September 19, 2005

Earl Lawrence

EAA

Re:  EAA clarifies status of FAA policy on aircraft kit eligibility

Earl,

First of all thank for the conversation and advice.  You are the first person to take the time to give me an idea of what you think the FAA is trying to with the Memorandum of July 1, 2005 covering deviations to FAA Order 8130.2.

        Here are some comments and concerns that I as an EAA member have.  I would like more clarification on how EAA could help me as a member.

You state in bold letters that 'To date the FAA has not proposed drastic changes.'  What do you consider drastic?  A NEW notice going out to MIDOs that 5 or more seat aircraft must be reviewed by the MIDO is drastic to me.  What does 5 or more seats have to do with the 51% rule? 

There has been a section in the order for non evaluated kits for years.  Is this going away?  That to me is a drastic change. 

A NEW order making a 5 or more seat turbine aircraft kit "complex" and a 4

seat  turbine or jet not complex is a drastic change to the order. None of this has to do with the 51% rule.

        And is there a determination of the percentage completion that each current kit qualifies for, so a builder can know how much assistance can be utilized?  If the EAA and FAA want to make the evaluated list a true guidance for the builders then the FAA should make a % completion determination for each kit.  That would make it very clear what could be done by a builder at home, factory or builder assist shops.  Just adding a third column to the FAA stated “simplistic" 8000-38 does not clarify anything.  If the FAA were more forthcoming about what is desired from the kit companies and the builders that would be great. 

Do the current builders of the Lancair Legacy, RV9 etc. know what to expect on the proposed 3 column 8000-38.  This is a huge thing that potentially affects all kits currently being built with any assistance, including the factory firewall forward, factory wiring harness, factory hydraulics, factory fast door and factory builder weeks that are probably not included in the initial kit evaluation.

What about future kits that this would greatly impact.  Are the Lancair Ecstasy or RV 12 (I made up these names) to have no prefinished parts and no sheet metal cut to shape or holes predrilled? This would be a huge change.

What can be done?  I believe that there needs to be a summit.  The EAA would take the lead in bringing together the major kit manufacturers, several credible builder assist shop owners and a few experienced builders with the FAA.  The purpose would be to see if a workable solution for the 51% rule could be arrived at.

Another possibility is push to allow professional builder assistance with FAA inspections at critical junctures (Canada does this now.)

I am awaiting to see the official publication in the Federal Register this month.

Sincerely yours,

Carl Cadwell

909 North Kellogg Street

Kennewick, Washington 99336

(509) 735-6481

1-800-245-3001

Fax:  (509) 783-6503

carlc@cadwell.com

www.cadwell.com

www.quickmed.com