My point is that there is a precedent where a European Annex 1 supervisory body can refuse an import onto the local registry if the US kit vendor does not supply some design data (as Lancair didn’t in that case, though many years later the DGAC changed its mind, probably in the face of the then-new 28 day max-parking ban)
This is not the same thing as the said supervisory body taking action against planes already registered and flying, but you can see the potential line of thinking.
The concept that the builder is fully responsible even in the face of “known safety issues” (basically LeSving’s line) will wash only so far…
Kits being built in France for registration in France is very different from importing a kit built aircraft.
In this case it would appear to me that VANS are providing parts which are not the same ie LCPs as was originally set out in the original homologation. Therefore as far as OSAC might be concerned, these kits are no longer the kits as were agreed in the homologation. So in that respect, VANS and/or its builders have 2 choices.
1/ VANS get the kits homologated
or return to manufacturing the homologated kits
2/ The builders build an RV as an experimental and go through the tests required by OSAC to turn an F-W into F-P.
In other words use the LCP parts and make any alterations that they need to make for the aircraft to pass those tests.
Or they could wait for VANS to re -homologate its kits or for VANS to go back to the original homologated kit manufacture.
The problem with importing an RV ready made from the USA or the UK and putting it on the French register is that it is no longer being purchased as a kit. It is basically the same as buying .a certified aircraft without certification papers.. To build the necessary dossier can mean jumping through a lot of hoops. What hoops will depend on the state of your dossier. For instance a Lancair might well have to be imported and put on the experimental F-W until the tests and dossier required by OSAC are fulfilled.
One would have to ask someone who has done it to find out if they are flying their Lancair under CDNR or CNSK or some other category.
Jimmy (from Jimmys world) just visited Van’s in his latest video.
It’s very long, 1h+, but at 31:00 ish you can get a glimpse of what Vans future will be. It’s also the end of certified aircraft as we know it, at least for SEPs, but we have seen that coming the last 20-30 years anyway. And a bit surprising, but gladly so, not a single mention of LCP 
Peter wrote:
The concept that the builder is fully responsible even in the face of “known safety issues” (basically LeSving’s line) will wash only so far
I can’t remember I wrote that, but today that is true. In Norway we have a QA system, an independent person checking, but that person has no legal responsibility in the end whatsoever. How is that supposed to work anyway without that person having some fancy legal protection and being there 24/7 – or being a government employee and having something concrete to check against, like a manufacturing standard? No such standards exists for homebuilt aircraft, which is the whole point. A “half way” standardization of amateur building is nonsense from the start. There is no way it would work legally (the builder/owner will always be responsible in the end), and an amateur will never be a professional.
It’s the same for ULs (factory built). No one is hanging on your shoulders checking what you do with your aircraft. The owner is the sole responsible for the aircraft being airworthy. This new US regulations that Vans looks to be heading straight into, is clearly the way forward, but it has very little to do with homebuilding. It will simply replace certified aircraft (with factory built “homebuilts” ) EASA will eventually follow, but probably in their own odd fashion. It’s not that different from the way gliders and motorgliders have been organized for decades however.
Maybe it will all end well, but I see a messy road ahead. In Europe we will have:
@LeSving wrote:
How is that supposed to work anyway without that person having some fancy legal protection and being there 24/7 – or being a government employee and having something concrete to check against, like a manufacturing standard? No such standards exists for homebuilt aircraft, which is the whole point. A “half way” standardization of amateur building is nonsense from the start. There is no way it would work legally (the builder/owner will always be responsible in the end), and an amateur will never be a professional.
You keep saying that no standards exist in E-AB but that simply is not true. The standard may be an invisible line with lots of grey area but it still exists. If you would like to test the theory try getting an airworthiness certificate for an E-AB airplane held together with just clecos. DARs can and occasionally do deny airworthiness certificates. So clearly an individual DAR has their own personal standards to determine workmanship and safety. If there is no standards why would the FAA tell the DARs they should ascertain if there are LCPs in the build? To me that sounds like, look for cracks.
Regardless of the DARs standards clearly many builders have standards when it comes to cracks in an aluminum airframe. There is well established consensus standards on the subject from the FAA and Chapter 5 still says small cracks can lead to death. A five page article from cornered engineers will not change many builders standards. Your workmanship standards may differ.
RV8Bob wrote:
The standard may be an invisible line with lots of grey area but it still exists
LOL, if it exists, then show a reference. A standard is a very formal thing. It’s made when the industry (mainly) and other parties (government agencies, customers etc) get together and start creating one. No such thing has ever happened with homebuilt aircraft. The exception is LSA, sort of, but not really. There is no way to standardize the build process of individual amateurs.
Experimental aircraft, as well as ULs, can fly because they are airworthy. What does that mean? It basically means an aircraft is airworthy when a government agency say it is, and say it within a framework of regulations. That framework may have lots of strings attached regarding it’s use, under which circumstances it can fly, who can maintain it and so on, but there is no standard there.
What do indeed exist is best practice manuals regarding how to do the basic handywork like bucking a rivet, making a dimple, drilling a hole and all the stuff that should to be done.
A designer of an aircraft/kit may use ordinary standards in the design process. It would be stupid not to because it would mean reinventing the wheel over and over. But then again, for some aspects not using tried and true processes is exactly what the designer wants. A typical example here is punched holes by CNC. This is really way off any standards and any best practice manuals. What it enables is fast jigless construction, extreme accuracy, and it removes errors that a builder usually makes. For it to work without the material eventually cracking prematurely due to fatigue, this has to be accounted for by lowering the stresses each rivet has to take. Adding more rivets than otherwise needed basically. Van’s can do this, also for standardized LSA, because they have shown with analysis, tests and years of experience that this works just fine. Van’s is obviously one of the main designers and contributors of this new “LSA” standard coming, which eventually will make certified SEPs obsolete. In every sense of the word, it’s Van’s who sets the standard for (factory built) SEPs for the foreseeable future. Van’s, the company who you have deemed down and gone The irony, the irony
Then there are all these composite designs. Most of them are way off any aeronautical best practice whatsoever, like all Burt Rutan’s designs.
