What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

After an Unairworthy Condition Inspection

Pilot135pd

Well Known Member
Was hangar flying with a friend the other day and the topic of the Annual Inspections and Condition Inspections came up.

On a Standard Airworthiness airplane the Inspection is done and there are 2 options that usually happen:

1- the discrepancies (or squawks) get fixed and the Annual Inspection is signed as Airworthy and returned to service.

2- the discrepancies get written up (squawk list) and the logbook is signed as Unairworthy with discrepancies given to owner. Then at least an A&P will correct the discrepancies and sign the logbooks with their certificate as done. That brings the plane back to Airworthy.


Then we started talking about Experimental airplanes:

All maintenance on my Experimental plane can be done by me. I'm not an A&P and don't have a Repairman certificate of any kind.

In Experimental airplanes the Condition Inspection must be done by at least an A&P.


Here's were we got stuck. Say an A&P does my Condition Inspection and finds some deficiencies. Can he sign the logbook as Unairworthy and give me a squawk list like a Standard airplane or does he have to repair anything and sign it as Airworthy?

If he can sign it as Unairworthy and give me a squawk list, can I fix the squawks and return it to service or does it have to be another A&P?

Please include FARs with your replies so I can research it further and learn from you. Thanks !


(*** In MY specific case it would most likely get fixed by another A&P because depending on what it is I probably don't have the expertise, but I'm asking in general terms. ***)
 
Last edited:
In Experimental airplanes the Condition Inspection must be done by at least an A&P.

Not true .. If you hold a Repairmen Certificate for your airplane you can sign off your own condition inspection ..

If he can sign it as Unairworthy and give me a squawk list, can I fix the squawks and return it to service or does it have to be another A&P?

I may be wrong, have never owned a certified aircraft, but I don't think an A&P can sign it off as "unairworthy" they simply don't sign it off at all until they find it airworthy (all the issues resolved).

But curious to me as well, since you don't have a repairmen certificate, what constitutes "maintenance"? I don't think, for example, replacing a control surface is maintenance. However, per Part 43, oil changes are.

So if you're not a Repairman are you limited to Part 43 like a certified aircraft?
 
Last edited:
Not true .. If you hold a Repairmen Certificate for your airplane you can sign off your own condition inspection ..

I said an A&P is needed for the Condition Inspection because the Repairman can only do his own so someone with a Repairman certificate would not encounter the situations asked about in this topic.
 
Anyone can do anything on an experimental. Reskin it, rebuild the engine, change the tires, whatever... When it comes condition inspection time, gotta be the builder or have repairmen cert or any A&P can sign off on it.


Not true .. If you hold a Repairmen Certificate for your airplane you can sign off your own condition inspection ..



I may be wrong, have never owned a certified aircraft, but I don't think an A&P can sign it off as "unairworthy" they simply don't sign it off at all until they find it airworthy (all the issues resolved).

But curious to me as well, since you don't have a repairmen certificate, what constitutes "maintenance"? I don't think, for example, replacing a control surface is maintenance. However, per Part 43, oil changes are.

So if you're not a Repairman are you limited to Part 43 like a certified aircraft?
 
What I do

So, for topic of this thread, I am an AP/IA, and I do inspections on both certified, and experimental, many of which are RV's that were not built by the owners. I typically do the inspections with the owner present, because I learn what he or she has done, and they learn from my building/inspecting/legal aspect. If I find an issue needing immediate attention, I offer them the opportunity to correct it themselves, or have me do so. I make a list after the full inspection, and if they flew to my facility we correct before they leave. If I am inspecting at their own hangar, I will request the item be corrected (by them or myself), and I will then look at just those items to achieve the condition inspection. I never make a logbook entry of an aircraft being non-airworthy, or not in condition safe for flight...just bad taste to smear a logbook with that kind of stuff.
 
Hopefully Mel or Vic will weigh in.

I don't think the experimental aircraft is found to be "airworthy" (that it conforms to it's type certificate and approved data, and is in a condition for safe operation - definition per FAR). Instead, for an experimental, the logbook entry is specified word for word in the letter of authorization that came with the experimental airworthiness certificate - simply that the aircraft was inspected and found to be in a condition for safe operation.

It would seem to me that someone with the appropriate repairman's certificate or an A&P could inspect the aircraft. If it's in condition for safe operation, it gets a logbook entry. If not, there is just no entry made of any kind.

Dan
 
I don't know an IA (myself included) that would get paid to sign something off as unairworthy. If I find something, as I often do, it gets fixed before the annual is signed off. Same goes for condition inspections.
 
I completely agree with the sentiment that no IA and/or A&P should ever make an unairworthy emtry in a log book. That makes no sense unless someone is being vindictive at the worse or plain ignorant at the least.

