|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

01-29-2017, 08:49 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: NC25
Posts: 3,507
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MercFE
Who can maintain a Homebuilt?
FAR Part 43 specifically states that the rules of that part do not apply to amateur-built airplanes. Therefore, any maintenance on an experimental airplane can be performed virtually by anyone regardless of credentials. (This does not apply to the condition inspection previously discussed). Let common sense be your guide as to what maintenance you conduct yourself.
http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-c...ion-inspection
And FAR Part 43.1 (b) states Part 43 does not apply to aircraft issued an experimental certificate.
|
Yes anyone can work on an Experimental.
BUT, the Operating Limitations for piston powered aircraft state that the "condition inspection performed in accordance with the scope and detail of 14 CFR part 43 appendix D" so the Condition Inspection uses part 43.
The Operating Limitations also require that the pilot meet other parts of the FAR that Experimentals typically do not require. "The pilot in command also must meet the requirements of 14 CFR ? 61.31(e), (f), (g), (h), (i), and (j), as appropriate."
Just because the aircraft is Experimental does not mean that you can do anything but you can do maintenance. The once a year Condition Inspection and the every two year transponder check must be done by someone that is a certificated person and or shop. You may be the manufacturer of the aircraft but you are not a certificated manufacturer that can do the pitot / static transponder test / inspection.
__________________
Gary A. Sobek
NC25 RV-6 Flying
3,400+ hours
Where is N157GS
Building RV-8 S/N: 80012
To most people, the sky is the limit.
To those who love aviation, the sky is home.
|

01-29-2017, 09:39 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Maple Valley, WA
Posts: 273
|
|
So, we agree...  In reference to Dave's question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RV6_flyer
Yes anyone can work on an Experimental.
|
|

01-30-2017, 09:47 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Enon Valley
Posts: 189
|
|
dead horses
OK
To make sure this horse has been adequately flogged:
1. Anyone can work on an EAB.
2. The Condition inspection MUST be signed off
3. The Transponder and Pitot/static checks must be accomplished and signed by appropriately rated persons/shops only if those checks are otherwise required.
4. NO other log book entries are required for an EAB but are highly recommended.
5. Major maintenance/changes may be performed by anyone BUT....refer to your flt limitations to see what effect that has.....In my case, the Air Worthiness Cert is invalidated. Some folks would have to reenter the flt test phase.
What did I miss?????
__________________
Dewey Clawson
Super Sabre Society
2012 RV10; 1993 RV6A; 1947 Cessna 140, in progress
2019 dues exempt but paid anyhow
F100, A7D, A10, F16,
Fokker, Boeing, McDonnell-Douglas
|

01-30-2017, 09:52 AM
|
 |
been here awhile
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: North Alabama
Posts: 4,301
|
|
Clarification added in red.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deweyclawson
OK
To make sure this horse has been adequately flogged:
1. Anyone can work on an EAB.
2. The Condition inspection MUST be signed off by the holder of the Repairman's Certificate for that particular aircraft or an A&P (no IA required).
3. The Transponder and Pitot/static checks must be accomplished and signed by appropriately rated persons/shops only if those checks are otherwise required.
4. NO other log book entries are required for an EAB but are highly recommended.
5. Major maintenance/changes may be performed by anyone BUT....refer to your Operating limitations to see what effect that has.
|
|

01-30-2017, 10:01 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Ozark, AL
Posts: 62
|
|
In the March Kitplanes that I just got there was a pretty good article by Dave Prizio about just this subject. Good read!
__________________
Adam Wright
RV-8 Builder 83611
|

01-30-2017, 10:17 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas area
Posts: 10,768
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deweyclawson
OK
To make sure this horse has been adequately flogged:
1. Anyone can work on an EAB.
2. The Condition inspection MUST be signed off
3. The Transponder and Pitot/static checks must be accomplished and signed by appropriately rated persons/shops only if those checks are otherwise required.
4. NO other log book entries are required for an EAB but are highly recommended.
5. Major maintenance/changes may be performed by anyone BUT....refer to your flt limitations to see what effect that has.....In my case, the Air Worthiness Cert is invalidated. Some folks would have to reenter the flt test phase.
What did I miss?????
|
Annual ELT sign-off IAW 91.207
BTW, you do know that you can have your operating limitations amended to the latest version don't you? Then you could put the aircraft back into phase I with a new AW inspection.
__________________
Mel Asberry, DAR since the last century.
EAA Flight Advisor/Tech Counselor, Friend of the RV-1
Recipient of Tony Bingelis Award and Wright Brothers Master Pilot Award
USAF Vet, High School E-LSA Project Mentor.
RV-6 Flying since 1993 (sold)
<rvmel(at)icloud.com>
|

