Will a DAR let me tear down and rebuild an unregistered ELSA

[j_omega]

Here is the situation. I am looking at a really good deal on an 2-seat "ultralight" that never got an airworthiness or registration. It has no build logs and no way of ever getting registered as-is. However, it is built almost entirely from bolting tubes together (almost no riviting). Would it be reasonable to buy the aircraft, break it down into its original kit form, and then rebuild it with logs? Will this create any problems with a DAR?

[martymayes]

Can't meet the major portion rule required for EAB with disassembly and reassembly.

Can register it as experimental exhibition as-is.

[j_omega]

Can't meet the major portion rule required for EAB with disassembly and reassembly.

Can register it as experimental exhibition as-is.

The kit is approved 51% when delivered from the factory. If I break it down into the basic components as delivered from the factory, shouldn't it still meet the 51% rule?

[CHICAGORANDY]

I've spent a good deal of time looking into getting a Sport Pilot ticket. As I understand it, the time window for getting a 'fat' ultralight registered as a Light Sport is long gone. I stand gladly willing to be educated and make no claim to being the last word on the subject, but I 'think' you're out of luck on this one.

[martymayes]

The kit is approved 51% when delivered from the factory. If I break it down into the basic components as delivered from the factory, shouldn't it still meet the 51% rule?

In order to register an EAB built from a NKET approved kit, you will need an FAA bill of sale from the factory for that kit, or from previous owner(s) that completes chain of ownership back to the factory. IOW's you have to show (with appropriate documentation) those parts are in fact from an "approved 51% kit"

"If more than 50% of your amateur-built aircraft was built from a kit (prefabricated parts), you must also include a kit bill of sale from the kit manufacturer.
A regular Aircraft Bill of Sale, AC Form 8050-2 is acceptable if the word 'Aircraft' has been marked through and the word 'Kit' entered."

https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/aircraft_certification/aircraft_registry/amateur_built_aircraft/

[martymayes]

As I understand it, the time window for getting a 'fat' ultralight registered as a Light Sport is long gone.

You are correct with regard to registering a "fat" ultralight as an ELSA, however, I think the OP is asking if he can disassemble the plane and reassemble it, create a builder log in the process then register the plane as his own EAB aircraft.

[Tralika]

I would talk to a DAR about it before I plunked down any money. If you get a DAR on board it might work, assuming the aircraft is an approved 51% kit, and no application for registration or AW certificate was ever sent in, and you have the Bill of Sales going back to the factory that martymayes refers to, and the DAR is willing to really stretch the rules which might jeopardize his certificate or at least his relationship with the FAA. It sounds like a long shot to me but you never know.

[CarlOrton]

Just wondering out loud here....

If it's true that it's never been registered, and there is a documented chain of custody of the bills of sale from mfr onward, and the plane has never had any paperwork submitted to anyone...

If Omega COMPLETELY disassembles the entire kit, then rebuilds it, wouldn't that essentially be the same as buying an uncompleted kit or pile 'o parts from someone else? I'm not a DAR, but from a DAR perspective, they have no idea how the kit was assembled as long as build logs, photos, etc show it, and Omega can conversationally demonstrate knowledge of its construction. Same thing for an EAA Tech Counselor. If a builder calls up and requests a visit, we don't (usually) ask whether the kit was originally purchased by the builder or if they purchased it on the resale market.

[Joda]

FAA Advisory Circular 103-7 specifically talks about certificating an ultralight vehicle as an amateur-built aircraft. You may want to check it out. Go to www.FAA.gov and search for AC 103-7, and look at section 2, page 15.

[martymayes]

Just wondering out loud here....

If Omega COMPLETELY disassembles the entire kit,

He said it was originally approved as a 51% kit which means there had to be some "fabrication" involved. Need evidence that originally assembly fabrication was done by a person or persons for "education or recreation" cause can't disassemble the fabrication and do it over and without the fabrication component, can't meet the major portion rule.

I would register it as exp-exhibition and go fly.

[CarlOrton]

Marty, this may sound argumentative, but I'm not trying to be. We're all busy this time of the year, so I'm being lazy, and I'll admit it.

I understand the "fabrication" part, but in today's environment, I think that's loosened up a LOT. As an example, I'm currently building a Zenith Cruzer. Without thinking too hard, the only items I've had to "fabricate" were some corner reinforcements I cut from lengths of thin L-angle and pilot drilled. A FAR cry from my Sonex where I really did have to fabricate tail ribs etc from only bent stock. I don't know his/her kit, but *IF* it were something on a simple level of fabrication, I don't see an issue with re-fabricating things.

