Do you want this big green box to go away? Well here's how...

Click here for full update

Wildcat! photo archives restored.

Click here for full update

Donors can now disable ads.

Click here for instructions

Add yourself to the user map.

Click here for instructions

[rebel-builders] looking for SR kit

Converted from Wildcat! database. (read only)
Richard Wampach

[rebel-builders] looking for SR kit

Post by Richard Wampach » Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:43 pm

More than one builder may assist in the building of an experimental
airplane, only one of them can obtain the repair man certificate. So if
you are buying another persons project, he should be "one of the
builders".

-----Original Message-----
From: mike.davis@dcsol.com [mailto:mike.davis@dcsol.com] On Behalf Of
Ron Shannon
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 1:50 PM
To: rebel-builders@dcsol.com
Subject: Re: [rebel-builders] looking for SR kit

You're correct that 51% _is_ also a requirement for an individual
repairman's certificate and may become an issue when more than one
builder
has worked on the project, as previously discussed in this thread. For
the
A/C, it's only required that "the major portion" (51%, as applied) be
done
by amateurs, which may be plural.

Ron


On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Ron Shannon <rshannon@cruzcom.com>
wrote:
Mike,

I'm sure that's not actually correct. Just because you weren't
explicitly
asked, doesn't mean it isn't part of the requirement for an amateur
built
experimental airworthiness certificate. In your application paperwork
to the
FAA, I'm sure you did represent that the airplane was qualified as an
amateur built experimental. That representation you make by signing
the
application implies compliance with the regulatory requirement that
the
"major portion" of amateur built experimentals must be amateur built.
As
used in the regs, "major portion" has been interpreted to mean 51% of
the
fabrication and/or assembly of the components and systems of the
aircraft,
although there's been a lot of wiggle and waggle over the years as to
what
51% means.

You probably weren't asked because A) the inspector thought it was
obvious
(or clear enough) that non-commercial builders had built the project,
and/or
B) the design was one of those that have been pre-approved as meeting
the
51% requirement, as are all Murphy kits.

Ron



On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Mike Davis <mike.davis@dcsol.com>
wrote:
I'm surprised to hear this... as the 51% has no bearing on granting
an
experimental certificate... only on granting a repairman's
certificate to
the builder. When I registered my last experimental I provided no
documentation what so ever indicating what percentage of the job I
had
completed, and on the application for the special airworthiness
certificate
indicated that it was built from assorted parts and pieces, as I had
no
bill
of sale from the manufacturer. Only after the aircraft was
registered did
I
go back and apply for my repairman's certificate, at which time I
filled
out
a worksheet to show that I had completed 51% or more of the
construction...
this was necessary as the aircraft was not on the FAA's 51% list...
that
list of kits that has already been found to meet the requirement.

Mike


-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------






-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

robert

[rebel-builders] looking for SR kit

Post by robert » Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:43 pm

Ron ... the word amature built in the FARs can be more then one ... I stand corrected ... Thanks for straighteng me out.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: "Ron Shannon" <rshannon@cruzcom.com>

Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 13:45:49
To:rebel-builders@dcsol.com
Subject: Re: [rebel-builders] looking for SR kit


Mike,

I'm sure that's not actually correct. Just because you weren't explicitly
asked, doesn't mean it isn't part of the requirement for an amateur built
experimental airworthiness certificate. In your application paperwork to the
FAA, I'm sure you did represent that the airplane was qualified as an
amateur built experimental. That representation you make by signing the
application implies compliance with the regulatory requirement that the
"major portion" of amateur built experimentals must be amateur built. As
used in the regs, "major portion" has been interpreted to mean 51% of the
fabrication and/or assembly of the components and systems of the aircraft,
although there's been a lot of wiggle and waggle over the years as to what
51% means.

You probably weren't asked because A) the inspector thought it was obvious
(or clear enough) that non-commercial builders had built the project, and/or
B) the design was one of those that have been pre-approved as meeting the
51% requirement, as are all Murphy kits.

Ron


On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Mike Davis <mike.davis@dcsol.com> wrote:
I'm surprised to hear this... as the 51% has no bearing on granting an
experimental certificate... only on granting a repairman's certificate to
the builder. When I registered my last experimental I provided no
documentation what so ever indicating what percentage of the job I had
completed, and on the application for the special airworthiness certificate
indicated that it was built from assorted parts and pieces, as I had no
bill
of sale from the manufacturer. Only after the aircraft was registered did
I
go back and apply for my repairman's certificate, at which time I filled
out
a worksheet to show that I had completed 51% or more of the construction...
this was necessary as the aircraft was not on the FAA's 51% list... that
list of kits that has already been found to meet the requirement.

