51 percent rule?

[DennisH]

Hi,
I have a question. I am looking at a Pitts project. It was certified Experimental, but had a forced landing and was damaged. It has sat in a barn for 20 years. needs wings ang gear, new engine. If I tear into this thing. can I recertify it as a new airplane? The only thing I will be using is The Fuselage and tail feathers. Is this any different than buying finished parts in a kit? I figure the amount of work I will be doing is mor than half....any thoughts?
Thanks
Dennis H.

[Bill Greenwood]

I don't know the FAR on this, or if there even is one, but it seems to me that there is no way this can be called a new airplane if you are using used parts.
I think that if you ever tried to sell it and represented it as new; then any buyer would have a strong case against you for fraud in the sale, if there was a problem,or any lawyer for any future buyer.
I don't see how it matters if it is experimental or not, new and used are different.
Finished parts in a kit are not used and have not been through an accident, so there are differences.

I would phone or write the AOPA legal branch if you are a member of AOPA and have the legal service option.
Good luck

[martymayes]

Hi,
I have a question. I am looking at a Pitts project. It was certified Experimental, but had a forced landing and was damaged. It has sat in a barn for 20 years. needs wings ang gear, new engine. If I tear into this thing. can I recertify it as a new airplane? The only thing I will be using is The Fuselage and tail feathers. Is this any different than buying finished parts in a kit? I figure the amount of work I will be doing is mor than half....any thoughts?

Yes, it is different because I'm guessing those parts were previously built by someone for "education and recreation," which means they count as 'amateur built' on the Form 8000-38, fabrication/assembly checklist. They do not have to be built by you because any number of people can contribute to building a homebuilt, as long as they are doing it for education/recreation. The parts should not count as being fabricated by a commercial entity - because they weren't.

So the answer is YES, you should be able to rebuild the plane, easily comply with the major portion rule, certify the aircraft like it's a new homebuilt and obtain a repairman certificate, as I'm guessing that's your motivation.

[Sam Buchanan]

I don't know the FAR on this, or if there even is one, but it seems to me that there is no way this can be called a new airplane if you are using used parts.
I think that if you ever tried to sell it and represented it as new; then any buyer would have a strong case against you for fraud in the sale, if there was a problem,or any lawyer for any future buyer.
I don't see how it matters if it is experimental or not, new and used are different.
Finished parts in a kit are not used and have not been through an accident, so there are differences.

I would phone or write the AOPA legal branch if you are a member of AOPA and have the legal service option.
Good luck

"New or used" is irrelevant. Thousands of experimental aircraft have been constructed with used engines, props, landing gear, instruments, etc and this has no bearing on how the plane is sold. Once a plane flies, the entire contraption is "used". :cool:

The original poster needs to contact a local DAR for guidance but there shouldn't be any registration issues with rebuilding an experimental or building an experimental with previously constructed (used) parts. The FSDO will need to be convinced the builder has sufficient knowledge of the construction of the new aircraft to properly conduct a condition inspection before they will issue a Repairman's Certificate.

[Bill Greenwood]

Sam, as I said I don't know a relevant FAR, But.
There is probably no problem at all with his rebuilding the Pitts,
BUT to call it a new airplane is just not factual, any more than if you rebuilt a wrecked Ferrari and tried to pass it off as a new car.

And of course it is a normal part of almost anyone buying a plane to ask about previous damage. Is he going to falsify that? If he buys a new engine it will come with a new logbook from the factory, and if it is a used engine most buyers are going to want to see the logbook that came with and shows the history of that engine. Is he going say that there is no engine log as if the engine has no history and just came out of thin air?

Now he can probably just keep the plane for himself and call it anything he wants;But

Let's say he sold the plane, as a new airplane, and then there was either a qualiity problem or even worse an accident that might be traced to the tailplane off the wrecked plane.
Any attorney who can read and write is going to raise this issue.

How do you think a jury of average people, not EAA folks or pilots, is going to react when the lawyer tells them that the seller sold a plane that he represented as new, when in fact it was not new, and more so had parts that were not only used,, but which some came from a wreck. And his side can call an expert witness like yourself, perhaps to try to convince them that according to EAA that used and wrecked is really new.
How do you think they are going to vote? Not how you'd vote, but the jury that would hear such a case?

