At what point is "builder" status conferred?

[es330td]

In the thread I started about the 700 mile commuter airplane someone
suggested getting a used Long-EZ. (I would like to point out that my
dream of flying began the day I was much younger when I saw picture in
a late '80's National Geographic of two EZ's and a Viggen flying in
formation so Rutan's designs are dear to my heart.) I started looking
around and found several Long-EZ's for sale or sold recently that
could be had very affordably. I also noticed a number of planes that
would require work that varied from as little as needing an annual to
others that needed an engine/prop to others that were only partially
constructed.

For a homebuilt, is builder status conferred on the person who buys
the kit/plans and starts it or if I buy a partially built plane and do
the rest am I now the builder of the plane?

In addition, what happens if I buy a VFR plane and then replace the
engine and avionics and make it a IFR platform? Am I the builder for
the parts I put on it or does the fact that I bought an already
airworthy plane make it in essence little different than buying a 172?

BTW...I'm joining EAA this week. I have a strong feeling that a lot
of these answers (and a whole bunch of questions I haven't asked yet)
are available on their members only website. I've already told my
wife that Kitplane is to never be recycled but it is also clear that
other resources are required before I spend a dime on anything.

As an aside, thanks for everyone's responses on all these. I
appreciate that nobody complains about my lack of knowledge and that
the discussions here remain civil (thus far, anyway.) I learned a
good deal just reading the discussion following my previous post.

[Jim Logajan]

es330td > wrote:
> For a homebuilt, is builder status conferred on the person who buys
> the kit/plans and starts it or if I buy a partially built plane and do
> the rest am I now the builder of the plane?

FAA Advisory Circular AC 20-27F "Certification and Operation of
Amateur-Built Aircraft" should address that and some of your other
questions - you may want to review it since it discusses the paperwork
angle and steps needed for certification. It is online here:

http://www1.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/0ca2845e2aafffbb86256dbf00640cb2/$FILE/AC20-27F.pdf

There may be multiple builders, but only one of the builders can get the
repairman's certificate for that aircraft: the "primary builder" who can
prove to the FAA that they know how to determine whether the aircraft is
in a condition for safe operation. The repairman certificate merely adds
annual condition inspection to your list of privileges.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

es330td wrote:
> In the thread I started about the 700 mile commuter airplane someone
> suggested getting a used Long-EZ. (I would like to point out that my
> dream of flying began the day I was much younger when I saw picture in
> a late '80's National Geographic of two EZ's and a Viggen flying in
> formation so Rutan's designs are dear to my heart.) I started looking
> around and found several Long-EZ's for sale or sold recently that
> could be had very affordably. I also noticed a number of planes that
> would require work that varied from as little as needing an annual to
> others that needed an engine/prop to others that were only partially
> constructed.
>
> For a homebuilt, is builder status conferred on the person who buys
> the kit/plans and starts it or if I buy a partially built plane and do
> the rest am I now the builder of the plane?
>
> In addition, what happens if I buy a VFR plane and then replace the
> engine and avionics and make it a IFR platform? Am I the builder for
> the parts I put on it or does the fact that I bought an already
> airworthy plane make it in essence little different than buying a 172?
>
> BTW...I'm joining EAA this week. I have a strong feeling that a lot
> of these answers (and a whole bunch of questions I haven't asked yet)
> are available on their members only website. I've already told my
> wife that Kitplane is to never be recycled but it is also clear that
> other resources are required before I spend a dime on anything.
>
> As an aside, thanks for everyone's responses on all these. I
> appreciate that nobody complains about my lack of knowledge and that
> the discussions here remain civil (thus far, anyway.) I learned a
> good deal just reading the discussion following my previous post.

Anyone can work on an Am-HB aircraft. And I mean anyone, you, your
mother, the old guy down the street and his granddaughter. The builder
is the person that is listed as the aircraft builder when the plane gets
it's airworthiness and that person is the only person who can get the
repairman's certificate associated with that plane and what it does is
bestows on the owner the ability to do his own annual condition
inspections. This is important, because while anyone can do any work on
the plane every year somebody either an A&P or the guy with the
repairman's certificate for the plane is going to have to sign off on
what has been done on the plane.

If you buy an aircraft that has been completed by someone else you will
be able to work on it but you will never be able to do the annuals.

One thing to remember. The FAA is probably about to start really
cracking down on these places that build homebuilts for you. So if you
do buy a semi-completed airplane make sure you can prove that it was
semi-completed by someone other than a place doing it commercially.

My bet is by the end of the year we will start hearing stories about
people that used the "builder assistance programs" and then when it
comes time to get the plane inspected no AW certificate is granted.

For more info Google FAA Advisory Circular AC 20-27F.

