Repairman's Cert

[Direct C51]

There is then a advantage to not getting it. because the next owner can apply for it. (Selling advantage).

IOWs I find an old project that is mostly complete, bring it home, finish it, and apply my name on the 8130-6, I'm good to go.
IOWs I buy a completed flying aircraft, bring it home, Clean it (etc) do a bunch of restoration, slap a new data tag on it, submit the 8103-6 with my name on it ,,, and ?

We shall deem this the Tom strategy. When someone calls you out for being wrong, just change the situation of the argument completely until you can somehow be right. In your second quoted scenario, what does the original builder getting the repairmans certificate have anything to do with it? Or did you forget what you were even arguing about (and what the thread is about) in the first place?

 

[Tom-D]

Can you cite a source that shows the FAA does nothing about individuals submitting fraudulent paperwork?

And yes, you are advocating your position of "lying your ass off" as you put it.

They first must have reason, When they catch the perp. they probably do.

So show me where I said to any one "this is what you should do"

 

[Tom-D]

We shall deem this the Tom strategy. When someone calls you out for being wrong, just change the situation of the argument completely until you can somehow be right. In your second quoted scenario, what does the original builder getting the repairmans certificate have anything to do with it? Or did you forget what you were even arguing about (and what the thread is about) in the first place?

When thread creep occurs I react to it.
but still, buyer perceptions was the subject when the statement was made.
If you don't know how to deal with thread creep, you best leave the page, because it happens in every thread over 10 posts.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

They first must have reason, When they catch the perp. they probably do.

So show me where I said to any one "this is what you should do"

When you wrote this:

When you have an A&P you can do the Conditional inspection on the the aircraft. so you really don't need the R/Certificate. There is then a advantage to not getting it. because the next owner can apply for it. (Selling advantage).

It really isn't a "selling advantage" if it is illegal, is it?

 

[Tom-D]

Well then it's a good thing I said "allow your currency to lapse" and not "expire" isn't it?

FAR 65.83



Read the FAR above. And please tell us where you work as an A&P so we all know where FARs are not known nor followed.

I believe you just demonstrated you don't know the difference between currency and duration of a certificate.

If you are an instrument pilot, but not flown in a year are you still an instrument rated pilot?

Once an A&P always an A&P.

 

[Direct C51]

I believe you just demonstrated you don't know the difference between currency and duration of a certificate.

If you are an instrument pilot, but not flown in a year are you still an instrument rated pilot?

Once an A&P always an A&P.

Jesus man, it's never ending. I'm not sure a single post you have made in this thread is productive or correct. I honestly don't know how you have made a career in avition.

I never said an A&P expired. I said your currency can lapse. I believe you just demonstrated your inability to comprehend what you are reading.

To use your example, if an instrument pilot hasn't flown in a year, can they exercise the privileges of their Instrument Rating? Their certificate didn't expire, but their currency lapsed.

Now go ahead and change the scenario again and say there's a CFI on board or something.

 

[Tom-D]

Jesus man, it's never ending. I'm not sure a single post you have made in this thread is productive or correct. I honestly don't know how you have made a career in avition.

I never said an A&P expired. I said your currency can lapse. I believe you just demonstrated your inability to comprehend what you are reading.

To use your example, if an instrument pilot hasn't flown in a year, can they exercise the privileges of their Instrument Rating?

Now go ahead and change the scenario again and say there's a CFI on board or something.

Giving you an example changes the subject,, I get now. you read what you want to see.
quote "I never said an A&P expired." then why did you quote 65.83 and insinuate that it did.

OBTW, never worry about my currency, I have been actively engaged in aviation in one manor or the other since 1958.

 

[Tom-D]

Builder assist is way different than what you are talking about Tom. A builder assist airplane still bears the owners name as the manufacturer.

Yep,, even when they had very little to do with it.

 

[Direct C51]

Giving you an example changes the subject,, I get now. you read what you want to see.
quote "I never said an A&P expired." then why did you quote 65.83 and insinuate that it did.

OBTW, never worry about my currency, I have been actively engaged in aviation in one manor or the other since 1958.

Please show where I insinuated an A&P expires? I explicitly said "currency lapses". I never used the word expire except to tell you that I didn't say expire.