If an aircraft owner doesn't want necessary airworthiness items addressed they can just pay for the work to date and take their airplane and log books back without an annual inspection or condition inspection entry.

Jim
 
Anyone can do anything on an experimental. Reskin it, rebuild the engine, change the tires, whatever... When it comes condition inspection time, gotta be the builder or have repairmen cert or any A&P can sign off on it.

The builder signs off the first condition inspection, prior to the A/W inspection. After that, it has to be one of the last two -repairman or A&P. And FAA policy is to issue no more than one repairman certificate for a given airplane, and then only to an original builder.
 
I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with the scope and detail of appendix D to Part 43 and a list of discrepancies has been provided to the owner.

I've only done it this way once when the owner wished to clear the discrepancies himself and after I had departed. He would then make his own logbook entry stating the clearance and sign it with his PP # or it could be cleared by an A&P. If you are going to sign it off this way, you should keep a copy of the discrepancy letter in case there is an incident later.

Ed Holyoke
A&P
 
...I completely agree with the sentiment that no IA and/or A&P should ever make an unairworthy emtry (sic) in a log book. That makes no sense unless someone is being vindictive at the worse or plain ignorant at the least.

If an aircraft owner doesn't want necessary airworthiness items addressed they can just pay for the work to date and take their airplane and log books back without an annual inspection or condition inspection entry....

I think it would be good to separate the inspection from the maintenance. If the inspection has not yet commenced, then yes, settle up on the maintenance and give the airplane back.

But once the inspection starts, it has to finish. Within the range of possibilities is that an owner resists addressing issues discovered in the inspection. So, if the inspection doesn't finish as "airworthy," see FAR 43.11 (a) (5) and 43.11 (b).
 
I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with the scope and detail of appendix D to Part 43 and a list of discrepancies has been provided to the owner.

I've only done it this way once when the owner wished to clear the discrepancies himself and after I had departed. He would then make his own logbook entry stating the clearance and sign it with his PP # or it could be cleared by an A&P. If you are going to sign it off this way, you should keep a copy of the discrepancy letter in case there is an incident later.

Ed Holyoke
A&P

If that is the exact wording you put in the aircraft log book, then I would argue that it was not legal to fly even after the discrepancies were resolved (unless 12 calendar months hadn't yet passed since the previous inspection was done).

It is missing the very important "and found to be in a condition for safe operation" part of the statement.

Obviously you couldn't put that part in the statement if you felt, as an authorized inspector, that the aircraft wasn't in a condition for safe operation until those discrepancies were resolved.
The person resolving the discrepancies can't make that judgement for you if they weren't authorized to do the inspection in the first place.

As for the original question.... there aren't any FAR's that I can think of that apply. An experimental has no type certificate to judge it against as un-airworthy.
There would be no reason for an A&P to write that type of statement in a log book other than to be vindictive for some reason. All they need to do is withhold making the proper entry until they are satisfied that all discrepancies have been resolved.
Because of that, withholding a sign off doesn't automatically mean that an RV can't be legally flown. If the 12 month period since the last inspection hasn't expired, it could still be legally flown. This does induce another level of liability though, because FAR91 requires pilots to determine that an airplane is airworthy before they make a flight. If they have been made aware of a problem that could be a safety of flight issue and then they fly it anyway, the liability would be entirely on them.

Btw, this is relevant to certified aircraft as well. There are instances where a shop was trying to rip off a customer and the airplane was able to be rescued because the previous inspection hadn't yet expired.

It is also fairly common for inspections to be completed and signed off, but a list of squawks supplied to the owner that did not make the airplane un-airworthy (or in a condition for safe operation), but are recommended.
Point being, not all squawks that an inspector would make note of would necessarily keep them from being able to sign off an inspection.
 
I think it would be good to separate the inspection from the maintenance. If the inspection has not yet commenced, then yes, settle up on the maintenance and give the airplane back.

But once the inspection starts, it has to finish. Within the range of possibilities is that an owner resists addressing issues discovered in the inspection. So, if the inspection doesn't finish as "airworthy," see FAR 43.11 (a) (5) and 43.11 (b).

It is also important to separate rule that apply to certificated aircraft from rules that apply to experimental.

FAR 43 in its entirety, does not apply to experimental aircraft (FAR 43.1 (b) (1)
 
I've had my previous Standard aircraft inspected and then have another A&P fix the squawks, in fact that was a common occurrence when I had Standard aircraft because the IA was doing inspections but didn't have time to fix squawks. He would sign it unairworthy and give us the list and then my A&P would fix things and return it to service. To me and to the others in the area that was normal.

I've always known it to be two separate things. The IA charged for the Inspection and the A&P charged for his work.