Mike


-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------






-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Mike Davis

[rebel-builders] looking for SR kit

Post by Mike Davis » Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:43 pm

Hmm... looks like you are right, or at least soon will be. While the
current AC 20-27 doesn't state the 51% requirement, it appears they're
preparing to re-write it to include this requirement. And as a direct
result of the proliferation of builder assist programs. Here's the final
report dated 14 Feb 2008.

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultr ... report.pdf

Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Shannon" <rshannon@cruzcom.com>
To: <rebel-builders@dcsol.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: [rebel-builders] looking for SR kit

You're correct that 51% _is_ also a requirement for an individual
repairman's certificate and may become an issue when more than one builder
has worked on the project, as previously discussed in this thread. For the
A/C, it's only required that "the major portion" (51%, as applied) be done
by amateurs, which may be plural.

Ron


On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Ron Shannon <rshannon@cruzcom.com> wrote:
Mike,

I'm sure that's not actually correct. Just because you weren't explicitly
asked, doesn't mean it isn't part of the requirement for an amateur
built
experimental airworthiness certificate. In your application paperwork to
the
FAA, I'm sure you did represent that the airplane was qualified as an
amateur built experimental. That representation you make by signing the
application implies compliance with the regulatory requirement that the
"major portion" of amateur built experimentals must be amateur built. As
used in the regs, "major portion" has been interpreted to mean 51% of the
fabrication and/or assembly of the components and systems of the
aircraft,
although there's been a lot of wiggle and waggle over the years as to
what
51% means.

You probably weren't asked because A) the inspector thought it was
obvious
(or clear enough) that non-commercial builders had built the project,
and/or
B) the design was one of those that have been pre-approved as meeting the
51% requirement, as are all Murphy kits.

Ron



On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Mike Davis <mike.davis@dcsol.com> wrote:
I'm surprised to hear this... as the 51% has no bearing on granting an
experimental certificate... only on granting a repairman's certificate
to
the builder. When I registered my last experimental I provided no
documentation what so ever indicating what percentage of the job I had
completed, and on the application for the special airworthiness
certificate
indicated that it was built from assorted parts and pieces, as I had no
bill
of sale from the manufacturer. Only after the aircraft was registered
did
I
go back and apply for my repairman's certificate, at which time I filled
out
a worksheet to show that I had completed 51% or more of the
construction...
this was necessary as the aircraft was not on the FAA's 51% list... that
list of kits that has already been found to meet the requirement.

Mike


-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------




-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Jeff Micheal

[rebel-builders] looking for SR kit

Post by Jeff Micheal » Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:43 pm

Mike,

All Murphy Aircraft Kits meet the 51% ruling -- The Manufacturer (MAM)
cannot do more than 49% of the work, the builder (s) must do 51% of the
build.

A common misconception is that a single *builder* must perform 51% of the
work. That is not the case. To quote FAR 21.191, "...the major portion of
which has been fabricated and assembled by persons who undertook the
construction project solely for their own education or recreation."

Note the plural..."persons." You can buy a partially-completed project,
finish it, and get it certified as amateur-built, even if you, yourself,
didn't do 51% of the work. However, you will still need to prove that
"amateurs" did the majority of the work.

This is the important part -- If you buy a partially-completed project, get
the previous builders' photos and builders log.
FAA approved kit list (Murphy Aircraft) can be viewed here --
http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultr ... ?Mfr_ID=42


If your kit is not on the list, you will have to prove 51% compliance at
inspection time.

You can buy a "Fast Build Kit" from Murphy with components such as tail
section, control surfaces closed final, wings closed final and the fuselage
pretty much built -- It's still well within the "51% ruling".

Sounds like your just looking at an airplane kit in the "Fast Build Stage",
regardless the manufacturer (MAM) did not do more than 49% of the work and
the "builders" will complete more than 51% of the build (whether it be one
person or 20).



On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 11:19 AM, <mdunlop1910@dcsol.com> wrote:
The SR community is amazing with all the support I have gotten. This
website
and all thoughs that run,support and spend time helping a newbee like be is
greatly appreiciated. Thanks for the heads up on the 51 percent rule. He
basicly has a worthless airplane until it is fininshed would you agree.

I'm still interested in finding a completed flying SR or a kit that is less
than 51
percent. perferabley looking for a kit if anyone can help????????



