Non registered homebuilts

X3 Skier

X3 Skier

En-Route
PoA Supporter
Joined
Jul 3, 2011
Messages
4,800
Location
GDK & SBS
Display Name
Display name:
Geezer
I've been looking on Barnstormers at some low cost Homebuilts as a gap filler until I complete my Onex. I found a few where no N number is visible. Seeing as how you have to have one as a prerequisite to get an airworthiness certificate for anything except an ultralight, I assume these are "non-airworthy" even they are supposedly flying. I asked the sellers about it and amazingly, nobody has bothered to reply.:D

Just wondering how often this happens.

Cheers
 
Is it possible that they're using smaller numbers that are simply hidden?

Beyond that, yeah, there are folks that fly their homebuilts without ever getting an airworthiness cert. A fellow I know bought one of those. It had about 100 hours on it. There were no build logs either. When he tried to get it legal, the FAA said he had to totally dismantle and then build it up again.

That made me scratch my head, but the bird is legal now.
 
Many, I would think, are two seat "heavy ultralights" that missed the deadline to register as Light Spoirt Aircraft. The others probably are based on private fields and only flown locally - usually to somne other private field.
 
Out of the three I found, all were clearly single seaters built from non ultralight E-AB kits so I guess they were intended to be flown without any airworthiness certificates from private fields. No idea how they expect to sell them unless to somebody with a private field or who doesn't care for the FAA rules.

Cheers
 
There's a local E-AB airplane for sale that's perfectly airworthy and very desirable but the owner is taking a hit in price to sell it de-registered and force the next owner to do what it takes to register it as a new E-AB build. He apparently has reduced his price in order to remove his name from the airplane's history. I hadn't seen that before and I'm not sure it offers much liability protection if that's what he's looking for. Interesting idea, though.
 
Anymouse said:
Beyond that, yeah, there are folks that fly their homebuilts without ever getting an airworthiness cert. A fellow I know bought one of those. It had about 100 hours on it. There were no build logs either. When he tried to get it legal, the FAA said he had to totally dismantle and then build it up again.

That made me scratch my head, but the bird is legal now.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised that the FAA went along with that.
 
Deregistering it doesn't invalidate the airworthiness certificate. He'd have to destroy that too (and somehow prevent the FAA from reissuing it).
 
flyingron said:
Deregistering it doesn't invalidate the airworthiness certificate. He'd have to destroy that too (and somehow prevent the FAA from reissuing it).
Click to expand...

That wouldn't be too hard. Remove the data plate and N-number. Unmake some of the structure. Sell it as a project with the build logs. Let the new builder come up with a new serial number, "complete" the build and get a DAR to inspect it.
 
You can buy and have it inspected for issuance of a new a Special Airworthiness Certificate (which is what all EXP-AB get), especially if it is something pretty common like an RV. Selling without SAWC isn't unheard of because of what was mentioned above. Some folks don't want to sell something as a flying, licensed experimental airplane due to the presumed liability.

What you cannot do, is apply for an receive a Repairman's Certificate for that airframe since you didn't build it. You have to prove the 51% rule compliance to get the certificate.
 
N3368K said:
...

What you cannot do, is apply for an receive a Repairman's Certificate for that airframe since you didn't build it. You have to prove the 51% rule compliance to get the certificate.
Click to expand...
It's my understanding that 51% only comes into play concerning whether a kit qualifies as amateur built. There is no requirement for a repairman candidate to prove he built 51% of the aircraft only that he is familiar with the construction techniques and procedures used and that he participated in the build. Oftentimes a build involves numerous workers so no one person builds anywhere close to 51% of the aircraft.
 
Witmo said:
It's my understanding that 51% only comes into play concerning whether a kit qualifies as amateur built. There is no requirement for a repairman candidate to prove he built 51% of the aircraft only that he is familiar with the construction techniques and procedures used and that he participated in the build. Oftentimes a build involves numerous workers so no one person builds anywhere close to 51% of the aircraft.
Click to expand...

Your understanding is correct.
 
I owned a (non-exp) a/c and the FAA wrote to say a previous owner had reported it "Destroyed".
(After I straightened that out), I always wondered if it was an attempt at dodging liability?
 
haha! I should have had photos of it before & after, plus the "Destroyed" notice. "It really did buff out!"
 
Anymouse said:
Is it possible that they're using smaller numbers that are simply hidden?

Beyond that, yeah, there are folks that fly their homebuilts without ever getting an airworthiness cert. A fellow I know bought one of those. It had about 100 hours on it. There were no build logs either. When he tried to get it legal, the FAA said he had to totally dismantle and then build it up again.

