Can a previously built/flown plane be rebuilt and go through AW again? obtain cert?

Let's say a previously built and flown airplane becomes unused and sits. Then the engine/prop is sold and wings taken off and stored. It's then sold to a new person.

Now a major remodel occurs where it's reassembled, new panel, new engine/prop (possibly different than original).

What does the new owner have to do to get the AW cert?
Does the AW certificate need to be addressed?
What about those planes 'de-registered'?
What is the process to get back to fully registered and AW entail?
Is the option of becoming a repairman for plane available for some situation of major rework or process of deconstructing and reconstruction? At what point does a previously flying plane go back to a kit/parts and then back to plane?

Horses mouth......

Call Dilly at Sac FSDO.

916-422-0272.

It doesn't sound to me like a major remodel would occur at all.

The plane was disassembled and stored. You're simply reassembling it and putting it back into service. The A/W certificate remains valid, pending of course a current annual, etc, etc, etc. Hang a similar engine prop on it and you're still within the original design and certification of the airplane. Now, if it had a 125 hp engine on it, and you want to hang a Merlin V-12 on the front, you'd have a problem.

This is my opinion, I'm not a DAR, your mileage may vary.

This depends......

on several things. Has the original airworthiness been surrendered? If so, the aircraft is "dead in the water".
Once the airworthiness certificate for an experimental amateur-built aircraft has been surrendered, there is no path back.
If the airworthiness is still valid, then no problem. It can be put back into service bu going through a new phase I test program.
No one but the original builder is eligible for the repairman certificate.
If you would like to discuss further contact me at:
n168tx(at)flytx.net or 972-784-7544. If possible have the operating limitations in hand.

How much trouble is it to get back in the air if only the registration has expired? I have an old AB Exp. that has not flown for years and was thinking of letting the registration expire, but someday I might want to replace the engine and fly it. If it is not registered, I won't be charged property taxes while it sits in a corner of the hanger. I hold the repairmans cert for it.

Mel said:

on several things. Has the original airworthiness been surrendered? If so, the aircraft is "dead in the water".
Once the airworthiness certificate for an experimental amateur-built aircraft has been surrendered, there is no path back.
If the airworthiness is still valid, then no problem. It can be put back into service bu going through a new phase I test program.
No one but the original builder is eligible for the repairman certificate.
If you would like to discuss further contact me at:
n168tx(at)flytx.net or 972-784-7544. If possible have the operating limitations in hand.

Click to expand...

Mel, this makes sense - but when a similar situation happened locally several years ago to a Lancair, we couldn't find any FARs mandating a Phase I return after a major repair - a new wing in this case - but no modifications.

Since Experimental aircraft don't come under the minor/major repair category and 337 use, what FARs/documents make the return to Phase I required?

Personally, I thik a major repair to an Experimental should count as a "modification" but couldn't find any applicable documents.

Repairman certificate

Not entirely true concerning the repairman certificate. You can apply for a waiver of the rule (I forget which one) which limits the repairman certificate to the original builder. It is a lengthy and tedious process requiring a lot of documentation but it works - I did it myself.

My father and I built, from scratch, a BD-4 a number of years ago. We worked side-by-side for over 6 years and logged equal time building. Being an active duty naval aviator we determined it would be in our best interest for my father to become the designated repairman. Not long after he lost interest in the plane and I became the sole owner.

I researched the waiver process, compiled my argument and documentation and sent the package to the Washington FSDO. 90 Days later I received a letter authorizing deviation of the rule. I took this letter to the FSDO and applied for and received a repairman certificate. They did require my father to surrender his first so in essence there is still only one repairman for this airplane (at any given time).

If you research this process you'll find at least 3 other successful examples of folks who've done the same thing. One case was nearly identical to mine, another was a guy who purchased a totaled plane and rebuilt it, and I cannot remember the others. The EAA was a big help and wrote a letter to the FAA endorsing me strongly. Additionally, Jim Bede - the designer, used my plane in several airshows as a display model so I had him write a letter to the FAA citing my qualifications. Having a MS in aeronautical engineering, several active duty tours as an aircraft maintenance quality assurance rep, and maintenance officer didn't hurt me (according to the FAA).


Anyway..thought I'd share.

Ken

another thing I learned through this process...

all of our regulations are waiverable.

think about that one....

What I found was that had I replaced my O-290-D2 with another O-290-D2 and put it back exactly as it was configured prior to my taxi incident, then I could have taken a passenger up on the first flight with the replacement engine. It wouldn't have mattered that I removed the wings and tail, replaced the engine mount, cowling, etc. as long as it was configured the same as when the pink slip was originally issued.

However, since I changed the engine (replaced the 135 HP O-290-D2 with an ECi O-360) I was required to do a five hour Phase 1 test period.

Hey Mel!

I sent you an email regarding this subject. Questions for you!

How is an airworthiness surrendered?

