Fancy BYO – Building Your Own – but have a list of reasons not to? How about the creation of ‘build centres’ with straight-up experts on hand? It might just be the solution…
21 September 2022
I’ve always fancied building my own aeroplane, but like many, I have that nagging doubt about my own ability to do so. As I’ve wandered the rows of parked aircraft at Oshkosh and the LAA Rally, I’ve been amazed at the craftsmanship on display, while knowing that my own efforts would result in something less accomplished. I’m happy that it would be safe, yet deeply pained by the certain flaws and mistakes that I would have created throughout the build process.
Smiley rivets, slightly rippled fabric, and composite finishes complete with one or two resin runs etc etc – and probably more etc.
So what are my options? I could buy an aircraft that someone else built years ago, but unless the builder was as meticulous as someone like FLYER’s Ed Hicks or Steve Ayres, I’d be worried about inheriting someone else’s bodges. I could scour the world for a real cream puff of a Grand Champion, but that limits your choice, ensures you spend top dollar, and if it was built anywhere outside of the UK’s LAA scheme, almost certainly consigns you to potential untold woes and frustration, while much air is sucked through teeth in Turweston.
A few types come with build-assist programmes. The best of these will offer knowledgeable and skilled help when you need it, encouragement when your enthusiasm flags… and probably tea on tap. You’ll still have the opportunity to make a mess of things, but you should be able to get some hands-on help where it matters.
Then there is the occasional talk of some individuals who build to order and the odd dealer who will sell a kit – but build it for you.
To me the process feels a little sordid, not because of the quality of the work – it’s often top-notch – but because it’s illegal. There’s the chance that you’ll end up with an expensive lawn ornament, or that something will go wrong during the process and you’ll find yourself in a bit of a pickle on the wrong side of the regulations.
Of course, I could always buy a new certified aircraft (well, if I could afford it), but a C182 is north of $500,000 + VAT and a Cirrus SR22T could easily be more than $1,000,000.
Maybe there should be a third way? How about, above-the-board build centres where experienced specialists build your aircraft with or without your help? Having people who know what they’re doing when they rivet, glue or bond main spars and other critical structures together, has to be better than unskilled amateurs doing it for the first time.
The time between flat pack and first flight would be significantly shorter too. It’s already accepted that builders can contract out specialist tasks like wiring, avionics, paint and upholstery, so why not everything else? Those who want to take 15 years to build a D140 from plans can still do so, those who don’t have that long can swap time for money.
I’m sure someone from the LAA or CAA will explain that it’s (maybe) the 51% rule being enshrined in ICAO’s stone tablets that’s stopping things. And there might be pushback from some certified manufacturers which have spent many millions jumping through regulatory hoops, but I’d have thought they’d be more than OK with a category of aeroplanes that were essentially both non Part 21 and non-commercial?
A big change like this would be no small undertaking, but it would surely be better for everyone, as well as avoiding the sucking teeth being accompanied by the blind eyes…
1 comment
Way back in the early 2000 Aerodesign(UK) held a CAA E1/E2 design organisation approval and were some way to getting Urban Air the equivalent production approval. The UFM Samba was the subject of adoption with a PtF and then full TC against Section S/ VLA (you do know that you can pick your own requirements and derive compliance data – don’t you?). To fully justify having a permanent facility We needed addition use of the workspace.
We wanted to set up a Customer Assistance Centre just like in the US, where kit builders could come and advance their aircraft under the watchful eye of BMAA and PFA inspectors. It also enabled the correct procedures for composite manufacturing and finishing (controlled environment).
We discussed this with the PFA but were stonewalled at the first step. The then CEO was not hearing of it, despite laying down the basis for adherence to the 51% rule, etc.
That idea died and with it went the rather large facility we had an option to rent.
Roll forward some years and we saw how the idea was utilised by Filip Lambert. Builders would go to Belgium and immerse themselves in stage builds of their M108. Each aircraft emerging beautifully built and finished, even with standardised avionics (option A, B, etc).
So, why is the 51% rule and associated restriction in place? Safety?
By any rationale analysis having your plane build-assist by professional engineers and overseen by inspectors applying LAA/BMAA standards must be safer than Joe Bloggs (ex bank manager) in his single car garage taking 20 years to put together his baby?
Time to look at this again maybe?