Own maintenance on kitbuilt aircraft

[Spin]

This is more of an SAAA than an RA-Aus question, but there is a wealth of knowledge on these forums and I am hoping that someone can point me in the right direction.

 

Please correct me if I am wrong; but as I understand it, if I were to build a Jabiru J430 from a kit, I am permitted to do my own maintenance in much the same way as with an RA-Aus registered aircraft? If I sell the aircraft though, the new owner now has to have an LAME look after it?

 

I have a vague recollection of reading somewhere that this was due to change and that the same would apply to the owners of all experimental aircraft irrespective of whether you built it or not. Of course I cannot find the article I read now and was hoping that someone could either confirm that I wasn't dreaming or put me right.:confused:

 

 

[Yenn]

I believe the SAAA have a policy of not allowing self maintenance, unless the builder has really built the plane and also the builder has to convince SAAA that he is competent.

 

They have done this to clamp down on cheque book builders.

 

 

[Seal]

That's about right, it is a CASA regulation rather than SAAA and it is much the same as the RAA regs. If you build it then you can maintain it. In either code, if you buy it then you can't maintain it, even if it is experimental (VH-) or 19- registered. The problems with chequebook building are common to both organisations and there are some fairly blatant examples which will no doubt come back to bite us sooner or later. Both organisations are running maintenence training courses and we can expect completion of these courses to become more important in the future.

 

 

[Vorticity]

Is this correct? My undestanding was that a RAAus certificate holder could maintain their own aircraft provided it is not used for hire or training. I dont recall anything regarding being the builder if the machine. I know that this is the case for SAAA, hence if you buy a nice second hand RV you will have to pay a LAME to maintain it.

 

 

[Spin]

That's about right, it is a CASA regulation rather than SAAA and it is much the same as the RAA regs. If you build it then you can maintain it. In either code, if you buy it then you can't maintain it, even if it is experimental (VH-) or 19- registered. The problems with chequebook building are common to both organisations and there are some fairly blatant examples which will no doubt come back to bite us sooner or later. Both organisations are running maintenence training courses and we can expect completion of these courses to become more important in the future.

Thanks Seal and others who responded, including via pm. Seal, having looked at quite a few aircraft lately, mostly homebuilt, I have to say I am beginning to wonder whether the second part of your post - re maintenance training courses isn't more important than the whether someone bolted the bits together in the first place. I've seen several examples of what I would call bush engineering, where some bloke has had the perseverance to finish a build over umpteen years, but the way it has been done leaves a bit (lot) to be desired. Look at Adrian Lewer's rebuild thread for an example of what I am talking about! That same builder would then be allowed to do his own maintenance, presumably to the same less than optimal standard, whereas the next bloke who may have all the necessary skills but wants to fly now instead of in 10 years, cannot?

 

 

[facthunter]

Owner Maintanance

 

I have just rung Stephen Bell concerning my aircraft which was issued with a rego Number 19 ----. and had the rego cancelled at my request later. There is no barrier to me doing the maintenance/ The aircraft would have to be inspected by an L2 for a condition report prior to getting it active on the register. I still have the numbers that I was issued with.

 

There was a comment on another thread regarding the Cheetah or another Morgan aircraft being available as an LSA. In this situation, you have to have it maintained by an L2 or a LAME and You cannot alter the aircraft from original spec. Why would this be an advantage? (other than being able to fly at 600 Kgs, all other things being OK. Stall speed and structural). VH experimental gives a fair amount of freedom, if you want 4 seats or heavier weights. (Must have PPL though).. Nev

 

 

[Spin]

Thanks for that, Facthunter.

 

Interesting that the 760kg limit seems to be firmly back on the agenda again, going by the latest RA Aus magazine. Geez, I'd happily take 700kg and one extra passenger, that would allow me to get a J430 without worrying about regaining my PPL - funny old things human beings, seems we're pre-programmed to always push the boudaries and want more:laugh:.

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

Also read this: http://www.recreationalflying.com/forum/kit-gen-discussion/82085-why-not-rv12.html

 

Essentially it boils down to that any Australian RV-12 kit built aircraft will be classed as experimental LSA and as such will allow changes such as different engine types and Avionics. It will retain it's 600Kg LSA weight limit. It cannot be included in the Amateur built category because the kit is not certified under the 51% rule.It will be registered under RA-Aus as a 19-xxxx

So you can build an LSA, change it from spec and retain 600KG. Is there a way to buy a factory LSA, then re-register as 19 and do your worst?