Why not rebuild the plane, but be honest on describing it if and when it is sold?

[rleffler]

I agree with Bill......

Has the Pitts been formally de-registered? The airframe still has a serial number and potentially a N number, which would prevent it being considered a new aircraft after the rebuild.

I see no issues in rebuilding to an airworthy condition and having an AP sign off on the conditional inspection. The airframe, although it may be in perfect shape, has damage history. If it were my aircraft, I would go ahead and rebuild with very detailed documentation in the logs of the current state and what was done to make it airworthy again. This would be a very factual respresentation of the aircraft's state.

I don't see any issues with the 51% rule.

I think the issue being danced around is the resale value of a damaged history aircraft. I think detailed documentation of the repair will negate this issue. As buyer, I would value the repair documentation in the resale process. I would also become very skeptical (if representing as new) when I start asking to reivew the build documentation and seeing large sections missing. Then I would start playing 20 questions and most likely walk away once I discovered the truth. Once a mis-representation is discovered, all trust would be lost.

[Sam Buchanan]

Sam, as I said I don't know a relevant FAR, But.
There is probably no problem at all with his rebuilding the Pitts,
BUT to call it a new airplane is just not factual, any more than if you rebuilt a wrecked Ferrari and tried to pass it off as a new car.

And of course it is a normal part of almost anyone buying a plane to ask about previous damage. Is he going to falsify that? If he buys a new engine it will come with a new logbook from the factory, and if it is a used engine most buyers are going to want to see the logbook that came with and shows the history of that engine. Is he going say that there is no engine log as if the engine has no history and just came out of thin air?

Now he can probably just keep the plane for himself and call it anything he wants;But

Let's say he sold the plane, as a new airplane, and then there was either a qualiity problem or even worse an accident that might be traced to the tailplane off the wrecked plane.
Any attorney who can read and write is going to raise this issue.

How do you think a jury of average people, not EAA folks or pilots, is going to react when the lawyer tells them that the seller sold a plane that he represented as new, when in fact it was not new, and more so had parts that were not only used,, but which some came from a wreck. And his side can call an expert witness like yourself, perhaps to try to convince them that according to EAA that used and wrecked is really new.
How do you think they are going to vote? Not how you'd vote, but the jury that would hear such a case?

Why not rebuild the plane, but be honest on describing it if and when it is sold?

This discussion is rapidly going off the tracks. I am not in any manner advocating dishonesty or skirting around the regs concerning registration.

My point was in regard to how a jury would react to the hypothetical of a crash involving the plane with the previously built fuse (this scenario is so far-fetched I'm not sure why I'm even spending time with it.....). I see absolutely no legal problems with selling a homebuilt aircraft with "used" components as long as everything is properly documented, accepted construction practices are followed, the old plane was deregistered, and the DAR was properly informed of the aircraft's history. How could a jury possibly have issues with that?? Once the aircraft has received its airworthiness certificate......it is legally airworthy regardless of the origins of its components. It can be called "new", "used", or whatever but its legality is not under question. Neither is the integrity of the builder if all the above steps have been taken.

[Dave Prizio]

If you can come up with the original registration and airworthiness certificate you then have proof that your plane was experimental amateur built. From there you can restore the plane and get a new airworthiness certificate assuming the old one expired (they used to do that), or if the a/w cert and registration did not expire, you could talk to your local FSDO about re-entering Phase I after a major modification. You would need an A&P to sign off the condition inspection for you, assuming the holder of the original Repairman Certificate was not available.

If on the other hand you want to just use some of the parts and call it a new airplane you need evidence that the used parts were amateur built, otherwise they will not count towards the 51% amateur built content as required under the new guidelines in AC20-27G. BTW, if you are starting over you cannot use the old Form 8000-38. You must use the new form, which has much more stringent documentation requirements.

Lastly make sure you get clear title with an FAA bill of sale properly executed, even if you just plan to use it for parts. Sometimes proving ownership can be a tricky thing on planes that have been sitting for a long time.

I suggest you get a good DAR to help you evaluate what you have and see which course is best for you. It would be a shame to do a lot of restoration work and then not be able to get it signed off.

