Bearhawk Aircraft Bearhawk Tailwheels LLC Eric Newton's Builder Manuals Bearhawk Plans Bearhawk Store

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pondering the purposeful sale of EABs after building (a.k.a. Builder Assist, et al)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pondering the purposeful sale of EABs after building (a.k.a. Builder Assist, et al)

    Per suggestion, Mike's original post was getting wiped out by this controversial topic. I've created a new topic and moved those posts here. Please feel free to continue the conversation, but let's keep it civil (as we know we can).

    ~Chris
    Last edited by Chris In Milwaukee; 02-12-2019, 07:55 PM.
    Christopher Owens
    Bearhawk 4-Place Scratch Built, Plans 991
    Bearhawk Patrol Scratch Built, Plans P313
    Germantown, Wisconsin, USA

  • #2
    I don't think the high end market is there yet for Bearhawks. I just retired and if I thought I could get 180K for them, I might build them and sell them. There are enough guys building and selling RV's that I doubt they are making a lot on them. More of a hobby business.

    I am surprised the FAA allows the 2 Weeks to Taxi, or at least I can't see them granting the repairman certificate to the builder.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by svyolo View Post
      I don't think the high end market is there yet for Bearhawks. I just retired and if I thought I could get 180K for them, I might build them and sell them. There are enough guys building and selling RV's that I doubt they are making a lot on them. More of a hobby business.

      I am surprised the FAA allows the 2 Weeks to Taxi, or at least I can't see them granting the repairman certificate to the builder.
      Building E/AB airplanes to sell is not compliant with the letter or intent of the rules in the US, and doing so jeopardizes the hobby for the rest of us. I know you are speaking hypothetically and I know other people do it and get away with it, but I think it is important to point that out whenever possible .
      in Canada, it's different .

      Comment


      • #4
        Jared;
        EAB rules were written long before I was born, and maybe you as well. They were written at a time when GA was booming. QB kit rules were written 30-35 years ago. GA had just started a death spiral, but there were 10's, or 100's of thousands of light aircraft around.

        EAB is GA now. The FAA is actually trying to loosen rules, not clamp down. GA is dying, and the demographics of those doing it are in a death spiral. 2 or 3 dozen light aircraft crash a day, and probably as many more pilots die of old age. They are not being replaced 1 for 1. I heard it is more like 1 new pilot, for 5 - 10 lost.

        The guys building RV's are building them "for themselves", and then selling them when they "change their mind". The FAA isn't prosecuting them for this. I won't do it as I don't think there is any money in it. If there was, I might consider "bending" the rules.

        If the FAA allows 2 Weeks to Taxi, their philosophy on how they interpret the rules and regs has changed from many decades ago.

        My opinion, anyway.

        Comment


        • #5
          (speaking only about the US here)
          I would love to see the rules change, but under the current regulatory structure, building for hire is not allowed, which is not a matter of opinion. Skirting this with winks and nods or changing of minds, to me, is not helpful to the hobby, though that is a matter of opinion.

          Thinking about our role here as a venue to talk about building planes for education and recreation, I'd like to make sure that this is not a place where we talk about building for hire. If a person were to register here and post an ad looking for someone to build an airplane for him, we would need to intervene. Meanwhile, let's support advocacy and efforts to change the rules.

          Comment


          • #6
            Mark(the factory) and Jared are on the right track....new build manual, step by step assembly...

            Standardizing construction, I think will drive demand for the 2nd hand market....as buyers will know what to expect..from late model Bearhawks..

            With step by step manuals ...a better overall product gets produced...some people might be great at one thing but not another...a good knowledge base that creates a baby step method to build a better plane ...raising the temperature of the potential buyer feelings for the fleet overall....

            I still think the Bearhawk is not reached its market position yet...

            Once 3rd party companies that cater to the RV market ...start making plug and play interiors...plastic moldings...ect for the Bearhawk....I think then you will see another bigger surge in demand...



            Comment


            • #7
              Great comments from all. It’s important to remember that the 51% thing was about preserving the “Spirit” of homebuilding and aircraft construction. The intent isn’t to to turn everyone into builders. How many rivets do we need to buck to get the “Spirit”? Should we spend 350hrs mounting an engine? Why? 2 week to Taxi is the perfect stage to gain some knowledge, understand the construction, tools etc and gives the individual a little bit of knowledge on many aspects of construction. It was started in the USA and now there is 6 companies that offer a version of it and they are selling aircraft. but just to be clear. I don’t care who built the aircraft, or if it was hired. I’m simply saying that if anyone wants to sell there Bearhawk, please contact me as I have guys wanting to buy them.

