New 51% rule

[Buba1955]

Howdy All,
Well the new 51% rule is out. All of us that are building stretched Pacers should read and understand this doc. It’s online with the EAA if you’re interested. It’s apparent that we get a lot of credit for assembly. What if anything would you do differently to comply with the new rules?

ps. Please dont send me to the rant room :D

[chrisg]

I'd love to hear what others (more experienced) make of the revisions to the 51% rule.

While reading through it, I was at times under the impression that a person can't use a once type certified fuselage or wings at all. At other times, it read like a person can use them, but you just don't get credit towards the 51%.

[pistoncan]

http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/article ... ercent.asp (http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/articles/2009-10_51percent.asp) Here is EAA's take on it

[wildshot]

Yeah, I am building a stretched ummmm, PacerHawk, yeah, that's it. Thinking about cutting every effing tube in the fuselage and welding her back up, so's I can say I built it. I've only got 100 pages of advisory circular 20-27G and CHANGE order 8130.2f to digest.

Speaking of which, has anybody evaluated AC 20-27G, Appendix 8, Amateur-built aircraft fabrication and assembly checklist (2009) (fixed-wing) form? starting with say, a Pacer fuselage and wings? I am just starting this process, and if I survive this process, I'll I'll I'll, o heck, I don't know what I'll do. Could not be more disappointed, again.... Change you can believe in.

[stretchedpacer]

As I read AC20-27G at 8(d)1 and 2, which is around the top of page 11, we can use salvaged assemblies from certified aircraft in some instances. These sections provide:

Use of Salvaged Assemblies from Type-Certificated Aircraft. The use of used or salvaged assemblies (for example, landing gear, horizontal stabilizer, and engine mount) from type-certificated aircraft is permitted, as long as they are in a condition for safe operation. However—
(1) You should contact your local FAA MIDO or FSDO prior to using a major assembly or subassembly, such as wings, fuselage, or tail assembly from a type-certificated aircraft. As an amateur builder, you should be aware that when building your aircraft, the excessive use of major assemblies or subassemblies from type-certificated aircraft would most likely render it ineligible for certification under § 21.191(g).
(2) You will not receive credit for work done on, or the use of, salvaged major assemblies or subassemblies when determining whether your amateur-built aircraft has met the major portion requirement. This would include any “rebuilding” or “alteration” activities to return these components to an airworthy condition.

So, there seems to be some discretion on the part of your MIDO or FSDO but the practice does not appear to be, per se, prohibited. That being stated, it does not seem the use of a salvaged piper fuselage, despite the work to convert to tail wheel, stretch two feet and perform SB819 is worth much if anything toward the 51% requirement. This makes sense considering that the FAA rightly does not want us just re-building certified aircraft as amateur built since that does not comply with the letter or the spirit of the regulations which graciously grant us the right to build these great machines. I think the most succinct statement of that policy is found at subsection (e) which provides in pertinent part:

e. Converting a Type-Certificated Aircraft to an Amateur-Built Aircraft. The practice of performing alterations, repairs, and rebuilding of previously type-certificated aircraft for the purpose of obtaining an experimental amateur-built airworthiness certificate is not authorized under § 21.191(g). Such maintenance actions properly fall under 14 CFR part 43, Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, Rebuilding, and Alteration. You will not receive credit for these actions toward fabrication or assembly. We will not accept applications for airworthiness inspections on such aircraft.
(1) This policy has been in effect since 1952 under section 1.74-3 of the Civil Aeronautical Manual 1 (CAM 1), which specifically states that “structural components of other aircraft may be used [for amateur-built aircraft]; however, it is not intended that this provision be used to avoid obtaining approval of major alterations to aircraft previously certificated in another category….”

In my small brain, that is why a straight "Blanton STOL" conversion doesnt get it. Its a stretched fuselage (no credit as I read the circular) plus stretched wings (no credit again, they are just stretched), plus some re-built gear and a V6 engine. Just not enough to get a person to the 51% required. In fact, the Blanton plans go far enough to suggest that one should just "roll back" the fabric, cut the fuselage, re-weld, and then re-use the fabric. Not quite sure how that works but he seems to intend the plane to be very easy to build. Actually, I seem to recall he estimated 400 hours from teardown to flight, but I may be wrong on that.

