How to register an ultralight as "experimental" ?
time...@earthlink.net
experimental category?
I need to secure an "N" number to fly out of my chosen field.
Thanks,
spektr
<time...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:jn6pivsmj06inudgg...@4ax.com...
We just had the FAA MIDO rep for our area do a presentation on HOW to get
your experimental licensed. I asked the FAA dude this question at a chapter
meeting.
"Can you could convert a flying part 103 aircraft to an amatuer
built/experimental
aircraft." His answer was that it isn't usually possible. Amatuer built
aircraft must
meet a 51% build rule and have proof of construction logs, photos.
Conversion
of a flying 103 aircraft doesn't prove that you built it. By build, they
usually
mean something beyond bolting it together. There is also a list of FAA
approved
kits that meet the 51% rule and it's highly doubtful your plane is on it.
Now that
doesn't eliminate you from getting an "exhibition" catagory license. That
seems to be
the catchall class for stuff that is flyable, but not licenseable in another
catagory.
There are also significant operation limits to the airplane if registered
this way.
Scott
Bobby Hester
Here are two location that should have all the information you need:
http://av-info.faa.gov/dst/amateur/
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraft.asp
--
Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
Rans S12xl site: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/
Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse :-)
mikema...@yahoo.com
>><time...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>Anybody got any tips on how to get an utralight registered in
>>experimental category?
>>I need to secure an "N" number to fly out of my chosen field.
Same reason I N-numbered my trike (N912JT). Wish I had done
it years ago.
>We just had the FAA MIDO rep for our area do a presentation on
>HOW to get your experimental licensed. I asked the FAA dude
>this question at a chapter meeting.
>"Can you could convert a flying part 103 aircraft to an amatuer
>built/experimental aircraft." His answer was that it isn't usually
>possible. Amatuer built aircraft must meet a 51% build rule and
>have proof of construction logs, photos.
>Conversion of a flying 103 aircraft doesn't prove that you built it.
>By build, they usually mean something beyond bolting it together.
>There is also a list of FAAapproved kits that meet the 51% rule
>and it's highly doubtful your plane is on it.
>Now that doesn't eliminate you from getting an "exhibition" catagory
>license. That seems to be the catchall class for stuff that is flyable,
>but not licenseable in another catagory.
>There are also significant operation limits to the airplane if registered
>this way.
All good advice. Mine is N-numbered as a "glider" (motorized) so
there are no restrictions as to where and when I can fly. The bottom
line is that the DAR is the final gatekeeper -- so find a DAR and
aircraft manufacturer who is willing to work with you.
-Mike Marron
Richard Carlisle
"time...@earthlink.net" <time...@earthlink.net> wrote:
I was told by the local FSDO that I could not register an existing 103 UL
that I bought as experimental because I did not build it. By that rule, I
should not be able to register any experimental in my name unless I built
it. And as everyone knows, that is not the case. When I said this to the
FAA, there as silence and I never got a straight answer.
I've also heard from plenty of people who have done it that the 51% rule
only applies to getting the repairmans certificate. In other words, you
should be able to register your UL and get an airworthiness certificate, but
you will not be able to get a repairmans certificate, which means you'll
have to pay someone to sign off your annuals and such.
I've also found that not all FAA employees interpret the rules the same way.
You might have to shop around to find DAR or FSDO that sees things your way.
I asked them why they were discouraging people from registering their fat
UL's and making them 100% legal. Again there was silence.
FYI...You probably want to stay away from the Portland, ME FSDO.
Ross
rick.p...@verizon.net
Something fishy there Ross. If the plane was already registered, your
bill of sale should be enough to transfer it over to your name. You
weren't trying to re-register it for some reason were you?
As for the 51% rule, whoever told you that it only applies to getting
the repairman's cert may have given you bad information. You have to
show that the "major portion" (that's where the "51% rule" comes from)
of the plane was built for recreation or education and provide
documentation to prove it. If you can't do that, you can't register the
plane as Amateur Built Experimental. Here's the form that you have to
fill out in order to register the plane:
http://av-info.faa.gov/dst/forms/8130-12.pdf
Check out section III for the documentation requirements, and the
$10,000 fine for "fudging" ;)
The existing UL's that I've heard about getting registered as
Experimental were torn down and re-assembled. Not too big a job, and a
lot cheaper than that $10,000 fine for lying on the app :)
Or, you could wait for the Sport Pilot rule to go into effect (whenever
that will be) and register your existing UL as an Experimental Light
Sport Airplane. But that might be another 3 months to a year.