              Comment


              • #8
                Jared;
                Once again, rules are one thing, how they are enforced over time is vastly different, and legal. The US constitution was written 245 years ago. There was no such thing as electricity, internal combustion engines, or sanitation. 245 years later, the Supreme Court hears arguments about the original text, but still imposes todays reality to it all because the world has changed.

                EAB rules were written 35-70 years ago. Civil aviation was rapidly expanding, and the government saw the need to regulate it. 35 - 70 years later, we are a dying breed. The FAA is a kingdom that is dying. My paycheck came from being a military/commercial pilot for 30 years. I have been to a FSDO once. ONCE. How many FSDO's do we need? ATC will be privatized soon, like it has been already in many countries. Why do we need an FAA? The FAA's primary goal, is survival. They need to preserve their kingdom.

                EAB rules, and QB (51%) rules came about for a reason, that has been superseded by other, more important priorities. Mark took Bob's plans, trained and built a factory, and manufactures a kit that complies with the rules. Then Bob comes in and sells some extra parts. Eric N sells really nice tailwheels, of which I own one. Mark also sells extra "parts". If you put all those "parts" into the QB kit, it might bend the 51% rule a bit. I would argue it does.

                And you moderate this forum, and sell a subscription to a Kitbuilders manual, and Beartracks. For which I, and many are grateful. But that information also, in my mind, goes beyond the 51% rule. Why not just memorize AC 43? If you help me build the airplane, and make a profit off of it, are you not also cheating the system? It isn't TW2T, but it is going down the same path, and you are charging money for it.

                How many "builder assistance" businesses exist? How many Lancair/Glasair/RV's have been built this way? I am not saying it is right or wrong. Is it wrong when compared to the text of the original rules and regulations? Yes. Your "assistance" might also be non-compliant based on the same standard.

                I don't believe any of it is in violation of the way the 35-70 year old rules are being currently interpreted by the FAA. And I am glad for all the parts and support I have bought from Bob, Mark, Eric, and you. Cheating the system, or not.

                Comment


                • #9
                  John - the way the 51% is calculated we are way under the 49% of work the kit factory is allowed to. So every part that might be available will not throw a QB kit project over the 49% of what the kit factory is allowed to do. It is an FAA form that determines these percentages. AC-20-27G, Appendix 8. Called: Amateur Built Fabrication & Assembly Checklist. The form itself and the way the percentages are calculated are not entirely logical, but no reason to go into that here. Our kits come in at 41% more or less. A quick example of the checklist: One "step" is fabricating a landing gear leg. Quite a big job. An equally weighted "step" is to install the landing gear leg on the fuselage. Two bolts. Mark

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    John, I feel like we are finding ourselves in the weeds here, sorry.
                    Here is a list of things that are legal, both in the letter of the law and the intent:
                    Bob designed the airplane and sells us plans. (I added this one, the rest will look familiar)
                    Mark took Bob's plans, trained and built a factory, and manufactures a kit that complies with the rules.
                    Then Bob comes in and sells some extra parts.
                    Eric N sells really nice tailwheels
                    Mark also sells extra "parts".
                    Temporary diversion: If you put all those "parts" into the QB kit, it might bend the 51% rule a bit. I would argue it does. (it doesn't, per the FAA checklist that calculates these things, which is not based on time or effort. Do you have a copy of the old checklist that they used to evaluate the 4-Place Bearhawk? I'm happy to share it so that you can see how silly it is)
                    Providing and moderating this forum
                    Selling a subscription to a Kitbuilders manual, and Beartracks.
                    Again, all of the things in the list above are legal. Giving you information about how to build the airplane is not on the list of tasks required to build the airplane. It would also not be illegal for me to give you a place to buy tools like a rivet gun or an ipad.

                    ... it is going down the same path, and you are charging money for it.
                    No, it's not. The FAA does not consider information about building the airplane to be the same as building the tangible airplane parts in exchange for your money. This is how the TW2T folks get away with it. They are selling the use of their tools and their information. I think they are pushing things too far, but that's a different discussion and not necessarily relevant.

                    I don't want to put myself in a position of seemingly explaining how the aviation business works to a friend who has spent his life operating in it, but as you know, the details matter. We don't base our decisions on what we can get away with. We don't choose to violate rules because they have been inadequately enforced. We frequently encounter rules that are obsolete or otherwise dumb. But we still strive to follow the rules, because we operate in a regulated industry, with a duty to our passengers and the non-participating public. If we decide not to follow the rules for whatever reason, we don't write about it on a message board. And if we host a message board, we don't let people write about it without opposition.

