certificated parts on amateur built question

[WWFeldman]

I'm really curious if anyone has an answer to this question.

"Order 8130.2 states that, while parts and components from TC aircraft can be used, so long as they are in a condition for safe operation, no credit for fabrication and assembly will be given to the amateur builder for these parts."

So I can't pick up a ramp queen for scrap price, strip it all apart and put it back together and classify it as amateur built, this I know.

But I can, with no aeronautical design experience at all, design my own plane, build it with parts from your local big box store, and get it certified amateur built.

I'm just wondering why the faa has the certificated parts rule. That would seem to me to be a much safer alternative than having me fly in something I cobbled together. It would also have the added benefit of saving some of those ramp queens from just dissolving on the flight line.

Does anyone have an idea of why this rule is in place?

 

[ChemGuy]

Not for certain...but some EAB's (especially early ones) would use wings and maybe tail from certified planes. So this meant if you used certified wings/tail you didnt get credit for building...maybe 51% rule?

 

[wanttaja]

In the early days of the Experimental Amateur-Built category, people would take certified airplanes, modify them, and present them as brand-new homebuilt aircraft. The Nelson N-4 is such an example; it was a Piper converted to a shoulder wing.

The FAA decided that such modifications weren't in the spirit of the "51% Rule," and started demanding more original work. The Breezy is an example of an allowed major use of certified parts. The wings and tail could come from a certified aircraft, but the builder was expected to weld the fuselage themselves.

Fly Babies used complete FWF packages from J-3s, plus wheels, brakes, and fuel tanks.

The FAA has yoyoed a bit as far as interpretation of the rule. Originally, Christen Eagle builders were required to construct every stick-built rib (the company originally supplied completed ribs in the kit, but the FAA wouldn't approve them). Nowaways, the FAA establishes 51% rule by *task*, for which a typical implementation is that the builder rivet ONE rib in place, and the rest can come already riveted in a quick-build kit.

So, that's how the "certified parts" rule has changed over the years. Best bet now is to ask the DAR *before* building, if you intend to re-use a lot of commercial components.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Bill Watson]

I’m thinking that the Nelson my qualify under today’s interpretation of the 51% rule, dunno.

If you are trying to play tricks with rules - you may get denied. Saving decaying certificated hulls by rebuilding them as experimental is playing tricks (for now anyway). Conversely, pulling a data plate from a destroyed certificated plane and restoring it from plans, scraps and such is considered legit on the restoration side of things.

If you are really building in the experimental spirit, my uninformed sense is that you’ll succeed in passing muster.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[NordicDave]

Not for certain...but some EAB's (especially early ones) would use wings and maybe tail from certified planes. So this meant if you used certified wings/tail you didnt get credit for building...maybe 51% rule?

I think the 51% rule is for the builder to qualify to do their own annual condition inspections and repairs. A certified plane can be modified and moved into an experimental category. Had a buddy with a 172SP that was moved to experimental to test new avionics coming out of R&D.

 

[wanttaja]

I think the 51% rule is for the builder to qualify to do their own annual condition inspections and repairs.

No. The 51% rule is for whether the plane qualifies for an Experimental Amateur-Built (EAB) certificate. If plane is an EAB, it can be repaired and maintained by anyone.

The "majority builder" can qualify for a Repairman Certificate that allows them to perform the yearly condition inspection. The "majority" in this case refers to the amount of work performed vs. that of anyone else. It has nothing to do with the amount of work that had to be done to complete the aircraft. If four people worked on the aircraft, one can qualify for the certificate, even if they did only 26% of the work.

A certified plane can be modified and moved into an experimental category. Had a buddy with a 172SP that was moved to experimental to test new avionics coming out of R&D.

"Experimental Category" is broad, with multiple sub-categories. Experimental Amateur-Built is just one of them.

All the subcategories under Experimental have different rules. Your friend with the 172 probably got it licensed as Experimental Research and Development or Experimental Market Survey. You have to document WHY the airplane needs to be licensed in these categories (e.g. describe the research you intend to perform, or how you intend to use the plane to support marketing). Most important, these are NOT permanent licenses like EAB. They usually have to be periodically renewed (typically yearly) and renewal is NOT automatic. If next year's application falls on the desk of a skeptical FAA person, they can deny the renewal and the plane won't be legal to fly.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Craig]