Rick P.
mikema...@yahoo.com
>Or, you could wait for the Sport Pilot rule to go into effect (whenever
>that will be) and register your existing UL as an Experimental Light
>Sport Airplane. But that might be another 3 months to a year.
LSA cannot fly at night or over densely populated urban areas w/o
a private pilot's license and valid FAA medical. Although I have a
CFII and all, that, in and of itself is one reason I went ahead and
N-numbered my trike as an Experimental (motorized glider). If I
waited until Sport Pilot arrived and N-numbered my trike as a LSA,
I would still be required to operate my trike out in the boonies
during the daytime only just like I had to do when my trike was
classified as a "fat" ultralight.
There are few, if any, advantages of LSA vis a vis GA Experimental.
-Mike Marron
rick.p...@verizon.net
I'd agree that Amateur Built Experimental would be the best way to go,
that's the way I'm going to register my Zodiac. But I don't have the
problem that the original poster asked about: registering an already
built ultralight. The options that I can find are registering it as
Exhibition with all it's restrictions, registering as ExpLSA, or tearing
it down and reassembling, keeping records of what was done and who did
it. Not really a big job for tube and dacron planes, maybe more daunting
for wood or steel cloth covered structures.
But you've brought up another question: I know that the Sport Pilot
license won't allow night flight (not sure about the airplane), but I
searched the NPRM and couldn't find anything about flight over densely
populated areas. Where did you find that?
Rick P.
BD5ER
>waited until Sport Pilot arrived and N-numbered my trike as a LSA,
>I would still be required to operate my trike out in the boonies
>during the daytime only just like I had to do when my trike was
>classified as a "fat" ultralight.
Just an observation:
How is one to tell the difference between an LSA and an Experimental at a
distance by the "N" number?
I suspect that unless one did something stupid that the FAA, much like the
current crop of "Fat" 103's, couldn't care less what the paper work in the
plane said it was.
mikema...@yahoo.com
>But you've brought up another question: I know that the Sport Pilot
>license won't allow night flight (not sure about the airplane), but I
>searched the NPRM and couldn't find anything about flight over densely
>populated areas. Where did you find that?
My copy of the NPRM reads thusly:
"Unlike ultralight vehicles, light-sport aircraft could operate in
congested areas and controlled airspace. Therefore, you would be
permitted to operate light-sport aircraft at night only if it is
equipped with lights, as required by 91.209 and you are appropriately
certificated. Although you could not operate at night with a sport
pilot certificate, you could operate, even light-sport aircraft, at
night with a private pilot certificate."
It goes on to say:
"The FAA would allow you to fly over congested areas, which is not
allowed under part 103. However, any particular light-sport aircraft
may have operating limitations that prohibit such operations. You
could not conduct any operation prohibited by the operating
limitations of the light-sport aircraft."
In other words, when people go to N-number their existing "fat" UL's
as light-sport aircraft, rest assurred that among other restrictions,
"no flight over congested areas" will also be stipulated in the ops
limits.
-Mike Marron
mikema...@yahoo.com
>>Mike Marron wrote:
>> If I
>>waited until Sport Pilot arrived and N-numbered my trike as a LSA,
>>I would still be required to operate my trike out in the boonies
>>during the daytime only just like I had to do when my trike was
>>classified as a "fat" ultralight.
>Just an observation:
>How is one to tell the difference between an LSA and an Experimental at a
>distance by the "N" number?
Good question, but if the "fat" UL-turned-LSA" hasn't been
maintained properly (and many aren't!) I don't think it will be all
that difficult to tell the difference just by looking at it.
>I suspect that unless one did something stupid that the FAA, much like the
>current crop of "Fat" 103's, couldn't care less what the paper work in the
>plane said it was.
That's the old "wink wink" UL mindset but only time will tell if the
FAA starts to enforce the regs via frequent rampchecks once Sport
Pilot is promulgated. All it will take is a few rampchecks and hefty
fines to make an example out of a few die-hard ULers attempting to
play the ol' "wink wink" game to make folks sit up and take note.
Despite how shiny and well-maintained my 4-stroke trike is, I carry
around all the required FAA paperwork in a waterproof document holder
whenever I fly just in case...
