Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 22:49:05 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-2760713@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.168.78.211; envelope-from=super_chipmunk@roadrunner.com
From: "Bill Wade" <super_chipmunk@roadrunner.com>
References: <list-2755163@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-2755163@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: 51% rule?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

 So far the thread has focused on the construction aspects of Experimentals.
That's one part of the overall picture. When it's ready for an Airworthiness
Certificate the plane is at a point in time where everything is new or newly
installed and with no chance to wear or break. It'll never be like that
again- every part will be going to hell slow or fast and it's a question of
what breaks first. The difficulty becomes spotting problems as the machine
reacts to its service history in unique and unexpected ways.

  I think one problem with the hired gun approach is that if it's taken to
an extreme the owner may not know any more about the construction and
systems of the plane than if he went to a dealer and bought a Cessna or a
Beechcraft. However, he could fill out the application for airworthiness as
the "Builder" and be eligible for a Repairman's certificate under Part
65.104. This enables him to inspect and "annual" the aircraft. I think that
could be a big problem. The same would be true if someone took over a
partially-built project.

   Assuming this person honestly attempted an annual condition inspection
rather than pencil whipping, would he be technically competent? I haven't
been able to find a direct statement in the FAR's but the ability to conduct
an annual condition inspection implies the knowledge to recognize and skill
to correct any problems. If the "Builder" had done the work to create an
airworthy machine in the first place I think that would be reasonable. If
someone else did most of the work, who knows?

  I started building seventeen years ago and I was unhurried and very
careful, following AC 43.13 and Bob Nuckolls. I came to it with a lot of
experience in handling tools and working on machines. I made mistakes at
first but progressed until I thought I did some very nice work. Now I look
back at that and think a lot of it was rough. There's no substitute for
hands-on experience.

 When I started this project I hired two weeks of Builder's Assist and 
worked my butt off. If there are skilled people who have done the work 
before and can help you do a better job I think it only makes sense to 
employ them. As has been pointed out, it becomes a matter of degree but in 
my mind the "Builder" should be directly involved throughout.

 Traditionally, EAA Chapter projects are a group effort but one individual 
becomes designated as the Builder. That doesn't mean he necessarily did most 
of the work. I agree that build shops can be a valuable resource but if they 
do most of the 51% without the owner present then the owner shouldn't get a 
Repairman's cert.

  Unfortunately, "Professional" assistance doesn't necessarily mean good
workmanship. The examples that have been shown on the LML are one thing, but 
I think anyone who's owned a plane for a while knows there are bozos turning 
wrenches who shouldn't be within a mile of an aircraft. Even when the FAA 
knows of a bad operation it's very difficult to shut them down. I've spent
years finding and fixing things that were done to my planes over decades by
mechanics who either thought they knew what they were doing or knew they
could get away with crappy work. Most recently I had to redo work by a shop 
with a very good reputation that was going through a crisis while my plane 
was in there. Right place?, definitely wrong time. Would someone who hired 
the construction be able to tell good from bad?

  There are also a lot of very good mechanics and I've been lucky enough to
work with some of them. Many won't look at an Experimental plane because
they have no way to tell if the design was airworthy to begin with or if the
construction was adequate. They have much to lose and little to gain by
working on one, so for them it's a no-brainer. That puts the maintenance
back on the person with the Repairman's Certificate. There was a purchased
Dyke Delta at our field and the owner had the designer do the condition
inspection each year. That's not something everyone could or would want to
do. See where this is going?

  If the pilot/owner was the only one who could be hurt that would be one
thing. An unairworthy plane puts passengers and anyone or anything beneath
it's flight path at risk. I think that's how the public could be endangered
by a nominal "Builder" who did not have enough hands-on experience to do
what is required.

  From what I have seen the FAA is a bureaucracy with little incentive for
change and even less appetite for risk. Field Approvals are the way to
modernize and improve the existing GA fleet, making it safer, yet in the
past few years the process has gotten increasingly complex and expensive.
It's now to the point where few if any Approvals are attempted, let alone
approved. That's the main reason I want to build. The clampdown started in
response to complaints from manufacturers, who after all are in business to
sell new aircraft and expensive spare parts. If they perceive Experimentals
as eroding their markets, watch out. If build shops become common enough,
that could do it.

 FWIW, maybe not even one cent!-   Bill Wade