Hmmmmmmm.

I have a coworker who started "building" a about a year after I started building my plane. He did it in a "builder assist" shop.

Was almost never absent from work and finished his plane in half the time it took me. His is a much more complex composite plane.

The DAR showed up for the inspection as arranged by the builder assist folks.

Talked to my coworker about 10 minutes, Looked at the plane, collected his rather substantial fee (4 times what I paid) and said "you didn't build this plane you will be hearing from the FAA and left. No airworthiness cert.

the tide is turning.

Wow...you'll have to let us know if anything develops with that case. Of course, it wouldn't suprise me if someone like that turned around and filed a lawsuit against the DAR. :rolleyes:

Sounds to me like the DAR did his job. When you contract with a DAR, you are paying for the inspection, not the Airworthiness Certificate. Once the DAR accepts the 8130-6, he should either issue the airworthiness certificate or a letter of denial. Now if the DAR knew ahead of time what the outcome would be; then that's another story. In that case, he should have just refused the job. I have walked away from more than one.

Hey, I agree with you 100%, but common sense and responsibility in a given profession doesn't keep people from filing lawsuits in today's world, unfortunately.

And Mel, you'd know this...once someone was issued a letter of denial, are there any steps that one could do to re-apply? Just curious...(although, in a case like this, there's probably not much you could do)

different topics discussed here.
 

I have come late to this thread but have read through all the posts. What I am taking from the varied opinions is the fact that there are really two very different certificates being debated here. The first is the Certificate of Airworthiness. The second is the Repairman Certificate.

Perhaps the latter is the debate that garners the most attention in my eyes. Anyone, whether he was involved in building any part of his airplane or not, can do maintenance and repairs to an amateur built aircraft. This is perhaps one of the major reasons many of us are building. It is a major reason for me anyway. But the Repairman Certificate does not have anything to do with this activity of maintenance and repair. On the other hand, it has everything to do with signing off on those repairs. The Repairman Certificate gives the builder the rights and privileges to say to the world with his signature that he knows enough about this particular aircraft to certify that the repairs or maintenance was done appropriately. Only the holder of that certificate or an FAA certified IA can make that statement.

I fully agree with this idea. The person who was the "primary builder" of the aircraft should be the only one who has the right to obtain the Repairman Certificate for that aircraft. Whether that builder was a "professional builder" should make no difference in the assignment of this certificate. If he built it, he is the one assigned the Repairman Certificate. If he sells the airplane the new owner can still do any and all maintenance or repairs to that aircraft but he will never be able to sign off on the aircraft in order to allow it to legally be flyable after the repair.

But this is not the same argument being aired out in regards to the 51% rule when it comes to the aircraft receiving a Certificate of Airworthiness. Many here are arguing that a "professionally built" airplane should not be given a Certificate of Airworthiness. So why would the airworthiness be determined by the idea that someone was payed to build the airplane? Why would an aircraft be denied a Certificate of Airworthiness based on the notion that the aircraft was built by someone in a garage or by someone in an air conditioned fully equipped facility. Or, whether it was built by a guy who had never heard of a cleco or touched a rivet gun before instead of by a guy who had 40 years of experience building many multiple airplanes. What does this have to do with the airworthiness of that aircraft (other than the idea of quality of workmanship, in which case I would be inclined to believe a "professional builder" should build a better aircraft than a novice)?

If the DAR or the FAA inspector's job is to inspect airplanes for the purpose of determining if they are airworthy then that is what they should do. They are determining that the aircraft was built to standards that dictate whether it is a machine safe to fly and that the components of the construction meet the specified requirements for legal flight of that aircraft. I do not think these inspectors should be involved with becoming manufacturing and labor inspectors in order to determine the "legalities" of who built what.

This is not to say the DAR or FAA inspector should not determine who built the aircraft. They should make that determination but they should do so for the sole purpose of determining who should be issued the Repairman Certificate for that specific aircraft. However, that should be the extent of their concern as to who built the airplane. They should not do so for the purpose of determining whether the aircraft should be deemed airworthy and given a Certificate of Airworthiness.

Just my .02
Live Long and Prosper!

P.S. For those who may think my statements are suspect of my own build, I am building a slow build RV9A that another amateur started and that I am finishing. Everything built on my plane has been built by an amateur. No professional builder has had anything to do with the current construction nor will they have with any future construction.

building and selling is educational
 

im learning how to run a buisiness. :D :rolleyes: and i enjoy making 10 dollars a week

First off; Anyone can perform, AND SIGN OFF maintenance, repair and modifications to amateur-built aircraft. The ONLY purpose of the "repairman certificate" is to perform and sign off the condition inspection required annually.
As far as the inspector doing the airworthiness inspection, his job is to assure that the aircraft was built in accordance with FAA rules and regulations and that it is in a condition for safe operation. The regulations state that to qualify for experimental amateur-built category, the majority of the aircraft MUST be built for education or recreation and NOT for pay!

BTW Mike...If a letter of denial has been issued, the applicant may re-apply at any time. But he should be able to show that the reason for denial has been corrected. In the case of being denied for being professionally built, the only corrective action would be to apply in another category such as experimental exhibition. (Not a good category to be in)

Here too
 

A friend of mine went to Germany and oversaw his Fascination D-4 being assembled and painted to his design. They shipped it to the dealer in Jacksonville, who then re-assembled the airplane and delivered it here. This particular airplane was registered as an experimental here.


He had intended to use the airplane in his aerial photography business and had a hole cut in a non-structural location for his camera. He flew for about a month when the FAA contacted him and said it can only go in the Exhibition category and that he could only fly it to an airshow, park it there and fly it home....period!

Long story short...he sued the dealer in court in Jacksonville, asking for his money back (over $130,000 :eek: ) and to take the plane back. The judge found in favor of the dealer and my buddy's livid and hates judges and lawyers who he thinks are in bed together.

Yep, another factory-built experimental unusable sitting on my property.

Pierre

Why Certified Costs Too Much????
 

The reason people do not conform to the spirit if not the letter of the 51% rule is they really want a certified airplane but after comparing various models, realize the experimentals offer more bang for the buck. Why the big difference? Liability. The certified models have a $50-75,000 built in penalty because of lawsuits. We live in a litigious society and we all know how frivolous lawsuits drove single engine manufacturers from the business. Now if we were able as a society to eliminate the cost difference between certified vs experimentals with tort reform, then the people who are not builders would buy their planes (the liablity premium would disappear) and the builders like us could go back to our hot muggy garages and put the finishing touches on our "masterpieces".

I am painting and the top half of my fuse in red. I should have painted it orange with all the orange peal I have. I am going to call Tropicana and see if I can get an advertising gig.

Steve Anderson
RV 7A
Quick build and it still has taken 3 years.

Let's see. What are judges before they are judges?
Oh yeah, Lawyers!