-Mike Marron
rick.p...@verizon.net
Ahhh... I see. You used the phrase "densely populated" the first time
and neither of those words showed up when I ran a search of the NPRM.
"Congested" does show up.
thanks,
Rick P.
spektr
> I was told by the local FSDO that I could not register an existing 103 UL
> that I bought as experimental because I did not build it. By that rule, I
> should not be able to register any experimental in my name unless I built
> it. And as everyone knows, that is not the case. When I said this to the
> FAA, there as silence and I never got a straight answer.
>
You have confused terms.......... He is correct in stating that a part 103
a/p needs documentation that shows you built it to get it "registered".
Registration of an experimental aircraft for the first time also requires
the
creation and issuance of an AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE.
You cannot be granted an airworthiness cert unless you built 51% of the
airplane in question. You can register an existing experimental in your
name because it already has an airworthiness cert granted to it. You didn't
get an answer because you did not clearly state your question. The key
point
here is the status of trhe airworthiness cert.
> I've also heard from plenty of people who have done it that the 51% rule
> only applies to getting the repairmans certificate. In other words, you
> should be able to register your UL and get an airworthiness certificate,
but
> you will not be able to get a repairmans certificate, which means you'll
> have to pay someone to sign off your annuals and such.
Incorrect. The 51%rule applies to both the AW cert and Repairmans ticket,
which is good for ONLY the aircraft you created. If you don't have the
repairmans
ticket for your experimental when the condition inspection is due, you must
get it
signed off by an A&P or IA or DAR or a MIDO guy.
> I've also found that not all FAA employees interpret the rules the same
way.
> You might have to shop around to find DAR or FSDO that sees things your
way.
Be advised that there is a denial of airworthiness form required to be
filled out and filed
anytime a DAR or MIDO guy doesn't sign off an airplane. Any DAR/MIDO guy
must
check for prior denials before he can sign you off. Denial reasons are
clearly recorded and
you get a copy of what go's into the records. So don't bother shopping.
As far as not everyone following the same rules, I haven't found it to be
that way on the BIG
stuff......Your Mileage may Vary.
> I asked them why they were discouraging people from registering their fat
> UL's and making them 100% legal. Again there was silence.
I would answer a request to break the law with silence. Fat ultralights do
not exist, officially.
There is no documented method to go from part103 to part 43 and admitting
that you are
in violation of the FAR's isn't an exercise in common sense. Asking a guy
why they don't
open pandoras box and PROSECUTE everyone not in strict compliance with 103
doesn't need an answer
>
> FYI...You probably want to stay away from the Portland, ME FSDO.
>
> Ross
No experience there, If you say so , fine.......
Scott
Mark Smith
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> You cannot be granted an airworthiness cert unless you built 51% of the
> airplane in question.
the holder of the repairmans cert does not have to have built 51
percent, this is incorrect,
but the kit/plane/bunch of sticks must be built by 'you and others', no
one person must do 61 percent, just that the kit must meet the 51
percent rukle, ie, require 51 percent of the build effort by the builder
who may have all the help he/she needs,,,,,,,,,,,,
typically the owner applies for the repair cert but this is not
required,,,,,,,,,,,,
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> Incorrect. The 51%rule applies to both the AW cert and Repairmans ticket,
> which is good for ONLY the aircraft you created. If you don't have the
> repairmans
> ticket for your experimental when the condition inspection is due, you must
> get it
> signed off by an A&P or IA or DAR or a MIDO guy.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
again, the 51 percent rule appl;ies to the kit itself, not the specifics
of the repair cert,
the person who applies for the cert will likely know a lot about the
plane, likely have built a substantial portion, likely be the owner, but
none of these are required, and for sure, no 51 percent rule for the
holder of the cert !!!
--
Mark Smith
Tri-State Kite Sales http://www.trikite.com
1121 N Locust St
Mt Vernon, IN 47620 mailto:ma...@trikite.com
spektr
"Mark Smith" <ma...@trikite.com> wrote in message
news:3F2F9E...@trikite.com...
Good Morning Mark.....
If you would please reread my post, I didn't say that a holder of a
repairmans cert
must do 51 % of the work on the a/p. We are in agreement on that. What I
said
is that to qualify for a repairmans cert on that particular a/p, the
applicant must have
met the 51% rule on that particular a/p. Granted, you can team build, get
help, be
instructed or whatever, but you are eventually going to have to comply with
the 51%
rule to get a repairmans cert. Yes, the repairmans cert is not a
requirement for the
operation of the A/P, just to allow an otherwise uncertified individual the
ability to
do a condition inspection on something he built. The assumption here is
that he
would be the best qualified to evaluate something he produced.
