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.
----------------------
"Stuart Fields" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Jan 23, 10:40 am, wrote:

With that much work REassembling an airframe and engine, why not have
an A&P follow and
document your work and hours and get YOUR own A&P ........
Reggie

Not that easy in Australia. The US probably has one of the
easiest-to-get licenses; the Australian system, like our Canadian, is
based on the British system. Our Canadian requirements include an 1800-
hour formal course of study (some of which can be applied to the
apprenticeship time, the course is an approved course), 70% of the
applicable ATA tasks performed, an apprenticeship that will run
anywhere from two to four years, depending on the level of the formal
training course take, and four exams (airframe, engine, general and
regulations). The whole thing will take four years at least, no matter
what. Australia will be similar. Mine took me six years. The result is
an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer's license, with the inspection
privileges of the A&P-IA.
And the stickler: a homebuilt project doesn't count. A homebuilt
is an airplane when it comes to registering it, getting a C of A,
flying it and insuring it, but not if you want it to count for
apprenticeship time. Strange.


Dan
A friend bought an amateur built helicopter that was complete with the
exception of the builders tag and airworthiness. He disassembled it to
the point beyond a quick build kit, re-painted it and checked off the 51%
form and he did more than 51%. FAA found that he had used an airframe
that had been previously used and had some flight time on it and refused
to license it as experimental homebuilt and insisted on making it
exhibition only. There is a wide variation on what is accepted by the
various FAA and DARs when issuing airworthiness certs.

Stu