If you were writing Part 61 anew...

tonycondon said:
you need to meet the 51% to get the repairman certificate. Part 43 does not apply to Experimental. Anyone can do maintenance (ask me how I know). But an A&P or the person with the Repairman certificate issued with the airplane must sign it off for the Condition Inspection every year.
Click to expand...

Tony's correct.

More clarity:

But you also need the 51% to be a registered homebuilt.

see : http://www.eaa.org/education/homebuilt_faq.html

"if individuals build at least 51 percent of an aircraft, it can be registered in the Amateur-Built/Homebuilt Category. "

Also See: http://www.wanttaja.com/avlinks/FAQ.HTM
Scroll down to the answer to Q305, FAA 51% Rule.

Remark:
This rule is to keep the manufacturers from putting together a

"Just screw together this "ONE BOLT", and it's officially a homebuilt"

KIT.

Also see:
http://www.wanttaja.com/avlinks/MAINT.HTM


Repairs, Major or minor, can be "done by anyone" .
you never have to fill out a form 337 for an experimental aircraft
Alterations, need to be done by a certified A/P or repairman


Now about who can do work on amateur-built aircraft. Anyone can normally work on an experimental aircraft and sign off the work, including your two-year-old son. Some FAA field inspectors do not believe this. Remember FAR Part 43.1(b) "This part does not apply to any aircraft for which an experimental airworthiness certificate has been issued." The operating limitations that each experimental aircraft must have are what replaces Part 43. Each set of operating limitations is different.

However, an FAA inspector has the power to place a requirement in the operating limitations that all work must be done by an FAA certified A&P.

So far to EAA's knowledge, this has never happened on an amateur built aircraft. Most operating limitations contain a statement that says an annual "condition" inspection must be performed per the scope and detail of FAR Part 43 Appendix D.

It also states that an FAA certificated A&P or repairman must perform this inspection. Note it says, "A&P or Repairman."

It does not require an IA.

Chache
EAA member
 
Dwight B. Van Zanen said:
What is inaccurate? We know what Experimental means.
Click to expand...

Ahh..... But do we really?
If so, why do we call amateur homebuilt aircraft "Experimental" when they are proven designs, that have been flying for decades??

for instance...
"Experimental drugs" tend to lead the consumer to beleive that they are
brand new from the laboratory, and experiments are being done to discover their pros and cons.

An "Experimental Homebuilt" , is only an aircraft category.
It's the same as Normal, or Utility, or Acrobatic. It has nothing to do with "experiments at home"...

Even though Burt Rutan "experiments" with new designs, (Spaceship 1 )
he too, gets categorized with homebuilders.

Now there's food for thought.....

Chache
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
BTW: Have you reconsidered O2 REGs?
Click to expand...

Nope, and I'll tell you why:

I have spend many an hour above 12,000ft, and have never used oxygen. The FAA's suggestion that flight above 10,000ft should use O2 is preposterous, as fly above 10,000ft is almost a necessity when flying in mountainous areas in NM or southern CO.

And I smoke, which happens to be another danger.

Does it slow you down? Possibly. Will it make you black out and recover after you're dead. No. Even the altitude chambers reveal that it will only slow down your ability to do math problems.

Try to shoot the La Veta Pass some day without going above 10,000 feet because you have no O2. I consider that 100 times more dangerous than the FAA's "threat" about operations above 10,000 feet.

I think the law, quite simply, should say "Oxygen must be used any time the pilot determines it is necessary." And that is it. If I want to fly at 15,000 feet (I'm not admitting anything publically, btw), I should be able to do it without having an O2 system on board.
 
Chache said:
Ahh..... But do we really?
If so, why do we call amateur homebuilt aircraft "Experimental" when they are proven designs, that have been flying for decades??

for instance...
"Experimental drugs" tend to lead the consumer to beleive that they are
brand new from the laboratory, and experiments are being done to discover their pros and cons.

An "Experimental Homebuilt" , is only an aircraft category.
It's the same as Normal, or Utility, or Acrobatic. It has nothing to do with "experiments at home"...

Ah, but it does. Home built, and the builder IS permitted to experiment when putting it together - like Rutan. Like using alternate engines not certified for the other catagories, alternate wheel and brake systems, alternate avionics packages not permitted in certified aircraft. That is sort of the point of building your own.

Even though Burt Rutan "experiments" with new designs, (Spaceship 1 )
he too, gets categorized with homebuilders.

Now there's food for thought.....

Chache
Click to expand...
My whole point in bringing this up, is that some method ought to exist for a non-builder to become a "repairman", and for some certified aircraft to be re-registered as Experimental so they could benefit from the same freedom to repair and modify at home and get the annual signed off by the responsible repairman.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top