New FAA rules for EAB

[RV7A Flyer]

Originally Posted by gasman

A course should be required before anyone gets a repairman's cert.

A course on what, exactly? Airframe construction? Engine maintenance and repair (for what kind of engine)? What if you built a fabric-covered airplane? Or used a non Lycosaur engine? Or a composite structure? Etc. etc. etc.

They have a course that covers everything already...it's called an A&P license.

What problem are you trying to solve by requiring "a course"?

[BMW_X6M]

I hope this can happen because I purchased an RV-9A after building and racing cars and motorcycles since a teenager. I know every inch and component of my airplane and have redone most of it, yet cannot get the repairman certificate. Many A/P mechanics have no experience with Experimental aircraft, while some do and specialize in that area to help the rest of us out. The point is that if you can get one for LSA with a course, why not with Experimental as well?

[jnorris]

Originally Posted by RV7A Flyer

A course on what, exactly? Airframe construction? Engine maintenance and repair (for what kind of engine)? What if you built a fabric-covered airplane? Or used a non Lycosaur engine? Or a composite structure? Etc. etc. etc.

Ok, first of all, it needs to be clarified as to what the "repairman certificate" for an experimental amateur-built aircraft really does. The fact is, it has NOTHING to do with repair, maintenance, or modification of the aircraft. For amateur-built aircraft, the person doing maintenance, repair, or modification does NOT need ANY FAA certificate of any kind. You do not have to be the builder, nor the owner, and you do not have to hold any FAA certificate in order to perform these functions. ANYBODY is authorized. (Ref: 14 CFR 43.1(b))

What the "repairman certificate" actually authorizes the holder to do, and the ONLY thing it authorizes the holder to do, is perform the condition inspection of the aircraft as required by its operating limitations. Right now, for amateur-built aircraft, the only person who is eligible for this "repairman certificate" is the original, primary builder. Again, this person does not need the certificate to repair the aircraft. Only to inspect it in accordance with the operating limitations.

Now, for experimental light-sport aircraft, since these aircraft do not meet the major portion requirements for amateur-built certification, the person applying for the repairman certificate must be the OWNER of the aircraft (and may or may not be the builder). This person must attend and successfully complete a 16 hour course of instruction focused on aircraft INSPECTION. (Like amateur-built aircraft, the person performing maintenance, repair, or modification does not need to hold ANY FAA certificate of any kind.)

What EAA has been working with the FAA on for some time is expanding the regulation to allow subsequent owners of amateur-built aircraft to attend a similar course of instruction as to ELSA owners, so that they too may be eligible for a repairman certificate authorizing them to perform the condition inspections on their aircraft. The course curriculum already exists and is FAA-accepted for ELSA owners. With the proliferation of second owners of amateur-built aircraft, the question has arisen as to why these inspection courses couldn't be expanded to include amateur-built aircraft owners.

So this is a long-winded explanation to illustrate that the course doesn't teach anything about maintenance, repair, or modification. It teaches inspection techniques that can be applied to any airframe or engine. This is well within the scope of authority of the amateur-built aircraft repairman certificate.

[FinnFlyer]

I agree Joe.

I guess the point I was trying to make that to get a repairman's cert you must demonstrate that you have sufficient familiarity with that aircraft to perform the annual inspection. I guess the assumption is that if you built it and it passed inspection then you are proficient enough to perform the annual. I do see weaknesses like the builder just hanging an engine, getting all wiring professionally done, etc.

Even if my repairman's cert was expanded to cover any RV-3 or any RV, I certainly would not feel competent to do an annual inspection of a Lycoming powered RV. No clue how to do a compression test. I would have to study up on that and acquire the needed test equipment.

A 16 hour course must be rather intense to cover all things related to an annual condition inspection. Airframe, acceptable repairs, alterations, wiring and powerplant, just to mention a few. Wow!

Finn

[RV7A Flyer]

Originally Posted by jnorris

Ok, first of all, it needs to be clarified as to what the "repairman certificate" for an experimental amateur-built aircraft really does. The fact is, it has NOTHING to do with repair, maintenance, or modification of the aircraft. For amateur-built aircraft, the person doing maintenance, repair, or modification does NOT need ANY FAA certificate of any kind. You do not have to be the builder, nor the owner, and you do not have to hold any FAA certificate in order to perform these functions. ANYBODY is authorized. (Ref: 14 CFR 43.1(b))

What the "repairman certificate" actually authorizes the holder to do, and the ONLY thing it authorizes the holder to do, is perform the condition inspection of the aircraft as required by its operating limitations. Right now, for amateur-built aircraft, the only person who is eligible for this "repairman certificate" is the original, primary builder. Again, this person does not need the certificate to repair the aircraft. Only to inspect it in accordance with the operating limitations.

Now, for experimental light-sport aircraft, since these aircraft do not meet the major portion requirements for amateur-built certification, the person applying for the repairman certificate must be the OWNER of the aircraft (and may or may not be the builder). This person must attend and successfully complete a 16 hour course of instruction focused on aircraft INSPECTION. (Like amateur-built aircraft, the person performing maintenance, repair, or modification does not need to hold ANY FAA certificate of any kind.)

