Jesse

Jesse

Well Known Member
I just signed off an apprentice to go to the FAA and get his approval letter to take his A&P tests. They almost didn't give it to him because he listed work on experimentals. Is this a new rule! Has anybody else run into this before?
 
Depends

My brother got his A&P rating just a few years ago. He listed experimental work along with other experience and did not have a problem.

I think it depends on who is reviewing the application.

Personalty I think a person who has completely built an experimental airplane from start to finish gains a lot more knowledge than the one that goes to a school to learn. There are bad habits that would be picked up either way.

The A&P that signed his letter of recommendation said put anything on it that you can relate to aviation experience. It cant hurt.
 
Totally depends on the FSDO and the inspector - I have heard stories of this working and not working over many decades. Best idea is to find a FSDO that is friendly in this regard - and hope the right inspector is still working there!

Paul
 
Much of my experience was based on experimentals, and was not considered to be a problem, but that was way back many years ago.
 
Yep!

As posted above, it all depends on the local FAA office.

Technically work towards an A&P certificate is to be on certified aircraft because on those you are working to establish compliance with the type certificate. When I got mine back in the early '70s, no "experimental" work was accepted.

However more and more offices are accepting work, especially building, an amateur-built aircraft. Don't be too surprised if they do not accept that work though.
 
What a great combination of beurocracy and local independent interpretation. A ton of little empires-in-themselves in the middle of a huge beurocracy. I love the irony (and hate it at the same time).

Another example is the new Phase 1 "rule". My local DAR had never heard of it and won't even consider researching it.
 
Jesse said:
What a great combination of beurocracy and local independent interpretation. A ton of little empires-in-themselves in the middle of a huge beurocracy. I love the irony (and hate it at the same time).

Another example is the new Phase 1 "rule". My local DAR had never heard of it and won't even consider researching it.
Click to expand...

Then he/she has a problem. It's supposed to be part of the current operating limitations.
 
This actually brings up a question I've been wanting to ask...

How would one realistically go about getting an A&P without having to give up one's present job and work as an apprentice? I know there's an experience requirement, and I'm not trying to get out of it; I'm just looking for ways to get that experience without doing it as my job or quitting work and being a full-time student--I rather like my present job, and having the A&P would quite possibly benefit me there.
 
Keep the day job

I am an AP/IA and work at a major MRO (Modification,Repair,Overhaul) facility where we do everything imaginable on large aircraft. We have many employees working there whom are seeking an AP certificate, and working with the local FSDO we document experience hours and what functions they perform under the supervision and guidance of a certificated mechanic. Because they cannot achieve the required training for GA aircraft, I involve them in helping me with annual inspections, repairs and engine work on "small" aircraft at my home field. I provide them with a logbook/letter to the FSDO of the tasks they helped perform and hours they spend with me. It is typically a minimum of 36 months experience before being considered eligible to test, but it all depends on the FSDO and what you can prove about your backround experience.
 
The experience requirement is 18 months for airframe and 18 months for power plant or 30 months if done concurrently, "based on a 40-hour work week." There is no wording that states that his comes out to 5,000-6,000 hours, but that's what it comes out to. It does not require full-time work, but less than full time would take longer than that number of months. Any and all experience counts (unless you get an FAA person that decides differently). They require a logbook or a letter(s) from a certificated mechanic that "oversaw" your work. The letter has seemed to be by far the easiest way to me.

On the hours vs months thing, if a month is based on a 40-hr work week, then a typical month has 173.33 hours, so each hour you spend is 1/173.33 months in this formula. If I was overseeing your work, I would write, "rmartingt has worked under my supervision for the equivalent of ___ months, based on a 40-hour work week, in the following areas ..." The most important thing for you at this point would be to log the hours you spend. For most of the people on this list, the airframe part would be much easier to qualify for than the power plant part. Calling the whole build "concurrent" between the two would be quite a stretch, although some would get by and likely some wouldn't, again depending on who they get at the FAA.
 
See http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=8900.1,Vol.5,Ch5,Sec2 for how it's supposed to work.

Note - "... Part-Time Practical Experience. During the evaluation of part-time practical aviation maintenance experience, the applicant must document an equivalent of 18 months for each rating individually, or 30 months of experience for both ratings. This is based on a standard work-week that has 8 hours per day for 5 days per week, or a 40 hour work-week, or a total of approximately 160 hours per month. The time is cumulative, but the days, weeks, and months are not required to be consecutive. The practical experience must be documented...." If you say 40 hours / week for 36 months (three years) you could say 40x52x3=6240 or you could say 40x4x12x3=5760. Or, even other calculations at the discretion of the FSDO.

The better the people at the FSDO know you, the better will be your reception when you approach them to discuss your experience. If you're a complete unknown, expect skepticism. Frankly, I think I'd feel the same way.

Work on experimental aircraft can count, but may not. It's solely up to the particular inspector. This will probably not be a "check the box" and "walk in / walk out" experience; rather, it will take some time and persistence. When they tell you "NO", don't get upset or give up. Just ask what exactly would be required to get to yes and stay with it.