This is moot anyhow, as I understand your tactic of deflecting when proven wrong. I'm glad I could teach you something though, now you know that there is a currency requirement for an A&P.

I'm not worried about your currency, maybe your reading comprehension and general intelligence, perhaps your willingness to break an FAR, while working on someone's airplane however. But I wasn't talking to you anyhow. I was simply advising everyone to get a repairmans certificate if they are the legitimate builder of an airplane, even if they are an A&P just in case "THEIR CURRENCY LAPSES".

 

[Tom-D]

Please show where I insinuated an A&P expires?

You got all wrapped around the axle over posts 62&63, because you read what you want to see, then started the thread creep and can't cope with it.

 

[Tom-D]

To explain post 65;
see post 63 and where I referred to currency.

A&P never lapses it is always good.
A&Ps do not need the repairman's certificate to work on any E/AB.

 

[Tom-D]

anyway fun's over. Cya

 

[Anymouse]

Jesus man, it's never ending. I'm not sure a single post you have made in this thread is productive or correct.

That's our Tom D!

 

[yakdriver]

IOWs I find an old project that is mostly complete, bring it home, finish it, and apply my name on the 8130-6, I'm good to go.

Yes but you need his builders log and pictures. Perfectly legal and if you can convince the DAR that you are competent enough he will issue a recommend for the RC.

IOWs I buy a completed flying aircraft, bring it home, Clean it (etc) do a bunch of restoration, slap a new data tag on it, submit the 8103-6 with my name on it ,,, and ?

There it gets sticky. If it was built from a kit you need the bill of sale from the kit manufacturer but since that has already been issued that would be tough to get. If built from plans the DAR will want to see the plans and again a builders log. A friend just did a J3 using a Piper fuselage. He bought the Wag Aero Cubby plans and and also used a bunch of stock Cub parts in the wings. Worked with a DAR and everything was legal as in the end he did over 51% of the build. It's interesting reading through the FAA checklist.

People do this, and they get away with it. simply because the FAA doesn't track any thing but the data tag, which you can buy almost anywhere.
And the DARs that issue AWCs can't tell how long you took to build the aircraft.

If they smell a rat and you can't come up with a builders log with pictures and receipts for parts they probably won't issue an AW.

Yes, the previous data stays on record at OKC until the registration runs out.

 

[Tom-D]

If they smell a rat and you can't come up with a builders log with pictures and receipts for parts they probably won't issue an AW

Big "IF."
when you do a complete restoration, why wouldn't you have the pictures to satisfy them.

I could probably show them my AS&S account, and most builders and owners have one.

What do you believe would happen if you told them you bought an old unfinished kit?
I've never done this, but what do you think would happen?

 

[Tom-D]

There it gets sticky. If it was built from a kit you need the bill of sale from the kit manufacturer but since that has already been issued that would be tough to get. If built from plans the DAR will want to see the plans and again a builders log. A friend just did a J3 using a Piper fuselage. He bought the Wag Aero Cubby plans and and also used a bunch of stock Cub parts in the wings. Worked with a DAR and everything was legal as in the end he did over 51% of the build. It's interesting reading through the FAA checklist.

When you buy a flying E/AB wouldn't you get all the planes and kit stuff. The Serial number of the kit might be the stumbling block.
But from plans built, pretty easy.

 

[donjohnston]

Perfectly legal and if you can convince the DAR that you are competent enough he will issue a recommend for the RC.

DAR's don't "recommend" for the repairman's cert. As it was explained to me by the FSDO, unless your airworthiness inspection is being done by an FAA inspector (not a DAR), there is no connection between the airworthiness cert and the repairman's cert. They are two separate certifications. I had to personally visit the FSDO to get my repairmans's cert.

If built from plans the DAR will want to see the plans and again a builders log.

The DAR who inspected my plane wasn't interested in my builder's log. All he was interested in was whether it was airworthy. The builder's log is typically used to prove you built more than 51%.

 

[tsts4]

DAR's don't "recommend" for the repairman's cert. As it was explained to me by the FSDO, unless your airworthiness inspection is being done by an FAA inspector (not a DAR), there is no connection between the airworthiness cert and the repairman's cert. They are two separate certifications. I had to personally visit the FSDO to get my repairmans's cert.

