Repairman certificate

[Anymouse]

Thanks Marc, Cub and Marty!

Unfortunately, I find myself in the same place: Go check the FSDO!

The good news is that getting a Repairman Cert is not a big deal for me. I already have one for my Tango, so I know the limitations and sole privilege. It would be nice if I can get one, but the decision to buy this project was not made on that hope.

I'll probably document as normal and if I decide to try the RC thing, all I'll have to do is fill out the paperwork and then see what the FSDO says.

[cub builder]

There is an article in the current issue of KitPlanes that may be useful in discussion. Under "Ask the DAR", he says you must be listed as a builder on form 8130-12 to be eligible for a Repairmans Certificate. So the question to your local FSDO Airworthiness Inspector would be to ask if under your circumstances whether you would be allowed to file an amended form 8130-13. My guess is that the answer is likely to be no, but you won't know unless you ask.

-Cub Builder

[Marc Zeitlin]

There is an article in the current issue of KitPlanes that may be useful in discussion. Under "Ask the DAR", he says you must be listed as a builder on form 8130-12 to be eligible for a Repairmans Certificate. So the question to your local FSDO Airworthiness Inspector would be to ask if under your circumstances whether you would be allowed to file an amended form 8130-13. My guess is that the answer is likely to be no, but you won't know unless you ask.

-Cub Builder

Interesting. I could find no documentation that supports this contention. Not to say that it doesn't make some sense, since 8130-12 does say to list ALL builders. So if the 8130-12 had already been filed, then it would seem that an amended one would be useful to ensure that the new builder's name is on it.

The EAA states, at:

https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-...an-certificate

that THEY consider the primary builder to be:

What does "primary builder" mean?
FAA does not define this term. EAA considers the primary builder to the person who's signature is on Form 8130-6, block III attesting to the airworthiness of the amateur built aircraft.

So there's another form that the person applying for the RC would have to ensure has their name on it.

[1600vw]

Interesting. I could find no documentation that supports this contention. Not to say that it doesn't make some sense, since 8130-12 does say to list ALL builders. So if the 8130-12 had already been filed, then it would seem that an amended one would be useful to ensure that the new builder's name is on it.

The EAA states, at:

https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-...an-certificate

that THEY consider the primary builder to be:

What does "primary builder" mean?
FAA does not define this term. EAA considers the primary builder to the person who's signature is on Form 8130-6, block III attesting to the airworthiness of the amateur built aircraft.

So there's another form that the person applying for the RC would have to ensure has their name on it.

I know of a man who purchased a project that was almost done. He wanted pics of him building this project for just the reason stated here. So he could get this RC. He went to the local building supply center and purchased some wood.

He took this wood and started building his airplane. Took pics to show he did the work then scrapped the whole deal. He now has pics showing him building what looks like his airplane. He got the RC for this. Not the best way to do it but how he did it. Now I am not saying do this. But how this man did it.

[Byron J. Covey]

I know of a man who purchased a project that was almost done. He wanted pics of him building this project for just the reason stated here. So he could get this RC. He went to the local building supply center and purchased some wood.

He took this wood and started building his airplane. Took pics to show he did the work then scrapped the whole deal. He now has pics showing him building what looks like his airplane. He got the RC for this. Not the best way to do it but how he did it. Now I am not saying do this. But how this man did it.

A fine example of a man without honor. Just what we need in the EAA and sport aviation.


BJC

[1600vw]

A fine example of a man without honor. Just what we need in the EAA and sport aviation.


BJC

I find this kinda funny. For many know this man and he is respected by many. He has won awards for his builds and the airplane I speak of won some awards not long ago.

It would be nice to see this man sometimes and drop in on him. But I am never in his neck of the woods. Someday I may travel to see him again. A very very nice man and would help anyone that he could. My hat does go off to this man.

This airplane was sold sometime ago and now has changed hands a few times. Its maintained by an A&P today, not that it matters.

[martymayes]

I know of a man who purchased a project that was almost done. He wanted pics of him building this project for just the reason stated here. So he could get this RC. He went to the local building supply center and purchased some wood.

He took this wood and started building his airplane. Took pics to show he did the work then scrapped the whole deal. He now has pics showing him building what looks like his airplane. He got the RC for this. Not the best way to do it but how he did it. Now I am not saying do this. But how this man did it.

Pics of him building the project are not required in order to obtain a repairman certificate - there is not a single FAA pub that requires it. Instead of using all that money, energy and effort to create an unnecessary hoax, he could have been well on his way to building another airplane.

[Byron J. Covey]

I find this kinda funny. For many know this man and he is respected by many. He has won awards for his builds and the airplane I speak of won some awards not long ago.

It would be nice to see this man sometimes and drop in on him. But I am never in his neck of the woods. Someday I may travel to see him again. A very very nice man and would help anyone that he could. My hat does go off to this man.

This airplane was sold sometime ago and now has changed hands a few times. Its maintained by an A&P today, not that it matters.

So you condone his dishonesty because he is an excellent craftsman?


BJC

PS. I, too, know some highly skilled people (thinking of business men here, not homebuilders) who are dishonest. I can appreciate their skill, but I do not respect them.

[1600vw]

So you condone his dishonesty because he is an excellent craftsman?


BJC

PS. I, too, know some highly skilled people (thinking of business men here, not homebuilders) who are dishonest. I can appreciate their skill, but I do not respect them.

I did not say anything for what business is it of mine? This was a fuselage only. He built every other part. So really he never needed to do this but he did anyway. Really nothing dishonest. I know of a man who built over seven flying airplanes all built from hardware store wood, or wood purchased from your local lumbar yard. Who is to say he did not use this fuselage and not the one that was built by the other builder, whom also happened to be one who has won awards for his builds. This was his last build and never got it past the fuselage stage.

I never said one way or the other if I condone this or don't condone this. But what does that matter? When did I become the Aviation police. Above my pay grade.

[Auburntsts]

Interesting. I could find no documentation that supports this contention. Not to say that it doesn't make some sense, since 8130-12 does say to list ALL builders. So if the 8130-12 had already been filed, then it would seem that an amended one would be useful to ensure that the new builder's name is on it.

The EAA states, at:

https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-...an-certificate

that THEY consider the primary builder to be:

What does "primary builder" mean?
FAA does not define this term. EAA considers the primary builder to the person who's signature is on Form 8130-6, block III attesting to the airworthiness of the amateur built aircraft.

So there's another form that the person applying for the RC would have to ensure has their name on it.

Yeah but on the 8710-1, application for airman's certificate, you have to list the project as justification for issuance. Kind of hard to do that if you aren't listed as a builder. Having said that, there's no specified amount of work that the applicant has to do on the project -- set one rivet and technically you qualify as far as the application is concerned. The big question is does the applicant have the requisite knowledge to maintain the aircraft. For most of us we gain that knowledge via the build. However, for others, they come into the project with that knowledge.

In my case, even though the FSDO (Washington) knew I was the builder, because I had a different inspector for my repairman's cert interview, I was grilled on my overall maintenance knowledge. He really wasn't concerned with the airframe because he knew I built it. His focus was FWF. I was prepared and passed the interview but it wasn't a cake walk.