What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Question for DARs

wilddog

Well Known Member
I have an airplane I built over 30yrs ago. It is deregistered and has not been flow in 15yrs. It is disassembled and needs rebuilding. A friend wants to buy it and I’m willing to sell but want to retain the A/W cert and data plate for liability reasons. I would sell it as junk parts. Question; after he rebuilds it, will he be able to get a new A/W cert and inspection and Repairman’s Cert. like if he bought a project?
 
Sorry, If the aircraft has been deregistered and the airworthiness has been turned in, there is no legal option to re-certificate it.

Rebuild does not count toward the 51%. Rebuild is considered as a repair.

He might be able to certificate as Experimental Exhibition, but it would not meet the criteria for amateur-built.
 
Sorry, If the aircraft has been deregistered and the airworthiness has been turned in, there is no legal option to re-certificate it.

Rebuild does not count toward the 51%. Rebuild is considered as a repair.

He might be able to certificate as Experimental Exhibition, but it would not meet the criteria for amateur-built.

Serious question... how is this any different than a Vans QB kit?
 
Sorry, If the aircraft has been deregistered and the airworthiness has been turned in, there is no legal option to re-certificate it.
Is "deregistered" synonymous with "turning in the A/W cert"? Or are they two separate things?

If they are different, and it retains it's A/W but just isn't registered, does that change things?

The OP only said that it was deregistered...

ETA: By "deregistered", does the OP mean that he actually went through the process of deregistration, or did it simply expire (not renewed every 3 years)?
 
Last edited:
Serious question... how is this any different than a Vans QB kit?

Because a Vans quick build kit has been deemed by the FAA as having in excess of 51% remaining to be constructed by the customer. "Rebuilding" an aircraft is not considering as "building". It is considered as a "repair".
 
Quick Build

In the US each quick build kit is evaluated and approved(or not) by the FAA as still allowing 51% to be accomplished by the builder.
The first real quick build kit was the Christen Eagle. The FAA did not approve the kit in its original form and Christen had to change the kit to provide more work for the builder.
 
Is "deregistered" synonymous with "turning in the A/W cert"? Or are they two separate things?
If they are different, and it retains it's A/W but just isn't registered, does that change things?
The OP only said that it was deregistered...

But he also stated that he would retain the airworthiness certificate and data plate.

The aircraft my only be rebuilt using the original airworthiness certificate and data plate. Once the aircraft is certificated, the "builder" cannot be changed.
 
But he also stated that he would retain the airworthiness certificate and data plate.

The aircraft my only be rebuilt using the original airworthiness certificate and data plate. Once the aircraft is certificated, the "builder" cannot be changed.

I may not have been clear in my questions. I see 3 scenarios:

1. Some form of "deregistration" paperwork was filed with the FAA (a/c destroyed, sold overseas, etc., per the forms I found). I suppose, I guess, that the A/W cert would have to be surrendered or cancelled or something.

2. Some sort of deregistration filed with the FAA, but the A/W is *not* cancelled. Dunno how that would happen, but maybe Mel knows.

3. Registration simply expires after 3 years under the new rule, due to inaction by the owner. Does this automatically revoke the A/W certificate after some period of time?

It's the last one that might concern some owners...e.g., build a plane, register it and get the A/W, then after some period of time, it sits idle for years and the owner neglects to renew the registration. After n years, is it forever banished from being reregistered and allowed to fly again?

I read the OP's post as the plane is in pieces (maybe wings and tail removed or something), and might need some additional work to repair or replace parts that have aged out, but might not be considered "rebuilding" (not sure there is a definition of what "rebuilding" actually means). If that's the case, and he simply let the registration lapse, is he SOL now?
 
But he also stated that he would retain the airworthiness certificate and data plate.

The aircraft my only be rebuilt using the original airworthiness certificate and data plate. Once the aircraft is certificated, the "builder" cannot be changed.

Yeah, I get what you're saying here now...he wants to sell it as "parts" and then the new owner simply re-assembles them and registers it. Yeah, I can see where that would never work, as it's a facile attempt to get around the rules on amateur-built a/c.
 
