Misinformation!

[RVbySDI]

Originally Posted by MED

I don't want to muddle this, but one poster said his A&P said he was not "authorized" to replace cylinders on his engine. Isn't that true if the engine is a certificated engine? I always heard to work on the engine the data plate had to be removed or in some other way the engine declared to be non-certificated - like an experimental engine for an experimental aircraft or an air boat.

I am not an expert, just a Joe out here (Ok, my name isn't Joe) building and flying my own aircraft, but this is misinformation also. I am sure Mel or someone with more detailed knowledge of the regs can explain the particulars of the rules. This is false information from an A&P. Anyone can work on an experimental aircraft. That includes working on an engine that is a "certificated engine" installed on that experimental aircraft.

[Caveman]

Originally Posted by RVbySDI

I will not speak for him but if you contact Caveman on this forum you may ask him these questions. He just completed his certification this spring doing exactly what you are discussing. I am sure he can give you a lot of insight.

I can't say much that Paul hasn't said already. At this point in my A&P career, I am a rank rookie and feel about as competent as an A&P as I did as a pilot after my private pilot check ride. It is a license to learn.

For any interested in the path I took:

I pursued the A&P for a couple of personal reasons. I love working on airplanes, especially my own & this will allow me to restore and maintain my own aircraft certified or amateur built, now and in the future. I also wanted to be of help to transient pilots who come in to our airport and have mechanical issues.

Another reason I wanted it was for the pure intellectual challenge. I wasn't sure I could pass the exams. I've been out of school for almost 40 years. I'm 61 years young and was happy when I scored in the mid 90's to high 80's. I really surprised my self on the oral and practical. The good Lord was looking after me and I drew some questions in which I had plenty of experience. However, I was thrown several helicopter questions and even the examiner commented that he had never seen that many helo questions on any other A&P test, he had administered. I was worried going in because I had stayed up late studying for several days and I knew there were some holes in my knowledge. Some stuff just doesn't stick as well as it used to.

I worked under the watchful eye of our on field A&P and an A&P IA to attain the 30 months of training. We called the FSDO a couple of times to keep them in the loop and make sure we were meeting the requirements. I spent about two weeks, (a little less) in a certified repair station engine rebuild shop for engine experience and in an induction system repair station rebuilding carbs and getting experience with turbos and fuel injection. The FAA made a visit to the engine repair station once just to confirm I was actually there doing overhauls, rebuilding mags, making hoses, etc.. Once that was done, I needed a letter of recommendation from my teachers and logbook signoffs from the shops. I took my logbooks to the FSDO who signed me off to take the tests. I then spent 2 1/2 weeks at Federal Exams in OKC studying and taking the writtens and pretty much a full day in Shawnee, Ok at the Gordon Cooper Vo-tech taking the oral and practical.

As for the question, does building an amateur built airplane help the cause. ABSOLUTELY! The FSDO did not allow me to count those hours towards the A&P training. And this FSDO gave me the feeling they were still a bit leery of homebuilts, so I tried not to bring it up, again. I fact they asked what I had built and when I told them they warned me that they investigated many accidents in 7's and I needed to be very careful. However, one of the questions asked during my oral and practical paperwork prior to the test was what other certificates I held. When I told them I had a repairman's certificate, that opened a very positive conversation with the examiner. He asked me many questions about building and whether my airplane had a glass panel, did I wire it, did it have electronic ignition, have I been maintaining it for the last 9 years, etc. That seemed to make both of us feel more comfortable and things went much better than I could have hoped.

The FSDO would not sign me off to test without time rebuilding engines. I cannot thank the shops that allowed me to spend time there, enough! They assume a tremendous amount of liability when they do something like that. The only way I can repay them is to send them customers in the future and give them business from our airport.

[Raymo]

Originally Posted by MED

I don't want to muddle this, but one poster said his A&P said he was not "authorized" to replace cylinders on his engine. Isn't that true if the engine is a certificated engine? I always heard to work on the engine the data plate had to be removed or in some other way the engine declared to be non-certificated - like an experimental engine for an experimental aircraft or an air boat.

