FAA 51% rules change - Important

Somewhere along the way the original intent of EAB has become convoluted by those wanting to fly. Prefab kits are nice --but they are NOT what the EAB rule intended. Perhaps those mfgs should either type certify them or adapt the kits to meet the rules.IMHO if a person cant fabricate 20% and assemble 51% of an aircraft -then they DONT need to be considering an EAB Aircraft!
 
I still need to understand the "Fabrication" definition. Sounds like there isn't one. I want to build my own aircraft & fly it, but, like others here, lord knows I'm far from an aeronautical engineer, or a machinist. Maybe a jackleg mechanic, maybe not. The ends of the spectrum are pretty easy. If I open a box & the tail surfaces are complete & rigged, and I just have to bolt them on someplace, I probably didn't fabricate those. But do I have to mine & smelt my own ore? Extrude my own tubing? Let's hope not, but it looks like these rule are vague enough to be interpreted like that.

These changes were designed to keep people from buying a kit & paying a professional to build it, or people who buy & build kits for the express purpose of selling them at a profit, rather than to fly them themselves. I wonder if a rule requiring that the builder fly the aircraft for X number of hours would solve that?

Seems like there are two basic groups: Those like Mike who are building their own aircraft from scratch, trying new things, innovating, and expanding the world's knowledge. That's how aviation (or anything) moves forward. But then there are the rest of us, who will learn a great deal by building, and become better & safer aeronauts because of it. We can't scratch-build; it wouldn't be safe. And that's an angle, too. You can get away with anything in this country by invoking either "Public Safety" or "It's for the children".

It also keeps us off the streets & out of the pool halls...
 
Great points guys!

I'll reread this again then use many of the point made to write the FAA.
 
Only evil...

Only evil...

Only evil requires the darkness to succeed. ANY rule that is slipped under the radar needs an armed escort to shine the light of truth and intelligent consideration before anything is made "permanent"

I personally never thought the rule was "BROKEN" ...

I will have to study the new materials before I weigh in with final opinion.

Thanks for bringing this to light.



Jonathan
 
Mike, my guess is your going to get mighty lonely with no new faces at the fly in's. You can pretty much say good bye to people who design and sell rotor heads and rotors. Where's the profit in a half dozen home builds a year, I'm sure they could use more sales not less. Take away the market and you'll Kill the sport for sure.
 
20% fabrication rule = gyro doomsday

20% fabrication rule = gyro doomsday

When it comes to this new 20% fabrication rule there is a huge difference between gyros and the rest of the aviation community.

There are no certified gyros at an affordable cost.
There is not used market of certified gyros to speak of.
Of the current gyro pilots and wannabes (like me) I would assert that a large majority will not entertain building a gyro where they have to fabricate 20% themselves.

Overnight the new rules will result in (maybe) a 80% reduction of new gyros construction.

Few new gyros, few new pilots means no livelihood for CFI's, bankruptcy for about all gyro centered businesses, the end of the PRA and a pretty boring Rotaryforum.

FAA and dire economic circumstances wiped out a large amount of small airplanes manufacturers in the 70's & 80's.

FAA and dire economic circumstances can wipe out a large part of the current Experimental community in this decade.
 
Lots of pretty thought provoking replies here.
 
Lots of pretty thought provoking replies here.

Lots of doom and gloom here.

How hard is it to drill a hole in 2" square aluminum tube?
How hard is it to drill a hole in 1/8" aluminum plate?

If you can do that you can build a Bensen-style or GyroBee-style gyro.

Add in a little welding and you can build a Dominator, or even a Little Wing.
 
But does drilling holes constitute "fabrication"?

If cutting a piece of tubing to length and drilling the holes doesn't constitute 'fabrication', I don't know what does.
Unless they expect you to mine your own ore and squeeze out your own extrusions.
 
Maybe the kit makers will have to provide the correct drill bits with the kits.
We need a clear definition of "Fabrication".
What if I build my own cheek plates but get some one else to cut them on a shear?
Have I now violated the fabrication rule?
 
% of fabrication

% of fabrication

I don't know if this answers some questions about what constitutes fabrication? But, the new AC and the new checklist divides each task into 0 % increments of that task to determine what percent of each of the tasks you actually do. So, drilling holes in a cheek plate might account for partial fabrication of a cheek plate - perhaps even 50% - if someone else cuts or stamps out the plate. It appears you can divide these in 10% increments - to manufacturer, to commercial service, and to builder.

