|
-
POSTING RULES

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

08-03-2017, 10:54 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Anacortes, WA
Posts: 823
|
|
Can 2nd owner do maintenance
So, after reading all this, what is the conclusion to the question? Can owner who is not original builder of experimental RV do maintenance?
Can someone who buys an experimental airplane like RV-7 do all the maintenance except for annual inspection where inspection means only inspect but new owner can do all the maintenance?
Or, when an experimental airplane is sold to a new owner who is not the original builder can he/she do any maintenance other than oil changes?
Thanks for summary.
__________________
Steve Lynn
RV-7A
Flying Phase I
Anacortes, WA
www.mykitlog.com/sglynn
|

08-03-2017, 11:03 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pocahontas MS
Posts: 3,884
|
|
Steve, your dog can do all the maintenance, and all the repairs, and all the modifications, as long as you can get his paw print in the log book.
The only limitation is the annual condition inspection; you need a "repairman's" certificate *for that particular aircraft*, or an A&P ticket, to sign that off.
|

08-03-2017, 11:19 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Lufkin Tx
Posts: 689
|
|
I know this has been discussed many times. I read everything I could regarding maintenance on experimental A/C. I installed the cylinders on my 8 and made an entry in the log book. I just got a pre-buy inspection done and the A&P/AI saw my entry and told me I wasn't authorized to do that work. I didn't argue with him because it would be pointless. The buyer now has second thoughts after hearing what the mechanic told me.
__________________
Arlie Conner (A&P)
RV-4 (N124TT) Sold
RV-8 (N269CP) Sold
RV-4 (N684ML) completed 3-17-19
KOCH Nacogdoches
|

08-03-2017, 11:19 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Omaha, NE (KMLE)
Posts: 2,247
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sglynn
So, after reading all this, what is the conclusion to the question? Can owner who is not original builder of experimental RV do maintenance?
|
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sglynn
Can someone who buys an experimental airplane like RV-7 do all the maintenance except for annual inspection where inspection means only inspect but new owner can do all the maintenance?
|
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sglynn
Or, when an experimental airplane is sold to a new owner who is not the original builder can he/she do any maintenance other than oil changes?
|
Yes.
All three get the same answer, because it's essentially the same question.  Rv7charlie has it right.
The one glaring anomaly is E-LSA & S-LSA. A non-builder can indeed get the repairman certificate for one of those that they own, which allows them to do the condition inspection on that airplane. (there's another LSR-M certificate that allows you to perform inspections on any E/S-LSA). LSA rules are kind of quirky in several areas, and that's one where it works to the owner's advantage.
__________________
Dale
Omaha, NE
RV-12 # 222 N980KM "Screamin' Canary" (bought flying)
Fisher Celebrity (under construction)
Previous RV-7 project (sold)
|

08-03-2017, 11:21 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Tuttle, Oklahoma
Posts: 2,563
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sglynn
So, after reading all this, what is the conclusion to the question? Can owner who is not original builder of experimental RV do maintenance?
Can someone who buys an experimental airplane like RV-7 do all the maintenance except for annual inspection where inspection means only inspect but new owner can do all the maintenance?
Or, when an experimental airplane is sold to a new owner who is not the original builder can he/she do any maintenance other than oil changes?
Thanks for summary.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rv7charlie
Steve, your dog can do all the maintenance, and all the repairs, and all the modifications, as long as you can get his paw print in the log book.
The only limitation is the annual condition inspection; you need a "repairman's" certificate *for that particular aircraft*, or an A&P ticket, to sign that off.
|
What RV7Charlie said. Not only can your dog do any and all maintenance, repairs, modifications but so can any human being on the planet.
Your trusted auto mechanic can come over, yank the engine out, tear it down, put it back together, and hand you the keys and say "good to go" -- LEGALLY!
However, he cannot sign it off as "airworthy" -- LEGALLY!
|

08-03-2017, 11:26 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pocahontas MS
Posts: 3,884
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RVbySDI
What RV7Charlie said. Not only can your dog do any and all maintenance, repairs, modifications but so can any human being on the planet.
Your trusted auto mechanic can come over, yank the engine out, tear it down, put it back together, and hand you the keys and say "good to go" -- LEGALLY!
However, he cannot sign it off as "airworthy" -- LEGALLY!
|
Actually, no one can (though many people incorrectly use that language in the log book). 'Airworthy' is defined, in this case, as conforming to a type certificate; none of us has one for our homebuilts.
|

08-03-2017, 11:47 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Tuttle, Oklahoma
Posts: 2,563
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rv7charlie
Actually, no one can (though many people incorrectly use that language in the log book). 'Airworthy' is defined, in this case, as conforming to a type certificate; none of us has one for our homebuilts.
|
Yes, 'Airworthy' is a term I should not use so generically. Actually, this is the wording I use when signing off my condition inspection:
Quote:
|
"I certify that this aircraft has been inspected on <DATE> in accordance with the scope and detail of appendix D part 43 and was found to be in a condition for safe operation."
|
Followed by my signature and Repairman Certificate Number.
|

