Building a new aircraft

Intent to fix the original aircraft? Major repair.
 
Tom-D said:
If this were a major repair, wouldn't you need approved data to make the repair?
Click to expand...
Yes. And a quick trip to the FSDO for a field/STC approval to replace all or a major portion of the wing parts would be in order. But considering the market for complete super cub wings and fuselages, I'll bet a nickel there are several STCs out there to replace entire wings/fuselages just as your customer did. I'll bet another nickel that is the reason he used Cub Crafters, as either they have an STC or have access to it. Which if there are STCs it would then make this entire post moot.

The one item you jump over in the discussion is per Part 43 we only have 2 options with his aircraft: repair or alteration. And in order to repair we need something tangible to fix--not a bunch of new parts to assemble as they do not link back to the aircraft's original certification and data plate. Without that link, your assembling becomes manufacturing/producing a part which falls under Part 21.
Tom-D said:
the overhaul of an engine is not a major repair, no matter how many new parts are used, and that is what assembly with all new parts would be
Click to expand...
Never said overhaul. Goes back to same comment above. Call it what you want, repair, overhaul, alteration or rebuild, there has to be a tangible article or product linked to its original certification to perform those tasks to meet the requirements of Part 43. Otherwise, Part 21 is in force.
Tom-D said:
you must know we A&Ps are not allowed to do that scope of work on propellers
Click to expand...
Part 65 only states we can't perform major repairs or major alterations to props. So per your thought line, we could disassemble and reassemble a prop with new parts on a logbook entry.

It all starts when the aircraft rolls off the line and gets its data plate and original AWC. Per block 6 on the AWC, any work perform per Part 21, 43, and 91 is directly linked to that certificate and aircraft (data plate) as a condition of that certificate.
 
bluerooster said:
Is that a repair, or built new?
Click to expand...
A repair. An A&P can not build/manufacture/produce any new items, they can only maintain, repair, or alter existing items. Per Part 43.3 only a manufacturer can rebuild.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
What's the difference of moving the data tag from the old fuselage to a new one under the same rules. "to facilitate the maintenance"
(d) Persons performing work under the provisions of Part 43 of this chapter may, in accordance with methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the FAA—
(1) Remove, change, or place the identification information required by paragraph (a) of this section on any aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, propeller blade, or propeller hub; or
(2) Remove an identification plate required by §45.11 when necessary during maintenance operations.
Click to expand...
The other section of Part 45:
(e) No person may install an identification plate removed in accordance with paragraph (d)(2) of this section on any aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, propeller blade, or propeller hub other than the one from which it was removed.
 
Bell206 said:
I'll bet a nickel there are several STCs out there to replace entire wings/fuselages just as your customer did. I'll bet another nickel that is the reason he used Cub Crafters, as either they have an STC or have access to it. Which if there are STCs it would then make this entire post moot.
Click to expand...

If you're replacing a part or assembly with an original or PMA replacement, why would you need a STC?

Bell206 said:
The other section of Part 45:
(e) No person may install an identification plate removed in accordance with paragraph (d)(2) of this section on any aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, propeller blade, or propeller hub other than the one from which it was removed.
Click to expand...

You are installing the plate on the same aircraft, it just had its fuselage replaced... and its wings... and... ;)
 
Dana said:
If you're replacing a part or assembly with an original or PMA replacement, why would you need a STC?
Click to expand...
If it was a complete wing assy PMA or OEM no issues. The issue is assembling a complete wing from a box of new PMA parts which is outside the scope of a Part 43 repair. It fits more the definition of an alteration than a repair. And the STC would provide that approval.
Dana said:
You are installing the plate on the same aircraft, it just had its fuselage replaced... and its wings... and...
Click to expand...
Problem is the Feds define a repairable aircraft as having some original primary structure to repair and remain with the aircraft.:)
 
Bell206 said:
Problem is the Feds define a repairable aircraft as having some original primary structure to repair and remain with the aircraft.:)
Click to expand...
This one will have. The fuselage is simply a part of the whole aircraft, A wing is a repairable part of that aircraft. Remember we have the AWC, Logs, registration. I believe we are making a repair, no matter how extensive this may be.

