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

[SSCBD]

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

No problem rgmwa - As said I love flying RAA and still do, - however GA RV 14 gives me more for what in an aircraft - as in range with speed and weight that I have been waiting for from RAA. However nothing seems to happen on this front and cant even get a ballpark time frame from our leaders in RAA. I also could use my night rating with the RV14 which is a big no - no with RAA.

 

 

[Geoff_H]

As an aside the advertisement that I placed for making moulds should have read "person needed to make aircraft moulds. At your place" and so on. Advertiser printed "person needed to make aircraft. Moulds at your place" and so on. What a difference a full stop placement meant. No wonder CASA called and threatened.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I thought you could pay for "instruction" ie someone show me how to make molds

 

 

[Jaba-who]

With regard Experimental class ( VH registered) I have no idea about the RAAus situation.

 

ANY aircraft made by ANYONE -paid or not, home or factory built, made from anything no matter what percentage is home made/built to can be registered as an VH experimental aircraft.

 

You can sub-contract out significant parts such as dash, avionics installations or electronics to professionals.

 

You can pay anybody any amount to make any percentage you like.

 

There is at least one Cessna 172 on the register ( with a deisel engine).

 

The problem is that once it's on the Experimental register it's stuck there and can't be used for any hire or reward, commercial work etc. so a factory built would become severely limited in its value so unless you were doing something really weird with it it would not be worth it.

 

What changes is the authority to do any of the ongoing maintenance. If you can satisfy the AP that you did the work the AP can give you authority ( supported by the CASA instrument of Authority) to do maintenance.

 

If you can't satisfy this rule then you will be limited to CASA Schedule 8 pilot maintenance only. Any maintenance then has to be done by a LAME.

 

If you sell the aircraft then the new owner cannot do maintenance on the aircraft except in one circumstance ( unless they have already built a previous aircraft which is substantially the same and for which they were given authority under that same instrument).

 

There are heaps of Experimental Aircraft that belong to second or subsequent owners and plenty that were commenced as kits etc and sold on to subsequent builders before completion. It makes for complexity in records but is entirely possible for the subsequent owner to be granted authority and for it to be registered under the Experimental category.

 

 

[Geoff_H]

I must admit my clash with CASA was around 2000, many things may have changed since then.

 

 

[Yenn]

Would the concensus here be that you can get your plane built by someone else and register it in your name, but you would not be able to do more than normal pilot allowed maintenance?

 

 

[Geoff_H]

Maybe you should see a certified, the one that you would use maybe. Ask him/her then make your decision. I just think that if the experience for you is not the building, then don't.

 

 

[SSCBD]

Would the concensus here be that you can get your plane built by someone else and register it in your name, but you would not be able to do more than normal pilot allowed maintenance?

Well I think, after this thread, hypothetically speaking, that if I had a friend who was a retired LAME who HELPED me build the aircraft and we took pictures along the way, as I don't know a left handed screw driver from a right handed one, and stops me from making critical mistakes for safety reasons, and my LAME friend whom I would pay with a coffee of two, I think that covers the INTENT of the rules - would it not! Your Honor.

Also - The rules also state that if you have built before you can also use that as a type of credit, for example as in above posts if you buy a used homebuilt built by another person you should be allowed and approved to do your own maintenance if you have built a kit plane before.

 

Any arguments ????

 

 

[rgmwa]

Any arguments ????

I'll just run it past CASA and let you know.

 

 

[SSCBD]

I'll just run it past CASA and let you know.

Thanks, rgmwa, know any good aviation lawyers!!!

 

 

[planesmaker]

Only if you have built one substantially similar, I would take that to mean type of construction ie composite, tube and fabric, timber, or aluminium. Also I assume would apply to similar engine type. But who knows what that really means? I suppose it depends who you ask on the day!

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Would the concensus here be that you can get your plane built by someone else and register it in your name, but you would not be able to do more than normal pilot allowed maintenance?

Yep.

But now a word of warning.

 

I was just speaking to our chapter AP about another matter and its worth throwing this new thing in the mix.

 

If you are thinking of registering it in the GA experimental class AND you want to fly it into controlled airspace, over populous areas or IFR then DON'T buy an engine or a prop that is not type certificated.

 

Late last year CASA removed all authority for APs to give approval for aircraft with non-certified engines to do any of the above mentioned things.

 

The AP has no say in it, they no longer are able.

 

There has been a bit of very quiet happenings on this. I first heard about 3 months ago when one of our chapter members finally completed his RV14 and has one of those modified Lycoming or Continental knock offs (can't recall which) which are really popular in the USA. But not Type certifcated/approved.

