Newby here with a question

[enginesrus]

I thought I read that you have to build a certain percentage of an aircraft for it to be considered a home built. Is engine work considered a part of that percentage? That is either getting a parts kit from an engine manufacture, or doing an automotive engine conversion.

[rwanttaja]

I thought I read that you have to build a certain percentage of an aircraft for it to be considered a home built. Is engine work considered a part of that percentage? That is either getting a parts kit from an engine manufacture, or doing an automotive engine conversion.

No. You can buy an intact, ready-to-start engine, and it doesn't affect the percentage.

Ron Wanttaja

[enginesrus]

I said parts kit, never said intact ready to start engine. So the answer is engine work is not part of a home built aircraft then? Meaning no credit for it?

[Joda]

Yes, there are several engine-related tasks that can be counted toward the "major portion" of the construction. The guidance is found in the form of the FAA's "Fabrication and assembly checklist", which can be found at the following link:

https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultralights/amateur_built/kits/media/AmBuiltFabAssyCklistFW.pdf

Page 8 of the checklist contains the "propulsion" tasks. Item 17 on this last is "assemble engine". Check out the other tasks listed for a full understanding of what you can get credit for.

[FlyingRon]

Actually, there's no OFFICIAL percentage to justify an Amateur Built certificate. All it takes is construction of the aircraft for educational or recreational purposes. The 51% rule (and the associated task list) applies to approval of KITS.

There's no percentage that applies specifically to the engine in either case. There's no such thing as an E-AB certificated engine.

[Joda]

Actually, there's no OFFICIAL percentage to justify an Amateur Built certificate.

That's not correct Ron. The regulation states that an amateur-built aircraft (no mention of "kit") is an aircraft the "major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by persons who undertook the construction project solely for their own education or recreation." That's directly out of 14 CFR 21.191(g). So in order to get an amateur-built airworthiness certificate, you must be able to document that the "major portion" (i.e., more than 50%) of the fabrication and assembly tasks were completed solely for the builder's (singular or plural) education and recreation. So the official percentage is more than 50%, which we all refer to as the "51% rule".

So whether it's a kit or not, the "51% rule" applies. You can get a kit, or you can hire out the first 49% of the fabrication and assembly tasks, but the other 51% of the tasks must be complete by amateur builders. The checklist I offered the link to in a previous post is what we use when we need to make a major portion determination.

[Bill Berson]

It looks like "engine assembly" (P17) counts for only one point on checklist, as mentioned.
P27-P30 could be used also.

[enginesrus]

Engine "counts for only one point" ???? Okay so what percentage of the actual build is that? How many points are needed?

[Bill Berson]

Well, apparently the builder needs 51% of the applicable points that are listed.

[enginesrus]

So I could get an old Cessna 150 rip it apart and rebuild it, though I would have to fabricate 50 some percent of the parts? Would that qualify?

[Joda]

So I could get an old Cessna 150 rip it apart and rebuild it, though I would have to fabricate 50 some percent of the parts? Would that qualify?

Nope, that won't work. When you start with any aircraft (or part of an aircraft) that has been operated under any type of airworthiness certificate previously, you can't claim to be the "builder". There is specific language in the FAA order regarding this issue. Any work, (even fabricating new parts) for a pre-existing component is considered "repair" and not fabrication. You may be able to get some form or experimental certificate for such a project, but not amateur-built.

[martymayes]

So I could get an old Cessna 150 rip it apart and rebuild it, though I would have to fabricate 50 some percent of the parts? Would that qualify?

You could reverse engineer the entire plane then build one from scratch and it would be an E-A/B airplane. That would be interesting.

[robert l]

You could reverse engineer the entire plane then build one from scratch and it would be an E-A/B airplane. That would be interesting.

Interesting for sure ! But why reinvent the wheel ? I have a pair of CH-701 wings, the rudder, stabilizer and elevator for sale that would fit the bill for the 51% rule !