I spoke with several FAA reps over my years of E-AB involvement, and they consistently emphasized that it's not 51% of the total effort, it's 51% of the total number of *tasks*. You don't need to fabricate 51% of the ribs, f'rinstance, but you have to show you know *how* to fabricate a rib. As I said, I'm amazed at the ridiculously low level of fabrication I've had to do thus far. And other popular kits are the same way.

Again, I don't know the brand/model of the kit in question, so based on the unknowns, I see no problem with "re-fabricating" things. ;-) If difficult, though, I concur with your exp-exhibition approach.

[Joda]

I would register it as exp-exhibition and go fly.

Be aware that an exhibition certificate is not guaranteed. Most FAA offices these days are looking for a valid reason to "exhibit" the aircraft. In other words, the applicant must show some sort of reason for "exhibiting the aircraft’s flight capabilities, performance, or unusual characteristics at air shows, fly-ins, and similar events;" (Quoted from FAA Order 8130.2J) Not sure that a former ultralight would have any valid exhibition purpose in many FAA office's eyes. Applicants had better be prepared to make an argument that the aircraft does have some sort of feature that they are "exhibiting".

[Bill Berson]

So I guess you are saying the procedure from AC103-7 dated 1984 might not apply in 2019? :mad:

[Joda]

So I guess you are saying the procedure from AC103-7 dated 1984 might not apply in 2019? :mad:

Yes, that's basically correct. There are a number of things in the AC that are not up to date. For example, it refers to "General Aviation District Offices" (GADOs), which do not exist anymore in the FAA structure. It also refers to "Flight Service Stations" which also no longer exist in the field. The AC also references AC 20-27C, which is long obsolete. The current version is 20-27G. So yes, this AC could use a bit of freshening up. However, the basic info on ultralights is still valid, as is the general procedures called out in the AC. Just be aware that, in the current FAA guidance, and how it is applied, an experimental exhibition certificate is not guaranteed.

[martymayes]

I suppose if one works hard enough, they could convince the FAA to deny issuance of an EE certificate.

Of course where I live, they FAA would....

"If, after notifying the applicant of all unsatisfactory findings, the applicant does
not correct those findings to your satisfaction in a timely manner, write a letter to the applicant
denying issuance of the certificate and stating the reason(s) for the denial. If feasible, identify
which steps may be accomplished to meet the certification requirements"

....all because they are swell guys (and because it's in the 8130.2J guidance) they would give the applicant an opportunity to correct any issues before issuing a denial. If one is really inept, they could hire someone to bring the discrepancies into compliance for them.

One of my friends list 2 exhibition events per yr for his aircraft and one of them is an annual cookout at his hangar. The other, I'm not sure if he has ever attended cause of wx or maint cancellations. So in the end, I just don't see EE being that big of an issue but maybe that's just me.

[Joda]

One of my friends list 2 exhibition events per yr for his aircraft and one of them is an annual cookout at his hangar. The other, I'm not sure if he has ever attended cause of wx or maint cancellations. So in the end, I just don't see EE being that big of an issue but maybe that's just me.

It's not about the events, or whether they attend or not. It's about whether there is a valid reason to "exhibit" the aircraft. What unusual or unique characteristics does it have that are being exhibited? That's what the FAA guys I work with are looking at.

I'm not saying that someone, somewhere, in another FAA district may or may not have an easier time getting an exhibition certificate. I'm just saying that it's not a given and some FAA offices are getting pretty strict on determining whether there is a valid reason to "exhibit" the aircraft. I've worked on a few exhibition applications, so I'm just reporting what I've learned. As always, your mileage may vary. Don't shoot the messenger!

[DaleB]

You could actually ask a DAR... Are you a Kitplanes subscriber? I recommend it (along with your EAA membership, of course).

Please send your questions for DAR Asberry to editorial@kitplanes.com (editorial@kitplanes.com?subject=Ask the DAR) with “Ask the DAR” in the subject line.

[Bill Berson]

The reason for exhibiting it could be to display an example of how the instruction exemption provided a flurry of growth and available local instructors in the 1980’s. Back then almost 30,000 Ultralights were built, some 400 displayed at Oshkosh, 160 were hangared at Arlington. All gone since the Light Sport rules of 2004.

