T

Tram

Well Known Member
Hey guys-

I've always been under the impression per part 43; if you bought an experimental aircraft and DID NOT build it, this was essentially like purchasing a certified aircraft with regards to maintenance and repairs. As well as the condition inspection needing to be carrier out by a certified A&P.

Simple, preventative maintenance is basically all that is allowed, correct?
 
Not correct. You might try searching the forum, extensively discussed. Look for posts by MEL.

Bottom line, Any Person, including you, can do any and all work on your airplane. The only thing you can't do, is sign off the annually required Condition Inspection. For that you need an A&P. No IA required.

You can repair, modify, add on, etc. Just make sure to read your Operating Limitations for how to put the plane back in service after major surgery.
 
Michael is 100% correct. Anyone (competent or not) can work on an experimental aircraft.

The only thing you can't do is the annual condition inspection. To do that you need a Repairman's Certificate (poorly named, since anyone can repair anything) and that requires you to have built the plane (or some significant part of it).
 
Tram said:
Hey guys-

I've always been under the impression per part 43; if you bought an experimental aircraft and DID NOT build it, this was essentially like purchasing a certified aircraft with regards to maintenance and repairs. As well as the condition inspection needing to be carrier out by a certified A&P.

Simple, preventative maintenance is basically all that is allowed, correct?
Click to expand...

Incorrect.
Read the article in the link below as it sums up the topic well:
http://www.wanttaja.com/avlinks/MAINT.HTM
 
Tram said:
So, I can legally repair damage and do my own condition inspections?

Would I need an A&P or IA to sign off this work?
Click to expand...

Please re-read the posts in response to your question. There is your answer, it is good sound advice.
 
Tram said:
So, I can legally repair damage and do my own condition inspections?

Would I need an A&P or IA to sign off this work?
Click to expand...

You may repair damage. You may sign off your own repairs.
You may not do your condition inspection unless you hold repairmans cert or A&P.
 
There are also a few other things to consider...for example your IFR or VFR static / transponder checks, if you have a certified prop then maintenance on that (or a few other things) if you desire for it to remain certified (which goes back to your original airworthiness app and the 25/40 hr flyoff), instrument repairs on certain things, and possibly some acessories. So while most posts are for the most part technically correct, there are still other things to consider!

Just my 2 centas as usual.

Cheers,
Stein
 
There is a great deal of difference between an annual ?Condition Inspection? for an E-AB and an ?Annual Inspection? required for a ?certified? airplane such as a Cessna 172.

(Mel, correct me, if I?m wrong.)

A ?Condition Inspection? can be signed off by an A&P, no IA required. The purpose of the ?Condition Inspection? is to make sure the aircraft is in a condition for safe flight. Thus, if you remake your instrument panel, change an engine, change your prop or whatever, the A&P simply makes sure the airplane is safe.

An ?Annual Inspection? must be signed off by an IA. That signature indicates the aircraft conforms to a ?type certificate? and any additional 337 or approved modifications.

Check your ?Operating Limitations? for details.

Also, a ?Repairman Certificate? is another license, similar to an A&P license, issued by the FAA. It is given to the one person the FAA determines built a particular Experimental ? Amateur Built. That license allows the builder to continue to maintain it. For example, if you and I built identical airplanes, side-by-side, you could get the ?Repairman Certificate? for your plane and I could get one for my plane. You could sign off your plane?s Condition Inspection but not mine.
 
Yes. Except for one minor point.

N941WR said:
There is a great deal of difference between an annual “Condition Inspection” for an E-AB and an “Annual Inspection” required for a “certified” airplane such as a Cessna 172.
(Mel, correct me, if I’m wrong.)
A “Condition Inspection” can be signed off by an A&P, no IA required. The purpose of the “Condition Inspection” is to make sure the aircraft is in a condition for safe flight. Thus, if you remake your instrument panel, change an engine, change your prop or whatever, the A&P simply makes sure the airplane is safe.
An “Annual Inspection” must be signed off by an IA. That signature indicates the aircraft conforms to a “type certificate” and any additional 337 or approved modifications.
Check your “Operating Limitations” for details.
Also, a “Repairman Certificate” is another license, similar to an A&P license, issued by the FAA. It is given to the one person the FAA determines built a particular Experimental – Amateur Built. That license allows the builder to continue to maintain it. For example, if you and I built identical airplanes, side-by-side, you could get the “Repairman Certificate” for your plane and I could get one for my plane. You could sign off your plane’s Condition Inspection but not mine.
Click to expand...

Anyone can maintain the aircraft. The repairman certificate relates ONLY to the condition inspection.

I know what you meant to say, but the wording is important to others reading this.
 
