Rules/limitations/gotchas on the re-sale of a homebuilt?

This may be applicable.

not sure… there were some irregularities re the aircraft involved in that tragic accident. But it had nothing to do with the outcome itself. Please re-read these extracts from the accident report (my bolds):

• “he liked to push the boundaries” and “he enjoyed the more exciting side of flying”
• It was reported that he was “a very capable pilot” but he enjoyed “flying low approaches and very tight circuits”
• The accident occurred whilst the aircraft was making a low altitude steep turn, which occurred above people and buildings.
• There was no evidence of any construction anomaly, failure or malfunction in the airframe or flying controls that could have contributed to the accident.

The thread’s title is Rules/limitations/gotchas on the re-sale of a homebuilt?, and there was no re-sale of a homebuilt involved.

In the UK, if on an LAA permit, the owners can do anything an Inspector will sign-off. Although our aircraft was factory-built by SAN, we’ve changed cylinders on the O200 under supervision, and replaced exhausts, aileron hinges, all the canopy perspex, the tailwheel, the hydraulic brake master and slave cylinders, brake shoes, and tyres, with a sign-off after inspection.

That means that if you buy a finished homebuilt aircraft, you can’t do much more on it that the certified aircraft pilot maintenance privileges.

That is not correct at all, and it is far from a black and white situation. The regulations say that the builder, any new owner as well as the inspector can do the maintenance (incl signing for yearly), but the person has to somehow document for the CAA that he is competent in doing it. By building the aircraft, taking a maintenance course by the EAA and participate in a couple of yearly, this is enough documentation for the CAA. The new owner must in principle be able to document similar competence or at least enough to do maintenance, but this does not imply being a certified mechanic. The regulations also state that a certified mechanic or a shop will always be able to do all maintenance (or else you could end up in situations where no one could legally maintain the aircraft. This point is not as obvious as it looks, some homebuilds have engines, design and construction techniques, materials, that certified mechanics and shops have never seen or worked with).

Simply buying a ready built experimental aircraft does not give you any competence what so ever, but it does give you the right to maintain it if you acquire/have the right competence. It is the owners responsibility to document the competence. The problem is of course that people are very different, aircraft are very different and there is no official “competence building program” out there, except building the aircraft to begin with. However, the EAA in Norway will help you with this. Needless to say, if you are an engineer or technician fiddling with an old motorcycle or boat in your spare time, your path will be a much simpler one than a lawyer growing roses in his spare time (the CAA could simple say “no” on principle alone for all I know).

How much of an issue is this anyway? How many PPL pilots would like to maintain their airplanes completely on their own? Not that many. Experimentals are in maintenance class III in any case, and outside of EASA. Any old mechanic, military or civilian will do, and chances are he will also be in this hobby helping others and having fun.

normal certified aircraft pilot maintenance privileges

Bit off topic, but EASA in Part-M recognizes a pilot-owner. What he can do depends on the aircraft maintenance program. There is also a difference between what he can do and what he can release to service.

The issue is proving that you’ll be capable of maintaining the aircraft when you aren’t certified and you actually haven’t built it. The question is what would be a point of such exercise. Even though you can’t just bolt on a different engine by yourself, it’s still simpler than doing the same on a certified aircraft.

True, I was thinking about how it is here in Norway.

If you want complete freedom you have to go to microlights. Then you can do whatever you like, almost.

That may be the case in France, and Belgium’s not too bad either. But I think German regulations are much more strict, for example their microlights must be signed off annually by an authorised engineer (or workshop). I am sure it would be hard to get this sign-off after a major modification.

Please be careful with general statements concerning matters regulated nationally.

These are different things. A different engine or different prop is most certainly major alteration. Any owner can do this on an experimental, and everyone must file an application, get an inspector, it must be approved (by the inspector or CAA depending) and test flown. The aircraft is now in principle a different one than it was before, and maintenance must also change. Simply swapping identical items are not alterations, but maintenance, and then the rules I described earlier is to be used, and an owner who is not a builder need someone to sign the books.

The reason for this is because of how experimentals receive their C of A. They are certified individually as one piece of contiguous aircraft, and none are alike. An aircraft in the normal category is certified as long as it uses certified components and procedures according to spec.

If you want complete freedom you have to go to microlights. Then you can do whatever you like, almost. There is still a system, at least here in Norway, but it’s more of a “peer review” kind of thing regarding new aircraft and has nothing to do with the CAA.