What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Hypothetical Situation for Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

KatanaPilot

Well Known Member
Here is the hypothetical scenario -

You total your E-AB airplane. You remove the data plate. You build (or have someone build for you) a replacement airplane (same model of course), upon which you install the aforementioned dataplate.

No airworthiness inspection. No 51% rule. Potentially no Phase I.

Legal? Ethical? Please discuss.
 
Here is the hypothetical scenario -

You total your E-AB airplane. You remove the data plate. You build (or have someone build for you) a replacement airplane (same model of course), upon which you install the aforementioned dataplate.

No airworthiness inspection. No 51% rule. Potentially no Phase I.

Legal? NO! Ethical? NO! Please discuss.

See above.
 
Another related hypothetical situation:
You are married. Your spouse gets totalled - details not important for this situation. You remove their ring. You find another person with the same name as your totalled spouse. You put the ring on this new person.

Question: Are you married to them?
 
See above.

I appreciate your years of experience and knowledge - however, your answer leaves me wanting more detail, such as a reference to an FAA order or something similar.

Another related hypothetical situation:
You are married. Your spouse gets totalled - details not important for this situation. You remove their ring. You find another person with the same name as your totalled spouse. You put the ring on this new person.

Question: Are you married to them?

Not really related to my hypothetical at all...
 
Serial #?

Isn't the serial # of the airplane linked to the data plate??
Then a new plane would/should have a different #?
 
Depends

Another related hypothetical situation:
You are married. Your spouse gets totalled - details not important for this situation. You remove their ring. You find another person with the same name as your totalled spouse. You put the ring on this new person.

Question: Are you married to them?

Depends if she is cuter and dumber than original.
 
Isn't the serial # of the airplane linked to the data plate??
Then a new plane would/should have a different #?

Don't think so. You can use the builder number from Van's as your serial number (and many builders do), but my understanding is you can assign any number you want to the plane - you are the builder.

Maybe different in Canada?
 
Well, in Canada, when applying for the CofR and CofA, one needs to provide a serial# and that number is engraved on the ID plate.

I presume the same in USA?

Now, when one buys a new kit from Van's, I presume a new serial # is issued?
Unless as a recurant builder, you could buy parts/complete kit using the previous serial#?
 
Serial #

<snip>

Now, when one buys a new kit from Van's, I presume a new serial # is issued?
Unless as a recurant builder, you could buy parts/complete kit using the previous serial#?

That's the answer. Remove the Empennage since that's where the serial number was assigned.
Buy and build the rest using the aforementioned serial number. Same airplane. Just a joke. I'm sure Vans would question selling another wing, fuse, finishing and firewall forward kit with the same serial number.

Now, the new wife with the same name? I'm sure there's one out there. Whether she's interested, well that depends on how rich and handsome you are.
:D
 
Last edited:
Don't think so. You can use the builder number from Van's as your serial number (and many builders do), but my understanding is you can assign any number you want to the plane - you are the builder.

Maybe different in Canada?

As long as it has not been used by the same builder before.
 
Discussion:
(First, I concur with Mel.)

1. By definition, you have at least made "major modifications" and that requires back into at least SOME Phase I.
2. It is NOT the same plane. Data plate in this case a plane does not make. Otherwise people would be buying EXPERIMENTAL data plates to circumvent "the rules" and THAT would at least violate the spirit of what is in place for us.
3. You **NEED** to do the Phase 1 even if was not required by law. So why try to avoid it?
4. Ethically, you are KNOWINGLY violating all "good" that is in place for the many, simply to benefit yourself. In the process you may ruin it for all.


Just some food for thought.

Or differently ... "Don't even THINK about it!" :)
 
Discussion

Sounds like cheating and we were taught in kindergarten that nice people in society don't do that sort of thing. ;)

Separately, I have wondered about the WWII rare plane wreck that gets pulled up from the bottom of a lake as a corroded skeleton and is then "rebuilt" around the original data plate.
 
Here is the hypothetical scenario -

You total your E-AB airplane. You remove the data plate. You build (or have someone build for you) a replacement airplane (same model of course), upon which you install the aforementioned dataplate.

No airworthiness inspection. No 51% rule. Potentially no Phase I.

