in case of a partnership). This still allows a poeriod when you hire a free-lance pilot for initial tests if you aren't comfortable doing it. Therefore once the test period is done, the airplane is an "airplane" in every sense. Actually flying your creation is a sure sign to me that you are doing the effort to build for your personal education and enjoyment.
I hope the committee looking at this will agree on a solution that has the least impact to homebuilding. I think, and as was noted by others in this discussion, that the current rules can be applied to cure this problem. I'm just afraid some rule will come down like homebuilders can no longer sell completed airplanes. If that were to happen, then when the builder is no longer interested or able to fly his bird or has passed away, this large investment and asset now becomes nothing more than scrap metal with about that much value. I'd hope a less onerous solution will come about.
As a side line, what's your opinion of this scenario: A guy building an RV that has his DAR inspection scheduled for a few days later suddenly dies, let's call him Joe Deadguy. Joe's wife sells the completed and ready to fly airplane to Jerry Builder for a song to get it out of the hanger at the house in the airpark Joe and wife lived in and now wife wants to sell. Luckily, Joe kept a very detailed builder's log. Now, can Jerry complete the DAR inspection and claim he is the builder since Joe is now dead and Jerry has the bill of sale and the builder's log from Joe's wife?
JKH
On 7/31/06, RV Builder (Michael Sausen) <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net (rvbuilder(at)sausen.net)> wrote: Quote: | James,
Nothing in the rule says it has to be the builder to fly off the hours, To the contrary lot's of people hire a "test pilot" to fly off several of the hours. Another misnomer is that only one person can be in the aircraft during flyoff but it is actually "required crew".
Michael
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com) [mailto: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com)] On Behalf Of James K Hovis
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 8:23 AM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)
Subject: Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today
I have to ask a question about the "build to order" aircraft: Who's flying off the 25 hrs? I think it boils down to who it is applying for the initial airworthiness certificate, is it the "owner"-the guy who ordered the "build to order" or is it the builder? As it is now, my interpretation of the 51% rule leads me to believe the owner-builder has to be the one who makes the original application for the airworthiness cert and he/she should be the one who flies off the test period hours. And the initial registration named owner should match to builder-owner on the airworthiness cert. I think looking at these things would probably identify those who are violating the 51% rule fairly quickly, if a "complete" aircraft is sold before the test period is over raises a real red flag to me. But, what's to limit some guy from building an airplane, flying off the test period quickly, and then selling the airplane? Does this "qualify" as a "build to order" shop? I think the sale of complete RV-10's especially makes it rather lucrative to cheat the system. Yes, I know I asked about value before, but my motive wasn't for a quick sale, but to see if future market would support re-couping my investment should I decide to build/buy something else a few years down the road.
The Feds can pretty well see who it is that's "building to order". As quoted somewhere in this thread someone was saying he could turn around an airplane in three months. That's a major red flag the Feds should be looking for. A raid on that person's operation may be in order. I think turning over four or more kit airplanes a year would definitely qualify a person as a "professional" aircraft builder requiring full conformity to Part 23 and Part 21. Perhaps that's the solution, only one or two airworthiness certs can be issued to any one individual unless they hold or are also applying for a production cert under Part 21 within a year.
As Tim points out, keeping a good builder's log and when asked by your DAR is your BEST (and probably ONLY) proof that YOU did the work to put your dream together. Those yayhoos paying some guy to build their airplane and then telling the Feds they built them is only hurting the rest of us who want to do it right. What I'm afraid of is the typical knee-jerk reaction the Feds typically have and we'll end up with a draconian rule that totally hurts the aviation homebuilder/experimenter.
James K. Hovis
On 7/31/06, Wayne Edgerton <wayne.e(at)grandecom.net (wayne.e(at)grandecom.net)> wrote: Quote: | One way that the FAA might possible be able to curb the "build to sell" crowd would be to put a time line on when a newly built plane could be sold or owners changed. As an example lets say the plane couldn't be sold to a new owner until 6 or 12 months after the hours are flown off or until it has so many hours on it like 300 hours. Then allow a waiver to this in the case of certain conditions such as death of the builder or maybe hell freezing over, something along those lines.
