RV-12 certification class

[flytoboat]

Originally Posted by Mel

Once again, anyone can do all maintenance and/or modifications on any experimental amateur-built or experimental light-sport aircraft. The only thing the repairman certificate authorizes is the condition inspection.

CAUTION: Thread Creep:
Mel, when is the FAA going to re-name the "repairman's certificate" to something that it truly represents? That name causes more confusion than anything as you have demonstrated here with 2 posts trying to clarify the issue. I purchased a flying RV6A and have had several people tell me I can't work on it without an A&P sign-off because I don't have the repairman's certificate. I've quit trying to explain and tell them to go do their homework then come back and discuss. Maybe it should be called a "Condition Inspection Authorization (CIA)" and anyone who calls it a "Conditional" would have their authorization revoked!
>/rant off.

[Piper J3]

Maybe a better naming scheme should reference that it applies to ELSA only and the certificate holder can only do annual condition inspection on his own ELSA aircraft. How about "ELSA (only) Condition Inspection Authorization" or just "ELSA Condition Inspection Authorization"?

flytoboat - Anyone who calls it a "Conditional" would have their authorization revoked!

When I took Rainbow's LSRM course they did a thorough explanation of what LSRM privilege entails. Maybe people need to pay more attention in class...

[flytoboat]

Originally Posted by Piper J3

Maybe a better naming scheme should reference that it applies to ELSA only and the certificate holder can only do annual condition inspection on his own ELSA aircraft. How about "ELSA (only) Condition Inspection Authorization" or just "ELSA Condition Inspection Authorization"?

Why does it need to be ELSA only?

[DaleB]

Originally Posted by flytoboat

CAUTION: Thread Creep:
Mel, when is the FAA going to re-name the "repairman's certificate" to something that it truly represents? That name causes more confusion than anything as you have demonstrated here with 2 posts trying to clarify the issue. I purchased a flying RV6A and have had several people tell me I can't work on it without an A&P sign-off because I don't have the repairman's certificate. I've quit trying to explain and tell them to go do their homework then come back and discuss. Maybe it should be called a "Condition Inspection Authorization (CIA)" and anyone who calls it a "Conditional" would have their authorization revoked!
>/rant off.

Ignorance abounds. I hear all kinds of crazy stuff, and just ignore it.

I had one of the FAA guys at the FSDO, when I got my paperwork signed off for the repairman certificate for my E-LSA, tell me that it only authorized me to do the inspection, not any kind of maintenance or repair.

Of course technically he's right... since you don't need ANY sort of certificate to do any maintenance or repairs on an E-LSA... but I don't think that's what he meant at all. I just smiled, nodded, and left.

[Mel]

65.104 and 65.107 both clearly define the requirements and privileges of the repairman certificate holder.

Maintenance is not defined under those parts because "maintenance" authorization is defined under part 43 and part 43.1(b) specifically states; "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."

Therefore part 43 does not apply to EAB or ELSA aircraft except where it is specifically referenced within the operating limitations.

One should be familiar with the requirements and privileges of any and all certificates that they hold.

[sf3543]

My 12 is an ELSA and it is a great airplane as is!
If you are building to the plans, in my opinion, stay with ELSA since you will end up with a known commodity.
The only reasons to go EAB, assuming you don't deviate from the plans, would be:
To increase gross weight, if you feel that is wise and can get it approved.
To be able to operate in IFR conditions.

[Mel]

Originally Posted by sf3543

My 12 is an ELSA and it is a great airplane as is!
If you are building to the plans, in my opinion, stay with ELSA since you will end up with a known commodity.
The only reasons to go EAB, assuming you don't deviate from the plans, would be:
To increase gross weight, if you feel that is wise and can get it approved.
To be able to operate in IFR conditions.

If you already have an engine and/or avionics that you want to use.
If you prefer to obtain the repairman certificate without have to attend a class.

[Charlie12]

I had my airworthiness inspection as E-LSA in July 2016 followed by first flight a few weeks later. 168 hours now. To me a big advantage of E-LSA is the abbreviated flight test requirement. I have always thought in terms of E-AB flight testing requiring 40 hours with an uncertified engine. I was very surprised to find out that it is only 5 hours for E-LSA, though accomplishing all of Van's five flight test cards took me more like 8 hours. I don't see any advantage in registering as E-AB unless you want to make some major change to the design. The couple people I am aware of who did so wanted to use a different engine.

[randylervold]

Originally Posted by sf3543

The only reasons to go EAB, assuming you don't deviate from the plans, would be:
To increase gross weight, if you feel that is wise and can get it approved.
To be able to operate in IFR conditions.

As the OP of this thread my intent was simply to collect some data on the ratio of cert paths builders have chosen, not to debate the relative merits of each.

I am going the E-AB route with my build for the second reason you mention Steve: the ability to make some customizations, but for IFR capability in particular. In my new job at Dynon I want to have a development and demo ship to both know how our stuff works in the IFR environment well, and to be able to quickly test new features and products. We do have several employees with Dynon in their planes but I don't currently own a plane so there are quite a few reasons stacking up to drive my build.

My list of deviations from the E-LSA spec are (at present):

• Custom panel with an IFR navigator, obviously Dynon-based
• Heated pitot under the left wing, may omit the standard pitot
• Skybolt camlocks to attach cowl to firewall, hinges on horizontal joint
• LEMO jacks in addition to standard headphone jacks (can't believe Van's does include those)
• Likely a custom center console since I will be using the Advanced Control Module (ACM as we call it) instead of the fuse panel Van's provides

There may be some other minor deviations but nothing having to do with anything structural. Having built two RVs previously and done my share of customizations I'm well aware of the 10X rule. Frankly, I think it's more like 20X! Some time in the next month or two I'll be putting up a web site to document the build and will of course focus on any non-standard stuff I'm doing for those who are curious. Heck, I've already deviated, just finished the VS last weekend and built in a custom mount for the VOR antenna at the top, essentially copied Van's RV-12iST.

[RV3Bob]

I am looking forward to watching Randy's progress. His 12 should be something special. His 3 inspired me to build mine.

Bob Grigsby
J-3 flying low and slow
3B. Close