Homebuilts and the FAA

[WeaverJ3Cub]

Hi guys,

Recently, I've been increasingly interested in buying a homebuilt project and finishing it off. Without getting into the usual pre-buy stuff associated with buying a completed or project plane, I have a lot of questions about what exactly the legal requirements/privileges are for homebuilding and buying an incomplete build.

I haven't typically paid much attention to Experimental certification rules, homebuilt rules and regulation, or anything like that since I never saw myself flying anything other than Standard certificated planes, but now I'm seeing that fun and "affordable" aviation begins with an "E." :)

So, is there a book, thread, or other place where I can learn exactly how all this works? I figured this would be a good forum to ask. ;)

Some specific questions: Does the previous owner's work count toward the 51% necessary? Can I do my own maintenance? What paperwork is required for the sale? What's this I hear about having to fly off a bunch of test time before the airworthiness certificate is issued? Can I do my own annual?

Thank for your patience....I know this is a pretty basic question.

—Samuel

[CarlOrton]

Hi, Samuel;

I don't know if there's a single book that covers all aspects, but the EAA Experimental Registration Kit has most of the forms and instructions on what you have to do to get it registered, as well as the registration steps themselves. It's around $15 or so.

You didn't state if you have a specific kit in mind or not. EAA could help you out with the bill of sale. As an example, if there was no kit involved, but the prior owner did most of the work already, *he* didn't have a bill of sale (I don't think), but one will be needed for the conveyance from him to you.

If you buy a kit, the kit mfgr provided a bill of sale to the original purchaser that is not submitted until the plane is registered - usually about 90 days or so before AW inspection.

YOU don't have to do any of the work, or 51% of the work. As long as most of the construction was done for education and recreation (as in, you / they didn't PAY someone to build it), it can still be registered as experimental/amateur built.

You don't, and cannot, fly UNTIL it has passed airworthiness inspection. If you have an experimental engine, you'll have a 40 hr flyoff period. If you have a certificated engine (example: you build an RV, and take an O-320 from a Cessna, leave the dataplate on it, and install it), you'll only have a 25 hr flyoff.

You can do your own annual condition inspection only if you have a repairman certificate. I won't get into LSA particulars here, but if an E/AB, the FAA (your local FSDO) can issue a repairman certificate to ONE builder FOR THAT SERIAL NUMBER A/C only. FSDO's vary a bit, but most want to talk to you and see if you know enough by having built enough, to properly inspect your a/c in coming years. Typically, when you have your AW inspection, the DAR will issue a letter of recommendation that you then take to the FSDO. Generally, the letter says something like "I, the DAR, have inspected the aircraft and am certain beyond a doubt that Mr. Samuel has constructed the significant portion of this aircraft and therefore I recommend him/her for a repairman certificate." You don't have to have actually built 51%, just that you can demonstrate you know enough about the a/c to be able to handle any repair. If you buy a 90% kit, you probably won't be able to do that. If so, any A&P can perform the inspection - you don't need an A&P/IA.

When I started typing this response, there were no other responses, so if someone contributed before I hit send, this may be out of sync.

[rleffler]

Samuel,

I'm sure that there are many threads here to search and I know that there are on Van's Air Force site (even if your aren't building an RV, the requirements are the same).

The requirement is that 51% of the build has to be amateur built. It's not 51% by a single individual. People buy and sell partially built kits all the time.

The standard FAA Bill of Sale is what Van's uses. They just write XYZ Model Kit across the top instead of the aircraft model. You do need to be able to trace the kit's lineage back to the manufacturer and be able to provide construction records from the previous builders to ensure the 51% rule is met.

You can always perform your own maintenance and conditional inspection on an experimental. However, you must have either an Repairman's or A&P certificate to sign off on the conditional.

You can get the Repairman's certificate even if you only built part of the kit. However, you will have to demonstrate your knowledge and understanding of the entire build process to the FSDO inspector. I've heard variations from just getting the application rubber stamped to a long session of questions being asked.