I'm sure we could argue we don't have to mine and smelt and extrude our own tubing. But, the definition in the proposed AC says basically to make a finished part from raw stock materials. If a tube is already cut and bent to shape, then drilling out pilot holes and painting it might account for 20% of the task to make that finished tube. (And providing pilot holes to help assure accuracy is an extra step and expense the manufacturers don't need to take in a precision jig, CNC machine or on the factory assembly floor!)

The checklist also does not break down as detailed as "cheekplate". For airplane wings and flying surfaces, it does break down to some internal detail - for 1987 tech airplane construction. But, for gyroplanes, after you exclude the parts the FAA does not expect you to build - rotors, rotor heads, wheels, motor, gearboxes, prop, brakes, seat tanks, instruments - since they don't have wings, ailerons, elevators, etc., most gyros are left with just a few areas you might be able to "fabricate". For instance a bolt together aluminum tube frame might come under "Fuselage" or "Empennage". Look over the proposed checklist to see what tasks might apply for a gyro frame - but for a "plans built" gyro I'd say a large % would be builder fab. But, for the "kit" gyroplanes, the manufacturer might not so readily risk faulty amateur welding, composite layup, tube bending or even drilling holes. The kit manufacturer probably has precision jigs or contracted CNC fabrication, or expensive autoclaves - they do this for producability, for stength, weight and performance. With so much of these high tech aircraft going to the fully-built market outside of the U.S., the U.S will just be SHT (Sucking Hind ----) to the rest of the world! Already European aircraft manufacturers are re-thinking whether it's worth it to try to provide kits just for the U.S. - Xenon, Magni, ELA, MT03 - just to mention the gyro world!

"Intent": Do we really know what the "intent" of the 1987 "Education and Recreation" rule really is or was? When they say "education", shouldn't the "intent" be for safety? I suggest there is high (safety) "educational" value in installing an engine, flight controls, fuel systems and instrumentation - "Assembly". And, there is high "educational" value in tuning, calibrating and flight testing - but the builder doesn't get credit for these highly educational areas! These critical areas might not have much "fabrication" - and is cutting, filing, drilling, sanding and painting any real value to safety! I doubt the intent was just to make people pay their dues with dirty hands that had no safety value. Does the FAA really want each builder to get an education in Tig welding or composite lay-up - especially if that "fabrication" done by a one-time amateur instead of a skilled craftsman or precision tool, might actually compromise safety? The intent of the original rule, IMHO, was not, or should not have been to "fabricate" just for the purpose of getting your hands dirty. The "education" part should have had, and should have the intent of education in knowledge elements that actually improve aviation safety (preflights, maintenance, inspections, repairs, problem recognition and resolution, decision making, etc.) Not to mention an actually safer aircraft when built from quality parts to the engineering standard intended for those parts.


- Thanks, Greg
 
If the intent EAB is to let a novice learn-build -and hopefully fly a aircraft, it was a complete success in my case. I knew very little about gyros, but spent my free time for a year learning,assembling my SportCopter and going for outside flight training. I had no previous gyro experience, didn't have a pilot license, but had my gyro student license by the time N86SH was cleared to fly. Making a person fabricate any more than put the aircraft together will not make it safer, and probably less safe. It will not promote GA , and will hurt it.
Mike S, I ask you...what 20 percent of a helicopter do you believe is safe to fabricate? The rotors, the gearboxes, the engine, the rotor head, the frame,etc? I don't think this new plan is very well suited for the many various types of EAB aircraft being put together. The rule has served well over the years letting guys like me live the gyro dream. It is not easy buliding a gyro, but much easier than many other types of aircraft, so what is the point of making it any harder. Mike, looking forward to seeing you again at ElMirage.

Scott Heger,Laguna Niguel,CaN86SH
 
Last edited:
With LAS getting into high gear, the FAA wants to phase out the experimental "loophole". Face it - the population that will suffer from the 20% fabrication rule is the same population the LSA rule is designed for - sport pilots. The EAB 51% market became ridiculous in recent years. People "build" 51% $5MM personal jets, using "builder assist" programs :rolleyes: Gees.

So, the FAA says - you want to be a sport pilot? Fine, buy or build a LSA. You want big iron? Buy certified. You want to BUILD big iron? No problem - YOU must build it. Makes perfect sense to me.