Can I return to the seller (builder with a repair cert. on the plane) each year and have him sign a conditional.... even though he no longer owns it?
He said he would love to see it and take a ride now and then....
 
flightlogic said:
Can I return to the seller (builder with a repair cert. on the plane) each year and have him sign a conditional.... even though he no longer owns it?
He said he would love to see it and take a ride now and then....
Click to expand...

You can absolutely have him sign off the CONDITION inspection. I have no idea what a "Conditional" inspection is....;)
 
N941WR said:
An ?Annual Inspection? must be signed off by an IA. That signature indicates the aircraft conforms to a ?type certificate?....
Click to expand...

There is no way an IA will have access to the specific engineering data which defines conformity to a type certificate. And I don't think there is any requirement that the aircraft be inspected to that specific standard.

Dave
 
N941WR said:
There is a great deal of difference between an annual ?Condition Inspection? for an E-AB and an ?Annual Inspection? required for a ?certified? airplane such as a Cessna 172.

(Mel, correct me, if I?m wrong.)
Click to expand...

Since Mel didn't entirely answer your question...
The standard is actually the same. Both inspections are to be completed in accordance with the scope and detail of AC43 appendix D. The reason that stipulation is in E-AB operating limitations is because of the fact that FAR 43 doesn't apply to Experimentals (stated in the very first paragraph of that Part), so the inspection standard requirement has to be written back in via the operating limitations.

The main difference is the level of certification required to do the inspection. For certificated aircraft, that is also stipulated in FAR 43. Since FAR 43 doesn't apply to experimentals, that is why the operating limitations also have to stipulate who can do the condition inspection.
 
David Paule said:
There is no way an IA will have access to the specific engineering data which defines conformity to a type certificate. And I don't think there is any requirement that the aircraft be inspected to that specific standard.

Dave
Click to expand...

As always, the FAA does have a standard... part of it says -

The aircraft should conform to the aircraft specification or type certificate data sheet, any changes by supplemental type certificates, and/or its properly altered condition. When the aircraft does not conform, use the procedures for “unairworthy” items listed in 14 CFR part 43, § 43.11(a)(5).

The document is here -

http://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/test_guides/media/faa-g-8082-19.pdf

To rvbuilder2002 comment, while the airworthiness inspection may be the same for certified vs. experimental (Part 43, Appendix D), the standards are different if the inspector finds parts he deems to be not in the original aircraft specification. A wally mart part may be deemed airworthy and approved for an experimental, but if found in a critical location on a certified plane the IA is instructed to fail the inspection, or possibly create a 337 to authorize it.

If this wasn't the case, my Tiger would now be flying around with a nice Skyview system in it's panel...:)
 
Last edited:
N941WR said:
Also, a “Repairman Certificate” is another license, similar to an A&P license, issued by the FAA. It is given to the one person the FAA determines built a particular Experimental – Amateur Built. That license allows the builder to continue to maintain it. For example, if you and I built identical airplanes, side-by-side, you could get the “Repairman Certificate” for your plane and I could get one for my plane. You could sign off your plane’s Condition Inspection but not mine.
Click to expand...

Bill, just a little semantic fun (sort of), but calling a Repairman Cert similar to an A&P mayyyyyyy be a bit of a stretch. Don't get me wrong, its takes incredible effort to get each, and I have great respect for both, but the scope of requirements to obtain each, and the scope of authorizations each grants, is quite different. In fairness, you touched on that a bit. The painful similarity to me is that...I have neither :mad:(need to work on that!) ;)

One thing for Tram to consider (I don't think its been mentioned) is that you can do much, or most of the work on your condition inspection…it just needs to be signed off by an A&P. Prudence dictates that you work within your limitations, and under the watchful eye of the A&P (he'll likely require that)…but its a great way to get to know your airplane, and learn from a shmart guy in the process. I'm doing that very thing right now…I'm the labor, he's the brains. I learn, he earns (deservedly so!) :)

I do wish that if you have rebuilt 51% or more of your plane that you could earn a transfer of the Repairman's Certificate…but I know it aint gonna happen! :rolleyes:

Ironflight said:
You can absolutely have him sign off the CONDITION inspection. I have no idea what a "Conditional" inspection is....;)
Click to expand...

Well, I guess who can do the inspection annually, to determine the Airworthy Condition of the aircraft, is Conditional upon what certificates one holds, conditionally speaking! :p

nauga said:
Oh man, talk about geek-bait :rolleyes:

work = months > 12 ? inspect:fly

:D
Click to expand...