I'd begin by reference to FAR 65.77 and the link above to the section of 8900 that describes the process. I'd also look at FAR 147 Appendicies A - D and be sure that you not only have the time requirement but also the topical coverage. (8900 requires experience with 50 percent of the material in FAR 147 Appendicies B - D.)

Lastly, it will certainly help, and may be a requirement, to have a recommendation letter (or letters) from a certificated mechanic(s). Internet searches can produce several good examples. So, plan on not only working with the FSDO, but with well respected mechanics as well.

That's just one perspective - I hope it's helpful.

Dan
 
Last edited:
Please don't think I'm upset because I'm not. I also don't want to rekindle the debate on what it means to be an A&P and whether we're better builders. I'd like to pose a question, however. How many of you trained for your non-aviation career "on the side"? I don't mean "working while going to school". You have to remember, when you have earned A&P certification, even if you want it to ease your own maintenance costs, you have all the privileges of someone actually working in the trade.
Having said that, I was an A&P working on light and heavy aircraft for 15 years before I started building my RV-6. My learning curve was still rather steep because I hadn't been exposed to the type of work (mostly sheetmetal) required to build one. So... I think participation in construction of an E-AB airplane should be considered toward the experience requirement for the A&P. I also think the FAA needs to educate themselves in this regard so they understand what the applicant is claiming for experience.
 
rvsxer said:
Please don't think I'm upset because I'm not. I also don't want to rekindle the debate on what it means to be an A&P and whether we're better builders. I'd like to pose a question, however. How many of you trained for your non-aviation career "on the side"? I don't mean "working while going to school". You have to remember, when you have earned A&P certification, even if you want it to ease your own maintenance costs, you have all the privileges of someone actually working in the trade.
Having said that, I was an A&P working on light and heavy aircraft for 15 years before I started building my RV-6. My learning curve was still rather steep because I hadn't been exposed to the type of work (mostly sheetmetal) required to build one. So... I think participation in construction of an E-AB airplane should be considered toward the experience requirement for the A&P. I also think the FAA needs to educate themselves in this regard so they understand what the applicant is claiming for experience.
Click to expand...

I agree that RV construction experience should be considered towards meeting the OJT requirements for being eligible to take the A&P tests, but only a portion of it... maybe 20 - 25%.
Though I believe that having RV building experience probably would make someone a better A&P because it gives them some in depth experience in sheet metal, etc., but I think it falls far short of giving them the in depth experience and training they need.
The reason I feel this way is that time after time we see proof that people who built a high quality RV, do not have the background experience to detect problems during inspections as the airplane ages, or troubleshoot issues with systems that are not working correctly (engines and propellers in particular). That is because the experience gained during the build does not really focus on these skills much.
A person working in a shop under the supervision of an experienced A&P will spend most of their time inspecting and repairing older airplanes (the average age of the fleet is getting older every day). This gives them a huge exposure to what breaks, what wears out, and what to be looking for to detect those types of things.
In fact I think someone that takes this path to becoming an A&P is probably a far better one than the person who steps out the door of one of the big A&P schools with an "ink still wet" A&P certificate, even though they just went through some highly intensive and subject specific training.
 
rvbuilder2002 said:
I agree that RV construction experience should be considered towards meeting the OJT requirements for being eligible to take the A&P tests, but only a portion of it... maybe 20 - 25%.
Though I believe that having RV building experience probably would make someone a better A&P because it gives them some in depth experience in sheet metal, etc., but I think it falls far short of giving them the in depth experience and training they need.
The reason I feel this way is that time after time we see proof that people who built a high quality RV, do not have the background experience to detect problems during inspections as the airplane ages, or troubleshoot issues with systems that are not working correctly (engines and propellers in particular). That is because the experience gained during the build does not really focus on these skills much.
A person working in a shop under the supervision of an experienced A&P will spend most of their time inspecting and repairing older airplanes (the average age of the fleet is getting older every day). This gives them a huge exposure to what breaks, what wears out, and what to be looking for to detect those types of things.
In fact I think someone that takes this path to becoming an A&P is probably a far better one than the person who steps out the door of one of the big A&P schools with an "ink still wet" A&P certificate, even though they just went through some highly intensive and subject specific training.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. 35 years ago after I graduated A&P school with a new certificate I got to work alongside an older A&P/IA. I really learned a lot from him and I still do many things "the way Orv taught me". I like the idea of E-AB construction being only a part of more well-rounded experience, but a part nontheless.
 
I can understand how building a RV could qualify you to take the "A" test but since most of us buy the engine already built/rebuilt how would we qualify for the "P"?
 
I can understand how building a RV could qualify you to take the "A" test but since most of us buy the engine already built/rebuilt how would we qualify for the "P"?
 
A&P

The first popular quick build kit was the Christen Eagle. Prior to the Christen Eagle, introduced in the late 70's, many homebuilts involved welding, woodwork, fiberglas, sheet metal, painting etc. It was generally accepted in that era that building a built from scratch homebuilt qualified one to take the A portion of the written. The FAA Inspector who did the then required annual inspection of my airplane handed me a piece of paper authorizing me to take the written.
I think all of this has slowly changed, especially with the advent of the quick build kits. I can understand the FAA being reluctant to sign someone off for the A&P tests based on a quickbuild kit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.