On the other hand, it seems appropriate to me to stretch a fuselage (no credit) and then build wings, gear, tail feathers, cowlings, etc, and then cover the whole shooting match. In that case (and trust me, I am going through this), the only real part of the pacer/tripacer you end up using is the cabin section and as many ribs and compression members as you can salvage. The rest, at least on my project, was junk. Good for patterns if that. In fact, if I had it to do over I might have built the whole fuselage from scratch. Complying with SB819 was a B*tch.

All those words being expended, if I somehow get the no-go on my project I will either build a new fuselage and attach all the other parts I built or (ironically) I will buy a pre-built experimental fuselage and attach the wings, tailfeathers, gear, lift struts, cowlings, instrument panel, floorboards, etc that I built.

Not sure if this helps at all but it is my take on the whole thing. Simply put, I dont think all is lost (unless your FSDO wants to be unreasonable to the exclusion of common sense).

[JohnW]

Guys (I'm trying to be humble here...), that's what it said in CAM in 1952, and it's always "been my point" about my somewhat "unpopular" position concerning "cutting, stretching. modifying" TC'd airplanes. AS AN A&P WITH IA, I CAN"T DO IT unless I follow the procedures spelled out for a Return to Service, and the Regulations defining "continued airworthiness". HOW can an "amateur" have ever "been allowed" to do it??? If you didn't "meet the requirements" of the "51% Rule", you didn't "built it". "Performing MAINTENANCE" by stripping, repairing, recovering, ALTERING, [et c] was NEVER a way to "go Experimental" that was "allowed" in the Regs. If "we" have to "blame anybody" for confusing the intent (all along) of what was quite plainly written...it has to be the "loose interpretation" of various FSDOs (GADOs) over the years that [inappropriately] were giving out Experimental Certificates willy-nilly to anyone that wanted to "alter" a TC'd aircraft WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE RULES IN EFFECT. That was never "within the spirit" of "amateur built" (I'll draw some more heat, yet, from those that still WANT IT to be that way, but...oh well... it isn't and never SHOULD HAVE been. It was painfully clear from the beginning). I am as avid a Member of EAA for 35+ years as ANY ONE, but "going Experimental" by chopping up an otherwise pretty darn good airplane and CIRCUMVENTING the Regs always rubbed me wrong. Nothing "new" is really "in this AC", except for a [little easier to use] checklist for defining and recording "amateur work performed". You can STILL build a SuperCub, or a Pacer, Vagabond or TriPacer (and ALL the other airplanes that were ever certificated) from Factory Drawings, and actually "have the choice of" going Experimental OR Certificated (as long as you either did MORE THAN 50% of the fabrication/installation -OR- the finished aircraft "conforms to the Type Certificate"). Cut and dried. I'm really surprised that "private interests" (specifically Piper) didn't put the kabosh on "building new SuperCubs from scratch" by using intense litigation in regards to patent infringement and/or intellectual plagarism. But, I'm glad they didn't. Nothing has really "changed" with this "New" Rule, and I am pleased to say I have been a Member of EAA, for their stepping up to the plate and actively taking part in PROTECTING the Homebuilt movement from changes that could have severely changed the face of "Amateur built" status. GOOD WORK, guys!!!

Then, too...let us not overlook that the placing of a Certificated aircraft IN THE EXPERIMENTAL CATEGORY for a defined, limited amount of time for the purposes of obtaining approval for "changes" outside the TC parameters in order to VALIDATE the airworthiness, is still available. This was, is and shall be a continuing "requirement" for "flying off time" in an aircraft that OTHERWISE doesn't meet it's "Type Certificated, or legally altered" condition. If a Certificated airplane does not meet one of those two requirements, then the Airworthiness Certificate is rendered "automatically invalidated" (just read a Standard/Utility Category Airworthiness Certificate). So HOW could you legally fly an "unairworthy airplane"??? Either by the SEVERELY LIMITED "Ferry Permit", or the "closed end" Experimental Category, which allows a "return to Original Category" once the requirements have been met. That's how "it" was written, That is how it remains. "Placing my airplane" into the Experimental Category" has NEVER BEEN a viable option, since the requirements for altering a TC'd Product has NEVER been allowed by "uncertifcated maintenance personnel". Sorry. It's the Law of the Land, and has been "forever". I cannot "interpret it" any differently, and I HAVE TO "work by it". Probably the biggest source of "confusion" came by FAA NOT insisting on the use of the wording: "Provisional Airworthiness" (or "category") rather than "Experimental" category, when speaking about Amateur Built aircraft. Funny how imaginations can run rampant when there is a "semantics" problem proliferated.