Mel,
Thanks for the answers. I should have been clearer on deregistration. I simply let everything expire, nothing was handed in to the FAA.
How much rebuilding would qualify as over 50%? It is a biplane. Buyer is going to replace the engine, panel, seats,instruments and wiring, recover almost all of it including rib stitching all those ribs, frame will be sandblasted and primed, new fuel tank fabrication and new plumbing and hoses. He will also be building a new motor mount to switch to dynofocal among other things. It will require a new weight and balance and have to be rigged which is a big job on a biplane. Sounds like all this might be close to 51% but how is that determined?
Bill
 
Mel,
Thanks for the answers. I should have been clearer on deregistration. I simply let everything expire, nothing was handed in to the FAA.
How much rebuilding would qualify as over 50%? It is a biplane. Buyer is going to replace the engine, panel, seats,instruments and wiring, recover almost all of it including rib stitching all those ribs, frame will be sandblasted and primed, new fuel tank fabrication and new plumbing and hoses. He will also be building a new motor mount to switch to dynofocal among other things. It will require a new weight and balance and have to be rigged which is a big job on a biplane. Sounds like all this might be close to 51% but how is that determined?
Bill

Zero! NO amount of rebuilding counts toward the 51%. It would take an unbelievable amount of NEW fabrication to honestly qualify.
You can try using the Amateur-Built/Fabrication/Assembly checklist from the FAA to try and qualify, but IMO, I can't see any way to do this legally. I've tried to help several people with this scenario many times and it is never successful.

What you did or did not hand in to the FAA is irrelevant. If you intend to keep the A/W and data plate the airplane cannot be certificated under a new builder.
 
Last edited:
I think where people are getting wrapped around the axle here is the need to understand is the A/W is like the title to you car, who built it, s/n and what catagory it falls in. Like a car, for the most part it only will get one of those in its life.the registration is really just the license plates.so if the op keeps the a/w it ceases to be an aircraft and is just parts. As mel said, putting those parts back together is not building a new airplane so you cannot get a new a/w for it. With proper documentation you may be able to use some of them in a new build but the documentation of what was built and what was used has to be though and accepted by the faa or dar. I’m no lawyer, it I’m not really sure how much protection that would give from libility even if you could do it.
 
I think where people are getting wrapped around the axle here is the need to understand is the A/W is like the title to you car, who built it, s/n and what catagory it falls in. Like a car, for the most part it only will get one of those in its life.the registration is really just the license plates.so if the op keeps the a/w it ceases to be an aircraft and is just parts. As mel said, putting those parts back together is not building a new airplane so you cannot get a new a/w for it. With proper documentation you may be able to use some of them in a new build but the documentation of what was built and what was used has to be though and accepted by the faa or dar. I’m no lawyer, it I’m not really sure how much protection that would give from libility even if you could do it.

Good explanation!
 
Lawsuits

The often mentioned alleged fact is that there has never been a successful lawsuit against the builder of and EAB aircraft in the US.
I know of a few cases where the builder was paranoid about being sued but most don't seem to care.
An airplane that I built crashed fatally a long time ago. Several owners and a lot of work between the time I sold the airplane and the time it crashed.
Purely pilot error with lots of highly qualified witnesses. Pilot/owner had history with FAA that had previously cost him a suspension. Low level aerobatics that did not end well.
 
Regulations

Another issue that people don't understand is that a project can be sold multiple times. To the letter of the law the builder who completes the project probably does not qualify for Repairmans Certificate. But the finished project meets EAB rules and is eligible for airworthiness certificate.
If there are multiple builders and the project is finished by the original group a person designated as the lead builder MAY qualify for Repairmans. Think school groups.
 
Another issue that people don't understand is that a project can be sold multiple times. To the letter of the law the builder who completes the project probably does not qualify for Repairmans Certificate. But the finished project meets EAB rules and is eligible for airworthiness certificate.
If there are multiple builders and the project is finished by the original group a person designated as the lead builder MAY qualify for Repairmans. Think school groups.

There's a common misunderstanding about eligibility for the repairman certificate on amateur-built aircraft. One person does not have to build 51% of the aircraft. The 51% rule only applies to the eligibility for the aircraft to be licensed as amateur-built.
The applicant for the repairman certificate must be listed as a primary builder on the 8130-12, and have sufficient knowledge to conduct the condition inspection.
See §65.104(a)
 
Last edited:
The often mentioned alleged fact is that there has never been a successful lawsuit against the builder of and EAB aircraft in the US.
I know of a few cases where the builder was paranoid about being sued but most don't seem to care.
.

The problem is, even for unsuccessful suits, the previous owners/builders may be on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars for legal defense costs, even when they win. I believe after the John Denver accident all previous owners and the original builder were all named as defendants in the lawsuit. After the Russians shot down the Korean 747, Boeing reported spending $1 Million on legal fees before they were dropped from the lawsuit. Same thing for CFI’s. I know of several well-off people (well enough off to have their own attorney on retainer) and when they mentioned that would enjoy being a cfi, their lawyers told them they were crazy, they were just inviting legal trouble. Welcome to the US legal system.
 
