Warning on Swick T

[210turbo]

This means that my Clip wing Swick T that I have worked on for the last 15
years will be turned down also. There are 1000's of airplanes across the
country that are JUNK now.

David Goad
----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Cc: ;
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 1:18 PM
Subject: Amateur-Built Aircraft Certification Requirements


>
> Dear Mr. Goad:
>
> This message is to inform you of changes to Federal Aviation
> Administration (FAA) procedures concerning certification of
> Amateur-Built Aircraft. Change 3, to FAA Order 8130.2F, Airworthiness
> Certification of Aircraft and Related Products, was released on April
> 18, 2007. The change includes clarification of certification
> requirements for amateur-built aircraft and affects your ability to
> obtain an amateur-built aircraft airworthiness certificate for your
> type-certificated Taylorcraft airplane.
>
> Section 9, paragraph 146 of Order 8130.2F, now contains a note that
> states “A rebuilt, altered, or repaired type-certificated aircraft DOES
> NOT meet the intent of § 21.191(g) and DOES NOT meet the § 21.191(g)
> requirement that the major portion of the aircraft be fabricated and
> assembled.”
>
> It has never been the intent of either the regulations or FAA policy to
> allow the conversion of a type-certificated aircraft into an
> amateur-built aircraft. The intent of the regulation and policy can be
> tracked back as early as October 1952 in which the Civil Aeronautics
> Administration (predecessor of the FAA) published Civil Aeronautics
> Manual 1, which provided an interpretation of the amateur-built aircraft
> rule. The interpretation of Civil Air Regulation, part 1.74.3,
> Certification of Amateur-Built Aircraft, stated in part “…Structural
> components of other aircraft may be used; however, it is not intended
> that this provision be used to avoid obtaining approval of major
> alterations to aircraft previously certificated in another category…”
>
> Your aircraft may, however, be eligible for an airworthiness certificate
> in the experimental category for the purpose of exhibition under 14 CFR
> § 21.191(d). Valid exhibition purposes include organized air shows,
> fly-ins, youth education events, static displays, aerobatic competition,
> movie or television productions, etc. The aircraft’s eligibility for
> that certification would have to be determined by the local
> Manufacturing Inspection District Office (MIDO).
>
> If you have any questions concerning current FAA regulations or policy,
> please feel free to contact me.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Ford J Lauer III
> Manager,
> Manufacturing Inspection District Office
> San Antonio, Texas
> Phone: (210) 308-3360
>
>
>

[Vasey fan]

Re: Warning on Swick T

I thought that there was a clarification on this last year to the effect that the Swick was still ok, as there is an FAA letter confirming it to conform to the 51% rule.

Sure hope that's the case - or I'm sitting on a heap of "parts" myself.

[astjp2]

Re: Warning on Swick T

Next time, LIE! you built the airplane from scratch and let them prove you different! Tim

[crispy critter]

Re: Warning on Swick T

Guys,I believe the Swick can be classified as amature built because you have to do several mods to the fuslage such as relocate the horizonal stab,modifiy the strut attach fitting(strap),manufacture new struts,completely build the wings from scratch using t-craft harware,redesign the the cockpit control system,and that is just the basics. I know this much alone puts in in the 51% rule before you cover and paint. The problem you might have is they might bring up the fact that the Swick T-craft was once a factory built certified airplane but I don't think it ever got certified approval for production. I think(THINK) they were only a select few built by the factory and they were certified under restricted or some type of limited catogory.....jump in here and correct me where I'm wrong Forrest or Eric.

[Ragwing nut]

Re: Warning on Swick T

There is no way they can make this black and white. Perfect example is the Wag-Aero Cuby. What difference will it make if the fuselage is originally a J-3 with no paperwork, fully welded fuse by Wag-Aero, or welded assembly by the builder. Except for a couple changes, it is a J-3 Cub. As long as you can prove you built 51%, they can't deny an ametuer ticket because you used a factory fuselage. The fuselage does not make 51% of the airplane.

[210turbo]

Re: Warning on Swick T

Yes, I said the same thing "I'm building not less than 51%". The faa refused to acknowldge my paper work and what you have read was the response.
I am also in Texas and unlike most states they make-up and interpit the way they please here.

[VictorBravo]

Re: Warning on Swick T

Call the EAA, and ask for the FAA - homebuilt liasion person. Ask them to get involved, at least you will have some horsepower behind you.

[Forrest Barber]

Re: Warning on Swick T

Why not do it as Standard Category with the original Swick STC's
OR just go to Experimential Category , not Home built but Exhibition?

