Experimental "51%" Solutions — Is Primary Category the Answer?

  • E-Mail this Article
  • View Printable Article
  • Text size:

    • A
    • A
    • A

From time to time, we'll feature posts and commentary from our sister magazine Kitplanes. If building is your thing, do yourself a favor and check out the Kitplanes blog — and be sure to visit their web site.

In February, when the FAA published the final report from the working group looking at “major portion” guidance, another proposal was floated to help manage what the feds believe is “excessive” use of commercial assistance in Experimental/Amateur-Built aircraft. That proposal centered on the Primary Category, a subset of certification rules introduced in the 1980s as a way to break an economic logjam in production aircraft.

In fact, the EAA and AOPA jointly proposed the category in 1984 because of two principal factors: Production aircraft were on the ropes, victims of an economic slowdown and ever tightening certification and production regulations, and kitbuilts were hot. Many people believed, at the time, that certified designs based on homebuilts could rid the land of boring Cessnas and pudgy Pipers, and all would be well. (Didn’t happen, but we’re getting ahead of the story.)

The Primary Category concept, much like what we have in Light Sport, was to reset certification and production approval standards in recognition of the fact that a simple, four-place airplane need not be certified to the same standard as transport aircraft. (This is, on the face of it, accepted among the more pragmatic builders and pilots I know, but is apparently difficult for regulators to grasp.)

As originally drafted, the Primary Category was limited to single-engine, non-pressurized aircraft weighing 2500 pounds or less with 200 or fewer horsepower. Your basic quasi Cessna 172, in other words, but not a 182. Or a Cirrus. Or, more central to our concerns, an RV-10.

But the EAA provided feedback and the FAA took the surprising step of reopening the comment period in 1991. Among the changes were to bump maximum weight to 2700 pounds and, to keep stall speeds in check, to specify a maximum landing-configuration stall of 61 knots, the same limit imposed on CAR3 and FAR Part 23 single-engine aircraft. Originally, the 2500-pound/200-hp limitation would take care of the whole wing-area argument. If you limited power, the designer would have to provide enough wing to have acceptable climb performance. The specter of mini wings and high stall speeds would remain locked in the basement.

Instead, industry managed to convince the FAA that an equivalent level of safety could be found by limiting stall speed, which returned the possibility of good performance using more than 200 hp. The other main limitations were that the engine not be turbo- or supercharged, nor could the cabin be pressurized.

By the time the rule was finally implemented in 1993—nearly a decade after the initial proposal—the industry was beginning to rebound and interest in alternative certification means was waning. Homebuilt Experimentals continued to grow, and the few companies with the wherewithal to pursue certification realized there wasn’t quite enough of a market there to justify the costs. Quicksilver certified the GT-500 as a Primary Category aircraft and sold almost none. At the time, the category was a bust.

But how about today? Could, as the Aviation Rulemaking Committee suggests, Primary Category be the bridge between super-fast-build Experimentals and the turnkey (but noncertified) aircraft the market seems to demand? Is the so-far good record of LSA enough to make it viable?

Dick VanGrunsven thinks so. “I think there’s a lot of merit here,” he says. “We would definitely look at the category.” According to the Van’s Aircraft founder, the certification process could be simplified to follow the ASTM-formed process that underpins Light Sport aircraft. “It would cost us money to prove our aircraft met the rules,” VanGrunsven says. “But we think we would make it back. We could develop new kinds of quickbuild kits. With Primary, the whole ‘major portion’ goes out the window. We could even produce airplanes ourselves.” Conspiracy theorists might note that the RV-10 seems to fit the category to a T: It’s right at the maximum weight, can make the stall speed requirement, and uses a normally aspirated engine. But there are many worthy designs that clear the limbo pole with headroom to spare; and they make up the bulk of the volume in our world, if not the majority of the money spent.

Sure, but what of the high-end pressurized turboprops that are also in demand? By the definition of Primary Category, they’d be out of luck, too big, too complex to be certified this way. Indeed, the only way for these aircraft to survive a comprehensive makeover of the “major portion” guidance would be to backtrack on what is provided in the kits—moving a significant portion of the work back to the builder—and, perhaps, to recast the way commercial builder assistance is applied to the project. (Meaning: You can actually take one home and build it.)

Where will this all land? That’s the question on the lips of many in the industry. The worry is that Primary Category is going to be used as the passageway for highly complete kits to be sold and built (and receive approval) while the screws are turned on both quickbuild kits and commercial assistance. A way, in essence, for the feds to say, “Look, we’re not putting you out of business,” while creating a huge gap: much less complete kits on one side and much more expensive quasi-production aircraft on the other. There’s great potential for the legitimate builder to get squeezed out of the middle as the FAA struggles to put clamps on the abusers.