"All of which" does NOT exclude using "Cub wings" to build a Breezy (or a hundred+ other designs). As long as you meet the "51% Rule" by the "now more clearly defined, but otherwise unchanged" requirements (and regular maintenance on certificated airplane parts, requiring certificated personnel to perform, should NEVER have been "counted") then you qualify for Amateur Built status, AND your airplane is eligible for an Experimental Certificate. "Thank your Lucky Stars" that FAA did not require any "maintenance" on certificated parts that you "use" doesn't STILL REQUIRE an A&P to return to service, on your "Homebuilt"! That would have SUCKED!, but they chose to "allow you" to USE THEM, and become "amateur status" as far as future maintenance was required (like...when "recovering")

I say again..."Changes? No, not really. Nothing has really 'changed'. Just been 'more clearly defined'." Just pretty much like the "changes" to Field Approvals. Granted, SOME PEOPLE will allow their emotions to overflow, because they "feel somehow cheated of their Rights". But all they are "losing" is something they never really had, except by the actions of some ill-informed FAA personnel.

[Gilbert Pierce]

Read THIS IS EAA by Duane Cole and you will see that the FAA had issues with "modifying certificated airplanes" way back in 1953 when the folks were showing up at the first EAA fly-in with modified airplanes. It was a bone of contention with the FAA from the very start of the homebuilt movement. The FAA drew a line between hombuilt airplanes and modified certified airplanes and never condoned or approved "modified certificated airplanes."

[wildshot]

Curious if a (known to be) pacer fuselage without a serial number on it can be used in a standard/normal category certificated aircraft?

[stretchedpacer]

John,

So, if I understand your interpretation correctly, one can use (for instance) the complete, factory built wings from a pacer on a breezy or whatever, but any part of the fuselage is a no-no. At some point this debate gets to be all about semantics and personal biases and interpretations. I have a hard time swallowing the premise that using any part of a certified fuselage is the talisman upon which the designation rests or is sacrificed.

Recall that the AC provided in pertinent part that:
(1) You should contact your local FAA MIDO or FSDO prior to using a major assembly or subassembly, such as wings, fuselage, or tail assembly from a type-certificated aircraft. As an amateur builder, you should be aware that when building your aircraft, the excessive use of major assemblies or subassemblies from type-certificated aircraft would most likely render it ineligible for certification under § 21.191(g).

As I read this section, the use of major assemblies is gray but wings, fuselages, tailfeathers, etc are all viewed as major assemblies. Again, the major use of these assemblies is problematic. What is major use? Firewall to about a foot and a half behind the wing attach fittings? Maybe. Two complete wing assemblies? Maybe. Tailfeathers, fuselage, wings and major parts of the landing gear and cowlings like the Blanton STOL? Probably. Rebuilding a tripacer to a pacer and calling it experimental? Definately.

I actually agree with you, the rules have only gotten more clear. That being said, I disagree about the clarity of the rule when it comes to using parts from salvaged fuselages. Of course, in every circumstance, it comes down to your FSDO and DAR and their interpretation of the rules.

Do you find it ironic that a person can buy a fully welded fuselage for a given project, that they didnt do any work on, and use it and all is OK. Or even more interesting, that same person can buy a tubine cubs kit which has a pre-welded fuselage and pre-fabricated wings and that qualifies for the 51% rule. Or, if I cannot get my project certified because I used a very small part of a salvaged but previously certified airplane (no, I didnt cut up a good airplane - it was junk), then I can go ahead and meet all requirements by bolting my parts onto an experimental fuselage built by someone else. I do.

As for the comparison to what an A&P can do to a certified aircraft and what an amatuer builder can do when building, the comparison is - respectfully - inapposite. When one has an A&P do work on a certified airplane, they want a plane that works like it should and within the envelope set forth in the POH. Put another way, they dont want surprises. Experimental planes are just that - experimental. Experimenatal builders can deviate in an amazing number of areas. That is the beauty of the designation. That being said, deviation comes with risk and, it would be my position that an experimental builder who does those things an A&P cannot should assume the risk of their experiment. Not the same as a person paying an A&P to deliver a known, comparatively safe, product.