                    I'm not comfortable with providing a venue where we talk about intentionally breaking rules of any kind, but especially not the ones that enable us to be here in the first place. We can't afford the liability of someone advocating for acting contrary to 14 CFR, even if that someone thinks that the rule is obsolete. The rule is still in the books. We are enabled to build our own airplanes outside of the TC process. In return, we promise not to build those airplanes for purposes other than our own education and recreation. Our operating limitations further specify that once flying, we cannot use the airplanes for anything other than our education or recreation. I would hope that we would all take that promise seriously, since generations of builders have done so for the preceding decades, thus enabling us to build our own planes at all. I'd propose that our lack of rigorous oversight and enforcement is due to our culture of compliance with the letter and intent of the rule. So it's hard to hear someone saying it's no big deal to break the rule because nobody seems to be watching. I just don't feel like this is fulfilling our duty to the generations of folks who have come before us and made this hobby possible.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Jared;
                      I have no plan to build airplanes and sell them. Nor did I state an intention to do so, or recommend it. The fact that there is a rule against it is not the reason. Done on a small scale, the rule is not enforced.

                      I have been "regulated" or been "overseen" by the FAA in hang and paragliders, military, and part 121. Very little GA experience, and it was a long time ago. The regulatory and enforecment side of the FAA that I have lived through, have shown an amazingly pragmatic attitude in how they enforce their own rules.. They really do take a macro view of the aviation world, and how to make it safer. I doubt they will change EAB rules, nor do I think they should. I believe they look at what we are doing, including how we are "bending" the rules, and approve of what we are doing. If they didn't they would start more enforcement. If they saw our actions as detrimental, they would get involved.

                      The FAA does not enforce their rules to the letter. They use their rules as a set of guidelines to make aviation safer. Two Weeks to Taxi? I am 100% sure it does not comply with the 49% rule. Probably Glasair spent a bunch of time and money developing the program, and demonstrated to the FAA that their program made for a better quality, and safer airplane, than many first time homebuilders could build. Since it is legal, they were probably granted an official FAA exemption to the 49% rules.

                      We operated under so many exemptions under my last job, I had to keep a cheat sheet on them so that when I saw an exemption on a flight plan, I knew what it meant. There are exemptions for training, testing, maintaining, and the operation of all manner of aircraft. There are also lots of "unofficial exemptions". Things the FAA hasn't enforced for years, because they don't make sense to enforce.

                      Are builder assistance businesses legal under FAR's? I don't know. I heard most Lancair IV's were built with "assistance". I winked when I wrote that. Legal? Did the FAA go after any of them? Would many first time builders create a better aircraft with "assistance". Probably. The FAA probably doesn't care, and might even approve of a better, safer airplane operating in US airspace.

                      The FAA is currently looking the other way on a lot of what some in this industry are doing. As long as it is safer, they are OK with it, even if they can't publicly admit it. If 1 guy builds 10 RV-10's over a 10 year period, is that better or worse than 10 first time builders building 1 each? The FAA might view the 1 guy building 10, as 10 better airplanes operating in US airspace, even if he bent the 70 year old rules in the process.

                      If one guy opens a factory and builds 10 RV-10's in a year, I guarantee the FAA will shut him down, as well they should. The latter guy is blatantly violating many regs, and has become a manufacturer. He is operating outside the lines.

                      The FAR's governing what we do are archaic, the FAA knows it, but they don't want to waste time changing them. They want rules on the books to use in cases where somebody gets too far outside the lines. Where are those lines? I don't know, but when I read "RV-10 for sale ,my 8th and best one, 25 hours TT, in primer". I am thinking the lines have been tested by many. There are numerous "Builder Assistance Centers" advertising for professional work, in commercial publications and websites. Vans sold that guy 8 kits. Personal use?

                      Vans never went the TWTT route. Mark hasn't either. I am sure both have thought about it. They chose not to for their own reasons. Maybe philosophical. Maybe legal liability. Financial? All of the above? Not my business, and I have no intention of making airplanes as a business. But that choice is not affected by an unenforced rule written before I was born. By their lack of enforcement, the FAA doesn't seem like it cares. I have seen a lot of that.
                      Last edited by svyolo; 02-10-2019, 05:22 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        With all due respect and humility, I see lot of speculation and opinions that you base your conclusions on. I like to hear opinions on topics like art. I don't have much use for an opinion on topics where facts truth exists. Fact is, The highest authority we builders have is not a person, or a superior officer, or opinions of a more experienced pilot/builder. Rather, our highest authority is a series of documents. We are expected to read them, interpret them, and apply them. Dismissing them is not an option.

                        You might consider a read and study the authoritative documents. I invite you to come back and base your arguments on the written word that the FAA has give us. Quoting scripture and verse is encouraged. A very short general list of these documents are the Federal Aviation Regulations, and the advisory circulars.