It is possible to get either the A or the P. You take two tests instead of three. Everyone has to take the general test, which covers things the A or P does not.

[GalinHdz]

Originally Posted by RVbySDI

I am not an expert, just a Joe out here (Ok, my name isn't Joe) building and flying my own aircraft, but this is misinformation also. I am sure Mel or someone with more detailed knowledge of the regs can explain the particulars of the rules. This is false information from an A&P. Anyone can work on an experimental aircraft. That includes working on an engine that is a "certificated engine" installed on that experimental aircraft.

I have never seen a "certificated engine" of any kind. Engines don't get a certificate, the airplane gets a type certificate with a particular engine. I have seen many TSO's engines, but that is a completely different issue.

[rvbuilder2002]

Originally Posted by MED

I don't want to muddle this, but one poster said his A&P said he was not "authorized" to replace cylinders on his engine. Isn't that true if the engine is a certificated engine? I always heard to work on the engine the data plate had to be removed or in some other way the engine declared to be non-certificated - like an experimental engine for an experimental aircraft or an air boat.

Originally Posted by tspear

No. It is BS.
Now, from a legal perspective, if you put a certified motor on an experimental; then want to reinstall it on a certified aircraft. It is legal; but the requirements any A/P or I/A would make you go through is impractical. So do not bother trying.

Tim

Tim is correct.
If you put a certified engine on an experimental, the moment a non-certified person does any work on it (outside of the owner maint. that the FAA allows as spelled out in FAR 43), the engine is no long certified and would have to be evaluated to prove it still meets all of the standards and requirements of its original certification.

[rvbuilder2002]

Originally Posted by Caveman

I can't say much that Paul hasn't said already. At this point in my A&P career, I am a rank rookie and feel about as competent as an A&P as I did as a pilot after my private pilot check ride. It is a license to learn.

For any interested in the path I took:

I pursued the A&P for a couple of personal reasons. I love working on airplanes, especially my own & this will allow me to restore and maintain my own aircraft certified or amateur built, now and in the future. I also wanted to be of help to transient pilots who come in to our airport and have mechanical issues.

Another reason I wanted it was for the pure intellectual challenge. I wasn't sure I could pass the exams. I've been out of school for almost 40 years. I'm 61 years young and was happy when I scored in the mid 90's to high 80's. I really surprised my self on the oral and practical. The good Lord was looking after me and I drew some questions in which I had plenty of experience. However, I was thrown several helicopter questions and even the examiner commented that he had never seen that many helo questions on any other A&P test, he had administered. I was worried going in because I had stayed up late studying for several days and I knew there were some holes in my knowledge. Some stuff just doesn't stick as well as it used to.

I worked under the watchful eye of our on field A&P and an A&P IA to attain the 30 months of training. We called the FSDO a couple of times to keep them in the loop and make sure we were meeting the requirements. I spent about two weeks, (a little less) in a certified repair station engine rebuild shop for engine experience and in an induction system repair station rebuilding carbs and getting experience with turbos and fuel injection. The FAA made a visit to the engine repair station once just to confirm I was actually there doing overhauls, rebuilding mags, making hoses, etc.. Once that was done, I needed a letter of recommendation from my teachers and logbook signoffs from the shops. I took my logbooks to the FSDO who signed me off to take the tests. I then spent 2 1/2 weeks at Federal Exams in OKC studying and taking the writtens and pretty much a full day in Shawnee, Ok at the Gordon Cooper Vo-tech taking the oral and practical.

As for the question, does building an amateur built airplane help the cause. ABSOLUTELY! The FSDO did not allow me to count those hours towards the A&P training. And this FSDO gave me the feeling they were still a bit leery of homebuilts, so I tried not to bring it up, again. I fact they asked what I had built and when I told them they warned me that they investigated many accidents in 7's and I needed to be very careful. However, one of the questions asked during my oral and practical paperwork prior to the test was what other certificates I held. When I told them I had a repairman's certificate, that opened a very positive conversation with the examiner. He asked me many questions about building and whether my airplane had a glass panel, did I wire it, did it have electronic ignition, have I been maintaining it for the last 9 years, etc. That seemed to make both of us feel more comfortable and things went much better than I could have hoped.