My reply to the 51% rule applicabiulity with respect to the repairmans
ticket ONLY
is correct. We both agree on the 51% rule compliance for liscensing the
a/p. If the
A/P must comply with 51% rule, qualification for the repairmans cert based
on the A/P
registration and airworthiness also requires the same. There is no
mechanism allowing
you to apply for a repairmans cert for an aircraft on which you do not
fulfil the 51% rule.
Sorry if that was unclear the first time I wrote it.........
Scott Correa
Spektr Products
Granbury, Tx.
Richard Carlisle
"mikema...@yahoo.com" <mikema...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Good question, but if the "fat" UL-turned-LSA" hasn't been
> maintained properly (and many aren't!) I don't think it will be all
> that difficult to tell the difference just by looking at it.
I disagree...I've seen some GA planes that somehow passed an annual that I
wouldn't fly. I've also found that experimental/UL airplanes are usually in
a better state of repair than the average GA plane. As a builder/pilot I am
always in tune with my plane. I hear a noise and because I built the plane,
I know what it is. When I land, I address the issue.
I find that most GA pilots just fly and generally know nothing about the
plane they are flying. Every year they pay their $2000+ for an annual to
fix all the stuff that I fix when I notice the problem.
Ramp checks are a different story. Personally, I don't think the FAA will
be able to muster up the manpower to properly administer the Sport Pilot
program, never mind doing regular ramp checks. Even if they did, I'd bet
the ramp checks would be limited to the larger, higher traffic airports that
the light planes tend to avoid anyway.
Ross
rick.p...@verizon.net
>>,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
>>You cannot be granted an airworthiness cert unless you built 51% of the
>>airplane in question.
>
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
>
> the holder of the repairmans cert does not have to have built 51
> percent, this is incorrect,
<snip>
There seems to be some confusion between getting an airworthiness
certificate and getting the repairman's cert. Lemme see if we're on the
same page here.
As I understand it, you have to show that the major portion plane was
built for recreation or education (the "51% rule"). Any 1 of the people
doing the building can get the repairman's cert without doing 51% of the
work.
You wouldn't be able to get an Amature Built Experimental airworthiness
certificate for a existing plane if the original builder was unknown or
the documentation was unavailable.
Is that how you read it?
Rick P.
mikema...@yahoo.com
>>Good question, but if the "fat" UL-turned-LSA" hasn't been
>>maintained properly (and many aren't!) I don't think it will be all
>>that difficult to tell the difference just by looking at it.
>I disagree...I've seen some GA planes that somehow passed an annual that I
>wouldn't fly.
The question I was responding to had nothing to do with
non-experimental GA planes such as Cessnas, Pipers, Beechcrafts,
Mooneys, etc. The original question was:
"How is one to tell the difference between an LSA and an Experimental
at a distance by the "N" number?"
>I've also found that experimental/UL airplanes are usually in
>a better state of repair than the average GA plane.
First, there is no such thing as an "experimental/UL airplane." It's
either an "experimental," or an "ultralight." Second, your comment
has nothing to do with the original question.
>As a builder/pilot I am always in tune with my plane. I hear a noise and
>because I built the plane, I know what it is. When I land, I address the issue.
Again, this has nothing to do with the original question asking about
how to tell the difference between a previously used "fat" UL that
has been N-numbered as an LSA.
>I find that most GA pilots just fly and generally know nothing about the
>plane they are flying.
Now you've gone way off-topic and are simply denigrating GA pilots.
>Every year they pay their $2000+ for an annual to fix all the stuff that I fix
>when I notice the problem.
See above.
>Ramp checks are a different story. Personally, I don't think the FAA will
>be able to muster up the manpower to properly administer the Sport Pilot
>program, never mind doing regular ramp checks. Even if they did, I'd bet
>the ramp checks would be limited to the larger, higher traffic airports that
>the light planes tend to avoid anyway.
OK, now you're finally back on-topic. As I said, only time will tell
whether or not we start to see more ramp checks once Sport Pilot is
promulgated.
-Mike Marron
mikema...@yahoo.com
>There seems to be some confusion between getting an airworthiness
>certificate and getting the repairman's cert. Lemme see if we're on the
>same page here.