Show us where the FAA says how many parts of the whole must be replaced to call it manufacturing, or how many parts must be replaced to say it is not a repair. FAR 43.2

Even when we overhaul certain products (engines, props, and some appliances) the manufacturer requires mandatory replacement parts, they still call it a repair.
 
Tom-D said:
Show us where the FAA says how many parts of the whole must be replaced to call it manufacturing, or how many parts must be replaced to say it is not a repair.
Click to expand...
Don't have the manufacturing reference handy but have this on repairable:

The FAA does not consider an aircraft to be repairable if all primary structures of the aircraft must be replaced. Replacement of some major components of an aircraft would be considered a repair, but replacement of all of the primary structures of the aircraft is not a repair but a replacement of an aircraft. If the identification plate from the original aircraft were placed on the aircraft this action would be prohibited by 14 CFR §45.13(e) which states that“No person may install an identification plate removed in accordance with paragraph (d)(2) of this section on any aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, propeller blade, or propeller hub other than the one from which it was removed.”

The following examples can be used as guidelines to determine if an aircraft is destroyed:
(1) All primary structures of an airplane or glider, including the fuselage, all wings, and empennage are beyond repair.
(2) The fuselage and tail boom of a rotorcraft are beyond repair.
(3) Only the aircraft identification plate is reusable

As I mentioned above, I'll bet your customer's last aircraft listed 2 STCs: one for the fuselage and one for the wings and was done as an alteration vs a repair.
 
Last edited:
Bell206 said:
Don't have the manufacturing reference handy but have this on repairable:

The FAA does not consider an aircraft to be repairable if all primary structures of the aircraft must be replaced. Replacement of some major components of an aircraft would be considered a repair, but replacement of all of the primary structures of the aircraft is not a repair but a replacement of an aircraft. If the identification plate from the original aircraft were placed on the aircraft this action would be prohibited by 14 CFR §45.13(e) which states that“No person may install an identification plate removed in accordance with paragraph (d)(2) of this section on any aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, propeller blade, or propeller hub other than the one from which it was removed.”

The following examples can be used as guidelines to determine if an aircraft is destroyed:
(1) All primary structures of an airplane or glider, including the fuselage, all wings, and empennage are beyond repair.
(2) The fuselage and tail boom of a rotorcraft are beyond repair.
(3) Only the aircraft identification plate is reusable

As I mentioned above, I'll bet your customer's last aircraft listed 2 STCs: one for the fuselage and one for the wings and was done as an alteration vs a repair.
Click to expand...

That sounds just like what Order 8100.19 says.
 
Bell206 said:
As I mentioned above, I'll bet your customer's last aircraft listed 2 STCs: one for the fuselage and one for the wings and was done as an alteration vs a repair.
Click to expand...
This will depend upon which after market Fuselage he uses..
 
Bell206 said:
The FAA does not consider an aircraft to be repairable if all primary structures of the aircraft must be replaced.
Click to expand...

Right there is the qualifying statement for this whole quandaryHow many aircraft that were built using all new primary structure?

You can not build a Cessna 150 from scratch and slap a data tag and N number on it.

For an example, the data tag on a Cessna 150 is attached to the cockpit floor, one piece of metal. you are allowed to disassemble the entire aircraft, save that floor board and build a complete 150 around it

You can repair structure, and there isn't any rule that tells how many new parts you can use to do it.

A PA-18- the data tag is attached to a fuselage tube, save that tube or any part of it, and you are good to go for a complete re-build of the whole aircraft.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
Right there is the qualifying statement for this whole quandaryHow many aircraft that were built using all new primary structure?

You can not build a Cessna 150 from scratch and slap a data tag and N number on it.

For an example, the data tag on a Cessna 150 is attached to the cockpit floor, one piece of metal. you are allowed to disassemble the entire aircraft, save that floor board and build a complete 150 around it

You can repair structure, and there isn't any rule that tells how many new parts you can use to do it.

A PA-18- the data tag is attached to a fuselage tube, save that tube or any part of it, and you are good to go for a complete re-build of the whole aircraft.
Click to expand...