08-04-2017, 05:41 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 1,029
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobTurner
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmartingt
It would be like having no pilot ratings below commercial with an instrument rating--who would bother investing that much time and effort if they weren't doing it for a career?
|
Well, myself for one. And I know others, including some with an ATP they did just for the challenge.
|
But the difference in your cases is that you weren't a student pilot, subject to all of the student pilot limitations (no passengers, strict instructor supervision, etc) up to that point. How many people do you really think would even bother to start flight training if they had to get 250 total hours, 40 hours of instrument time, 50 hours cross-country, etc., and pass all of the requisite exams, and spend $30k or more and a couple of years of calendar time, just to be able to take their significant other or child on a flight around the patch on a nice evening? Light GA would pretty much disappear outside of flight schools supplying professional pilots, professional pilots in their spare time, and the occasional really rich guy and their kids.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobTurner
But back to the topic: There are a lot of states where you have to pay someone to inspect your car every year. Until that philosophy changes, the government will require airplane inspections, done by inspectors that have some sort of license to do so.
|
I don't know if some kind of inspection requirement will ever go away... but I also submit that the idea that the qualifications for doing the inspections (and indeed, almost any maintenance at all on certified aircraft) should be two years' full-time experience and qualification to work on all aircraft to paying-passenger-carrying standards is unsustainable from a financial standpoint. The FAA itself has even realized this, and proposed in 2013 the "Primary Non-Commercial" category, which would allow certified aircraft to be maintained similarly to how purchased homebuilts are today (owner can do all maintenance including modifications with uncertified parts; A&P must do condition inspection). But this is still just a proposal from an FAA working group, and has not yet been turned into a proposed rule despite the wording already being worked out by that working group.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobTurner
Honestly, I think the FAA never anticipated the large secondary (used) market that has sprung up for EAB aircraft, and now that it's a reality, they don't know how to manage it.
|
You're exactly right on this, though I'd argue that the FAA is terrible at anticipating anything.
The problem is, many (most?) A&Ps are unfamiliar with the regulations applicable (and not) to E-AB aircraft, and without extensive E-AB experience most are probably not familiar with a lot of the technology we have available for our airplanes. Just look at the posts earlier in this thread. There are lots of A&Ps out there are who are legally qualified to perform condition inspections on an RV or other homebuilt, yet haven't touched a light airplane since A&P school a decade or three ago because all they've worked on is heavy jets.
At the same time, you have a fairly large base of very knowledgeable people who have extensive experience building and working on light airplanes, and/or with a professional background in related areas. They would easily be capable of safely maintaining and inspecting and airplane that they owned, whether they built it or not. Yet the only avenue they have to being able to do this involves learning a mass of information and hundreds of hours performing tasks that will never be applicable to the one or two airplanes they will ever own and work on.
Basically, it is my proposal that the FAA should at least (a) implement the P-NC category as described in the Part 23 ARC report from 2013, and (b) create a standard set of procedures or qualifications by which a person, who was not the primary builder of the aircraft, may be issued the repairman's certificate for a specific E-AB aircraft that they own. As I've pointed out elsewhere, item (b) is of specific personal interest to me.
__________________
RV-7ER - finishing kit and systems installation
There are two kinds of fool in the world. The first says "this is old, and therefore good"; the second says "this is new, and therefore better".
|

08-04-2017, 06:49 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 32
|
|
A&P Cert
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmartingt
At the same time, you have a fairly large base of very knowledgeable people who have extensive experience building and working on light airplanes, and/or with a professional background in related areas. They would easily be capable of safely maintaining and inspecting and airplane that they owned, whether they built it or not. Yet the only avenue they have to being able to do this involves learning a mass of information and hundreds of hours performing tasks that will never be applicable to the one or two airplanes they will ever own and work on.
|
Hey Martin, I'm still pretty new to the forums, but been lurking for a few months. I was doing some research before I started my build and it's my understanding that you can get an A&P just by the experience one acquires from building E-AB aircraft to meet the required hours of working. And on RVs, it seems that if you've built one, you're probably more than halfway there. Maybe that's only one of the qualifications (airframe vs powerplant) but it's nothing to sneeze at to get to apply for that mechanic qualification only by showing some logs, taking a written test, and demonstrating some repair/maintenance tasks. It seems like there's at least SOME thought put into this kind of situation that benefits those with a lot of experience with homebuilts.
|

08-04-2017, 08:10 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Clearwater, FL KCLW
Posts: 1,281
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jMINTj
Hey Martin, I'm still pretty new to the forums, but been lurking for a few months. I was doing some research before I started my build and it's my understanding that you can get an A&P just by the experience one acquires from building E-AB aircraft to meet the required hours of working. And on RVs, it seems that if you've built one, you're probably more than halfway there. Maybe that's only one of the qualifications (airframe vs powerplant) but it's nothing to sneeze at to get to apply for that mechanic qualification only by showing some logs, taking a written test, and demonstrating some repair/maintenance tasks. It seems like there's at least SOME thought put into this kind of situation that benefits those with a lot of experience with homebuilts.
|
I'd love to hear from those of have successfully gone this route, and received any credit for homebuilding. Did you have to know a friendly A&P to sign you off? Did you need to find the right person at the FAA? How much more powerplant training did it require?
I want to get my A&P someday, partially just for the knowledge, or maybe as a retirement gig, but right now with a full time job outside of aviation, it just isn't feasible. I also a have a feeling that there are a lot of others out there on this forum who are probably more knowledgeable about light aircraft than most A&P's, but like me, don't have the time, money, or connections, to jump through all the FAA hoops. I agree that a rating for light, piston engine aircraft only, would make sense and be a bit more in reach for many of us. Unfortunately, not only the FAA, but existing A&Ps, and probably even maintenance schools, would be dead-set against this.
Chris
__________________
Chris Johnson
RV-9A - Done(ish) 4/5/16! Flying 4/7/16
Last edited by YellowJacket RV9 : 08-04-2017 at 08:16 AM.
|
| 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 12:23 AM.
|