>As I understand it, you have to show that the major portion plane was
>built for recreation or education (the "51% rule"). Any 1 of the people
>doing the building can get the repairman's cert without doing 51% of the
>work.
Correct. For example, back in A&P tech school, the person who
got the "repairman's cert" was usually one of the instructors who
simply supervised us students who did the actual construction of
experimentals certified under the "51-percent" rule. Sometimes
it was the owner of the experimental who got the "repairman's cert"
even though it was us would-be A&P mechanics who performed
99-percent of the actual building.
>You wouldn't be able to get an Amature Built Experimental airworthiness
>certificate for a existing plane if the original builder was unknown or
>the documentation was unavailable.
Exactly right.
-Mike Marron
Richard Carlisle
"mikema...@yahoo.com" <mikema...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Richard Carlisle <rr...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>> "mikema...@yahoo.com" wrote:
>
>>> Good question, but if the "fat" UL-turned-LSA" hasn't been
>>> maintained properly (and many aren't!) I don't think it will be all
>>> that difficult to tell the difference just by looking at it.
>
>> I disagree...I've seen some GA planes that somehow passed an annual that I
>> wouldn't fly.
>
> The question I was responding to had nothing to do with
> non-experimental GA planes such as Cessnas, Pipers, Beechcrafts,
> Mooneys, etc. The original question was:
>
> "How is one to tell the difference between an LSA and an Experimental
> at a distance by the "N" number?"
Your response indicated that a "UL turned LSA" plane will be recognizable
because of it's lack of maintenance. That is not valid. As I explained,
most experimental "OR" UL planes are built by their owners and are therefore
better maintained than the average certified GA plane.
>
>> I've also found that experimental/UL airplanes are usually in
>> a better state of repair than the average GA plane.
>
> First, there is no such thing as an "experimental/UL airplane." It's
> either an "experimental," or an "ultralight." Second, your comment
> has nothing to do with the original question.
Obviously....You've evidently never seen a "/" as shorthand for "or".
>
>> As a builder/pilot I am always in tune with my plane. I hear a noise and
>> because I built the plane, I know what it is. When I land, I address the
>> issue.
>
> Again, this has nothing to do with the original question asking about
> how to tell the difference between a previously used "fat" UL that
> has been N-numbered as an LSA.
It has to do with your original assumption that an LSA plane will show signs
of lack of maintenance.
>
>> I find that most GA pilots just fly and generally know nothing about the
>> plane they are flying.
>
> Now you've gone way off-topic and are simply denigrating GA pilots.
No denigration intended, I am a GA pilot and I did exactly what I described
until I started building my own planes.
mikema...@yahoo.com
>Your response indicated that a "UL turned LSA" plane will be recognizable
>because of it's lack of maintenance. That is not valid.
Not all UL turned LSA will be easily recognizable by a lack of
maintenance, but many will be.
>As I explained, most experimental "OR" UL planes are built by their
>owners and are therefore better maintained than the average certified
>GA plane.
Speaking of "not valid," what you just wrote ain't valid. Last time I
checked, the overwhelming majority of trikes and a huge percentage
of 3-axis UL's are factory built.
And when it comes to which is better maintained (GA, Experimental, or
UL), I'm not interested in debating that issue with you as it's highly
subjective and strictly your *opinion* that experimentals and UL's are
better maintained than certified GA planes.
I've found that privately owned GA planes are well maintained while
school and rental planes are poorly maintained as you described.
As an aside, say "hey" to Rick Helms and the nice folks at Sabre for
me.
-Mike Marron
Richard Carlisle
>
> Speaking of "not valid," what you just wrote ain't valid. Last time I
> checked, the overwhelming majority of trikes and a huge percentage
> of 3-axis UL's are factory built.
I know that most Flightstars and Phantoms go out the door as kits...or they
were a few years ago anyway. Cant really speak for the entire industry.
I'd bet that when is comes to the more LSA-ish planes like Kitfox or Avid
that are a bit more complicated to build, you are right.
>
> As an aside, say "hey" to Rick Helms and the nice folks at Sabre for
> me.
>
I get the impression that you're being sarcastic since I know how much you
love Sabre trikes, but I'm re-thinking that whole trike issue. I can't find
a reliable instructor and I'm not willing to travel hundreds of miles for
training. Probably just stick with fixed wing and maybe look for a folding
wing plane. I haven't talked to them yet, but I hear Flightstar now has a
folding wing option....