I'm just trying to find out now how it's normally done with Experimental airplanes and more importantly get the Regulation that covers it.
 
Last edited:
FAR 43 in its entirety, does not apply to experimental aircraft (FAR 43.1 (b) (1)

I can't find FAR 43.1 (b)(1).

When I do a search I can find 43.1 (a), (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), then (b) then (c) then (d), (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3).

What am I missing here?
 
It is also important to separate rule that apply to certificated aircraft from rules that apply to experimental.

FAR 43 in its entirety, does not apply to experimental aircraft (FAR 43.1 (b) (1)

I understand - see my first post. I was responding to a different issue.
 
43.1 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section, this part prescribes rules governing the maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alteration of any -

(1) Aircraft having a U.S. airworthiness certificate;

(2) Foreign-registered civil aircraft used in common carriage or carriage of mail under the provisions of Part 121 or 135 of this chapter; and

(3) Airframe, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, and component parts of such aircraft.

(b) This part does not apply to -

(1) Any aircraft for which the FAA has issued an experimental certificate, unless the FAA has previously issued a different kind of airworthiness certificate for that aircraft;
 
The builder signs off the first condition inspection, prior to the A/W inspection.

Sorry - just a little bit of thread creep...

I recently read a post in VAF where a builder was supposedly dinged by the FAA inspector to whom he applied for a repairman certificate because the builder signed off that first condition inspection before he had received the certificate. What's the correct process?

(now returning you to your regularly scheduled thread :))

Dave
 
Last edited:
43.1 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section, this part prescribes rules governing the maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alteration of any -

(1) Aircraft having a U.S. airworthiness certificate;

(2) Foreign-registered civil aircraft used in common carriage or carriage of mail under the provisions of Part 121 or 135 of this chapter; and

(3) Airframe, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, and component parts of such aircraft.

(b) This part does not apply to -

(1) Any aircraft for which the FAA has issued an experimental certificate, unless the FAA has previously issued a different kind of airworthiness certificate for that aircraft;

I had a bad link.
 
Sorry - just a little bit of thread creep...

I recently read a post in VAF where a builder was supposedly dinged by the FAA inspector to whom he applied for a repairman certificate because the builder signed off that first condition inspection before he had received the certificate. What's the correct process?

(now returning you to you regularly scheduled thread :))

Dave

It's not yet an aircraft at that point (prior to receiving the Airworthiness Certificate) so anyone can do the initial inspection. It's only AFTER the airworthiness certificate has been granted that further inspection will require either an A&P or a repairman certificate. The first inspection is only being done on a pile of parts - all subsequent inspections are being done on an Airplane - big difference.

So if the "first inspection" you are referring to is the one prior to receiving the airworthiness, then all was fine. If it was one done AFTER that point, then indeed there was an issue.
 
Trying to get this back on topic, could anyone provide the FARs or any inspector's guides where it talks about the Experimental side of Condition Inspections? I've scoured the Part 43 but since I'm not trained in this area like I am in 121, 135, 91, 61, etc, I don't know what I'm missing.
 
Last edited:
UnAirworthy

A opinion from a long time A&P/IA/ATP 135 DOM working on Cert & EAB aircraft including RV?s. A UnAirworthy sign off of a annual is neither vindictive or a smear on the aircraft?s history. It?s a legal mechanism in the FARs to allow a aircraft to be moved to a place where repairs can be accomplished. We are used to seeing inspection and repairs done at the same place and time, but they are two separate entities. Short story: Wet wing Cessna 210 is in my shop for a annual. Along the way wing sealant is found in bad enough shape that I cant call it Airworthy. My shop did not have a wing jig or the manpower to de-skin, strip/reseal, reassemble in a reasonable time frame. Annual is expired, so it?s completed with all other squawks cleared and signed off as UnAirworthy due to wing sealant condition. Ferry permit obtained and plane ferried to a specialty shop in accordance with the limitations/restrictions of the ferry permit. Tank shop does their thing, signs it off and annual is now Airworthy. Absolutely legal and employed when needed. There are many other situations where it might make sense to do this. Never dealt with this on a EAB and don?t know if it?s possible.

