Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 09:28:38 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-726371@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.70.81.20; envelope-from=jim@aero-news.net
Reply-To: <jim@aero-news.net>
From: "Jim" <jim@aero-news.net>
Subject: More On Epic and 51% Issues
Organization: Aero-News Network
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thread-Index: AcW9AVzUQNxI4RQvRfCwhgqukYZf+QAATw2Q
In-Reply-To: <list-726268@logan.com>

The following story was published several weeks ago after several more weeks
of trying to get a response from Epic officials -- to no avail. It has been
our experience, so far, that the FAA is not trying to ground all homebuilts
but simply seeing the rules bent too far for their comfort -- an opinion
shared by a great number of surveyed industry members, EAA staffers and the
like. 

The report is submitted, below, for your perusal... and Rick, we'd still
love to get an interview with you. We'd really like to get your input and
have made a dozen or so attempts to do so. 

 
ANN Special Report: Epic Turboprop 'Kit' Program May Force FAA 51% Showdown 
Fri, 26 Aug '05

Did Epic Push The FAA Too Far?

By ANN Editor-In-Chief Jim Campbell

For years, some members of the high-performance SportPlane industry have
skirted the letter of the law in regards to the extensive use of
professional builders and assistance in the completion of a number of
complex high-performance kit aircraft. Several years ago, for example, the
now-defunct Maverick TwinJet program, under the questionable management of
Jim McCotter, made promises of a twin-engine pressurized jet aircraft that
would be "owner-built" under factory supervision... while privately assuring
prospective buyers that their actual participation/work would be minimal.
The controversial program raised a number of questions from industry
veterans and FAA personnel, though nothing was decided before the company,
over-hyped and under-funded, quietly closed it's doors.

Abuse of the 51% rule has recently come under scrutiny again with the
revelation that the FAA has finally drawn a line in the sand with the recent
refusal of an FAA inspector to allow the certification of an Epic LT
turboprop under Amateur-Built Experimental guidelines. This appears to be
the much feared "shot across the bow" that a number of SportPlane companies
have been waiting for as some of their number continue to push the
definition of what is, and isn't, truly 51% amateur-built. 

In the words of one industry observer, "If Epic isn't pushing the FAA to
enforce 51%, no one is."

Epic seemed to be almost begging for the FAA's critical attention through
heavy promotion of the aircraft's custom-built nature, it's high-performance
feature-set, and the company's self-set, highly public profile. To many, the
company seemed to be "thumbing its nose" at the FAA.

The Pratt & Whitney PT-6 powered Epic LT was pressurized, had a cruise speed
of 350 knots and seating for 6 people. The builder's program for the million
dollar hotrod specifies that the aircraft must be built within the factory
builder center and eschews any personal building efforts outside of that.
Indeed, at their most recent Oshkosh trade show exhibit, Epic personnel were
pretty open about the fact that they expected to be heavily, if not totally,
involved in building most of the aircraft to be purchased by LT 'builders.'
Epic was also fairly outspoken with their plans to compete in the
certificated VLJ market with a jet version of the LT. They claimed to be
well on the way to certification... even though the FAA confirms that no
application for a type certificate is on record... a necessary, albeit
basic, first step in the LONG road to type certification.

Carlton M. Cadwell's Epic LT, was the focus of the FAA's most recent
scrutiny. Cadwell, a dentist from Richland, WA, is reportedly a Commercial,
ASEL, AMEL, Instrument rated pilot and had finished a Lancair IVP several
years before. The Co-Founder of QuickMed, Inc. and Cadwell Laboratories,
Inc., Cadwell's recent attempt to get FAA approval for an EPIC LT under the
FAA Amateur-Built experimental protocol was denied simply because the FAA
did not feel that the aircraft was built primarily by the Doctor himself.

The FAA specifically reported that inspectors in the Northwest "denied the
certificate based on their examination of the aircraft. The Manufacturing
Inspection District Office did an inspection and found that 51 percent of
the airplane had NOT built by the builder... which is a primary requirement
under the rule."

One of the major issues that attracted the Fed's scrutiny was the fact that
the aircraft could only have been built in the factory building center and
not in a private facility... defeating the spirit, if not the letter of the
rule.

The FAA has recently stepped up scrutiny of potential products and companies
that seem most likely to run afoul of the 51% guidelines and appeared to be
readying themselves for these types of confrontations.

In a July 7, 2005 Memo to all FAA MIDO and FSDO offices, the Manager of
FAA's Production and Airworthiness Division (AIR-200), Frank Paskiewicz,
explained,

"The Aircraft Certification Service (AIR) has identified several issues
regarding complex amateur-built aircraft. For the purpose of this
memorandum, complex amateur-built aircraft are defined as being turbine
powered with pressurized cabins with 5+ seats and aircraft that can only be
built in the manufactures facility, or builder assist center, or with other
commercial assistance. These complex amateur-built aircraft closely resemble
and are sometimes marketed as "Business Jets." This definition of "complex"
should not be confused with the definition of complex aircraft found in 14
CFR Part 61, section 61.31 - Type rating requirements, additional training,
and authorization requirements.

