Registering a Destroyed Aircraft

[lmccormick]

I "think" I was given a glider that is listed on the FAA registry as "destroyed" in 1992. The glider was sold/given to another pilot as parts since he has the same plane. No bill of sale or any other paperwork was ever filed, it is still registered with the FAA as "Cancelled/destroyed" in 1992. That remains of that plane was "given" to me by the second person - who has no paperwork. The original owners (it was co-owned by a father/son) has proved difficult/impossible to locate. All the local airports tell me they will not allow a plane to be at the airport without insurance and the insurance people tell me they will not insure without the title/registration. The glider needs a lot of work, but hesitant to even begin until I know that I own it.
Is there a way to register this plane in my name since it was listed as destroyed. Seems like people who recover lost aircraft that have been located years after they disappeared must be able to do this somehow?

Larry M

[Chris In Marshfield]

Great question. We have a similar scenario at my airport. I'd love to see what folks have to say about it.

[Dana]

People rebuild "destroyed" aircraft all the time, but the big problem might be establishing title to the aircraft (chain of ownership / bill of sale). Can you contact the original owner and get a bill of sale?

[lmccormick]

That was my question I was trying to state - establishing ownership.... So far we have not been able to locate either of the co-owners. I was really asking if "there is another way to establish title to a destroyed aircraft".

[dougbush]

You could ask the FAA Registry in Oklahoma City if a bill of sale from the second owner would be sufficient for you to register it. What have you done to try to locate the first owner? Did you write to their last known address? Did you call the airport where it was based?

[FlyingRon]

All you need is a serial number to "repair" an aircraft on to.

[1600vw]

I kinda went through this. I was told by the FAA that if indeed my airplane had been filed as destroyed, that said airframe would have to be inspected again by a DAR. It would then have to have the 40 hrs flown back off. It kinda went deeper then this meaning a few more hoops to jump through, but it could be put back into registration as a complete airplane but only after these hoops where jumped through. I was very lucky and destroyed my own airplane after purchase. I did this by marking out airplane on the registration or forum 8050-1 and marking parts. It takes certain paper work or forums to be filed to destroy an airplane. Seeing how this paper work was never filed the FAA reversed my bonehead move. They " FAA " was very nice and did everything they could to help me. This was the Oklahoma City Branch or the main office of the FAA.

Tony

[FlyingRon]

I don't know who you were talking to but you were fed a load of BS. If it wasn't an experimental what the hell does 40 hours have to do with it? If it's in conformance to the type certificate, why would you need a DAR?

If it was an experimental, then the FAA may rightfully demand a 40 hour test period, but the need for a DAR escapes me there as well.

[lmccormick]

This particular plane is a foreign built glider that never was certified, so it is experimental but not built by an individual and certainly not by me. So if I am reading this correctly, I should contact the FAA and put the question to them?

[TedK]

My airplane was "destroyed" and deregistered in the late '90s. It was repaired (with the appropriate 337 paperwork) and "Annual'd" which established it was in conformance with its Type Certificate. The FSDO then issued a new Airworthiness Certificate on the date of its resurrection in 2000. (Ok, maybe the R in front of the date stands for Reissued).

Of course, in this case, chain of Title wasn't an issue. The old owner sold the destroyed airplane to the new owner with a Bill of Sale, so the new owner had no problem reregistering the aircraft.

Ted

[1600vw]

I don't know who you were talking to but you were fed a load of BS. If it wasn't an experimental what the hell does 40 hours have to do with it? If it's in conformance to the type certificate, why would you need a DAR?

If it was an experimental, then the FAA may rightfully demand a 40 hour test period, but the need for a DAR escapes me there as well.


I am just stating what the person on the phone from the FAA in OK city told me. This was an experimental. We are one the EAA website are we not...Wait let me look.

He said if you repair a destroyed experimental aircraft that this aircraft would then need to be inspected by a dar. Who was I to say he was wrong. I don't believe he was wrong though. I think he knew what he was talking about.

Tony

[martymayes]

I "think" I was given a glider that is listed on the FAA registry as "destroyed" in 1992. The glider was sold/given to another pilot as parts since he has the same plane.

Is there a way to register this plane in my name since it was listed as destroyed.

Is there an FAA aircraft dataplate attached to any of those parts? If not, you can pretty much forget it.

[crusty old aviator]

Oh, Marty, don't be so negative! If there is a data plate, that will be very helpful, otherwise, you'll have to get a blank replacement from Wingsandwheels or the manufacturer and have it stamped.

Christine Mounger is one of the most helpful people at the Aircraft Registration Branch in OK City. Contact her at 405-954-3116 and have her send you FAA Form AFS-750-DESTROY-1 (01/13). Fill it out and mail it back to her, along with:
1) Photographs showing the aircraft in its current condition, as a whole (i.e. left and right, front and back views of the complete airframe, and a very clear photo of the data plate that Marty mentioned above)
2) Current document copies (i.e. maintenance records, 337 forms, repair shop work orders, etc.)
3) Affidavits and/or statements pertaining to the current condition of the aircraft.

Hopefully, the N number is still available, or you'll have to request a new number, too. Being Experimental-Exhibition category, you don't need an IA to sign off on the repairs, and A&P has authority to do that. Most of the repair manuals are posted online by various soaring clubs and can be downloaded for free, you just have to search for them. The repair materials are available from several composite supply houses, too, you just have to search for them.

