"Built from parts"

[Craig kennedy 1]

Does anyone have experience in selecting "Built from Parts" when they are rebuilding a previously built, certificated and deregistered airplane?  The DAR I happen to speak to said "It's already been built, certificated and destroyed.   An airplane only can be built once.  You have a wrecked airplane that needs a dataplate."  and that was the end of his response. I thought that's the reason I would select "built from parts" and make a new airplane from parts.  My question to him was about assistance in making sure what I was doing, would qualify for the 51% rule.  I have a Kitfox 2 with minimal damage, but I've got a list of modifications.  I've already stripped all the fabric and straightened the bent tubes but wanted to get a DAR onboard before I invested too much time or money.  If anyone has experience or success with this or knows who I could talk to for good incite, it would be greatly appreciated.  I'm itching to get this project underway and would love to revive this bird. Thanks, Craig

[ChrisBolkan 130]

How did the DAR know that you did not get wings from one place, a bent up fuselage from another, and an engine and mount from somewhere else? Plus you said you are performing mods. Seems like you need to present that what you have is disparate parts from multiple sources and not just a wrecked plane you are re-building. 

It can be done. A bit different angle but similar situation are the myriad of "experimental" Cubs and similar piper rag and tube experimental planes. Builders get parts from various wrecked planes, wings from a cub, fuse from a PA-12, tail feathers from something else, do a few custom mods and what was once a bunch of pieces of once certified planes is an amateur built experimental.

So you should be able to present a case for build from parts. The great thing about that is you are the builder

Another less desirable but possible option is to buy (or be given) the nameplate of a wrecked but not de-registered airplane and put yours back together under the nameplate. The downside to this is you do not own the repairman certificate.

These are just some thoughts.

Chris

 

[ChrisBolkan 130]

Here is a real world example. A friend bought a rans s-6 that had never been registered. it was legacy from pre sport pilot ultralight trainer days. He brought it home and took it completely apart into individual pieces basically (except for the wing rip/spar assemblies. he ended up ordering a bunch of parts from Rans (I do not know if that is important) because the steel fuse was rusted beyond use. Anyway he (we, I was with him) went and talked to the local FSDO and explained the situation. We found that at least in our experience these guys share a love of aviation and want plane to be in the air. It did not feel to us like they were there to come up with reasons to shut us down. They said "sounds like you are building it from parts you got here and there". He built it as parts and has the repairman certificate, even though it is technically still a rans S-6. I think there are more cases of situations like this than most realize. Most of the time with a lot of thought and actually communicating to work toward a solution things can work out.  

If you are truly COMPLETELY rebuilding a plane, it's hard to prove where the parts came from AND most technical authority figures will realize the fact that it is a COMPLETE rebuild so essentially you are building from scratch and will give you a break.

if on the other hand you are only proposing repairs to a wrecked plane that is repairable, the case will be much harder to make.

[Craig kennedy 1]

It sounds like this DAR is saying that I cannot use ANY used parts from this plane or any other. They would have to be sourced as new and fabricated. The following is my brief email conversation.  I don't think It's going to get anywhere with this guy.

Me: 

I was considering making a new plane from parts.  I have already removed all the fabric from fuselage and wings and mostly disassembled this one.  It would be a different and new plane and would need to apply for a new AW.  I understand that it may no longer be considered a Kitfox.  I would just want to make sure with my changes that it would be enough to make it a new airplane.  Would you be able to provide me some guidance in this route?  Does that sound like the only alternative? Thanks, Craig

DAR:

OK. Let me try to be clear, the aircraft parts will not be allowed to be used for credit toward the 51% rule. You did did not fabricate them and repair or rebuilding or using used parts does not constitute building an aircraft. It would not be a new airplane. 

The amateur built rules are specifically designed this way to avoid just what you are proposing to do. 

 

I hate to be giving you news that you may not want to hear but that is the way it is. 