Comments (7)

What makes me apprehensive when they start to tinker with rules relating to "homebuilt" airplanes is Jerry Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy. It states that in every bureaucracy there are two kinds of workers: those who work to accomplish the real goals of the organization and those who work to promote the power of the organization. Eventually the second group always wins out.

This seems to be taking place in the FAA as evidenced by their desire to certify two and four place GA aircraft uthe same way they certify a 747.

And furthermore, can anyone tell me why I have been given the "privilege" to build an aircraft for education and recreation but not for transportation?

And why 51% and not 36% or 72%? Who comes up with these rules anyway?

Posted by: TOTILA GRANDBERGS | March 7, 2008 9:06 PM    Report this comment

From a potential builders perspective: Whom does FAA want to build (and fly)?Retiered people? Or families how take the opportunity to go together with their kids throu the process? If it is a political goal to get people in the air (that means in the long run: kids), don't put them in a 15 year ( = never ending) process.

Posted by: Wolfgang | March 10, 2008 5:36 AM    Report this comment

The only consequence of the 51% rule is who gets the repairman certificate. Why is this being confused by everyone including Dick VanGrunsven and EAA? You can buy a used homebuilt and fly it for your personal transport. You just need an A&P to do the annual condition inspection. I'm doing just that. I would argue that building an aircraft does *not* necessarily qualify anyone to certify the continuing airworthiness of the aircraft particularly as it gets older and fatigue, wear and corrosion come into play. Let alone engine maintenance issues for someone who has bought a factory new engine and just installed it into the airframe.

What is needed is a simplified A&P with IA course for those who want to sign out the annual for that *particular * homebuilt aircraft. You could even specify that a regular A&P inspect and sign out on transfer of ownership.

I agree with you, totila, "privileges" belong in totalitarian dictatorships or monarchies where the monarch actually has powers. Free men and women in democracies or republics have the rule of law. What is allowable under the law is written down with the conditions under which you may do them. Comply with the conditions and there is no question that you may do the activity.

Posted by: Michael Borgelt | March 11, 2008 5:09 AM    Report this comment

There was a lost opportunity with the expiration of new E-LSA registrations. The idea of an approved weekend class and test in order to have IA powers makes more sense to me than the way repairman certificates are issued for homebuilders now. My 601XL will have to be registered E-AB and I will get the certificate based on the 51percent rule. Since I am also building the engine, I will have the necessary skills to do the annual inspections, but as stated above, what if I were to buy a new engine?

Posted by: Jim Lo Bue | March 20, 2008 2:35 PM    Report this comment

I would have to agree with the governor of Oregon. Precisely who is being harmed by the rules as they now exist? In the absence of any apparent harm why waste time promulgating a new rule? Perhaps it would be best not to interfere with capitalism at work in the development of a new industry. Any problems can be dealt with when they are apparent and well defined. Much better than attempting to regulate an unending series of imaginary issues...

Posted by: G Webster | March 23, 2008 6:51 PM    Report this comment

The 51% rule is ambiguos. Here is a real life example. A helicopter was build by paerson "A". register it, never got the airworthy. SOld the machine Person "B" dismantled, change Tailboom,remanufacture tail trans, overhauled engine redisigned pedal actuation sistem. Assemble it. Now is this 51% . It includes some new holes and redsigned. You would this yes. But the FAA thinks no. SInce he is not the first builder? The rule needs clarification and also what is the intention of it. Do we want to make all critical holes and assembly or have a kit manuf. do all this and have a builder put it togheter and fly safe?

CHarles

Posted by: Unknown | March 26, 2008 6:54 AM    Report this comment

The society of pass4sure JN0-350 United States would greatly benefit from learning from the past mistakes done by either United States or Native pass4sure 642-631 Americans. Americans and Native Americans didn't get along very well in the past, but with a little more help and determination a bond may form through personal matters. Personal matters affect all people no matter what race they are. All humans are affected by their surroundings in some way and this is a way in which all humans relate. To reconnect with the Native Americans would mean that the United States would become closer to the environment and in pass4sure 642-681 a way more spiritual towards the world. Indians teaching Americans to be more spiritual isn't like a religious spiritual; it is a strong relationship pass4sure HP0-S26 that is constantly growing.

Posted by: dil lay | September 17, 2010 12:11 AM    Report this comment

Add your comments

Log In

You must be logged in to comment

Forgot password?

Register

Enter your information below to begin your FREE registration