Problem is, we - gyroplane pilots are getting screwed because the FAA does not allow LSA gyroplanes. We are left with part 103 and EAB. Look at Europe - in Europe people are buying safe, ready to fly, gyroplanes that meet the microlight rules. The FAA should see how safe microlight gyroplanes are in Europe and adopt similar criteria for the US. Or, they can just give the thumbs up to LSA gyros and we will start seeing MT03, ELAs, Magnis, and Xenons flooding our shores. Most people don't want to build anyway - they want to buy a safe, affordable, aircraft and fly it. Again - look what's going on in Europe - hundreds of Magnis, MT03s, ELAs, and now Xenons are flown safely by sport pilots.

Allowing SLSA gyros will open the door to ELSA gyros. Any gyro that at least one example of it was sold SLSA can be sold as a ELSA kit. That will help keep prices down for those who are willing to build from a kit. Most gyros that are sold as kits today may be transitioned to SLSA/ESLA.

One of the arguments against LSA gyros is that CFI/LSA instructors will not be able to teach in experimental aircraft any longer. I must be missing something. I don't see the problem. Lets say Air Command International is getting their open frame tandem gyro SLSA approved. They sell a couple of them for a nice margin over current prices. Now our low-cost CFI is buying an ELSA kit and builds it himself. My understanding is that training is allowed in ELSA aircraft. So, what is the problem? CFIs or LSA instructors won't have to buy a $100K Xenon to do training. Existing and new gyro manufacturers will immediately fill the gap by offering the same gyros under LSA rules. The price of thes gyros might be a little more expensive, but not as bad as some here are making you think. Think about all the poor designs that will be purged out as a bonus ;) Also, hopefully soon the Dollar will bounce back an suddenly those nice European tandems will become affordable again. :cool:
 
Last edited:
ELSA transition?

ELSA transition?

Hi Udi,

You are correct that gyroplanes have a particular disadvantage in this "kit" policy change because the FAA does not allow SLSA gyroplanes.

You mentioned "Most gyros that are sold as kits today may be transitioned to SLSA/ESLA. " - not true for individual existing LSA aircraft - that option for existing machines expired Jan '08. If you mean ANY kit available today can be sold as an SLSA or ELSA, not true right now either - even if the FAA allowed it. I know of no gyroplane available right now that will meet the ASTM gyroplane standard - or the associated QA and Continued Airworthiness standard. That is not always the gyroplane's fault, the gyroplane standard apparently has some problems – gyros with great safety records do not meet it in all aspects. (I would certainly love it if someone else would take the ASTM gyroplane subcommittee chair job and get this standard fixed up - I've not had the time and it looks like there could be even more non-consensus technicalities to mediate through than when even RAF was part of the original development! - Volunteer anyone?)

If we get the ASTM gyroplane subcommittee back on the job adjusting the Standard so some of these available models can meet it, we would need participation by those producers. I've tried - at least the currently available European producers don't seem to want to take the time necessary to participate as they need to - I guess the U.S. market doesn't seem so inviting to them with the growth of gyroplane popularity worldwide. The U.S. is SHT again! And, what I have gotten from a couple of these producers, Magni and Xenon, it is obvious that it will take some creative facilitating to get them to agree technically - still looking for a committee chair volunteer!

You are correct that CFIs can (currently) use any "Experimental" gyroplane to train in - including their ELSA (if they "transitioned it before last Jan 31!). But, you nailed it when you said “With LAS getting into high gear, the FAA wants to phase out the experimental "loophole." When and if gyroplanes would be allowed by the FAA to be sold as SLSA, it is likely then that our "experimental" LODA option would go away - all training would be required in SLSA. All trainer gyroplanes would then be expensive SLSA models (that don’t make good trainers for the “build from scratch” gyros!) - ELSA would not be allowed for hired training if they drop our LODA option. The LODA option is there to cover gyroplanes and aircraft models that don't have the SLSA option.

Approval for SLSA is not simply the FAA allowing it. The QA and Continued Airworthiness - tracking, paperwork, etc. - is rather onerous for smaller producers like Air Command International and RFD and Sport Copter. The likely producers to afford and agree to do this might be the expensive European ones. Several U.S. producers are shying away from supporting SLSA for liability concerns also – don’t trust SLSA to insulate them! IMHO, most if not all gyro producers have not really looked at what is really required to be SLSA – even if allowed by the FAA. What is really required will likely add to the prices.

Thanks, Greg
 
Scott --I really dont know what 20% of a helicopter could be fabricated--hell maybe it couldnt be for the average homebuilder--but is that necessairly a bad thing--
 
...what 20 percent of a helicopter do you believe is safe to fabricate? The rotors, the gearboxes, the engine, the rotor head, the frame,etc? I don't think this new plan is very well suited for the many various types of EAB aircraft being put together.