Don Broussard
RV9 Rebuild in Progress
57 Pacer
 
A opinion from a long time A&P/IA/ATP 135 DOM working on Cert & EAB aircraft including RV’s. A UnAirworthy sign off of a annual is neither vindictive or a smear on the aircraft’s history. It’s a legal mechanism in the FARs to allow a aircraft to be moved to a place where repairs can be accomplished. We are used to seeing inspection and repairs done at the same place and time, but they are two separate entities. Short story: Wet wing Cessna 210 is in my shop for a annual. Along the way wing sealant is found in bad enough shape that I cant call it Airworthy. My shop did not have a wing jig or the manpower to de-skin, strip/reseal, reassemble in a reasonable time frame. Annual is expired, so it’s completed with all other squawks cleared and signed off as UnAirworthy due to wing sealant condition. Ferry permit obtained and plane ferried to a specialty shop in accordance with the limitations/restrictions of the ferry permit. Tank shop does their thing, signs it off and annual is now Airworthy. Absolutely legal and employed when needed. There are many other situations where it might make sense to do this. Never dealt with this on a EAB and don’t know if it’s possible.

Don Broussard
RV9 Rebuild in Progress
57 Pacer

Thanks. I said it before we used it all the time because the IA would come to our airport and only did the inspection part and the local A&P did the squawks later.

I appreciate everyone who’s given their opinion. If only we could find out more about the experimental side and the Regs that cover it. Where’s Mel or some of the other DARs that help us around here so much and are plugged in with the FSDOs ???
 
If that is the exact wording you put in the aircraft log book, then I would argue that it was not legal to fly even after the discrepancies were resolved (unless 12 calendar months hadn't yet passed since the previous inspection was done).

It is missing the very important "and found to be in a condition for safe operation" part of the statement.

Obviously you couldn't put that part in the statement if you felt, as an authorized inspector, that the aircraft wasn't in a condition for safe operation until those discrepancies were resolved.
The person resolving the discrepancies can't make that judgement for you if they weren't authorized to do the inspection in the first place.

As for the original question.... there aren't any FAR's that I can think of that apply. An experimental has no type certificate to judge it against as un-airworthy.
There would be no reason for an A&P to write that type of statement in a log book other than to be vindictive for some reason. All they need to do is withhold making the proper entry until they are satisfied that all discrepancies have been resolved.
Because of that, withholding a sign off doesn't automatically mean that an RV can't be legally flown. If the 12 month period since the last inspection hasn't expired, it could still be legally flown. This does induce another level of liability though, because FAR91 requires pilots to determine that an airplane is airworthy before they make a flight. If they have been made aware of a problem that could be a safety of flight issue and then they fly it anyway, the liability would be entirely on them.

Btw, this is relevant to certified aircraft as well. There are instances where a shop was trying to rip off a customer and the airplane was able to be rescued because the previous inspection hadn't yet expired.

It is also fairly common for inspections to be completed and signed off, but a list of squawks supplied to the owner that did not make the airplane un-airworthy (or in a condition for safe operation), but are recommended.
Point being, not all squawks that an inspector would make note of would necessarily keep them from being able to sign off an inspection.

Yoiks! Vindictive? The aircraft wasn't in a condition for safe operation. We didn't have the time or resources present to correct it at the moment. I offered him the option of coming back after or to help with repairs and he opted to have the discrepancies statement so the inspection would be completed. An inspection is an inspection. Correcting discrepancies must be accomplished before a return to service, but nowhere does the mechanic have to certify that the aircraft is "airworthy" or in a "condition for safe operation".

Incidentally, very similar language is recommended for certificated aircraft inspections. Straight out of Part 43.11(5): "I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with (insert type) inspection and a list of discrepancies and unairworthy items dated (date) has been provided for the owner or operator." The return to service would be logged by "an appropriately rated mechanic". The mechanic can't call the aircraft "airworthy" because he hasn't done an inspection. All he can say is that the maintenance was accomplished in accordance with the applicable maintenance manual and return it to service with his signature. Part 43.5 covers approval for return to service. 43.9 covers maintenance records.

In the case of an experimental aircraft, an appropriately rated mechanic is not required to sign off maintenance which is what clearing a list of discrepancies amounts to. What is generally regarded as enough is an owner with a PP or better. Logbook entries should follow the format laid out in 43.9 for clarity purposes.

Ed Holyoke
 
...In the case of an experimental aircraft, an appropriately rated mechanic is not required to sign off maintenance which is what clearing a list of discrepancies amounts to. What is generally regarded as enough is an owner with a PP or better. Logbook entries should follow the format laid out in 43.9 for clarity purposes.

Ed Holyoke

Why a Private Pilot or better if you don't need any kind of mechanic certificate to do it? That's exactly what I'm looking for. Where can I find anything that states that in the Regulations or anything from the FAA?
 
Yoiks! Vindictive? The aircraft wasn't in a condition for safe operation. We didn't have the time or resources present to correct it at the moment. I offered him the option of coming back after or to help with repairs and he opted to have the discrepancies statement so the inspection would be completed. An inspection is an inspection. Correcting discrepancies must be accomplished before a return to service, but nowhere does the mechanic have to certify that the aircraft is "airworthy" or in a "condition for safe operation".

