Well, as someone else pointed out, at least in America, you might have
trouble
with this approach - because you didn't MAKE those parts. They were made
by
a manufacturer who was not making KIT parts, but certified aircraft.


***I can't see where the trouble would be regarding the "- because you
didn't MAKE those parts"
as if you would tear down the entire aircraft and just have a pile of
pre-punched sheets of aluminium, is the same a a kit supplied by a kit
manufacturer. It is identical. In the kit or quickbuild -I didn't make
those parts either.
Rob.







"cavelamb" wrote in message
m...
Fonz wrote:
I find that amazing.
If you totally disassembled the aircraft, cleaned all parts/fittings etc
back to bare aluminium, recoated with zinc-chromate or whatever,
photographed it as evidence, it is basically a kit. It wouldn't even be
a quickbuild, and would come in at over 75% or higher. I can't see how
anyone could challenge it, as the aircraft is constructed by the builder
from parts, for his own education or enjoyment, to a proven design.
Even in Australia, CASA seem to have a mind of their own, making their
own rules, and not being challenged. I believe things are generally OK
so far as the SAAA basically monitor everything. As part of my previous
occupation I was involved in the legal system (I'm not a defence lawyer
by the way, but rather the other side of the fence), and I believe it
would be a very short hearing in the lower court, but winning that battle
doesn't mean you'll win the war. I think I'm starting to answer my own
original question here.
Is there anyone from the SAAA technical side of the fence that would like
to share an opinion? Any annon reply would also be taken in good faith.
Thanks in advance,
Rob.
Melbourne Australia.


Well, as someone else pointed out, at least in America, you might have
trouble
with this approach - because you didn't MAKE those parts. They were made
by
a manufacturer who was not making KIT parts, but certified aircraft.

YMMV in other countries?