Can you employ someone to build your kit aircraft. Example VH RV or RAA Zenith

[SSCBD]

For example if you are in Canada they can it seems

 

Unique regulations in Canada allow builders to contract for the professional assembly of kit aircraft; the Zenith CH 650B and STOL CH 750

 

However in Australia can I employ a LAME or similar person for example to build or mostly build an VH Vans RV for example?

 

If not, how would anyone really know?

 

Or how many years am I facing breaking the rules if found out?

 

 

[Geoff_H]

To be in the vh experimental class you must build 50% yourself

 

 

[Yenn]

Do you have to build 50% yourself. Surely if Jo Blow builds 50 or more percent it can still be owned by you, but he is the builder and you cannot get the approval to maintain it.

 

 

[SSCBD]

To be in the vh experimental class you must build 50% yourself

Geoff, How would anyone know or how do they keep track of the build - by surprise inspections?

 

 

[Geoff_H]

It has to be you. The specifications for experimental are for aircraft development or the learning of the builder. In the 70's it was stated that with the rules of the day the Wright brothers would never have been allowed to fly their aircraft. I was building a moulded aircraft some years ago. I advertised for someone to build the moulds. The publisher of the advertisement left a full stop out of the advertisement and it read like I wanted to get someone to build the aircraft for me. CASA called to tell me that it had to be 50% by me. As an aside no one answered the advertisement and I gave up. Maybe you could make a group of people, make the aircraft and do little, but make the paperwork look like you contributed an equal share, might work. But look at the fun that you would be missing out on.

 

 

[Geoff_H]

You should keep a log of your building. You could invent entries, but also expect inspections along the way. Answering intelligent questions to the inspector could be difficult and give you away

 

 

[KRviator]

It does NOT have to be you that built 50%, rather, 51% must have been built for "recreation and education", but you must have built that 51% if you want to be able to sign off on the annual inspection.

 

RAAus, I understand you can pay someone to build it, as there is no MPC requirement. As for how they prove it? Most builders keep a log, either online or using old-school scrapbooks. An example question that would catch you out might be as simple as "Show me your mistakes?". Now, I have several, with a few in the flying aircraft - none that are unsafe, but I can instantly point them out to the AP. That I know where they are, and can explain how I resolved them before pointing to them shows I know a substantial amount about small details of my RV, that a 'buyer' probably wouldn't.

 

 

[SSCBD]

It has to be you. The specifications for experimental are for aircraft development or the learning of the builder. In the 70's it was stated that with the rules of the day the Wright brothers would never have been allowed to fly their aircraft. I was building a moulded aircraft some years ago. I advertised for someone to build the moulds. The publisher of the advertisement left a full stop out of the advertisement and it read like I wanted to get someone to build the aircraft for me. CASA called to tell me that it had to be 50% by me. As an aside no one answered the advertisement and I gave up. Maybe you could make a group of people, make the aircraft and do little, but make the paperwork look like you contributed an equal share, might work. But look at the fun that you would be missing out on.

Its called all work and no play time for the next year or two - I have very little time to actually build an aircraft, example the Vans RV that I like.

How do others sell a kit aircraft they have made, or then have a medical problem have their license suspended as they are just about finished?

 

 

[Geoff_H]

CASA told me it had to be me. They were quite annoyed that I was advertising for someone to do some work.

 

 

[nblight]

so how is this different from buying a used experimental registered aircraft from someone?

 

Basically instead of paying them to build it you agree to buy it when it is completed and tested for a certain price i don't see any issue with this in theory?

 

In practice it would be enormously cheaper and easier to buy one already on the market

 

 

[Geoff_H]

I have no idea how CASA handle the sale of a partially built aircraft, the did have a group monitoring the amateur building, maybe not any more. In the 70's there were a lot a accidents, world wide, from home built that were not registered, that's when they introduced experimental class. Our was a carbon copy of theirs some 20 years later

 

 

[Geoff_H]

When you build an aircraft, even fast build kits, you will put at least 500+ hours into it. At $30/hr that would add $15k, and make something like a onex cost $90k. Might as well buy a factory made craft

 

 

[SSCBD]

Vans for example, don't make a factory built aircraft as I understand it only full kits or quick build kits

 

 

[KRviator]

Its called all work and no play time for the next year or two - I have very little time to actually build an aircraft, example the Vans RV that I like.How do others sell a kit aircraft they have made, or then have a medical problem have their license suspended as they are just about finished?