The FSDO would not sign me off to test without time rebuilding engines. I cannot thank the shops that allowed me to spend time there, enough! They assume a tremendous amount of liability when they do something like that. The only way I can repay them is to send them customers in the future and give them business from our airport.

Don't sell your self short Joe.
To me it sounds like you attained a world of experience beyond what many A&P candidates have when they graduate from a formal School.
Good for you taking the initiative to learn.

[ArlingtonRV]

I was fortunate as I was able to qualify for my A&P as a result of work I did in the Air Force. I worked in the inspection dock doing all manner of inspections on F-15's. I also had authorization to inspect and sign off other people's work. All I had to do to get permission to take the tests was show a copy of my training records and present a letter from my supervisor attesting to the fact that I had been doing this work for more than 3 years. I think the rules may have changed since then and this may not be available any more.

As a result, I feel fairly competent to inspect my aircraft, though I still try to get someone else to look at it also. On military aircraft most critical items required ore than one set of eyes. Naturally, I didn't get the training on piston engines and still seek a lot of help firewall forward.

I think what the experience gave me is a good idea of what my limitations are, what I can do myself, and what I need to seek out help on. Fortunately, where I ma there is lots of help available.

[MED]

Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002

Tim is correct.
If you put a certified engine on an experimental, the moment a non-certified person does any work on it (outside of the owner maint. that the FAA allows as spelled out in FAR 43), the engine is no long certified and would have to be evaluated to prove it still meets all of the standards and requirements of its original certification.

This is exactly what I thought, and what I tried to write. Anyone can work on the engine in an experimental aircraft, but it is no longer considered suitable for use in a certificated aircraft without sign-off by an A&P/AI. Not sure what this might entail . . . or how you should (legally) indicate its change of status.

[Canadian_JOY]

Coming back to points that Paul Dye and Mel made, there clearly is a specific set of skills one needs to acquire in order to be a competent inspector.

Early in my career, as an apprentice on the hangar floor, I caught several glaring airworthiness issues which had been missed or overlooked by multiple licensed AME's (Canadian equivalent to the A&P). For some time I was unpopular on the hangar floor, so much that our Chief Engineer jokingly told me to keep my (bleeping) hands in my pockets and my (bleeping) eyes focused on my shoes! One of the defects I found was a major structural crack which, if unrepaired, would have resulted in catastrophic structural failure. The first helicopter in which I found the crack was grounded for several weeks for repairs. The lads in the shop got better with the subsequent machines, but the fix still took several hundred person-hours. No wonder the Chief Engineer didn't want me to find any more latent defects.

Why am I telling this story? Simply because my father had taught me to be a quality inspector when I worked in his business. He taught me how to really LOOK for defects, and how to always FEEL for defects. He has no idea how that training in his furniture manufacturing business would stand me in such good stead in the aerospace industry.

Coming back to Paul and Mel's comments, one really does have to learn how to be an inspector. No matter the certificate you hold, if you're new to the game, get some experienced hands and eyes to help with your first few inspections.

Oh, here's a trick the value of which I've been learning in recent years as I've aged. My eyes need much more light in order to be able to see clearly; as a result I am almost always wearing an LED headlamp. With the headlamp producing a focused pool of light it's much easier to conduct a thorough inspection by keeping one's eyes trained on objects within the light beam and then carefully moving that beam around the area being inspected. The light beam helps you remain focused and free from distraction. See, getting old isn't ALL bad! :-)

[ArlingtonRV]

To Canadian Joy's point, I have had a similar occurrence. While in Tech. School at Sheppard AFB learning to be a Crew Chief, I found my first defect and grounded my first plane, on our first day in the hangar. We were doing gear swings on a T-38 and while I was in the cockpit, just out of habit, I did a normal flight control check. After kicking the rudder pedals I did a double take and looked again. When I kicked the left pedal, the rudder swung right and vice versa.

I got the instructor's attention and showed him, and of, he didn't believe me since the airplane was supposed to be back out on the flight line the next day and was on the flying schedule. He double checked and, sure enough, the rudder was rigged backwards. Day one, save one.