[martymayes]

Interesting for sure ! But why reinvent the wheel ? I have a pair of CH-701 wings, the rudder, stabilizer and elevator for sale that would fit the bill for the 51% rule !


hey....stay out of my fantasy! lol

[enginesrus]

So with an experimental rating can the owner do all the mechanic work on it just like for the home built?

[robert l]

hey....stay out of my fantasy! lol

If it's what you want, go for it ! Don't pay me any attention, I'm just here for the beer ! LOL
Bob

[1600vw]

Nope, that won't work. When you start with any aircraft (or part of an aircraft) that has been operated under any type of airworthiness certificate previously, you can't claim to be the "builder". There is specific language in the FAA order regarding this issue. Any work, (even fabricating new parts) for a pre-existing component is considered "repair" and not fabrication. You may be able to get some form or experimental certificate for such a project, but not amateur-built.

I believe you mean if the aircraft held a Type Certificate and not if it held any kind of type of airworthy certificate. For an Experimental does not hold any type certificate but does hold an type of airworthiness certificate. If I purchase a used experimental and no one has requested the repairman certificate for this airplane and I can show the knowledge, even though I am not the builder I can still get this repairman certificate if I can demonstrate the knowledge needed to hold this certificate even though I am not the builder of said airframe.

Tony

[martymayes]

I believe you mean if the aircraft held a Type Certificate and not if it held any kind of type of airworthy certificate. For an Experimental does not hold any type certificate but does hold an type of airworthiness certificate.

Correct, however, even though an RV-8 does not hold any type of type certificate, I can't buy a fully completed and flying (a/w cert) RV-8, bring it home, rip it apart and put it back together and claim to be the builder. All I did was disassemble and reassemble.


If I purchase a used experimental and no one has requested the repairman certificate for this airplane and I can show the knowledge, even though I am not the builder I can still get this repairman certificate if I can demonstrate the knowledge needed to hold this certificate even though I am not the builder of said airframe.

What is your source on that? I ask because that would contrary to the FARs where it says:

§65.104 Repairman certificate—experimental aircraft builder—Eligibility, privileges and limitations.
(a) To be eligible for a repairman certificate (experimental aircraft builder), an individual must—

(1) Be at least 18 years of age;

(2) Be the primary builder of the aircraft to which the privileges of the certificate are applicable;


It seems to me to say that if you are not the primary builder of the plane you purchased, you're dead in the water as far as getting a repairman cert.

[Joda]

I believe you mean if the aircraft held a Type Certificate and not if it held any kind of type of airworthy certificate.

Actually, it doesn't matter what type of airworthiness certificate the aircraft was operated under. You can't take a major component from an aircraft that has already held an airworthiness certificate of any kind, and use that component to count toward the major portion of a new amateur-built aircraft. A standard category aircraft component should be self-explanatory. Nobody can claim to be the "builder" of a wing or fuselage (or whatever) that was built by an aircraft manufacturer. But the same applies to a homebuilt aircraft. For example, you can't take a wing off an already-certificated homebuilt and install it on your newly-constructed fuselage and apply that wing toward the major portion requirement. Someone else already got the credit for that wing, and that credit was applied toward the airworthiness certificate that was issued to the original aircraft. You can't turn around and claim credit for the fabrication and assembly of that wing.



If I purchase a used experimental and no one has requested the repairman certificate for this airplane and I can show the knowledge, even though I am not the builder I can still get this repairman certificate if I can demonstrate the knowledge needed to hold this certificate even though I am not the builder of said airframe.

Nope, that doesn't work either. When talking about amateur-built aircraft, the person applying for the repairman certificate must be the "primary builder" of the aircraft. If your name doesn't appear on the eligibility statement (FAA Form 8130-12) you won't get a repairman certificate for the airplane no matter how much you know about it. You must be the primary builder AND you must exhibit enough knowledge of the aircraft's structure and systems so as to be able to properly inspect the aircraft.