                        I've gone thru the Advisory Circular regarding the interpretation of the 51% rule and understand its mandates. It would be easy to streamline the build process without violating the rule with some innovation using automated tooling (like a builder fabricating a rib by pushing a button of an automated rubber press stamping machine).
                        Last edited by Bcone1381; 02-10-2019, 03:12 PM. Reason: clarification
                        Brooks Cone
                        Southeast Michigan
                        Patrol #303, Kit build

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The original rules were written long ago, for different reasons. The QB rule was a massive exemption to the original EAB rules. It was a huge loosening of the original rules. LSA rules, including the manufacture and sale of completed aircraft, was a huge exemption to both TC aircraft, and pilot certification and medical requirements.

                          The FAA has, by regulation, saw that their original rules were too restrictive in the present time, and have massively relaxed what is allowed, compared to the original text. Rumor has it the LSA rules are in for a rewrite, massively expanding the type of aircraft that qualify. Who knows when it will come out. Maybe next week, or a decade. LSA rules took many years to be finalized and approved.

                          The last 35 years, the FAA has massively relaxed the original rules in writing, and relaxed how they enforce some of those rules.

                          I am not arguing what the rules say, but how they are enforced. I agree with Jared on what the rules say.

                          If a hypothetical kit manufacturer sells 1 guy a kit a year for 8 years, a local DAR inspects and signs off a plane a year from the same builder, and the FAA issues an Airworthiness Certificate 8 times to the same builder for the exact same model aircraft, I would say the FAA knows what is going on, and doesn't disapprove. Under the current regulatory enforcement environment, it is "coloring inside the lines".

                          I have no intention of building and selling aircraft, or recommending it to anybody. But it is not because of the FAA regs. It is not allowed by the original text, but it is allowed under the current enforcement environment.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by svyolo View Post
                            The original rules were written long ago, for different reasons. The QB rule was a massive exemption to the original EAB rules. It was a huge loosening of the original rules. LSA rules, including the manufacture and sale of completed aircraft, was a huge exemption to both TC aircraft, and pilot certification and medical requirements.

                            The FAA has, by regulation, saw that their original rules were too restrictive in the present time, and have massively relaxed what is allowed, compared to the original text. Rumor has it the LSA rules are in for a rewrite, massively expanding the type of aircraft that qualify. Who knows when it will come out. Maybe next week, or a decade. LSA rules took many years to be finalized and approved.

                            The last 35 years, the FAA has massively relaxed the original rules in writing, and relaxed how they enforce some of those rules.

                            I am not arguing what the rules say, but how they are enforced. I agree with Jared on what the rules say.

                            If a hypothetical kit manufacturer sells 1 guy a kit a year for 8 years, a local DAR inspects and signs off a plane a year from the same builder, and the FAA issues an Airworthiness Certificate 8 times to the same builder for the exact same model aircraft, I would say the FAA knows what is going on, and doesn't disapprove. Under the current regulatory enforcement environment, it is "coloring inside the lines".

                            I have no intention of building and selling aircraft, or recommending it to anybody. But it is not because of the FAA regs. It is not allowed by the original text, but it is allowed under the current enforcement environment.
                            From reading your comments here I don't think you fully understand what the word exemption means in this context. New FARs are not exemptions.
                            I also wonder if you've read the relevant advisory circulars and FAA orders that exist to inform on all this. Because I don't think you'd have this line of thinking if you have.
                            I'd recommend starting with AC20-27G and order 8130.35B. Those will lead to some additional resources as well.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I have not read them, and I probably won't because my opinion doesn't matter. What matters is the opinion of the regulator, and how they choose to enforce the rules they create, change over time, and make rulings on.

                              Many FAA regs are very old, and many are extremely vague. If buying kits, building them, and selling them, offends someone and they think it is illegal, they can contact their local FSDO, or Oklahoma City, and request enforcement action. If paying a "Builder Support Center" constitutes building for hire and is illegal, the same can be done. Maybe you can get someone important to agree with you.

                              I have no opinion either way. I have only pointed out that it has existed, and continues to exist. Are the DAR's passing the inspections? I would assume a lot of DAR's have built airplanes, belong to the EAA, and their local chapter. They probably know the builder, or know of him, and his project. Where is the outrage from the DAR's?

                              Has the FAA issued AC to the same guy for the same aircraft model a bunch of times?

                              Is the EAA, or any of its local Chapters, petitioning the EAA to stop the outrage?

                              I have no opinion on the matter, I don't care either way. I also don't care what the regulations say. I care what the regulator does. I have pointed out that the practice exists, and is an option.

                              Apparently some have very strong opinions on the subject, which they are free to have, and to express. It kind of caught me off guard. But in the end, their opinions mean the same as my own. They don't mean anything, unless they can change the opinion of the FAA on how they enforce their regulations.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X