|
|
As I read about fabrication versus assembly versus X percentage of building
work not applying to the entire aircraft but only the "builder's portion"
that is arbitrarily defined anyway, it seems to me that the FAA has
complicated this issue beyond comprehension, much like the IRS has done with
our tax code.
I would argue that an aircraft is either certified, or it is not. Anything
less that a 100% compliant aircraft is simply not certified.
I question the value of the arbitrary assignment of 51%. It is still not
certified. Is it "half certified?" (I would argue no, since the half that
got built by an amateur still got built by an amateur, therefore, "no
certification for you.") If a plane is built by an unqualified amateur, one
could argue that ANY portion of the plane built by that unwashed amateur
(myself in the case of LIVP N413AJ) is unsafe, or at least not certified,
therefore making the entire airplane dangerous.
Is "safety" the point behind the 51% rule? What is the FAA justification
that makes 51 the magic number. Does 51% make it "safe?" If the amateur
doesn't have to build to certification standards, why is 51 significant,
relevant, or applicable?
Does the FAA think that a plane that was constructed 100% (or at least 51%)
by a guy who doesn't know what he is doing is safer than a plane built for
pay by a shop who has done it dozens of times?
Someone please tell me what I'm not seeing here. What is the FAA's
rationale in assigning 51% as the magic number? Does it have any meaning
what-so-ever? Why not just say it is certified, or it is not certified,
plane and simple?
Thanks in advance,
John
On 7/17/08 7:10 PM, "Dave Saylor" <Dave@AirCraftersLLC.com> wrote:
> When FAA says minimum 20% fab and minimum 20% assembly, they aren't talking
> about a 40% rule.
>
> In the proposal, the phrase "the amateur builder only fabricates 10 to 20
> percent of an aircraft, and assembles 80 to 90 percent" does not refer to
> the entire aircraft, only the builder's portion.
>
> What they mean is that of the 51% you have to build, they want 20% to be
> either fab or assembly. And not 20% of 51%; if 20% is fabrication, 31% has
> to be assembly or visa versa. The assignment of 20% vs. 7% or 25.5% or
> whatever was arbitrary and was one of the things FAA did after the ARC had
> finished its work. We discussed a minimum amount of fabrication but never
> got anywhere with it.
>
> During the ARC discussions we came up against a wall at almost every meeting
> trying to define 51%. The industry generally agreed that it should be 51%
> of the tasks required. FAA would like to see an approximately equal mix of
> fabrication tasks and assembly tasks, but EAA and the rest of the industry
> believe that the line is too blurred in many cases to really try to define
> which is which. For example, when you bond RV-10 door skins together, are
> you fabricating or assembling? For all-composite planes it gets even
> trickier.
>
> We think it should be left as "tasks". Do a task, get a point.
>
> The FAR says "fabricated and assembled", and does not specify a ratio. So I
> would think that ANY amount of fabrication would be sufficient.
>
> EAA is essentially proposing to leave the rule as is but tighten up the
> documentation and give DARs a standard set of criteria. That should help.
> But trying to parse how much assembly and how much fabrication will lead to
> more confusion and more loopholes. It would be helpful if we speak to the
> FAA as a common voice. EAA should be giving some guidance to its members
> soon about how to reply to the proposal. If we follow EAA's advice we'll
> have the most impact.
>
> Dave Saylor
> AirCrafters LLC
> 140 Aviation Way
> Watsonville, CA
> 831-722-9141
> 831-750-0284 CL
> www.AirCraftersLLC.com
>
>
>
> --
> For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
|
|