What EAA has been working with the FAA on for some time is expanding the regulation to allow subsequent owners of amateur-built aircraft to attend a similar course of instruction as to ELSA owners, so that they too may be eligible for a repairman certificate authorizing them to perform the condition inspections on their aircraft. The course curriculum already exists and is FAA-accepted for ELSA owners. With the proliferation of second owners of amateur-built aircraft, the question has arisen as to why these inspection courses couldn't be expanded to include amateur-built aircraft owners.

So this is a long-winded explanation to illustrate that the course doesn't teach anything about maintenance, repair, or modification. It teaches inspection techniques that can be applied to any airframe or engine. This is well within the scope of authority of the amateur-built aircraft repairman certificate.

Good points, and I think we all know (or should know) what the Repairman's Certificate covers as well as the ability for anyone to do any work/maintenance/repair on EABs. So your point that the course should cover inspection is valid, but the question still holds: a single course to cover inspection of all kinds of EABs? Fabric, plastic, metal? Powerplant? Etc? Or "type-specific" courses, say one for each RV, one for each variant of a Lancair or Glasair, and on and on?

I know nothing about ELSA regulations, so I can't say how that is analogous or not to EAB Repairman's Certificates.

But that said, within a "group" or "type" of EAB, such as RVs, it might make sense to do something similar...say a 2 or 3 day course on what to inspect for on a typical RV. Then the issue becomes "what about RVs that don't follow the plans/specs/installation manuals/etc."? How do you train someone for that?

Good questions to discuss, though. And I still stand by my original point that no, not everyone needs a course to get a certificate...the person (like me) who built the entire airplane, let's say.

[Mel]

The biggest difference between ELSA and EAB, with respect to the repairman certificate is that the ELSA was originally but to a "standard". EAB aircraft are not!

It would be very difficult to cover all amateur built aircraft without going the full A&P route. Remember EAB may be multi-engined, Turbine powered (prop or jet). It may even be pressurized.

[rv7charlie]

To me, the key is 'inspection *of your own aircraft*'. Somewhat analogous to the *operation* of amateur built a/c, where you can operate it more or less like a certified a/c, but you can't take money for its operation.

I wouldn't expect FAA to give me the ability to inspect someone else's a/c with the new ticket; just the ability to inspect my own. Given that restriction, I see the risk to self and others as neither greater nor less than what you get with the LSA inspection cert. There's really no fundamental difference from a hardware *inspection* standpoint between an LSA and a homebuilt.

Detail differences? Sure. But A&P/IAs who've never seen a Globe Swift, or Curtis Robin, or [insert other rare type here] are perfectly legal to do inspections on them. It used to be a running joke among Swift owners that you could do almost any mod to them and the IA that did the inspection would sign off the plane, because he didn't really know what was 'stock'.

Charlie

[BMC_Dave]

The reality is building a plane doesn't mean you're qualified to perform condition inspections even on an aircraft you built.

"I built an RV-10 so I'm qualified to inspect all RV-10s"

Lol, no.

[ron sterba]

What I would like to see is a release of liability of a EAB aircraft owner after three years of flying and 150 hours after the airworthiness certificate. It’s so SAD to see a owner that built a EAB plane take it to a crushing junk yard rather than selling it because he’s still liable for the aircraft once it’s SOLD to the next owner. Certified aircraft companies liability ends after ten years as I believe. It’s about lawsuit weight. In our state the department of aviation is under the department of transportation. A motor vehicle can be driven on the street legally if it has tires with treads, muffler, head lights, and tail/Brake lights it’s legal to drive on the street with factory built vehicular traffic. The vehicle doesn’t need fenders, roof,doors,hood and the vehicle can be sold to another owner with the new owner accepting ownership liability when the title is transferred. This vehicle is closer to collision pedestrian traffic than a home built aircraft will ever be. In addition if a engine quits that pilot has a chance to glide their plane to a landing. I think EAA needs to start a bill in congress that stops this liability transfer on EAB aircraft. We need the owners of EAB to go the same route as the group did with Basic Med! Your thoughts. Cheers Ron

[gasman]

Originally Posted by RV7A Flyer

A course on what, exactly? Airframe construction? Engine maintenance and repair (for what kind of engine)? What if you built a fabric-covered airplane? Or used a non Lycosaur engine? Or a composite structure? Etc. etc. etc.

They have a course that covers everything already...it's called an A&P license.

What problem are you trying to solve by requiring "a course"?

Why should you have to go through an entire A&P course just to inspect your one and only RV that you work on all year long?

Ask any A&P and you will find that 80% of what they studied for on the test, they will never use. Don't expect them to know how to bleed the brakes on your RV or prove the timing on your Lightspeed ign.

An annual inspection is not performed to see if the airframe was properly constructed, nor would most A&P's know if it was constructed properly. It is to find any problems as they evolve. Inspecting an airframe involves understanding what you are looking for. Same with the power plant, no matter what kind it is. Most RV's are using Lycomings... so a course on inspecting Lycomings would be appropriate. If you have a Mazda motor on your RV, don't expect an A&P to understand the quirks of that motor.

There are more RV's flying than any other exp. a/c, and 99.9% of them use a lycoming power plant. It would be appropriate that the FAA would allow an approved course for RV's that would allow owners that were interested in maintaining and inspecting their RV, as they have done with the Rotax powered LS aircraft.