How is it that Cub Crafters is building brand new "Super Cub", yet
don't own the rights? The FAA is issuing airworthiness certificates
for them, somehow.

(psyshrike) wrote in message . com...
Newps wrote in message ...
Charles Talleyrand wrote:



I notice that I can buy cylinders for my engine from several sources,
all with FAA blessing. Could the same legal techniques be scaled up to
a whole engine, or a whole airplane?

Yes, a Cub is a perfect example. My mechanic just bought a cub that
crashed and burned. Nothing useable from the airframe except some
fittings. But he recovered the data plate. Now he can go buy a brand
new fuselage, new wings, engine, etc. The logbooks came with the plane
and he can also do every 337 that was approved for this plane over the
years, which is really valuable since the FAA pretty much doesn't do
field approvals anymore.

From the owner standpoint it is pretty much the same, but from the
manufacturer it's not.

If you bought all the same certified parts and built a new aircraft
from scratch, you would have to get PMA from FAA in order to fabricate
the dataplate. They might still try and make you get a TC.

This is kind of blurry because of the wording of part 21 seems to have
conflicting logic. It might go something like this:

You: "I'd like to apply for PMA to manufacture this dataplate."

Them: "You mean manufacturing that aircraft, which will will require
you have a license or a TC."

You: "Nuh uh. I am repairing it, using all certified parts in
compliance normal repair procedures, which I've done before"

Them: "You can't repair something you never owned".

You: "What do you mean, the only thing I owned before was a dataplate,
so I applying for PMA to manufature a dataplate."

Them: "You have to have a TC or a manufacturing license before we will
accept registration of a serial number, therefore you cannot have PMA
to make the dataplate, becuase the dataplate has not been competed
with an FAA approved serial number."

This really brings you back to the basic issue, which is whether the
FAA actively endeavors to dictate right-of-manufacture based on
license. It doesn't really _say_ they do explicitly in the regs. But
the regs are self-conflicted. So the FAA can say anything it wants on
the matter and still be able to demonstrate that they are within their
regulatory power.

This is like saying you can cross the street, but it's illegal to
jay-walk. Provided that the two are never explicitly defined the
police are permited to arrest you any time they feel like it. This
sort of thing defies the logic apon which all law is based. If it is
acceptable to regulate this way, the constitution is out the window
and flapping in the breeze.

-Thanks
-Matt