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

  • #16
    Originally posted by svyolo View Post
    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.

    ............
    I have no opinion either way.

    ..........
    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.
    This response is not addressing the sale of an aircraft after its built. Rather, I am addressing the erroneous evangelical environment regarding the FAR's age, vagueness, and enforcement actions of our hobby.

    You are publishing on a public forum your ideas. You care. You are building a Bearhawk. Others will follow ideas published on this forum. If they "like" a bad idea, they will believe it as truth.

    If you choose not to read the Advisory Circulars, then find, contact and develop a very good relationship now with a DAR that you will use and pay him to be a mentor. Think of him as your commanding officer. (I hope you have one close by. The closest DAR to me is 100 miles away, he doesn't know me from Adam.)

    But here is really the key take away I want the guy just starting out to understand......

    Advisory Circulars are not regulatory in nature, but it is today's approved interpretation of the regulation. "This is how we are interpreting things today and it how we want things done." The DAR's and builders need this certainty, and if the AC is followed, a builder is entitled to an Airworthiness Certificate.

    The advisory circular I am attaching was written in 2009 and applies to all EAB aircraft. That is not very old, it is very specific. The EAA and FAA have a very good working relationship, and I believe the EAA was instrumental in working with the FAA when this AC was published in order to address problem areas. It used today by DAR's and builders. I will fill out the checklist for my inspection some day. I don't expect my aircraft to be granted an airworthiness certificate without it. If your kit is am approved kit, you won't need to fill it out. The Patrol is not Approved. Not sure about the B model. Think the A model is approved.



    Certificatio of Amature Built Aircraft AC_20-27G.pdf





    Brooks Cone
    Southeast Michigan
    Patrol #303, Kit build

    Comment


    • #17
      The Carbon Cub has the two week build
      program as well with the interpretation that the builder
      has to experience 51% of the tasks and not perform 51% of the hours required. So far that interpretation has survived the local FSDO when it comes to inspections. Not saying it is correct but so far it is unchallenged. If the Bearhawk had a similar level of build instructions to the Carbon Cub or RV I think it would make a huge difference in the number of builders.

      Comment


      • Mark Goldberg
        Mark Goldberg commented
        Editing a comment
        I would love for that to happen. A couple of guys over the years talked about doing a dedicated build center like that. But nothing ever came of it. Unfortunately, it is a very time consuming deal to set up and run. I would certainly love to assist someone willing to set up something like a build center. Bob would inspect and give his OK to what was being done. Mark

    • #18
      "Advisory Circulars are not regulatory in nature, but it is today's approved interpretation of the regulation. "This is how we are interpreting things today and it how we want things done." The DAR's and builders need this certainty, and if the AC is followed, a builder is entitled to an Airworthiness Certificate. "

      Brooks, I appreciate you writing this, as it is the only thing I am arguing about the whole time.

      I don't care how a rule was written 70 years ago. I care how it is being interpreted, and enforced today. I will not argue that build for hire is legal when compared to rules written long ago. I will argue that it is a common practice, being done publicly, with the knowledge of DAR's and the FAA. Maybe they are looking the other way, maybe they approve, maybe it is how they are "interpreting things today and it is how we want things done" I don't know their thinking. I know they are allowing it to exist. Their existence makes this a fact.

      Last night, right after my post, I went over to VAF to verify something I thought I remembered. VAF accepts paid advertising from "Buider Assistance" centers.

      2009 being recent, with regards to aviation, rules, and how they are interpreted? I got 5-10 pilot bulletins a WEEK, plus 5-20 FAR changes, clarifications, rulings a month for my job. A change made in 2009? Those fell out the bottom of my mental Queue by early 2010. FAR's are a living, breathing monster. Having to know the current language, rulings, interpretations was one of the more annoying parts of my job. They were constantly changing.

      Comment


      • #19
        OK, I think I hear you. You are saying "Build for Hire and Builder Assist" is common, done publicly, with knowledge of DAR's and FAA and they look the other way. And aircraft are being certificated that don't meet the FAA's own mandates.

        I agree with some of the first part. Builder Assistance and Commercial Assistance is common, done publicly with full knowledge of the FAA and DAR's You are right, I agree with that.

        Build Assist and Build for Hire are two different things.

        Some Builder Assist is legal. I think Builder Assistance exists in three forms.

        1) Education like Beartracks, and classes like EAA Sport Air Workshops
        2) Commercial Assistance.
        3) Build Assist Centers that takes Builder Education to real time building of an airplane. It encompasses Builder Tool Lending and real time over sight/education. "Use our tooling, our materials, our machines, our methods, our jigs, our workbenches, and when a task is completed then well judge your work to determine its airworthiness."

        ASSIST CENTER
        If a builder can pay someone to teach him to build and provide him the tools, perform the project planning, and provide a debriefing & quality control experience, but the builder actually does the fabricating and assembling tasks, then its OK with the FAA. The Key Words are "Assembly and the Fabricating." In the end, the an amateur must have performed over 50% of the Fabricating and Assembly TASKS that are on the checklist that exists in AC 20-27.

        COMMERCIAL ASSISTANCE
        Commercial Assistance is OK with the FAA too. But if a builder uses so much commercial assistance so that more than 50% of the Fabricating and Assembly Tasks are not done by the builder, then it will not be approved for EAB certification, but would be eligible for Experimental Exhibition. The FAA encourages builders to check with them to help determine "How much is OK."

        Build for hire is not the same as commercial assistance, rather its paying a professional to build the airplane. "Here you do it and I'll pay you."

        1) Build for Hire disqualifies the aircraft to be certificated as Experimental Amateur Built in the US.
        2) I suspect Canada might have some different rules, and it may be what you are seeing.
        3) Build for hire does not disqualify an aircraft from being certificated as Experimental under other areas, like Exhibition, Air Racing, or Research, just Amateur Built.
        4) I think sometimes Commercial Assistance is mistaken for Build For Hire.

        Below is a screen shot of the task list out of AC 20-27 for the fabricating and assembly tasks of just the Landing Gear. A similar list appears for every major assembly of an airplane. Each task is worth 1 point. At the end of the build the points are added up. The Mfr Kit/Component column has points, Commercial Assistance will have points, and the Amateur Builder will have a number of points. Some tasks are easy and quick, but some are not. Not all tasks apply to Bearhawks due to the fixed gear. On my build I plan to do 6 of the tasks.

        Screen Shot 2019-02-12 at 10.55.09 AM.png
        Attached Files
        Brooks Cone
        Southeast Michigan
        Patrol #303, Kit build

        Comment

        Working...
        X