Need advice, considering buying a nearly complete project from canadian builder/owner

[Austintatious]

Hi everyone,

I have found a home built aircraft located in Canada that I would like to purchase and complete. I do not believe it was ever registered with the TCCA. The builder has logs "from day 1" including photographs of the build. He is an engineer and aviation mechanic (cant remember what they call it in canada, basically an A&P).

It seems there are a lot of potential obstacles to successfully importing and getting it registered in the states. I am not sure if it is even possible or not.

I am hoping that it will be possible to get it here and eventually finish it and get a special airworthiness certificate.

I currently own a Glider with an experimental airworthiness certificate. It however is for 'exhibition and air racing" with a limit on range flown from home base without prior written notice to the FAA. I would not want this aircraft to have such limitations as I would like to use it to travel. I have heard this can be difficult when buying an unfinished project with a lot of the work already performed.

I plan on contacting the FAA to see what they have to say.

Does anyone have any experience with a similar situation? If anyone has any advice on this I would really appreciate it. This is an aircraft I have been fascinated by my entire life and would love to own and fly one.

[Marc Zeitlin]

I have found a home built aircraft located in Canada that I would like to purchase and complete. I do not believe it was ever registered with the TCCA.If you are correct that it was never registered and has no airworthiness certificate (or the Canadian equivalent) then you're not purchasing an aircraft. You'd be purchasing a bunch of aircraft parts and supplies, in some arbitrary state of assemblage.


It seems there are a lot of potential obstacles to successfully importing and getting it registered in the states. I am not sure if it is even possible or not.I can't imagine what potential obstacles there could be to bringing a bunch of aircraft parts into the US from Canada and eventually getting an AC and registering it. There is no reason that it shouldn't be possible.


I have heard this can be difficult when buying an unfinished project with a lot of the work already performed.I think you're conflating getting the AC for the plane and getting the Repairmans Certificate for the builder. There is no reason you cannot buy all the airplane parts, bring them to the US, complete the plane, get it inspected by the FSDO, MIDO or DAR, and get an AC in the EAB category, assuming that it was built for education and recreation, even by the original builder.

With respect to the RC, if you can show that you are fully familiar with the plane's structure and systems, there's no reason they shouldn't issue the RC to you as well - there's no requirement for how much of the plane one person must have constructed in order to get the RC.


I plan on contacting the FAA to see what they have to say.Unless you already have a good relationship with someone at the MIDO or FSDO that would be issuing the AC, I'd caution against asking questions. Just do all the required steps to build, inspect and register the plane. When I built mine, no one ever asked me where the parts that I built it from had come from.

So in summary, unless there's some weird special circumstances that you haven't describe with this project, there's no reason at all that you can't do what you want.

My $0.02.

[Austintatious]

Marc,

thank you for the input!

The only other detail is that this project is 90% complete... So I would be importing a fuselage and wings ( and other various stuff) it seems to me that customs would see this as an aircraft even if it is just technically parts.

[Marc Zeitlin]

The only other detail is that this project is 90% complete... So I would be importing a fuselage and wings ( and other various stuff) it seems to me that customs would see this as an aircraft even if it is just technically parts.Customs and the FAA are two different organizations. Whatever customs wants to see about the cost/worth of the airplane parts, you show them. It's still not an airplane as far as the FAA is concerned - it's never been registered anywhere.

[Tralika]

If it were me, I'd want to get a close look at those "logs from day 1" before I paid. Also, you don't say if the plane is being built from a kit. If it is a kit, you will need a copy of the Bill of Sale (FAA Form 8050-2) from the kit manufacturer to the original purchaser of the kit. You will need another Bill of Sale from the seller you are dealing with to you. If there are any other owners of the kit between the kit manufacture and the seller you are dealing with you will need a copy of those Bills of Sale too. The FAA is very specific in that the Bill of Sale must be a FAA Form 8050-2. If the kit was made in Canada and sold to a Canadian, I doubt there will be a FAA Form 8050-2 and your into something unusual. Someone has probably been through it before but finding them might be difficult. If you contact the FSDO I doubt you will find anyone that knows much about Experimental Amateur Built let alone importing a partially completed kit from a foreign country. You might call the Canadian kit manufacturer and ask what type of bill of sale they use and if they have any contacts at the FAA they have dealt with when importing the kits to the US. Also, have the FAA Form 8050-2 notarized if you buy the kit. Other than the quality of the workmanship, the paperwork is going to be the most important part of your venture. Good luck.

