Club Homepage Forums Classified Ads Buy & Sell - Everything But Airplanes N46CA panel.

This was called the TOPCAT [topcatschool.com] program. It re-certified a Cessna 150/152 from the Utility to the Primary category. The cost of the program was $2000 which included an annual inspection.

Primary Category is somewhat like the FAA's first attempt at LSA (just like their Recreational License was version 1.0 of a Sport Pilot License). The idea was that Primary Category aircraft would be fairly simple in nature (single engine, under 2,700lbs gross, 4-seats or less), and the owners of such aircraft would be allowed to perform much more maintenance than is normally permitted in FAR 43 app.A paragraph C

Unfortunately, the FAA made the same mistake of defining specific tasks rather than mechanical abilities. The result? You'll be allowed to change the exhaust gaskets, and remove and reinstall the same muffler in the process, but you are not allowed to replace the muffler with a new one. And they forget (again) to include "replace air filter" as an approved task.

The aircraft itself was recertified in the Primary category by way of an STC. And as the school founder put it, this was the first time the FAA issued an STC for the pilot. Once trained, you could only work on that serial # aircraft. In affect, Primary Category simply added one to the population of mechanics that could work on the aircraft.

To go back to the Utility Category only required another annual inspection and paperwork to remove the STC.

It's a neat idea, close, oh so close to what was desired, but still missed by a mile. To paraphrase Mark Twain, it's like the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.

Thanks for correcting some of the details, Kirk. I got the facts wrong about the plane being de-certified and the cost of the program. Can't really blame me, though. That guest speaker talked too long (after a banquet dinner) and put everyone to sleep.

A lot of people think that but it's not the case. Unless the flight manual of the experimental aircraft prohibits owner maitenance (never heard of one, ever), the owner pilot can preform all of the maitenance on their experimental. HOWEVER, if you haven't built >51%, you can not perform the Anual inspection by yourself. That must be done by an A&P. No IA req'd though.

The EAA can spell it out better than me. They have all the proof (through the FARs) to support that on their website. In a nutshell, part 43 doesn't apply.

If you have a repairman's certificate, then indeed you can do the annual condition inspection on the airframe to which the repairman's certificate applies (only that one N-number airframe and no other). No A&P or IA ever needs to touch or lay eyes on that aircraft.

As part of the licensing process, the FAA rep that inspects and approves the aircraft will determine the operational restrictions that apply to that aircraft. An aircraft like one of Van's RVs, properly constructed and equipped, will have no restrictions placed on it once the fly-off period is successfully completed--it could fly and do anything a C-182 could do with the exception of being used commercially.

There are many people in the EAA who know very well what all the homebuilt rules are and can clarify any which are confusing.

PS. I believe this is my 500th post to this forum--wahoo. Even though I may have corrected Carl in some common misconceptions about homebuilding, my meager 500 posts pale with his 2500+ posts of genuinely excellent advice and sage words of experience. Thanks to Carl and Chuck and Kirk and Gary and Jeff and ...
Its truly a pleasure sharing information with you guys and gals.

Just to clarify, absolutely anyone can work on an experimental--it doesn't need to be an owner/operator or a pilot or an A&P or an IA--absolutely anyone could do anything to it. See my earlier post about 51% and repairman certificates.

Same thing can be said about certified aircraft. Now, whether or not it affects the airworthiness of the aircraft is another matter. As for the person who worked on it, the FAA can't do much to him. If he doesn't have a pilot/mechanic license in the first place, the FAA has nothing to revoke. The FAA has no authority to put people in jail either.

Hung,
My point is that anyone can work on a homebuilt and be perfectly within the rules and regulations governing homebuilts. Not so for certified aircraft where the rules specify who can do what. In the end, the pilot has to decide the airworthiness of the aircraft he flies.

Thanks for the kind words, Tim!

In my case, I'll have to try to live up to them! My "few hundred" posts don't make me knowledgeable on anything (it just proves that I don't know when to shut up!)

The give and take of this forum is what makes it such a valuable tool to all of us. I've learned a great deal from the thousands of posts others have made, and I learn still more researching and refreshing my memory before commenting on posts that interest me (sometimes I need do do a little more research before commenting! )

Despite my limited experience in a variety of areas, that doesn't make me expert at anything (jack of all trades, master of none?) There's always somebody more knowledgeable for me to turn to, and that's one of the things that makes this forum so valuable to us all. To me, the back and forth sharing of information with our peers is the one most valuable aspect of forum participation. I don't know any more than anyone else on the forum, but I do feel a responsibility to help anybody I can, whenever I can (Thanks, Mom, for instilling your values in me!) And yes, I do expect that they will help me when I need it!

I love this place, and I'm hopelessly addicted to it, so don't look for me to 'shut-up' anytime soon (my appologies to those who have wished for just that!)

"A Gentleman & a Scholar" ........is not right all the time , ....It's just because he usually is , that makes people "think , he thinks highly of himself".......

Thats the "Magic , that makes Carl............CARL!!!!! :)(to me anyhow)

Flying a homebuilt from the US into Canada I believe is allowed, as our requirements are basically the same as the FARS for this category of aircraft. I am not involved with amateur built aircraft, but I have seen RV4's and Cirrus's on the ramp with "N" numbers.

As far as passports to cross the border, the first answer that comes to mind is "yes", if anything to make it easier. But I believe that photo ID and proof of cititizenship is also acceptable, but I think a passport is the preferred form of ID. The days of having only a drivers license as proof of who a person is are gone. Everyone that I work with have their passports, just in case we ever have to head south on a quick trip.

John