What exactly is a homebuilt aircraft?
The FAA is in the midst of redefining their own rules to insure that owners
are actually builders, rather than having most if not all of the work farmed
out to others. Under current rules, the owner/builder must complete "51%" of
the aircraft for it to be certified in the experimental category.
Over the years, that description has become rather tenuous as some
manufacturers now provide "kits" which include pre-formed wings, fuselages,
tails, rudders and wheel assemblies. Some will do even more than that, it has
been alleged.
So last month, the FAA published its final report form the Amateur-Built Aircraft Aviation Rulemaking Committee outlining plans to keep the "home" the predominant factor in a homebuilt aircraft.
Moreover, the FAA announced that it was temporarily suspending inspection of aircraft kits for inclusion on the "51% list." That won't impact local inspections of completed airplanes, however.
The move halts inspection of designs at the manufacturer level until the final rulemaking is published.
Some critics of the new enforcement argue that many builders don't have the skills or the attention to detail necessary to build a flyable aircraft and having the kit manufacturers do most of the work is actually safer. The FAA, however, does not address that, sticking to its original plan to ensure that homebuilders do most of the work.
Regarding the new rule, there will be a public comment period, which the EAA predicts will be announced in April or May, and the FAA says it intends to have a final rule by October. The report is the result of months of work by the FAA and industry representatives trying to curb flagrant violations of the experimental/amateur-built rules, a spokesman said.
The report acknowledges that some companies actually provide manufacturing facilities for kitbuilt aircraft in which the builder does little actual work.
"In the most extreme cases, other persons fabricate and assemble the major portion of an amateur-built aircraft for the applicant," according to the report.
To put a stop to that, the FAA has proposed changes to the guiding documents rather than a rewrite of the FARs that govern the category, changing Advisory Circulars 20-27 and 20-139. The changes would more accurately measure and identify outside commercial assistance on the forms used by the builder and the final inspector of the aircraft.
According to Earl Lawrence, vice president of industry and government affairs at the EAA, the intention is to clarify which parts of the airplane are completed by the builder, what is done by the factory as part of the original kit, and what has been done by commercial assistance. A kit manufacturer presently can construct all but one wing rib while the builder "fabricates" the remaining rib, and both entities get credit for all the work.
There is also no requirement to state which parts of the aircraft have been fabricated or assembled by third-party commercial assistance. The revised ACs are expected to address these issues with specific guidance.
"The vast majority [of the report] is what we expected. We still don't know what the FAA intends," Michael Via, of Glasair Aircraft, told AvWeb. "We're waiting to see what the policies and orders state; nothing here affects our existing customers."
Jeremy Monnett, of Sonex Aircraft, said his company has always taken the 51 percent rule to heart and enforcement is the key to ensuring all kit manufacturers and builders adhere to the rules, the website reported.
"The resources required to carry out this enforcement have not been made available by the FAA over the last few years," Monnett said in a news release. "Without these resources, enforcement loosens and the rules are pushed beyond their spirit and intent, compromising the rules' continued existence."
The FAA has proposed forming a group of Aviation Safety Inspectors to validate a manufacturer's claims that its kit allows the builder to complete the "major portion" of the aircraft, the website declared.