Mark Smith
> Your response indicated that a "UL turned LSA" plane will be recognizable
> because of it's lack of maintenance. That is not valid. As I explained,
> most experimental "OR" UL planes are built by their owners and are therefore
> better maintained than the average certified GA plane.
I have not heard that N numbers will be from a recognizable data base
for sprot,,,,,,,just plain N numbers from the present stream as far as I
have heard.
>
> It has to do with your original assumption that an LSA plane will show signs
> of lack of maintenance.
many GA planes and likely as many uls have poor
maintainance,,,,,,,,,,,as a manufacturer, I see/get many planes a year
through my shop. some are flyable, many are not. I do mostly uls but an
occasional N numbered 'ul' will show up, and typically be uncared for
and flown by a noncert pilot,,,,,,with no re-registration, etc,,,,,
who cares, not me, as far as the plane goes, I do care, and many have
crappy home made stuff, spliced tubes, non aircraft bolts/nuts, washers,
all manner of ACE Hardware and Auto Zone mixed together,,,,,,,,,
> No denigration intended, I am a GA pilot and I did exactly what I described
> until I started building my own planes.
self denigration is OK, but masny take offense when GA pilots enter the
ul world, fail and make the rest of us look bad,,,,,,,,
,and with all the ul activity in my area, the local FBO had an engine
out in a 172 a year or so ago, and I only heard since it was two of my
past ul students with a FBO CFI for a checkride to rent the plane for
some night flying ,
I can't rememnber the last engine out in the local ul world,,,,,,,,,,,
BD5ER
>>certificate for a existing plane if the original builder was unknown or
>>the documentation was unavailable.
>
>Exactly right.
Not exactly, but close. I do know that it is posable to get an amateur built
airworthniess certificate for a project - even one that has been previously
certificated, flown, and reported to the FAA as "dismantled" or whatever the
term is without the cooperation of the original builder (against his wishes I
might add). It took several notarized affidavits and the guidance of the AOPA
but it again flies, legally. All you have to do is convince the FAA it was not
"pro" built and jump through the right hoops.
>>As I understand it, you have to show that the major portion plane was
>>built for recreation or education (the "51% rule"). Any 1 of the people
>>doing the building can get the repairman's cert without doing 51% of the
I am also aware of cases where the new owner of an Experimental was given the
repairman's certificate even though they did 0% of the work, only purchased the
plane. In all of these cases there were no prior repairman's certification
issued for the plane and the new certificate owner had previously been granted
a repairman's certificate for a model similar to the one purchased, that they
HAD worked/built on. I've never read the rule for the repairman's
certification so I don't have any idea if this was proper, but it has been
done.
Dana M. Hague
>I would answer a request to break the law with silence. Fat ultralights do
>not exist, officially.....
Well, _owning_ a fat UL isn't illegal..... but flying it
is.....
-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------They say that politics makes strange bedfellows.
Of course, the main reason they cuddle up is to screw somebody else.
C.D. Damron
"spektr" <spe...@itexas.net> wrote in message
news:bgn1e...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> Incorrect. The 51%rule applies to both the AW cert and Repairmans ticket,
> which is good for ONLY the aircraft you created. If you don't have the
> repairmans
> ticket for your experimental when the condition inspection is due, you
must
> get it
> signed off by an A&P or IA or DAR or a MIDO guy.
Wrong on two counts. The 51% rule does not specify who the builder is, only
the intent of the builder/s.
Likewise, the 51% rule does not apply to the RC. In fact, I know of a shop
teacher that supervised the construction of an experimental and received the
RC, without laying a finger on the aircraft.
C.D. Damron
<mikema...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a5jvivc3obq0d7uqu...@4ax.com...
> > rick.p...@verizon.net wrote:
> >You wouldn't be able to get an Amature Built Experimental airworthiness
> >certificate for a existing plane if the original builder was unknown or
> >the documentation was unavailable.
>
> Exactly right.
It has happened in a number of cases in which the inspector made reasonable
assumptions about the aircraft in question. One case that I heard about was
a MiniMax or HiMax purchased at an estate sale without any documentation.
The owner was granted an AC, but not a RC. The inspector understood that
it was very unlikely that the aircraft was built by a hired gun and knew the
design could only be built by plans or kit.
clare .ca
Will be interesting to see how Transport Canada handles it. There is a
certain model of amphibian plane that has been registered as advanced
ultralight in Canada for several years. Turns out it is too heavy.
