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

[M61A1]

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.

The whole idea is that it's not "factory built", One or more people can build 51% or more, as long as the factory did 49% or less.

 

 

[440032]

Velly interesting Jaba-who.... thank you.

 

I am heavily involved in the procedures manuals and paperwork for a bunch of APs, including independent commercial fellas, everything they use comes via me. I was with a bunch of them at CASA in Brisbane in April, none of this was mentioned, and not a single AP that I support has contacted or alerted me, nor has CASA. I'm Norm, I've been doing this stuff and more for SAAA and others since 2004 and I'm awaiting my own AP ticket. One AP I just checked with has 100% not received any such directives on the topic. It's the first I've heard of it, and that is why I am rather skeptical, to say the least. Still, I might do a little PI work...................

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Velly interesting Jaba-who.... thank you.I am heavily involved in the procedures manuals and paperwork for a bunch of APs, including independent commercial fellas, everything they use comes via me. I was with a bunch of them at CASA in Brisbane in April, none of this was mentioned, and not a single AP that I support has contacted or alerted me, nor has CASA. I'm Norm, I've been doing this stuff and more for SAAA and others since 2004 and I'm awaiting my own AP ticket. One AP I just checked with has 100% not received any such directives on the topic. It's the first I've heard of it, and that is why I am rather skeptical, to say the least. Still, I might do a little PI work...................

ive sent you pm

[Love to fly]

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

The project quoted is at Project MS 11/18 - Review of Advisory Circulars & Development of CAAP relating to limited category and experimental aircraft | Civil Aviation Safety Authority and closed 15th January 2013 ..... Look forward to hearing whether there is any substance to this.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

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

Who knows?

They didn't include it in the project summary but that's not to say they haven't done so since or aren't planning on adding them in.

 

CASA have kept the whole thing very quiet and the only reason it was even an issue for us is that one of the members of my SAAA chapter got snared by it. When only a trickle of people are caught by it at a time there's very little noise and it flies under the radar.

 

I suspect that's what CASA wants until the lawyers are finished and the final rule will come out with a bang but by then they will say it's too late, the rule is made!

 

 

[Jaba-who]

The whole idea is that it's not "factory built", One or more people can build 51% or more, as long as the factory did 49% or less.

Yep. The is no requirement that an individual alone has done the work just that the majority is done by the builders.

Where two or a small number of people do the work both can be given approval to do maintenance and to sign maintenance releases.

 

Where a group of people or a class at a school or college or similar collective does the work, one person can be allocated as the responsible person and that person then can sign releases, log books etc.

 

 

[scsirob]

The whole idea is that it's not "factory built", One or more people can build 51% or more, as long as the factory did 49% or less.

Well, that makes sense, but how then can CASA prevent someone from having a plug/mould built by another company if that's not the factory?

The factory built 49%, "others" built the remaining 51%. Is there anything dictating that none of the "others" can be a commercial entity? If someone buys an instrument or an autopilot, a commercial entity built the instrument. Does that go into the 49% or the 51% bucket?

 

I'm asking because I think it is a non-sensical rule. As long as the factory themselves isn't involved in the 51%, it should fit the 51% rule. But that's just my logic.

 

 

[M61A1]

Well, that makes sense, but how then can CASA prevent someone from having a plug/mould built by another company if that's not the factory?The factory built 49%, "others" built the remaining 51%. Is there anything dictating that none of the "others" can be a commercial entity? If someone buys an instrument or an autopilot, a commercial entity built the instrument. Does that go into the 49% or the 51% bucket?

I'm asking because I think it is a non-sensical rule. As long as the factory themselves isn't involved in the 51%, it should fit the 51% rule. But that's just my logic.

That would be the sensible way to look at it...No one builds their own instruments, just as no one makes their own rivets, bolts, sheet metal or fibreglass cloth , but you construct the aircraft that is made from these things.

As far as I'm aware, the rule is designed to reduce lawsuits, you built it, you are responsible for it, no suing someone else because it broke.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

That would be the sensible way to look at it...No one builds their own instruments, just as no one makes their own rivets, bolts, sheet metal or fibreglass cloth , but you construct the aircraft that is made from these things.As far as I'm aware, the rule is designed to reduce lawsuits, you built it, you are responsible for it, no suing someone else because it broke.

This has been discussed on this forum before somewhere but I am too lazy to search for it :yikes:but the previous thread someone found the Rules pertaining to it and it is outlined that the professional factory made contents of the kit, the factory made avionics etc don't come into the 51%.