[martymayes]

It's not about the events, or whether they attend or not. It's about whether there is a valid reason to "exhibit" the aircraft. What unusual or unique characteristics does it have that are being exhibited? That's what the FAA guys I work with are looking at.

Joe, not holding or pointing a loaded gun, I'm interested in learning.

For my own edification, what is characteristically unusual or unique about a SubSonex that justifies a reason to exhibit the aircraft? Sonex is advertising/marketing a quick build version of the SubSonex that can only be certified to fly as an exp. exhibition airplane simply because it doesn't meet the major portion rule. Based on the ads and sales contract I would say there is an implied guarantee that it can be done. Otherwise, I'd be suing to get my money back. I'm betting Sonex will provide a boiler plate program letter to ensure exp-exhibition certification is obtained.

That begs the question: If a Subsonex can do it, why can't an ultralight that doesn't meet the major portion rule do it? Are they any less exhibit worthy?

The FAA guys where I live have somewhat confirmed exp-exhibition is an option for any plane for which there is no other legitimate path to obtain an airworthiness certificate. This comes up at almost every IA recurrent event now because of the growing number of aircraft operating as exp-exhibition.

[Joda]

Marty,

As long as the program letter contains an explanation of what the aircraft is exhibiting that is acceptable to the cognizant FAA office, you're good to go. All I'm trying to point out is, it is not a guaranteed certification path.

Regarding the specific case of the SubSonex, the only two certifications I was involved in were the two factory prototypes. It was pretty obvious that they were exhibition aircraft in the eyes of the inspectors at FAA MSP MIDO, and they certainly have been used to exhibit the operational characteristics and performance of a "micro jet". I have no idea what other SubSonex builders have used as their exhibition program, but I'm assuming they are using something similar to what Sonex used for the two prototypes.

I'm not trying to say it can't be done. I'm just trying to keep everyone's expectations realistic. I've been involved in some exhibition certifications where it was touch and go as to whether the FAA was going to proceed with the certification or not. It can be a bit of a "negotiation", if not a fight, to get the certificate approved. It all comes down to what the cognizant FAA office is willing to accept, and sometimes how good a salesman the applicant can be.

Forwarded is forearmed. That's all I'm saying. Don't waltz into the FAA office thinking that it's a done deal. Be ready to justify your application.

[rwanttaja]

Out of eight SubSonex registered as of the start of this year....

One is Experimental R&D (owned by Sonex)
Three are Experimental Amateur-Built
Three are Experimental Exhibition (two owned by Sonex)
One doesn't list a Certification category (N94DE)

Makes you wonder why the one guy went E-Exp when EAB is apparently attainable. I'm guessing it was one of the first builder-flown examples.

Ron Wanttaja

[martymayes]

Forwarded is forearmed. That's all I'm saying. Don't waltz into the FAA office thinking that it's a done deal. Be ready to justify your application.

I hope I didn't give the impression one could just waltz in and have it done. That was not the intent.

What was the intent was to show that there is a process. Of course, the process has to be followed which is the way the FAA works but as long as that process is followed, "i's" dotted and "t's" crossed, no reason why it can't be done.

[martymayes]

Out of eight SubSonex registered as of the start of this year....

One is Experimental R&D (owned by Sonex)
Three are Experimental Amateur-Built
Three are Experimental Exhibition (two owned by Sonex)
One doesn't list a Certification category (N94DE)

Makes you wonder why the one guy went E-Exp when EAB is apparently attainable. I'm guessing it was one of the first builder-flown examples.

EAB is absolutely attainable but they advertise on the website a "Fast build" kit option for an additional $5k which apparently ends the opportunity to qualify as EAB. If you have the money (a ~4% price increase?) and don't have time to waste toiling in a shop, why not write a check and get done faster? Unless there is some fine print in the contract, the factory is essentially saying this is a legitimate option-- that a buyer can elect to register a non-EAB version of the plane as exp-exhibition. Nobody is going to write a $100k+ check on a "maybe" you can get it registered in the exhibition category.

No doubt a turn-key option would be popular. Why get your hands dirty? Just write a check and fly off into the sunset. How long before those two factory exp-exhibition planes become customer airplanes...? humm wait a minute.....oh, nevermind.

[Bill Berson]

At Airventure in July, I was told the FAA is moving to relax or eliminate the major portion rule for the factory fast builds.