What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Getting paid for maintenance

RV7A Flyer

Well Known Member
Patron
I know that anyone can *work* on an EAB aircraft, and that either the Repairman's Certificate holder or an A&P can sign off on the Condition Inspection, but what about getting *paid*?

Can someone without an A&P get paid to do work on an EAB (after completion and AW certificate)?
 
I'm not aware of any rule against it!

The only problem I can think of is possible liability in case the "paid for" maintenance causes an accident.
 
An A&P license does not come with "for hire" privileges like a commercial pilot's license does. In that sense, maintenance is not governed like the act of flying is governed.

You can pay a kid to wash your airplane, whether it's certificated or Experimental. That's maintenance, and the kid certainly isn't licensed. You can pay a friend for his brute strength when he comes over to help with the hoisting during an engine change. And of course the most glaring example of this is the apprentice A&P who does all the grunt work when your airplane is in the shop, while often the A&P only inspects and signs off the work.
 
An A&P license does not come with "for hire" privileges like a commercial pilot's license does. In that sense, maintenance is not governed like the act of flying is governed.

Rules must be a lot more different than I thought up there in Canada.

Down here a commercial pilot has lots of limitations on being "for hire".

Mark
 
I checked..

With the person who is the FSDO & was told you could charge for maint., (cond. insp., etc. if you hold the repairman cert. for the A/C built). anyone can also charge for labor as long as it's signed in the log book as to what was done (Mel can elaborate on this).
 
Rules must be a lot more different than I thought up there in Canada.

Down here a commercial pilot has lots of limitations on being "for hire".

Mark

Mark - the rules aren't very different at all. My comment was really based on the simple understanding of "no commercial ticket, no flying for hire." Yes, there are other restrictions on commercial operations, but this one is the over-arching and highly simplified requirement. Once you've got a commercial ticket then you can, under some tightly regulated circumstances, fly for hire.

That same restriction does not apply to maintenance. I was paid for many years to work on N-registered aircraft so have a fair bit of experience walking both sides of the fence. My paycheck still was cashable when I did the work without an A&P ticket and didn't change when I did the work with an A&P ticket. So much for the dream of getting rich in the aircraft maintenance business! :rolleyes:
 
I'm not aware of any rule against it!

The only problem I can think of is possible liability in case the "paid for" maintenance causes an accident.

There's a pretty good argument for not having an A&P certificate in your pocket when all work is restricted to EAB aircraft. Amateur status has practical benefits in the case of liability.
 
You can pay a kid to wash your airplane, whether it's certificated or Experimental. That's maintenance, and the kid certainly isn't licensed. You can pay a friend for his brute strength when he comes over to help with the hoisting during an engine change. And of course the most glaring example of this is the apprentice A&P who does all the grunt work when your airplane is in the shop, while often the A&P only inspects and signs off the work.

None of which seem relevant here. I don't think washing a plane or having a friend help hoist an engine is really in the same realm as redoing wiring, effecting airframe repairs, doing engine maintenance/parts replacement/overhaul/etc. And the apprentice A&P is working for an A&P, who has a license.

I like Mel's response:

I'm not aware of any rule against it!

But that's not excactly definitive (I was hoping for something written from the FAA, rather than just "well, nobody said you *can't*" :) ).

This comes close:

I checked...with the person who is the FSDO & was told you could charge for maint., (cond. insp., etc. if you hold the repairman cert. for the A/C built). anyone can also charge for labor as long as it's signed in the log book as to what was done

I prefer not to get into a "what has to be logged and what doesn't" debate (plenty of those already), but is there some ruling the FSDO is relying on which says that *anyone* can charge for labor?
 
There are thousands of aircraft maintenance shops all over this country paying non licensed workers to perform maintenance. Most are working under supervision of licensed mechanics.
 
... is there some ruling the FSDO is relying on which says that *anyone* can charge for labor?

The FAA is not known for creating regulations that says what you "can" do. They are very good at telling you what you cannot do. As long as there is no regulation prohibiting something, you have a defensible position should they ever question what you have done. If you are really concerned with it, send a letter to your FSDO asking the question and request a written response.
 
There are thousands of aircraft maintenance shops all over this country paying non licensed workers to perform maintenance. Most are working under supervision of licensed mechanics.

Again, not trying to be argumentative here, but I'm not talking about someone who working for a *licensed A&P*.

I'm talking about Joe Experimental Builder (or maybe Joe Off The Street or Joe the John Deere Tractor Owner) who charges for doing substantial work on Jane Experimental Owner's aircraft (two cases: one where Jane has the Repairman's Certificate, and one where she doesn't).
 
I don't think you are going to find a definitive answer. The lack of any specific rule or language cited by Mel would be what I would lean on.

Keep in mind, the job of the FSDO and their inspectors is to interpret the regs. They didn't write them. Their interpretation is the rule and only arguable through process. They might read something into the regs differently than you or I, or Mel..... I have had personal experiences with this. All of the really smart people who had the really obvious correct answer where overruled by the one person who's job it was to say "yes" or "no".

I would be far more concerned with the liability. If there was a loss or injury, and a suit followed, having a paper trail back to your work, regardless of your qualifications or lack thereof, is not a good thing. You can look at past litigation where innocent parties had to protect themselves even though they had nothing to do with the cause.
 
I'm not aware of any rule against it!

