If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
At what point is "builder" status conferred?
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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
At what point is "builder" status conferred?
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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
At what point is "builder" status conferred?
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? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
At what point is "builder" status conferred?
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 .. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
At what point is "builder" status conferred?
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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
At what point is "builder" status conferred?
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. Kinda like a contract killing? If it doesn't get done you can't sue the killer? Lou |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CUBI POINT - "CBUBI POINT.jpg" 90.4 KBytes | [email protected] | Aviation Photos | 7 | April 9th 08 10:11 AM |
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land" | Robert M. Gary | Piloting | 168 | February 5th 08 05:32 PM |
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land" | Robert M. Gary | Instrument Flight Rules | 137 | February 5th 08 05:32 PM |
For Dudley, "Three point reverse roll to knife-edge" what?! | gatt[_2_] | Piloting | 13 | December 13th 07 10:26 PM |
Old polish aircraft TS-8 "Bies" ("Bogy") - for sale | >pk | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | October 16th 06 07:48 AM |