Thanks for the explanation Ken. Sorry I didn't pick that up the first time. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kenneth B. Jones" <[email protected]> To: "KRnet" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 6:59 AM Subject: Re: KR> Experimental Amateur Built Certification/Repairman
> > 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. > > > > > >
