Legal question

[PMA]

Here's one I'd like to throw out to the group for an opinion.

As many of you probably know an airplane that may have been qualified for
the new Sport Pilot rating when manufactured will lose that qualification if
the gross weight has EVER been upped by STC, field approval ETC.

There are some aircraft that no longer qualify as an LSA aircraft due to
such a modification even though the plane is essentially identical to a
another aircraft that does qualify.

Examples Aeronca 7AC has been modified with the "No Bounce" landing gear and
has had the allowable gross weight increased. It is ineligible forever even
if the modification is removed.

An Ercoupe that had been changed from a C or C/D to a D model by limiting
the elevator travel and thus upping the allowable gross weight. It can be
made physically identical to an eligible airplane in 5 minutes, but is
forever ineligible.

I was approached and asked to "repair" an ineligible airplane by installing
a used airworthy fuselage, wings, elevator, engine, instruments, etc etc.
Essentially this would be taking an airplane that is not eligible as an LSA
and changing the serial number plate with one that was and annotating the
log as to the "repair".

The data plate, registration, airworthiness certificate and logs would come
from a pile of pieces that used to be a plane.

Being afraid of going to the pen and making little rocks out of big rocks I
refused. My refusal was countered with the P-40s and BF-109's that started
out as no more than a data plate. I was then challenged to run it by my
maintenance inspector.

I am loath to make a fool of myself and get on my FSDO's quack list so I
thought I'd bounce it off the group.

Would this be a case of forgery of official documentation---or a common
practice???

Cheers:

Chicken

[Dave S]

On a personal, not a LEGAL standpoint, YOU are the one who think's
something isn't legal and doesn't pass the smell test.

Stick to your guns and the folks who are approaching you can find
ANOTHER person to do the work (or.. SIGN OFF on their work).

Personally I would WANT a mechanic who would say.. "I wont do that"
rather than roll over to a pushy customer.

Dave

PMA wrote:
> Here's one I'd like to throw out to the group for an opinion.
>
> As many of you probably know an airplane that may have been qualified for
> the new Sport Pilot rating when manufactured will lose that qualification if
> the gross weight has EVER been upped by STC, field approval ETC.
>
> There are some aircraft that no longer qualify as an LSA aircraft due to
> such a modification even though the plane is essentially identical to a
> another aircraft that does qualify.
>
> Examples Aeronca 7AC has been modified with the "No Bounce" landing gear and
> has had the allowable gross weight increased. It is ineligible forever even
> if the modification is removed.
>
> An Ercoupe that had been changed from a C or C/D to a D model by limiting
> the elevator travel and thus upping the allowable gross weight. It can be
> made physically identical to an eligible airplane in 5 minutes, but is
> forever ineligible.
>
> I was approached and asked to "repair" an ineligible airplane by installing
> a used airworthy fuselage, wings, elevator, engine, instruments, etc etc.
> Essentially this would be taking an airplane that is not eligible as an LSA
> and changing the serial number plate with one that was and annotating the
> log as to the "repair".
>
> The data plate, registration, airworthiness certificate and logs would come
> from a pile of pieces that used to be a plane.
>
> Being afraid of going to the pen and making little rocks out of big rocks I
> refused. My refusal was countered with the P-40s and BF-109's that started
> out as no more than a data plate. I was then challenged to run it by my
> maintenance inspector.
>
> I am loath to make a fool of myself and get on my FSDO's quack list so I
> thought I'd bounce it off the group.
>
> Would this be a case of forgery of official documentation---or a common
> practice???
>
> Cheers:
>
> Chicken
>
>

[UltraJohn]

>
> Would this be a case of forgery of official documentation---or a common
> practice???
>
> Cheers:
>
> Chicken


I really don't have an answer for you but I'd be chicken to be the first to
test the water. Why don't you tell your client to come back in one year
after some of the dust has settled and let someone else test the legality.
John
Just 2.2 cents worth
(inflation)

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:46:37 -0800, "PMA" > wrote:

>I was approached and asked to "repair" an ineligible airplane by installing
>a used airworthy fuselage, wings, elevator, engine, instruments, etc etc.
>Essentially this would be taking an airplane that is not eligible as an LSA
>and changing the serial number plate with one that was and annotating the
>log as to the "repair".

Paul, I don't think I'd do that. Imagine a future buyer having an accident, and
a lawyer paging through the aircraft records. It would look very much like you
were trying to hide damage history. I seem to recall some aircraft-parts
companies got in some serious trouble this way, swapping data plates.

Ron Wanttaja

[TaxSrv]

"PMA" wrote:
> Would this be a case of forgery of official documentation---or a
common
> practice???
>

The way you worded that suggests you have a sense of the correct
answer. This need not be a mere FAR violation, and I'm confident
there's a couple of federal criminal statutes for the feds to ponder
if so inclined. And the owner for whom you did this for upon request,
facing mere FAR violation if they'll drop the talk of a conspiracy
charge, "flips" on you.

Fred F.

[Dude]

How about a non legal answer.

You could tell the FSDO about the idea, tell them you really don't want to
do it, and ask, "Is there any possibility that sport plane rules will get
modified so that planes can be modified back into LSA eligibility in the
future?"

The only correct answer to this is Yes.

Now, go to your pushy customer, and advise he wait, since the FSDO said that
the rules could change and allow a simpler solution.