Incidentally, very similar language is recommended for certificated aircraft inspections. Straight out of Part 43.11(5): "I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with (insert type) inspection and a list of discrepancies and unairworthy items dated (date) has been provided for the owner or operator." The return to service would be logged by "an appropriately rated mechanic". The mechanic can't call the aircraft "airworthy" because he hasn't done an inspection. All he can say is that the maintenance was accomplished in accordance with the applicable maintenance manual and return it to service with his signature. Part 43.5 covers approval for return to service. 43.9 covers maintenance records.

In the case of an experimental aircraft, an appropriately rated mechanic is not required to sign off maintenance which is what clearing a list of discrepancies amounts to. What is generally regarded as enough is an owner with a PP or better. Logbook entries should follow the format laid out in 43.9 for clarity purposes.

Ed Holyoke

As already mentioned, every single word (After 43.1) in FAR 43 has no relevance to an experimental amateur built aircraft.

The only rules relative to a condition inspection on an experimental are what is written in to the operating limitations part of the airworthiness certificate. In fact, that is the reason they are there.... because the rules in FAR 43 do not apply.

None of what you wrote above meets any of the requirements that are in the operating limitations for E-AB aircraft so it can not be used. Point being, there has to be a statement made by the person doing the inspection, that the "aircraft is in a condition for safe operation". If he never does that because additional work is needed and will be accomplished by some one else, then the inspection has not been completed in accordance with the requirements of the aircrafts operating limitations.

I am not disputing the applicability for certificated aircraft, but that is not what the discussion was about in this thread.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, missed this one and I see someone asked Mel or I to weigh in.

First, an airplane is never signed off as unairworthy. It is just not signed off and a list of discrepancies is given to the owner. That is the guidance in the certified world and I assume it would be practiced in the AB world. I know I do.

Second, the operating limitaions state that we sign off the airplane as in a condition for safe operation. No mention of the words Airworthy or Unairworthy.

As an AP/IA I have never used the words airworthy or unairworthy in a logbook. In all of they years I have been doing this I can only remember one airplane that I recommended that the owner fix a whole bunch of stuff before it would be ready for the CI. Usually, we fix everything during the CI after discussion with the owner, or they fix it and it is signed off after the discrepancies are fixed.

Hope this helps to answer the original question.

Vic
 
I may be wrong, have never owned a certified aircraft, but I don't think an A&P can sign it off as "unairworthy" they simply don't sign it off at all until they find it airworthy (all the issues resolved).

60be32f17000e9ca76a423dc409de33d.jpg
 
Last edited:

In the Experimental world, this sticker is only relevant to an aircraft that requires a "100Hr. inspection". i.e. One that is being operated under a LODA and used commercially. The "Annual" part of it is not relevant to Experimentals.

Operating Limitations for amateur-built aircraft contain specific wording for a condition inspection sign-off. I know that it says "or a similar worded statement", but the wise inspector uses the specific wording provided. If the aircraft is not found "in a condition for safe operation", the inspection has not been completed and should not be signed off.
 
Last edited:
In the Experimental world, this sticker is only relevant to an aircraft that requires a "100Hr. inspection". i.e. One that is being operated under a LODA and used commercially. The "Annual" part of it is not relevant to Experimentals.

Operating Limitations for amateur-built aircraft contain specific wording for a condition inspection sign-off. I know that it says "or a similar worded statement", but the wise inspector uses the specific wording provided. If the aircraft is not found "in a condition for safe operation", the inspection has not been completed and should not be signed off.

Edited to include the quote that was missed when I posted. Thanks for the catch!

I may be wrong, have never owned a certified aircraft, but I don't think an A&P can sign it off as "unairworthy" they simply don't sign it off at all until they find it airworthy (all the issues resolved).

In response to the quote above, for certified aircraft, it is quite useful at times to make that entry I posted during an annual or 100 hour inspection and provide a discrepancy list of unairworthy items to an owner.

For an annual, this allows the IA to sign the books and move on while any A&P can address the items in the discrepancy list and everything is then good to go.

I've seen it come in handy in another rare instance where it really helps to keep cheap owners honest. I've run into certified aircraft owners that expect to pay a flat fee for an annual/100 hour inspection and don't want to pay extra for any required repairs. This entry and discrepancy list clearly separates the inspection from repairs. The discrepancy list becomes another bill if they want those items addressed. Paying for the annual/100 hour inspection means just that...the inspection. It's not an all you can eat buffet for your A&P or IA to do everything your plane needs to get back in the air.

Stay EXPERIMENTAL my friends! The certified world sucks. This Christen Eagle II (ADSB exempt :D ) is my antidote to the constant BS of illogical certified aircraft maintenance restrictions.

e56ba6a29167e7e94450239a2ceded2e.jpg
 
Last edited:
For an annual, this allows the IA to sign the books and move on while any A&P can address the items in the discrepancy list and everything is then good to go.