In sum, like you, I dont think much has changed with experimental aircraft. Certified parts have always been potentially problematic. They will continue to be and a certain amount of discretion and common sense must be used.

[Hillbilly]

Curious if a (known to be) pacer fuselage without a serial number on it can be used in a standard/normal category certificated aircraft?

Do you mean serial number or data plate? I ask because I can't imagine how a fuselage lost it's serial number. Did it ever have a SN?

[JohnW]

John,

So, if I understand your interpretation correctly, one can use (for instance) the complete, factory built wings from a pacer on a breezy or whatever, but any part of the fuselage is a no-no.


No, you don't understand correctly, AND I can't for the life of me understanding you "getting that" out of what I said (and there is a "simple statement of fact" inherent -and intended- in this reply, delivered with absolutely NO vehemence whatsoever). I do not distinguish one "certificated airplane part from another" for the purposes of THIS discussion."Using Cub wings on a Breezy" was MERELY the easiest metaphor to grasp, so I used it. The WHOLE POINT of not only MY position, but APPARENTLY FAA's and EAA's positions...is that the intented nature of "Amateur Built" aircraft (aka known as "Experimental"...because LETS FACE IT, okay??? Unless you are using your OWN DESIGN, and a material list made up "as you went along" in designing this "Experimental aircraft", then what you have is NOT "experimental", and you cannot iron some Blood Red "EXPERIMENTER" patch on the sleeve of your sport jacket). If you are using a KIT of someone's else's design, WHAT PART of the "definition" makes YOU an "experimenter"??? To me, that would be ONLY the use of the word "Experimental" for purposes of the certification of airworthiness. Yet, the Cub wing, on the Breezy, WAS in fact an "Experimental". So. Surely, you CAN "cut up a Pacer airframe"; stretch it out here, beef it up there, and you can TELL YOURSELF you are an "Experimenter", but I hafta say again...I do NOT see that as the intent of preserving the "right" to "build your OWN aircraft, for recreational and/or educational reasons".

Yuh. This is a question of "degree". So am I saying that you SHOULDN'T be able to "buy an RV kitplane", do 51% of the construction (and it isn't even an ISSUE as to "what constitutes 51%!!! That will be evaluated -and defined- by a group of people with some knowlege of such evaluation!) and that you should be denied a pink A/W certificate because you DIDN'T "design and build every piece? No! OF COURSE NOT.

But SOMEWHERE, there enters into this discussion SOME ONE that purely and simply wants to "get out from under the thumb of FAA". This person, IMO does not belong in aviation, in the first place. This person can be found at almost any airport in the USA, with a Marquat Charger, or a SkyBolt, an Air Camper, or a Tailwind (or any one of a LARGE NUMBER of very good airplanes, of "adequate design") that he built in the Eighties (or earlier!), with NONE OF THE INSPECTION COVERS IN THE WING "OPENED UP", ALL THIS TIME! Anybody that "doesn't WANT" to look at the wing structure every year is a fool. Maybe that is "just my opinion", but I stand by it!

The StarDuster Too that routinely does "impromptu airshows" on Saturday mornings over an airfield near you...the one with the inspection holes that were NEVER OPENED in twenty years of twisting that airplane... that guy SCARES ME, and I would hope that someone would stop him from "flying over my head".

Actually, the "modified Certificated airplane turned experimental"... You are NEVER going to rationalize that, to me. Go back a short ways and read Gilbert's Post, FAA drew that line over fifty years ago, then "leagalized" Amateur built aircraft. I have read it, I believe I understand it, and I believe that The FAA AND the EAA feel the same way about it...namely "agree with it". I'm truly sorry if that "bothers anyone that feels differently about the idea of "cutting up a legal airplane and calling it "experimental". I just don't "get", THAT.

Wildshot: What are you SAYING? SURELY a Licensed mechanic can legally "fabricate" any piece/part of an aircraft (including the "part number" that IS the "fuselage frame"). An "amateur" may NOT. If the airframe is NOT a true "Piper part", and no one "signed for" it's replacement by fabrication, then the aircraft does NOT "conform to it's Type Certificate", and is NOT "airworthy", no matter HOW GOOD it flies. In fact, WITH OR WITHOUT a Standard A/W Certificate screwed to a baggage wall, that is NOT EVEN "an airplane" if the "continued airworthiness" was NOT done iaw Regulations.