Lot's of changes are coming as these questions start getting raised, and I
suspect your customer is much more likely to get a positive solution in 6
months than now.

[jls]

"PMA" > wrote in message
...
> Here's one I'd like to throw out to the group for an opinion.

> Would this be a case of forgery of official documentation---or a common
> practice???
>
> Cheers:
>
> Chicken

Both.

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:04:29 -0500, T o d d P a t t i s t
> wrote:

>" jls" > wrote:
>
>>> Would this be a case of forgery of official documentation---or a common
>>> practice???
>
>>Both.
>
>I don't know if "Both" was intended solely for its humorous
>effect, but I'll jump in here with a few comments about
>current practice as I understand it.
>
>1) It is not uncommon to build an airplane up from a data
>plate. Data plates are often sold for substantial sums of
>money with this purpose in mind..
>
>2) The FAA has taken no official position on whether this
>is legal or not, but the practice continues and is known to
>the FAA. There appears to be nothing in the rules to limit
>how much "repair" one can do when the aircraft being
>repaired has nothing more than the data plate left.
>
>3) I doubt that anyone has yet taken the road you have been
>asked to tread - which is essentially swapping out the data
>plate on an SLA ineligible aircraft for an SLA eligible data
>plate.
>
>4) Since the practice of building up an aircraft from a data
>plate is relatively common, (although mostly used for rare
>or unique aircraft that would otherwise be lost) I suspect
>what you are being asked to do would be legal under current
>interpretations.
>
>5) However, I'm inclined to think the FAA "could" permit
>building up an entire aircraft from a data plate, while
>still prohibiting a data plate swap, so you would be on
>riskier ground. Using wings and fuselage from different
>aircraft might be safer than a simple data plate swap.
>
>6) You are not required to do this if you don't want to.
>
>7) Someone out there will do this.
>
>Crystal ball is now closed.
>
>
>T o d d P a t t i s t
>(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
>___
>Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
>Share what you learn.
It is illegal to remove the data plate from a plane, or to change the
data plate on a plane. PERIOD.

However - what constitutes a plane???? If you have the remains of a
plane, with a data plate, you can "repair" that plane and make
basically a new plane around that data plate.
The wings and other parts of the plane are not identified as part of a
particular plane, if memory serves correctly - so taking the "parts"
plane and the "repairable" plane, and moving all the good parts to the
"repairable" plane would be kosher, according to current
interpretation of the law.

The big question still remains - how much of the "repairable" plane do
you need to use to satisfy the FAA?????

[[email protected]]

Two answers here:
1 ) If the owner rebuilt (or claims to) the airplane and he brings in
the airplane for an annual and the annual passes, the owner has a legal
airplane. It's not up to the IA to determine the previous history of the
data plate.

2) As everybody says, you can repair an airplane around a data plate.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. There is no percentage of
repair defined anywhere in the regulations to determine if it was just a
data plate swap.

If you want to feel better and ask the FAA about this, put it in writing
and ask them if there is anything wrong with it and if there is, have
them state specifically what regulation prohibits it.
This should get rid of the opinion part of the answer the faa would give
in you asked them verbally.

Also as an added tid-bit, you can perform an annual inspection on just a
dataplate. The IA will need to create up a discrepancy list prior to
signing off the annual.

Dave



T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> wrote:
>
>
>>It is illegal to remove the data plate from a plane,
>
>
> This is certainly not illegal if the aircraft having its
> data plate removed will no longer be flown, and that's what
> would happen in this case.
>
>
>>or to change the data plate on a plane. PERIOD.
>
>
> "Changing" a data plate is illegal, but, technically, that's
> not what he's being asked to do. He's being asked to scrap
> a good plane and rebuild an old one (consisting of nothing
> except a data plate) using the good parts.
>
>
>>However - what constitutes a plane???? If you have the remains of a
>>plane, with a data plate, you can "repair" that plane and make
>>basically a new plane around that data plate.
>>The wings and other parts of the plane are not identified as part of a
>>particular plane, if memory serves correctly - so taking the "parts"
>>plane and the "repairable" plane, and moving all the good parts to the
>>"repairable" plane would be kosher, according to current
>>interpretation of the law.
>
>
> Yes, that's basically I wrote, but in this case he's being
> asked to do it to get around a limitation, not to bring to
> life an aircraft.
>
>
>>The big question still remains - how much of the "repairable" plane do
>>you need to use to satisfy the FAA?????
>
>
> The FAA won't tell us what the answer is, and they have been
> asked. Many aircraft have been built up from only the data
> plate, and the FAA knows this and has taken no action. I
> mean it when I say "only the data plate" as in that is the
> only part from the original aircraft.
>
> All of this does not mean the FAA won't or can't take any
> action in the future in a more egregious case. This
> scenario probably *is* a "more egregious case."
>
>
> T o d d P a t t i s t
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
> ___
> Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
> Share what you learn.

[Dave S]

wrote:
> Two answers here:
> 1 ) If the owner rebuilt (or claims to) the airplane and he brings in
> the airplane for an annual and the annual passes, the owner has a legal
> airplane. It's not up to the IA to determine the previous history of the
> data plate.

Doesn't an A&P have to sign off on ALL the work done on a certified
airframe (with glaringly few exceptions)? This would mean documenting
how the repairs came to be, right?

Dave
>