Repairman?s certificate question

[Ted RV8]

People who haven’t built the plane have no business attempting to get a repairman certificate. Period! Your putting a bad mark on everyone legitimately building and acquiring the repairman certificate.

I’ve seen this done before and watch them attempting to work on the plane and it’s obvious they don’t know what they are doing.

Remember it’s your life in that plane when you fly it. So if you do something from not knowing and you crash, think of your family and anybody on the ground you’re hurting.

As To an A&P performing the work and knowing more then someone who bought and is flying an RV, **** right they know more. They’ve had to do the years of schooling and the testing to work on any certified airplane and are accountable.

If you feel your sharp enough and qualified enough to work on an RV you bought make friends with an A&P to assist you and sign of on it. Simple solution!

As to the people who do illegally perform the work, two things.
1) Your giving your insurance an out if ever anything happens. First thing they want and check is a copy of the log books.
2) Don’t poke the bear! In this case the bear is the FAA.

[lr172]

Originally Posted by Sam Buchanan

Huhhh??? An A&P with no experience whatsoever with E-AB and the systems often found in our aircraft (but legally entitled to perform a condition inspection) is better prepared to perform a condition inspection than someone who has built an RV?

Probably wasn't clear, as I was addressing the issue of non-builders doing CI's. My position was that a builder WAS qualified to perform a condition inspection, but a pilot/non-builder with limited experience with the airframe is not. An A&P with no type experience is a different animal, as they generally have broad aviation experience and should be able to apply that with some research to unknown aircraft. In theory, any ways. That doesn't apply to most pilots/non-builders.

Larry

[Sam Buchanan]

Originally Posted by lr172

Probably wasn't clear, as I was addressing the issue of non-builders doing CI's. My position was that a builder WAS qualified to perform a condition inspection, but a pilot/non-builder with limited experience with the airframe is not. An A&P with no type experience is a different animal, as they generally have broad aviation experience and should be able to apply that with some research to unknown aircraft. In theory, any ways. That doesn't apply to most pilots/non-builders.

Larry

I think the scenario under discussion was about a previous builder who now owns an RV for which no Repairman's Certificate has been issued. My point was that it is hard to argue that someone who has previously built an RV is less qualified to perform the Condition Inspection than an A&P who may have limited or no light aircraft experience.

But until the regs change, this discussion is moot......

[Ed_Wischmeyer]

The rest of the story is that having built the airframe doesn't necessarily mean that you're qualified to do engine and propeller maintenance, even if you do get a repairman's certificate.

Personally, I can be very observant inspecting somebody else's work, but I'm absolutely blind to my own errors.

Ed

[Mark33]

Gentlemen, thank you all for the thoughtful input on the subject. The insight and all of the good points that y’all have highlighted are all very valid indeed.

The main point that I was trying to get across is that there has to be a better way of doing things rather than just continuing to do it the same old way because “that’s the way we’ve always done it”. Like I previously said, I find it dumb and archaic to have two identical airplanes sitting side-by-side...one I built and one I didn’t,...both that I’m perfectly within my legal rights to do any and all modifications and maintenance on, but I can legally only sign the logbooks for the annual inspection on one of them. That’s just dumb...period.

Like I’d also mention, I think a smarter way of doing this would be to maybe require a person to actually go through a basic maintenance course...not just a two day “how to fill out paperwork” course. I think a week long, hands on, basic maintenance course along with a little bit of theory would work wonders. Even though I’ve built my own airplane I feel like I could benefit greatly from some classroom lecture along with some hands-on experience.

As an example, when I read some of the post in this forum and the questions being asked....even by people that’s actually built their airplane (myself included), I can’t help but to think how valuable a little bit of formal training from real experts would be.

So, once again, if I’m competent and have enough confidence in my skills to maintain the ongoing maintenance of my aircraft...and have gone through a basics maintenance course, I’m convinced that there’s absolutely no reason that I shouldn’t be able to do the annual condition inspection on both of my airplanes...the one I built... and the one I bought.

***Edit: I think some folks that are replying to this topic are mixing apples and oranges.

The condition inspection has nothing to do with ongoing daily maintenance.

The points that I am trying to make only pertain to someone that’s experienced with their particular type of aircraft and competent enough to maintain it. As it stands now, if you the owner didn’t even have enough skills to fuel your own airplane and you got your buddy who “kind of” knows how to work on a lawnmower do all of your maintenance throughout the year, you’d be perfectly legal to do just that. Yes, without a doubt this type of person has no business doing their own condition inspection...much-less their ongoing maintenance.