Thank you, this is exactly what I've been talking about and I'm very surprised it's not common knowledge as it was when I had my standard aircraft. Of course this being a experimental forum and the vast majority of experience in that category I suppose it's not really an uncommon thing.

I've seen it come in handy in another rare instance where it really helps to keep cheap owners honest.

I have to push back hard on this because it was the normal way of business when I owned a Citabria, Cherokee6 and a Seneca all at the same time, and for every other pilot on our airport. Back in the day IAs weren't as common as now. The airport had a couple of A&Ps but no IA. The A&Ps would have the planes open and the IA would come and just do the inspections and would charge for that. The local A&Ps would then correct the discrepancies and charge for their work. Has nothing to do with cheap because it never was.

I've run into certified aircraft owners that expect to pay a flat fee for an annual/100 hour inspection and don't want to pay extra for any required repairs.This entry and discrepancy list clearly separates the inspection from repairs. The discrepancy list becomes another bill if they want those items addressed. Paying for the annual/100 hour inspection means just that...the inspection. It's not an all you can eat buffet for your A&P or IA to do everything your plane needs to get back in the air.

Agreed and since the Annual Inspection states what the IA must do then that's all that was expected for that price, nothing more nothing less and everyone was happy about it.


I'm happy with the conversation up to now and I suppose the only thing missing from my original post is to see where in the Regulations I can find everything on Condition Inspections on Experimental aircraft and everything related to that. Like an FAA Order 8000.xxx or something like that.
 
Personally I would not want to risk my IA by depending on another A&P addressing airworthiness issues. Typically I tell people I will come back and inspect the followup work because I think that's the most prudent and safest thing to do. Most of the time its the non-A&P owner doing the work so I have to anyway. I'm not just protecting you having a second set of eyes on the work but I am protecting myself.

That said I often run into unacceptable standards of work even from other IA's.
 
A point that seems to be being missed by some in this thread is that there are no FAR's or other documents that detail what the rules are for inspections in an E-AB aircraft (and that is one of the reasons a lot of people prefer them over certificated aircraft).

The only guidance is that all of FAR 43 does not apply which means none of the standard practices that people are used to with certificated aircraft are relevant (because FAR 43 is where all of those rules/allowances are detailed).

The only regulatory rule that is relevant for inspections on E-AB aircraft is the following operating limitation that is part of each individual aircraft's airworthiness certificate.

No person may operate this aircraft unless within the preceding 12
calendar months it has had a condition inspection performed per
the scope and detail of part 43, appendix D, manufacturer or other
FAA-approved programs, and was found to be in a condition for safe
operation. The inspections must be recorded in the aircraft maintenance
records showing the following, or a similarly worded, statement: ?I certify
that this aircraft has been inspected on [insert date] per the [insert either:
scope and detail of part 43, appendix D; or manufacturer?s inspection
procedures] and was found to be in a condition for safe operation.? The
entry will include the aircraft?s total time-in-service (cycles if appropriate),
and the name, signature, certificate number, and type of certificate held
by the person performing the inspection.


There is no path to allow someone other than the person that did the actual inspection, to sign off the inspection as completed. That doesn't mean that they have to be the one who corrects any discrepancies found that prevent the inspector from making the log book entry, but they have to be the one that determines they were corrected properly.
 
A point that seems to be being missed by some in this thread is that there are no FAR's or other documents that detail what the rules are for inspections in an E-AB aircraft (and that is one of the reasons a lot of people prefer them over certificated aircraft).

The only guidance is that all of FAR 43 does not apply which means none of the standard practices that people are used to with certificated aircraft are relevant (because FAR 43 is where all of those rules/allowances are detailed).

The only regulatory rule that is relevant for inspections on E-AB aircraft is the following operating limitation that is part of each individual aircraft's airworthiness certificate.

No person may operate this aircraft unless within the preceding 12
calendar months it has had a condition inspection performed per
the scope and detail of part 43, appendix D, manufacturer or other
FAA-approved programs, and was found to be in a condition for safe
operation. The inspections must be recorded in the aircraft maintenance
records showing the following, or a similarly worded, statement: “I certify
that this aircraft has been inspected on [insert date] per the [insert either:
scope and detail of part 43, appendix D; or manufacturer’s inspection
procedures] and was found to be in a condition for safe operation.” The
entry will include the aircraft’s total time-in-service (cycles if appropriate),
and the name, signature, certificate number, and type of certificate held
by the person performing the inspection.