Wayne Edgerton #40336
Engine work
do not archive
|
|
| - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
james.k.hovis(at)gmail.co Guest
|
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:15 am Post subject: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
|
|
Pascal,
Interesting. How much of the 51% of aircraft assembly under the rules can a builder farm-out? You are basically farming out a portion of the assembly to the kit company by buying a quick build kit. But, in the case of Van's, there's an agreement between the kit company and the FAA that the 51% rule isn't violated by the QB kits. But what's used as a "standard"? Is the bending of metal count towards the total time too?
JKH
On 7/31/06, Pascal <pascalreid(at)verizon.net (pascalreid(at)verizon.net)> wrote: [quote]
This "build to order" example has to have a helper IMHO. Is his "helper" listed as a co-builder?
Not if the "builder" hires a few guys from the local Home depot parking lot, or maybe even the super QB from the Phillipines. I figure you buy all 4 kits at once and have everyone work on the kits at the same time it will be 4 times faster and can be done rather quickly.
---
| - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
rvbuilder(at)sausen.net Guest
|
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:29 am Post subject: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
|
|
Ah yes, FSDO interpretation. Listen to them as they hold the ruler to slap your knuckles. Realistically, the RV's never need more than a crew of one but my point was the rules don't say it can be only one.
Michael
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rene Felker
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 11:47 AM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: -10's for sale in quantity, available today
The local FSDO made it very clear to me that my airplane has a required crew of 1 and only 1 and to not try and use the required crew excuse. He warned not to get caught trying it…..
Rene' Felker
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder (Michael Sausen)
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 10:24 AM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: -10's for sale in quantity, available today
James,
Nothing in the rule says it has to be the builder to fly off the hours, To the contrary lot's of people hire a "test pilot" to fly off several of the hours. Another misnomer is that only one person can be in the aircraft during flyoff but it is actually "required crew".
Michael
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James K Hovis
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 8:23 AM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today
I have to ask a question about the "build to order" aircraft: Who's flying off the 25 hrs? I think it boils down to who it is applying for the initial airworthiness certificate, is it the "owner"-the guy who ordered the "build to order" or is it the builder? As it is now, my interpretation of the 51% rule leads me to believe the owner-builder has to be the one who makes the original application for the airworthiness cert and he/she should be the one who flies off the test period hours. And the initial registration named owner should match to builder-owner on the airworthiness cert. I think looking at these things would probably identify those who are violating the 51% rule fairly quickly, if a "complete" aircraft is sold before the test period is over raises a real red flag to me. But, what's to limit some guy from building an airplane, flying off the test period quickly, and then selling the airplane? Does this "qualify" as a "build to order" shop? I think the sale of complete RV-10's especially makes it rather lucrative to cheat the system. Yes, I know I asked about value before, but my motive wasn't for a quick sale, but to see if future market would support re-couping my investment should I decide to build/buy something else a few years down the road.
The Feds can pretty well see who it is that's "building to order". As quoted somewhere in this thread someone was saying he could turn around an airplane in three months. That's a major red flag the Feds should be looking for. A raid on that person's operation may be in order. I think turning over four or more kit airplanes a year would definitely qualify a person as a "professional" aircraft builder requiring full conformity to Part 23 and Part 21. Perhaps that's the solution, only one or two airworthiness certs can be issued to any one individual unless they hold or are also applying for a production cert under Part 21 within a year.
As Tim points out, keeping a good builder's log and when asked by your DAR is your BEST (and probably ONLY) proof that YOU did the work to put your dream together. Those yayhoos paying some guy to build their airplane and then telling the Feds they built them is only hurting the rest of us who want to do it right. What I'm afraid of is the typical knee-jerk reaction the Feds typically have and we'll end up with a draconian rule that totally hurts the aviation homebuilder/experimenter.
James K. Hovis
On 7/31/06, Wayne Edgerton <wayne.e(at)grandecom.net (wayne.e(at)grandecom.net)> wrote:
One way that the FAA might possible be able to curb the "build to sell" crowd would be to put a time line on when a newly built plane could be sold or owners changed. As an example lets say the plane couldn't be sold to a new owner until 6 or 12 months after the hours are flown off or until it has so many hours on it like 300 hours. Then allow a waiver to this in the case of certain conditions such as death of the builder or maybe hell freezing over, something along those lines.
