Repairman's Cert

[Tom-D]

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.

Not true..
When there is no criteria to be the prime builder, how would it be a fraud to put in for it.

When no one else has put in for it, and you did some of the building including the supervision why would it be a fraud?

When you can't show me how much of the build is required to qualify for the prime builder. how can you call it a fraud?

 

[kyleb]

The context here, Tom, was your premise that someone (you, IIRC) could build an airplane and have the buyer apply for the repairman's certificate. The act of signing that form, and indicating the buyer constructed a "major portion" or whatever the terminology is on the document, would constitute fraud.

And I know you'd shape shift your argument, but anyone with a brain sees through it...

 

[tsts4]

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

Not true..
When there is no criteria to be the prime builder, how would it be a fraud to put in for it.

When no one else has put in for it, and you did some of the building including the supervision why would it be a fraud?

When you can't show me how much of the build is required to qualify for the prime builder. how can you call it a fraud?

So which is it -- did they actually build or not? Please make up your mind as you seem to be changing your argument, as predicted. First you say all they have to do is supervise, now you've changed it to build and supervise. Where in the 65.104 or FAA Form 8310-12 is the word supervise used to define eligibility?

 

[Tom-D]

So which is it -- did they actually build or not? Please make up your mind as you seem to be changing your argument, as predicted. First you say all they have to do is supervise, now you've changed it to build and supervise. Where in the 65.104 or FAA Form 8310-12 is the word supervise used to define eligibility?

Where have I changed my view?
There is no criteria saying how much of the project the repairman must do in order to qualify for the certificate.
If there is, show it to me.
There are many documented cases where a teacher had a class build the aircraft and the teacher got the R/C

 

[Tom-D]

The context here, Tom, was your premise that someone (you, IIRC) could build an airplane and have the buyer apply for the repairman's certificate. The act of signing that form, and indicating the buyer constructed a "major portion" or whatever the terminology is on the document, would constitute fraud.

And I know you'd shape shift your argument, but anyone with a brain sees through it...

There is no major portion required,As long as you were involved with the build in anyway you can get the R/C, you are not required to do a single task.
On many occasions the kit buyer has given the kit over to the builder, and only supervised the build. and it is looked upon by the FAA as legal.
Using a Van's RV kit as an example, you can have one guy rivet it to gather, then take the kit to another shop for the interior, and a different shop for the wiring, and a engine shop to have the engine installed, and an entirely different place do the radios. You will still qualify for the Repairmans certificate.
The FAA actually encourages that.

 

[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.

It would truly be hard to convince the FSDO that you meet the requires for a repairmans certificate on an airplane built prior to you owning it, with a different name as the manufacturer. Also, when you submit the paperwork for the airworthiness, you must list any and all builders.

I think what you are meaning to say, is that it is a selling point when an experimental airplane is at a point where it is mostly complete, but not so complete that the buyer can do a little work, list himself as a builder, and get the repairmans certificate.

Data tags have a way of getting changed.

Now tell me when the aircraft is completed, Most are never done, with that in mind, why wouldn't a new owner qualify?

 

[tsts4]

Where have I changed my view?
There is no criteria saying how much of the project the repairman must do in order to qualify for the certificate.
If there is, show it to me.
There are many documented cases where a teacher had a class build the aircraft and the teacher got the R/C

Ahh so you admit they have to be a builder then -- good. To answer your question it came from your own posts which I quoted. In one post you claimed all they had to do is supervise, and in the other one you state build and supervise. As for your example, how do you know that those teachers didn't do some of the work, even as little as setting one rivet or deburring a single hole (were you that teacher)? In any event, even if they didn't, "they" still had to be listed as a builder. If they are willing to state they are a builder without having actually built anything on the project, so be it. I, in good conscience could not do that, but that's just me.

Again, where does any FAA document state that "supervision" makes you eligible? Please state the ref, page, and para number. No one is saying there is a defined minimum level of participation to be considered a builder for 65.104/8130-12 purposes so you can let that argument die. If you want to debate whether the FAA has implied some level of participation, OK but that's a philosophical discussion not germane to the current topic.