Legal? Ethical? Please discuss.

Data plate was assigned to that aircraft. Removing it is not legal without turning in the airworthiness certificate.

Do you really think this would be ethical? Isn't it somewhat like counterfeiting?

You are representing an aircraft to be another "totaled" aircraft.
 
Thanks for the discussion.

First and foremost, I am not contemplating doing this. Generally, I am very much a rule follower. I built two RV's and have no intention of building another.

Although the situation was hypothetical, I am aware of someone who is contemplating doing this very thing. Their contention is that it IS legal, although I disagree. I was trying to see if anyone could show me (via published rules, orders, etc.) why it is or is not legal.

So far, most of what I have seen here is opinion (granted based on years of experience) or is conjecture. I'm looking for something a little more concrete.
 
Continuing to play devil's advocate for a bit -

Let's say you ground loop or flip over your RV. You need a new tail, wings, prop, engine (crank was bent). Firewall is buckled when the airplane tipped over. You want the plane repaired. You pay someone to do the repairs. New tail is built, QB wings are installed, new prop, new engine. New skins on most of the fuselage, since longerons were bent and had to be replaced.

At what point do you cross over from a legal repair to an illegal rebuild?
 
In many certified planes, OEM items like exhaust systems cannot be bought new so shops sell repaired exhaust systems using one small piece of your PMA’d original exhaust.

I had a friend who had his Super Cub totaled (he sadly lost his son in the accident) and sold the data plate to a shop who built a plane from used airworthy components.

While not ethical, I think this the OP’s scenario has likely occurred many times.
 
Discussion:
Otherwise people would be buying EXPERIMENTAL data plates to circumvent "the rules" and THAT would at least violate the spirit of what is in place for us.

Why would someone want to buy a data plate? Only reason I could see is if someone doesn't want to do phase 1. Other option is they bought a 'parts plane' someone pulled their data plate off of for liability reasons.
 
Sounds like cheating and we were taught in kindergarten that nice people in society don't do that sort of thing. ;)

Separately, I have wondered about the WWII rare plane wreck that gets pulled up from the bottom of a lake as a corroded skeleton and is then "rebuilt" around the original data plate.

I was *just* about to post this same question. Aren't an awful lot of WWII planes rebuilt almost entirely, essentially keeping only the dataplate? Pretty sure an aircraft like Glacier Gal (crushed by a few hundred feet of ice and snow for 50 years) had to have been almost entirely new parts.
 
The right answer, of course, is whatever the FAA tells you when you ask *them*. And if the person thinking of this is taking the position of "If I don't ask them, they can't say no", then that probably tells you the answer, too.

But honestly, I dunno...like I said, I think WWII wrecks get rebuilt this way often, not sure why an EAB would be any different. We need someone from Planes of Fame or Fighter Rebuilders to answer as to how they do it.
 
The FAA takes an extremely dim view of this, and people have gone to jail over it. A recent case you can probably look up is a guy who was swapping data plates off of wrecked helicopters onto different airframes. I believe there's an AC out there about it.

We've all heard stories of people who've built a new plane around a data plate. Often it involves some rare antique. I suspect the FAA looks the other way on these. I wouldn't count on it. And with a homebuilt there's really no reason to anyway. Just get a new data plate and be done with it. All it costs you is a DAR and 25 hours of semi restricted flying. That's pretty minor within the context of building and owning a plane.
 
Well, Similar…

A friend tried to re-create a type certified airplane from a couple of rusted structural tubes. FAA said they knew the airplane was “substantially destroyed” (their terminology) and denied the registration. He got approval from a sympathetic inspector to be a manufacturer and built the airplane as a different manufacturer. He chafed at the idea that the airplane was a replica, but that’s exactly what it is. Beech Staggerwing number one is on display at the Beechcraft Museum in Tullahoma TN. We had always gone in the assumption that if you have a data plate and paperwork, you have an airplane. Did not go that way that time.
 
Last edited:
On the other hand, there are many "combat veteran" warbirds and golden age classics that are rebuilt completely around the data plate. Not a single piece of metal other than the data plate is original. This is legal.

