Parts is Parts
Mike,
I tend to agree with your viewpoint, and am curious as to Mel's take on your comments.
Dave certainly can't re-certify it as that is out of the question, but creating a "new" aircraft with the "parts" he bought - after all - that is ALL he bought if we are getting into technicalities. He couldn't have bought an aircraft because it is no longer an aircraft in the FAA's eyes. It's a pile of parts and if it was damaged in a crash, well, a pile of messy parts at that.
IMHO, I would think that it would be legal to rebuild the aircraft with new parts under a new builder number (not that the builder/plans number really matters much...) and then certify it under the Amateur built category under Dave's name as the primary builder. Not RE-certify it, but certify it as a new homebuilt. After all, what about a Breezy builder who uses Piper Cub wings and tail from a wrecked Cub.
If it can be certified legally and ethically, then the next question is whether or not Dave did 51% of the work. If not, then he wouldn't qualify for the Repairman certificate. That's a question that only Dave can answer himself after doing the work and looking at the FAA 51% form and answering honestly.
As I write this I am still wrestling with the concept of "primary builder" even for the purposes of certifying it, let alone repairman. Was Dave really the primary builder? I suppose if his rebuild of this wreck was 51% of the work as defined by the FAA's form, then he could be a primary builder as far as the new plane is concerned and it wouldn't be much different than if a partnership of builders is building - only one can be listed as the builder.
Look at me, I'm waffling like a politician in November.
Either way, Mel knows more than all of us, but just offering the perspective as Mike did because often FAA guidelines and rules are as clear as mud. Sometimes you just gotta ask the right question. Re-certify it - no, certify as new?
Mel - are we totally out of line here?
Rob