Something to remember is that the definition of EAB can be quite fluid when it suits the government. I worked an a batch of aircraft that carried EAB CofA’s until the customer signed the acceptance paperwork. Within a few hours, the CofA’s were back in the FAA’s hands and the aircraft no longer had US identities. Currently a small manufacturer northwest of me is under the same style production process, but their aircraft don’t go mach, they have propellors and only carry about 15% of the cool, go boom or bang stuff we did.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

I'm just wondering why the faa has the certificated parts rule. That would seem to me to be a much safer alternative

Because the FAA sez so. Rules are rules. It would be safer to not build anything, so the "it's safer" argument doesn't fly

 

[WWFeldman]

Because the FAA sez so. Rules are rules. It would be safer to not build anything, so the "it's safer" argument doesn't fly

Oh I get the "Its because the FAA says so", I was just wondering if anyone knew the reason behind it.

I just can't wrap my head around the fact that I can buy a bunch of parts from Vans or Zenith and build a plane, but I can't take an old C150, tear it down to it's component parts and reassemble it and they don't see that as the same thing. Seems that the intent was to make sure you knew the aircraft you were building and familiar with it.

 

[Juliet Hotel]

I just can't wrap my head around the fact that I can buy a bunch of parts from Vans or Zenith and build a plane, but I can't take an old C150, tear it down to it's component parts and reassemble it and they don't see that as the same thing.

That's because its not the same thing. To be fair, you can't buy an RV6, tear it down to its component parts and reassemble it and certify it as a new build and thus become eligible for a repairman's cert on it.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

I can't take an old C150, tear it down to it's component parts and reassemble it

-
It's not "Amateur Built", it's "Amateur Repaired".

 

[Dana]

Because the rule was created to allow the construction of new amateur built aircraft, not to allow an end run around the maintenance rules for existing standard category aircraft.

 

[NordicDave]

No. The 51% rule is for whether the plane qualifies for an Experimental Amateur-Built (EAB) certificate. If plane is an EAB, it can be repaired and maintained by anyone.

The "majority builder" can qualify for a Repairman Certificate that allows them to perform the yearly condition inspection. The "majority" in this case refers to the amount of work performed vs. that of anyone else. It has nothing to do with the amount of work that had to be done to complete the aircraft. If four people worked on the aircraft, one can qualify for the certificate, even if they did only 26% of the work.


"Experimental Category" is broad, with multiple sub-categories. Experimental Amateur-Built is just one of them.
View attachment 89107
All the subcategories under Experimental have different rules. Your friend with the 172 probably got it licensed as Experimental Research and Development or Experimental Market Survey. You have to document WHY the airplane needs to be licensed in these categories (e.g. describe the research you intend to perform, or how you intend to use the plane to support marketing). Most important, these are NOT permanent licenses like EAB. They usually have to be periodically renewed (typically yearly) and renewal is NOT automatic. If next year's application falls on the desk of a skeptical FAA person, they can deny the renewal and the plane won't be legal to fly.

Ron Wanttaja

Great write up. My buddy’s experimental 172SP is labeled “experimental”, not sure if it’s in the in the R&D category or special restricted.

He’s actually a full on legit Venture backed start up company working on some fairly brilliant products. with the exception of the STC mods they are developing, the rest of the aircraft is being managed as a part 23 aircraft.

It was my understanding E/AB aircraft cannot be condition inspected by anyone, as it needs to be the original 51% builder with his certificate if he owns the plane, or an A&P in the case of someone who bought a completed kit.

 

[wanttaja]

Great write up. My buddy’s experimental 172SP is labeled “experimental”, not sure if it’s in the in the R&D category or special restricted.

There are three Cessna 172S aircraft in my January 2020 registry with experimental certificates. Two are owned by Continental, the third owned by an LLC in Mountain View. Suspect the latter is your friend's. It's registered as Experimental Research and Development (Code 41).

The two owned by Continental are in both the R&D and Market Survey categories (Code 416).

("Cessna 172SP" is a marketing name; these airplanes are certified as Cessna 172S)

It was my understanding E/AB aircraft cannot be condition inspected by anyone, as it needs to be the original 51% builder with his certificate if he owns the plane, or an A&P in the case of someone who bought a completed kit.

Yes, but...a gentle correction: A completed *aircraft* not a completed kit. My Fly Baby was never a kit.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Bell206]

if you intend to re-use a lot of commercial components.

Wasn't it written at one time that if an aircraft had an AWC issued to it none of the parts from that aircraft could be used to build a new E/AB?