If a multi million dollar P-51 is ok, why is a simple homebuilt kitplane any different?
 
Interesting question. Some googling turned up:
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/FAA_Order_8100.19.pdf

From that document:

For an aircraft to be considered eligible for repair, it must have at least one primary structure around which a repair can be performed; otherwise, the action would constitute a replacement of the aircraft.

...

The FAA does not consider an aircraft to be repairable if all primary structures of the aircraft must be replaced. Replacement of some major components of an aircraft would be considered a repair, but replacement of all of the primary structures of the aircraft is not a repair but a replacement of an aircraft. If the identification plate from the original aircraft were placed on the aircraft this action would be prohibited by 14 CFR § 45.13(e) which states that “No person may install an identification plate removed in accordance with paragraph (d)(2) of this section on any aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, propeller blade, or propeller hub other than the one from which it was removed.”
 
Thank you!

Interesting question. Some googling turned up:
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/FAA_Order_8100.19.pdf

From that document:

For an aircraft to be considered eligible for repair, it must have at least one primary structure around which a repair can be performed; otherwise, the action would constitute a replacement of the aircraft.

...

The FAA does not consider an aircraft to be repairable if all primary structures of the aircraft must be replaced. Replacement of some major components of an aircraft would be considered a repair, but replacement of all of the primary structures of the aircraft is not a repair but a replacement of an aircraft. If the identification plate from the original aircraft were placed on the aircraft this action would be prohibited by 14 CFR § 45.13(e) which states that “No person may install an identification plate removed in accordance with paragraph (d)(2) of this section on any aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, propeller blade, or propeller hub other than the one from which it was removed.”

AndrewR, this is the exact verbiage I was looking for.

In the "hypothetical" case I was referring to, it appears the horizontal and vertical components are salvageable - so per this reference it would be legal to remove the tail and build/repair everything else. Seems you could get around the 51% rule and the airworthiness inspection. Phase I requirements are a little more fuzzy.

I'm surprised at the answer, but I knew someone on VAF would be able to quote chapter and verse.
 
Why would someone want to buy a data plate? Only reason I could see is if someone doesn't want to do phase 1. Other option is they bought a 'parts plane' someone pulled their data plate off of for liability reasons.

You are correct.

Doesn't make sense although I was trying to say that if someone is considering such for whatever reason then that reason might apply to others.

I wouldn't do it. I'd want the new and correct data plate and WANT to do the Phase I testing that is required and NEEDED.
 
Refer to Order 8130.2j
DAR Gary

It appears Order 8130.2J (Airworthiness Certification of Aircraft) does not apply in this case. Order 8100.19 (Destroyed and Scrapped Aircraft) appears to directly apply.

The hypothetical aircraft has all the paperwork necessary for legal flight. The question is, "Is it destroyed or repairable".
IMHO, the hypothetical aircraft can be repaired (empennage salvageable) but would have to follow the rules that govern the repair...

EDIT: Originally had "back to phase 1" after repair but deleted per S. McDaniels post.
 
Last edited:
IMHO, the hypothetical aircraft can be repaired (empennage salvageable) but would have to follow the rules that govern the repair...back to phase 1.

Phase 1 has no relevance to anything that could legally be described as repair.
It would only come into play if during the repair/rebuild, changes were made that would classify as a major change.
If the rebuild was an exact copy, Phase 1 would not legally be required (though still treating it that way for some amount of test time would be a smart idea after an extensive amount of work).
 
Phase 1 has no relevance to anything that could legally be described as repair.
It would only come into play if during the repair/rebuild, changes were made that would classify as a major change.
If the rebuild was an exact copy, Phase 1 would not legally be required (though still treating it that way for some amount of test time would be a smart idea after an extensive amount of work).

There we go...repairable but no legal need to go to phase 1.
 
It wasn't a hypothetical choice for me. I wrecked my RV on first flight, bought back the salvage and decided to jump start the rebuild with a partially completed kit. I kept the option alive until within a year of finishing of either documenting the repairs or registering as a new build. I ultimately decided to go new and transferred the N-number to the new s/n and got a new AWC. Having a new plane with no damage history outweighed the psychological desire to claim it was the same plane.
 