So long as you can get from the original builder a build log showing they built (or if the kit changed hands several times, for each successive builder) the majority - 51% - of the kit, it will be eligible for an Experimental - Amateur Built CoA. You just can't sign off on the MR is all, so will have to pay a LAME to do it, or if you are keeping it local, you might be able to persuade the original builder who does have the authority to do it for you while you follow through. If you go RAAus, it is a moot point anyway as a L1 (RPC holder) can sign off on it, so long as it is not used for hire/reward.

 

Truth be told, RV's and their ilk are so basic, the LAME costs for the annual would take years to get back in terms of "build it yourself" savings. 1000 hrs build time at $30/hr is not unreasonable, and that is a *lot* of LAME time! Plus, you would get to fly right now, rather than build for several years. And now your $100,000 RV has effectively cost you $130,000 as opposed to buying someone's already-flying RV and having the LAME do the inspections for you.

 

What sort of RV are you considering, anyway?

 

 

[Love to fly]

So long as you can get from the original builder a build log showing they built (or if the kit changed hands several times, for each successive builder) the majority - 51% - of the kit, it will be eligible for an Experimental - Amateur Built CoA. You just can't sign off on the MR is all, so will have to pay a LAME to do it, or if you are keeping it local, you might be able to persuade the original builder who does have the authority to do it for you while you follow through.I

Pretty sure the builder can only sign off on an aircraft he/she owns. Once it's sold the authority (15/16) is no longer valid.

 

 

[KRviator]

Pretty sure the builder can only sign off on an aircraft he/she owns. Once it's sold the authority (15/16) is no longer valid.

It's any aircraft you built more than 51% of, or any aircraft that is essentially similar that you own. Exemption is here

 

This instrument applies to each of the following:

3(a) a person who has fabricated and assembled more than half of an aircraft mentioned in the definition of aircraft;

 

<<SNIP>>

 

Section 4

 

For paragraph 42ZC (4) (e) of CAR 1988, I authorise a person mentioned in:

 

(a) paragraph 3 (a) to carry out maintenance on:

 

(i) the aircraft that the person fabricated and assembled; and

 

(ii) any aircraft of which the person is the sole owner and that is essentially similar to the aircraft that the person fabricated and assembled;

 

5 Appointment of authorised persons to issue maintenance releases

 

(1) Subject to subsection (2):

 

(a) for regulation 43 of CAR 1988, I appoint a person authorised under section 4 to be an authorised person to issue a maintenance release for an aircraft on which he or she had carried out maintenance; and

 

(b) for regulation 47 of CAR 1988, I appoint a person authorised under section 4 to be an authorised person to enter an endorsement on a maintenance release mentioned in paragraph (a); and

 

© for regulation 48 of CAR 1988, I appoint a person authorised under section 4 to be an authorised person to cancel an endorsement entered on a maintenance release mentioned in paragraph (b).

[SSCBD]

So long as you can get from the original builder a build log showing they built (or if the kit changed hands several times, for each successive builder) the majority - 51% - of the kit, it will be eligible for an Experimental - Amateur Built CoA. You just can't sign off on the MR is all, so will have to pay a LAME to do it, or if you are keeping it local, you might be able to persuade the original builder who does have the authority to do it for you while you follow through.If you go RAAus, it is a moot point anyway as a L1 (RPC holder) can sign off on it, so long as it is not used for hire/reward.

 

Truth be told, RV's and their ilk are so basic, the LAME costs for the annual wo. uld take years to get back in terms of "build it yourself" savings. 1000 hrs build time at $30/hr is not unreasonable, and that is a *lot* of LAME time! Plus, you would get to fly right now, rather than build for several years. And now your $100,000 RV has effectively cost you $130,000 as opposed to buying someone's already-flying RV and having the LAME do the inspections for you.

 

What sort of RV are you considering, anyway?

I am looking at the RV14. Ticks all the boxes so far for me in north QLD - also looking at the ICP 4 seat Ventura but will need more information on it as little available as it is new. However the RV 14 has a nice high cruise speed - good weight limit for stuff in the back - and reasonable landing distance /speed and takeoff for remote strips.

