Damaged Certified into Homebuilt?

On 15 May 2004 15:48:06 -0700, (Ben Haas) wrote:

David O wrote in message . ..

The FAA Aircraft Registration database lists about four hundred Cessna
aircraft currently registered as Experimental. Of those, only the
following 14 Cessnas are registered as Experimental Amateur Built.

OK Cy and Roger, Explain these??? A curious mind wants to know..

Probably mostly errors in the database. Take N817BR, for instance. Listed
in my January 2004 database as Experimental/Amateur-Built Boeing B-17
Flying Fortress. Or like N484A, a Sea Rey licensed in the Normal category,
as are Sonerai N5102Q, Quicksilver N184DH, and Volksplane N2312B. I don't,
for the least minute, think anyone went through the certification process
on these.

The FAA Registration database has a Certification column (which indicates
how the plane was licensed) *and* an "Amateur-Built" column. Airplanes
like that B-17 are listed as "Experimental Amateur Built" in the
certification column yet have the "Amateur" flag turned off. There are 242
airplanes of this sort, from practically every manufacturer.

Things go around the other way, too. There are over 6,000 airplanes on the
January 2004 registry that have the Amateur-Built flag set, but are NOT
certified as "Experimental Amateur-Built." According to the FAA's
database, there are over 150 "Amateur-Built" Gulfstream 5s.

So: Don't rely too much on what the FAA registration database says.

But it *is* possible to get production-style airplanes certified as
Experimental Amateur-Built. I mentioned a Cessna 150 owner on a previous
posting, and realized that there is a Stinson 108-3 in the same situation
at my home field.

The owners either pulled strings with friends at the FAA or performed such
a massive rebuild that the inspector probably agreed it met the 51% rule.
Remember the guy I mentioned who had his 150 Ex/Am...he did NOT want any
publicity. He probably worked his via a buddy at the FAA. The Stinson guy
doesn't want to talk about his, either, but this plane has, at least, some
obvious external changes.

So: Is it possible? Yes.

Can a person who has no aircraft design, construction, or maintenance
expertise manage it? I'd say, no.

Ron Wanttaja

I looked up a couple of the planes...

N-Number Model
90030 140 --- Has rotoway engine
885DE 172G --- Rotax engine. I don't believe a 172 would fly with so little
power.

Cy Galley
Safety Programs Editor
Sport Pilot

Ben Haas wrote:

OK Cy and Roger, Explain these??? A curious mind wants to know..

For every hard-and-fast rule regarding homebuilts
you can find at least one exception. If the OP
is serious about this, he'd be smart to as his
question of his regional FSDO, or more specifically
ask the person who will be signing his paperwork.
I can pretty much guarantee that if you asked more
than one FSDO, maybe even more than one person in
a single FSDO, you'd get a variety of answers.

Dave 'smart shoppers' Hyde

On Sun, 16 May 2004 01:38:18 GMT, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:

On 15 May 2004 15:48:06 -0700, (Ben Haas) wrote:

David O wrote in message . ..

The FAA Aircraft Registration database lists about four hundred Cessna
aircraft currently registered as Experimental. Of those, only the
following 14 Cessnas are registered as Experimental Amateur Built.

OK Cy and Roger, Explain these??? A curious mind wants to know..

Probably mostly errors in the database. Take N817BR, for instance. Listed
in my January 2004 database as Experimental/Amateur-Built Boeing B-17
Flying Fortress. Or like N484A, a Sea Rey licensed in the Normal category,
as are Sonerai N5102Q, Quicksilver N184DH, and Volksplane N2312B. I don't,
for the least minute, think anyone went through the certification process
on these.

The FAA Registration database has a Certification column (which indicates
how the plane was licensed) *and* an "Amateur-Built" column. Airplanes
like that B-17 are listed as "Experimental Amateur Built" in the
certification column yet have the "Amateur" flag turned off. There are 242
airplanes of this sort, from practically every manufacturer.

Things go around the other way, too. There are over 6,000 airplanes on the
January 2004 registry that have the Amateur-Built flag set, but are NOT
certified as "Experimental Amateur-Built." According to the FAA's
database, there are over 150 "Amateur-Built" Gulfstream 5s.

So: Don't rely too much on what the FAA registration database says.

But it *is* possible to get production-style airplanes certified as
Experimental Amateur-Built. I mentioned a Cessna 150 owner on a previous
posting, and realized that there is a Stinson 108-3 in the same situation
at my home field.

The owners either pulled strings with friends at the FAA or performed such
a massive rebuild that the inspector probably agreed it met the 51% rule.
Remember the guy I mentioned who had his 150 Ex/Am...he did NOT want any
publicity. He probably worked his via a buddy at the FAA. The Stinson guy
doesn't want to talk about his, either, but this plane has, at least, some
obvious external changes.

So: Is it possible? Yes.

Can a person who has no aircraft design, construction, or maintenance
expertise manage it? I'd say, no.

Ron Wanttaja
There is a "rebuilt" Cessna 140 here in Ontario that has been totally
remanufactured and registered as a homebuilt - but is not registered
as a Cessna and has a new serial number assigned by the current
"manufacturer". It is a Cessna in everything but name - but the owner
is allowed to do all maintenance, and use non certified parts.

The plane did NOT qualify for OM, apparently - and as an OM would not
be allowed to fly in the USA, even with a letter of permission - while
a Canadian homebuilt/amateur built can be.

But it *is* possible to get production-style airplanes certified as
Experimental Amateur-Built. I mentioned a Cessna 150 owner on a
previous posting, and realized that there is a Stinson 108-3 in the
same situation at my home field.

The owners either pulled strings with friends at the FAA or performed
such a massive rebuild that the inspector probably agreed it met the
51% rule.

I had always heard that it couldn't be done. But a couple of guys I
know are rebuilding a Piper Malibu and have gotten the FSDO to agree to
their plans to certify it as Experimental - Amateur-built. They claim
that there are already three others so certified.

The trick (and I am quoting them) is that they have identified from the
Piper documents 51+% of the TASKS that must be done to build the
aircraft. And (given how bad this one was wrecked) it certainly
shouldn't be a problem to find 51%. Some of these items are in the
details, of course. For example, they will take a couple of places
where they need new skin and make it out of sheet aluminum, rather than
simply buy the parts from Piper. And they are going to make substantial
differences to the power plant and ancillary components.

As I understood it, the key is:
1) Make (rather than simply assemble out of replacement parts) as much
as possible.
2) Get the FSDO involved early, and get him/her to agree to the plan.

Ron Wanttaja wrote in message . ..

According to the FAA's database, there are over 150 "Amateur-Built"
Gulfstream 5s.

cheapshot

Maybe that's the only way to get a BD-5J signed off?

/cheapshot

The FAA Aircraft Registration database lists about four hundred Cessna
aircraft currently registered as Experimental. Of those, only the
following 14 Cessnas are registered as Experimental Amateur Built.

The FAA databases, in general, are full of errors. 14 Cessnas registered as
experimental amateur built is really not a surprise.

Don't buy any bridges based on FAA databases.

Ed "I used to research those for a living" Wischmeyer