 

Best Regards,

 

 

Me:

Okay, Thanks for the response. I would be cutting apart, fabricating, adding new, reinforcing, making wider and longer, making tail surfaces larger, new engine, new windscreen and doors, adding wingtank, re-working the wings and flaps, fabricating new landing gear, adding new panel and new instruments, adding new lines and many new components, recovering and repainting.  There is nothing that would not be reworked, so I would consider that fabricating and reengineering since I'm changing the shape, size and characteristics.  It would be less work to start with a kit. The rule states that parts have to be resourced as "new" not a mix of any sourced parts?  Thank you for your time, Craig Kennedy

[Craig kennedy 1]

How did the DAR know that you did not get wings from one place, a bent up fuselage from another, and an engine and mount from somewhere else? Plus you said you are performing mods. Seems like you need to present that what you have is disparate parts from multiple sources and not just a wrecked plane you are re-building. 

It can be done. A bit different angle but similar situation are the myriad of "experimental" Cubs and similar piper rag and tube experimental planes. Builders get parts from various wrecked planes, wings from a cub, fuse from a PA-12, tail feathers from something else, do a few custom mods and what was once a bunch of pieces of once certified planes is an amateur built experimental.

So you should be able to present a case for build from parts. The great thing about that is you are the builder

Another less desirable but possible option is to buy (or be given) the nameplate of a wrecked but not de-registered airplane and put yours back together under the nameplate. The downside to this is you do not own the repairman certificate.

These are just some thoughts.

Chris

 

I agree with you.  I probably did not paint the picture right for him.  At this point, I think I'd be better off finding a new DAR and starting the conversation over.

[Craig kennedy 1]

And Chris, I would not be opposed to using a non-deregistered plate and just get this thing repaired and flying, if anyone knows of any! Thanks for the input.

[Allen Sutphin 705]

Sometimes when dealing with the FAA/DAR, honesty isn't the best policy.

[Craig kennedy 1]

Sometimes when dealing with the FAA/DAR, honesty isn't the best policy.

Ya, I was hoping to get them onboard to make sure I had their blessing that I was doing enough to constitute a new airplane before all the work and $$ is spent on it.  It almost seems like I would have to do it and just photo document for proof and present in the end for inspection.  That would seem like a big gamble.

[1avidflyer 1983]

Is it possible to reestablish the original registration.  You wouldn't be able to get the repairman's certificate, but that is really not that big of an issue if you can make friends with an AnP.  JImChuk

[Craig kennedy 1]

I will 

Is it possible to reestablish the original registration.  You wouldn't be able to get the repairman's certificate, but that is really not that big of an issue if you can make friends with an AnP.  JImChuk

I will try this but the FAA said it may be difficult without the original data plate, and I think it was removed when de-registered.

[1avidflyer 1983]

Data plate doesn't mean as much on an experimental as it would on a certified aircraft.  Maybe what you will need to do is get the listed owner to reestablish the registration, and then transfer the registration from current FAA listed owner to your name.  JImChuk

[CoClimber 33]

My Kitfox2-4 is built from parts.  I started with a KF2 fuselage, modified it (larger tail, wider, switched to nose gear and made new main gear.  Replaced the 582 with a 912, made my own KF4 ribs, bought KF4 flaperons, fabricated a KF4 mixer.  My DAR was helpful but I definitely made it from various parts from different airplanes and fabricated much of it.

[Craig kennedy 1]

My Kitfox2-4 is built from parts.  I started with a KF2 fuselage, modified it (larger tail, wider, switched to nose gear and made new main gear.  Replaced the 582 with a 912, made my own KF4 ribs, bought KF4 flaperons, fabricated a KF4 mixer.  My DAR was helpful but I definitely made it from various parts from different airplanes and fabricated much of it.

Thats cool! and does it still weigh much less than the 4 but gain a lot of the good characteristics? Do you have any photos of your mixer conversion? Neat project.  I like that the early models are light so I may want to stay strategic about the improvements.

[ChrisBolkan 130]

Have you talked to your local FSDO? I think if you approach them and say you have a couple of wrecked deregistered amateur built planes (say a couple, just make sure you are being honest and have some actual parts from another source so you would pass a lie detector :-) that you want to MODIFY and put together as a built from parts plane. I KNOW this is acceptable practice. What you need to determine is level and type of MODS FAA thinks is OK for the 51% rule

Find out what they want to see, what they expect the DAR to ask for and so forth. if you work with the FAA first, document who you talked to there, your questions and their answers, you are prepared to talk to the DAR when the time comes and have someone to refer the DAR to. I think I would take an approach something like that.