[150flivver]

> > In addition, what happens if I buy a VFR plane and then replace the
> > engine and avionics and make it a IFR platform? Am I the builder for
> > the parts I put on it or does the fact that I bought an already
> > airworthy plane make it in essence little different than buying a 172?
>
>
> Bryan Martin
> N61BM, CH 601 XL, Ram Subaru, Stratus redrive.

There is only one builder and that is established when the
Airworthiness
Certificate gets issued. Modifications afterwards may require the FAA
to issue additional operational limitations depending on the nature of
the modifications. An example would be a VFR limitation that you want
changed to allow for IFR operations. Installing a different engine
will generate a subsequent flight test period similar to the hours
that had to be flown off initially. Minor mods do not need anyone to
sign off on as there is no "return to service" signature needed as in
normal category aircraft. This is a primary advantage of the Amateur
Built Experimental--no STCs, no 337s, no return to service--much
different than the rules pertaining to a 172,

[Peter Dohm]

"150flivver" > wrote in message
...
>
>> > In addition, what happens if I buy a VFR plane and then replace the
>> > engine and avionics and make it a IFR platform? Am I the builder for
>> > the parts I put on it or does the fact that I bought an already
>> > airworthy plane make it in essence little different than buying a 172?
>>
>>
>> Bryan Martin
>> N61BM, CH 601 XL, Ram Subaru, Stratus redrive.
>
> There is only one builder and that is established when the
> Airworthiness
> Certificate gets issued. Modifications afterwards may require the FAA
> to issue additional operational limitations depending on the nature of
> the modifications. An example would be a VFR limitation that you want
> changed to allow for IFR operations. Installing a different engine
> will generate a subsequent flight test period similar to the hours
> that had to be flown off initially. Minor mods do not need anyone to
> sign off on as there is no "return to service" signature needed as in
> normal category aircraft. This is a primary advantage of the Amateur
> Built Experimental--no STCs, no 337s, no return to service--much
> different than the rules pertaining to a 172,

Actually, it can be both a primary advantage and a primary dissadvantage.
It is hypothetically possible modify the aircraft such that a new flight
test period will be required, determine during the test period that the
modification is inferior to the original, and then find that you can not
simply return to the original equipment or configuration--possibly due to
something that reportedly occurred on another aircraft. I have no idea
whether such a thing has ever occurred in practice; but it was told to me as
an illustration of one of the differences between a type certificate and a
one time approval of operating limitations.

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:07:24 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
> wrote:

>"150flivver" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>> > In addition, what happens if I buy a VFR plane and then replace the
>>> > engine and avionics and make it a IFR platform? Am I the builder for
>>> > the parts I put on it or does the fact that I bought an already
>>> > airworthy plane make it in essence little different than buying a 172?
>>>
>>>
>>> Bryan Martin
>>> N61BM, CH 601 XL, Ram Subaru, Stratus redrive.
>>
>> There is only one builder and that is established when the
>> Airworthiness
>> Certificate gets issued.

that is the answer to the guys question

snip


>> that had to be flown off initially. Minor mods do not need anyone to
>> sign off on as there is no "return to service" signature needed as in
>> normal category aircraft. This is a primary advantage of the Amateur
>> Built Experimental--no STCs, no 337s, no return to service--much
>> different than the rules pertaining to a 172,
>
>Actually, it can be both a primary advantage and a primary dissadvantage.
>It is hypothetically possible modify the aircraft such that a new flight
>test period will be required, determine during the test period that the
>modification is inferior to the original, and then find that you can not
>simply return to the original equipment or configuration--possibly due to
>something that reportedly occurred on another aircraft. I have no idea
>whether such a thing has ever occurred in practice; but it was told to me as
>an illustration of one of the differences between a type certificate and a
>one time approval of operating limitations.
>

I doubt that that is entirely correct.
what they are mixing up is the regimen of the certified aircraft and
the total absense of the regimen for amateur built experimentals.

an amateur built experimental can be modified ad infinitum since ad's
and such never apply to experimental. they are part of the certified
environment.

mods from the original signoff can invalidate the original C of A and
require it to be reissued, sending the owner through the proof of
structural integrity period again.

in the worst case where no one will issue new paperwork the owner
could surrender the registration then assemble a new aircraft from
various parts and ask for it to be registered.
if he can prove 51% then he is the builder for the new registration.

NEVER mix aspects of certification with aspects of experimental.
experimental is basically an exemption from the certification
requirements. all experimental aircraft are maintained on an
individual basis. a mishap with another similar aircraft only matters
in the certified world. experimentals are not certified aircraft.
Stealth Pilot

[150flivver]

On Jul 10, 7:51 am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:
>
> in the worst case where no one will issue new paperwork the owner
> could surrender the registration then assemble a new aircraft from
> various parts and ask for it to be registered.
> if he can prove 51% then he is the builder for the new registration.
>
> Stealth Pilot

51% has nothing to do with the issuance of a repairman certificate or
determining who is the builder.