The only problem I can think of is possible liability in case the "paid for" maintenance causes an accident.


I like Mel, know of no regulation against being paid to work on an Experimental Aircraft.

I know of over a half-dozen (more than 6) that are NOT A&Ps that are working on EXPERIMENTAL aircraft for money.
 
Since logbooks are not even required by the FAA, that was an interesting response from him.

"Logbooks" may not be required, but maintenance records ARE. And logbooks are the simplest, and most common method of compliance.
 
Do the regs say that anybody can do work on an EAB? No, they just say you have to have a repairman's certificate or be a licensed mechanic to sign off the condition inspection. So, with the reasoning that nobody is prohibited from doing "work" on an experimental, then I would use the same reasoning that you could charge for your services.
 
OK, sounds fair enough. I was just hoping that either the FAA or an alphabet group had spelled this out clearly. N.B., I don't intend to go out and do anything like this, it was just part of a discussion that came up. But if I *did*, I'd sure want something to rely on if/when the FAA came knocking and cited me for whatever...

It's probably just my knowledge being limited to how strictly they view the commercial aspects of flying, viz-a-viz pilots licenses and what you may or may not do with and without a commercial rating, which led me to apply it somewhat analogously (and apparently erroneously) to *maintenance* work.
 
It would not be possible to list everything you CAN do. Therefore, If there's no regulation against it, you're good to go.

Part 43 defines who can work on aircraft, and part 43 does not apply to experimental amateur-built aircraft.
 
When I was working at Glasair.There were at least 3 people there who made repairs on the side for people.They have never had nor anyone they do this for have any issues.Which makes sense with what Mel has said.
 
1. - Getting paid for doing maintenance I agree with everyone else and there is nothing that prevents you from that on EAB aircraft. As far as I understand, you don?t need an A&P or Repairman?s certificate to do anything outside of the annual condition inspection.

2. - As far as for liability, whether you are being paid or not, if you did anything to a plane that may cause a lawsuit you are going to be involved. Lawsuits never look at the payment for a service rather they look for any money that they can get from anyone involved in the case.

3. - Lastly, outside of what is listed in the operating specifications, 91.207, 91.411, and/or 91.413 (when applicable), logbooks or records are NOT required. I?m not saying don?t keep records, but just stating that it is not Regulatory. There have been too many threads in this forum talking about this subject to list. You have to keep in mind that the requirements for making and keeping records is in 14 CFR Part 43, which is not applicable to EAB aircraft. Most all references elsewhere in the FARs (like in Part 91) where maintenance is done and says a record must be made, it states it must be done IAW Part 43, which again is not applicable to EAB aircraft.

Just my 2 cents!
 
A little clarification!

3. - Lastly, outside of what is listed in the operating specifications, 91.207, 91.411, and/or 91.413 (when applicable), logbooks or records are NOT required. I?m not saying don?t keep records, but just stating that it is not Regulatory. There have been too many threads in this forum talking about this subject to list. You have to keep in mind that the requirements for making and keeping records is in 14 CFR Part 43, which is not applicable to EAB aircraft. Most all references elsewhere in the FARs (like in Part 91) where maintenance is done and says a record must be made, it states it must be done IAW Part 43, which again is not applicable to EAB aircraft.
Just my 2 cents!

When you operating limitations state that you must do something IAW part 43, then it must be done IAW part 43. You cannot disregard it just because part 43 does not apply.
 
Mel, I 100% agree with you and that is what I said in my first sentence of the 3rd bullet, "outside of what is listed in the operating specifications, 91.207, 91.411, and/or 91.413 (when applicable), logbooks or records are NOT required." If I'm over-looking something I'm more than willing to learn.
 
I understand what you said, but it could easily be mis-construed by someone. I just wanted to make it a little more clear to others.
 
I was diving back into re-reading my operating limitations and found that maintenance to equipment in 91.205 requires maintenance entries.
I think that everyone operating or working on an EAB aircraft should go back and look at their operating limitations!! I learned something new and I thought in knew everything:D. I am just kidding on knowing everything!
 
I think that everyone operating or working on an EAB aircraft should go back and look at their operating limitations!!


I regularly recommend that when people do their condition inspection every year, while confirming that all required paper work is still in the aircraft that they take a few minutes to review the operating limitations (and make sure they actually understand what each one means).
 
When you operating limitations state that you must do something IAW part 43, then it must be done IAW part 43. You cannot disregard it just because part 43 does not apply.

I don't have mine handy, but don't they usually say that the annual Condition Inspection must be conducted IAW part 43 *Appendix D*? Is there another part of the Ops Lims that pull in other parts of Part 43 (maybe, I don't recall offhand and as I said, don't have mine handy)? Otherwise, isn't the rest of Part 43 not applicable?
 

And, as I said, the only part of Part 43 which is specified is Appendix D, which is a list of things to inspect. (Para 22) The next paragraph (23) states that the CI must be documented.

That's it, as far as I can tell. If someone can tell me how anything else in Part 43 is applicable, I'm all ears.
 

And, as I said, the only part of Part 43 which is specified is Appendix D, which is a list of things to inspect. (Para 22) The next paragraph (23) states that the CI must be documented.

That's it, as far as I can tell. If someone can tell me how anything else in Part 43 is applicable, I'm all ears.
 
Back
Top