Transport is revoking registration. Something in the neighbourhood of
20 planes, perfectly good, may be affected.
>
>
Richard Carlisle
99eYa.55818$Vt6....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net, "C.D. Damron"
<NOSPAM...@damrontech.com> wrote:
This is exactly what I meant in my comment a few posts up about shopping
around for a DAR. Regardless of what some think, not all DARs interpret the
rules the same way and some are more willing to give you the benefit of the
doubt if you find yourself in a "gray" area.
Ross
spektr
"C.D. Damron" <NOSPAM...@damrontech.com> wrote in message
news:k%dYa.55750$Vt6....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
>
> Wrong on two counts. The 51% rule does not specify who the builder is,
only
> the intent of the builder/s.
>
> Likewise, the 51% rule does not apply to the RC. In fact, I know of a
shop
> teacher that supervised the construction of an experimental and received
the
> RC, without laying a finger on the aircraft.
It is truly frustrating when people don't read what was written before
snipping it
top pieces and blowing the context to hell.
I you go back and reread the post, the point being discussed was
this..........
> I've also heard from plenty of people who have done it that the 51% rule
> only applies to getting the repairmans certificate. In other words, you
> should be able to register your UL and get an airworthiness certificate,
but you will not be able to get a repairmans certificate, which means you'll
> have to pay someone to sign off your annuals and such.
That means my reply is correct and spot on
.
The 51% rule applies to the ORIGINAL AIRWORTHINESS CERT of an amatuer built
experimental
airplane. Airplanes not meeting the 51% rule can't get an airworthiness
cert this way. A repairmans
cert can only be issued to an individual submitting a 51% compliant aircraft
for the initial airworthiness cert.
It is a defacto requirement that the repairmans cert also requires 51%
compliance.
As I have previously stated in a note to Mark.......
Good Morning Mark.....
If you would please reread my post, I didn't say that a holder of a
repairmans cert must do 51 % of the work on the a/p. We are in
agreement on that. What I said is that to qualify for a repairmans
cert on that particular a/p, the applicant must have met the 51% rule
on that particular a/p. Granted, you can team build, get help, be
instructed or whatever, but you are eventually going to have to comply with
the 51% rule to get a repairmans cert. Yes, the repairmans cert is not a
requirement for the operation of the A/P, just to allow an otherwise
uncertified individual the ability to do a condition inspection on something
he built. The assumption here is that he would be the best qualified to
evaluate something he produced.
My reply to the 51% rule applicabiulity with respect to the repairmans
ticket ONLY is correct. We both agree on the 51% rule compliance
for liscensing the a/p. If the A/P must comply with 51% rule, qualification
for the repairmans cert based on the A/P registration and airworthiness
also requires the same. There is no mechanism allowing you to apply
for a repairmans cert for an aircraft on which you do not fulfil the 51%
rule.
Sorry if that was unclear the first time I wrote it.........
So Please read the entire post string before you decide to take issue with
what was written.
So to reply to your points......
1) I made no comment on who the builder was beyond this...
Granted, you can team build, get help, be instructed or whatever,
but you are eventually going to have to comply with the 51% rule
to get a repairmans cert.
So I fail to see how I have made an incorrect statement
2) I have clearly shown why 51% compliance is required for the
issuance of a repairmans cert.
Have a nice evening..
Scott
C.D. Damron
Don't get too excite, clarity was not your friend. That's not my fault.
You wrote:
>The 51%rule applies to both the AW cert and Repairmans ticket, which is
good for ONLY the aircraft you created.
I understand how the 51% rule applies to the AW cert. How does it apply to
the RC? It doesn't.
Were you attempting to state that you can only get a RC on an aircraft that
has satisfied the 51% rule? Uhhhhh....yeah.
Jean-Paul Roy
certain model of amphibian plane that has been registered as advanced
ultralight in Canada for several years. Turns out it is too heavy.
Transport is revoking registration. Something in the neighbourhood of
Would like to know wich model was revoked?
thanks
ryanb...@gmail.com
I know this is a very old forum, but I’m looking to do the same “GA experimental” registration that you did with your Evolution. I was wondering if I could pick your brain based on your experience. My email is ryan...@rocketmail.com if you’d like to send me an email directly. Thanks.
Ryan