[Sam Buchanan]

I suspect there is someone at the EAA mothership that can give you guidance on this matter and would be a more informed source than a FSDO desk jockey. A call might be in order. :)

[Austintatious]

If it were me, I'd want to get a close look at those "logs from day 1" before I paid. Also, you don't say if the plane is being built from a kit. If it is a kit, you will need a copy of the Bill of Sale (FAA Form 8050-2) from the kit manufacturer to the original purchaser of the kit. You will need another Bill of Sale from the seller you are dealing with to you. If there are any other owners of the kit between the kit manufacture and the seller you are dealing with you will need a copy of those Bills of Sale too. The FAA is very specific in that the Bill of Sale must be a FAA Form 8050-2. If the kit was made in Canada and sold to a Canadian, I doubt there will be a FAA Form 8050-2 and your into something unusual. Someone has probably been through it before but finding them might be difficult. If you contact the FSDO I doubt you will find anyone that knows much about Experimental Amateur Built let alone importing a partially completed kit from a foreign country. You might call the Canadian kit manufacturer and ask what type of bill of sale they use and if they have any contacts at the FAA they have dealt with when importing the kits to the US. Also, have the FAA Form 8050-2 notarized if you buy the kit. Other than the quality of the workmanship, the paperwork is going to be the most important part of your venture. Good luck.

Thank you. It is an american kit. I will inquire about the original BOS.

[Paul LaPoint]

Thank you. It is an american kit. I will inquire about the original BOS.

I bought a wrecked certified airplane in Quebec and brought it back with no problems at the border. They wanted a bill of sale is all. They didn't even come outside to look at it. It didn't cost a dime in duty or taxes since it was originally built in the U.S. You may have to eventually pay applicable state taxes when the time comes. Paul

[BoKu]

Over and above the chain-of-ownership issues addressed above:

One important thing to understand is that for a experimental, amateur-built airworthiness certificate, the FAA doesn't care at all who did the fabrication and assembly work. What they care is _why_ they did that work. If you can demonstrate that the major portion of that work was undertaken for the purposes of education and recreation, you're good. There are two ways this is typically accomplished:

* If the FAA has done an NKET inspection on that kit type and pre-approved it as meeting the major portion rule, you should be good unless you (or the original builder) engaged additional commercial assistance.

* If the FAA has not doe an NKET inspection, you use the FAA checklist (I forget what its form number is) to show that you accomplished the majority of the work.

By and large, the FAA does not seem to be sweating most small airplanes over the major portion rules these days, so I wouldn't lose much sleep either way. Just keep good build logs, and if you have to do the checklist, be prepared to justify what you claim on it with some sort of evidence, or at least a compelling narrative.

--Bob K.

[Joda]

Good records are the key. The current FAA guidance on certification of amateur-built aircraft places a great deal of importance on documentation. Regardless of whether the work was done in Canada or in the US, you'll need records that can be used to substantiate your claim that the major portion of the fabrication and assembly tasks were completed by amateur builders solely for their own education and recreation.

The only possible issue is that, in Canada the builders are allowed to hire someone to perform fabrication and assembly tasks under the builder's supervision. This is not allowed under US rules, so if this particular kit was being built by hired hands, it may not qualify for amateur-built certification in the US if too many of the tasks have already been completed. Again, the records are the key.

A thorough investigation of the builder records would be warranted before the purchase is completed, so as to make sure you'll getting what you think you're getting.

[Austintatious]

Thank you everyone for the responses.

So far the owner had not been able to find a Bill of sale from when he purchased the kit. This is a Bede BD-5 aircraft. The current owner said he purchased the untouched kit from an American who bought it directly from Bede.

He has sent me a lot of pictures of the aircraft and of the pictures of the build process. I dont know how many pictures are sufficient, but I can tell you from the pictures I have that there are shots of almost every major stage of build being done. They are quite old pictures as this project was started in the late 70's.

The owner was indeed building it for himself, although he was a professional aircraft builder specializing in sheet metal work (he is 94 years old and worked on the F-104 starfighter!)

I can obviously acquire a bill of sale from him, and even a written statement that he was building it for his own personal recreation/education.

It sounds like from what I have heard here that absence of a BOS from Bede to the original kit purchaser and a BOS from him to the current owner is going to be a showstopper. Have I misunderstood? Are there any other options?

I really like this aircraft and he is selling it for a song... but ultimately I want something I can make legally airworthy.

[Bill Berson]

You might get an affidavit (statement of fact) from the seller stating the chain of custody.
EAA staff may be able to help.
EAA sells a certification kit of documents needed for this, about $20.
I attended a staff forum presentation last year at Airventure. It takes about an hour to go through it.

[BoKu]

... ultimately I want something I can make legally airworthy.

Oh, a BD-5.

Two relatively minor, but often important, points:

* I know we toss it around rather casually here, but the word "airworthy" has a very specific meaning to the FAA. To them it means "in compliance with type certificate data." And by that definition, no BD-5, nor any amateur-built experimental aircraft, will ever truly be airworthy. Yes, an operational example carries an "airworthiness certificate," but when you look closely you see that it is actually a "Special Airworthiness Certificate" issued to permit the operation of an aircraft that is not airworthy according to the definition in the FARs. The best we ever get is "of a condition for safe operation."

