Brian Rauchfuss - PCD wrote:
>
> The key point to remember is that the primary builder does not have to have
> done 51% - all the amateur builders put together have to have done 51%. There
> is no requirement that I know of for someone to be the "primary" builder,
> it is just whichever of the amateur builders applies for the repair
> certificate.
You're exactly correct that that "major portion" - the 51% test - and
"primary builder" are two separate issues, only the former of which is
conducive to objective test. "Primary builder" is in the Regs., but
perhaps intentionally so worded for flexibility, as the word "primary"
has definitional problems just as in other areas of civil law. So for
example, where a high-school shop class builds an experimental, the
teacher has been granted the certificate w/o ever twisting a wrench on
it.
Where several builders concurrently complete the project, I doubt any
of them who participated significantly would be denied. The
application form contains nothing conducive to determining who's
primary, and in lieu of an additional internal form the inspector
fills out, his butt is covered. However, where you buy a 90% project,
the inspector will have a decision to make, possibly one which hinges
on meeting the "requisite skill" test, in discussion with you.
I don't know if it works this way, but in the overall regulatory
scheme, the only difference is who can do the annual inspection. Any
purchaser of any experimental, including a jet, can make perform any
maintenance or do any modification, subject to inspection as many as
12 months hence. And by someone (any A&P) not necessarily familiar
with composites or non-aircraft engines. Nonsensical of course. This
in the above 90% case, one might be able to talk one's way into the
repairman's cert, rather than FAA concluding no one gets it.
Regards,
Fred F., A063
|