Scott Heger,Laguna Niguel,CaN86SH

I believe Greg has already pointed out that rotors, rotor heads, props, etc., aren't included in the tally. I would imagine that tail rotors and gearboxes, transmissions, engine's etc would be excluded also.

If Greg's list of excluded components are correct, that pretty much leaves the airframe that requires 20% to be fabricated.

A Safari is 4130 tubing isn't it?
How much more difficult is it to weld up than a Wittman Tailwind?

People have been scratch building tube and fabric, wood, aluminum sheetmetal, and composite aircraft for decades.
 
Scott --I really dont know what 20% of a helicopter could be fabricated--hell maybe it couldnt be for the average homebuilder--but is that necessairly a bad thing--

Mike, this might be a bad thing is you want to fly a helicopter for sport - there aren't any options in the U.S. other than Experimental kit helicopters. Have you priced an R22 lately?

On the other hand, Stan Foster told me this weekend that the Helicycle probably can meet the 20% fab requirement. Remember, many of the critical items, engines, rotor, tranies, instruments, are not required to be fabricated or assembled by the builder - helicopters and gyros have lots of these "exempted" parts. You have to look at what's left - airframes, controls, enclosures, windscreens, etc. I would hope we might see some feedback from some experienced builders on different aircraft models using the proposed new checklist to determine % of fabrication.

I've only looked at aircraft I have built - two passed the 20% in my build experience - a Kolb Twinstar (FW) and a Dominator (maybe!). I could not make an Air Command or Quicksilver MX meet the 20% fab requirement. Arguably, I might even have a tough time adding enough builder fabrication options to a Magni "kit". Especially if you have some build experience, please share your fabrication experience with us. (Remember, the final arbitrator on the % of fabrication will be the DAR at the end of the project who may be needing to cover his butt with the new policy! The outcome might depend on how convincing you are and what % you can credit to drilling some holes. This would be AFTER the project is complete with little chance to go back to fabricate something else. After all that work, I'd like to be confident it will pass the DAR's calculation! So would most kit purchasers.)

- Thanks, Greg
 
Could the rule be interpreted to mean that the builder must fabricate 51% of the components that ARE NOT excluded? In other words, if all that is not excluded is the frame, controls & tail surfaces, would you be okay to only build 51% of those components, even though they might only constitute 50% of the total aircraft, so you'd only be fabricating 26% of the total?
 
Could the rule be interpreted to mean that the builder must fabricate 51% of the components that ARE NOT excluded? In other words, if all that is not excluded is the frame, controls & tail surfaces, would you be okay to only build 51% of those components, even though they might only constitute 50% of the total aircraft, so you'd only be fabricating 26% of the total?

The way I understand it, you would need to "build" 51% of what is not excluded. Part of that 51% of non-excluded parts, 20% would need to fall under the "fabricate" category. So, if frame and controls and tail surfaces are all there is left, you would need to build (fabricate and assemble) 51% of this. And of these non-excluded parts, at least 20% must be "fabricated" by the builder. So, taking everything into account, the builder might only be actually "building" a small percent of the whole aircraft. But, of this small percent, at least 20% of that must be fabricated by the builder - airframe, controls, tail surfaces, etc. Also, at least 20% of what is left must be "assembled" by the builder - but that "assemble" 20% should be no problem for a kit.

On a whole gyro, where the builder could rack up a few e fab % points is in the cockpit - fabricate instrument panel and electrical wiring. But, looking at the checklist, those two items under cockpit are diminished by other items under cockpit that it might not be the best for the builder to fabricate! On the Magni M16, we get to count fabricating the windscreen - but that would be difficult on a gyro that uses a blown (convex curved) windscreen or canopy. On many gyros, to get closer to the 20%, you might be able to add, exterior lighting - but the checklist does not have a task for this! Just looking for things to count toward "fabricate".

Do a test run on the checklist to see how you see it. Assuming we would not have to ratio everything that applies to a gyro agains all 187 tasks the checklist says you must use, see if you can come up with 51% of all non-excluded components, with at least 20% of the whole being "fabricate". I think I could argue that around 70-80 of those 187 tasks might apply to gyros. If we have to use 187 tasks in the denominator, then we may already be less than 45% before we do anything! (But, they can't be expecting us to fabricate wings and ailerons and elevators for all our gyros! - So, I start with just the number of tasks I can find or create that apply to gyros.)

- Greg
 
Top