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:45:08 -0700 (PDT), 150flivver
> wrote:

>On Jul 10, 7:51 am, Stealth Pilot >
>wrote:
>>
>> in the worst case where no one will issue new paperwork the owner
>> could surrender the registration then assemble a new aircraft from
>> various parts and ask for it to be registered.
>> if he can prove 51% then he is the builder for the new registration.
>>
>> Stealth Pilot
>
>51% has nothing to do with the issuance of a repairman certificate or
>determining who is the builder.

I dont believe that that is correct either.
if you fail to establish that you are the builder of 51% of the
aircraft then you wont be eligible for the maint authority.

Stealth Pilot

[Lou]

>
> >51% has nothing to do with the issuance of a repairman certificate or
> >determining who is the builder.
>
> I dont believe that that is correct either.
> if you fail to establish that you are the builder of 51% of the
> aircraft then you wont be eligible for the maint authority.
>
> Stealth Pilot

if that is true, then how do schools, flying clubs, eaa chapter, and
2 or 3 friends getting together to build submit the paper work?
Lou

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Lou wrote:
>>>51% has nothing to do with the issuance of a repairman certificate or
>>>determining who is the builder.
>>
>>I dont believe that that is correct either.
>>if you fail to establish that you are the builder of 51% of the
>>aircraft then you wont be eligible for the maint authority.
>>
>>Stealth Pilot
>
>
> if that is true, then how do schools, flying clubs, eaa chapter, and
> 2 or 3 friends getting together to build submit the paper work?
> Lou

It's not true.

The person who gets the repairman's certificate doesn't have to prove
anything. Except that he can spell his name.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Stealth Pilot wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:45:08 -0700 (PDT), 150flivver
> > wrote:
>
>> On Jul 10, 7:51 am, Stealth Pilot >
>> wrote:
>>> in the worst case where no one will issue new paperwork the owner
>>> could surrender the registration then assemble a new aircraft from
>>> various parts and ask for it to be registered.
>>> if he can prove 51% then he is the builder for the new registration.
>>>
>>> Stealth Pilot
>> 51% has nothing to do with the issuance of a repairman certificate or
>> determining who is the builder.
>
> I dont believe that that is correct either.
> if you fail to establish that you are the builder of 51% of the
> aircraft then you wont be eligible for the maint authority.
>
> Stealth Pilot

That is not correct. The 51% rule has nothing to do with who the builder
is. The 51% rule is that 51% of the tasks necessary to building the
aircraft were done by AN amateur builder.

To be THE amateur builder that gets the repairman's certificate you have
to convince the inspector that you did enough of the building to
understand the aircraft well enough to do the annual inspections.

Were this not the case few of the partially completed kits that get sold
and finished by someone else would ever qualify.

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
> Stealth Pilot wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:45:08 -0700 (PDT), 150flivver
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 10, 7:51 am, Stealth Pilot >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> in the worst case where no one will issue new paperwork the owner
>>>> could surrender the registration then assemble a new aircraft from
>>>> various parts and ask for it to be registered.
>>>> if he can prove 51% then he is the builder for the new registration.
>>>>
>>>> Stealth Pilot
>>>
>>> 51% has nothing to do with the issuance of a repairman certificate or
>>> determining who is the builder.
>>
>>
>> I dont believe that that is correct either.
>> if you fail to establish that you are the builder of 51% of the
>> aircraft then you wont be eligible for the maint authority.
>>
>> Stealth Pilot
>
>
> That is not correct. The 51% rule has nothing to do with who the builder
> is. The 51% rule is that 51% of the tasks necessary to building the
> aircraft were done by AN amateur builder.
>
> To be THE amateur builder that gets the repairman's certificate you have
> to convince the inspector that you did enough of the building to
> understand the aircraft well enough to do the annual inspections.
>
> Were this not the case few of the partially completed kits that get sold
> and finished by someone else would ever qualify.
>

That's the way it is _supposed_ to be.