On 5/25/2008 10:09 AM, robert@montanasky.us wrote to rebel-builders:

-> Sorry ... Don't want to be the bearer of bad news ... But.. You run
into "homebuilt" category cert issues any time more then 51 percent of
the
aircraft is completed ... By someone other then YOU.. As a EAA Tech
Advisor
myself, I can assure you one or more TA logged visits, although being a
good
indicator on the quality of construction to date, has no bearing on the 51
percent cert requirement. Bob 612e
-> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
->
-> -----Original Message-----
-> From: mdunlop1910@dcsol.com
->
-> Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 09:58:09
-> To:rebel-builders@dcsol.com <To%3Arebel-builders@dcsol.com>
-> Subject: Re: [rebel-builders] looking for SR kit
->
->
-> Robert,
-> The airplane was inspected by an EAA inspector before the wings and tail
-> were closed up. Will this help the cause or am i better off staying away
from
-> this one. At What point in the build can i step in an it not be a
problem
-> certifying?
->
->
->
-> On 5/25/2008 9:37 AM, robert@montanasky.us wrote to rebel-builders:
->
-> -> Might want to add there are other issues with buying an "amost
-> completed", never been certified, homebuit. Good luck getting
a "homebuit"
-> experimental certification from the FAA (FSDO or DAR).
-> -> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-> ->
-> -> -----Original Message-----
-> -> From: "Mike Davis" <mike.davis@dcsol.com>
-> ->
-> -> Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 09:08:28
-> -> To:<rebel-builders@dcsol.com>
-> -> Subject: Re: [rebel-builders] looking for SR kit
-> ->
-> ->
-> -> From the EAA website...
-> ->
-> -> Non-builder Maintenance Frequently Asked Questions
-> -> I am going to buy a used homebuilt, what work can I perform myself?
-> ->
-> -> FAR Part 43 specifically states that the rules of that part do not
apply
-> -> to experimental, amateur-built aircraft. Therefore, any work (not
just
-> -> maintenance) on an experimental aircraft can be performed virtually
by
-> -> anyone regardless of credentials. (This does not apply to the
condition
-> -> inspection). Let common sense be your guide as to what maintenance
you
-> -> conduct yourself.
-> ->
-> -> What is a Condition Inspection?
-> -> A condition inspection is the equivalent of an "annual" for a type
-> -> certificated aircraft. Although FAR Part 91.409(c)(1) specifically
states
-> -> that experimental aircraft do not require annual inspections, the
operating
-> -> limitations on your homebuilt will include the following (or
something
-> -> similar):
-> ->
-> -> No person shall operate this aircraft unless within the preceding
12
-> -> calendar months it has had a condition inspection performed in
accordance
-> -> with the scope and detail of appendix D to part 43, or other FAA-
approved
-> -> programs, and found to be in a condition for safe operation. This
-> inspection
-> -> will be recorded in the aircraft maintenance records. Condition
inspections
-> -> shall be recorded in the aircraft maintenance records showing the
following
-> -> or a similarly worded statement: "I certify that this aircraft has
been
-> -> inspected on (insert date) in accordance with the scope and detail of
-> -> appendix D to part 43 and found to be in a condition for safe
operation."
-> -> The entry will include the aircraft total time in service, and the
name,
-> -> signature, certificate number, and type of certificate held by the
-> -> person performing the inspection.
-> ->
-> -> See the condition inspection checklist for use in conducting annual
-> -> condition inspections under the Operating section of this web.
-> ->
-> -> Since I don't have a Repairman Certificate, who must perform the
-> Condition
-> -> Inspection?
-> -> The inspection can be performed by any licensed A&P mechanic, an
FAA
-> -> Approved Repair Station, or by the original builder of the airplane
provided
-> -> the builder has a "Repairman Certificate" for that aircraft from the
FAA.
-> -> Note that unlike an annual for a type certificated aircraft, the A&P
-> -> mechanic does NOT have to have his/her "Inspection Authorization".
-> -> Sometimes, if you are lucky, you can include as part of the purchase
that
-> -> the builder will continue to perform the condition inspections.
-> ->
-> -> I am having trouble finding an A&P to perform my Condition
Inspection,
-> any
-> -> ideas where to find one?
-> -> The best place to find a local A&P willing to work on homebuilt
aircraft
-> -> is through your local EAA Chapter. Many EAA Chapters have A&Ps who