What deep secrets is Nauga-hyding within that formula! :eek:

Cheers,
Bob
 
Last edited:
I think the "builder" is most often the worst person to do a condition inspection, because he built the aircraft he automatically thinks everything was done correctly and cannot possibly look at things objectively.

I can't even tell you how many major safety issues I find on aircraft that have been through multiple inspections where the same defects get overlooked by the "builder/inspector" each year.
 
rvmills said:
One thing for Tram to consider (I don't think its been mentioned) is that you can do much, or most of the work on your condition inspection…it just needs to be signed off by an A&P. Prudence dictates that you work within your limitations, and under the watchful eye of the A&P (he'll likely require that)…but its a great way to get to know your airplane, and learn from a shmart guy in the process. I'm doing that very thing right now…I'm the labor, he's the brains. I learn, he earns (deservedly so!) :)
Click to expand...

The important thing to stress here is that you can do work preparing for the inspection like removing and replacing the cowling, inspection covers, etc.
But you may NOT do the actually inspecting.
A mechanic may delegate work on an aircraft, but he may NOT delegate the inspection. That he must do himself.

And I agree with Walt. Even on customer's aircraft that I do condition inspections, every few years I send him to someone else. Familiarity breeds complacency.
 
Last edited:
rvmills said:
Bill, just a little semantic fun (sort of), but calling a Repairman Cert similar to an A&P mayyyyyyy be a bit of a stretch. Don't get me wrong, its takes incredible effort to get each, and I have great respect for both, but the scope of requirements to obtain each, and the scope of authorizations each grants, is quite different. In fairness, you touched on that a bit. The painful similarity to me is that...I have neither :mad:(need to work on that!) ;)
...
Cheers,
Bob
Click to expand...
Bob, you are correct. My comment / comparison was really in reference to being able to sign off on the "Condition Inspection" for a given aircraft, nothing more. I did not mean to belittle A&P's and the effort they must put in to get their coveted license.

Walt said:
I think the "builder" is most often the worst person to do a condition inspection, because he built the aircraft he automatically thinks everything was done correctly and cannot possibly look at things objectively.

I can't even tell you how many major safety issues I find on aircraft that have been through multiple inspections where the same defects get overlooked by the "builder/inspector" each year.
Click to expand...
Walt, you do have a point but I have also seen certified airplanes that are inspected year after year after year by the same A&P/IA only to have a large list of discrepancies when brought to a new / different shop.
 
Last edited:
I am an A&P, no IA, but I see lots of that. It is especially prevalent in the older planes, for example the Ercoupe, which I have owned and am quite familiar with. A 20 year old IA inspecting a 65-66 year old plane that he has never seen before will miss a LOT.
Walt, you do have a point but I have also seen certified airplanes that are inspected year after year after year by the same A&P/IA only have a large list of discrepancies when brought to a new / different shop.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Walt said:
I think the "builder" is most often the worst person to do a condition inspection, because he built the aircraft he automatically thinks everything was done correctly and cannot possibly look at things objectively.

I can't even tell you how many major safety issues I find on aircraft that have been through multiple inspections where the same defects get overlooked by the "builder/inspector" each year.
Click to expand...

You would be surprised at the number of pre buy inspections that I do that the plane that I am inspecting has being signed off many times and never had the inspection covers removed since the day it was painted.
 
David Paule said:
There is no way an IA will have access to the specific engineering data which defines conformity to a type certificate. And I don't think there is any requirement that the aircraft be inspected to that specific standard...
Click to expand...

Yes, the IA has this info, and yes, the aircraft is absolutely held to this standard. Verification of this fact is the primary reason for an "Annual inspection" on a store bought aircraft, and is also the main discriminator from the E-AB.

Though it appears a similar exercise, the "Condition inspection" on an E-AB and the "Annual inspection" on a factory airplane are actually worlds apart.

Same ultimate goal perhaps (safety), but very, very different means of getting there.
 
Good clarification Mel?thanks! I did mean the grunt work! I get the plane all prepared, and I actually do my best imitation of an inspection ;), then call the A&P when its ready for him. Upon arrival, I hand him the flashlight, and become his go-fer; watch, learn, and stay out of the way as needed. Did this very thing today, as a matter of fact!

Being engaged in the CI, so that knowledge gained benefits you when doing routine maintenance is the spirit I intended! :)

Cheers,
Bob

Mel said:
The important thing to stress here is that you can do work preparing for the inspection like removing and replacing the cowling, inspection covers, etc.
But you may NOT do the actually inspecting.
A mechanic may delegate work on an aircraft, but he may NOT delegate the inspection. That he must do himself.

And I agree with Walt. Even on customer's aircraft that I do condition inspections, every few years I send him to someone else. Familiarity breeds complacency.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.