There is no path to allow someone other than the person that did the actual inspection, to sign off the inspection as completed. That doesn't mean that they have to be the one who corrects any discrepancies found that prevent the inspector from making the log book entry, but they have to be the one that determines they were corrected properly.

I think there must be something else because if that's the case and there's nothing else then where in that statement does it say it must be an A&P?

Part 43 Appendix D just starts everything with "...Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall..." but doesn't say who that person is.

The end of your paragraph says

"...The entry will include the aircraft’s total time-in-service (cycles if appropriate), and the name, signature, certificate number, and type of certificate held by the person performing the inspection. "

So can I do it with my ATP or CFI certificate? That's why I think there must be another Regulation or FAA Order 8000.xxx
 
Last edited:
I think there must be something else because if that's the case and there's nothing else then where in that statement does it say it must be an A&P?

There is.
There is a whole bunch of different operating limitations (I only listed one of them).

Another one is - An experimental aircraft builder certificated as a repairman for this aircraft
under § 65.104, or an appropriately rated FAA-certificated mechanic, may
perform the condition inspection required by these operating limitations.


It would be a good idea for anyone that owns / flys an E-AB aircraft to read through and become familiar with the operating limitations for their aircraft (they are not all the same depending on the calendar date they were issued). Some of them may surprise you.
 
Last edited:
I think there must be something else because if that's the case and there's nothing else then where in that statement does it say it must be an A&P?

The operating limitations state that the person performing the inspection must be the "holder of the Repairman Certificate for that aircraft" or a certificated mechanic. Certificated mechanic being an A&P.

I really don't understand the confusion over this issue. This has been the process for many years and seems pretty clear to me.
 
The thread got contaminated with certified and EAB discussions of the same topic which makes it hard to follow.

I was part of that thread drift and added to the confusion, but my original intent was good. Sorry!
 
There is.
There is a whole bunch of different operating limitations (I only listed one of them).

Another one is - An experimental aircraft builder certificated as a repairman for this aircraft
under § 65.104, or an appropriately rated FAA-certificated mechanic, may
perform the condition inspection required by these operating limitations.


It would be a good idea for anyone that owns / flys an E-AB aircraft to read through and become familiar with the operating limitations for their aircraft (they are not all the same depending on the calendar date they were issued). Some of them may surprise you.

Yes I know the Operating Limitations on my aircraft, I had to explain them to my inept North Dallas FSDO inspectors and their supervisor for almost a year since they didn't know how to deal with them.

When you mentioned that paragraph was it I didn't think about the rest of the Ops Limits mentioning anything, my fault there. :(
 
There is.
There is a whole bunch of different operating limitations (I only listed one of them).

Another one is - An experimental aircraft builder certificated as a repairman for this aircraft
under § 65.104, or an appropriately rated FAA-certificated mechanic, may
perform the condition inspection required by these operating limitations.


It would be a good idea for anyone that owns / flys an E-AB aircraft to read through and become familiar with the operating limitations for their aircraft (they are not all the same depending on the calendar date they were issued). Some of them may surprise you.
Maybe this will help, maybe not.

The reason that E-AB's can do this, with the limited FAR's that you are seeking is because when a Type Certified airplane is signed off by an IA, S/He is stating that the aircraft complies with the Type Certificate plus any 337's and all AD's are complied with.

With E-AB's there is no TC to comply with and AD's don't apply. Thus the builder, if they have the Repairman's Certificate and A&P's are authorized to certify via logbook entry that the aircraft is in "Condition for Safe Flight" each year.

As mentioned in multiple posts, each E-AB aircraft comes with a unique set of Operating Limitations which must remain in the aircraft. The Operating Limitations spell out exactly what can and cannot be done to and with the aircraft. That is why Scott is saying to get familiar with the Operating Limitations for your aircraft.

This is also the reason that the owner, non-builder, of an E-AB can do all the maintenance and sign the logbook for things like an engine overhaul, prop swap, panel replacement, major repair or alteration, you name it. Then, at the end of the 12th month since the last condition inspection (or issuance of the Airworthiness Certificate), either the holder of the Repairman's Certificate or an A&P inspects the plane to make sure it is "in condition for safe flight".
 
Last edited:
Maybe this will help, maybe not.

The reason that E-AB's can do this, with the limited FAR's that you are seeking is because when a Type Certified airplane is signed off by an IA, S/He is stating that the aircraft complies with the Type Certificate plus any 337's and all AD's are complied with.

With E-AB's there is no TC to comply with and AD's don't apply. Thus the builder, if they have the Repairman's Certificate and A&P's are authorized to certify via logbook entry that the aircraft is in "Condition for Safe Flight" each year.