[DennisH]

Thanks for all the replies. My main concern is the repairman certificate. I don't really care about the resale. I figure if someone doesn't want to buy it...well then...don't. I just want to be able to maintain it myself. It did have one of the older airworthiness certificates that had an expiration. I will look into that further.
Thanks
Dennis

[FlyingRon]

As others point out, you can probably do what you want (take it through certification again and get the repairman's certificate). Even if you can't get the repairman's certificate, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Having a different set of eyes take a look at your plane annually is NOT A BAD THING. You can do all the maintenance other than the condition inspection.

[Sam Buchanan]

Thanks for all the replies. My main concern is the repairman certificate. I don't really care about the resale. I figure if someone doesn't want to buy it...well then...don't. I just want to be able to maintain it myself. It did have one of the older airworthiness certificates that had an expiration. I will look into that further.
Thanks
Dennis

Dennis, there aren't any regulatory hurdles that would derail your project. As Ron stated, you can legally do ANY fabrication, modifications, repair and maintenance you wish without the Repairman's Certificate. The Repairman's Certificate is only needed to endorse the logbook following the Condition Inspection. If you can't get the certificate (I don't think you will have any problems getting it....) any A&P (AI not needed) can supervise the Condition Inspection and endorse the logbook. There are many A&P's who will work with you on this once they see you have an excellent knowledge of the aircraft.

Enjoy!

[Eric Witherspoon]

I would recommend to all - go get AC 20-27G (from the FAA website), and fill in Appendix 8 - Aircraft Fabrication and Assembly Checklist.

Even using a completely pre-built steel-tube fuselage, the builder could STILL complete >50% of the tasks in just the _Fuselage_. (Fabricate fuselage fuel system components, assemble ffsc, Fabricate fuselage covering or skin, assemble ffcos, Fabricate windshield, assemble ws to fuselage, for a small sample of the fuselage tasks that aren't fabrication/assembly of the airframe structure itself.)

Tasks in the evaluation form are not proportional to time to accomplish or parts count!

Even if the builder used pre-built control yokes/sticks, push-pull tubes / cables, brackets & fittings, cables, wire, and lines - there's still THE SAME QUANTITY AGAIN of tasks the builder can take credit for which consist of assembling any of those items _to_ the fuselage.

Are you starting to see how kit vendors can sell things to the "fast build" levels that they do? Because in evaluating the list, roughly half the tasks are actually "making" the item, with another half of tasks consisting of fitting/assembling/attaching items to the airplane.

So to Dennis' proposed project, he's got to build the wings, and then there's a task evaluation section for cockpit, landing gear, propulsion - each with dozens of tasks (on the evaluation sheet, hundreds if not thousands of tasks in the real world).

Then there's _BUNCHES_ of stuff that doesn't count one way or the other - upholstery, paint, avionics wire harnesses, engine rebuild, making the prop, making the wheels, brakes, and instruments, rod ends, bearings, bolts, rivets, bell cranks, etc. ALL of that can be bought ready to bolt/rivet/bond on/in, and it doesn't count one way or the other for or against the "51%" determination. Though if you DO make a prop, you CAN count it, and if you DO build the engine, you CAN count it. But that's only 2 tasks (just for reference, I got a total of 151 tasks in evaluating my airplane, so if you're looking to up your percentage by building the engine, that really doesn't get you very far).

If anything, Dennis needs to get the checklist and make his own evaluation - because about 1/3 of the tasks are in the tail. A big reason why many kits don't sell a "fast build" tail - they get 1/3 of the way to being a >51% kit by just leaving you with that brief portion of the project!

The 51% evaluation has NOTHING to do with time OR parts count. If it did, we'd be spending years making our own rivets! (Or composite, fabric-covered welded steel tube, or wood designs would be a LOT more popular...)

There would be how-to articles about mass-producing your own rivets, your own bolts, your own washers, self-locking nuts - sounds pretty far-out, doesn't it? But it's how the rules are written...

[Racegunz]

Eric is right, don't listen to Bill or others and their "opinions" there in no rule stating you can't use previous flying parts, otherwise no Breezy would have ever been built,(certified wing parts usually) you can even use a previous certified fuselage for your build as in a swick t-craft experimental. The FAA in this case is more reasonable than your fellow builders/aviators. AC 20-27G and the associated checklist is your guide. I just went down this road, and alot of builders will tell you straight out crap because they did it some other way and they think you should do the same.... thank God they aren't making the rules! Happy building!