WTB - Cozy or Long EZ - airframe only

[Bill Reister]

Looking for a retirement project to convert a Cozy or EZ canard to electric. Would be ok if it dinged the nose or other minor fiberglass repairs, but would prefer something which has some actual flight hours / paint so I know the basic airframe functions. Not interested in an unfinished airframe, and don't much care about what avionics it has as I can install a full Dynon system for well under $10k (and many systems for Lycosaurus are irrelevant for electric).

Afraid of liability? Don't use the chain saw! I may be your out - since it would be a conversion, I would have to re-complete the flight testing and become the registered builder of record.

[Marc Zeitlin]

2 hours ago, breister said:

Looking for a retirement project to convert a Cozy or EZ canard to electric. Would be ok if it dinged the nose or other minor fiberglass repairs, but would prefer something which has some actual flight hours / paint so I know the basic airframe functions... since it would be a conversion, I would have to re-complete the flight testing and become the registered builder of record.

You were fine up until the last phrase. Yes, all that you'd be doing to a plane that was previously registered and flying would be a major change, and would require a 14 CFR a Part 91.319(b) re-compliance period (commonly referred to as "going back into Phase I", and in fact, called exactly that in the latest version of FAA Order 8130.2K) but unless you are intentionally misleading on the paperwork you submit to the FAA, you cannot be the "builder of record", because you did not build the plane and it already had an AWC and registration.

You can certainly re-register it and get a new AWC, and while you can claim that you're the builder and it's very unlikely that the FAA would be able to determine whether you were or not, that doesn't change the legality of the situation. Just a warning.

Get the airframe, modify it as you desire, get a new AWC and registration if they're expired, and do anything you want to the plane, as is your right. But you cannot legally claim to be the builder nor can you get the repairman's certificate for it if one has already been issued. And realize that however unlikely it is to be caught, lying to the federal government on official forms is, in fact, a crime. The only thing you'll be missing out on by not having the RC is the ability to sign off the Condition Inspections yourself.

[Bill Reister]

10 hours ago, Marc Zeitlin said:

You were fine up until the last phrase. Yes, all that you'd be doing to a plane that was previously registered and flying would be a major change, and would require a 14 CFR a Part 91.319(b) re-compliance period (commonly referred to as "going back into Phase I", and in fact, called exactly that in the latest version of FAA Order 8130.2K) but unless you are intentionally misleading on the paperwork you submit to the FAA, you cannot be the "builder of record", because you did not build the plane and it already had an AWC and registration.

You can certainly re-register it and get a new AWC, and while you can claim that you're the builder and it's very unlikely that the FAA would be able to determine whether you were or not, that doesn't change the legality of the situation. Just a warning.

Get the airframe, modify it as you desire, get a new AWC and registration if they're expired, and do anything you want to the plane, as is your right. But you cannot legally claim to be the builder nor can you get the repairman's certificate for it if one has already been issued. And realize that however unlikely it is to be caught, lying to the federal government on official forms is, in fact, a crime. The only thing you'll be missing out on by not having the RC is the ability to sign off the Condition Inspections yourself.

Hmmm, thanks for that clarification. I was under the impression that when I completed that exercise previously for a Lancair (the builder died after only 4 flight hours) they changed the registration of "builder" to me. Still, if you perform a major modification to an airframe it seems intuitively obvious that the original builder would be free and clear of any liability claims. Well, it is what it is.

I'll update my original post accordingly.

[Bill Reister]

Ha - looks like there is no "edit" option for posts. Please see the thread above.