* With a BD-5, I would not be too inclined to sweat the paperwork. My reasoning is that by the time you've made something capable of safe operation, you're probably only using about half of what was in the kit. At issue is that the BD-5 exists within the intersection of an engine with good power to weight, a lightweight yet very low-drag airframe, a simple yet robust propeller drive, and all these things delivered at an affordable price. And to the degree all those things came into being, we might as well have thrown in the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny. Because the propeller drive wound up being heavy, complicated, and tender, the airframes came in at the expected weight only if built to a scrupulous minimalism, and even today a reliable engine with the requisite power to weight ratio remains elusive. Which is to say that the BD-5 as Jim Bede envisioned it is just barely technically feasible, cannot be achieved using only parts and technologies delivered in the BD-5 kit, and will never be the kind of affordable that was originally promised.

--Bob K.

[martymayes]

I really like this aircraft and he is selling it for a song... but ultimately I want something I can make legally airworthy.

I don't think you'll have any trouble showing the plane meets major portion rule. No trouble at all. If necessary, call it a BaD-5.

[Austintatious]

Thanks everyone for the advice... I called the EAA and was PROMPTLY helped (I am seriously impressed!) It appears there is a pretty strait forward way around the absence of bills of sale prior to my purchase. They are dealings I am willing to undertake so I am pushing forward with the purchase.

[dkhiza]

Thanks everyone for the advice... I called the EAA and was PROMPTLY helped (I am seriously impressed!) It appears there is a pretty strait forward way around the absence of bills of sale prior to my purchase. They are dealings I am willing to undertake so I am pushing forward with the purchase.
I am in the same boat (partial kit with no chain of ownership). What was the solution?

[Eric Page]

I am in the same boat (partial kit with no chain of ownership). What was the solution?
I bought a second-hand Kitfox Series 5 project recently. The original owner lost almost all of the paperwork for the kit, including the bill of sale and the build manual, which contained his notes and served as his builder's log.

I contacted both EAA and FAA, and putting their advice together, here's what I did.

1. I wrote a purchase contract and bill of sale for my purchase that included, (a) a statement that the seller had lost the original bill of sale and builder's log, and (b) that the seller agreed to sign, in front of a notary, a photographic and textual record of his work, which I would prepare.

2. After getting the kit home, I took copious photographs and notes, then wrote an 18-page document, describing in words and pictures, as much of the original builder's progress as I could. It included the following statements, each initialed by the seller: (a) that he performed all of the work shown and described in the document, (b) that he did not hire anyone to do any of the work for him, (c) that his work on the kit up to the date of sale constituted substantially less than 50% of the total fabrication and assembly tasks required to complete the aircraft, and (d) that he performed the work solely for his own education and recreation. This document was mailed to the seller, who initialed every page, signed it, had it notarized and mailed it back to me.

3. I prepared FAA AC Form 8050-2 (Aircraft Bill of Sale). On the FAA inspector's advice, I struck out he word "aircraft" and replaced it with "kit" throughout the form, and otherwise filled it out as you normally would for the purchase of a completed aircraft. This was signed by the seller.

4. Kitfox Aircraft has a form letter on their website, addressed to the FAA's Registration Branch, that briefly explains the corporate history of the Kitfox aircraft line and why the current company cannot re-issue a bill of sale for a kit sold by a predecessor company (in my case, SkyStar Aircraft). The second page of this letter is a form to record the aircraft information, which company sold the kit in question and who bought it. I prepared this form and had the seller sign it as well.

All of this documentation will be available to the DAR or Airworthiness Inspector to review. The bill of sale, AC Form 8050-2 and Kitfox form letter will be submitted with my registration documents to the FAA.

[Mike M]

OK, I'm confused. The original poster has a stack of aircraft parts but no airplane and no real proof it was ever a kit, or not a kit? We all know even a certificated aircraft starts as a list of parts. So what's the problem with buying a list of parts that's never been an aircraft without getting an FAA 8050? Then as someone else mentioned, import the stack of parts of all sizes and shapes and sub-assemblies with as many receipts as possible to show as many taxes as possible already paid.

"Back in the day" I didn't get an FAA 8050 with my kit because it wasn't an airplane. I got a receipt for a list of parts. When I sold it, it flew away with one FAA 8050. With my (used) certificated airplanes they came and left with FAA 8050s but only one on the way in, one on the way out. When I bought my current EAB it flew in with one FAA 8050.

Nobody has ever offered or asked for more than one FAA 8050 on any of my purchases or sales. However. Last transaction was 20 years ago. What's changed?