But these days, little is how it's supposed to be.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

cavelamb himself wrote:
> Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
>> Stealth Pilot wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:45:08 -0700 (PDT), 150flivver
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 10, 7:51 am, Stealth Pilot >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> in the worst case where no one will issue new paperwork the owner
>>>>> could surrender the registration then assemble a new aircraft from
>>>>> various parts and ask for it to be registered.
>>>>> if he can prove 51% then he is the builder for the new registration.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stealth Pilot
>>>>
>>>> 51% has nothing to do with the issuance of a repairman certificate or
>>>> determining who is the builder.
>>>
>>>
>>> I dont believe that that is correct either.
>>> if you fail to establish that you are the builder of 51% of the
>>> aircraft then you wont be eligible for the maint authority.
>>>
>>> Stealth Pilot
>>
>>
>> That is not correct. The 51% rule has nothing to do with who the
>> builder is. The 51% rule is that 51% of the tasks necessary to
>> building the aircraft were done by AN amateur builder.
>>
>> To be THE amateur builder that gets the repairman's certificate you
>> have to convince the inspector that you did enough of the building to
>> understand the aircraft well enough to do the annual inspections.
>>
>> Were this not the case few of the partially completed kits that get sold
>> and finished by someone else would ever qualify.
>>
>
> That's the way it is _supposed_ to be.
>
> But these days, little is how it's supposed to be.

Do you have a case where this hasn't been the case?

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
> cavelamb himself wrote:
>
>> Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
>>
>>> Stealth Pilot wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:45:08 -0700 (PDT), 150flivver
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 10, 7:51 am, Stealth Pilot >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> in the worst case where no one will issue new paperwork the owner
>>>>>> could surrender the registration then assemble a new aircraft from
>>>>>> various parts and ask for it to be registered.
>>>>>> if he can prove 51% then he is the builder for the new registration.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stealth Pilot
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 51% has nothing to do with the issuance of a repairman certificate or
>>>>> determining who is the builder.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I dont believe that that is correct either.
>>>> if you fail to establish that you are the builder of 51% of the
>>>> aircraft then you wont be eligible for the maint authority.
>>>>
>>>> Stealth Pilot
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That is not correct. The 51% rule has nothing to do with who the
>>> builder is. The 51% rule is that 51% of the tasks necessary to
>>> building the aircraft were done by AN amateur builder.
>>>
>>> To be THE amateur builder that gets the repairman's certificate you
>>> have to convince the inspector that you did enough of the building to
>>> understand the aircraft well enough to do the annual inspections.
>>>
>>> Were this not the case few of the partially completed kits that get sold
>>> and finished by someone else would ever qualify.
>>>
>>
>> That's the way it is _supposed_ to be.
>>
>> But these days, little is how it's supposed to be.
>
>
> Do you have a case where this hasn't been the case?


A little RV-6 factory not far from Zuehl...


I hesitate to name names.

They are still bangin' rivets

..

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

cavelamb himself wrote:
> Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
>> cavelamb himself wrote:
>>
>>> Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
>>>
>>>> Stealth Pilot wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:45:08 -0700 (PDT), 150flivver
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 10, 7:51 am, Stealth Pilot >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> in the worst case where no one will issue new paperwork the owner
>>>>>>> could surrender the registration then assemble a new aircraft from
>>>>>>> various parts and ask for it to be registered.
>>>>>>> if he can prove 51% then he is the builder for the new registration.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stealth Pilot
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 51% has nothing to do with the issuance of a repairman certificate or
>>>>>> determining who is the builder.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I dont believe that that is correct either.
>>>>> if you fail to establish that you are the builder of 51% of the
>>>>> aircraft then you wont be eligible for the maint authority.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stealth Pilot
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is not correct. The 51% rule has nothing to do with who the
>>>> builder is. The 51% rule is that 51% of the tasks necessary to
>>>> building the aircraft were done by AN amateur builder.
>>>>
>>>> To be THE amateur builder that gets the repairman's certificate you
>>>> have to convince the inspector that you did enough of the building
>>>> to understand the aircraft well enough to do the annual inspections.
>>>>
>>>> Were this not the case few of the partially completed kits that get
>>>> sold
>>>> and finished by someone else would ever qualify.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's the way it is _supposed_ to be.
>>>
>>> But these days, little is how it's supposed to be.
>>
>>
>> Do you have a case where this hasn't been the case?
>
>
> A little RV-6 factory not far from Zuehl...
>
>
> I hesitate to name names.
>
> They are still bangin' rivets
>
> .

Well, we weren't really talking about that issue but the days of those
places are numbered. I plan to laugh my ass off when the clients of
those companies start getting refused AW certificates. What I really
look forward to is when the client try to sue the company and find that
they have no standing to do so. Much as if I paid you to burn down my
house and then you didn't do it. I can't then take you to court for
breach of contract.

[Lou]

> Well, we weren't really talking about that issue but the days of those
> places are numbered. I plan to laugh my ass off when the clients of
> those companies start getting refused AW certificates. What I really
> look forward to is when the client try to sue the company and find that
> they have no standing to do so. Much as if I paid you to burn down my
> house and then you didn't do it. I can't then take you to court for
> breach of contract.

Kinda like a contract killing? If it doesn't get done you can't sue
the killer?
Lou