Cross-Border construction

[Quinton Oliviero]

Does anyone have any experience moving a project from the US to Canada? Right now I'm seriously considering buying a Cozy IV project in Buffalo, NY and bringing it up to Canada to finish and register it, but I'm concerned about being trapped in a regulatory limbo.

My fear is that since the project wasn't started in Canada obviously no Letter of Intent to Build was filed with MD-RA. If I were to file one I wouldn't be able to prove the Major Portion Requirement (51% rule) even with the build logs because the original builder couldn't legally transfer the project to me.

I've got a request for information in to the MD-RA, but I'd love to hear from anyone who has attempted something like this before. I mean it stands to reason that someone must have done something like this before. Right?

[Kent Ashton]

Here’s a discussion for a project sale within Canada and a general FAQ

http://www.eaahighriver.org/sites/default/files/docs/HomeBuilding/MDRAInspection.pdf

http://www.md-ra.com/en/faq_en.html

i have no experience with Canada but just googling the Canadian  regs, it seems likely you would just file an Intent to Build letter and a Bill of Sale from the seller, get an initial inspection to prove you  still have 51% yet to build.  If the inspector agrees, you’d be good to go.

http://www.ultralightnews.com/pilotslounge/cdnbillofsale.htm

Edited October 11, 2018 by Kent Ashton

[macleodm3]

Yeah... just hide the wings, canard, canopy, gear... anything that can be removed from the fuselage.  Are the strakes (fuel tanks) built yet?  They are beyond the 51% point in my opinion (although I'm not done yet...)

Show us some photos of the project!!

Edited October 11, 2018 by macleodm3

[macleodm3]

Also... the Canard Aviators yahoo email list and the Cozy Builders google group have lots of active members too.  Join those groups too.  To get the most answers to your question(s) on canard aircraft you have to sometimes post your question to 3 or 4 places.  

[Quinton Oliviero]

Yeah, I might be overthinking it. The fuel strakes have yet to be built and I think the argument could easily be made that 51% remains. If that's the case there's no problem. The grey-area really only arises if the kit is more than 51% built, but not yet airworthy. My impression from my limited dealings with MD-RA are that there is always a path to airworthiness, it's just a question of how many inspections and how much paperwork there is.

The project is the one Kent linked on Saturday from Barnstormers. Dave Hanson is asking 12k for it, and offering to continue the build to closing inspection level for another 10k(which is allowed under Canadian 51% rules as long as it's done under my direction). I'd still need to find an engine (or come up with the cash to buy his O-360), some instrumentation, the interior, and the paint.

I've got a few more pictures he sent me on my phone, and I'll upload them when I get the chance. 

[macleodm3]

Yes you could argue that 51% remains.... but the fuel strakes are partially built and some could argue against you.  

Before you pull the trigger you really do need a good firm answer on this.... do some research over on the Van's Airforce forum.  With the 10,000 builders over there its likely this has come up before.  Here is a result from VAF that may raise your eyebrows....  I wouldn't move forward unless I was certain it would all work.  It sounds like Canada has inspections that they make during the build.....

Hi to all !!

Previously, I posted here about my plan to start building a RV-8 outside of Canada (in France or Switzerland) then, when my job here is done in 2016, move back home in Québec with my project.

After discussions with French and Canadian authorities, here's the scoop if any one else has the same idea:

Concerning amateur building, Transport Canada doesn't accept any foreign inspections not made by the MD-RA (Minister's Delegates-Recreational Aviation).

3 options are suggested:

1- Complete the airplane in the foreign country with all their necessary inspections and paperwork, then fly it for a minimum of 100 hours. Then it's possible to import it normally as a private plane.

2- Build until you reach an in$pection $tep, have a Canadian in$pector come over to do hi$/her $tuff, and you're re$ponsible for all hi$/her expen$e$ of cour$e... 

3- Build until you reach an inspection step, leave that part open for future inspection and import it that way. (I guess if the skins are set, some un-riveting will have to take place...)

I don't believe I'll have time to complete it so my option will be to do all possible steps without closing up the skins... Then import the disassembled plane for inspection in Canada, and complete it afterwards.

One side note, for France to issue a F- registration to a foreigner, he/she needs to be considered as a permanent resident.

So my empennage is ordered and on it's way, the tools are just about to be ordered, and I finally found a decent place to build...

Expected start of building is April !!!