 

 

[rgmwa]

Vans for example, don't make a factory built aircraft as I understand it only full kits or quick build kits

Vans sell the RV-12 as a factory-built aircraft with either a 912 ULS or iS engine, but if you want an RV-14 then it will come in crates only.

 

rgmwa

 

 

[SSCBD]

Vans sell the RV-12 as a factory-built aircraft with either a 912 ULS or iS engine, but if you want an RV-14 then it will come in crates only.rgmwa

hI RGMWA I not looking at the RV12 as RAA and screaming rpm rotax engine IS LIMITED - however the RV 14 with VH rego and low revving GA engine with real weight carrying ability and great cruise speed - I know is in kit form - hence the reason for the post question.

I am not picking on RAA aircraft as I fly many of them and are fun but limited, however I will grow old and die if I have to wait for RAA to increase these weight limits that have been spoken about for years with no light at the end in the tunnel.

 

 

[Downunder]

There are plenty of people who build kits (or do a percentage of the work) for other people.

 

Some do this virtually full time.

 

The legalities are what they are.....

 

My take. Your safety is up to you. 100%.

 

If I lacked skills in a certain area and there was a person very skilled and competent in that area, why would I not ask them for assistance. Naturally, they should be compensated in some way.

 

The end result, a safer aircraft built.

 

The casa hobo writing regulations because that is what his job is, is not the one flying or operating YOUR aircraft.

 

Words on a piece of paper do not make aircraft safe. YOU make your aicraft safe.

 

 

[KRviator]

You can get RV's in RAAus, my RV-9 is RAAus (one of two, I believe) and gives a me+full tanks payload. Doesn't help if you want another adult + full tanks + baggage though...IIRC, the other has a smaller IO-233 (vs my O-340) that does give a bit more payload.

 

 

[SSCBD]

You can get RV's in RAAus, my RV-9 is RAAus (one of two, I believe) and gives a me+full tanks payload. Doesn't help if you want another adult + full tanks + baggage though...IIRC, the other has a smaller IO-233 (vs my O-340) that does give a bit more payload.

Hence my comment of being weight limited in RAA.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Confusion reigns over the "51%" figure, it was sorted some years back in America due to the prominence of "2 week factory assist" builds where clearly a lot of the factory staff were building the plane alongside you.

 

The argument was given, and accepted, that to get your Repairman's Ticket for your plane that you had to be competent and knowledgeable in the building of 51% of the craft's modules/systems.

 

Take riveting for example, lets say there's 10,000 rivets, it's silly that you have to rivet 5100 rivets yourself when after 100 rivets you are competent. You can prove marking, center-punching, drilling, de-burring, rivet selection and tool use in just that amount so you have passed that module. Other workers doing the other 9900 rivets has no bearing on your learnt abilities and capabilities to future repairs involving rivets.

 

Etc, until you demonstrate the ability to repair and maintain more than 51% of the modules/systems of your own built aircraft.

 

In those "2 week" builds, they show videos and pictures of the owner doing the 100 (whatever) rivets, along with the other modules. They don't pretend or try to hide the workers helping away, in fact they use it to advantage as those experienced workers are also offering proper side by side training on the go.

 

No different to doing an Apprenticeship.

 

 

[rgmwa]

hI RGMWA I not looking at the RV12 as RAA and screaming rpm rotax engine IS LIMITED - however the RV 14 with VH rego and low revving GA engine with real weight carrying ability and great cruise speed - I know is in kit form - hence the reason for the post question.I am not picking on RAA aircraft as I fly many of them and are fun but limited, however I will grow old and die if I have to wait for RAA to increase these weight limits that have been spoken about for years with no light at the end in the tunnel.

I wasn't trying to talk you into an RV-12, just saying that Vans do make a factory-built aircraft (mine is VH by the way). I agree that for what you have in mind, the RV-14 would be a better fit. Not cheap, but then you get what you pay for.

 

rgmwa

 

 

[Geoff_H]

Yes KRviator it is 51%. I had better pay attention to the details. Some one may have built only 50% and had their aircraft rejected. Personally if one doesn't do as much as possible they would probably be better buying a built aircraft.