Most experimentals have to fly a 40 hour Phase I with only required crewmembers onboard. For most of us, this mean just the pilot. You can get the time reduced if the engine and prop are both certified. But if you make any changes to that certified configuration, it will be treated as experimental and you'll be back at the 40 test period again.

Kitplanes has run several articles on these subjects. You can view the archives online if you have a subscription. Since it seems like you are just starting your research, Kitplanes is probably a good place to start. Look for articles written by Mel Asberry and Paul Dye.

I see that you are in Dayton. There are plently of homebuilders in the area. I know of several builders in the Dayton vicinity.

I'm in Columbus and the homebuilder community is pretty small. I can put you in touch with some local folks if you send me your email. I have a RV-10 that is just about complete and there is another RV-10 that was a project purchased about 80% from two previous builders at KLDZ. Plus a bunch of other flying experimentals. You are welcomed to stop by anytime. There is even a Cub being built down at Lancaster.

bob

[CarlOrton]

One other thing I was going to add: If you're not part of a Chapter, JOIN NOW!!! Each Chapter has tech counselors and other builders who have already gone thru this process, and will be THRILLED to talk to you and guide you thru the wickets.

[CarlOrton]

And just to further clarify, there is no set percent complete number that's a go/no-go for the FSDO to issue a repairman certificate. I said 90%; the point was that you need to demonstrate to the FSDO that you know enough to safely maintain it. A lot depends on the builder.

Also, you can finish the build with a group of any number of individuals, as long as it's for education/recreation. HOWEVER, only ONE repairman certificate can be issued. Just look at the Zenith project EAA is building right now as an example.

[Racegunz]

Carl has it pretty much right, I just got through with my build was a previous owned project, the only question you asked that I haven't seen answered is about the Airworthiness, it is issued at the time of the inspection (usually by a DAR) and is permanent the other required paperwork is called the operating limitations on those it will give you the steps required to complete the phase 1 testing during which you will be restricted to day VFR and within a desiganted geographiccal area, after you finish the 25 or 40 hrs you log that on the operating limitations papers along with the Vs,Vy,Vx speeds and that there are no adverse handling characteristics, (if there were hopefully you will have corrected them) same entry in the aircraft logs and you will then be free to fly about the country. Hope this helps.

[Dana]

I'll just add one thing that nobody else mentioned: Even if you buy a completed, already flying, experimental, and so aren't eligible for the repairman certificate, you can still do all of your own maintenance. Anybody can do any and all maintenance on an experimental. Only the annual condition inspection must be done by the repairman certificate holder or an A&P.

[WeaverJ3Cub]

Thanks for the comments everyone. Very helpful, and fascinating too.

To add some context to what I was asking, this was the project that I was looking at that sparked the questions. Looks very well built to me (though the all wood construction kinda makes me nervous—I know, I shouldn't be).

http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?2753-R-80-Tiger-Moth-Project

And below is the project that I saw on Barnstormers that got me thinking Experimental..... Still don't know if it would have been a good buy. Owner was asking $4500, which I wasn't going to pay, but we were talking. Sold it quick though. Two planes, both damaged. One flipped on landing, the other had a gear failure. No FWF or instruments.

2663
2664

[Frank Giger]

Welcome to your new addiction!

Okay, let's get the whole horse-and-cart thing in the right order.

BEFORE you put any money down or start worrying about the FAA, ask yourself what the mission of the aircraft will be. Too much aircraft means too much money/time, while too little will mean you won't be happy once it's buil....

Scratch that. Before you get serious, check your spouse/significant other. The reason homebuilts are less expensive (in most cases) to production aircraft is that you're the labor, and labor is a huge cost in manufacturing. It's an investment in time and money that has to be fenced off for the project from other things. Forget airplane widows - they have it easy over airplane widows most of the time if it's not handled properly.

Be realistic about the money. The kit/materials are the starting point. There are tools to be purchased - one doesn't need a whole machine shop, but one does need an assortment of power and hand tools. And a place to build and store the thing during construction.

