• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

Professional builder /builder assist

jnorris said:
The FSDO inspector is still supposed to verify that the repairman certificate applicant is the "primary" builder of the aircraft. There are some cases where the applicant is NOT the primary builder, although these cases are somewhat rare. But that's what the interview process is supposed to establish.
Click to expand...

The requirements for issuance of "Certificate Repairman for Experimental Amateur Aircraft" are documented in 8900.1 Vol 5, Chapter 5, Section 5. One of the ways of satisfying the requirements is specified in par 2 which states:

"The applicant presents satisfactory evidence, such as the aircraft construction logbook.". There is no interview specified or required.

An alternate way of satisfying the requirements is to comply with para 3 which states:

"The applicant proves to the satisfaction of the inspector an ability to perform condition inspections and an ability to determine whether or not the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation."

An interview may well be appropriate for an applicant wishing to qualify under the requirement of para 3.

I see no reason to make up requirements for qualifying for a repairman certificate when FAA has clearly documented what the requirements actually are.
 
frequent_flyer said:
This is a direct quote from the FAA inspector's email exchanged during my application for the repairman certificate -

"I was able to see the build log and eligibility statement on line, so we are good to go there."

What on line source do you suppose this FAA inspector would have been able to access? How do you know what documentation the inspection DAR submitted to FAA?
Click to expand...

The only way a build log would be in the FAA records is if you provided a copy to the DAR and he submitted it with the certification paperwork prior to the AWC process. Since AWC, the only way it would be there is if the applicant uploaded it into the AWC Portal. Even if I had submitted a copy of the builders log with my certification paperwork, my Managing Specialist would have stripped it out and not sent it to Oklahoma City. Oder 8130.2J has a list of what paperwork is to be submitted to the Registry, and the build log is NOT specified. Most FSDOS will not send anything to AFS-750 unless it is required.
 
frequent_flyer said:
The requirements for issuance of "Certificate Repairman for Experimental Amateur Aircraft" are documented in 8900.1 Vol 5, Chapter 5, Section 5. One of the ways of satisfying the requirements is specified in par 2 which states:

"The applicant presents satisfactory evidence, such as the aircraft construction logbook.". There is no interview specified or required.

An alternate way of satisfying the requirements is to comply with para 3 which states:

"The applicant proves to the satisfaction of the inspector an ability to perform condition inspections and an ability to determine whether or not the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation."

An interview may well be appropriate for an applicant wishing to qualify under the requirement of para 3.

I see no reason to make up requirements for qualifying for a repairman certificate when FAA has clearly documented what the requirements actually are.
Click to expand...

You must not have dealt with FAA very much, Each FSDO and each Inspector within each FSDO seems to make up their own rules! Sometimes you go along to get along, sometimes you take them to task and use their own rules, Orders and Advisory Circulars against them. Pick your battles wisely!
 
dgapilot said:
The only way a build log would be in the FAA records is if the DAR submitted it with the certification paperwork prior to the AWC process. Since AWC, the only way it would be there is if the applicant uploaded it into the AWC Portal. Even if I had submitted a copy of the builders log with my certification paperwork, my Managing Specialist would have stripped it out and not sent it to Oklahoma City. Oder 8130.2J has a list of what paperwork is to be submitted to the Registry, and the build log is NOT specified.
Click to expand...

I expected to have to submit the build log to the FSDO inspector. He did not require it and he said why he did not require it. I corrected my post because the statement that I had submitted my build log by email was not correct.

Maybe one day I'll request the records to see what is actually there.
 
dgapilot said:
You must not have dealt with FAA very much, Each FSDO and each Inspector within each FSDO seems to make up their own rules! Sometimes you go along to get along, sometimes you take them to task and use their own rules, Orders and Advisory Circulars against them. Pick your battles wisely!
Click to expand...

There was no battle. I had read the rules before I applied. The inspector was familiar with, and followed, the same rules. It was a painless process.

I have had some interaction with FAA both as a pilot and in my professional involvement with aircraft systems development and certification. I'm now retired but it was my understanding that FAA was trying to move a bit closer to standardization between different regions and offices.
 
The FX program is interesting. I doubt the average FX buyer is qualified to hold a repairman's certificate if based solely on their participation in the FX process. The way an FX gets built is very different from spending a couple of years putting a plane together like most E-AB builders do.
 
stewartb said:
The FX program is interesting. I doubt the average FX buyer is qualified to hold a repairman's certificate if based solely on their participation in the FX process. The way an FX gets built is very different from spending a couple of years putting a plane together like most E-AB builders do.
Click to expand...

CubCrafters agrees that the average FX builder is not qualified for a repairman certificate. They actively discourage people from applying and they offer no assistance to those who do wish to apply.
 
Are you speaking for CC when you say "CubCrafters agrees that the average FX builder is not qualified for a repairman certificate". How would CC know that?

So the average FX builder spends time building a complete airplane with the builder assist program (a process approved by the FAA), applies and recieves airworthiness, but is not qualified for a repairman certificate?
 
aeroaddict said:
Are you speaking for CC when you say "CubCrafters agrees that the average FX builder is not qualified for a repairman certificate". How would CC know that?
Click to expand...

Here is the article that gave rise to that comment - https://www.kitplanes.com/cubcrafters-ex-3-fx-3/
Look for comments by Lervold.

My comment was also based on interactions with CubCrafters personnel and with the DAR who issued my airworthiness certificate.