 

The rules as I recall them were fairly sensible ( unbelievably) and made the concerns we all had redundant.

 

 

[440032]

Check PMs Jaba-Who.

 

Love-to-fly - stand by for the answer (which is 'no').

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Well - after throwing the cat amongst the pigeons ( and with the immense help of 44032 ) my concerns have been laid to rest.

 

The above mentioned problem of amateur built aircraft and controlled airspace, populous areas and my mates A of C which did not allow these, has turned out to be a complex mix of unrelated things which mimicked the CASA website stuff.

 

Basically what I mean is that proposal from CASA was quietly cancelled ( in part by pressure from SAAA) and did not become law. There is no mention of it having done so on CASA website - but I suppose I can understand why they just let it go and don't want to publicise how they had to back down on something.

 

My mates C of A turns out to be related to some specific events and people involved ( unrelated to the above) and I understand he is working around these issues.

 

 

[440032]

CASA Project MS 11/18 opened in 2011, closed in 2013, result: not much, other than identifying a need for some guidance material. The mention within it of removing various permissions from various APs did not eventuate, thankfully. We play in a different sandpit here with our regulations. After watching (on youtube) countless experimental aircraft fly half a mile apart on the Fisk VFR approach to runway 27, right over every piece of built-up area possible at Oskosh, with not even a blink of an eye from FAA, year after year after year, makes you wonder about such things don't it. But on the flip side, sure, none of us want to end up as the headline on the six o'çlock news "Home made plane crashes into houses". Self preservation works better than any regulation ever will.

 

 

[Love to fly]

ove-to-fly - stand by for the answer (which is 'no').

and my next question is .. is the following correct?

 

Where two or a small number of people do the work both can be given approval to do maintenance and to sign maintenance releases.

[rgmwa]

I always thought it was only one person from a team, but then I've been wrong before (apparently).

 

rgmwa

 

 

[kasper]

and my next question is .. is the following correct?

This is one of the very few areas where RAAus reg and VH reg differ significantly - you build the RAAus reg 19 airframe and you can do any/all maintenance on it for ever more and a day - and so long as ALL members of the build group are the owners of first reg thats ALL of them able to any/all maint for ever more and a day and NO requirement for anything additional beyond the RAAus L1 rating.

The RAAus current tech manual and tech team are moving (racing?) towards GA at a great pace so the above is correct as of 31/8/17 but the next tech manual removal of freedoms must surely be due any day now ... after all it is more than 12 months since the last update introduced the differentiation between first build and subsequent owners of 19 reg and the still to be clarified how the hell the inspector is not responsible for design on 10 when they now need to inspect something that is experimental.

 

 

[440032]

Regarding how many and how can do maintenance and issue a maint release:

 

Authorised persons do not have any power themselves to grant anyone any maintenance privileges for any VH experimental aircraft, it's just not on their CASA ticket. That's all taken care of by CASA Instrument 15/16. But an AP can prevent it happening by way of a "LAME only" clause, if required (rarely).

 

I'll be back later with an unscramble of 15/16. The trick to unscrambling this stuff is to first weed out of the picture everything which clearly doesn't apply to what we are looking at. I thought regulation was supposed to be be clear and concise.......

 

 

[Jaba-who]

I always thought it was only one person from a team, but then I've been wrong before (apparently).rgmwa

and my next question is .. is the following correct?

Mmm I have to suggest I may be wrong on this. I can't find reference to to it. I can find reference to one person being nominated.

 

But the reason I was sure about it enough to post it was because I was advised and as best I recall it was an by an AP this was the case for the following reasons.

 

Scenario:

 

Two people build the aircraft and both do significant parts of the build and are qualified under CASA IA 15/16 to do maintenance work on the parts they built and by virtue of ie having done a maintenance procedures course both "could" be authorised to sign the maintenance release.

 

If only one is able to sign the Maintenance release then it requires that person to be present to sign even though the work is done by someone else.

 

It then follows that if that person is not present ( many scenarios where this could occur) and some work is done by the second person then the aircraft is " unairworthy" for lack of a signature despite the aircraft actually being airworthy and maintained by the person who is qualified to maintain it. Multiple scenarios could be envisaged where that person authorised is not available for long periods of time and the aircraft is grounded despite no practical reason being so grounded.