Wayne Edgerton #40336
Engine work
do not archive
| - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
james.k.hovis(at)gmail.co Guest
|
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:29 am Post subject: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
|
|
Problem is Tim under a strict interpretation of "don't do it for money" anyone who sells a completed kitplane for $.01 more than they paid for the kit and all associated extra parts and equipment qualifies. I don't want to see a perfectly good airplane suddenly become a worthless pile of aluminum and other metals because someone can't sell an experimental bird anymore when they are done with it. I really don't believe it will come to that, but if there are serious issues in the eys of the Feds, this would be one way to take the profit motive out of the equation. I'd prefer something more like limiting the number of registrations or airworthiness certificates an individual can apply for unless they also apply for a production cert. Enforcing the current rules would go a long way too, and as you note, it appears the word is getting out to the DAR's.
As is typical in this world, it is a few bad apples that could spoil it all for the rest of us...
JKH
On 7/31/06, Tim Olson <Tim(at)myrv10.com (Tim(at)myrv10.com)> wrote: [quote]--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com (Tim(at)MyRV10.com)>
Well, one catch is that if you're building it for money, then
it no longer is "amateur" built experimental. Here's
Webster's definition: (or one of them)
2 (a): participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or
field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs <a professional
golfer>
2 (c) : engaged in by persons receiving financial return
<professional football>
It would seem to me that one doesn't even need to build more
than one aircraft to fit into this category, if the intention
is the financial gain.
As a side note, and this is more related to the forced landing
topic than this one, so please don't think I'm implying that
in that case it was not owned/flown/built by the kit builder,
I did hear from someone (so it's just rumor) that the forced
landing incident involved an RV-10 that was being flown outside
of it's flyoff area, and happened during the flyoff period.
It would just be nice to see all of the rules being followed
not only for the sake of the people who want to comply
and enjoy the hobby, but for the sake of our insurance.
In fact, much of the discussion about the poor workmanship
we talked about in the evenings was canted towards worry
about how it would affect our insurance rates and abilities...
seeing as though with only 41 listed flying right now, and
already having one damaged plane, it won't take long to
gather a track record....especially if there are quality
of work issues, and related to mass production.
To some people, these issues mean nothing. To others, they
are critical.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:
Quote: | --> RV10-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net (rvbuilder(at)sausen.net)>
>
|
[quote] We are kind of side stepping the real problem. It's not that they are
not building 51%, it's how do you prove that they are not doing it for
their own education or enjoyment?
Yes, it's painfully clear that some of the guys like John Nys and
Jessie are doing it at least partially for the financial aspects of
resale. The difference is at least Jessie is teaching the people
working on it a skill so I think it still meets the intent of the rule.
I would like to see them registered out of the US though but that's my
opinion. John is a little different story as he is clearly motivated by
profit. But there is nothing in that fact that directly violated the
rule as long as he is doing it primarily for his education or enjoyment.
So how do you prove it?
Many people on these lists are repeat offenders and I can guaranty
that most of them have sold their original aircraft. I myself may build
more aircraft after the -10 because I enjoy the building process. I'm
certainly not going to keep more than one aircraft but does that mean I
am violating the rule? I don't think so because I am doing it for
education and enjoyment and not profit. Will I make a profit? I hope so
as I certainly don't want to loose money and it would be nice to get
something for my time.
Sorry Jessie, not trying to pick on you but the only immediate
examples I know of are you and John Nys. Feel free to correct me
anywhere above.
Now to Van being on this committee. Keep in mind that Van runs a
business and I seriously doubt he is on the committee to help curb this
activity but rather to find a compromise that won't kill his business.
After all Van's Aircraft knows exactly how many kit's they are shipping
to the repeat offenders. I did see Van over by Jessie's and the other
-10's parked there making notes. What does that mean? Got me, he might
have just been a proud papa.
I'm not trying to raise any backsides but the outcome of a new rule
interpretation won't be good for any of us. The FAA just has no good
way to set a precedent without killing a good number of us that really
are not financially motivated. We saw this last year with the EpicLT.
The FAA tried to interpret the rule to the disadvantage of the builder
and lost. And in that case the builder was doing it for himself and not
for immediate resale. We need to be careful.
I have nothing against someone mass producing kitplanes, just do it
out of the country so it doesn't screw up the already fragile laws for
the other 99.5% of us.
