51% rule

[Dirtydog]

:twitch:Well after trying to get a DAR to inspect my aircraft for the last 11 months I have found one and he is telling me that there is more paper work if I go that route. Now I know I didn't build the rotor head, blades and even some of the frame parts. But I know I did a lot on the frame and even made some changes to it. How can one judge 51% rule.....?
Any Ideas?

Oh Ron A. did you change your number? Had a question for you yesterday!

 

[Resasi]

Chris when I started to look into certification when we know we were going over 254 there was an FAA Advisory Circular 20-27G which gave a pretty good rundown including a check list to help you determine how much you had done and how to go about the paperwork requirements to satisfy the Inspector.

Stu and I did our certification through Tom Milton when he came down to Bensen Days and he was great.

If you try this link I think it will give you the PDF file that covers all that and should give you a fair idea of just what they are looking for.

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC 20-27G.pdf

 

[Dirtydog]

To bad they don't have a Gyro plane check list to use. Seem every thing is centered around airplanes

On page 43
NOTE: This checklist is applicable only to fixed-wing aircraft. Evaluation of other types of aircraft (that is, rotorcraft, balloons, lighter than air) will not be accomplished with this form.

Being that said is there a form around? :violin:

Well when I added the score up it seems more points than the others but it's hard to judge.

I guess I should ask Tom Milton to throw a word in....

 

[GyroChuck]

I guess I should ask Tom Milton to throw a word in....

Tom doesn't visit the Forum that often. Your better off contacting him directly.
http://www.calumetair.com/contact.php

 

[gyroplanes]

Hi Chris & Chuck,

I still check here pretty much every day, but I have to be selective as I can't spend much time here.

The FAA did come out with a new 51% checklist, but as you have noticed, it's only for airplanes.

We DARs were directed to continue to use the old checklist for "other than airplanes". We gyro folks were kind of hoping they would leave it as is as anything new from the FAA these days seems to be full of problems and contradictions.

I understand Greg G flew his gyro down to the FAA Rotorcraft Directorate in Texas and met with them regarding our lopsided treatment.
Greg say's it may take some time and studying, but they are making progress.

I have attached the old checklist, it's easy to use.

OOOPS ! The file is too large. e-mail me and I'll send it to anyone wanting a copy. It's around 250kb

 

[Dirtydog]

gyroplanes :
I would like to get a copy if I can. I will E-mail you my address to send it to please.

Thank you for your time also I know it is that you stay busy,
Hope you are do and feel much better also!

DD

 

[gyroplanes]

Thanks Dirty,
I e-mailed you a copy of the current checklist for EAB (other than airplanes)

 

[GyroChuck]

Tom, could you email copy to Tim (Barnstormer). He could add it as a download on the Chapter 34 web site.

 

[HydroGyroNut]

Guys,I have a problem with the 51%Rule.
Why do we have to necessarily fabricate anything. I would think it would be in FAA's interest to discourage fabrication and encourage the builder to assemble ready made high quality parts in a well packaged kit, by a manufacturer. This will significantly cut cost as well as encourage more people to take on the experimental amateur 51% rout. The rule needs to be changed. 51% should mean more than half of the plane is assembled(not fabricated) by the builder. IF A BUILDER WISHES TO FABRICATE SOME PARTS, THEN THATS HIS CHOICE ,but it should not be forced on us, by some body(FAA). If we feel comfortable doing it, then thats different. Everyone possesses different skill levels. True Quick-build kits can further develop leading to a significant decrease in the number of hours put into building and more time in the air enjoying your air machine, at the same time STILL qualify as 51% amateur built. It would make a lot of sense.
When one buys model airplanes, we sometimes put parts together that are already pre-fabricated and we take credit for building them. Why in the world should the FAA insist that we fabricate any part on an airplane when any small error could end up leading to your/my demise.Thats not looking out for us but jeopardizing our safety. Hell,thats wrong wrong wrong. I actually want to build a gyro. I'm good with my hands but i do not want to be fabricating anything i should not be. Who made these rules. We need to change it.....
The question is, where do we start????>Any ideas???
Victor

 

[Resasi]

Victor you obviously think strongly about this, you posted it twice. Easy to remove one though just use your edit button.

Regarding your views about changing the regs, re doing the work, my 2 cents and that is all it's worth, just fabricate the gyro.

It will be the easier of the two options and teach you valuable things about your machine.

The research my son and I had to do for a lot of the setting up is vital information that may well be lost to those who simply bolt one together. That said I love the idea of bolting one together now. That Arrow-copter being one in mind though at the price it may be a while.

 

[gyromike]

Victor,

What gyro would you like to build, that you feel you can't because of the 51% rule?

 

[brett s]

Sometimes people forget why the EAB category exists in the first place - it's specifically for people who want to build their own aircraft.

