Progressive Conditional Inspections

[Jim P]

Another RV owner and myself were discussing the legality of Progressive Inspections for our conditional inspections. AC20.16 Part 1, Inspection Fundamentals, basically says that unless you're doing inspections under an FAA approved Progressive Inspection program, "the 100-hour and annual inspections require complete inspection of the aircraft at one time and a certification as to its airworthiness." I know we have "conditional" inspections" but I would think the intent is the same.

For the IAs/ DARs/ Feds out there, what's the real legal call on this?

Jim

[fmarino1976]

I don't know if you can do a progressive on an experimental, but what I do know is that you need an IA to sign for a progressive inspection. In the certificated world, an A&P can do a lot of the progressive, but the IA has to supervise and sign the inspections.

[Davepar]

The only mention of timetable for the conditional inspection in my operating limitations is the following:

"No person must operate this aircraft unless within the preceding 12 calendar months it has had a condition inspection performed in accordance with the scope and detail of appendix D to part 43, or other FAA-approved programs, and was found to be in a condition for safe operation."

As a working stiff with a busy family schedule, I doubt I could even get the condition inspection done "at one time". So far, the empennage and wings took me 4 hours last Saturday. It takes a long time to get all those inspections covers and fairings off and on. I still have the cabin, control systems, panel, electrical, engine/firewall forward, prop, landing gear and fuselage remaining. I'm guessing another 10 hours at least to do a thorough job, which I think is the real intent.

[videobobk]

This is just my interpretation, so correct me if I am wrong. I have assumed that, since the inspection is good through 12 calendar months, any work done within one calendar month should count. If I were to inspect my engine on the first, my cabin on the 10th, and the rest on the 20th, it should be a "legal" inspection. Any work carried over to the next month would necessitate the inspection being done 11 months later, basically the anniversary of the start of the inspection. I seriously doubt if this could ever become an issue if this schedule is followed. Dragging it out over several months is too questionable for me. Three days were enough for my first inspection, and they were together, although I wouldn't have thought twice about breaking them up and even flying between work days (if the plane was all together!)

Bob Kelly

[AlexPeterson]

Originally Posted by Jim P

snip

AC20.16 Part 1, Inspection Fundamentals, basically says that unless you're doing inspections under an FAA approved Progressive Inspection program, "the 100-hour and annual inspections require complete inspection of the aircraft at one time and a certification as to its airworthiness." I know we have "conditional" inspections" but I would think the intent is the same.

snip

Jim

I believe you meant AC20-106. That document's preface says:

"The inspections described in this Aircraft Inspection handbook are NOT
intended to replace any required inspection. Rather, they are intended to
familiarize persons with the techniques generally applicable to aircraft inspections whether they be owners: pilots, student mechanics, or others with aviation interests."

I don't know for sure, but it seems upon reading AC20-106 that the intent of the sentence you have quoted above is to differentiate AC20-106's recommendation of a continuous, owner performed, inspections to the regimented annual or 100 hour inspections.

The operating limitations of our experimental aircraft are very clear as noted in an earlier post. I believe if we comply with the scope and detail of appendix D of part 43 we will be in good shape. My logbook entries use the exact words requested in the limitations. If I choose to do the tail one week, the engine the next and so forth, it is not in violation of any regulation that I'm aware of if I fly in between. I believe Bob has the dates sorted out well in his post.

[n5lp]

Ok, I'll make the post so Paul Dye doesn't have to bust a gut.

Not a huge deal, but proper terminology does have its place. It is a condition inspection we do and it is hard to figure out where this very popular "conditional inspection" terminology came from.

Whoever you are, confess!

[fmarino1976]

I should also point out that a real progressive inspection has to follow a program approved the the "Administrator". In the certificated world you could follow a program written by the aircraft manufacturer or write your own and have it approved.
If you inspect the engine this week and the airframe the next, that is not a progressive inspection.
A progressive inspection is designed primarily for operators that cannot afford to have an aircraft down for extended periods of time. For example, Phase 1 would do an in depth inspection on the engine and a quick inspection on the rest of the aircraft. Then after a specified amount of hours or calendar months, the next phase would do a quick inspection on the engine and fuse, but a detailed on wings and landing gear, and so on until the whole aircraft has had a detailed inspection. A progressive has to inspect the whole airplane in detail within 12 calendar months. And as far as I know, a real progressive can only be signed by an IA.
So I really see no gain in anyone writing a progressive inspection procedure for an experimental aircraft.

[az_gila]

Originally Posted by AlexPeterson

.....
The operating limitations of our experimental aircraft are very clear as noted in an earlier post. I believe if we comply with the scope and detail of appendix D of part 43 we will be in good shape. My logbook entries use the exact words requested in the limitations. If I choose to do the tail one week, the engine the next and so forth, it is not in violation of any regulation that I'm aware of if I fly in between. I believe Bob has the dates sorted out well in his post.

Alex...I'm a bit confused on your statement.

The FAA says we have to date and sign all maintenance records (I'm an Airframe Mechanic).

Since your example may do many inspections over many days... how can you legally sign that the aircraft is airworthy on one day when you have flown it after inspecting the tail as an example?

That flight could have done something to the area you had previously inspected.... especially in the engine area.

I was taught by several IAs that the Annual (certified here) only says everything is good on the date the logs are signed... any other date and stuff can happen...

The date by your signature is the key item here...

gil A

[AlexPeterson]

Originally Posted by az_gila

Alex...I'm a bit confused on your statement.

snip

gil A

Gil, I guess I'm confused also. Too hard. My current official story is that I do the inspection all at once, during one singularity in time.

All systems are inspected virtually at the identical time, of duration 0 seconds. I started doing it this way when I noticed one time a cylinder fell off after I put the cowl on, just as I was inspecting the tail, so I had to go back and put the cylinder back on. Of course, just as I was doing this, the power in the hangar went off and everything was dark. You guessed it, when the lights came back on (it was only for a few seconds), the right aileron had fallen right off. Good thing I wasn't flying it then. Anyway, I got so tired of this routine, that I figured out a way to cause a temporal disturbance within the hangar, such that time on the outside world, as viewed from inside the hangar, seemed to stop. This allowed me to legally mark down that the inspections had occurred at a single point in time.

[az_gila]

Originally Posted by AlexPeterson

Gil, I guess I'm confused also. Too hard. My current official story is that I do the inspection all at once, during one singularity in time.

.........

:eek

No... it's the signature that is in one singularity in time....

gil A