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 Fuselage
--
| - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
jclarkmail(at)gmail.com Guest
|
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:36 am Post subject: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
|
|
I would suggest that we want to keep separate the building vs testing.
One may wish to build an airplane and follow **ALL** the rules to the letter but NOT be confident in flying skills at the moment. No problem getting someone to fly some or ALL of the test time in my opinion. Actually the builder does note even have to be a pilot if I recall correctly. So let's not mix apples and watermelons.
An example:
A local builder built an RV6A some years ago. He and his 2 other partners flew it for years. One partner dies and the other stops flying so they sell it clear up the estate matters I think. This builder later decides to build again so he can fly! He does every last rivet in the plane himself and even though he was a WWII flight instructor in "Stearman's" and T-6's and a whole bunch of other stuff, he asks me to help in flying some of his test time. I was honored to do it for him as although he is in his mid eighties (85+), he can still fly CIRCLES around me in the RV. He just did not have the time or energy after (non threatening, elective) surgery of some sorts. He is now all healed and good to go.
It would have been a BAD thing if this guy would get caught up in something as proposed.
James
p.s. Please correct me if I mis-interpreted what you were saying.
On 7/31/06, James K Hovis <james.k.hovis(at)gmail.com (james.k.hovis(at)gmail.com)> wrote: Quote: | Michael,
I agree, but if there is going to be a change in the rules then maybe a further refinement such as what I allude to could be a good compromise and not bring down some draconian rule that hurts guys building now and those of us who wish to start in the near future. Something like 80 - 90% of the test flight time has to be done by the builder/owner (or one of them in case of a partnership). This still allows a poeriod when you hire a free-lance pilot for initial tests if you aren't comfortable doing it. Therefore once the test period is done, the airplane is an "airplane" in every sense. Actually flying your creation is a sure sign to me that you are doing the effort to build for your personal education and enjoyment.
|
<<SNIP>>
| - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
rvbuilder(at)sausen.net Guest
|
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:42 am Post subject: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
|
|
That is the true worry. We already have some goofy rules out there because people take too much liberty with the fuzziness of the regs and, even worse, each FAA district tends to have their own interpretation of the regs. As someone who is in the building aspect for my enjoyment, I would have no problem holding on to an aircraft that I built for a year past certification date. I couldn't think of a better excuse! "But honey, I have to go fly it so the engine stays in good condition. It's not my fault I have to wait a year to sell it."
As for your example below, that's a tough one. My opinion would be that it can be inspected and certificated as amateur built (it was after all) but no one would be able to hold the repairman's certificate. We see projects change hands all the time right up to certification without much of a problem. This would be an extreme case and I couldn't venture to guess what the DAR or AB-DAR would say.
Michael
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James K Hovis
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 12:06 PM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today
Michael,
I agree, but if there is going to be a change in the rules then maybe a further refinement such as what I allude to could be a good compromise and not bring down some draconian rule that hurts guys building now and those of us who wish to start in the near future. Something like 80 - 90% of the test flight time has to be done by the builder/owner (or one of them in case of a partnership). This still allows a poeriod when you hire a free-lance pilot for initial tests if you aren't comfortable doing it. Therefore once the test period is done, the airplane is an "airplane" in every sense. Actually flying your creation is a sure sign to me that you are doing the effort to build for your personal education and enjoyment.
I hope the committee looking at this will agree on a solution that has the least impact to homebuilding. I think, and as was noted by others in this discussion, that the current rules can be applied to cure this problem. I'm just afraid some rule will come down like homebuilders can no longer sell completed airplanes. If that were to happen, then when the builder is no longer interested or able to fly his bird or has passed away, this large investment and asset now becomes nothing more than scrap metal with about that much value. I'd hope a less onerous solution will come about.
As a side line, what's your opinion of this scenario: A guy building an RV that has his DAR inspection scheduled for a few days later suddenly dies, let's call him Joe Deadguy. Joe's wife sells the completed and ready to fly airplane to Jerry Builder for a song to get it out of the hanger at the house in the airpark Joe and wife lived in and now wife wants to sell. Luckily, Joe kept a very detailed builder's log. Now, can Jerry complete the DAR inspection and claim he is the builder since Joe is now dead and Jerry has the bill of sale and the builder's log from Joe's wife?
