Legal question

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

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

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)

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

"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.

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.

"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.