CUB CRAFTER QUICK BUILD

[gbigs]

Cub Crafters has a new quick build program that gets owners to the 51% rule in five days.  How?

 

Customers complete the construction of steel, composite and aluminum parts instead of assembling a kit. 

 

"Instead of assisting your assembly of parts from a kit, CubCrafters' technicians facilitate your fabrication of the parts themselves! Using our modern facilities and equipment, we will guide you through the fabrication process in an astonishingly short time."

 

Then the factory builds the plane and you just pick it up at after 50 more days.

 

http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/experimental-aircraft-homebuilts/cubcrafters-introduces-quick-build-program?cmpid=enews062315&spPodID=030&spMailingID=22903312&spUserID=NDcyODMyMzM0MjUS1&spJobID=582265725&spReportId=NTgyMjY1NzI1S0

[Anticept]

I am not sure how to respond to this. To me, this feels like it dodges the 51% rule, but at the same time if they have all the rigging set up, that does cut a CONSIDERABLE amount of the time down (preparation and rigging does take a massive portion of the time up in homebuilding). However, learning how to do prep and rigging in the first place is a major item in proper repairs, so I still really don't know how to feel about this.

[Doug G.]

If this is the case, isn't every airplane eligible to be AB? Well, as long as one person claims the 51%?

[gbigs]

Recall, many think a pro building a kit with the owner standing around for some period of time dabbling in the build is not meeting the rule.  Now we have the owners pulling levers on molding machines and making parts at the factory...leaving, waiting for the kit to be ENTIRELY assembled by the manufacturer and later returning to pickup up their planes.  The Carbon Cub process is not just novel, it's completely different.

[Anticept]

The article is very skimp on specific details. It feels much more like marketing fluff than an actual article.

 

Also, cutting build time from a couple thousand hours to a 5 day timeframe? It doesn't sit right, but I'll keep my mind open.

[Doug G.]

I may be wrong about this, but would Burgers then be responsible for annual inspections?

[Anticept]

Any A&P can sign for inspections on experimentals. The builder-repairman can too. Repairman certification does NOT transfer, and nor can another builder-repairman sign for inspections on a plane he/she did not build.

[gbigs]

I may be wrong about this, but would Burgers then be responsible for annual inspections?

 

Any A&P can do maint. on an experimental, including annuals.

[Doug G.]

I was under the impression that only the builder could do inspections - anyone can work on them.

[Anticept]

The builder is the only *repairman* (this is a cert) who can do the inspections on the aircraft that they have built, but any A&P can too. Don't quote me on this, but I think once the kit plane is sold, the repairman certificate becomes invalid, or at least is no longer useable unless they own the aircraft again.

 

As for maintenance: I've been told the same, anyone can work on them. However, I've not yet seen it in writing, and it's probably on the airworthiness certificate limitations or buried deep in the regs.

[Doug G.]

That is a completely different understanding than the one I got from our FSDO. And from our EAA folks. And from Rainbow aviation.

A builder of a E-AB does not need a repairman certificate. (I am an LSRM-A). And anyone (Carol King says even a "trunk monkey") can work on it. One of the big hassles with E-AB is that even when you sell it you remain the one that has to do the annual. There are no options for transfer.

That is what came out of a meeting our EAA chapter had on test flights and certification with the FSDO people in charge of those things.

I may be wrong, but this has been my understanding over the past four years from a variety of sources.

[Doug G.]

I think the assumption is that if you build and modify it, it is your responsibility and you are the only one who actually know the plane.

[Tom Baker]

91.319 covers the operation of experimental aircraft. It says that it must have a condition inspection, and list the people authorized to perform the inspection. I'm not sure when the FAA started issueing repairman certificates for experimental aircraft, but I do know at least in the 60's to early 70's they didn't. Back then you had to have a A&P do the inspection.

 

Part 43 covers who can work on aircraft, and it doesn't apply to experimental aircraft minus a few exceptions.

[Tom Baker]

The primary builder of a experimental amueture built aircraft can apply for a repairman certificate to do condition inspections on just that airplane. The repairman certificate is not automatically given to the builder.

[Anticept]

If they don't issue certificates (again I don't know much about the experimental side but I swear I read that they did), i would be interested in seeing an airworthiness limits section of an experimental. I am curious as to how the logbook signatures are supposed to be written.

[FastEddieB]

If they don't issue certificates (again I don't know much about the experimental side but I swear I read that they did), i would be interested in seeing an airworthiness limits section of an experimental. I am curious as to how the logbook signatures are supposed to be written.

Does this help, from my E-LSA Sky Arrow (last 2 pages):

 

 

[Tom Baker]

If they don't issue certificates (again I don't know much about the experimental side but I swear I read that they did), i would be interested in seeing an airworthiness limits section of an experimental. I am curious as to how the logbook signatures are supposed to be written.

I'm not exactly sure what certificate you are talking about. They do have a airworthiness certificate, and CRF 65.104 covers the issue of a repairman certificate to the builder of a experimental aircraft.