The problem is, even for unsuccessful suits, the previous owners/builders may be on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars for legal defense costs, even when they win. I believe after the John Denver accident all previous owners and the original builder were all named as defendants in the lawsuit. After the Russians shot down the Korean 747, Boeing reported spending $1 Million on legal fees before they were dropped from the lawsuit. Same thing for CFI’s. I know of several well-off people (well enough off to have their own attorney on retainer) and when they mentioned that would enjoy being a cfi, their lawyers told them they were crazy, they were just inviting legal trouble. Welcome to the US legal system.

My views are similar and would not sell my planes. The builder is the builder until the plane is gone or A/W destroyed. If the 4th owners kills himself in my plane, there is a decent chance that I will be sued for negligence if I have enough assets that the attorney thinks justifies his fees. Even if I win, I am out at least $100K to defend myself. If your assets are limited (primary home not included), the concern is very small and I think that most builders don't have millions in assets and that is the reason for the limited lawsuit activity. Attorneys tend not to take cases against defendants with limited assets.

Yes, no one has won a suit against an EAB builder, though I am confident that a few have been settled (pretty sure that was the case with the builder in the John Denver suit). However, IMHO, that is not enough insurance to assume it won't happen to me. YMMV. Sure, the plaintiff has a high bar to jump (he bought a plane built by an amateur), that is not synonymous with impossible.

Many times when a 172 crashes for any reason, it is Cessna that gets sued, not the 100's of mechanics that worked on it. Reason is simple: Cessna has the money and the mechanics don't. And it is easier to sue a manufacturer for negligence (design flaw) than a mechanic (repair work).

Larry
 
Last edited:
I had a friend who had his Super Cub destroyed in a tragic accident (he lost his son). He sold the data plate and the wreckage to someone who was rebuilding a basket case with no registration. It seems to me that “repairing” the totaled plane with many parts from the OP’s plane would be a work around?
 
Many persons think that by de-registering or keeping the certificate will end liability. this is America, anybody can sue anybody for anything. "You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride". The certificate belongs to the FAA, and a new owner can apply for a missing or lost certificate. Since they are not the builder, they cannot get the repairman's certificate. Using TC parts, or rebuilding parts would not allow for sufficient credit to overcome this regulation (refer to FAA order 8130.2j). The best way to protect yourself is have the buyer sign an addendum to the bill of sale that now and forever releases the seller from any and all liability, I have a form if you are interested.
Regards,
DAR Gary
 
Many persons think that by de-registering or keeping the certificate will end liability. this is America, anybody can sue anybody for anything. "You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride". The certificate belongs to the FAA, and a new owner can apply for a missing or lost certificate. Since they are not the builder, they cannot get the repairman's certificate. Using TC parts, or rebuilding parts would not allow for sufficient credit to overcome this regulation (refer to FAA order 8130.2j). The best way to protect yourself is have the buyer sign an addendum to the bill of sale that now and forever releases the seller from any and all liability, I have a form if you are interested.
Regards,
DAR Gary

#1 A disclaimer/waiver document may or may not hold up in a court of law. Some judges may just throw it out. BUT, It DOES show intent on your part.

#2 I always require the next of kin to sign the disclaimer/waiver as witness. After all, If the new owner dies in an accident, it won't be him/her suing you.
 
IANAL, so I don't know if a waiver will be worth the paper it's printed on, but the thing that Mel hit on is that nobody can sign away someone *else's* rights. So unless everybody who could possibly sue you agrees to waive their rights, it's probably not worth it. BUT, the best advice you can get from here is where we usually end up in these discussions: Find a good aviation attorney with experience in E-AB and ask them for advice. And then follow it.

Getting legal advice from the intertubes is not a good idea, IMO.
 
Many persons think that by de-registering or keeping the certificate will end liability. this is America, anybody can sue anybody for anything. "You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride". The certificate belongs to the FAA, and a new owner can apply for a missing or lost certificate. Since they are not the builder, they cannot get the repairman's certificate. Using TC parts, or rebuilding parts would not allow for sufficient credit to overcome this regulation (refer to FAA order 8130.2j). The best way to protect yourself is have the buyer sign an addendum to the bill of sale that now and forever releases the seller from any and all liability, I have a form if you are interested.
Regards,
DAR Gary

First, those liability waivers offer very limited protection. No one can sign away someone else's rights (at least in America) and the most trouble comes when the spouse or estate of the deceased pilot sues someone. Second, what happens when that buyer sells the aircraft to the next owner. That waiver doesn't transfer. Lots to consider, but your referenced approach does not provide meaningful insulation from lawsuits.