JKH
On 7/31/06, RV Builder (Michael Sausen) <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net (rvbuilder(at)sausen.net)> wrote: Quote: | James,
Nothing in the rule says it has to be the builder to fly off the hours, To the contrary lot's of people hire a "test pilot" to fly off several of the hours. Another misnomer is that only one person can be in the aircraft during flyoff but it is actually "required crew".
Michael
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com) [mailto: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com)] On Behalf Of James K Hovis
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 8:23 AM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)
Subject: Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today
I have to ask a question about the "build to order" aircraft: Who's flying off the 25 hrs? I think it boils down to who it is applying for the initial airworthiness certificate, is it the "owner"-the guy who ordered the "build to order" or is it the builder? As it is now, my interpretation of the 51% rule leads me to believe the owner-builder has to be the one who makes the original application for the airworthiness cert and he/she should be the one who flies off the test period hours. And the initial registration named owner should match to builder-owner on the airworthiness cert. I think looking at these things would probably identify those who are violating the 51% rule fairly quickly, if a "complete" aircraft is sold before the test period is over raises a real red flag to me. But, what's to limit some guy from building an airplane, flying off the test period quickly, and then selling the airplane? Does this "qualify" as a "build to order" shop? I think the sale of complete RV-10's especially makes it rather lucrative to cheat the system. Yes, I know I asked about value before, but my motive wasn't for a quick sale, but to see if future market would support re-couping my investment should I decide to build/buy something else a few years down the road.
The Feds can pretty well see who it is that's "building to order". As quoted somewhere in this thread someone was saying he could turn around an airplane in three months. That's a major red flag the Feds should be looking for. A raid on that person's operation may be in order. I think turning over four or more kit airplanes a year would definitely qualify a person as a "professional" aircraft builder requiring full conformity to Part 23 and Part 21. Perhaps that's the solution, only one or two airworthiness certs can be issued to any one individual unless they hold or are also applying for a production cert under Part 21 within a year.
As Tim points out, keeping a good builder's log and when asked by your DAR is your BEST (and probably ONLY) proof that YOU did the work to put your dream together. Those yayhoos paying some guy to build their airplane and then telling the Feds they built them is only hurting the rest of us who want to do it right. What I'm afraid of is the typical knee-jerk reaction the Feds typically have and we'll end up with a draconian rule that totally hurts the aviation homebuilder/experimenter.
James K. Hovis
On 7/31/06, Wayne Edgerton <wayne.e(at)grandecom.net (wayne.e(at)grandecom.net)> wrote: Quote: | One way that the FAA might possible be able to curb the "build to sell" crowd would be to put a time line on when a newly built plane could be sold or owners changed. As an example lets say the plane couldn't be sold to a new owner until 6 or 12 months after the hours are flown off or until it has so many hours on it like 300 hours. Then allow a waiver to this in the case of certain conditions such as death of the builder or maybe hell freezing over, something along those lines.
Wayne Edgerton #40336
Engine work
do not archive
|
|
| - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
rvbuilder(at)sausen.net Guest
|
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:30 am Post subject: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
|
|
Actually no. The purpose of the 51% rule is0 about defining 51% of the tasks to be completed by someone other than the kit0 manufacturer for an experimental kit. Notice I said tasks, it's not0 necessarily 51% of the construction as some things such as painting are usually0 considered exempt. The rule also goes on to define what is acceptable0 under the experimental certification and production is not one of0 them.
For the repairman's certificate it is more about0 being geared to the one person that did the majority of the work but again is0 open to interpretation by the FAA. There are plenty examples of 2, 3, or0 even 5 guys getting together to build an airplane but only one can apply for the0 repairman's certificate. Again, notice I said apply for it, it isn't0 something automatically granted to the builder, you need to request it. If0 5 guys equally perform 51% of the tasks no one person would have performed more0 than 10.2% of the actual work but any one of them could still get the0 repairman's certificate.
Or at least that is how it's always been 'splained0 to me.
Michael
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com0 [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Schroeder, Bob0 (Parts Clerk)
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 12:50 PM
To:0 rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: -10's for sale in0 quantity, available today
Isn’t the point of the0 51% rule for the sole purpose of who does the maintenance on the plane? I build0 a plane for the enjoyment and because I can’t otherwise afford to own my own0 plane. That said, if I were in a position to afford to have someone else build0 it and maintain it after then so be it. With the van’s line of aircraft you get0 a superior airframe and an excellent safety record. As long as the buyer is0 willing to pay for the services what difference does it make to me when I build0 my own? Just a thought.
