I was reading and heard that if you build a homebuilt you don't have to get an annual on it?!? Because your name is on the certificate as the manufacture. Is this true? It was pretty vague what I found on the net and I didn't look in the FARs yet. Is is there? If some one could point me in the right direction that would be great. That would be a big cost of ownership if that is true!

Then I got to thinking and I know you can't use a experimental for part 135 ops but could you use it for CAP for or some other S and R or do they not like that?

Random thoughts I know but thanks for any help.

From what I understand, it still has to have an annual, but you can do it yourself, as well as all of the maintenance, because you are the manufacturer. Don't know about CAP or stuff like that.

Yes and no. You don't have to do an annual on a homebuilt but you do have to do an annual condition inspection. What's the difference? Not much. If you build the aircraft, you as the manufacturer can do the annual condition inspection. You have to make a logbook entry stating that you have found the aircraft to be in an airworthy condition and sign it as the builder. You are effectively the A&P, I&A for THAT singular aircraft. So if you build, say, a Highlander, you can do the condition inspections on the airplane you built, no matter who owns it, for the life of that aircraft. If you sell your Highlander, and buy a Highlander built by someone else, you may not do the condition inspection on the purchased Highlander. Either the original builder has to, or a licensed A&P.

Svanarts is right on about the conditional inspection, who can do it and on what aircraft.

One additional point. ANYONE, your great grandma or your kid can do the maintenance on any amature built experimental. There is no lincensing requirement for maint.

Bill.

Your close but not correct.

You being the builder doesn't mean you can do a condition inspection, unless you have applied and received a repairman's certificate for that aircraft.

Without the repairman's certificate you will still need a A&P to sign off the condition inspection even if you build it.

mr scout wrote:You being the builder doesn't mean you can do a condition inspection, unless you have applied and received a repairman's certificate for that aircraft.

Without the repairman's certificate you will still need a A&P to sign off the condition inspection even if you build it.

This is my understanding as well. My dad just did the 2-day course to get his repairman's cert, which allows him to inspect the aircraft he has built.

1SeventyZ wrote:

mr scout wrote:You being the builder doesn't mean you can do a condition inspection, unless you have applied and received a repairman's certificate for that aircraft.

Without the repairman's certificate you will still need a A&P to sign off the condition inspection even if you build it.

This is my understanding as well. My dad just did the 2-day course to get his repairman's cert, which allows him to inspect the aircraft he has built.

Confusion between Experimental Amateur built and Experimental Light Sport aircraft is creeping into this thread. If your father had to take a course to get his repairman's certificate then he must have built an Experimental LSA.

Mr. Scout is correct about getting an experimental Amateur built repairman certificate.

With the Experimental Amateur built you can do repairs and and use any kind of parts you want. With experimental LSA you must do maintenance, repairs and use only parts exactly the same as the factory that certified that Kit.

1SeventyZ wrote:

mr scout wrote:You being the builder doesn't mean you can do a condition inspection, unless you have applied and received a repairman's certificate for that aircraft.

Without the repairman's certificate you will still need a A&P to sign off the condition inspection even if you build it.

This is my understanding as well. My dad just did the 2-day course to get his repairman's cert, which allows him to inspect the aircraft he has built.

Ah, but the 16-hour course is to obtain the E-LSA inspection rating.

To obtain the repairman's cert for your traditional '51% compliant' homebuilt, you only have to perform the major portion of the construction (and be able to document it) and file the application. Neither does the E-LSA maintenance rating apply to 51% homebuilts. It's assumed if you built it, you can maintain it. Which may be a stretch for many people.

Benton 24feb09

One more small point to make is even if you were not able to do your own conditional for any of the reasons listed above ANY A&P can sign it off. It does not have to be signed off by an IA like GA. I am in that boat because I bought my Experimental I didn't build it.

Ah, but the 16-hour course is to obtain the E-LSA inspection rating.

To obtain the repairman's cert for your traditional '51% compliant' homebuilt, you only have to perform the major portion of the construction (and be able to document it) and file the application. Neither does the E-LSA maintenance rating apply to 51% homebuilts. It's assumed if you built it, you can maintain it. Which may be a stretch for many people.

Benton 24feb09

So does this mean if you make a E-LSA you can do less then 51% and you are still the manufacture and your name is on cert.?

See the above comments for the Annual condition sign off, the thread is accurate. My application and documentation was accompanied by an affidavit from the DAR to the effect that "he has proved to me..." This made the process very easy; application, visit to the FSDO (yes you actually have to show up, at least in Houston FSDO), and walk out with temporary certificate. To address the CAP and S&R capability, you will find that few if any organizations will accept that liability, and if you are doing so and being reimpursed for fuel/oil you may be pushing the "for Hire" line a little harder than you may want to. There are regs that allow for such things, but what I have seen is that it doesn't often happen.

