No word from RAA

[Soleair]

I sent off an 'intention to build' form last June, before I started building.

 

Not having heard back from RAA, I sent another completed form about 6 weeks ago, although by now I am over half way through my build. Again, the silence is deafening.

 

Does anyone know what - if anything - needs to be inspected before I get too far along with my build programme? I understand a good look from a knowledgeable person prior to covering is important, and a witnessed W&B is required. No problems with these.

 

But my concern is how far I can go without any official acknowledgement of my project. Also to prove that my 'kit' is more than 51% amateur built. Given that the 'kit' comprised a box of sawn timber & a set of plans, I think it's fair to say the homebuilt content would be in excess of 99% - but how do I prove this after the event? I am of course taking lots of photos as I go, & I am keeping a build log, together with receipts for minor items like sandpaper, paint & varnish, etc.

 

What I don't want is to be told when I present my MiniMax for final rego that I have not satisfied some requirement of which I am unaware.

 

Cheers

 

Bruce

 

 

[rankamateur]

Bruce, Are you sure you aren't confusing SAAA GA experimental rules? I didn't even realise there was an RAA "intention to build" form, my advice was that I had to get a rego number issued, an L4 inspection at completion before rego, take the photos and that was it.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

People

 

A quick call to the Canberra Office on 02 6280 4700 ask to speak to Darren Barnfield the Technical Manger and you'll get the requirements direct from the horses mouth , so to speak. If you then, because your a cautious guy, feed back what you heard on the telephone to him via email and hear nothing more then you have done all that a "reasonable man" could be expected to do....

 

Andy

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Bruce is correct, there is an intention to build form.Stage inspections are not a requirement.

to meet RAAus registration requirements...however if you ever perceive that you might like an alternate approach to registration to be available in the future then........ again, your a cautious guy....

 

 

[rankamateur]

to meet RAAus registration requirements...however if you ever perceive that you might like an alternate approach to registration to be available in the future then........ again, your a cautious guy....

Are you suggesting moving to GA redo Andy?

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I'm just saying what suits us now may well be one thing....what might suit us in 5yrs time may well be another...if you understand the requirements of the other alternative and they are not much of an impost then maybe most prudent to keep it alive......I don't understand the GA experimental rules myself and it may be that its already too late....

 

So don't read into what I say more than above

 

Andy

 

 

[JimG]

I've done it twice and no issues, I rang them first and had a quick chat about my intentions. I got verbal confirmation that my projects where OK to commence and should be able to be registered. He asked me to send in the 'intention to build form' which I did straight away and in about a week later I received from them a 'builder pack' that had all the required form and some other helpful material for homebuilders.

 

Very helpful and sets out the procedures to registration...., easy .

 

cheers

 

JimG

 

 

[kgwilson]

The only mandatory things you must do are to apply for a Rego No & inspect the completed aircraft within 90 days of being issued the number or you forfeit the fee. The inspection must be carried out under the supervision of a current L4. There are weight & balance forms, test flight forms, aircraft data sheets, the POH & other documentation all to be completed before final registration. You are also required to maintain a complete build log and encouraged to keep a photographic log of the build although this is not mandatory. All the other intention to build and notifications etc are recommendations and not totally mandatory if you are building under 95.55. My advice is to keep a full daily build log with a photographic log fully cross referenced.

 

I have done this and also have 2 x L2s have a look every now & then & luckily have a L4 who has had a check occasionally or when I have a question during the build as well. I am painting the airframe at present. All the documentation ( the worst part of the build process) is yet to come.

 

 

[Soleair]

Thanks for the replies, everyone.

 

I'll look forward to getting my builders' pack (eventually), & take it from there. I'd definitely rather build than do paperwork, but it always used to be said that no aeroplane can fly until it has generated its own weight in paper. It seems there's no escape even under 95.55!

 

Not sure how I can apply for a number & get the plane inspected within 90 days - it might not be finished! Maybe I'll wait a bit longer to apply for a number.

 

Incidentally, I can't find the regulations that specify the size of the numbers to be displayed, or whether the ones on the fuse can go on the fin. Can anyone point me in the right direction for this?

 

Thanks again

 

Bruce

 

 

[flyvulcan]

Under "GA" experimental "rules", there is no requirement for any inspection other than an inspection for the issue of the Certificate of Airworthiness which is done when the aircraft is ready for its first flight. This inspection must be conducted by an "Authorised Person" (AP) of which there are some non-SAAA CASA appointed APs and also some (CASA approved) SAAA APs. As part of this inspection, you would normally provide evidence that you complied with the "51%" rule and this is normally done by producing a build log and photographic evidence.

 

So during the course of your build, should you decide to go VH registration, if you have maintained a build log and a photographic record to indicate that you have complied with the 51% rule, you could proceed with VH registration with an experimental CofA.

 

Should you build and fly your aircraft under the RAAus experimental provisions, as long as you are the original builder with the required build log and photo record, you would still meet the eligibility requirements to obtain VH registration with an experimental CofA.