 

He now has a GA registered "as good as-RAAus" aircraft. No CTA, no IFR, no over populous areas.

 

Apparently there has been quite a bit of confusion and even the APs don't know what they can and can't approve. The actual legislation is in the hands of CASA lawyers at present but it all sounds very bad for anyone with a non certificated engine. Potentially even if you have one from previous with an approval - it may be stripped from you in the next few weeks.

 

 

[SSCBD]

Thanks guys - just shows you how the rules can be got around if pushed, and I am sure they already have been. I understand that many kit builders have done great jobs and good on you - and that really in my opinion, Casa is not flexible enough to having a paid licensed LAME help the kit builder if he can afford it, and if the builder wants the security of it done right and not stuffing up and then covering up a mistake. In my opinion even if a builder wanted or need to gain professional help its seems he breaks the 51% rule If 49% is supplied as a quick build.

 

I am sure many builders have had friends that are existing builders help them substantially so really what's the difference .

 

To be clear in the original post I did mean, pay a retired LAME to assemble the plane but would of course put in x amount of hours per week with him as well but not full time with him - for example not being able to devote more than say 10 hours week say, due business work and required travel etc.

 

Someone has to work to pay for CASA's budget and lets not forget RAA's fees as well.

 

Yep.But now a word of warning.

 

I was just speaking to our chapter AP about another matter and its worth throwing this new thing in the mix.

 

If you are thinking of registering it in the GA experimental class AND you want to fly it into controlled airspace, over populous areas or IFR then DON'T buy an engine or a prop that is not type certificated.

 

Late last year CASA removed all authority for APs to give approval for aircraft with non-certified engines to do any of the above mentioned things.

 

The AP has no say in it, they no longer are able.

 

There has been a bit of very quiet happenings on this. I first heard about 3 months ago when one of our chapter members finally completed his RV14 and has one of those modified Lycoming or Continental knock offs (can't recall which) which are really popular in the USA. But not Type certifcated/approved.

 

He now has a GA registered "as good as-RAAus" aircraft. No CTA, no IFR, no over populous areas.

 

Apparently there has been quite a bit of confusion and even the APs don't know what they can and can't approve. The actual legislation is in the hands of CASA lawyers at present but it all sounds very bad for anyone with a non certificated engine. Potentially even if you have one from previous with an approval - it may be stripped from you in the next few weeks.

Well that will stop all RAA 95.55 and other raa aircraft from any controlled airspace approvals or endorsements etc. Even I would assume those operating now.

 

 

[planesmaker]

That will affect RAAus as far as their cta push goes then. Typical of CASA requiring something with no facts in regard to safety. A type certificated engine is no guarantee it won't fail.

 

 

[SSCBD]

Same as holding a CASA medical wont stop a heart attack in flight.

 

 

[kasper]

I thought you could pay for "instruction" ie someone show me how to make molds

Nope. You need to make the major portion.

If you designed an airframe and had plugs/moulds made if it and then took it from there making parts and assembling the airframe then you're going to be building the major portion.

 

You can pay for parts of the aircraft to be manufactured - I'd not even think about any forming of steel landing leg machining, bending or tempering and for VH reg I'm pretty sure casa will require welding and tempering be by a cert welder ... and I'm sure RAAus tech would also love to say you must as well ... but that's not the law.

 

Fact is documenting what you did (or other amateurs for recreation if it's been partly built before you got it) and having that available supports a claim of being eligible for reg

 

 

[scsirob]

So, just out of curiosity.. What happens when two guys build an experimental kit together? They can't both be doing 51% of the work.

 

 

[kasper]

So, just out of curiosity.. What happens when two guys build an experimental kit together? They can't both be doing 51% of the work.

It's got nothing to do with individuals if it's 19 reg - it's the aircraft that has to comprise the major portion for effective amateur build. 10 reg is a bit different but so few even look at 10 these days it's just easier to say it's the aircraft that has to meet the major portion requirement not the builder individually. So perfectly ok to have a small group build an aircraft. Or if you're a masochist a large group with really good recording of who did what to put in a single build log.

 

 

[rgmwa]

If you are thinking of registering it in the GA experimental class AND you want to fly it into controlled airspace, over populous areas or IFR then DON'T buy an engine or a prop that is not type certificated. Late last year CASA removed all authority for APs to give approval for aircraft with non-certified engines to do any of the above mentioned things.