 

[Tom-D]

Ahh so you admit they have to be a builder then -- good. To answer your question it came from your own posts which I quoted. In one post you claimed all they had to do is supervise, and in the other one you state build and supervise. As for your example, how do you know that those teachers didn't do some of the work, even as little as setting one rivet or deburring a single hole (were you that teacher)? In any event, even if they didn't, "they" still had to be listed as a builder. If they are willing to state they are a builder without having actually built anything on the project, so be it. I, in good conscience could not do that, but that's just me.

Again, where does any FAA document state that "supervision" makes you eligible? Please state the ref, page, and para number. No one is saying there is a defined minimum level of participation to be considered a builder for 65.104/8130-12 purposes so you can let that argument die. If you want to debate whether the FAA has implied some level of participation, OK but that's a philosophical discussion not germane to the current topic.

What ever you like, my views on this have not changed, you say it came from my post but fail to quote them.
When you can't keep up with the conversation don't try to blame me.

I believe that every one knows I do not advocate that anyone make false statements on any FAA form. But when the FAA has no criteria on what constitutes a builder. How can it be wrong to take advantage of the rule or lack of it.

When the word "Supervision " is used it must be quoted in context. Many kit owners use this as a method of getting their aircraft built, They dictate what shop does what, and when, and are considered by the FAA as the primary builder even tho they never do a single task. they simply supervise who does what.

 

[tsts4]

What ever you like, my views on this have not changed, you say it came from my post but fail to quote them.
When you can't keep up with the conversation don't try to blame me.

I believe that every one knows I do not advocate that anyone make false statements on any FAA form. But when the FAA has no criteria on what constitutes a builder. How can it be wrong to take advantage of the rule or lack of it.

When the word "Supervision " is used it must be quoted in context. Many kit owners use this as a method of getting their aircraft built, They dictate what shop does what, and when, and are considered by the FAA as the primary builder even tho they never do a single task. they simply supervise who does what.

Nice try -- I quoted them in post 123. Don't blame me if you were caught flip-flopping, which you routinely do. Being listed as a builder is the only thing that counts. Define builder however you want and let your conscience be your guide.

 

[Tom-D]

Nice try -- I quoted them in post 123. Don't blame me if you were caught flip-flopping, which you routinely do. Being listed as a builder is the only thing that counts. Define builder however you want and let your conscience be your guide.

hat amounts to a lie, not a single quote in post 123, Sorry sonny not buying it .

 

[tsts4]

hat amounts to a lie, not a single quote in post 123, Sorry sonny not buying it .

BS -- I multi-quoted in post 123. Are you frigging blind or just challenged? Not buying your crap either gramps.

 

[Tom-D]

BS -- I multi-quoted in post 123. Are you frigging blind or just challenged? Not buying your crap either gramps.

you best look again.
because all you really did was to create thread creep. by trying to change the subject.

 

[tsts4]

you best look again.
because all you really did was to create thread creep. by trying to change the subject.

Nope-- you did. I can do this back and forth as long as you want.

 

[Tom-D]

When you don't even understand the basic concept of supervising the building of a project, How would you ever understand the explanation.
Simply a waste of time conversing with you.

 

[tsts4]

When you don't even understand the basic concept of supervising the building of a project, How would you ever understand the explanation.
Simply a waste of time conversing with you.

LOL—this is good comedy. Got any more witty barbs? Come on — explain it to me. I’m listening, err reading. IBTL!

 

[donjohnston]

hat amounts to a lie, not a single quote in post 123, Sorry sonny not buying it .

Wait... So you're saying that you didn't write the post that tsts4 quoted in post 123???

 

[Ravioli]

@Tom-D -- several DAR's contribute to VAF frequently. Perhaps your original question can be posted there and a definitive update can be made here.

I don't know if anyone from a FSDO contributes to either forum. They probably should, though, for laughs. I can just seem them printing out posts from here and pinning them up in the coffee room for grins.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

It would also be interesting to see these questions posted on the EAA forums, and the responses there too.

 

[Stewartb]

Part 17 of the link talks about the repairman cert. The other parts are also interesting, if you prefer info over internet mumbo jumbo.