are
-> -> chapter members and will help you out. Usually, the Technical
Counselor is
-> -> the best person to ask. If that doesn't work, see if someone else in
the
-> -> chapter owns a homebuilt he did not build and find out who he is
getting
-> to
-> -> perform his condition inspection.
-> ->
-> ->
-> -> ----- Original Message -----
-> -> From: <mdunlop1910@dcsol.com>
-> -> To: <rebel-builders@dcsol.com>
-> -> Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 8:30 AM
-> -> Subject: Re: [rebel-builders] looking for SR kit
-> ->
-> ->
-> -> > Larry,
-> -> > looks like a nice airplane. The bottom end was done but what about
the
-> top
-> -> > end of the motor,mags ect. do you have the complete engine logs for
-> this
-> -> > engine. Do you have more pics you could send and who built it??
Where
-> is
-> -> > the
-> -> > airplane hangared? Am i correct that not being the builder i will
not
be
-> -> > able to
-> -> > do all the maintenance on the plane. Is there any way around
that???
-> -> >
-> -> >
-> -> >
-> -> >
-> -> > On 5/25/2008 7:41 AM, skytrucks@aol.com wrote to rebel-builders:
-> -> >
-> -> > -> Mike;
-> -> > -> ?????????? I have a flying SR that I bought so I could build up
some
-> -> > time
-> -> > in a Murphy while I finished up building my Moose. I have about
$100,000
-> -> > invested in this Super Rebel. You can see it on my website:
-> -> > www.tiptopwebsite/skytrucks. If anyone else is interested I would
-> consider
-> -> > trading down to a flying Lycoming powered?Rebel.
-> -> > -> ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
-> Thanks,
-> -> > -> ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
-> Larry
-> -> > Luckinbill
-> -> > -> ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
-> -> > ->
-> -> > ->
-> -> > ->
-> -> > ->
-> -> > ->
-> -> > ->
-> -> > ->
-> -> > -> -----Original Message-----
-> -> > -> From: mdunlop1910@dcsol.com
-> -> > -> To: rebel-builders@dcsol.com
-> -> > -> Sent: Sun, 25 May 2008 9:14 am
-> -> > -> Subject: [rebel-builders] looking for SR kit
-> -> > ->
-> -> > ->
-> -> > ->
-> -> > -> Hi All,
-> -> > -> I am looking to purchase a SR kit that is started or near
complete.
-> -> > -> I have only found one on the market. Been for sale for 2 years.
I
-> saw
-> -> > it
-> -> > -> yesterday. I dont think it is what im looking for. I live in
Oshkosh,
-> -> > is there
-> -> > -> anyone in the area that has one completed. im a corporate pilot
so i
-> -> > travel
-> -> > all
-> -> > -> over so maybe i could connect with someone to see a completed
-> aircraft.
-> -> > I
-> -> > -> am also looking for someone who has built a SR who could go look
at
-> the
-> -> > kit i
-> -> > -> saw yesterday in our area. I really need advise on this one.
There
are
-> -> > things i
-> -> > -> saw that concern me.
-> -> > ->
-> -> > -> Best,
-> -> > -> Mike
-> -> > -> mtdunlop@sbcglobal.net
-> -> > -> 920-376-0638
-> -> > ->
-> -> > ->
-> -> > ->
-> -> > -> ----------------------------------------------------------------
-
-> -> > -> List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
-> -> > -> username "rebel" password "builder"
-> -> > -> Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
-> -> > -> List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-> -> > -> ----------------------------------------------------------------
-
-> -> > ->
-> -> > ->
-> -> > ->
-> -> > ->
-> -> > ->
-> -> >
-> -> >
-> -> >
-> -> >
-> -> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
-> -> > List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
-> -> > username "rebel" password "builder"
-> -> > Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
-> -> > List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-> -> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
-> -> >
-> -> >
-> -> >
-> ->
-> ->
-> ->
-> ->
-> -> -----------------------------------------------------------------
-> -> List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
-> -> username "rebel" password "builder"
-> -> Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
-> -> List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-> -> -----------------------------------------------------------------
-> ->
-> ->
-> ->
->
->
->
->
-> -----------------------------------------------------------------
-> List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
-> username "rebel" password "builder"
-> Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
-> List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-> -----------------------------------------------------------------
->
->
->