Mel said:

Once the airworthiness certificate for an experimental amateur-built aircraft has been surrendered, there is no path back.

Click to expand...

Is that an absolute statement or is it just a case of needing to go through the entire recertification process again as if it were a "new" airplane?

No horse in the race so I am just curious.

Say Mel..

I have a friend who bought a de-registered RV-4 and it's now flying, re-registered, or rather, built from "aircraft parts", so to speak.

In other words, the new owner built it from said 'aircraft parts' and applied for an AW cert and got it. Anything wrong with this?

Thanks,

N941WR said:

What I found was that had I replaced my O-290-D2 with another O-290-D2 and put it back exactly as it was configured prior to my taxi incident, then I could have taken a passenger up on the first flight with the replacement engine. It wouldn't have mattered that I removed the wings and tail, replaced the engine mount, cowling, etc. as long as it was configured the same as when the pink slip was originally issued.

However, since I changed the engine (replaced the 135 HP O-290-D2 with an ECi O-360) I was required to do a five hour Phase 1 test period.

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure I'd want to go there. If something happened you be hard pressed to defend your actions. Even though some folks will argue that "Part 91 rules don't apply to me" I wouldn't do it

? 91.407 Operation after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration.

(a) No person may operate any aircraft that has undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration unless?

(1) It has been approved for return to service by a person authorized under ?43.7 of this chapter; and

(2) The maintenance record entry required by ?43.9 or ?43.11, as applicable, of this chapter has been made.

(b) No person may carry any person (other than crewmembers) in an aircraft that has been maintained, rebuilt, or altered in a manner that may have appreciably changed its flight characteristics or substantially affected its operation in flight until an appropriately rated pilot with at least a private pilot certificate flies the aircraft, makes an operational check of the maintenance performed or alteration made, and logs the flight in the aircraft records.

(c) The aircraft does not have to be flown as required by paragraph (b) of this section if, prior to flight, ground tests, inspection, or both show conclusively that the maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration has not appreciably changed the flight characteristics or substantially affected the flight operation of the aircraft.

Walt said:

Even though some folks will argue that "Part 91 rules don't apply to me" I wouldn't do it

Click to expand...

Paragraph (1) of your operating limitations state: ".....this aircraft must be operated in accordance with applicable air traffic and general operating rules of part 91 and all additional limitations herein prescribed......."

Yup, this is one of those rules that most mechanics are familiar with but very few non mechanics are. We should try and do a better job of spreading the word regarding this.
It makes good sense after doing any work on the airplane but particularly after something major or a rebuild. When I did the rebuild on my current airplane (major dis-assembly), I made the decision to fly the first 10 hrs solo just to make sure everything was working dependably (post prop strike engine tear down, major airframe repairs, etc.)
At the very minimum I make a short post maint. test flight around the pattern after repairs or maint and then make sure I record it in my flight log.

rvbuilder2002 said:

Yup, this is one of those rules that most mechanics are familiar with but very few non mechanics are. We should try and do a better job of spreading the word regarding this.
It makes good sense after doing any work on the airplane but particularly after something major or a rebuild. When I did the rebuild on my current airplane (major dis-assembly), I made the decision to fly the first 10 hrs solo just to make sure everything was working dependably (post prop strike engine tear down, major airframe repairs, etc.)
At the very minimum I make a short post maint. test flight around the pattern after repairs or maint and then make sure I record it in my flight log.

Click to expand...

Thats nice, but not required. 43 isn't applicable (at all!). 91 general operations doesnt mean everything anyone could ever apply to any certified airplane.

Good practice, maybe. But lets not be so quick to apply more regs that are strictly required.

Sooooo......

dedgemon said:

Thats nice, but not required. 43 isn't applicable (at all!). 91 general operations doesnt mean everything anyone could ever apply to any certified airplane.

Good practice, maybe. But lets not be so quick to apply more regs that are strictly required.

Click to expand...

91.411 and 91.413 reference part 43 for transponder certifications. Are you saying that they don't apply either?

Good luck with that.

No I'm not suggesting that. 91.411 etc is clear enough (by FAR standards at least).

My whole point is that some folks seem to want to extend areas of thie regs that are clearly NOT applicable to EAB aircraft, just because they think its good practice. I think a lot of folks have a hard time with the inherent freedom of the EAB certification.

Clearly if you want to do a certain non-required thing with your aircraft thats fine. I just hate to see people over restrain the process for every one else. We need to be very careful not to give away the freedom that we have here.

Insurance Total vs Airworthiness Cert

If an insurance company "totals" an aircraft for a prop strike where there's no airframe damage, does the Airworthiness Cert get surrendered or revoked?

WSBuilder said:

If an insurance company "totals" an aircraft for a prop strike where there's no airframe damage, does the Airworthiness Cert get surrendered or revoked?

Click to expand...