Have a nice day !!!

[Quinton Oliviero]

Firstly, Photos!

Second, I got a reply from the MD-RA this morning and it was a bit good-news/bad-news.

Good news: The 51% requirement is a non-issue. The 51% doesn't have to be built by me or a Canadian registered builder.

Bad news: Any structural component (he specifically mentioned wings, canard, control surfaces, and fuselage) need to be inspected by MD-RA before being covered, and unlike the RV builder Andrew quoted above you can't "unrivet" composite construction. I think the fuselage is probably ok, but the wings and control surfaces look to be done. If that's the case I won't be allowed to use them as they would never issue me the Special C of A without proof of inspection.

My Hail Mary pass is that the wings and canard were supposedly built by Dennis Oelmann and I'm hoping that given his being a known quantity the MD-RA might consider them as being part of a Quick Build kit? It's a long shot; the only kit builder MD-RA officially recognizes is AeroCad/AeroCanard...

[Kent Ashton]

10 hours ago, Quinton Oliviero said:

I've got a few more pictures he sent me on my phone, and I'll upload them when I get the chance. 

It seems like the easiest thing would be to determine who would inspect the project and shoot him your pictures for an informal evaluation.  You might get an easy "OK", a "too much done", or a "we gotta personally inspect the project first".  It couldn't hurt to ask before you commit to anything.  

[Quinton Oliviero]

Quote

It seems like the easiest thing would be to determine who would inspect the project and shoot him your pictures for an informal evaluation.  You might get an easy "OK", a "too much done", or a "we gotta personally inspect the project first".  It couldn't hurt to ask before you commit to anything.  

Great minds. MD-RA is a little thorny about requesting specific inspectors. Their stated policy in fact is that if you do specifically name an inspector they will ensure that is not the one you get. I understand the logic: It's a small community and you want to avoid the appearance (or actual commission) of pencil-whipping an inspection for friends or family.

That being said, I have been corresponding with someone at MD-RA and I have sent the pictures that I have. Hopefully I get more detail from there.

[Kent Ashton]

It sounds like you might be safe just to go ahead and commit to buy it, pay Hanson to finish the strakes and truck it to Canada for completion and regulatory  paperwork.  They are likely very familiar with Rutan designs; good workmanship is self-evident.  If you provide detailed pictures of the rest of the build, I think that would work.  As you say, there is a way but it has to be THEIR way.  ?

[Quinton Oliviero]

Alea iacta est. The kit is bought and paid for.

On Saturday I drove down to the Buffalo area to meet Dave Hanson, and the seller Tim Mulvey, and see the kit myself. The level of craftsmanship, especially as concerns the wings and canard, is obvious. I don't think I could have 3D printed nicer looking pieces. I wish I had taken some pictures, honestly, since the pictures Dave put on the listing really don't do the project justice. He's still intent on cutting the nose off though, citing his dislike for the "flat" standard Cozy nose, and replacing it with something a little more conical and streamlined like on his other projects.

The guys had most of the pieces loaded up onto Dave's trailer when I got there. Tim took us to lunch in town, and afterward we gawked at his Stearman project and a neighbour's C-170B for a while before Dave and I got the Cozy parts strapped down for their trip back to Ohio with him.

Now it's time to get the ball rolling on this regulatory paperwork, source the rest of the things I will need (interior, panel, lights, paint, engine), and hopefully get my Zenair sold to free up some money! 

[Kent Ashton]

Yup, Hanson seems to like the pointy noses on his EZs.  They do look good because the original EZ nose was rather stubby.   With the wider fuselage on a Cozy, I think the usual nose looks fine.  There is a good reason to extend the EZ nose to accommodate a fwd battery to balance a bigger engine.  It’s not really needed in a Cozy, but make yourself happy.

Yes, it did look like a well-built project.  Why’d he sell it?

[Quinton Oliviero]

The story I got in bits and pieces is that the kit changed hands back and forth between Tim and another friend of theirs (Andreas I think?) and I got the impression that Tim had taken the project back because he liked it and wanted to see it finished, but he had too many irons in the fire and never got around to it. 

Tim also mentioned that he needed the money in order to continue work on his Stearman, which is where his focus was right now. He also wants to sell a yellow tagged IO-360 that he had picked up for the cozy build but I'm going to have to wait for my bank account to grow back a little before I can think about engines.