-----Original0 Message-----
From:0 owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com0 [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James K Hovis
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 11:15 AM
To:0 rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: -10's for sale in0 quantity, available today
Pascal,
Interesting. How much of0 the 51% of aircraft assembly under the rules can a builder farm-out? You are0 basically farming out a portion of the assembly to the kit company by buying a0 quick build kit. But, in the case of Van's, there's an agreement between the kit0 company and the FAA that the 51% rule isn't violated by the QB kits. But what's0 used as a "standard"? Is the bending of metal count towards the total time0 too?
JKH
On 7/31/06, Pascal <pascalreid(at)verizon.net>0 wrote:
This "build to order" example has to have a0 helper IMHO. Is his "helper" listed as a co-builder?0
Not if the "builder" hires a few0 guys from the local Home depot parking lot, or maybe even the super QB from the0 Phillipines. I figure you buy all 4 kits at once and have everyone work on the0 kits at the same time it will be 4 times faster and can be done rather quickly.0
---
| - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
BSchroeder(at)uta.cog.ut. Guest
|
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 12:17 pm Post subject: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
|
|
Michael, what does someone do that had no hand in the building of the aircraft and purchased it second hand. The people that built it are no where to be found. It was ‘splained to me that in order to even qualify as the repairman for a particular experimental aircraft that (he,she) needs to be able to document 51% of the build. If on the other hand I just have lots of money and don’t care if the local FBO rakes me over the coals to work on my “experimental aircraft” then why would anyone care except for the people involved? It seems to me that some people are upset because someone else can do something that they cannot do (jealous or some other feeling) so lets put a spot light on the situation. If someone can sell their RV-10 for 300 G, go for it. It just makes the market better for those that may want sell theirs later? It seems to me.
--
| - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Tim(at)MyRV10.com Guest
|
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 12:48 pm Post subject: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
|
|
I think all that the buyer would need to do is have a real
A&P do all of the work on the airplane. It would still be
an experimental just the same. For someone who's not
planning to take advantage of the repairman certificate
though, it's really losing value if you don't get it. There
comes a point where it then makes more sense just to buy
a used Bonanza or something. Getting an A&P to work on
the RV-10 may be tough depending on who's in your area.
I'm not saying they wouldn't, but there are probably a
number of A&P's who don't want to touch experimentals, lest
they be responsible....after all, they do have a statistically
higher fatal rate.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Schroeder, Bob (Parts Clerk) wrote:
[quote] Michael, what does someone do that had no hand in the building of the
aircraft and purchased it second hand. The people that built it are no
where to be found. It was ‘splained to me that in order to even qualify
as the repairman for a particular experimental aircraft that (he,she)
needs to be able to document 51% of the build. If on the other hand I
just have lots of money and don’t care if the local FBO rakes me over
the coals to work on my “experimental aircraft” then why would anyone
care except for the people involved? It seems to me that some people are
upset because someone else can do something that they cannot do (jealous
or some other feeling) so lets put a spot light on the situation. If
someone can sell their RV-10 for 300 G, go for it. It just makes the
market better for those that may want sell theirs later? It seems to me.
--
| - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
rvbuilder(at)sausen.net Guest
|
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 12:57 pm Post subject: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
|
|
My concerns with the whole building for profit thing0 is a couple fold. If the quality of these mass produced -10's are low, the0 fleet value will be forced down. So far it appears to be running 50/50 for0 the quality of "for sale" -10's. You can fairly quickly tell who are doing0 it for profit by the quality of the end product. Take John0 Stewart's or Jessie's -10's for instance. They are good quality and look0 very nice. While others that are shoved out the door also look like they0 were. Another factor is the "personal" factor that someone has0 with something they built. They will usually take better care of it and0 keep it looking nice which will also help the fleet prices in the long0 run.
The other thing0 I am worried about is the insurance aspect. If quality goes way down and0 we start seeing accidents for whatever reason, we will either have a serious0 problem getting insurance or we can completely forget0 it.