[pistoncan]

Wow, That took readin over a couple times.

I really think there are two seperate issues here. JohnW has good points about the fact that the FAA has never authorized modifiying certified aircraft and calling them experimental. His cub wings on a breezy or amphibian is important in that it makes the point that It is approved to use a major subassemby in a homebuilt project so long as it or the total used subassemblies don;t come close to 50% of the construction. I don;t think anyone would disagree with that.

The problem comes in when you start using too many "subassemblies" I don;t see a problem using a pacer fuselage frame to build your experimental but you better build the rest of it yourself. Just like the cub wings on a breezy A pacer fuselage on a "producer" (for lack of a better word) would comply so long as you built the wings, landing gear, control surfaces etc. IMO.

THe second seperate issue that Stretch brought up is the incongruity of the fact that the wealthy can buy a 10,000 dollar prewelded fuselage, that looks and acts and feels just like a pacer fuselage and its ok and he gets credit for it being part of his 51% (even if he doesn;t get credit towards hes repairmans certificate). combine it with wag control surfaces, wing rib kit, landing gear, and lift sturts ( all certified by the way) and the guy with money has his "homebuilt" if he chooses to.
So a low buck guy is stuck. I don;t think its right either, but its the law.

[stretchedpacer]

Pistoncan,

Good summary. I agree that John W has some great points. In fact, I mostly agree with JohnW. We cant go around re-certifying certified aircraft as experimental.
I tend to agree with you that you should be able to salvage an otherwise junk fuselage and turn it into something entirely different, build the rest of the plane and meet the spirit and letter of the law. That is basically what I am doing. In fact, I just finished my second wing today and plan to bring the fuselage back in the shop to start working toward cover. With the exception of the cabin assembly, no other major assemblies were used on my projece. I built the wings, tail feathers, gear, cowlings, interior, panel, firewall, engine mount, etc. Will be building the rest of the cowling, etc this winter.

Will see how things go and whether I end up building a new cabin section to add the the rear of my fuselage. Hopefully not as I would hate to take a loader and just smash the cabin and put it in a dumpster.

[pistoncan]

Pistoncan,

Good summary. I agree that John W has some great points. In fact, I mostly agree with JohnW. We cant go around re-certifying certified aircraft as experimental.
I tend to agree with you that you should be able to salvage an otherwise junk fuselage and turn it into something entirely different, build the rest of the plane and meet the spirit and letter of the law. That is basically what I am doing. In fact, I just finished my second wing today and plan to bring the fuselage back in the shop to start working toward cover. With the exception of the cabin assembly, no other major assemblies were used on my projece. I built the wings, tail feathers, gear, cowlings, interior, panel, firewall, engine mount, etc. Will be building the rest of the cowling, etc this winter.

Will see how things go and whether I end up building a new cabin section to add the the rear of my fuselage. Hopefully not as I would hate to take a loader and just smash the cabin and put it in a dumpster.
Stretch, I don't think you are at any risk, I have seen pictures of all the work you have done and that cabin section is nowhere near 50% of the project. I only wish I could say I have done as much Good luck with it and I hope you fly down this way someday Gary

[wildshot]

Hillbilly,

They all drown.

If a pacer fuselage has no serial number, then it is not a certifiable fuselage?, that is what I am trying to find out.

I found Avi-Pro's 8000-38 approval on the FAA web:
http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultr ... ?Mfr_ID=16 (http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultralights/amateur_built/kit_listing/mfr_model_listing/mfr_info/index.cfm?Mfr_ID=16)

Go to Avi-Pro's website
http://www.bearhawkaircraft.com/Kits/KitsMain.html

See that the quickbuild kit is more complete and finished than my experimental (used in the certification sense only) Pacer. The QB Bearhawk kit has a welded, essentially finished fuselage frame, the wings are assembled, motor mount done, etc., etc. The picture tells the tale.

My initial attempt to add up the points in the AC20-27G checklist (with no credit to the builder for fuselage or wings) indicates that a Pacer project can be certified experimental (certification basis) starting with the fuse frame, and wings, provided other parts are built from scratch. Has anyone been through this process with a Pacer "kit"? And what was the result?