Larry
 
Last edited:
Lawsuits

Deep pockets, medium pockets, small pockets and no pockets at all. No pockets would seem to be pretty good protection. Collings is alleged to be transferring assets in anticipation of giant lawsuit.(From aviation news a few months ago) I don't think that will impress a judge, but Collings martches to the beat of a different drum.
John Thorp allegedly successfully defended three lawsuits. This despite the fact that the T18 had some significant issues. T18 builders contributed to a fund for legal fees.
And what of the EAB designs where the designer is long gone. Is a current plans seller going to be sued??
 
Sorry, If the aircraft has been deregistered and the airworthiness has been turned in, there is no legal option to re-certificate it.

Rebuild does not count toward the 51%. Rebuild is considered as a repair.

He might be able to certificate as Experimental Exhibition, but it would not meet the criteria for amateur-built.

Old thread, but wondering about aspects of this statement.

Slightly different scenario than the OP, but one I’ve run across before:

Existing aircraft has been registered and flown as an E-AB for many years.
Has been inactive long enough for the original N number to expire and be reassigned.
Original data plate is still attached to airframe.
No original physical paper exists, but historical copies from FAA exist and “prove” the aircraft had a registration, AWC, bills of sale and Op Lims.

What is the path to renewing the registration?
 
Old thread, but wondering about aspects of this statement.

Slightly different scenario than the OP, but one I’ve run across before:

Existing aircraft has been registered and flown as an E-AB for many years.
Has been inactive long enough for the original N number to expire and be reassigned.
Original data plate is still attached to airframe.
No original physical paper exists, but historical copies from FAA exist and “prove” the aircraft had a registration, AWC, bills of sale and Op Lims.

What is the path to renewing the registration?

As I read through this thread and consider all the work necessary to (re)build the original post aircraft it makes me wonder about the purchaser building a kit from plans only. If building from scratch then how is registration and airworthiness obtained?

It is almost as if the aircraft from the original post is merely "parts" that could be purchased for use on building a new aircraft from scratch. Why could the purchaser not just build a new airplane from scratch using various parts, fabric, powerplant, avionics, paint, etc. sourced from wherever he/she can locate said parts then have it inspected, airworthiness certificate issued and registration applied for as the builder of a scratch built aircraft?

Which came first...the chicken or the egg? Who can determine whether parts and repairs were added to the OP aircraft or if the parts from that aircraft were added to the purchasers own scratch built aircraft? You can't tell me that EAB built aircraft have never been completed with a used engine or a tail section purchased from someone else. What's the difference with the original post aircraft? What am I missing?
 
Last edited:
A plans (or scratch) built airplane will have the build logs which "prove" that the aircraft meets the amateur built requirements. This documentation is one of the key items the inspector is looking for before the issuance of the Special AWC.

In my example, the airframe was once issued an AWC as an E-AB and those historical records exist. No further need to "prove" this particular SN was built by amateurs. In my example, the only thing missing is the lapse/expiration and reassignment of the N-number (which was not even a "thing" until fairly recently).
 
And in the case of a kit-built, like Vans, you are required to present the Bill of Sale from Vans stating that you did indeed buy the kit. I can't use the plans to build another like it from scratch, because I won't be able to get another Bill of Sale from Vans. I would have to represent it as a one-off scratch build and supply enough supporting documentation to convince the DAR.
 
Last edited:
Existing aircraft has been registered and flown as an E-AB for many years.
Has been inactive long enough for the original N number to expire and be reassigned.
Original data plate is still attached to airframe.
No original physical paper exists, but historical copies from FAA exist and “prove” the aircraft had a registration, AWC, bills of sale and Op Lims.

What is the path to renewing the registration?

The easiest path to renewing the registration would be to have a bill of sale from the last registered owner of the aircraft. With a bill of sale, you can register the aircraft in your name and "reactivate" the N number (if it hasn't been assigned to another aircraft) or by having a new N number assigned.

If no bill of sale exists, you would have to work with the FAA aircraft registration office to find out what they would need in order to be assured that you are the legal owner of that aircraft.

Once the aircraft is registered to you, you can have a replacement airworthiness certificate and operating limitations issued by your area FSDO.
 
The easiest path to renewing the registration would be to have a bill of sale from the last registered owner of the aircraft. With a bill of sale, you can register the aircraft in your name and "reactivate" the N number (if it hasn't been assigned to another aircraft) or by having a new N number assigned.

If no bill of sale exists, you would have to work with the FAA aircraft registration office to find out what they would need in order to be assured that you are the legal owner of that aircraft.

Once the aircraft is registered to you, you can have a replacement airworthiness certificate and operating limitations issued by your area FSDO.

Thanks Joe

In my example, the N number HAS been reassigned to another aircraft. BOS/chain of ownership is known, so thats not much of an issue.
 
Back
Top