There are ton's of examples out there of 2 or0 more guys that build an aircraft and one of them receives the repairman's0 certificate so YMMV with the local MIDO/FSDO (can't remember which gives that0 out) but it happens often. For the people that buy a homebuilt they just0 loose that advantage and have to revert to the local A&P just like the rest0 of the production certified fleet. If you have a fairly stock aircraft it0 won't be a problem but buy something with an auto conversion or lot's of mods0 and you might have some difficulties. Of course if the original holder of0 the repairman's certificate is around he can always do the condition inspection0 for the new owner.
Michael
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com0 [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Schroeder, Bob0 (Parts Clerk)
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 3:15 PM
To:0 rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: -10's for sale in0 quantity, available today
Michael, what does0 someone do that had no hand in the building of the aircraft and purchased it0 second hand. The people that built it are no where to be found. It was ‘splained0 to me that in order to even qualify as the repairman for a particular0 experimental aircraft that (he,she) needs to be able to document 51% of the0 build. If on the other hand I just have lots of money and don’t care if the0 local FBO rakes me over the coals to work on my “experimental aircraft” then why0 would anyone care except for the people involved? It seems to me that some0 people are upset because someone else can do something that they cannot do0 (jealous or some other feeling) so lets put a spot light on the situation. If0 someone can sell their RV-10 for 300 G, go for it. It just makes the market0 better for those that may want sell theirs later? It seems to0 me.
-----Original0 Message-----
From:0 owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com0 [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder (Michael0 Sausen)
Sent:0 Monday, July 31,0 2006 1:300 PM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: -10's for sale in0 quantity, available today
0 Actually no. The purpose of the 51% rule is about defining 51% of the0 tasks to be completed by someone other than the kit manufacturer for an0 experimental kit. Notice I said tasks, it's not necessarily 51% of the0 construction as some things such as painting are usually considered0 exempt. The rule also goes on to define what is acceptable under the0 experimental certification and production is not one of them.
For0 the repairman's certificate it is more about being geared to the one person that0 did the majority of the work but again is open to interpretation by the0 FAA. There are plenty examples of 2, 3, or even 5 guys getting together to0 build an airplane but only one can apply for the repairman's certificate. 0 Again, notice I said apply for it, it isn't something automatically granted to0 the builder, you need to request it. If 5 guys equally perform 51% of the0 tasks no one person would have performed more than 10.2% of the actual work but0 any one of them could still get the repairman's certificate.
Or0 at least that is how it's always been 'splained to me.
Michael
From:0 owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com0 [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Schroeder, Bob (Parts0 Clerk)
Sent:0 Monday, July 31,0 2006 12:500 PM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: -10's for sale in0 quantity, available today
Isn’t the0 point of the 51% rule for the sole purpose of who does the maintenance on the0 plane? I build a plane for the enjoyment and because I can’t otherwise afford to0 own my own plane. That said, if I were in a position to afford to have someone0 else build it and maintain it after then so be it. With the van’s line of0 aircraft you get a superior airframe and an excellent safety record. As long as0 the buyer is willing to pay for the services what difference does it make to me0 when I build my own? Just a thought.
| - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kellym
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 Posts: 1706 Location: Sun Lakes AZ
|
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:04 pm Post subject: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
|
|
Yup, unless you find A&P that has been involved in building of an RV,
preferably a 10, they aren't going to want to touch it. They are
supposed to have the manuf. manuals just to work on it, so that
purchase best come with a full builder's log and plans for the A&P to
refer to. JMHO. Other A&P's may see it differently.
KM
A&P/IA
Quoting Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>:
Quote: |
I think all that the buyer would need to do is have a real
A&P do all of the work on the airplane. It would still be
an experimental just the same. For someone who's not
planning to take advantage of the repairman certificate
though, it's really losing value if you don't get it. There
comes a point where it then makes more sense just to buy
a used Bonanza or something. Getting an A&P to work on
the RV-10 may be tough depending on who's in your area.
I'm not saying they wouldn't, but there are probably a
number of A&P's who don't want to touch experimentals, lest
they be responsible....after all, they do have a statistically
higher fatal rate.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
|
| - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
_________________ Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
av8or(at)cox.net Guest
|
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:11 pm Post subject: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
|
|
The point of the "51% Rule" is to permit you,0 the amateur, to design and build your own airplane that you can fly in the0 National Airspace system without having to go the "certified" route because it0 is for your own education and enjoyment. The intent is not to manufacture0 airplanes. That's what we're talking about here.