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

 

(SAAA and RAAus member and VH experimental builder)

 

 

[Soleair]

Thanks, Dave. What do you see as the pros/cons of going the VH route as opposed to the 95.55 way?

 

Bruce

 

 

[kgwilson]

Thanks for the replies, everyone.

Not sure how I can apply for a number & get the plane inspected within 90 days - it might not be finished! Maybe I'll wait a bit longer to apply for a number.

 

Incidentally, I can't find the regulations that specify the size of the numbers to be displayed, or whether the ones on the fuse can go on the fin. Can anyone point me in the right direction for this?

 

Thanks again

 

Bruce

Don't apply for the rego number until your build is ready to fly. The Technical manual says the details are in the Operations Manual but I can't find them there. Ask someone at RA-Aus. When you apply for the rego number they probably specify details when they allocate you the number.

 

 

[flyvulcan]

Thanks, Dave. What do you see as the pros/cons of going the VH route as opposed to the 95.55 way?Bruce

Hi Bruce,

 

To be honest, I couldn't accurately advise about 95.55. I had no choice but going the VH route for my Komet due to its performance. What I do know is that with VH registration, I only have to pay a once off registration fee, rather than a yearly fee as required for 95.55 aircraft. As long as I have completed a Maintenance Procedures Course (MPC) with the SAAA, as the builder I can maintain my aircraft and conduct the annual inspection for my VH registered aircraft. Since I hold both an ATPL as well as a Pilot Certificate with RAAus, I can fly either VH or RAAus registered aircraft. Perhaps VH registration may offer more accessibility to airspace than 95.55, I'm not certain...

 

Sorry I can't be much help in comparing the two "experimental" categories.

 

 

[Soleair]

Thanks to all.

 

As regards VH versus 95.55, sounds like I need to do a bit more research. I'm only interested in local flying, with occasional transits to other country airfields - I have no desire to mix it with the big boys, and the MiniMax - doughty aeroplane though it is - is not the craft for controlled airspace. As in my Vne is somewhere around commercials' Vs. . .

 

Bruce

 

 

[Yenn]

If you go the SAAA route it may be possible to get away with having no stage inspections by your Technical Councillor, but it may also be a reason for the Approved Person to not issue a certificate. When I built the RV4 I had the inspections and also full records and photos, and the AP went through them with a fine tooth comb.

 

 

[Soleair]

Yes, good point Yenn.

 

I'm happy to have any inspections - indeed would welcome criticism on my build - but my concern is cost & availability of suitable inspectors in rural NSW. So if I only need a final pre-cover inspection for RAA, that problem would be smaller.

 

 

[Blueadventures]

Hi The above advice is on track. I'm building at present and before I started I contatced the Lame / L4 who I will get to do the final check and liase with him about what he wants and recommends that way all going well no big surprises at end of build.

 

Hope this is of help.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

 

 

[KRviator]

There are NO requirements for stage inspections with SAAA. The TC and AP I've been in touch with have been more than helpful in this regard, considering my circumstances...Those being I'm in the process of migrating my 99.9%-complete RV-9 to the VH- system because RAAus is refusing to honour their agreement (that I have in writing mind you)to allow my plane onto the register.

 

The benefits to this are several in my case; I can use the full gross weight of the RV, I can fly at night*, or in IMC*, I can fly in CTA and I can fly above 10,000'. The only loser here is RAAus as I now have no use for them once my RPL arrives.

 

*with appropriate endorsements!

 

 

[rgmwa]

Have you done the W&B yet KR?

 

rgmwa

 

 

[dazza 38]

There are NO requirements for stage inspections with SAAA. The TC and AP I've been in touch with have been more than helpful in this regard, considering my circumstances...Those being I'm in the process of migrating my 99.9%-complete RV-9 to the VH- system because RAAus is refusing to honour their agreement (that I have in writing mind you)to allow my plane onto the register.The benefits to this are several in my case; I can use the full gross weight of the RV, I can fly at night*, or in IMC*, I can fly in CTA and I can fly above 10,000'. The only loser here is RAAus as I now have no use for them once my RPL arrives.

 

*with appropriate endorsements!

That's interesting considering there is another RV9 on the RAA register.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Under "GA" experimental "rules", there is no requirement for any inspection other than an inspection for the issue of the Certificate of Airworthiness which is done when the aircraft is ready for its first flight. This inspection must be conducted by an "Authorised Person" (AP) of which there are some non-SAAA CASA appointed APs and also some (CASA approved) SAAA APs. As part of this inspection, you would normally provide evidence that you complied with the "51%" rule and this is normally done by producing a build log and photographic evidence.So during the course of your build, should you decide to go VH registration, if you have maintained a build log and a photographic record to indicate that you have complied with the 51% rule, you could proceed with VH registration with an experimental CofA.

 

Should you build and fly your aircraft under the RAAus experimental provisions, as long as you are the original builder with the required build log and photo record, you would still meet the eligibility requirements to obtain VH registration with an experimental CofA.