That's going to be interesting. For example Lycoming makes both Certified engines and Non-Certified Experimental engines. Is CASA really going to say that a new Lycoming can't be flown over populous areas? Are they going to check the paperwork of every RV, Lancair or other type of Lycoming powered experimental aircraft that flies into a Class D airport? What happens to such aircraft that are already based at a Class D field? Do they all get kicked out now?

 

rgmwa

 

 

[storchy neil]

1. a team off 9 individual persons helped build a flysynthesis wallaby at temora as a demerstation
    
    
   

 

 

Started build Friday by Sunday it was to the taxi stage neil

 

 

[Bluboyz]

WRT to Jaba-who's, post #37, 'But now a word of warning'

 

If this clandestine action of CASA's has verity as alluded then the potential implications of these impositions, particularly if retrospective in application, will far surpass that of flight operation limitations for many experimental homebuilt aircraft, their owners, and any experimental builders generally..

 

Concur wrt: certified engines and CASA medicals etc, in life there are no guarantees..

 

Has there been any communication from: SAAA, RAA &/or AOPA wrt this rescindment?

 

 

[440032]

No, because it didn't happen.

 

 

[ruffasguts]

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?

Read AC 21.4. It tells all

 

 

[Jaba-who]

No, because it didn't happen.

Not sure how to interpret this and to what you are referring.

 

However, assuming you are stating it in response to my post I can only say I wish it were true ( that it didn't happen)

 

But given this came to my notice as president of an SAAA chapter when a builder in my chapter after years of building an aircraft which he planned to fly into controlled airspace and over populous areas was refused that permission. So it not only has happened I have found evidence to support it having happened.

 

After doing some searching on CASAs website I found a minimal reference to this and then I discussed it with the AP who was the one who issued the C of A and he confirmed that CASA has removed from all APs giving approval to fly amateur build aircraft over populous areas, into CTA and IFR until some as yet unnamed date when CASA will have come up with an actual set of rules. It is apparently with the CASA lawyers at the moment and it is possible there will be a published set of rulers in a few weeks.

 

The AP said that APs were given an unpublished set of rules to follow until the final rulings were made. But that there was much confusion in this rules and as to whom it applied ( which sort of engines or props. He interprets that it is only non certificated engines and props and does not apply to actual airframes. But some of his AP colleagues interpret that airframes also are affected. The problem is typical of CASA rulings where they make rules without consultation and only after they make rulings do the confusions and ambiguities of their rules become apparent.

 

Below is the only references I could find on the CASA website but as usual what they have done is outlawed something and then wait for the flak and see if it has created enough noise to warrant actually doing anything about. So far it hasn't, it seems.

 

The cut and paste below is from the casa website and has the similar information in two different places ( both copied here) It outlines projects casa is/has done and states the project is closed. It states the authority for APs to authorise these activities has been removed. It says a future circular will be published when the new rules are finalised. However there appears to be no further publications following on from this. The stated AC.21 xxx is not findable with multiple searches using different techniques so one has to assume that it has not yet been finalised nor published. This accords with the APs advice to me that it is with the lawyers.

 

Project MS 11/18 - Review of Advisory Circulars & Development of CAAP relating to limited category and experimental aircraft

 

Flight over built up areas

 

CAR 262AP and CAO 95.55 state that amateur built experimental aircraft must not fly over built up areas unless authorised by CASA or a CAR 262AP(5) authorised person to do so.

 

There currently is not a published set of CASA requirements, procedures and limitations for approval of amateur built experimental aircraft for flight over built up areas and due to concerns about the unstructured manner in which some of these approvals have been granted in the past, CASA has decided to withdraw the delegated powers from appointed persons.

 

2. Flight over built up areas

 

The second project objective is to introduce a set of parameters and procedures for the assessment of applications by operators of amateur built experimental aircraft for approval under CAR 262 AP(5) to fly over built up areas. It is proposed to achieve this by publishing a new advisory circular, AC21.xx - AMATEUR BUILT EXPERIMENTAL AND CERTAIN ULTRA LIGHT AIRCRAFT- FLIGHTS OVER BUILT UP AREAS.

 

The procedures are intended to thoroughly address CASA concerns by specifying in detail, the assessment criteria to be applied to the type of aircraft, engine, PSRU (where applicable) and propeller. A standardised set of eligibility parameters and assessment criteria and procedures will address CASA concerns about the currently unstructured and in some cases arbitrary granting of CAR 262 AP (5) approvals.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

so is this going to be extended to affect warbirds/military trainers? Don't most of them have non type certified engines and propellers