No. The flying club I used to belong to had a C-182 that had been on its back, totalled by the insurance company, sold, repaired/rebuilt, and bought back by the club. It's got its original airworthiness certificate and I believe its original registration number.

I don't think the FAA cares what owners and insurance companies do.

I believe this would also apply to EAB in that you could rebuild a damaged RV with all new parts (new kit) and put the original data plate and paperwork in it and have a new plane with no DAR inspection required. Do any DAR's on the list see a problem with this scenario?

Btw, this is exactly what Cub Crafters did for years before certifying the Top Cub when the supply of Super a Cub data plates became depleted.

What concerns me is; when someone builds/obtains an experimental without an AW certificate and then obtains an AW certificate and data plate from a totaled same make and model aircraft. Circumventing the DAR inspection, etc., all together.

Jesse said:

I believe this would also apply to EAB in that you could rebuild a damaged RV with all new parts (new kit) and put the original data plate and paperwork in it and have a new plane with no DAR inspection required. Do any DAR's on the list see a problem with this scenario?

Click to expand...

I have exactly that scenario. I totaled my RV-6 and bought back the salvage. I'm building a new kit and using parts from the original. The original is still registered to me. Technically I could slap the old data plate on it, make a log entry for a repair and fly away. I'm electing to register it using the new kit S/N and transfer the N-number. I've got to jump thru the inspection and registration hoops but that gets me a clean logbook with no damage history and a new build date - 2015 vs 2001.

Done so for years

This has been going for decades. A good airplane mechanic can take a pile of twisted up alum and get it flying given enough cash and paperwork. The trick is making sure the airworthiness paperwork is good. I've even heard of some engine builders having an assortment of engine data plates with various options so if they have to change configurations, they just swap out data plates.

If that wasn't enough, here's a scary thought. That RV you built 2 years ago just got sold again and the new owner tore up most of the structure trying to impress his buddies. So, he orders a fast built fuse, wings, and buys the rest of the structures online so that all he has to do is pay for some one to put it together and then "transfer" your data plate. The only thing left that you manufactured was the data plate. Well, one day the rudder came off and the plane bore a hole in the ground and it was determined that the rudder wasn't balanced. Also, there weren't any records as they were "lost". The question now is why didn't you balance the rudder when you mfg the plane? You deviated from the plans and made an unsafe airplane. Shame on you.

How would you prove you didnt mfg that rudder?

gyoung said:

I have exactly that scenario. I totaled my RV-6 and bought back the salvage. I'm building a new kit and using parts from the original. The original is still registered to me. Technically I could slap the old data plate on it, make a log entry for a repair and fly away. I'm electing to register it using the new kit S/N and transfer the N-number. I've got to jump thru the inspection and registration hoops but that gets me a clean logbook with no damage history and a new build date - 2015 vs 2001.

Click to expand...

grubbat said:

If that wasn't enough, here's a scary thought. That RV you built 2 years ago just got sold again and the new owner tore up most of the structure trying to impress his buddies. So, he orders a fast built fuse, wings, and buys the rest of the structures online so that all he has to do is pay for some one to put it together and then "transfer" your data plate. The only thing left that you manufactured was the data plate. Well, one day the rudder came off and the plane bore a hole in the ground and it was determined that the rudder wasn't balanced. Also, there weren't any records as they were "lost". The question now is why didn't you balance the rudder when you mfg the plane? You deviated from the plans and made an unsafe airplane. Shame on you.

How would you prove you didnt mfg that rudder?

Click to expand...

If it came to legal action, I would subpoena the sales records of Van's Aircraft and the accounts of the purchaser(s) down the line from me to try to establish that they purchased the parts necessary to do the reconstruction.

??DAR??

I started with a DAR from the local FISDO. He was un-informed as to EBA airplanes. (as bad as that sounds). I then hired a DAR from the area MIDO. He and the MIDO office was great. If you check the box that says "more than 50% of this aircraft is built from miscellaneous parts and I am the owner", you'd better hope your DAR knows what that means!

grubbat said:

This has been going for decades. A good airplane mechanic can take a pile of twisted up alum and get it flying given enough cash and paperwork. The trick is making sure the airworthiness paperwork is good. I've even heard of some engine builders having an assortment of engine data plates with various options so if they have to change configurations, they just swap out data plates.

If that wasn't enough, here's a scary thought. That RV you built 2 years ago just got sold again and the new owner tore up most of the structure trying to impress his buddies. So, he orders a fast built fuse, wings, and buys the rest of the structures online so that all he has to do is pay for some one to put it together and then "transfer" your data plate. The only thing left that you manufactured was the data plate. Well, one day the rudder came off and the plane bore a hole in the ground and it was determined that the rudder wasn't balanced. Also, there weren't any records as they were "lost". The question now is why didn't you balance the rudder when you mfg the plane? You deviated from the plans and made an unsafe airplane. Shame on you.

How would you prove you didnt mfg that rudder?

Click to expand...

A good time to drag out the builder's log pictures....