Amateur-built manufacturers are producing and selling both complex and
non-complex aircraft with "quick-build" and "builder assist" options. Some
amateur-built manufacturers are informing their customers that due to the
complexity of the aircraft, these aircraft can only be assembled at the
manufacturer's facility. Therefore, these aircraft may not be eligible for
an experimental airworthiness certificate for the purpose of operating
amateur-built aircraft.

A review of FAA Order 8130.2, Airworthiness Certification of Aircraft and
Related Products, as well as aircraft certification records, revealed
several areas that should be improved in the amateur-built airworthiness
certification processes. AIR-200 has been working with both FAA field
personnel and the Experimental Aircraft Association to develop the
appropriate changes."

Paskiewicz then directed FAA personnel:   

The directorate will identify and report to AIR-200 all the complex
amateur-built aircraft manufacturers located in their geographic area.

The directorate will issue a letter (see below) to all known complex
amateur-built manufacturer expressing our concerns about complex
amateur-built aircraft. A copy of the letter will be sent to AIR-200.

Any request from a manufacturer for an evaluation of an aircraft meeting the
definition of "complex" as defined herein must be coordinated by the
receiving MIDO with AIR-200. When the evaluation is completed, the receiving
MIDO and AIR-200 will review the results before the evaluation is finalized.

Any application for an amateur-built experimental airworthiness certificate
for an aircraft meeting the definition of "complex" as defined herein must
be coordinated by the receiving MIDO/FSDO with AIR-200. AIR-200 will assist
the field office in determining the appropriate course of action. FAA
designees will not be used. It is incumbent upon designee managing offices
to contact their designees with function code 46 to inform them of this. The
method of dissemination is at the field offices discretion. 
The warning letter mentioned in item two is pretty short and specific, and
will definitely get the recipient's attention. It briefly states:

"I understand that your company is building an (fill in the blank) aircraft.
It may not be eligible for certification as an amateur-built-aircraft in
accordance with 21.191 (g). To further understand your fabrication and
assembly process we request the opportunity to perform a preliminary
aircraft assessment to determine 21.191 (g) eligibility."

Interestingly, ANN has learned that not only is there no TC application on
file for any Epic aircraft program (including the heavily hyped jet... shown
below), but that Epic has allegedly neglected to submit their aircraft for
FAA evaluation as to its qualification for 51% owner-built eligibility.
Attempts to contact Epic officials, on several occasions over the course of
several weeks, has not produced any response to any of ANN's questions about
their Turboprop or Jet programs. 

Contacted by ANN, EAA responded that they were now aware of some aspects of
the situation and that Cadwell had contacted EAA, which "facilitated
meetings between the owner, Epic and FAA about what the next step should be.
FAA suggested that the situation would be best run through FAA's customer
service process, which entails going to the MIDO manager, regional office
and up the chain to FAA HQ if necessary."

EAA's Earl Lawrence also emphasized that there are a "a couple of points"
that are important to this situation:

Does the aircraft construction process meet the 51% rule?  

FAA did not believe it did, the owner and factory said it does, and that's
why they're going through the FAA customer service process now.

Apparently the company had not obtained an evaluation of the aircraft
construction process to see if the aircraft would even qualify for
certification once one was completed. 

According to EAA, FAA had contacted them last January stating that there
were some concerns whether the finished Epic aircraft would meet the
amateur-built certification standards.  
EAA also qualified that, "As for EAA, we have always maintained that
aircraft builders should follow both the letter and the spirit of the 51%
rule. Not following the rule diminishes the educational value and
understanding of the aircraft for the individual, and also jeopardizes the
current homebuilt regulations for all other builders. That's a statement
we've made before and will continue to make in the future."

Dr. Cadwell told ANN that he does expect, eventually, to obtain
Amateur-Built Experimental status as soon as the FAA is "educated" about the
specifics of the Epic builder program... an expectation about which FAA
officials seemed quite doubtful.

It is now obvious that the FAA has chosen to take a tough public stance on
this issue and now seems quite willing to enforce the rules, as written.
While a number of FAA staffers go out of their way to speak positively about
compliant Owner/Builder Assistance programs conducted in order to AID
builders in completing their aircraft; they admit to long frustration with
how far the 51% rule has been pushed -- resulting in the current situation
at Epic Aircraft.

The FAA's Paul Turk espoused a no-nonsense approach by stating unequivocally
that, "...we are coming down on Epic."

As to what Epic might do to come into compliance, Turk's answer is simple.
"We would encourage Epic to apply for Type Certification." 

More to follow...

FMI: www.epicaircraft.com, www.faa.gov, www.eaa.org 
   

Jim Campbell, Editor-In-Chief

Aero-News Network, http://aero-news.net
POB 9132, Winter Haven, FL, 33883-9132.
863-299-8680. Fax: 863-294-3678. Mobile: 863-860-5790
Copyright (c) 1999-2005.
"Service is the rent we pay for being.
It is the very purpose of life, and not
something you do in your spare time."
Marion Wright Edelman

Legal Notice: The information contained in this Email is confidential and
intended only to be read by the person(s) to whom it is addressed.
No one is authorized to copy, use, disclose, distribute or rely on this
information.
If this communication has been sent to you in error, please E-Mail the
sender and destroy the message.