 

The typical inspection signoff goes something like this. "This aircraft has been inspected IAW the scope and detail of CFR 43 appendix D, and has been found to be in a condition for safe operation."

[Anticept]

Experimentals are governed by an airworthiness limitations section, just like LSA. That limitations section will shed a lot of light on how things work with the experimentals.

 

FastEddieB: LSA is a bit different, S or E.

[FastEddieB]

 

FastEddieB: LSA is a bit different, S or E.

I guess.

 

But the "E" does stand for "Experimental". And that's what my plane has displayed on it.

[Anticept]

They are indeed different. Experimental LSA is still an LSA, while amateur built experimental aircraft are governed by a few slightly different rules. Since we're getting nitty gritty here, I do appreciate helping by sharing your experimental limitations section, but those small details will be important. Of course, I could be talking out of my ass too, since I can't claim to have much experience at all with amateur built.

 

It's a big document, but airworthiness certification is govered by order 8130.2: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgOrders.nsf/0/7a09d53fb0d5325586257885004d9e1b/$FILE/8130.2G_CHG1_Incorporated.pdf. Page 4-60 appears to be of particular interest for E-AB. 4-75, specifically, has examples of airworthiness limitations, but has a leading statement saying an ASI may add additional limitations as necessary.

 

Here is an interesting statement:

 

 

(23)  Condition inspections must be recorded in the aircraft logbook and maintenance
records showing the following, or a similarly worded, statement:  
“I certify that this aircraft has been inspected on [insert date] in accordance with the scope and detail of
14 CFR part 43, appendix D, and was found to be in a condition for safe operation.”
The entry will include the aircraft’s total time-in-service (cycles if appropriate), and the name,
signature, certificate number, and type of certificate held by the person performing the
inspection.

 

 

I wonder if someone signs as a pilot or as a repairman? If the latter, they will have a certificate.

 

EDIT!

 

 

(26)  An experimental aircraft builder certificated as a repairman for this aircraft under 14
CFR §65.104 or an appropriately rated FAA-certificated mechanic may perform the
condition inspection required by these operating limitations.

 

There we have it! http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2012-title14-vol2/pdf/CFR-2012-title14-vol2-sec65-104.pdf

 

Funny thing is, I remember reading this section as part of my studies in A&P school. I knew I saw it somewhere!

[Doug G.]

Still a big difference from E-AB.

[Anticept]

Did some edits to my previous post. There IS an E-AB repairman certificate that must be held by the builder.

 

Tom: I completely missed your post, you in fact, did point it out first. I'm sorry

 

Also, I've been up for about 30 hours (serious tooth ache that the dentist took care of a few hours ago). So my excuse is I have poo brain from sleep deprivation!

[Doug G.]

The repairman certificate takes no training, and cannot be transferred. And it looks like an A & P can do annuals. Is it difficult to get someone to sign off on an AB?

What I read didn't sound like it was a requirement for the builder to apply for the repairman certificate.

[FastEddieB]

I wonder if someone signs as a pilot or as a repairman? If the latter, they will have a certificate.

 

We're both in the same boat as having little (in my case, virtually no) experience with E-AB regs and procedures.

 

I take it that my plane is an EXPERIMENTAL (says so on the side!) that just happens also to be a Light Sport.

 

So,

 

1) Anyone can perform maintenance on it - no certificate nor specific training nor qualifications required by regulations.

 

2) Anyone can make modifications to it - so long as those modifications don't take it out of Light Sport limitations.

 

3) Annual condition inspections can be performed by an A&P, an LSRM, or the owner (me) since I have taken the 16 hour course and qualified for and received the LSR-I certificate.

 

4) So, I sign off my annual condition inspections as "Owner" and list my certificate number, same as my pilot's license.

 

Again, do not know what does and does not translate to the E-AB world.

[Tom Baker]

The repairman certificate takes no training, and cannot be transferred. And it looks like an A & P can do annuals. Is it difficult to get someone to sign off on an AB?

What I read didn't sound like it was a requirement for the builder to apply for the repairman certificate.

 

Doug, the training for the repairman certificate comes from being the primary builder of the aircraft. Back in the 60's when my dad built his EAB the FAA inspector offer to give him the sign off to get his A&P based on the hours spent building his airplane. He foolishly didn't take advantage of that, but now he has me to watch over him.

 

I do some inspections on EAB aircraft through out the year, but it may be harder to find someone in other parts of the country. Mostly it comes down to the mechanics don't know the airplane like others they work on, so they are reluctant to do the inspection.

 

The builder only has to apply for the repairman certificate if he wants it. There is a fellow on our field who built a Thorp T18. The DAR came and did the airworthiness inspection and issued the airworthiness certificate. He had to take his builders log, documentation, and application to the FSDO to get his repairman certificate. While there they looked at the build log and ask specific questions before issuing the certificate.