LOL! o_O

Here we go! :)
 
Tom-D said:
A PA-18- the data tag is attached to a fuselage tube, save that tube or any part of it, and you are good to go for a complete re-build of the whole aircraft.
Click to expand...
Almost. 8100.19(3)(d) gives you an example but you need more than one tube. Now the tube cluster at the wing mount or the cluster at the landing gear mounts will get you there. It's not so much the piece the data tag is attached but how the primary structure you repair is linked back to the original aircraft/data tag. Your logbook entry of the repair can be used to provide that link/traceability, i.e., describe the part you retained. But the structure has to be part of a load path to be considered primary. For example, in 8100.19 the Feds consider primary as:
"an aircraft’s primary structure to be the structure that carries flight, ground, or pressurization loads, and whose failure would reduce the structural integrity of the aircraft." There are other definitions but they're buried in various guidance.

I don't know the fixed wing side as well, but the helicopter side follows these same rules and they are extensively repaired equal to or beyond your Cub. The only time issues arise is when certain people swap around data plates and records.
 
Tom-D said:
Right there is the qualifying statement for this whole quandaryHow many aircraft that were built using all new primary structure?

You can not build a Cessna 150 from scratch and slap a data tag and N number on it.

For an example, the data tag on a Cessna 150 is attached to the cockpit floor, one piece of metal. you are allowed to disassemble the entire aircraft, save that floor board and build a complete 150 around it

You can repair structure, and there isn't any rule that tells how many new parts you can use to do it.

A PA-18- the data tag is attached to a fuselage tube, save that tube or any part of it, and you are good to go for a complete re-build of the whole aircraft.
Click to expand...
Ah, another "spirit and letter" interpretation. One I would not likely try to put past my friendly FSDO.
The map is not the territory, and the data plate is not the aircraft.
 
yup....spirit....

14CFR 43.13 appendix A
(b)Major repairs -
(1)Airframe major repairs.
.....
(xxv) The repair of three or more adjacent wing or control surface ribs or the leading edge of wings and control surfaces, between such adjacent ribs.
(xxvi) Repair of fabric covering involving an area greater than that required to repair two adjacent ribs.
(xxvii) Replacement of fabric on fabric covered parts such as wings, fuselages, stabilizers, and control surfaces.
.....
Click to expand...
 
Bell206 said:
Almost. 8100.19(3)(d) gives you an example but you need more than one tube. Now the tube cluster at the wing mount or the cluster at the landing gear mounts will get you there. It's not so much the piece the data tag is attached but how the primary structure you repair is linked back to the original aircraft/data tag. Your logbook entry of the repair can be used to provide that link/traceability, i.e., describe the part you retained. But the structure has to be part of a load path to be considered primary. For example, in 8100.19 the Feds consider primary as:
"an aircraft’s primary structure to be the structure that carries flight, ground, or pressurization loads, and whose failure would reduce the structural integrity of the aircraft." There are other definitions but they're buried in various guidance.

I don't know the fixed wing side as well, but the helicopter side follows these same rules and they are extensively repaired equal to or beyond your Cub. The only time issues arise is when certain people swap around data plates and records.
Click to expand...

Got to remember the Aircraft we are restoring has neither been destroyed or scrapped.
The FAA records show it as current in its registration, and we have a data tag.

I'd be hesitant to use this guidance for any aircraft not destroyed, scrapped or de-registered.
8100.19

This order provides guidance to FAA personnel responsible for evaluating aircraft wreckage and classifying an aircraft as destroyed or scrapped. This order also provides guidance related to actions that are required to be taken when an aircraft is determined to be destroyed or scrapped. Such actions include the disposition of aircraft identification plates, aircraft de-registration, and compliance with aircraft recordkeeping requirements. It addresses the re-registration of aircraft that may have previously been classified as destroyed or scrapped and describes the procedures a person may use to dispute a determination that an aircraft has been destroyed or scrapped.
 