Now, for experimental light-sport aircraft the rules are different. You only need to be the OWNER of the aircraft in order to qualify for the repairman certificate, but you MUST first attend and graduate from a 16 hour course of instruction provided by an approved provider. Once you have passed the appropriate course, you can apply for a repairman certificate for an E-LSA that you own. But this doesn't work for amateur-built aircraft. For amateur-built, you must be the primary builder in order to qualify for the repairman certificate (but you don't have to take the course).

Check out 14 CFR 65.104 (amateur-built) and 65.107 (light-sport) for specific regulatory details.

[robert l]

I didn't even ask the question but, my heads about to explode. Very interesting indeed ! Thanks, and keep it up !
Bob

[rwanttaja]

My understanding....
http://www.wanttaja.com/ls_maint.jpg

Ron Wanttaja

[Joda]

Ok, first of all, it's important to understand the difference between maintenance and inspection. The basic situation is that, for experimental aircraft there is no restriction at all on who performs maintenance (including repairs and modifications). ANYONE can perform maintenance on an experimental aircraft, regardless of whether they are the owner, the builder, or just a interested party. 14 CFR Part 43 contains the maintenance regulations, and right there in 43.1 it states that part 43 doesn't apply to any aircraft that holds an experimental airworthiness certificate unless the aircraft originally held a different type of certificate. This is specifically worded on that way so as to discourage people from taking standard category aircraft and converting them to experimental. In such cases, part 43 still applies, so all maintenance rules for standard category aircraft would still apply even though the aircraft was switched to experimental.

So, in the case of an amateur-built aircraft, ANYONE can perform maintenance, repair, or even modification. The owner can do it, the builder can do it, the pilot can do it, an A&P can do it, the man down the street can do it, your mother can do it, a trained monkey can do it. Anyone! So even though there is a "repairman certificate" for amateur-built aircraft, it really has nothing to do with repairing the aircraft. The only time a repairman certificate is required is when performing the condition inspection each year. This requirement is called out in the aircraft's operating limitations, NOT in the regulations themselves.

So, for experimental aircraft (whether amateur-built, light-sport, exhibition, or what have you) the inspection requirements will be called out in the aircraft's operating limitations, issued as a part of its airworthiness certificate. The operating limitations will call out how often the aircraft needs to be inspected and to what standard, AND who is authorized to perform such inspections. The specific requirements will differ depending on which experimental purpose the aircraft is certificated for, but the operating limitations will spell it out.

The only time a repairman certificate actually applies to repairing the aircraft is in the case of a Special LSA. These are the factory-built, sold ready to fly LSA. The maintenance manuals for these aircraft will spell out who is authorized to perform certain maintenance functions, and many times an LSA repairman with a maintenance rating will be authorized. But these aircraft are not experimental. They are specifically "light-sport" category, which is different than "experimental light-sport" category.

Clear as mud, right????

[1600vw]

So the short answer and best answer to this question: Look in your Operating Limitations for the answer.

[Frank Giger]

You left out big fistfulls of mud, Joda.

Owners can perform maintenance on certified aircraft - as long as it's under the supervision of and signed off by an A&P.

Loads of certified aircraft are re-covered and painted by owners, as an example.

[Joda]

So the short answer and best answer to this question: Look in your Operating Limitations for the answer.

Yep, you got it!! :)

[Joda]

You left out big fistfulls of mud, Joda.

Yep, we were only talking about experimental aircraft. I've got a whole hour forum presentation on owner-performed maintenance on standard category aircraft I can bore you with. And of course an A&P has the discretion to oversee others who are performing maintenance functions, as you pointed out. Not germain to this discussion though. Too much mud!!

[Frank Giger]

To be honest, when approaching the prospect of learning to fly and owning an aircraft, this very topic - who can do what in maintenance - put me firmly in the "oh, heck no, I'm building my own" camp!

[dougbush]

So with an experimental rating can the owner do all the mechanic work on it just like for the home built?
Home-built (Experimental/Amateur-Built) is a type of experimental airworthiness certificate. Other types of experimental certificates have different restrictions on how such aircraft may be used.