Originally Posted by
Pittsextra
Question - what value add does it give, some clueless pilot bolting 51% of something together verse the same clueless soul being supervised to bolt 51% together? What are we actually trying to achieve? Or not achieve as the case maybe.
In what context? The 51% rule is merely one benchmark to meet the requirements of obtaining a Special AWC to operate an amateur-built aircraft.
Originally Posted by
xbdt
Not like 2 weeks tire-kicking at Hill factory.
You’ll find most build assist programs here have a similar 2-3 weeks time frame, so the HX process is simply in line with what the industry currently does. And given it uses a composite airframe vs a riveted monocoque structure, I see no reason why a HX couldn’t be finished in that time frame with a defined build plan, however, I still think it will be closer to 3 weeks than two.
Originally Posted by
Bell_ringer
That, to me, sounds incredibly vague and open to interpretation. A percentage is absolute, it compares two very specific and quantifiable measurements to each other. That said, 100% of the HX50 currently appears to be fabricated.
True. But in the context of determining the builder’s major portion (51%+) compliance there is further guidance defining the fabrication and assembly via job aids and checklists. At least with the FAA. And when the HX build plan is finalized and accepted by any involved regulatory agency, I anticipate it will be void of any vagueness or mis-interpretations.
Hill has been lauded by many on these pages as a 'disruptor' because he isn't using the same playbook as mainstream manufacturers but has the same aim - ie to bring a fully certified aircraft to the market, eventually.
So, if you are confident the development of the HX isn’t playing by the rules, why haven’t you, the many others, or the mainstream OEMs brought this to the UKCAA’s attention to have this “disruption” reviewed again?