 

[Dana]

No, the use of some used parts (I believe the FAA gave examples of engine mounts and landing gears) is allowed, but they drew the line at big things like entire wings, etc.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Parts from certificated aircraft (no matter how much repair or alteration you have done) go in column A of appendix 8 of AC 20-27G. It's that simple.

 

[wanttaja]

Wasn't it written at one time that if an aircraft had an AWC issued to it none of the parts from that aircraft could be used to build a new E/AB?

It's possible that the CAA/FAA could have waffled back and forth to some extent, but permission for some use of certified engine components was established pretty early. An article by Richard Forest in the May 1957 issue of SPORT AVIATION says:

"In the past, the CAA has interpreted the CAB's regulations liberally but recently have tended to interpret these regulations more stringently. This is particularly true in reference to modified ATC [e.g. Standard Category] aircraft. CAM 1.74-3 (b)1 allows the use of structural components of other aircraft but also says that this provision is not intended to be used to avoid obtaining approval of major alterations to ATC aircraft."

By the '60s, planes like the Fly Baby were using basically the entire firewall forward portion of J-3 Cubs, including cowlings.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[unsafervguy]

Great write up. My buddy’s experimental 172SP is labeled “experimental”, not sure if it’s in the in the R&D category or special restricted.

He’s actually a full on legit Venture backed start up company working on some fairly brilliant products. with the exception of the STC mods they are developing, the rest of the aircraft is being managed as a part 23 aircraft.

It was my understanding E/AB aircraft cannot be condition inspected by anyone, as it needs to be the original 51% builder with his certificate if he owns the plane, or an A&P in the case of someone who bought a completed kit.

not exactly. it has to be the holder of the repairmans certificate, or an A&P. it does not have to be the original builder. the 51% rule has no bearing on the repairmans certificate. the conditions are:
1. only one repairmans certificate can be issued per airframe.
2. the amount of the build the person applying for the certificate is not a qualification other than being the primary builder and that is up to the adminstrator, nor is how many other builders were involved in it, before or after.
3. the issuing FAA inspector will determine if the person applying is the primary builder and they meet part (3) " Show to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the individual has the requisite skill to determine whether the aircraft is in a condition for safe operations"

 

[NordicDave]

not exactly. it has to be the holder of the repairmans certificate, or an A&P. it does not have to be the original builder. the 51% rule has no bearing on the repairmans certificate. the conditions are:
1. only one repairmans certificate can be issued per airframe.
2. the amount of the build the person applying for the certificate is not a qualification other than being the primary builder and that is up to the adminstrator, nor is how many other builders were involved in it, before or after.
3. the issuing FAA inspector will determine if the person applying is the primary builder and they meet part (3) " Show to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the individual has the requisite skill to determine whether the aircraft is in a condition for safe operations"

I can imagine getting the repairman's certificate gets dicey when the person applying for the certificate is not an A&P and had people helping them performing the work to any great extent. Probably why the factory builder assist programs are careful in explaining the owner does the work and they (factory) is just teaching and handing over tools.

I keep thinking about the Flying Chops guy having a team of folks make his RV-14A and he comes in occasionally to pop a few rivets. Yeah, I know it's Canada; but that stuff has to happen in the US as well.

 

[unsafervguy]

I can imagine getting the repairman's certificate gets dicey when the person applying for the certificate is not an A&P and had people helping them performing the work to any great extent. Probably why the factory builder assist programs are careful in explaining the owner does the work and they (factory) is just teaching and handing over tools.

I keep thinking about the Flying Chops guy having a team of folks make his RV-14A and he comes in occasionally to pop a few rivets. Yeah, I know it's Canada; but that stuff has to happen in the US as well.

its not the people that have people helping them that have problems, it the people that pay to have the work done and then apply for the certificate. there is not really a rule on doing the work. look at the high school built airplanes. the advisor usually has no problem getting the certificate, even though they actually did very little of the work, but supervised the build. The inspectors are very good at sniffing out the people that don't know one end of screwdriver from the other. that is why the build logs are so important when applying for the A/W and repairmans cert. a picture is worth a 1000 words. My inspector didn't even loo at my build log, he took one look at the hanger and knew that the plane was built in there. It probably helped that I had an A&P and he knew it. he never asked a question about it and handed me authorization for the certificate.

 

[Stewartb]

You can use as many certificated parts as you want providing you can turn in the FAA E-AB score sheet and you scored 51% of the points total. If you buy an airframe from Javron it's no different than using one from Piper. You aren't awarded any fabrication points either way. There is no prohibition on using PMA or other approved parts on an experimental.