Actually some DARs do provide a letter of recommendation to the builder that they can include with their certificate application.

The DAR who inspected my plane wasn't interested in my builder's log. All he was interested in was whether it was airworthy. The builder's log is typically used to prove you built more than 51%.

A FSDO inspector did my AWC inspection and he never looked at my log either. Also the log doesn't prove major portion compliance -- the kit manufacturer does that through validation by the NKET IAW AC 20-27G (plans built is also covered in the AC as well as Order 8130.2J). Kits have to meet the rule, not the builder. Logs can, however, prove an individual was the primary builder.

Oh and back to the original question, I got the repairman's certificate for my RV-10 and use it.

 

[SoCal RV Flyer]

When I built my -9A, I had a very complete set of photos, and a logbook that detailed every work session. These things got a cursory glance for the DAR inspection, but were highly scrutineered for the Repairman Cert. They're great to have now as mementos, when I get all nostalgic about the build!

I think any DAR worth his salt can determine whether someone has built the aircraft by asking a few specific questions about construction, especially if he's familiar with type.

 

[donjohnston]

When I built my -9A, I had a very complete set of photos, and a logbook that detailed every work session. These things got a cursory glance for the DAR inspection, but were highly scrutineered for the Repairman Cert. They're great to have now as mementos, when I get all nostalgic about the build!

I think any DAR worth his salt can determine whether someone has built the aircraft by asking a few specific questions about construction, especially if he's familiar with type.

While that is 100% correct, only the job of the DAR is to determine if it's "airworthy". They could care less if you built every part and made you own nuts and bolts. When you go to get your repairman's cert, that's when the FAA rep starting looking at that.

When I went to get my repairmans's cert, the inspector was "concerned" at the small number of pictures of me in my build log (I think that I had about 10). I explained that I did the build by myself. And that the only pictures of my building were if I remembered to setup a camera with a timer or if my wife came out and took picture. After I got my certificate (which had to be re-issued because of errors on the part of the inspector) and I was walking out, I asked one of the other inspectors if there was a number of pictures of the builder that are recommended so I could let other builders know. She told me that she could care less. She can tell after asking about three questions whether the builder built the plane. She said that she picks a random part of the build and says "tell about this". And that's all she needs. My inspector didn't ask me one single question about the build.

 

[donjohnston]

Also the log doesn't prove major portion compliance -- the kit manufacturer does that through validation by the NKET IAW AC 20-27G (plans built is also covered in the AC as well as Order 8130.2H). Kits have to meet the rule, not the builder. Logs can, however, prove an individual was the primary builder.

You are correct. I misstated. What I meant to say is that the logs are to prove that you didn't have someone else build the 51% that you're supposed to be doing.

 

[Tom-D]

You are correct. I misstated. What I meant to say is that the logs are to prove that you didn't have someone else build the 51% that you're supposed to be doing.

When I built my Osprey I didn't have a single picture or log. Just a set of prints and the machines to make the parts. and the receipt for the material.

 

[Tom-D]

While that is 100% correct, only the job of the DAR is to determine if it's "airworthy". They could care less if you built every part and made you own nuts and bolts.

Exactly.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Nope.....

 

[Paulie]

When you have an A&P you can do the Conditional inspection on the the aircraft. so you really don't need the R/Certificate. There is then a advantage to not getting it. because the next owner can apply for it. (Selling advantage).

Nope. Have to be the builder.

 

[Paulie]

full disclosure.....your A&P never expires.

True but your currency does. Read the regs.

 

[Paulie]

Not advocating any thing, just saying, its the only way, and gets done most every day, and The FAA seem to do nothing about it.

Bringing the subject up is not advocating?

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

True but your currency does. Read the regs.

then get current....you can read the regs on that.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

Can you cite a source that shows the FAA does nothing about individuals submitting fraudulent paperwork?

And yes, you are advocating your position of "lying your ass off" as you put it.

I don't read that he's advocating. Just saying that must be what's being done.

As for the FAA doing nothing, how can they do anything when there is no paper trail to follow?

I think that's the point here. It's a gap/loophole.

Disclaimer- just a lowly VFR PPL, no A&P, don't know jack about E/AB.