-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------





-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

bransom

[rebel-builders] looking for SR kit

Post by bransom » Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:43 pm

I've always assumed that a previous owner/builder would have to consent to
having his name included as one of the builders. By consent, I mean
selling the project with build logs showing that he actually made part of
the plane. I've not paid attention to a lot of sold projects, but I know
of some where the previous owner provided build photos, but no signatures
indicating who did what. And also one where the new owner lucked out in
finally coercing the previous owner to stay on record as a builder.
Anyway, I wonder what happens if a new owner includes the previous owner as
a builder without his knowledge or consent. Probably depends on how the
DAR wants to handle it.
-Ben/496R

On 5/26/2008 9:45 PM, westcoastkitplanes@gmail.com wrote to rebel-builders:
Mike,

All Murphy Aircraft Kits meet the 51% ruling -- The Manufacturer (MAM)
cannot do more than 49% of the work, the builder (s) must do 51% of the
build.

A common misconception is that a single *builder* must perform 51% of the
work. That is not the case. To quote FAR 21.191, "...the major portion of
which has been fabricated and assembled by persons who undertook the
construction project solely for their own education or recreation."

Note the plural..."persons." You can buy a partially-completed project,
finish it, and get it certified as amateur-built, even if you, yourself,
didn't do 51% of the work. However, you will still need to prove that
"amateurs" did the majority of the work.

This is the important part -- If you buy a partially-completed project, get
the previous builders' photos and builders log.
FAA approved kit list (Murphy Aircraft) can be viewed here --
http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultr ... ?Mfr_ID=42

If your kit is not on the list, you will have to prove 51% compliance at
inspection time.

You can buy a "Fast Build Kit" from Murphy with components such as tail
section, control surfaces closed final, wings closed final and the fuselage
pretty much built -- It's still well within the "51% ruling".

Sounds like your just looking at an airplane kit in the "Fast Build Stage",
regardless the manufacturer (MAM) did not do more than 49% of the work and
the "builders" will complete more than 51% of the build (whether it be one
person or 20).



On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 11:19 AM, <mdunlop1910@dcsol.com> wrote:
The SR community is amazing with all the support I have gotten. This
website
and all thoughs that run,support and spend time helping a newbee like be is
greatly appreiciated. Thanks for the heads up on the 51 percent rule. He
basicly has a worthless airplane until it is fininshed would you agree.

I'm still interested in finding a completed flying SR or a kit that is less
than 51
percent. perferabley looking for a kit if anyone can help????????



On 5/25/2008 10:09 AM, robert@montanasky.us wrote to rebel-builders:

-> Sorry ... Don't want to be the bearer of bad news ... But.. You run
into "homebuilt" category cert issues any time more then 51 percent of
the
aircraft is completed ... By someone other then YOU.. As a EAA Tech
Advisor
myself, I can assure you one or more TA logged visits, although being a
good
indicator on the quality of construction to date, has no bearing on the 51
percent cert requirement. Bob 612e
-> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
->
-> -----Original Message-----
-> From: mdunlop1910@dcsol.com
->
-> Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 09:58:09
-> To:rebel-builders@dcsol.com <To%3Arebel-builders@dcsol.com>
-> Subject: Re: [rebel-builders] looking for SR kit
->
->
-> Robert,
-> The airplane was inspected by an EAA inspector before the wings and tail
-> were closed up. Will this help the cause or am i better off staying away
from
-> this one. At What point in the build can i step in an it not be a
problem
-> certifying?
->
->
->
-> On 5/25/2008 9:37 AM, robert@montanasky.us wrote to rebel-builders:
->
-> -> Might want to add there are other issues with buying an "amost
-> completed", never been certified, homebuit. Good luck getting
a "homebuit"
-> experimental certification from the FAA (FSDO or DAR).
-> -> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-> ->
-> -> -----Original Message-----
-> -> From: "Mike Davis" <mike.davis@dcsol.com>
-> ->
-> -> Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 09:08:28
-> -> To:<rebel-builders@dcsol.com>
-> -> Subject: Re: [rebel-builders] looking for SR kit
-> ->
-> ->
-> -> From the EAA website...
-> ->
-> -> Non-builder Maintenance Frequently Asked Questions
-> -> I am going to buy a used homebuilt, what work can I perform myself?
-> ->
-> -> FAR Part 43 specifically states that the rules of that part do not
apply
-> -> to experimental, amateur-built aircraft. Therefore, any work (not
just
-> -> maintenance) on an experimental aircraft can be performed virtually
by
-> -> anyone regardless of credentials. (This does not apply to the
condition
-> -> inspection). Let common sense be your guide as to what maintenance
you
-> -> conduct yourself.
-> ->
-> -> What is a Condition Inspection?
-> -> A condition inspection is the equivalent of an "annual" for a type
-> -> certificated aircraft. Although FAR Part 91.409(c)(1) specifically
states
-> -> that experimental aircraft do not require annual inspections, the
operating
-> -> limitations on your homebuilt will include the following (or
something
-> -> similar):
-> ->
-> -> No person shall operate this aircraft unless within the preceding
12
-> -> calendar months it has had a condition inspection performed in
accordance
-> -> with the scope and detail of appendix D to part 43, or other FAA-
approved
-> -> programs, and found to be in a condition for safe operation. This
-> inspection
-> -> will be recorded in the aircraft maintenance records. Condition
inspections
-> -> shall be recorded in the aircraft maintenance records showing the
following
-> -> or a similarly worded statement: "I certify that this aircraft has
been
-> -> inspected on (insert date) in accordance with the scope and detail of
-> -> appendix D to part 43 and found to be in a condition for safe
operation."
-> -> The entry will include the aircraft total time in service, and the
name,
-> -> signature, certificate number, and type of certificate held by the
-> -> person performing the inspection.
-> ->
-> -> See the condition inspection checklist for use in conducting annual
-> -> condition inspections under the Operating section of this web.
-> ->
-> -> Since I don't have a Repairman Certificate, who must perform the
-> Condition
-> -> Inspection?
-> -> The inspection can be performed by any licensed A&P mechanic, an
FAA
-> -> Approved Repair Station, or by the original builder of the airplane
provided
-> -> the builder has a "Repairman Certificate" for that aircraft from the
FAA.
-> -> Note that unlike an annual for a type certificated aircraft, the A&P
-> -> mechanic does NOT have to have his/her "Inspection Authorization".
-> -> Sometimes, if you are lucky, you can include as part of the purchase
that
-> -> the builder will continue to perform the condition inspections.
-> ->
-> -> I am having trouble finding an A&P to perform my Condition
Inspection,
-> any
-> -> ideas where to find one?
-> -> The best place to find a local A&P willing to work on homebuilt
aircraft
-> -> is through your local EAA Chapter. Many EAA Chapters have A&Ps who
are
-> -> chapter members and will help you out. Usually, the Technical
Counselor is
-> -> the best person to ask. If that doesn't work, see if someone else in
the
-> -> chapter owns a homebuilt he did not build and find out who he is
getting
-> to
-> -> perform his condition inspection.
-> ->
-> ->
-> -> ----- Original Message -----
-> -> From: <mdunlop1910@dcsol.com>
-> -> To: <rebel-builders@dcsol.com>
-> -> Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 8:30 AM
-> -> Subject: Re: [rebel-builders] looking for SR kit
-> ->
-> ->
-> -> > Larry,
-> -> > looks like a nice airplane. The bottom end was done but what about
the
-> top
-> -> > end of the motor,mags ect. do you have the complete engine logs for
-> this
-> -> > engine. Do you have more pics you could send and who built it??
Where
-> is
-> -> > the
-> -> > airplane hangared? Am i correct that not being the builder i will
not
be
-> -> > able to
-> -> > do all the maintenance on the plane. Is there any way around
that???
-> -> >
-> -> >
-> -> >
-> -> >
-> -> > On 5/25/2008 7:41 AM, skytrucks@aol.com wrote to rebel-builders:
-> -> >
-> -> > -> Mike;
-> -> > -> ?????????? I have a flying SR that I bought so I could build up
some
-> -> > time
-> -> > in a Murphy while I finished up building my Moose. I have about
$100,000
-> -> > invested in this Super Rebel. You can see it on my website:
-> -> > www.tiptopwebsite/skytrucks. If anyone else is interested I would
-> consider
-> -> > trading down to a flying Lycoming powered?Rebel.
-> -> > -> ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
-> Thanks,
-> -> > -> ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
-> Larry
-> -> > Luckinbill
-> -> > -> ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
-> -> > ->
-> -> > ->
-> -> > ->
-> -> > ->
-> -> > ->
-> -> > ->
-> -> > ->
-> -> > -> -----Original Message-----
-> -> > -> From: mdunlop1910@dcsol.com
-> -> > -> To: rebel-builders@dcsol.com
-> -> > -> Sent: Sun, 25 May 2008 9:14 am
-> -> > -> Subject: [rebel-builders] looking for SR kit
-> -> > ->
-> -> > ->
-> -> > ->
-> -> > -> Hi All,
-> -> > -> I am looking to purchase a SR kit that is started or near
complete.
-> -> > -> I have only found one on the market. Been for sale for 2 years.
I
-> saw
-> -> > it
-> -> > -> yesterday. I dont think it is what im looking for. I live in
Oshkosh,
-> -> > is there
-> -> > -> anyone in the area that has one completed. im a corporate pilot
so i
-> -> > travel
-> -> > all
-> -> > -> over so maybe i could connect with someone to see a completed
-> aircraft.
-> -> > I
-> -> > -> am also looking for someone who has built a SR who could go look
at
-> the
-> -> > kit i
-> -> > -> saw yesterday in our area. I really need advise on this one.
There
are
-> -> > things i
-> -> > -> saw that concern me.
-> -> > ->
-> -> > -> Best,
-> -> > -> Mike
-> -> > -> mtdunlop@sbcglobal.net
-> -> > -> 920-376-0638
-> -> > ->
-> -> > ->
-> -> > ->
-> -> > -> ----------------------------------------------------------------
-
-> -> > -> List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
-> -> > -> username "rebel" password "builder"
-> -> > -> Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
-> -> > -> List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-> -> > -> ----------------------------------------------------------------
-
-> -> > ->
-> -> > ->
-> -> > ->
-> -> > ->
-> -> > ->
-> -> >
-> -> >
-> -> >
-> -> >
-> -> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
-> -> > List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
-> -> > username "rebel" password "builder"
-> -> > Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
-> -> > List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-> -> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
-> -> >
-> -> >
-> -> >
-> ->
-> ->
-> ->
-> ->
-> -> -----------------------------------------------------------------
-> -> List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
-> -> username "rebel" password "builder"
-> -> Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
-> -> List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-> -> -----------------------------------------------------------------
-> ->
-> ->
-> ->
->
->
->
->
-> -----------------------------------------------------------------
-> List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
-> username "rebel" password "builder"
-> Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
-> List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-> -----------------------------------------------------------------
->
->
->