The whole point of experimental aircraft, is they are not subjected to standards. Even if it was, there is no way an amateur is going to put that thing together and at the same time keep the aircraft within a standard, simply because an amateur is not a professional. This is more of a legal thing rather than a technical thing. The builder may very well be a super professional technically, but there is no need to be, and for experimental home built he cannot be a professional in a legal sense as per law. Who is responsible for the education and training of the builder so he/she is capable of building according to a standard? No one. This means that no one can be held responsible for an eventual standard to be followed. The only way this is going to work (legally for most parts), is the builder/owner is the sole responsible no matter what, and the only technical aspect is airworthiness, in whatever shape and form the governmental agency see fit.
However, the kit manufacturer is a professional. As such he may very well be subject to standards, also for producing kits. This may probably work just fine, but there is no such standard today. The closest you will get is the RV-12, where all the parts are produced according to LSA standards (whatever they are). But building an RV-12 in your home, and it will never become a factory built RV-12. It’s not the same thing, even if the aircraft is identical. Soon this will happen to all the kits from Vans, except the -3 and -4 (possibly also the -7, -8 and -9 ? don’t know)
The whole point of experimental aircraft, is they are not subjected to standards
That is wishful thinking in the European way of thinking, and that is where the danger lies.
I am informed that no RV will actually break up due to this problem, provided that the critical spots are addressed. But that is a different argument.
@LeSving wrote:
LOL, if it exists, then show a reference. A standard is a very formal thing. It’s made when the industry (mainly) and other parties (government agencies, customers etc) get together and start creating one.
Your utopian view of standards doesn’t even exist in the certified aircraft world. Some of what the FAA publishes has a certain level of vagueness. Maybe by design. You can ask one FSDO their interpretation and get a completely different answer from a different FSDO. Even part 121 airlines deal with vague standards and individual FSDOs changing the interpretation of the standard.
The whole point of experimental aircraft, is they are not subjected to standards
I think if you ask the FAA they will say the point of experimental aircraft is learning and education not as a free pass to disregard basic guidelines.
I think if you ask the FAA they will say the point of experimental aircraft is learning and education not as a free pass to disregard basic guidelines.
As mentioned a couple of times, by the intent of the airworthiness category no design guidelines, design standards, design review or design approval are applied by FAA prior to issuance of an experimental airworthiness certificate for an E-AB aircraft, just basic workmanship standards.
In this category of aircraft the FAA has intentionally removed itself from the business of approving aircraft designs, and the education and recreation aspects are intended to apply equally or more so to an individual designing and testing aircraft that do not comply with existing FAA certification standards. There are endless examples, two simple ones that come quickly to mind are lightweight composite structures without redundant load paths and single ignition engines. One could build an E-AB aircraft with structures held together with leather shoe laces, never mind altered riveting practices, and if they were tied properly that would be within the FAA regulatory intent.
Steve Wittman famously built a new wing for one of his Tailwinds, and wanting to see how it worked quickly he flew it with one old and one new wing, to provide direct comparison. He subsequently made it another ~30 years to age 91 before his fatal aircraft crash, the root cause of which was an unapproved fabric wing covering process that he developed and liked. Prior to that he made a huge amount of progress in his lifetime by individually designing, building and testing unapproved designs and processes on Experimental category homebuilt aircraft, including for example the landing gear design subsequently used on Cessnas and today on Vans aircraft too. FAA doesn’t create design standards for certified aircraft out of thin air, they follow the experience of what people do outside of existing standards in Experimental Category, including individuals within E-AB. The effete and intellectually limited view of homebuilding that would have no actual experimentation done within E-AB is not actually what the regulation was created to promote.
This regulatory intent is also why for example the annual inspection for any FAA experimental aircraft regardless of subcategory can be done an A&P mechanic with no inspection authorization (IA) being required. Also why it is called only a Condition Inspection – there is no approved design data against which it could be inspected.
RV8Bob wrote:
Your utopian view of standards doesn’t even exist in the certified aircraft world
Standards aren’t vague. But the basic principle in all industry standards is standardization of performance, not details of how to achieve that performance. They may therefore perhaps appear “vague” for those looking for a recipe. This is how LSA works, there’s only a standard. A step further is certification. Then you have to prove for a third party that this performance is actually met, by tests and documentation.
Anyway, dig up some reference or stop fooling around, please.
Peter wrote:
That is wishful thinking in the European way of thinking, and that is where the danger lies.
It’s actually the reality. And it’s real no matter if the “European way of thinking” don’t like it. IMO the European way of thinking is no different than the American way of thinking. It’s more that Americans are much better at seeing, and accepting, things as they are without pretending they are something else, which they aren’t. Europe has a long tradition of handmade stuff by individuals. It’s more that during the last 50-100 years, hand made stuff has been perverted into luxury items for understandable reasons, more like collectibles, while “consumer goods” is mass produced items subjected to “consumer rights” (all in accordance with PC lefties and PC righties). Today, you really have to look at it from a legal point, and it becomes clear as crystal that home made aircraft simply cannot be standardized due to responsibility issues. People may still do it, but it’s a useless play for the gallery.