If you want to build and sell airplanes, become0 an aircraft manufacturer like Piper or Cessna and get the your aircraft0 certified to Part 23 standards.
John
#40262
[quote] ---
| - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth. Guest
|
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:46 pm Post subject: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
|
|
Kelly McMullen wrote:
Quote: |
Yup, unless you find A&P that has been involved in building of an RV,
preferably a 10, they aren't going to want to touch it. They are
supposed to have the manuf. manuals just to work on it, so that
purchase best come with a full builder's log and plans for the A&P to
refer to. JMHO. Other A&P's may see it differently.
KM
A&P/IA
|
I'm no A&P. nor do I play one on TV ...... but I do my own conditional
inspection on my Pitts since I am the builder. It's been my experience
that the manufacturers manual and stuff applies only to certified
aircraft that have a type certificate to inspect to. There is no such
'standard' to be applied to amateur built experimental aircraft, so none
is required. Certified aircraft require signature by an AI for the
annual inspection. An A&P, however, can sign off an experimental for
it's conditional inspection.
Hope this muddies the water a little more.
Linn
do not archive
Quote: |
Quoting Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>:
>
>
> I think all that the buyer would need to do is have a real
> A&P do all of the work on the airplane. It would still be
> an experimental just the same. For someone who's not
> planning to take advantage of the repairman certificate
> though, it's really losing value if you don't get it. There
> comes a point where it then makes more sense just to buy
> a used Bonanza or something. Getting an A&P to work on
> the RV-10 may be tough depending on who's in your area.
> I'm not saying they wouldn't, but there are probably a
> number of A&P's who don't want to touch experimentals, lest
> they be responsible....after all, they do have a statistically
> higher fatal rate.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://wiki.matronics.com
|
| - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
dlm46007(at)cox.net Guest
|
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 4:50 pm Post subject: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
|
|
Ask your insurance agent who is required crew for0 the 10? Unless you like going bare I would ask the agent not the0 FAA.
---
| - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
AV8ORJWC
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 Posts: 1149 Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"
|
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 5:33 pm Post subject: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
|
|
There are a number of highly skilled For Hire Pilots who will make the
initial flight and help establish the OCF quack list. Operational Check
Flight. Make sure they know both your make of airframe and your
specific model. Test Pilots are a bold breed.
Fly within the FAA designated restricted OCF area until you know it is
working fine. You might lose power and have to land before you planned.
Get frequent EAA Tech Advisor inspections along the build process.
John $00.02
--
| - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
AV8ORJWC
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 Posts: 1149 Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"
|
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 5:37 pm Post subject: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
|
|
Russ it is the DAR's who are helping bastardize the gene pool of flying
RV-10s. It was just last year that the Plastic builders where looking
for names of liberal DARs to bump their Gross Weight into the
stratosphere to compensate for heavy construction. Maybe we should each
post who is our DAR to shed light on this condition. Van is firm at
2700 GVW. Did anyone catch the new 2800# weight. It was sure Purty!
Do I hear 2900 or 3,000 cause it's a nice round number?
John Cox
--
| - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
bpattonsoa(at)yahoo.com Guest
|
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 5:37 pm Post subject: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
|
|
When I flew off my -6A hours, there were two times when crew was required, and defensible, at least in my opinion.
The first was when testing a "low" altitude. Full throttle 500 feet above the ocean is not the time to be recording numbers on a data sheet.
The second was the gross weight tests. 75 lbs of sandbags in the baggage compartment is OK, but having 250 lbs of them in the second seat is a little risky. I used a 250 lb pilot.
Both tests were done the same day, the very last of the test flights. By then, the aircraft was well tested , but there were data points not available for completion of the test log.
Bruce Patton
---
| - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
AV8ORJWC
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 Posts: 1149 Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"
|
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 5:40 pm Post subject: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
|
|
The FAA could just screen the DAR submittals and look for the crooks
that are allowing the problem into the system.
With Mechanics it's called O's and P's. Orals and Practicals. There is
just no way to get the ticket without bleeding along the road to
success.
John Cox
--
| - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
AV8ORJWC
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 Posts: 1149 Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"
|
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 5:44 pm Post subject: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
|
|
Stay away from Apples on hot summer and fall nights. It could be an
Adam and Eve thing.
John Cox
--
| - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
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
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|