"Um, honey, for the next two years you'll be parking in the driveway while I build an airplane in the garage" is not a conversation to have after the crates of aluminum and stuff arrive.

Shop EAA chapters in your area if you can. Each has its own flavor and experience! I got super lucky in that mine matches my needs in what to learn (everything) and attitude (if one is building a replica Starship One or a weight shifting trike they're both really cool airplanes and worthy of attention). Forget all the junk you'll read about the National Headquarters on the forums here - the EAA is the local chapter.

I would suggest NOT buying someone else's project. The threat of having to repair other people's fixes is a real danger to time and money. It is actually easier to rebuild a part than to fix a botched one.

[rleffler]

Samuel,

Most of our comments above are based upon buying an incomplete kit. If the aircraft has already flown, you won't be able to get the repairman's certificate.

As Frank mentioned, buying a half complete kit does have some risk, but is also a way to save some money. I would suggest getting somebody who has constructed a similiar kit do the inspection with you to determine the quality of the previous builder's efforts. I know plenty of folks that have gone this route and have great flying aircraft.

I personally didn't take this route, but for different reasons. I wanted to learn and build the aircraft myself. It's been a tremendous process accompanied by a great deal of self satisfaction. Even more so when I start Phase I the first of the year.

bob

[eiclan]

Gday Samuel,I too am at your stage though a little further on,I looked at the EAA biplane as a contender because I acquired a set of plans cheap,incomplete I might add,I even looked at used frame but in the end wise heads gave me good advice and now I have set of Hatz CB-1 plans in transit.I looked at all the options and my situation and made a decision that suited me and that is my advice to you,find an aeroplane that will suit your skill,budget,space and time constraints and build.It's all about baby steps. Cheers Ross

[Neil]

First, are you interested in the S1-C Pitts, or is this just an opportunity you came across and it spurred your interest?

If a small, single seat biplane (or any of the home built bipes) is what you are interested in I would invite you over to <biplaneforum.com>. Lots of experience there for the build/rebuild and good information on flying aerobatics if that is your focus. All types of Biplanes are discussed there and there are many knowledgeable builders of each type. There are even build threads you can follow.

[WeaverJ3Cub]

First, are you interested in the S1-C Pitts, or is this just an opportunity you came across and it spurred your interest?

If a small, single seat biplane (or any of the home built bipes) is what you are interested in I would invite you over to <biplaneforum.com>. Lots of experience there for the build/rebuild and good information on flying aerobatics if that is your focus. All types of Biplanes are discussed there and there are many knowledgeable builders of each type. There are even build threads you can follow.

Thanks for the offer Neil. I'm actually already over there as "Taildragger." It's a great place and I'm learning a lot. And yes, it's the single-place Pitts that I'm interested in.

[Vision401]

Carl O's mostly right about the sign off, but the individual DAR and FSDO may differ on 25 or 40 hours "fly off" on an certified engine. The rule was "certified engine and prop" in my first airworthy experimental. As my prop was experimental it was 40 hours. Individual DAR's can be testy. Mine wanted to see the cardboard registration not the pink flimsy which transferred ink to the registration card. I advise getting the two Advisory Circulars that spell out the process of getting an airworthiness certificate and how to test fly those "fly off" hours. One can bore circles in the air or really get to know their plane and what it can do.

Basically, one commits to the education of planning, building, inspecting, documenting, certifying and test-flying the homebuilt.

[CarlOrton]

Carl O's mostly right about the sign off, but the individual DAR and FSDO may differ on 25 or 40 hours "fly off" on an certified engine. The rule was "certified engine and prop" in my first airworthy experimental. As my prop was experimental it was 40 hours. Individual DAR's can be testy. Mine wanted to see the cardboard registration not the pink flimsy which transferred ink to the registration card. I advise getting the two Advisory Circulars that spell out the process of getting an airworthiness certificate and how to test fly those "fly off" hours. One can bore circles in the air or really get to know their plane and what it can do. <snip>

Vision, I had to reply, since you highlighted my "fly off" comments. And I'm smiling as I write this.