-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------





-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------


Ron Shannon

[rebel-builders] looking for SR kit

Post by Ron Shannon » Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:43 pm

Ben,

A few general thoughts on your query:

The final builder who applies for the cert is the official builder as far as
the FAA is concerned, and his name goes on the ID plate. Except as regarding
the final builder's qualification for a repairman's certificate, the DAR
doesn't care either way, as long as he's convinced it's been "51%" amateur
built.

The concern for the first builder, if he's listed somewhere without consent,
may be potential liability to third parties, like passengers. However, the
original builder is going to have the same potential liability exposure to
third parties -- for defects in any work done by that original builder --
whether the original builder is listed as a co-builder in the paperwork or
not. Even if not listed, his involvement would be discovered during
liability litigation, and if his work was alleged to be involved in causing
the injury or damage, he would likely be added to the case as an additional
defendant at that time.

It is highly unlikely that the original builder would have any claim against
the final builder for listing his name or including his logs without consent
because the implied representation by the final builder (that the original
did some of the work) would, in fact, be true. The consent of the original
builder is not required as a pre-condition to any accurate and truthful
statements of fact by the final builder. In fact, in most situations it
would be misleading, therefore wrong, if the final builder did _not_
accurately disclose any significant involvement by an original builder to a
subsequent buyer -- with or without permission.

BTW, the final builder would still _also_ be liable for _any_ defects
causing injury or damage because the final builder is responsible for the
whole airplane, i.e., responsible for checking the work of the first.

There have been some good articles in EAA publications about how to do your
utmost to avoid liability when selling your experimental -- highly
recommended reading. Still, the bottom line is that in most jurisdictions,
there's no bulletproof way to guarantee you're always going to be off the
hook in every situation, particularly vis-a-vis third parties like
passengers, relatives, property owners on the ground, etc.

Ron

[Ex-lawyer long ago, now reformed, though regrettably, vestiges of
degenerate thought processes remain. <g> DISCLAIMER: Your legal mileage is
almost certain to vary and, as applied to any particular case, the above
ramblings came from someone who has no idea what he'd talking about, and are
worth less than you paid for them.]