Leisa Marie was done that way (Standard Category, 9 STC's).
Here is link to photo at our Grassroots Aerobatic Day a couple of years ago in Alliance. She is now owned by Mark & Judy Ohlinger http://gallery.taylorcraft.org/main.php?g2_itemId=153 she is first one at the top.

I buy piles of junk!

[Acroeric]

Re: Warning on Swick T

This is really nothing new- it has been the way the FAA has tried to do things for years- there is a question on the application that states" has this aircraft ever held an airworthiness certificate" The obvious answer is NO. The intent is to prevent someone from taking a stock Taylorcraft and getting an experimental amateur built AW certificate. This is THE sticking point with amateur built. The error in this case originated with the application. . . .

My clipwing is amateur built- I built and designed wood ribs, spars, cowlings, gear, the fuselage, fuel tanks, wings, engine mount etc. It is not a Taylorcraft. . . . it is a whatever I decide to call it special. I truly built 99% of it and I was careful to take pictures to prove it. I think the only part used that I did not build was the doors and I have modified them into observer type.

I would recommend that you call the manager of the MIDO that sent you that letter and explain a few things:

1) The "Aircraft" has never held an airworthiness certificate of any kind. . .you have used some structural components to construct a totally different aircraft- one that you have completed more than 51%. You have not simply applied for a different aw cert. This is within the scope of the new order and meets the intent of the 1952 CAA rule.

2) The Swick has been previously found to meet the 51% rule by the FAA- it is on the notes of the plans of page 1.

3) The new Swick Tcraft that is being sold in kit form qualifies for amateur built. . . . just like the wag aero cuby that commonly uses J-3 fuselages.

If that still isn't good enough then just certify it exhibition. The only drawbacks to that are:

1) no repairman certificate available
2) 300 mile radius from home
3) annual program letter required for any flight outside your 300 mile radius.

Exhibition definately doesn't make 1000's of airplanes junk- it simply makes then just a little bit more restrictive but definately nothing that isn't easilly managed. When I had Sid Nelson's old clipwing it was exhibition- I simply submitted a program letter annually with a copy of the fly in schedule for the nation and said I "MAY" be attending these events. That was all I had to do. The FAA doesn't approve those letters- they just have to be informed.

[Ragwing nut]

Re: Warning on Swick T

Why not do it as Standard Category with the original Swick STC's
OR just go to Experimential Category , not Home built but Exhibition?

Leisa Marie was done that way (Standard Category, 9 STC's).
Here is link to photo at our Grassroots Aerobatic Day a couple of years ago in Alliance. She is now owned by Mark & Judy Ohlinger http://gallery.taylorcraft.org/main.php?g2_itemId=153 she is first one at the top.

I buy piles of junk!

Last I heard Mike had not, would not, and will not sell the STC's for years. I don;t think they went with the Swick T inventory either if I remember my conversation correctly.

Mike

[Ragwing nut]

Re: Warning on Swick T

Documentation is the key here. And they can't go back and pull tickets on those already approved.

Mike

[Vasey fan]

Re: Warning on Swick T

Last I heard Mike had not, would not, and will not sell the STC's for years. I don;t think they went with the Swick T inventory either if I remember my conversation correctly.

Mike

That's what I recall as well. Besides Mike not wanting to be on the hook for any more liability (and who can blame him?), I believe that the Feds had some issues with the weight on the bigger Lycoming powered ships.

[Forrest Barber]

Re: Warning on Swick T

I have seen letters for operations '"east of the Mississippi" . In my opinion the original STC is "'approved data" and can be repeated on subsequent airplanes. If the original STC holder does not want to accept money, Oh Well. I have seen and flown a lot of clipped Taylorcrafts , IF you have a collection of parts and ideas and build an airplane THEN it is not a Taylorcraft. I still feel that the Wiley ship was not a typical Taylorcraft, but the NTSB never offered to have me travel there to offer advise.
I am done with both subjects on this thread. Any more you can e-mail me direct.

[flyguy]

Re: Warning on Swick T

Short of it: Ok to build new aircraft using parts from certified aircraft, not OK to modify certified aircraft. (For homebuilt approval.) Thanks, Eric.

All bureaucracies thrive on semantic games.

My favorites from the FAA, "I've never seen that document before," and then "That isn't what it says."

Darryl

[210turbo]

Re: Warning on Swick T

When I first purchased the drawings Mike stated he would sell me the STC to cert my project, later he refused to.
I never submitted anything that stated this aircraft was ever certified. The faa came out to inspect it and I told them the airframe was originally a taylorcraft, that is all it takes AND I DO NOT LIE. When I say "it" I have two t-carts.
Using acceptable data to gain the benefit of someone elses stc is no longer allowed.
Not only do I not LIE, I will not let someone else believe something I know not to be true.