I have just finished Paul Dye's article in the latest KitPlanes mag where he noted the same thing. I fully agree with your and his observation that it's not just about boring holes in the sky. It *is* about developing a credible test plan, and, yes, I do have one in a binder and all (oooooo! that makes it credible!!). I'll watch my language from here on out!

[WeaverJ3Cub]

Thanks for the comments. Looks like I'm in luck with the article "So You Want To Build An Airplane" in the current Sport Aviation issue. That explained it very well.

I had no idea that the state would come after me for taxes. Ugh!

[Sam Buchanan]

Thanks for the comments. Looks like I'm in luck with the article "So You Want To Build An Airplane" in the current Sport Aviation issue. That explained it very well.

I had no idea that the state would come after me for taxes. Ugh!

The state taxes our cars, trucks, motorcycles and boats....why should we expect they would look the other way in regard to airplanes? ;)

Be sure you pay use taxes on time otherwise you will be paying interest and penalties in addition to the taxes.....that is what will really get you hacked off!

[Racegunz]

The state taxes our cars, trucks, motorcycles and boats....why should we expect they would look the other way in regard to airplanes? ;)

Be sure you pay use taxes on time otherwise you will be paying interest and penalties in addition to the taxes.....that is what will really get you hacked off!

I tell you why I think they "shouldn't" the car/boat/motorcycle were made by companies not paying sales tax on the materials, and except the boat will use State funded roads ect. I asked the Indiana chap when I was being extorted for their "cut" how much of the aviation taxes went to State aviation facilities ect. he said zero! a big fat zero! it goes to the general fund. It is a luxury tax simple as that!
I do have to add that as far as "property taxes" go which I oppose strongly, it was not a burdensome amount, just doesn't seem right in the "land of the fee home of the slave" to have to pay the man for everything you do.

[Sam Buchanan]

I tell you why I think they "shouldn't" the car/boat/motorcycle were made by companies not paying sales tax on the materials, and except the boat will use State funded roads ect. I asked the Indiana chap when I was being extorted for their "cut" how much of the aviation taxes went to State aviation facilities ect. he said zero! a big fat zero! it goes to the general fund. It is a luxury tax simple as that!
I do have to add that as far as "property taxes" go which I oppose strongly, it was not a burdensome amount, just doesn't seem right in the "land of the fee home of the slave" to have to pay the man for everything you do.

I wasn't defending the tax structure, just pointing out that when the FAA sends the local tax authorities registration info that says "AN AIRPLANE IS BASED HERE!!!" the local revenuers are definitely not going to let that one slide by. It's just too easy a target.

[rwanttaja]

I tell you why I think they "shouldn't" the car/boat/motorcycle were made by companies not paying sales tax on the materials....
Here in Washington state, we recommend builders keep their receipts and add up local sales tax on their hardware when it comes to registering the aircraft with the state (and paying the Use Tax). The Use Tax is reduced by the amount of sales tax paid.

Not much of a help normally when buying from places like Aircraft Spruce or Wicks, but these companies are more-and-more collecting state sales tax.

Ron Wanttaja

[predmond]

I'll just add one thing that nobody else mentioned: Even if you buy a completed, already flying, experimental, and so aren't eligible for the repairman certificate, you can still do all of your own maintenance. Anybody can do any and all maintenance on an experimental. Only the annual condition inspection must be done by the repairman certificate holder or an A&P.

Where can I find this in the FAR's? I have a FAR-AIM and after a quick look I don't see where experimental rules are covered. Does "maintenance" include things like installing a new propeller, or switching back and forth from land gear to amphib gear?

