Non-self build
Moderators: John Dean, Moderator
-
Dominicpriestley
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:58 pm
Non-self build
Is it allowed under LAA/Permit rules to have someone build an aircraft for you from plans? Not a factory, but lets say a sole person building a Jodel from plans. Is this allowed on permit?
It is most definately NOT allowed. It does go on and you may well be approached by a dodgy individual offering to do it for you but you run the risk of ending up with a very expensive ornament.
Such an aircraft would not be eligable for a permit to fly.
PM me if you want further info,or phone engineering.
Regards John (LAA inspector).
Such an aircraft would not be eligable for a permit to fly.
PM me if you want further info,or phone engineering.
Regards John (LAA inspector).
JC feel free to jump in if this is flawed.
In the case you mention of building from plans then you would normally be doing 100% of the build. The (new) rules are you must do 51% of a build (was 500 hours). It may therefore be possible to agree a degree of “kiting” with LAA engineering so you take the plans, pay to get a kit of parts and some assembles which equate to 49% and you do the rest. The downside of this is it will probably cost you more in labour to get to 49% than the finished aircraft would be worth. Building is fun and a full understanding of the aircraft is a huge safety benefit.
Another approach would be to get an existing factory built aircraft which has been transferred to a permit and do a restoration to “as new” condition. There would be no problem with this and you would get a finished aircraft much quicker and at less cost.
Rod1
In the case you mention of building from plans then you would normally be doing 100% of the build. The (new) rules are you must do 51% of a build (was 500 hours). It may therefore be possible to agree a degree of “kiting” with LAA engineering so you take the plans, pay to get a kit of parts and some assembles which equate to 49% and you do the rest. The downside of this is it will probably cost you more in labour to get to 49% than the finished aircraft would be worth. Building is fun and a full understanding of the aircraft is a huge safety benefit.
Another approach would be to get an existing factory built aircraft which has been transferred to a permit and do a restoration to “as new” condition. There would be no problem with this and you would get a finished aircraft much quicker and at less cost.
Rod1
021864
Rod,
what you say is correct in theory.However in practice it would over complicate an already complicated and protracted process. The amount of prefabrication would have to be discussed and agreed with engineering beforehand and monitored by the inspector during the build.
The building of such a project is a very long term commitment and in this case, building does not seem to be the prime objective.
There is another element in a case like this if I may be allowed to give the inspectors side. If the inspector gives freely of his time and knowledge,including travel etc. to oversee a long term project,it can be very gualling to see it abandoned when the builder gives up having realised that they have made the wrong choice. Far better to spend some time at the outset to make the right choice.
With that in mind,most enquiries of this nature stem from the person seeing homebuilding as a cheaper option route to ownership, but that rarely turns out to be the case.
Home building should be seen as a desire to build, not to fly. A better route to cheaper flying is to join a group.
This can be combined with the desire to "tinker" by joining a group and volunteering to do the maintainance within the group,(possibly in return for a lower flying rate?).
Another option is to buy an airworthy but tatty example and spend time over a period of time bringing it back to pristine condition.
Before embarking on any of the above,my advice would be ,speak to as many inspectors as possible in your area and try to find one on the same wavelength as yourself and then discuss the options and how far involved you want the inspector to be,or perhaps how far he/she is prepared to be to achieve youe ultimate goal.
what you say is correct in theory.However in practice it would over complicate an already complicated and protracted process. The amount of prefabrication would have to be discussed and agreed with engineering beforehand and monitored by the inspector during the build.
The building of such a project is a very long term commitment and in this case, building does not seem to be the prime objective.
There is another element in a case like this if I may be allowed to give the inspectors side. If the inspector gives freely of his time and knowledge,including travel etc. to oversee a long term project,it can be very gualling to see it abandoned when the builder gives up having realised that they have made the wrong choice. Far better to spend some time at the outset to make the right choice.
With that in mind,most enquiries of this nature stem from the person seeing homebuilding as a cheaper option route to ownership, but that rarely turns out to be the case.
Home building should be seen as a desire to build, not to fly. A better route to cheaper flying is to join a group.
This can be combined with the desire to "tinker" by joining a group and volunteering to do the maintainance within the group,(possibly in return for a lower flying rate?).
Another option is to buy an airworthy but tatty example and spend time over a period of time bringing it back to pristine condition.
Before embarking on any of the above,my advice would be ,speak to as many inspectors as possible in your area and try to find one on the same wavelength as yourself and then discuss the options and how far involved you want the inspector to be,or perhaps how far he/she is prepared to be to achieve youe ultimate goal.