The person that I’m talking about is the one who has the skills...possibly gained from building their own airplane and/or from a basics maintenance course, should be allowed to do their own C.I., even if they weren’t the original builder. As an example, take a guy like Dan H. that I think the mass majority of us respect his knowledge and skills. If he were to purchase an airplane from someone, should he be required to hire an A&P to come do his C.I. every year on that airplane? As the rules stand right now, that’s exactly what he’d have to do. Dan, I’m sorry for invoking your name, but I’m only trying to make a point to the naysayers. As I’d previously mentioned, I’d even go as far as having an A&P involved with the first C.I. where they could go over everything with you on the first go around of that particular aircraft just to make sure you were comfortable with it.

Once again, for some of you that’s commenting on this subject, please don’t mix the apples and oranges.

[lr172]

Originally Posted by Mark33

The points that I am trying to make only pertain to someone that’s experienced with their particular type of aircraft and competent enough to maintain it. As it stands now, if you the owner didn’t even have enough skills to fuel your own airplane and you got your buddy who “kind of” knows how to work on a lawnmower do all of your maintenance throughout the year, you’d be perfectly legal to do just that. Yes, without a doubt this type of person has no business doing their own condition inspection...much-less their ongoing maintenance.

The person that I’m talking about is the one who has the skills...possibly gained from building their own airplane and/or from a basics maintenance course, should be allowed to do their own C.I., even if they weren’t the original builder. As an example, take a guy like Dan H. that I think the mass majority of us respect his knowledge and skills. If he were to purchase an airplane from someone, should he be required to hire an A&P to come do his C.I. every year on that airplane? As the rules stand right now, that’s exactly what he’d have to do. Dan, I’m sorry for invoking your name, but I’m only trying to make a point to the naysayers. As I’d previously mentioned, I’d even go as far as having an A&P involved with the first C.I. where they could go over everything with you on the first go around of that particular aircraft just to make sure you were comfortable with it.

I have seen very few laws or regs in my life, targetted at a general public population, that are designed to distinguish beteween the skills represented by Dan and the guy who can't fuel his own plane. I can't argue the logic, but how do find people qualified to make that determination and then develop detailed guidelines to help them make that distinction?

An admiral goal, but it just doesn't fit our countries style of regulation.

I could make the same argument about speeds limits. If my skill and vehicle are capable, why do I have to follow the same limit as the one set up for my 85 year old neighbor with a 30 year old, beat up sedan?

Larry

[Ted RV8]

Your original post was regarding getting a repairman certificate for a plane you didn’t build and that’s what my response was addressing.

Regarding what your asking and signing off a condition inspection because you feel you have the knowledge from building and having a repairman certificate from another plane, you can do that also. Most FAA guys who signed off for your repairman certificate will extend the opportunity to be tested for the A&P tests. Passing those tests with enough documented hours working on planes and you can get your A&P license.

[Mark33]

Originally Posted by Ted RV8

Your original post was regarding getting a repairman certificate for a plane you didn?t build and that?s what my response was addressing.

Regarding what your asking and signing off a condition inspection because you feel you have the knowledge from building and having a repairman certificate from another plane, you can do that also. Most FAA guys who signed off for your repairman certificate will extend the opportunity to be tested for the A&P tests. Passing those tests with enough documented hours working on planes and you can get your A&P license.

Thanks Ted, but getting an A&P license ready isn?t anything that I have an interest in or want to peruse. Yes, my initial question was regarding obtaining the repairman?s certificate on an aircraft that had never had a repairman?s certificate association with it, which would grant you the privilege to do the C.I. The conversation in the thread soon shifted towards the idea of how it doesn?t make any since for a person to be able to do maintenance or modifications throughout the year on an aircraft they didn?t build and then need to get an A&P to do the C.I. I won?t reiterate my thoughts and ideas but I truly think there?s a better more common since way to approach this topic.

[jnorris]

There is some discussion circulating around regarding the possibility of modeling the amateur-built repairman certificate on the E-LSA repairman certificate. That is, maybe the regulations could be changed to allow either the primary builder of the aircraft or a person who is the owner of the aircraft and has completed the 16 hour repairman inspection course to qualify for the repairman certificate. Now, don't get too excited about this, and don't start planning any celebrations yet, as this would require a regulatory change and those take time. But discussions are under way, so stay tuned.

[Mark33]

Originally Posted by jnorris

There is some discussion circulating around regarding the possibility of modeling the amateur-built repairman certificate on the E-LSA repairman certificate. That is, maybe the regulations could be changed to allow either the primary builder of the aircraft or a person who is the owner of the aircraft and has completed the 16 hour repairman inspection course to qualify for the repairman certificate. Now, don't get too excited about this, and don't start planning any celebrations yet, as this would require a regulatory change and those take time. But discussions are under way, so stay tuned.

That would be fantastic! Like I?d previously said, I think it?d be a good idea to expand that even further to maybe a one week/40 hour workshop where you?d actually learn something other than filling out paperwork.