PRedmond

[rwanttaja]

Where can I find this in the FAR's? I have a FAR-AIM and after a quick look I don't see where experimental rules are covered. Does "maintenance" include things like installing a new propeller, or switching back and forth from land gear to amphib gear?
That's where the fun comes in. There ARE no FARs regulating maintenance of experimental aircraft. The aircraft operating limitations are the only binding guidance. So you can switch the prop or whatever, though you might have to put the plane back in Phase 1 flight limitations.

Ron Wanttaja

[Sam Buchanan]

That's where the fun comes in. There ARE no FARs regulating maintenance of experimental aircraft. The aircraft operating limitations are the only binding guidance. So you can switch the prop or whatever, though you might have to put the plane back in Phase 1 flight limitations.

Ron Wanttaja

FAR 43 covers maintanence and alterations to aircraft. Here is a cut-n-past from 43.1, Applicability. Note in particular paragraph B,1:

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section, this part prescribes rules governing the maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alteration of any—
(1) Aircraft having a U.S. airworthiness certificate;
(2) Foreign-registered civil aircraft used in common carriage or carriage of mail under the provisions of Part 121 or 135 of this chapter; and
(3) Airframe, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, and component parts of such aircraft.
(b) This part does not apply to—
(1) Any aircraft for which the FAA has issued an experimental certificate, unless the FAA has previously issued a different kind of airworthiness certificate for that aircraft; or
(2) Any aircraft for which the FAA has issued an experimental certificate under the provisions of § 21.191 (i)(3) of this chapter, and the aircraft was previously issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category under the provisions of § 21.190 of this chapter.
(c) This part applies to all life-limited parts that are removed from a type certificated product, segregated, or controlled as provided in § 43.10.
(d) This part applies to any aircraft issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category except:
(1) The repair or alteration form specified in §§ 43.5(b) and 43.9(d) is not required to be completed for products not produced under an FAA approval;
(2) Major repairs and major alterations for products not produced under an FAA approval are not required to be recorded in accordance with appendix B of this part; and
(3) The listing of major alterations and major repairs specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of appendix A of this part is not applicable to products not produced under an FAA approval.

[Flypuck]

Hi All,
I have a similar question.
I've come across an airframe I am interested in purchasing that was originally purchased as a kit. I would say at this point it is about 60% complete.
The current owner took it in trade for some work he had done.
There is no bill of sale or any build documentation on this airframe.
I've done some research on different forums as to whether this airframe would be able to be finished up and registered. Some say yes and some say no.
I figured who would know better than EAA members on this?
Any opinions and/ or guidance would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Doug

[WLIU]

I will offer the advice that you should get the serial number of the kit from the prospective seller and call the kit manufacturer. These days folks like Van's keep track of serial numbers sold so that they can manage the sales of parts against the serial numbers. They can likely give you info that allows you to contact the original buyer and see if there are any records at all.

That said, if the kit is on the FAA list of kits, then you can complete and fly the airplane as an amateur built. But, you might not find your DAR or FSDO willing to issue you a Repairman Certificate so that you can do your own condition inspections. Which is not a big deal as rubbing elbows with your local mechanics is often educational and helps expand your aviation social circle.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

[Flypuck]

Thanks for chiming in Wes.
It's an Avid and unfortunately they are out of business.

[martymayes]

I've come across an airframe I am interested in purchasing that was originally purchased as a kit. I would say at this point it is about 60% complete.
The current owner took it in trade for some work he had done.
There is no bill of sale or any build documentation on this airframe.
I've done some research on different forums as to whether this airframe would be able to be finished up and registered. Some say yes and some say no.


I see no reason why this project can not be "finished up and registered." Despite the manufacturer being out of business, some detective work may be required but if I was interested in the project, that wouldn't stop me.

[Flypuck]

I see no reason why this project can not be "finished up and registered." Despite the manufacturer being out of business, some detective work may be required but if I was interested in the project, that wouldn't stop me.

Excellent point. Thanks

[RogerT]

I would check with your local FSDO or DAR and find out what they're going to need to accept it as amateur built, if there's no builder's log
for what's been done. Any number of people can work on a project .. but the inspector will most likely want to see documentation.