 

[Paulie]

It's a fool that would subject themselves to FAA action to save a few dollars. Ever notice how certificates are stated as being a "privaledge". Tangling with the feds is quite different from any other type of legal action. Also a fool that doesn't know the airplane doing the condition check to save a few bucks.
If the feds decide to go after you justly or not it can make your life miserable. Why give them any opportunity?

 

[tsts4]

Nope. Have to be the builder.

I agree. An owner, non-builder is ineligible to apply:

"65.104 Repairman certificate—experimental aircraft builder—Eligibility, privileges and limitations.
(a) To be eligible for a repairman certificate (experimental aircraft builder), an individual must—
(2) Be the primary builder of the aircraft to which the privileges of the certificate are applicable;"

FSDOs are pretty lenient on the "primary" builder stipulation, especially on group builds, but the applicant has to listed on the 8130-12, Eligibility Statement Amateur-Built Aircraft as one of the builders.

 

[Tom-D]

I agree. An owner, non-builder is ineligible to apply:

"65.104 Repairman certificate—experimental aircraft builder—Eligibility, privileges and limitations.
(a) To be eligible for a repairman certificate (experimental aircraft builder), an individual must—
(2) Be the primary builder of the aircraft to which the privileges of the certificate are applicable;"

FSDOs are pretty lenient on the "primary" builder stipulation, especially on group builds, but the applicant has to listed on the 8130-12, Eligibility Statement Amateur-Built Aircraft as one of the builders.

There is nothing telling how many parts the prime builder must build .
They can supervise the build and qualify

 

[Doc Holliday]

I don't read that he's advocating. Just saying that must be what's being done.

As for the FAA doing nothing, how can they do anything when there is no paper trail to follow?

I think that's the point here. It's a gap/loophole.

You are very wrong here. Any falsification on any FAA document results in the harshest enforcement actions. Try this "loophole" by falsifying a document and get caught say goodbye to all certificates as well as the AW certificate.

Disclaimer- just a lowly VFR PPL, no A&P, don't know jack about E/AB.

Obviously.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

Doc, you got me wrong (as well as other people's posts based on your misunderstanding). Falsification is wrong. Deserves the harshest penalties. Did someone say that they did falsify, or suggested falsification? I did not think so. They just said that it happens.

I always throw out a disclaimer when I want to play on POA but have less knowledge than others on a topic. You don't need to act like a jerk, eh?

 

[tsts4]

There is nothing telling how many parts the prime builder must build .
They can supervise the build and qualify

Reread my post. What I said is they have to be listed as a builder on the 8130-12 by reg. No where did I attempt to define what a primary builder is or the tasks needed to be performed. If someone who only supervises and doesn't physically perform a singe task, however small, wants to be listed as a builder on the Form, then that's between them and the other actual builders.

 

[Tom-D]

Reread my post. What I said is they have to be listed as a builder on the 8130-12 by reg. No where did I attempt to define what a primary builder is or the tasks needed to be performed. If someone who only supervises and doesn't physically perform a singe task, however small, wants to be listed as a builder on the Form, then that's between them and the other actual builders.

Show us what it requires to be a primary builder

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Show us what it requires to be a primary builder

Merry Christmas, Tom. How about observing the "Truce of Christmas" for a day?

 

[tsts4]

Show us what it requires to be a primary builder

why? Show me where supervising equates to being a builder. In any event what I think doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is they are listed on the form. As to whether they should or shouldn't be isn't for me to decide.

 

[Direct C51]

You guys are reaurrecting this thread just to try to argue the points that have already been brought up. There's no point in arguing with Tom. He'll change his argument pretty dynamically once proven wrong.

Here's the only thing that matters. Just apply for the repairmans certificate if you legitimately qualify for one. It's free and takes 5 minutes to fill out the form. There is no advantage to not getting it. You won't convince any smart buyer that they can get the repairmans certificate on an airplane that you built just because you didn't apply for it.

 

[kyleb]

I think that's the point here. It's a gap/loophole.

It isn't a gap or loophole. It requires fraud - deliberately telling a lie to obtain what you want - a Repairman's Certificate. You can do the same on your taxes and they call it tax fraud, not a loophole.