This approach beats trying to re-register or finding a nameplate because you will be the builder and get the repairman cert. This is appropriate because it sounds like you are indeed making some major modifications that would definitely qualify you as "building" the assemblies even though you are just modifying them (fuse, wings, tailfeathers etc.)

Again, just thinking out loud.

Chris

 

[Craig kennedy 1]

Thanks Chris!

[Cass256 4]

I'm currently going down this road with my RR3 restoration, this is the response I got from the Massachusetts MIDO;

If the new owner wanted to treat this as a new aircraft built from used or salvaged articles, paragraph 15-4.d(4) of Order 8130.2J applies:

 

(4) When Builders Use Articles from Other Aircraft.  The use of used or salvaged articles, including military surplus articles, from other aircraft is permitted if they are in a condition for safe operation; however, all fabrication, installation, and assembly tasks accomplished with used or salvaged articles will be credited to the “Mfr Kit/Part/Component” column on the Amateur-Built Aircraft Fabrication and Assembly Checklist.  No credit will be given toward the major-portion requirement for work on these salvaged articles.  This includes any “rebuilding” or “restoring” activities to return these articles to an airworthy condition.  Assembly credit may be given in those cases where used or salvaged articles are assembled with portions of the aircraft fabricated and assembled by the builder.

The last line is the saving grace, as it clarifies what "rebuilding" or "restoring" actually means.

You can get assembly credit as long as the salvaged articles are "assembled with portions of the aircraft fabricated and assembled by the builder". 

If you hadn't removed the fabric & the plane was near a flying state, this rule applies. Any fabrications or repairs done to the salvaged article doesn't give you assembly credit for that article. This basically prevents people from unbolting everything, repainting it, and putting it back together under a new registration. 

Since you're welding on the fuselage, I would argue this rule does not apply to the base airframe. You have fabricated & assembled portions of that frame, no? Then you should get credit for work done to the rest of the airframe, as the rule's exception states.

For my RR3, I am planning on re-using the control surfaces if I can stay above 51% - One of them has minor damage, and I will not get assembly credit for the repair to return that "salvaged assembly" to its previous airworthy state. I will however get assembly credit for the left wing's control surface mounting brackets, as I have to drill the ribs to fabricate their attachment. 

I hope this distinction makes sense & can help you get your repairman's certificate. I'll post an update once I hear from my DAR. 

[Airplanenate 3]

Dropping the link for the Amature built checklist here, it provides the math for the percent built calculation;

 

https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultralights/amateur_built/kits/media/AmBuiltFabAssyCklistFW.pdf

 

I am also building from parts with extensive modifications, so please do keep us updated on your efforts! 

Edited 16 Mar 2023 by Airplanenate
update

[Av8r3400 1179]

When I rebuilt the Mangy, I considered this option.  The potential pitfalls are great if the FSDO or DAR don't  cooperate.    

I chose to keep the original airworthiness and forgo the repairman's certificate.   I'm not so conceited that having a second set of eyes look at my plane every year isn't a good thing.

Even with all of the extensive modifications I made to the plane, the only thing the FAA cared about was changing the prop.  I had a 5 hour phase 1 and done.  It went much easier with far less risk of spending a ton of money on a rebuild only to have a paperweight at the end.      

[Avidventurous 22]

Off topic slightly.

Does anyone have any insight to how this applies to certified aircraft? I had an Aeronca Chief basket case dropped in my lap and can't seem to get the previous owner to come up with an 8050-3. BTW, it's been de registered.

[Av8r3400 1179]

You don't have an airplane.  You have parts.  You'll need a "clean" data plate to make those parts into another airplane.

 

Edited 15 Apr 2023 by Av8r3400

[Avidventurous 22]

That's encouraging... I think

Thanks

[1avidflyer 1983]

The certified world of airplane registration is far different from the experimental world.  I think it will be harder to certify a Chief than an Avid or other experimental.  Easiest way is probably to find another basket case with paperwork and put them together.  I looked up the 8050-3 form, and it's an FAA official form that they use from what I could tell.  The 8050-1 is the request for change of ownership the buyer submits, and the 8050-2 is the FAA bill of sale provided and signed by the seller.  JImChuk