Earlier in this thread I provided a reference to the FAA requirements for a repairman certificate. Anyone who meets those requirements is qualified.

It is my personal opinion that, if a person had no other experience of aircraft maintenance or inspection, the FX build program would not result in their being competent to maintain or inspect their newly built FX-3.

I do not represent, or speak for, CubCrafters.
 
Thanks. I'm surprised that CC would even make a statement one way or the other (legal reasons) and surprised that the (CC) DAR would voice an opinion.

My experience was just the opposite (EX-2), the DAR was professional and experienced. But I will say I had my 'ducks in a row' and was ready. In regards to the Repairmans Cert, again it was rather a boring experience.

I would not discourage anyone from learning more about thier (expensive) plane and becoming a Repairman. In my own case, there are a bunch of great knowledgeable people around the airport willing to offer help or advice; some are A&P's/IA's, and some are not.
 
Last edited:
skywagon8a said:
dgapilot is absolutely correct on this subject. Every other year (except this year) the IAs need to meet with the FAA in March to renew their authorizations. Often the FAA legal department will make a presentation. After sitting through this presentation, it is a wonder every IA in the room doesn't stand up, throw his ticket on the table and walk out. Lawyers and sue happy people have made the profession in which most of us involved do it for the love of aviation, a very litigious occupation. It is not unusual for an unlicensed aircraft owner to accomplish something "not according to Hoyle" on his airplane. Then he presents it to the mechanic expecting the mechanic to bless it. Hopefully the mechanic finds it. Sometimes it doesn't make it's presence known until it breaks creating legal problems for the mechanic. It just is not something a mechanic should be expected to sign away his life savings upon.
Click to expand...

A mechanic who owns nothing is not a target therefore a lawyer will never sue them...cant get blood out of a turnip. No money payout, no reason for a lawyer to get involved. JMHO. Tim
 
aeroaddict said:
Thanks. I'm surprised that CC would even make a statement one way or the other (legal reasons) and surprised that the (CC) DAR would voice an opinion.

My experience was just the opposite (EX-2), the DAR was professional and experienced. But I will say I had my 'ducks in a row' and was ready. In regards to the Repairmans Cert, again it was rather a boring experience.

I would not discourage anyone from learning more about thier (expensive) plane and becoming a Repairman. In my own case, there and a bunch of great knowledgeable people around the airport willing to offer help or advice; some are A&P's/IA's, and some are not.
Click to expand...
Big difference between building an FX at the factory and an EX on your own. A lot of the FX owners sent a representative to do their build and have no desire to do their own maintenance and inspections. I work on a lot of them and they are not your average Super Cub owner.
 
"they are not your average Super Cub owner." So are you saying a CC meets the definition of a Super Cub? :p Just kidding of course as these planes and pilots have taken a beating sometimes here on the forums.

I assume by your statement that the owners just want the EAB category. There are some advantages of course but if they don't maintain the plane, then why?

Good news is, it's business for you.
 
That is the only way to get a new FX3. It is not type certified and Cub Crafters does not have a production certificate so these guys want a new FX3 they or their agent must spend a week meeting the requirements and another week on final assembly and paperwork. On the other hand an EX builder builds, covers and paints the airplane. They should know the plane inside and out.
 
Plenty of EXs get built by professional builders. I’m sure the same is true for Javron, Backcountry, etc. The demand for experimental Cubs is strong.

The market is interesting. My nephew bought what I’d consider is the best standard category Cub I’ve seen sold in a long time. Recent restoration, new wings, 100 hour motor, pod, etc. He paid about half of what guys are paying for used Carbon Cubs.
 
Last edited:
aeroaddict said:
.... the owners just want the EAB category. There are some advantages of course but if they don't maintain the plane, then why? ....
Click to expand...

I can think of a couple reasons:
first of all, no need to confirm to a type certificate--
install whatever tires, high compression pistons, 4 into 1 exhaust, etc you want. No (expensive) STC required.
Secondly, no IA required for annual inspection-- an A&P can do the yearly condition inspection.
 
I've experienced both types of building on my project so far - I started out with a week at Javron and then have done the rest on my "own" (I use quotes because I'm pretty sure sc.org could apply for the repairman's certificate). The builder assist week was invaluable to kick start the process. However, I'm finding that as the build has progressed, I've had to go back and properly learn what I did earlier (e.g. what type of rivets were those? what size? why? etc). I am glad I did it this way, and I wouldn't do it any other way. However, for me, if I did builder assist the whole way through, 1) I'd probably be flying by now; and 2) I would have large gaps in my understanding of plane construction.
 
Sam D said:
However, for me, if I did builder assist the whole way through, 1) I'd probably be flying by now; and 2) I would have large gaps in my understanding of plane construction.
Click to expand...

And you'd have a larger hole in your wallet where some money used to be! :) As always, building an airplane is the act of trading time for money (and vice versa). If you have more money you can spend less time (by paying for a quick-build kit and/or using some builder assist), and if you want to save money you'll have to spend less time by doing more of the build yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
Super Legend HP builder experience
Replies
8
Views
3K
neck101
N
bamendala
Building a javron with no plans
Replies
22
Views
2K
Scott A
Scott A
R
cool plane builder website with lots of good ideas....
Replies
2
Views
3K
rrb
rrb
S
Javron, Dakota, Carbon Cub: The build experience?
2
Replies
52
Views
32K
stewartb
S
sj
Cubcrafters annonces carbon cub fx builder assist program
Replies
5
Views
5K
stewartb
S
Back
Top