> 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.
Rich, I agree with your statements above and I apologize for not expressing my thoughts more clearly. For the record, I in no way intended to encourage anyone to "find a way around the rule". To the contrary, I encourage reading and studying the rules and other regulatory guidance, such as Advisory Circulars, so you know what you're allowed to do as well as what you're required to do. After that, you can make your decisions based on the requirements and allowances, tempered by your own personal limitations. You included part of my original message. The next few lines of my message included: "Read AC 65-23A & AC 20-27F (You should read these documents if you are contemplating building and becoming the repairman for an experimental amateur built airplane.)" Regards, Ken Jones, [email protected] Sharonville, OH N5834, aka The Porkopolis Flying Pig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rich Seifert" <[email protected]> To: "KRnet" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 1:17 AM Subject: Re: KR> Experimental Amateur Built Certification/Repairman >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.