 

The second scenario is that the person with the authority to sign may have no legal capacity to actually do the specific maintenance, inspect, have any knowledge about or approve its adequacy if he/she did not do the initial build on that part of the aircraft. The person who did build it has that authority under CASA IA 15/16 to do the maintenance but is unable to sign the release regarding it.

 

While the same could be said for a group it makes no sense that in a group of two only one could sign.

 

But as I said I can't find any reference at present. I'll have a bit more if a look around.

 

 

[440032]

Yes, it's a dog's breakfast alright. I'll also throw 2c worth in later. I think I spotted something interesting in it this morning.

 

 

[440032]

Jaba-whoooooooooooo is right on the money there.

 

Okay, so we're only talking VH experimental aircraft, not RAAus.

 

Instrument number CASA 15/16: Authorisation of persons to carry out maintenance and issue maint release

 

Para 2 definitions:

 

Primary builder (a) is referring to one member of a group (of 2 or more) who has done more than half the aircraft themself.

 

eg 1. Person 1 has done 60%. Person 2 has done 40%

 

eg 2. Person 1 has done 51%, person 2 has done 10%, person 3 has done 10%.

 

Percentages are all subjective. Keep it simple. In the group, who, if anyone, did at least 51%? That is the primary builder. If nobody did (individually) at least 51%, move to the next clause (b).

 

Primary builder (b) is referring to one member of a group (of 2 or more) who has been nominated as the leader, in effect, because no one person within the group fitted into the previous clause by doing at least 51%, alone.

 

eg 1. Person 1 and Person 2 do equal amounts, they always work together. Neither has done more than 51% individually. So one person must be nominated as the leader, to issue the maintenance release.

 

Para 3 describes who 15-16 applies to,

 

(a) a person (solo, or in a group) who has done more than 51% of the project, or

 

(b) a person (generally, in a group) who contributed to the project.

 

Para 4 describes who is authorised to carry out maintenance:

 

(a) the person in 3(a) - a person who has done more than 51% of the project, and

 

(b) a person in 3(b) - a person who contributed to the project (ie – the group situations).

 

Schedule 1 condition 7 describes that a person in 3(b) – the group member(s) may only maintain those parts they built.

 

Example 1 – Fred solely built the tailplane and elevators, fin and rudder. Barney did everything else. Fred can only maintain those parts he built. Can Barney maintain Fred’s work? No, he’s in the same boat. Fred though, has been nominated as the primary builder to issue the M/R. Could equally have been Barney. % plays no part.

 

Example 2 – Fred and Barney built everything, together. Both Fred and Barney can maintain everything. But only one of them – the nominated primary builder - gets to issue the maintenance release! This time, Barney has been nominated as the primary builder, to issue the M/R. Could equally have been Fred.

 

Best solution: Each group member contributes to each part of the project for maintenance purposes (but still only one is nominated to issue the M/R). What if the M/R person leaves the group? Can a new nomination be done before they leave? Don’t see why not, the reg doesn’t say when the nomination must occur. Maintenance may become a problem if one person leaves. Gee it gets complicated doesn't it?

 

Well that's one topic well and truly hijacked from the starting topic, can you employ someone to build your JetBlaster 5000?

 

Does it happen? Yes. Does CASA know it happens? Yes. Should it happen? No.

 

Builders must always be able to provide proof (builders log, in-action photos, inspection visits) to their AP that they themselves built the aircraft. The AP can ask for a stat dec if still not satisfied, and BSing on one of those is serious business. And if still not satisfied, the AP can write it up as "LAME ONLY" maintenance (to protect third parties on the ground who are not involved). If it gets to that stage, you already know you are trying to cheat the system. If you are not trying to cheat the system, you can easily gather the proof of build as you go. It's not rocket surgery.

 

I hope that this is of some use to folks. I also hope it's accurate! Should be, I been doing this quite a while.

 

There are always unanswered questions remaining, and some of them are also unanswerable (other than "NFI") There are too many "what ifs" that will fit in one box.