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

 

(SAAA and RAAus member and VH experimental builder)

You don't have to do >= 51% to get an experimental C of A. That and the proof of it (build log etc ) is only required if you want to be allowed to do your own maintenance etc. ( as long as you also do a maintenance procedures course). You can get anything certified by an AP -If he is happy with it. Even commercially made certified aircraft can be registered in the experimental category - I have seen a Cessna 172 or 182 with Diesel engine in experimental class. Also you can have it built by someone else and still register it as experimental.

 

The problem for the owner then is that the aircraft becomes like any certified and has to be maintained by a LAME.

 

The 51% rule is basically phased out or phasing out anyway. The current Instrument of Authority (CASA IA 33/13 ) now says you can work on the parts of the aircraft which you built. Even if you have done >51% you can't work on the bits you did not build.

 

Of course how that one would be policed is anybody's guess. It would come down to a lot of my word against yours.

 

SAAA Technical Counsellor

 

 

[KRviator]

Have you done the W&B yet KR? rgmwa

Preliminary weight, not balance, was 935Lbs empty, without gear leg or wheel fairings, but complete in all other respects. I figure 950Lbs BEW will be the book figure.

 

That's interesting considering there is another RV9 on the RAA register.

Yep, and I'm talking with the owner about my predicament, but to be honest, if RAAus won't honour their agreement, then they can take a long walk of a short pier so far as I'm concerned. A poor attitude, admittedly, but not one of my doing.

[dazza 38]

Preliminary weight, not balance, was 935Lbs empty, without gear leg or wheel fairings, but complete in all other respects. I figure 950Lbs BEW will be the book figure.Yep, and I'm talking with the owner about my predicament, but to be honest, if RAAus won't honour their agreement, then they can take a long walk of a short pier so far as I'm concerned. A poor attitude, admittedly, but not one of my doing.

All the best KR,but I honestly think that you shouldn't have to jump through the hoops. The trail had been blaze ahead of you with another member getting the OK. Must be a Barnfield thing.

 

 

[Riley]

Bad form Dazza and I reckon you're treading on very thin ice when, by name, you cast unverified aspersions on the Tech Mgr in a public forum. Were I in his shoes I'd be calling for more than an apology.

 

 

[flyvulcan]

You don't have to do >= 51% to get an experimental C of A. That and the proof of it (build log etc ) is only required if you want to be allowed to do your own maintenance etc. ( as long as you also do a maintenance procedures course). You can get anything certified by an AP -If he is happy with it. Even commercially made certified aircraft can be registered in the experimental category - I have seen a Cessna 172 or 182 with Diesel engine in experimental class. Also you can have it built by someone else and still register it as experimental.The problem for the owner then is that the aircraft becomes like any certified and has to be maintained by a LAME.

 

The 51% rule is basically phased out or phasing out anyway. The current Instrument of Authority (CASA IA 33/13 ) now says you can work on the parts of the aircraft which you built. Even if you have done >51% you can't work on the bits you did not build.

 

SAAA Technical Counsellor

Hi Jab,

 

Perhaps I should have clarified that the "51% rule" applies to an aircraft that will be seeking a CofA under the Experimental - Amateur Built provisions (Ref: CASR21.191 (g)). Anything which does not comply with the "51% rule" will require a CofA under one of the other Experimental provisions i.e. exhibition, air racing, research and development etc.. The definition of "Amateur Built" under the CASR21.191 is "...an aircraft, the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by a person who undertook the construction project solely for the person's own education or recreation." AC21.4 clarifies the requirements for certification of Experimental - Amateur Built aircraft and this reference defines the term "major portion" as being "... The major portion means more than 50% of the aircraft.", hence the term 51% rule.

 

Please correct me if I am wrong, but a person can purchase a substantially completed aircraft and complete it himself and it will still be eligible for a CofA E(AB) as long as the work already done plus the work that he does himself complies with the 51% rule. Once the aircraft is completed and a CofA is applied for, the onus is on the applicant to be able to prove that the major portion of the aircraft has been constructed by persons for their own education or recreation (so not commercial).

 

There is a bit of leeway about commercial assistance in some areas of the build such as avionics, engine installation etc. where 100% commercial assistance can be used. These areas are mentioned in the relevant references.

 

For any aircraft that is issued with a CofA E(AB), a single person only can be nominated as the primary builder. With the appropriate MPC qualification, that primary builder may conduct the annual inspection on that aircraft. Even if the owner bought his aircraft 99% completed and he only finished the final 1% himself, he may still be nominated as the primary builder and become eligible to conduct the annual inspection (with MPC qualification). General maintenance is as Jabba states.

 

An aircraft that is commercially built (or does not comply with the 51% rule) may be eligible for a CofA Experimental, but not Amateur Built. However, the other "classes" such as exhibition, air racing etc. come with potentially very limiting flight restrictions. E(AB) offers the least limitations of the Experimental certificates.

 

The aircraft referred to in the OP appears that it will be eligible for a CofA E(AB) once it is finished, so should experience very few operating limitations once out of its Phase 1 test period.

 

Cheers,

 

Dave