The other thing to note about an E-LSA is that it has to be built *exactly* to the factory design, down to the engine and instruments or combinations allowed by the original design to qualify. If you install a GPS in the panel of your RV-12, you don't qualify for E-LSA and have to go EXP-Ed/Rec for the airworthiness cert--and that assumes your 'LSA kit in question' would qualify as 51% compliant. (I think I have that right.)

Benton 24feb09

I own a homebuilt, a Supercub replica. I was not the builder, and use an A&P to do the condition inspection every year. Only the builder can do his own inspections, and as mentioned previously, only on the plane that he built. Regular maintenance can be done just as it's done on a factory-built plane, that is, you can change oil, add air to the tires, etc.

Check your operating limitations if you make a change after the plane is certified. Depending upon how they read, it could be a matter of adding a line to the logbook, or flying off some time and getting a new airworthiness certificate.

CAP does not allow homebuilts for either SAR or orientation flights. If you fly with CAP, you're flying one of their 172's or 182's. They're not as much fun to fly as a Supercub, but they get the job done.

ASW

It seems to make sense that the guy that builds a plane should have sufficient knowledge to maintain the plane and sign it off. With that said, I am surprised that in Canada, it is basically the same rules HOWEVER, if you buy a homebuilt you are still allowed to maintain and sign it off even if you had zero experience in building that plane or any other! As restrictive as Transport Canada can be, this decision is strange. Chaulk one up for the FAA.

ASW wrote:Check your operating limitations if you make a change after the plane is certified. Depending upon how they read, it could be a matter of adding a line to the logbook, or flying off some time and getting a new airworthiness certificate.

I don't think there's even a new Airworthiness Cert involved. For something as significant as an engine upgrade, if you call the FSDO, I think (tho' I have yet to complete my first project) that they'll just tell you to go back to 'phase one' for 25 hours, then sign your books over to 'phase two.' (Phase one is 'flight test, no passengers, restricted travel; phase two is 'normal' ops.)

ASW wrote:CAP does not allow homebuilts for either SAR or orientation flights. If you fly with CAP, you're flying one of their 172's or 182's. They're not as much fun to fly as a Supercub, but they get the job done.

On the other hand, some of the charitable medical flight organizations (Angel Flight in some regions) are allowing homebuilts.

Benton 5mar09

As was stated earlier, yes, you also must hold the repairman's certificate for the plane you build. I applied for mine at the same time I applied for the airworthiness inspection. E-LSA is really causing confusion in the Experimental community. If you go E-LSA on the plane you build then as stated earlier you must build the airplane EXACTLY as the manufacturer specifies it should be. Why limit yourself. Just go amateur-built experimental and then you can put in the avionics you want. Use fuses instead of circuit breakers, whatever you want (and is safe.). As long as the plane meets LSA criteria, you can fly it that way. ELSA really only helps the next guy so he can take the course and do the maintenance. It doesn't buy the builder much.

svanarts wrote:...If you go E-LSA on the plane you build then as stated earlier you must build the airplane EXACTLY as the manufacturer specifies it should be. Why limit yourself. Just go amateur-built experimental and then you can put in the avionics you want. Use fuses instead of circuit breakers, whatever you want (and is safe.). As long as the plane meets LSA criteria, you can fly it that way...

Thank you for clearing that up I wondering about the whole LSA thing if it meet the requirements to be so, it makes sense now.

Ford Wilson wrote:It seems to make sense that the guy that builds a plane should have sufficient knowledge to maintain the plane and sign it off. With that said, I am surprised that in Canada, it is basically the same rules HOWEVER, if you buy a homebuilt you are still allowed to maintain and sign it off even if you had zero experience in building that plane or any other! As restrictive as Transport Canada can be, this decision is strange. Chaulk one up for the FAA.

This is my first post here, so please take it easy on me

The main reason that the owner of the homebuilt in Canada can do the sign offs, and not the guy that built it is liability.
When a homebuilt plane is sold, all the liability is passed to the new owner, otherwise, if the plane is sold 10 times over 20 years, then crashes, the original builder would still be on the hook for the cause.

Canada has much different liability laws than the USA. In Canada, if a homebuilt were to crash, and the cause was found to be caused by the constuction of the aircraft, then the last person who certified the plane airworthy would be liable, which is the owner.
In the USA, if the same where to happen, I believe everyone, right back to the company who printed the paper for the assembly instructions "could" be found liable.

TrevDog wrote:
Then I got to thinking and I know you can't use a experimental for part 135 ops but could you use it for CAP for or some other S and R or do they not like that?

TrevDog, SAR air squadrons other than CAP may allow any type airplane including experimental. Our local (Washoe County-Reno) team had
a Glasair III which, given the speed capability over, say a 182, could get to the search grid and start looking before anybody else!

sideslip

IF what you say is true about Canadian liability laws, then I will say that Canadians are much more civilized and advanced than is the U.S. as regards these laws.

Your laws make sense. Ours do not.

flyer