 

[HydroGyroNut]

I do feel strongly about this. This is a classic example of OVER-REGULATION. We are being taken advantage off. There is more than enough work building a kit plane as it is and why is it their business if I go to Joe for a professional service for it to count against me. After all, I'm paying for that service so I can be safe and save some time to go fly my plane/gyro . I have a buddy building an RV8 for 5 yrs now. Before you know it, youre either dead or succumb to old age without ever flying your dream machine.
Quick Build Kits without fabricating required should be encouraged to develop further.
We are in a time of OVER REGULATION....We in this field generally love to build so we dont challenge this but it ought to be challenged, since it should be our prerogative how we build our airplanes, with what help we can solicit to build a SAFE machine vrs being told you yourself and you alone need to build 51% of the aircraft.
It should be like this: A kit manufacturer presents his kit to the FAA for approval. This is easily predetermined by the Inspector if the kit qualifies. Now the Manufacturers compete amongst themselves in design and quick-build kits(that still qualify as 50% assembly(Without 'FABRICATION") since, I would tend to buy a kit that states i could assemble my gyro over the weekend vrs the other company which needs 400hrs.
I understand the EGO thing about fabricating a bracket here or something else there ,however this should be your choice and not forced upon us..
I rest my case.

 

[HydroGyroNut]

I agree . the EAB is specifically for people who want to build their own aircraft. The key is I want to do this, assemble and put together a well designed machine. I personally dont want to waste time with fabrication and I dont think any regulatory body should require a manufacturer to leave certain items for the builder to fabricate, in order for it to qualify as 51%.
By the way guys, my dream machine is the Calidus. Currently, I cannot just buy one from europe and build it and take a chance with the FAA, because its not listed on their approved list. This does not mean that its not a safe machine. Imagine spending $80,000 on a kit, assembling it and then being told by REGULATORY BODIES that you have not built more than 51%? ........

 

[HydroGyroNut]

Brett, how else can one register a gyrocopter legally, so I can excersise my freedom of flight ? The EAB is there as a channel to help me build the aircraft of my dreams legally.
Victor

 

[GyroChuck]

Also, how else can one register a gyrocopter legally, so I can excersise my freedom of flight . I would like to fly a gyro but, hey, no. FAA says cannot buy one, ready to fly. You gotto build it, and also fabricate some of it.
Victor

Victor, there is a category just for you. Experimental Exhibition. It's a little more restrictive. But not that much. That's how most all the WWII aircraft are able to fly.

 

[gyroplanes]

Calm down Victor,

You can buy and fly a factory built gyro.

You can save money and build your own gyro.

If you bolt together a kit, you are not the manufacturer.

If we get the ELSA certification back again, all of your wishes will come true, but you will pay a significant price for the "easy build" kit. Look at the ELSA airplanes and their prices.

If it's safety you really care about, buy a J-2 or A&S 18a.

If you don't mind taking the level of safety down a notch or two, buy a used gyro. If you have the urge to turn wrenches, you can take it all apart and bolt it together again.

We have the best system in the world when it comes to flying sport & certificated aircraft right now.

You should be thanking the FAA, EAA and PRA for this privilege.

 

[GyroDoug]

Victor,

I agree with Tom. You really should be more appreciative of the options we have. There really are many ways to get into the air. While we all wish the FAA were less restrictive and that we could do things exactly the way we want to, that is simply not realistic and with the way the world is going, it will be become more restrictive in the future rather than less. That's just reality!

As much as I also wish the FAA didn't care at all about fabrication (under the 51% rule) and we could all buy fast build kits that allowed us to put our machines together over the weekend and start flying on Monday, that isn't likely to happen in the near future. The day may come however, if we can get some SLSA Gyro's put together that meet the ASTM standards, and then convince manufacturers to produce a fast build ELSA kit. The FAA has philosophically made that an option, but they are not making it easy to get to that point. It is a very complicated matter and will not be solved quickly or easily, but there is light at the end of the tunnel and there are many who are working to find a way to make that happen.

For now, be glad we have the 51% rule. For those that want to fly a gyroplane bad enough, there is a way to get there. It is not quick and it is not easy, but it is doable and there are plenty of people doing it today that can help you find a way to accomplish your goals. You will have to be flexible and you will have to pay a substantial price, in time, money, effort and emotional stress, but anything truly worthwhile comes with a price comenserate with it's value. Ask anyone who has paid that price and you will find most think it was worth every bit of the cost. Best of luck with your journey!

 

[HydroGyroNut]

Thanks Doug, Tom,all the guys on your input
I realize the fabrication aspect is no biggy to ya'll. I guess at the end of the day, it will be no biggy for me too and Ill join your ranks saying ,"been there, done that"
Fly Safe
Vic

 

[Resasi]

Victor, as someone who was not that comfortable with a screwdriver... I was OK with a hammer, I applaud your decision.

It certainly gave me a great insight that I would not have had into the elegance and sometimes complex workings of these wonderful flying machines, and was time very well spent.

I, like you, simply wanted to go and fly one right away, but the time spent researching and finding out how to build, why things had to be a certain way certainly gave me a much deeper insight into them and I think a safer gyro pilot than if I had not done so. I wish you well with your journey.