Tom-D said:
I'd be hesitant to use this guidance for any aircraft not destroyed, scrapped or de-registered.
Click to expand...
In the big picture, FAA guidance is guidance across the board regardless the document it originates in. Just look at the regulatory definition of airworthy. It's in an FAR that applies to part record entries and was created to combat bogus parts. Plus it is not applicable to Part 43 . Yet it is the only regulatory definition and is used across all FARs, administrative actions, LOIs, and other guidance documents. The only time this definition gets superseded is when someone uses the statute (US Code) airworthy version as laws trump regulations. So you can bet the bank 8100.19 will be the go to guidance document on this topic regardless if the aircraft is destroyed or scrapped. But you can split hairs all you want. As I've said before it's your ticket and only your decision to make.
 
Bell206 said:
As I've said before it's your ticket and only your decision to make.
Click to expand...
And that is why I get guidance prior to placing ink to paper.

not that this web page is guidance.
 
OP asks -
"Is assembling with all new parts a repair?"

14 CFR Appendix A_to_part_43 - Major Alterations, Major Repairs, and Preventive Maintenance

(b)Major repairs -

(1)Airframe major repairs. Repairs to the following parts of an airframe and repairs of the following types, involving the strengthening, reinforcing, splicing, and manufacturing of primary structural members or their replacement, when replacement is by fabrication such as riveting or welding, are airframe major repairs.

(x) Wing main ribs and compression members.

If he's building a Super Cub with aluminum ribs that are riveted to the spar, then replacing them is a major repair. Form 337 is required.
 
Brad Smith said:
If he's building a Super Cub with aluminum ribs that are riveted to the spar, then replacing them is a major repair. Form 337 is required.
Click to expand...
Check the assembly on a PA-18 wing.
 
Brad Smith said:
OP asks -
"Is assembling with all new parts a repair?"

14 CFR Appendix A_to_part_43 - Major Alterations, Major Repairs, and Preventive Maintenance

(b)Major repairs -

(1)Airframe major repairs. Repairs to the following parts of an airframe and repairs of the following types, involving the strengthening, reinforcing, splicing, and manufacturing of primary structural members or their replacement, when replacement is by fabrication such as riveting or welding, are airframe major repairs.

(x) Wing main ribs and compression members.

If he's building a Super Cub with aluminum ribs that are riveted to the spar, then replacing them is a major repair. Form 337 is required.
Click to expand...
So what ? how does this apply to a data tag swap?
 
OK ,, here is how it works with this aircraft rebuild.
The owner buys a 2300 pound up grade fuselage from Univair, They get an STC for the upgrade, that has a STC serial number attached to the fuselage frame. The original data tag goes on the floor board under the pilots seat. (newer aircraft the data tag must be visible) so it is no longer attached to the overhead cross member as it was on early birds. This is a later model aircraft.
this is pretty easy.. after doing the home work. I knew that it must be legal some how, we simply by-pass FAR 45 with a STC.
There are two STCs
One from AirFrames Alaska and one from Univair, they are the only people making new fuselages.
Mondays are great folks answer their phones. :)
 
Ok....so are we done? Now that you answered your own question....in true form.o_O


but...you still didn't build a new aircraft.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
Ok....so are we done? Now that you answered your own question....in true form.o_O
Click to expand...
Ya just have to figure it out.
I'm surprised you didn't tell me that to start with.. Hope you learned too.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
we did....see post #58. ;)
Click to expand...
yep, way back when everyone thought this was scrapped aircraft.

But what surprises me most, is with your vast knowledge of all things aviation, you didn't come up with the method to start with.
 
Tom-D said:
yep, way back when everyone thought this was scrapped aircraft.

But what surprises me most, is with your vast knowledge of all things aviation, you didn't come up with the method to start with.
Click to expand...
Tom....obviously, I'm not as smart or clever as you. o_O
 
Bell206 said:
The FAA does not consider an aircraft to be repairable if all primary structures of the aircraft must be replaced. Replacement of some major components of an aircraft would be considered a repair, but replacement of all of the primary structures of the aircraft is not a repair but a replacement of an aircraft...
The following examples can be used as guidelines to determine if an aircraft is destroyed:
(1) All primary structures of an airplane or glider, including the fuselage, all wings, and empennage are beyond repair.
Click to expand...

So if the only reusable parts are the data plate and, say, the rudder, it's still a "repair"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top