As mentioned in multiple posts, each E-AB aircraft comes with a unique set of Operating Limitations which must remain in the aircraft. The Operating Limitations spell out exactly what can and cannot be done to and with the aircraft. That is why Scott is saying to get familiar with the Operating Limitations for your aircraft.

This is also the reason that the owner, non-builder, of an E-AB can do all the maintenance and sign the logbook for things like an engine overhaul, prop swap, panel replacement, major repair or alteration, you name it. Then at the end of the 12 calendar year, either the holder of the Repairman's Certificate or an A&P inspects the plane to make sure it is "in condition for safe flight".

Sounds like a good summary, thanks.
 
Edited to include the quote that was missed when I posted. Thanks for the catch!



In response to the quote above, for certified aircraft, it is quite useful at times to make that entry I posted during an annual or 100 hour inspection and provide a discrepancy list of unairworthy items to an owner.

For an annual, this allows the IA to sign the books and move on while any A&P can address the items in the discrepancy list and everything is then good to go.

I've seen it come in handy in another rare instance where it really helps to keep cheap owners honest. I've run into certified aircraft owners that expect to pay a flat fee for an annual/100 hour inspection and don't want to pay extra for any required repairs. This entry and discrepancy list clearly separates the inspection from repairs. The discrepancy list becomes another bill if they want those items addressed. Paying for the annual/100 hour inspection means just that...the inspection. It's not an all you can eat buffet for your A&P or IA to do everything your plane needs to get back in the air.

Stay EXPERIMENTAL my friends! The certified world sucks. This Christen Eagle II (ADSB exempt :D ) is my antidote to the constant BS of illogical certified aircraft maintenance restrictions.

e56ba6a29167e7e94450239a2ceded2e.jpg







opp.jpg
 
....when a Type Certified airplane is signed off by an IA, S/He is stating that the aircraft complies with the Type Certificate plus any 337's and all AD's are complied with....

I believe that this is incorrect. The annual inspection of a Type Certified airplane is not a conformity inspection, but an inspection to determine if the airplane is safe to fly. A conformity inspection would be considerably more rigorous and might even include searching for records indicating that the spar caps, for example, met the Type Certified design as approved by the FAA.

Dave
 
No person may operate this aircraft unless within the preceding 12
calendar months it has had a condition inspection performed per
the scope and detail of part 43, appendix D, manufacturer or other
FAA-approved programs, and was found to be in a condition for safe
operation. The inspections must be recorded in the aircraft maintenance
records showing the following, or a similarly worded, statement: ?I certify
that this aircraft has been inspected on [insert date] per the [insert either:
scope and detail of part 43, appendix D; or manufacturer?s inspection
procedures
] and was found to be in a condition for safe operation.? The
entry will include the aircraft?s total time-in-service (cycles if appropriate),
and the name, signature, certificate number, and type of certificate held
by the person performing the inspection.


There is no path to allow someone other than the person that did the actual inspection, to sign off the inspection as completed. That doesn't mean that they have to be the one who corrects any discrepancies found that prevent the inspector from making the log book entry, but they have to be the one that determines they were corrected properly.

Does that mean that since I am the manufacture (not Van's) I get to specify the inspection procedure?
 
There is no path to allow someone other than the person that did the actual inspection, to sign off the inspection as completed. That doesn't mean that they have to be the one who corrects any discrepancies found that prevent the inspector from making the log book entry, but they have to be the one that determines they were corrected properly.

This is one area where certified aircraft have more flexibility than EAB, wherein an annual inspection is signed off with discrepancies and they are corrected later by other than said inspector (but must be a rated mechanic).

That makes sense if you think about it. Without a type certificate to reference, it's a good thing to have the person who did the condition inspection on an EAB follow through to ensure the discrepancies are corrected properly. That's not as crucial on a type certificated aircraft since there is approved data that the rated mechanic can reference to remedy the discrepancies.

I guess your answer to the OP on the EAB example put forth would be that the airworthiness deficiencies pointed out by the A&P doing the inspection must be remedied by the same A&P who did the initial condition inspection?

All maintenance on my Experimental plane can be done by me. I'm not an A&P and don't have a Repairman certificate of any kind.

In Experimental airplanes the Condition Inspection must be done by at least an A&P.


Here's were we got stuck. Say an A&P does my Condition Inspection and finds some deficiencies. Can he sign the logbook as Unairworthy and give me a squawk list like a Standard airplane or does he have to repair anything and sign it as Airworthy?

If he can sign it as Unairworthy and give me a squawk list, can I fix the squawks and return it to service or does it have to be another A&P?

Please include FARs with your replies so I can research it further and learn from you. Thanks !


(*** In MY specific case it would most likely get fixed by another A&P because depending on what it is I probably don't have the expertise, but I'm asking in general terms. ***)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top