Getting my repairman's cert required a 2 hour interview with two FSDO guys. It was detailed but it was fun. I learned a little about them and they learned a little about me.

 

[Stewartb]

And to the approved parts on Exp airplanes, ADs on approved parts apply when those parts are installed on an experimental.

 

[Tom-D]

And to the approved parts on Exp airplanes, ADs on approved parts apply when those parts are installed on an experimental.

Show me ?

 

[wanttaja]

Show me ?

AC39-7D. Example:

“B. Non-TC’d Aircraft and Products Installed Thereon. Non-TC’d aircraft
(e.g., amateur-built aircraft, experimental exhibition) are aircraft for which the FAA has not issued a TC under part 21. The AD applicability statement will identify if the AD applies to non-TC’d aircraft or engines, propellers, and appliances installed thereon. The following are examples of applicability statements for ADs related to non-TC’d aircraft:
(1) “This AD applies to Honeywell International Inc. Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) models GTCP36-150(R) and GTCP36-150(RR). These APUs are installed on, but not limited to, Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0100 and F.28 Mark 0070 airplanes, and Mustang Aeronautics, Inc. Model Mustang II experimental airplanes. This AD applies to any aircraft with the listed APU models installed.” This statement makes the AD applicable to the listed auxiliary power unit (APU) models installed on TC’d aircraft, as well as non-TC’d aircraft.
(2) “This AD applies to Lycoming Engines Models AEIO-360-A1A and IO-360-A1A. This AD applies to any aircraft with the listed engine models installed.” This statement makes the AD applicable to the listed engine models installed on TC’d and non-TC’d aircraft.”

Ron Wanttaja

 

[donjohnston]

not exactly. it has to be the holder of the repairmans certificate, or an A&P. it does not have to be the original builder. the 51% rule has no bearing on the repairmans certificate. the conditions are:
1. only one repairmans certificate can be issued per airframe.
2. the amount of the build the person applying for the certificate is not a qualification other than being the primary builder and that is up to the adminstrator, nor is how many other builders were involved in it, before or after.
3. the issuing FAA inspector will determine if the person applying is the primary builder and they meet part (3) " Show to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the individual has the requisite skill to determine whether the aircraft is in a condition for safe operations"

You don't have to be the original builder, but you have to be the primary builder?

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

You don't have to be the original builder, but you have to be the primary builder?

"Primary" does not appear to be well defined. It appears that the FSDO will decide when the time comes.
And, IMO, the value of the repairman's certificate is pretty minimal in the grand scheme of things.

 

[donjohnston]

"Primary" does not appear to be well defined. It appears that the FSDO will decide when the time comes.
And, IMO, the value of the repairman's certificate is pretty minimal in the grand scheme of things.

I would disagree. If I had to take my plane to an A&P for the condition inspection, that would be a bit more than "minimal" in my opinion.

And my point was differentiating between "primary" and "original". I'm pretty sure everyone knew what the intent was. It's not like we're in a court of law here.

 

[Tom-D]

AC39-7D.

 

[Stewartb]

Your E-AB airworthiness and repairman's cert inspections must have been different than mine. During my AW inspection my DAR was very specific about AD compliance applying to parts of my airplane. The FSDO interview for the repairman's cert was equally concise about it. Not that many of my parts are PMA but some are. Nobody's more concerned about my airplane's integrity than me.

https://www.askbob.aero/content/experimental-ad-compliance

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.417

 

[Bell206]

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

If I had to take my plane to an A&P for the condition inspection, that would be a bit more than "minimal" in my opinion.

I do have to have an A&P do my condition inspections and find it to be not a big deal - I do the grunt work, he inspects. Compared to hangars, insurance, parts, etc. the cost hardly makes a bump in my airplane expense total.
But, I guess it's a personal opinion in the end.

 

[donjohnston]

There is no shop at my field. So I would have to fly to field that has an A&P who would be willing to do a condition inspection (not all do). Then there's the hassle of arranging transport to/from home during the inspection, along with the cost. And that's assuming there's no parts that have to be acquired or produced.

So it can be a bit of a PITA if someone else has to do the inspection.

But since I have the repairman's cert, it's no problem (for me). And the money saved buys a bunch of 100LL.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

So I would have to fly to field that has an A&P who would be willing to do a condition inspection (not all do).

More of an issue.
My guy is a "trunker" so it all happens in my hangar. And, yes, there are some A&P's that aren't interested.