cavelamb himself wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
cavelamb himself wrote:

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:

Stealth Pilot wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:45:08 -0700 (PDT), 150flivver
wrote:

On Jul 10, 7:51 am, Stealth Pilot
wrote:

in the worst case where no one will issue new paperwork the owner
could surrender the registration then assemble a new aircraft from
various parts and ask for it to be registered.
if he can prove 51% then he is the builder for the new registration.

Stealth Pilot


51% has nothing to do with the issuance of a repairman certificate or
determining who is the builder.



I dont believe that that is correct either.
if you fail to establish that you are the builder of 51% of the
aircraft then you wont be eligible for the maint authority.

Stealth Pilot



That is not correct. The 51% rule has nothing to do with who the
builder is. The 51% rule is that 51% of the tasks necessary to
building the aircraft were done by AN amateur builder.

To be THE amateur builder that gets the repairman's certificate you
have to convince the inspector that you did enough of the building
to understand the aircraft well enough to do the annual inspections.

Were this not the case few of the partially completed kits that get
sold
and finished by someone else would ever qualify.


That's the way it is _supposed_ to be.

But these days, little is how it's supposed to be.


Do you have a case where this hasn't been the case?


A little RV-6 factory not far from Zuehl...


I hesitate to name names.

They are still bangin' rivets

.

Well, we weren't really talking about that issue but the days of those
places are numbered. I plan to laugh my ass off when the clients of
those companies start getting refused AW certificates. What I really
look forward to is when the client try to sue the company and find that
they have no standing to do so. Much as if I paid you to burn down my
house and then you didn't do it. I can't then take you to court for
breach of contract.