Are you asking for a friend??
;)

No. Asking because I know the parties considering doing this and I was trying to understand the rules pertaining to the circumstances.

Thanks to a couple of folks here on VAF, I got the answer to my scenario.
 
Last edited:
Don't think this section of code applies in the least.

The answer to what is legally repairable vs. total loss was covered several responses back.

Really, then I must have been sleeping during that class at FLETC. When you submit signed paperwork to the FAA that you know is not true, how is that not covered under 18USC1001(a)(3)?

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) ...
(2) ...
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

I based my answer on his question:
"You total your E-AB airplane. You remove the data plate. You build (or have someone build for you) a replacement airplane (same model of course), upon which you install the aforementioned dataplate.

No airworthiness inspection. No 51% rule. Potentially no Phase I. "
 
Last edited:
AndrewR, this is the exact verbiage I was looking for.

In the "hypothetical" case I was referring to, it appears the horizontal and vertical components are salvageable - so per this reference it would be legal to remove the tail and build/repair everything else. Seems you could get around the 51% rule and the airworthiness inspection. Phase I requirements are a little more fuzzy.

I'm surprised at the answer, but I knew someone on VAF would be able to quote chapter and verse.

Really, then I must have been sleeping during that class at FLETC. When you submit signed paperwork to the FAA that you know is not true, how is that not covered under 18USC1001(a)(3)?

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) ...
(2) ...
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

I based my answer on his question:
"You total your E-AB airplane. You remove the data plate. You build (or have someone build for you) a replacement airplane (same model of course), upon which you install the aforementioned dataplate.

No airworthiness inspection. No 51% rule. Potentially no Phase I. "

As originally stated in post #1, 18USC1001(a)(3) applies but post #24 (copied above) clarifies the the situation and makes it more palatable.
 
On the other hand, there are many "combat veteran" warbirds and golden age classics that are rebuilt completely around the data plate. Not a single piece of metal other than the data plate is original. This is legal.

If a multi million dollar P-51 is ok, why is a simple homebuilt kitplane any different?

How many of those are E-AB like the OP wants to fly it after he "rebuilds" his and attaches the plate from the destroyed plane?
 
I think a lot of them are actually Limited category A/W certificates. I could be wrong, though. :)

Exactly. They're Limited or most likely Experimental-Exhibition, but I doubt you will find many Experimental-Amateur Built like he's trying to do.
 
Exactly. They're Limited or most likely Experimental-Exhibition, but I doubt you will find many Experimental-Amateur Built like he's trying to do.

Or Experimental, Air Racing. I don't think any of those categories change the rules on rebuilding, restoring or repairing an aircraft, though. But, I'm not a lawyer, let alone an aviation attorney.

I'm still curious how those WWII airplanes dredged up from the bottom of the Great Lakes or dug up from under 300 feet of ice or just plane rotted to the core restored? There can't be any salvageable, reusable "structural components" on some of those things. And no, I'm quite sure the FAA doesn't "look the other way", as someone suggested. It's a bit of thread drift, but if anyone knows, I'd sure like to hear how it's done.
 
And with a homebuilt there's really no reason to anyway. Just get a new data plate and be done with it. All it costs you is a DAR and 25 hours of semi restricted flying. That's pretty minor within the context of building and owning a plane.

In this particular case, one of the parties is trying to avoid the 51% rule - as they want to pay someone else rebuild the airplane versus building a new one. There would also be a 40 hour flyoff and I suspect they might be forced to pay taxes in their home State.

Since the empennage is intact, it appears they could have the rest of the plane "rebuilt" with new parts and it would be legal per the FAA rules.
 
If'n that were me, I'd be consulting a lawyer to make sure a) I didn't end up with something that can't get registered as an airplane, b) I didn't end up sideways with the FAA and get an enforcement action, and c) I didn't end up on the wrong side of a tax fraud case. But then again, I'm normally careful when it comes to my property, my money and my legal liability. YMMV.

One place I surely wouldn't trust for advice? Yep. The intertubes. :)

ETA: Not to mention, we haven't even begun to talk about insurance companies.
 
Thanks for all of the helpful replies. I have the answer to my original question and see no need for this thread to continue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top