On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 9:32 AM, <bransom@dcsol.com> wrote:
I've always assumed that a previous owner/builder would have to consent to
having his name included as one of the builders. By consent, I mean
selling the project with build logs showing that he actually made part of
the plane. I've not paid attention to a lot of sold projects, but I know
of some where the previous owner provided build photos, but no signatures
indicating who did what. And also one where the new owner lucked out in
finally coercing the previous owner to stay on record as a builder.
Anyway, I wonder what happens if a new owner includes the previous owner as
a builder without his knowledge or consent. Probably depends on how the
DAR wants to handle it.
-Ben/496R


-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Mike Kimball

[rebel-builders] looking for SR kit

Post by Mike Kimball » Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:43 pm

I love your addendum after your name Ron. Very funny. To add some more
thoughts, a friend of mine died in a car accident a few years ago and his
widow was advised by his brothers (both lawyers) to sell his flying Kitfox
as parts only. Some friends and I dissassembled the Kitfox for her so that
it would not be sold as an airplane. Just parts. From what you've said,
Ron, it sounds like that would protect the original Kitplane builder's
estate very little from potential liability. I would also assume that any
release of liability document you might get a buyer to sign would also be
worth less than the paper it's written on.

Mike
044SR

-----Original Message-----
From: mike.davis@dcsol.com [mail to:mike.davis@dcsol.com] On Behalf Of Ron
Shannon
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 9:38 AM
To: rebel-builders@dcsol.com
Subject: Re: [rebel-builders] looking for SR kit

Ben,

A few general thoughts on your query:

The final builder who applies for the cert is the official builder as far as
the FAA is concerned, and his name goes on the ID plate. Except as regarding
the final builder's qualification for a repairman's certificate, the DAR
doesn't care either way, as long as he's convinced it's been "51%" amateur
built.

The concern for the first builder, if he's listed somewhere without consent,
may be potential liability to third parties, like passengers. However, the
original builder is going to have the same potential liability exposure to
third parties -- for defects in any work done by that original builder --
whether the original builder is listed as a co-builder in the paperwork or
not. Even if not listed, his involvement would be discovered during
liability litigation, and if his work was alleged to be involved in causing
the injury or damage, he would likely be added to the case as an additional
defendant at that time.

It is highly unlikely that the original builder would have any claim against
the final builder for listing his name or including his logs without consent
because the implied representation by the final builder (that the original
did some of the work) would, in fact, be true. The consent of the original
builder is not required as a pre-condition to any accurate and truthful
statements of fact by the final builder. In fact, in most situations it
would be misleading, therefore wrong, if the final builder did _not_
accurately disclose any significant involvement by an original builder to a
subsequent buyer -- with or without permission.

BTW, the final builder would still _also_ be liable for _any_ defects
causing injury or damage because the final builder is responsible for the
whole airplane, i.e., responsible for checking the work of the first.

There have been some good articles in EAA publications about how to do your
utmost to avoid liability when selling your experimental -- highly
recommended reading. Still, the bottom line is that in most jurisdictions,
there's no bulletproof way to guarantee you're always going to be off the
hook in every situation, particularly vis-a-vis third parties like
passengers, relatives, property owners on the ground, etc.

Ron

[Ex-lawyer long ago, now reformed, though regrettably, vestiges of
degenerate thought processes remain. <g> DISCLAIMER: Your legal mileage is
almost certain to vary and, as applied to any particular case, the above
ramblings came from someone who has no idea what he'd talking about, and are
worth less than you paid for them.]



On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 9:32 AM, <bransom@dcsol.com> wrote:
I've always assumed that a previous owner/builder would have to consent to
having his name included as one of the builders. By consent, I mean
selling the project with build logs showing that he actually made part of
the plane. I've not paid attention to a lot of sold projects, but I know
of some where the previous owner provided build photos, but no signatures
indicating who did what. And also one where the new owner lucked out in
finally coercing the previous owner to stay on record as a builder.
Anyway, I wonder what happens if a new owner includes the previous owner
as
a builder without his knowledge or consent. Probably depends on how the
DAR wants to handle it.
-Ben/496R


-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------






-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Ron Shannon

[rebel-builders] looking for SR kit

Post by Ron Shannon » Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:43 pm

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 7:34 PM, Mike Kimball <mkimball@gci.net> wrote:
I love your addendum after your name Ron. Very funny....
Thanks, Mike. Humor doesn't always work online, though like humor anywhere,
the best usually contains a large grain of truth somewhere within.
...
I would also assume that any
release of liability document you might get a buyer to sign would also be
worth less than the paper it's written on.
Validity of releases is a very broad and complex topic -- not one we could,
or should even attempt to adequately cover online. Again, I would urge those
who may be interested in more detail on this topic to read the EAA articles,
as a starting point. You can get at some of them through this search of the
EAA.ORG web site: *<http://tinyurl.com/5obq7f/>*

Ron




-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------


Locked