E-AB Construction for A&P Experience

[Low Pass]

Point was made in another thread about using building time for A&P endorsement/time requirement. Is this still being done? Anyone received the endorsement in the last couple of years? What did you use to show your time?

I know it was done 15 years ago. Had the endorsement and didn't follow up on it... (yea, not smart.)

Thanks!

[Mel]

It depends a lot on who you talk to.
When I got m A&P, it was stated that building an amateur-built does not qualify towards an A&P because you are not working under a type certificate. Since that time, several people that I know have gotten their A&P using building time, so it has been be done.
My advice is talk to your local FSDO guys and get their take on it.

[Ironflight]

When I was wanting to do it in Houston a decade or so ago, it was a non-starter with the FSDO Bryan. The last time I interacted with the maintenance inspectors there abotu three years ago, the head guy was extremely anti-experimental (really anti-GA). Unless things have changed (and I have herd fairly recently that the Houston FSDO is a very unhappy organization), you might have to go FSDO shopping out of town.

[Low Pass]

Paul, Mel - thanks! Any other recent data points would be appreciated as well.

[jrs14855]

It was done for many years. The A portion was not an issue, the P potentially was. Even 40-50 years ago most builders did not build their own engine. I was signed off by a FSDO inspector in NY State for both portions, based on my first homebuilt airplane. I never followed up on it.
In my opinion when this started to become an issue was with the introduction of the Christen Eagle, and with the gradual domination of quick build kits, has gradually become worse. I believe many FSDO inspectors looked at that kit and said no way that qualifies a person to get an A&P.
An ex boss, no experience in EAB, got what I believed to be a bogus sign off from an AI, went to a one week school, and came home with his A&P.
I know FSDO offices where I am quite certain I could get a signoff to take A&P written based solely on the EAB airplanes I have built.

[deene]

A number of years ago I got my AP sign off from the Sat FISDO. The inspector would not accept any of my BD4 build time. He did accept 20 some years of Condition Inspections time since it was work under a Repairman's certificate (among mucho other A&P supervised work time).

I think my detailed list of my work time and supporting logbooks helped...

[DanBaier]

It's going to boil down to whether or not the FSDO knows you and is supportive. Think about it - if we worked at the FSDO and someone showed up completely unknown, how likely would we be to sign them off? That's before you even get to the line of reasoning like "what I do for one ..." etc.

The guidance that the inspector is supposed to follow is spelled out at http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?...Vol.5,Ch5,Sec2.

There is considerable room for differing outcomes as between inspectors. For example, there is the requirement that an applicant "...must present documents from an employer, coworker, or other sources satisfactory to the Administrator... - ie., the FSDO inspector. The reference to evaluating experience on experimental aircraft on its own merit is tucked under a subheading that could fog up an interpretation as to whether it is appropriate to allow it.

My suggestion is to get to know someone at the FSDO, respected in the organization, who isn't likely to transfer or retire in the next five years. After establishing a relationship, pull everything together (look at the procedures cited above and part 147 appendices B, C, and D - have backup for what you are claiming), make an appointment and go through it. Expect to be told "no." That then becomes the opportunity to find out exactly what the inspector wants to see for a "yes." It might not be so difficult. Plug away at it and, in time, persistence should pay off.

YMMV - good luck.

Dan

[Low Pass]

Thanks for the helpful responses. At least the door is not shut and locked, as I had expected it might be.