I am not a big fan of the FAA but a good many of their rules were made to
protect the aviation industry in general from people doing things that
reflect negatively upon the industry. When unqualified people are permitted
to endanger themselves and the general public; That is pretty negative. The
repairmans certificate is one of the rare gifts of the FAA. It helps the
lisenced mechanic, the aircraft builder, and the industury. It relieves the
mechanic of the liability of working on an aircraft he is unfamilure with
and upon which there is little documentation on. Home built aircraft are
not built on an assembly line, there are no two exactly alike, and they
don't come with service manuals. Heck parts are not even interchangable.
The repairmans certificate was ment to put the person who is intemently
familure with the aircraft, and has the most to loose, responsible for its
safe operation.
In the end, it doesn't take a smart person to find a way around the
rule. It takes a smart person to know his limitations, to protect his butt,
and not become another statistic.
Just my opinion
----- Original Message -----
Subject: Re: KR> Experimental Amateur Built Certification/Repairman
> My thoughts are that taking a KR-2 (or other) that is 99.99% complete and
> then completing it does not preclude certificating the aircraft as
> experimental amateur built. AC20-27F Appendix 1, definition of Major
> Portion, makes it crystal clear that you can count the construction
efforts
> of previous builders. This definition, although it does not specifically
> apply in AC65-23A, might be used as part of an arguement that you are the
> primary builder in your pursuit of the repairman certificate for this
> aircraft. If you won this arguement, you would still have to "demonstrate
> to the certificating FAA inspector ....(your).... ability to perform
> condition inspections and to determine whether the subject aircraft is in
a
> condition for safe operation." I think this is normally "demonstrated"
by
> showing your builder's log, but it seems this could be demonstrated some
> other way, for example, you built most of another KR and then sold it (and
> have evidence supporting that fact). I don't know if there is anything
> that requires that you have built 51% to get the repairman certificate
> (Apparently not, because, if a group of people build a plane, one may be
> considered to become the repairman for that plane.) It is clear, however,
> that you can get the airworthiness certificate without having built 51%
> yourself. Much depends on your FAA office as well as the individuals
> supporting that office, especially if you are not armed with a knowledge
of
> the regulations and other guidance material.
>