Good luck, and have fun with it!

[martymayes]

Oh, Marty, don't be so negative! If there is a data plate, that will be very helpful, otherwise, you'll have to get a blank replacement from Wingsandwheels or the manufacturer and have it stamped.

lol, I see you have never requested a replacement data plate from a manufacturer.

[crusty old aviator]

The Europeans will sell anything because, not being subject to Yankee litigation, they lack the paranoia that American manufacturers' insurance underwriters are afflicted with. Yankee data plates are more easy to come by from Ebay and screen printing shops, like Nostalgic Reflections (http://www.nostalgicreflections.com/aviation.html).

[Tom Downey]

You can obtain a order of the local court that you have legal ownership. the FAA will then issue you the registration. this is how mechanic leans are settled when the owner will not sign a bill of sale.

When the glider was imported as a EXP aircraft, the EXP rules apply. Repair the glider, comply with the Conditional inspection rules and you should be good to go.

[Tom Downey]

No data tag? no problem, all you have are parts to help you build a whole new EXP glider. there is no rule saying you can't use used parts to build a new aircraft.

[rwanttaja]

No data tag? no problem, all you have are parts to help you build a whole new EXP glider. there is no rule saying you can't use used parts to build a new aircraft.
As long as you can prove that the build complied with the 51% rule.

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

In 2015, almost 100 homebuilts that were previously de-registered were restored to the FAA registry, with the same N-Number and all. So the local FAA shouldn't be a stranger to the process.....

Ron Wanttaja

[Tom Downey]

As long as you can prove that the build complied with the 51% rule.

Ron Wanttaja
Why wouldn't it ? When you build any EXP/AB aircraft can't you use Cleveland brakes, Lycoming Engines, Professional built instruments. As long as you supervise the built it is amateur built. specially when the original parts came from a EXP/AB aircraft.

[rwanttaja]

Why wouldn't it ? When you build any EXP/AB aircraft can't you use Cleveland brakes, Lycoming Engines, Professional built instruments. As long as you supervise the built it is amateur built. specially when the original parts came from a EXP/AB aircraft.
Depends on what the DAR is willing to accept. I could paint out the N-number on my Fly Baby and claim it's a new homebuilt that I assembled from portions I purchased (which I did, in a sense). A DAR is likely to balk, though.

They're probably not likely to balk at a set of tail surfaces and some other minor bits, but each DAR will draw the line at what he or she is comfortable with. If major portions of the aircraft were purchased, and the aircraft type is the type that tends to have "hired guns" involved, one may be queried for more details.

Remember, much of this is up to the judgment of the DAR. It's no fun to get to the inspection stage and have to "shop around" for a new inspector because the first one refused to sign you off.

I'm potentially facing this issue. I'm looking at building a new Fly Baby to both avoid the ADS-B mandate (e.g., no electrical system) and enlarge the fuselage for more comfort (a concept I call the "Fly Baby Grande"). Ideally, I'd build a new fuselage (2" wider, aft cockpit bulkhead modified for more legroom) and graft just about everything over from my current Fly Baby (FWF, wings, tail, gear, etc.). I'm contemplating what I'll have to do to lay the groundwork for this....

Maybe I'll throw the question up to the FAA staffers...they'd probably LOVE a question that didn't deal with Young Eagles certifications.... :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[DaleB]

Ron, couldn't you just keep the same data plate, AW certificate and registration, do a new W&B and make a note in the logs that you replaced the fuselage? That would be a modification and not a new airplane.

[rwanttaja]

Ron, couldn't you just keep the same data plate, AW certificate and registration, do a new W&B and make a note in the logs that you replaced the fuselage? That would be a modification and not a new airplane.
The problem is the wording of the exclusion from the transponder requirement in 14CFR 91.215: "...any aircraft which was not originally certified with an engine-driven electrical system or which has not subsequently been certified with such a system installed...." I understand ADS-B has the same exclusion, and I'm assuming it's worded the same.

So I could build a new fuselage for N45848, but would still have to install ADS-B since it was originally certified with an engine-driven electrical system. All the log entries of repairs to the electrical system (not to mention the installation of a transponder) would make it hard to claim that the plane never had one.

I know a guy who did that, when the first Transponder-veil requirement came out. He examined his logs and realized that there never had been any entries regarding the electrical system. So he took out his alternator, smeared some oily dirt around the place it had been mounted, and operated the plane that way for years.

Ron Wanttaja

[Tom Downey]

Amateur built, the rules don't say who the amateur must be. I build/ fabricate parts for home builder nearly every week or so. The FAA does not consider me a professional builder.
In this case the glider was a EXP aircraft, but may have been built by a factory in a different country, then imported. that might throw a crimp in the certification process.
But to mix and match parts from a US kit maker that were built by amateur builders ,, no problem.

[martymayes]

I'm potentially facing this issue. I'm looking at building a new Fly Baby to both avoid the ADS-B mandate (e.g., no electrical system) and enlarge the fuselage for more comfort (a concept I call the "Fly Baby Grande"). Ideally, I'd build a new fuselage (2" wider, aft cockpit bulkhead modified for more legroom) and graft just about everything over from my current Fly Baby (FWF, wings, tail, gear, etc.). I'm contemplating what I'll have to do to lay the groundwork for this....

I don't see why you could not "repair" the current fuselage and have some of the dimensions change during the repair.

I don't think that would fit the "major change" criteria called out in the operating limitations.