That made me scratch my head, but the bird is legal now.
Click to expand...
There is some info missing here, some one misunderstood somptin.
 
Witmo said:
It's my understanding that 51% only comes into play concerning whether a kit qualifies as amateur built. There is no requirement for a repairman candidate to prove he built 51% of the aircraft only that he is familiar with the construction techniques and procedures used and that he participated in the build. Oftentimes a build involves numerous workers so no one person builds anywhere close to 51% of the aircraft.
Click to expand...
That rule was brought out to prevent the professional kit building facilities from building uncertified aircraft . Such as you buy a kit P-51 and turn it over to shop that does nothing but build P-51 kits, then pick it up and register it as a amateur built when in reality it was built by professionals.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
You mean like look them up in the NTSB data base to see if NDH means Numerous Damage History?
Click to expand...

All that tells you is if it has DOCUMENTED damage history, I'd wager 90% of the fleet have damage history, just a matter of if its repaired properly.
 
Or even to have the factor turn out "nearly" finished aircraft for the owner to certify. Some of the fairly elaborate "quick build" kits leave enough out of each task so that the builder hits 51% of the tasks.

The goal for issuance of an EAB certification (either the aircraft or the repairman) has never been that any individual has to do 51%.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
haha! I should have had photos of it before & after, plus the "Destroyed" notice. "It really did buff out!"
Click to expand...
If you have the original data tag and paper work, why wouldn't that work?
 
And then you have the guys who paint on a fake "N" number.
Or use tape to alter their actual "N" number. This is particularly useful if you are going to fly under a bridge or a highway overpass, or something equally silly.
I've encountered that a few times in my life.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
Tom....this is a test question....you knew that right? :D
Click to expand...
As the thread grew, It shows there are few didn't know the data tag is the aircraft. Does that change with the type aircraft?
 
N3368K said:
You can buy and have it inspected for issuance of a new a Special Airworthiness Certificate (which is what all EXP-AB get), especially if it is something pretty common like an RV. Selling without SAWC isn't unheard of because of what was mentioned above. Some folks don't want to sell something as a flying, licensed experimental airplane due to the presumed liability.

What you cannot do, is apply for an receive a Repairman's Certificate for that airframe since you didn't build it. You have to prove the 51% rule compliance to get the certificate.
Click to expand...
Nothing to stop a seller/original builder to remove the data tag and all other paper work, then sell the aircraft as a project. the buyer must then completely re-do the entire paper work and register the aircraft as they built it.
 
James331 said:
All that tells you is if it has DOCUMENTED damage history, I'd wager 90% of the fleet have damage history, just a matter of if its repaired properly.
Click to expand...
Do we need to explain the difference between minor damage repaired on a log book entry, and major damage requiring a field approval to return to service? With a X-AB how would you know what has or has not been removed and replaced, there is no federal approval required.
 
N3368K said:
What you cannot do, is apply for an receive a Repairman's Certificate for that airframe since you didn't build it. You have to prove the 51% rule compliance to get the certificate.
Click to expand...
This is not true, you may get a repairman's certificate for aircraft that you only supervised the build.
 
Tom-D said:
As the thread grew, It shows there are few didn't know the data tag is the aircraft. Does that change with the type aircraft?
Click to expand...
Try building an airplane around a data plate. Then tell us how that works out for ya. :lol:
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
dont get caught....or you can kiss your IA good bye. :D
Click to expand...
Nope... or how do they drag old aircraft out of the bush/lake and build new aircraft to reattach the old data tag?

This is how:
FAR 45
(8) Any other information the FAA finds appropriate.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, no person may remove, change, or place identification information required by paragraph (a) of this section, on any aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, propeller blade, or propeller hub, without the approval of the FAA.

(c) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, no person may remove or install any identification plate required by §45.11, without the approval of the FAA.

(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.

(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.
 
Last edited:
unsafervguy said:
you can replace every part in an airplane and it is still the original airplane as far as the FAA is concerned. just make sure all the proper paperwork is done for the repairs.
Click to expand...
not entirely true....build a wag Aero cub and use a production data plate?.....that will get one in hot water and stripped of their certs. :stirpot:
 
I thought people built basically new supercubs off approved/certified parts and existing data plates all the time?
 
Reaching a bit. You would get in trouble for using unapproved parts and not documenting repairs properly. Use all certified parts and document the repairs and your good to go. It's done in the warbird world every day.

Bob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top