01-30-2017, 11:54 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Royse City, TX
Posts: 143
|
|
Condition Inspections done by an A&P
A few points to considered when using an A&P to sign off a condition inspection on an EAB. First, I think we all agree that Part 43 does not include EAB. However when an A&P is asked to do a condition inspection on an AEB that has Operating Limitations that include the "inspect IAW the scope and detail of Appendix D of Part 43" statement, many FSDO inspectors interpret that to also mean the A&P will do that inspection IAW the 43.13 Performance Rules (general) and 43.15 Additional Performance Rules for Inspections. Many A&Ps do not agree that these two items apply to inspection EABs, but its a bit a of grey area. In this wonderful world of instant litigation, maybe the A&P wants to play it safe and agree with the FSDO. It has been said that Part 43 does not apply to EAB, but it may apply in certain respects to A&Ps working on them. Also note, that Part 65.81 and 65.85 and 65.87 may also pertain to A&Ps who work on EAB depending on the FSDO's interpretation.
When A&Ps work on TC'ed Aircraft, they make every attempt at avoiding liability due to negligent performance by complying with these very same regs. If A&P and IA in the TC world plays by these rules, its pretty easy for any A&P to work on any TC'ed aircraft knowing that the previously done work meets some level of performance standard.
Where this can become an issue is when a second hand EAB needs a condition inspection and the A&P sees grossly negligent work or no documentation of it. No worries, fire that worthless A&P and go find another, and possibly another. Word travels fast these days and it may end up that you own an EAB that no A&P is going to sign of the condition inspection due to negligent work or lack of documentation.
Many A&Ps are getting smart and using the Vans drawings and SBs as a tech data package to establish some level of "performance standard" to inspect EABs to that they are used to working to in the TC'ed world.
In summary, all previous posts are correct, on EABs, you can do almost anything you want. But be thoughtful to how you might have to explain to those worry wart A&PS who might not feel comfortable signing off your condition inspection when they see aluminum angle from Lowes on your pristine EAB.
Possibly work with an A&P ahead of time before making the mod and get an idea of how to make a mod that is line with Vans standards of building or maybe even review AC 43.13.
|

01-30-2017, 12:01 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 917
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mel
BTW, you do know that you can have your operating limitations amended to the latest version don't you? Then you could put the aircraft back into phase I with a new AW inspection.
|
Mel, does the FSDO have to make this amendment, or can a DAR (I am getting less than optimal results from my FSDO)?
__________________
Mike C.
Sierra Nevada
RV-6A bought flying
|

02-13-2017, 09:09 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 97
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by WA85
A few points to considered when using an A&P to sign off a condition inspection on an EAB. First, I think we all agree that Part 43 does not include EAB. However when an A&P is asked to do a condition inspection on an AEB that has Operating Limitations that include the "inspect IAW the scope and detail of Appendix D of Part 43" statement, many FSDO inspectors interpret that to also mean the A&P will do that inspection IAW the 43.13 Performance Rules (general) and 43.15 Additional Performance Rules for Inspections. Many A&Ps do not agree that these two items apply to inspection EABs, but its a bit a of grey area. In this wonderful world of instant litigation, maybe the A&P wants to play it safe and agree with the FSDO. It has been said that Part 43 does not apply to EAB, but it may apply in certain respects to A&Ps working on them. Also note, that Part 65.81 and 65.85 and 65.87 may also pertain to A&Ps who work on EAB depending on the FSDO's interpretation.
Many A&Ps are getting smart and using the Vans drawings and SBs as a tech data package to establish some level of "performance standard" to inspect EABs to that they are used to working to in the TC'ed world.
In summary, all previous posts are correct, on EABs, you can do almost anything you want. But be thoughtful to how you might have to explain to those worry wart A&PS who might not feel comfortable signing off your condition inspection when they see aluminum angle from Lowes on your pristine EAB.
Possibly work with an A&P ahead of time before making the mod and get an idea of how to make a mod that is line with Vans standards of building or maybe even review AC 43.13.
|
65.81 is a requirement for A&P's. It refers to aircraft, not type certificated aircraft. That is a bigger bug a boo than 43.13.
An A&P that has not worked on a Rotax is not able to inspect that engine.
Ditto one that only works on aluminum aircraft can't inspect a Lancair.
As far as 43.13, remember that the builder is the manufacturer, NOT Van's.
Some recommendations of the plans, such as control surface travel I would consider very seriously. Each deviation from the kit supplier's plans I would evaluate for effect on "safe flight" since there is no such thing as airworthiness in an amateur built experimental aircraft.
__________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA
EAA Tech Counselor
KCHD
RV-10 40866
|

02-13-2017, 11:35 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: US
Posts: 2,251
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mel
Annual ELT sign-off IAW 91.207
|
I don't see a requirement for a "sign-off". What it says is
Quote:
|
The new expiration date for replacing (or recharging) the battery must be legibly marked on the outside of the transmitter and entered in the aircraft maintenance record.
|
and
Quote:
(d) Each emergency locator transmitter required by paragraph (a) of this section must be inspected within 12 calendar months after the last inspection for--
(1) Proper installation;
(2) Battery corrosion;
(3) Operation of the controls and crash sensor; and
(4) The presence of a sufficient signal radiated from its antenna.
|
For the first, I keep my complete checklist with detailed notes and such for each annual condition inspection, including notations on things like ELT battery replacement, and due date for the next one. Each year, I print out the form, update as needed, and due dates for things like batteries and O2 tank hydrotest and such are all verified (and then redlined during the inspection if/as necessary).
TBH, I hadn't actually realized that the inspection sans battery replacement was an *annual* requirement, and have been checking that at 2-year intervals while replacing the batteries, so that's good to know. As a matter of course, I do visually check the installation and activate the ELT via the remote button in the panel each year, but I guess I should take it out and whack it to check the g-sensor, too. Good to know.
In the larger picture, I don't put a lot of things in the aircraft maintenance *logbook*, but I do keep the records, nice and organized. E.g., each oil change, I get the report from the oil analysis company, complete with date, hours on oil, total engine/airframe time, etc., and file them in reverse chronological order in a binder. So that's a maintenance record, and in fact is far more detailed than a simple entry in the logbook.
About the only things in the actual logbook are annual condition inspection sign-offs and pitot/static/XPDR certs. All other maintenance is "logged" via records such as the oil reports, etc.
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:07 AM.
|