 

 

[facthunter]

It could easily be you could contract out some of the build and still reach the 51% with some planes. It's clear what the purpose of that rule was, but subsequent owners have a difficulty same is you would (presumably) to be consistent upon sale of the plane. This is a bit of a dog's breakfast we have ended up with. Part of the topsy turvy evolution of the sport in this country. ( The ghosts of the past still haunt us). Hopefully pragmatism and common sense will allow a sensible result. LSA's are in a silly situation also if the maker(s) go out of business. GA aircraft essentially cannot be modified. (You CAN but it's complex and time consuming). I believe the show MUST go on and paperwork not pose an unsurmountable obstacle to changing circumstances catching people out. Nev

 

 

[altrav]

Many years ago I had an ultra light built by a LAME. My reasoning was that even though I had the technical knowledge and the physical ability to build it: I just did not feel like it. The net result of that decision was all good. It was built professionally and I felt very secure at the thought of flying it. Now turning my attention to then DCA, I make no secret of the fact that they had proven to be un-acceptable. Their decision making was at best conservative. They were not to be trusted as they lacked the knowledge and confidence of someone in the position they were in. It was far easier to reject something than to put themselves at risk of litigation. I doubt it is any different today. Some years later I went to the USA and purchased a Scorpion 133 Helicopter. I knew I could not import it as a flying machine so I had it look like it was in major pieces. When it arrived the idiot from DCA suggested that it could be made to fly again and therefore denied it entry. Now if you really want to know what a backward, backwater this 'lucky country' is, I was given the opportunity to re-ship it or have it confiscated. Being a little smarter than the average DCA lemon I had already prepared an escape route. Now this is where it got interesting. New Zealand actually had a Rotorway agent that I had arranged to send it to before it left the US. So it just cost me a short shipping fee to NZ and that's where it sat for the next year or so. Some time later there was a govt change and labor got in. I immediately made an appointment to see the Minister for Aviation to explain the sheer stupidity of the situation, (especially as NZ actually had an agent and they were already flying there) Soon after we met again with the news to go ahead and bring her home. He even gave me a 'special' number to call if I had any trouble. I did actually so I pulled out the number and told the idiot from DCA to call it. A couple of yes sir, but, yes, I understand and very well sir, and she was home at last. It now resides at the Bullcreek air museum in WA. I was born here and fortunately I have traveled the World and seen more than most and I can attest to the fact that we are the least progressive and the worst for all the wrong reasons. I am an industrial designer in the automotive industry and I am comprehensively disgusted with this country and it's chicken livered approach to anything that smacks of progress. We are in fact the most regressive first world country on the Planet. So the answer to getting someone to build your aircraft, go right ahead, keep books blah, blah, blah and so on. Do whatever you want to achieve YOUR goal and not what some conservative gutless govt stooge says.

 

 

[altrav]

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 aircraft safe.

Good to hear some sensible comments and not politically correct crap. I did exactly that and happy knowing that a 'pro' had built my plane. How dare some feather brain airhead tell me he's going to do me a favour by letting me build the thing. I hope everyone else can see the sheer lunacy in that statement. I would like to see the stats on homebuilt crashes. Might be interesting. CASA would rather stop the average guy building at all than to change the rules to allow the pro's to do it. Win, win, we get a better, safer product and they get more work. It makes sense, and that's why CASA won't adopt it.

 

 

[Yenn]

The stats on homebuilt flying do not reflect favourably on homebuilts. Not because of the poor quality of build, but more due to the lack of currency of the test pilots.. There was at least one recent homebuilt crash that was attributable to poor build or poor design, but it was in the minority.

 

It is easy to see why we have the problem. The builder spends a lot of money and time on the build and just does not fly enough.

 

The answer to the original question remains that you can pay someone to build for you but you will not be able to do the maintanance or sign of on maintenance. In other words you are going to have to pay a LAME.

 

 

[kasper]

Putting aside any question of competence increasing with paying a knowledgable person how have people with RAAus 19 reg complied with 95.55 1.2 (e)

 

"an aeroplane, 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"

 

Now solely is fairly strict and if they are taking $ to do it then it is hard to see that ANY work they do can ever count towards the major portion requirements ... so I'd be very cautious here as you might end up with a plane that cannot be registered by RAAus. Ever.

 

Very different for 10 reg where you can pay anyone to design build etc for you so long as they do no more than 1 airframe in this category in any year. Eligible private builder status does not require the same solely requirements.

 

Can't be bothered citing the ppc and ws homebuilt / kit read because nearly all people are looking at 95.55 and 19 reg ... and you should be bloody careful here on paying someone to do it.

 

 

[facthunter]

I respectfully think you have applied "solely" inappropriately. Solely for education /recreation is the clue. Major portion covers the actual construction which is anything above half as it applies. If someone helps you with say the fabric, you would be educated by that process if you were advised and participated in it. IF you just did it by yourself you might not learn much except that you don't know how to cover a plane. Nev