PDA

View Full Version : Repairs on an Experimental/AB



RogerT
11-26-2013, 02:37 PM
I've been in the EXP/AB arena for about 8 years. I've built 2 and owned one
I didn't build. I thought I understood the requirements. Has there been
some changes I'm not aware of?
In this month's Kitplanes there's an article by Amy Laboda about insurance
and accidents/incidents. In this article she states, in the context of an
aircraft that's going to need repairs .. "someone who has purchased an Experimental
but does not have an A&P certificate, will have to go either to an A&P or the
original builder in order to have it repaired".

Huh???? Unless there's a requirement in the Operating Limitations saying
that all repairs must be done by an A&P or Repairman Cert holder, why
would you need to have one repair it? Part 43 doesn't apply to Experimentals.

RT

FlyingRon
11-26-2013, 02:46 PM
She's wrong. You're right.
Certainly the FAA believes it is that way.
Never heard of an insurer thinking otherwise. In fact, unless botched maintenance is the proximal cause of the crash, I've never even heard of an insurer asking who did the maintenance.

1600vw
11-27-2013, 05:18 AM
You know its one thing for us on forums like this to get something wrong, but when something like this gets published in print in a magazine the average person would take this as gospel or the truth. I would have thought this magazine would want to get this correct. I wonder if they will print a retraction and correct this.
But the worse part is this person is out spreading this around. She/he needs some education on this and maybe aviation in a hole, if they want to play in the pool they need to learn the rules. Someone needs to wright this person a letter and educate them. This is like a cancer and will spread faster then the truth.

Tony

1600vw
11-27-2013, 05:34 AM
Example...IA is needed for a Condition Inspection on EAB....I have gone around and around and around with not only A&P's but others on this subject..

For those whom do not know..You DO NOT need an IA for a Condition Inspection on a EAB.

Spread the word....

Tony

FlyingRon
11-27-2013, 06:55 AM
I've had severe issues with the editorial on Sport Aviation and the related mags for a few years now. There are continually inaccurate (sometimes to the point of dangerous) and otherwise just plain stupid articles present. It's not quite as bad as IFR Refresher got a few years ago, but it appears we may have "professional editors" involved, but they lack any sense of content area specialty. If you are going to go that way, you have to do what the technical journals (and book publishers do) and employ some pre-publication reviewers to keep things sane.

Mike M
11-27-2013, 07:37 AM
... Someone needs to wright this person a letter and educate them....Tony

perhaps editorial@kitplanes.com could forward your suggestion to ms. laboda.

Luke 6:42

martymayes
11-27-2013, 07:46 AM
when something like this gets published in print in a magazine the average person would take this as gospel or the truth. I would have thought this magazine would want to get this correct. I wonder if they will print a retraction and correct this.

Not likely, incorrect information has been published in aviation periodicals for the +40 yrs I've been reading them. So they are not 100% accurate. Not many publications are. Have yet to come across anything I would classify as "dangerous"


Example...IA is needed for a Condition Inspection on EAB....I have gone around and around and around with not only A&P's but others on this subject.

Seems like that could be resolved in ~2 minutes by a review of the aircraft operating limitations vs. arguing over who is right.

1600vw
11-27-2013, 08:18 AM
Marty you are correct but whom has these operating limitations with them, when not in your airplane. I do not carry them in my back pocket. Every time I get in this discussion my airplane is not even in sight. An A&P should know this. I should not have to show them my Operating limitations on my Homebuilt for them to know this.

Tony

1600vw
11-27-2013, 08:27 AM
perhaps editorial@kitplanes.com could forward your suggestion to ms. laboda.

Luke 6:42

I did not read the article but commented on a posting. Someone whom read the article should respond to this, and don't post the article then expect me to respond. Seems you have the link and know what this is about, why tell me to do this?

Tony

martymayes
11-27-2013, 08:46 AM
An A&P should know this. I should not have to show them my Operating limitations on my Homebuilt for them to know this.

Tony, I was both a student and instructor at an FAA Part 147 A&P school. I can assure you, inspecting homebuilt aircraft is not part of the curriculum. Not sure how an A&P is supposed to magically possess that information. They have to learn it, just like you did. Perhaps you can reference FAA Order 8130.2.

Mike M
11-27-2013, 09:05 AM
I did not read the article but commented on a posting. Someone whom read the article should respond to this, and don't post the article then expect me to respond. Seems you have the link and know what this is about, why tell me to do this?

Tony

old adage, want something done correctly do it yourself. i recommended you take action since you were the one who so elegantly and grammatically wrote that someone should do something about it. guess you weren't really concerned. my mistake.

1600vw
11-27-2013, 09:33 AM
old adage, want something done correctly do it yourself. i recommended you take action since you were the one who so elegantly and grammatically wrote that someone should do something about it. guess you weren't really concerned. my mistake.


The years I have been in aviation you can count on one hand. Do not throw this at me. Let the others whom claim to know it all and walk over everything I have learned in this short time deal with it.

Tony

1600vw
11-27-2013, 09:43 AM
Tony, I was both a student and instructor at an FAA Part 147 A&P school. I can assure you, inspecting homebuilt aircraft is not part of the curriculum. Not sure how an A&P is supposed to magically possess that information. They have to learn it, just like you did. Perhaps you can reference FAA Order 8130.2.

You mean to tell me when an A&P goes through school they do not explain the regs to them or have to learn them? I learned this by being an EAB owner and making it my duty to know all I can about EAB's. So I went to the source, the EAA. Watched every Webinar I could and I learned it there. They have a webinar about this. Now do not ask me to show you a link, find it yourself and learn some stuff as you do it. Only way to learn.
The man from the FAA whom spoke about IA's and Condition inspection said quote, "if you have an IA sign your condition inspection as an IA I will call him in my office and explain the regs to him". Watch the webinar, watch all the webinars and learn somethings. Now if you post, you will learn nothing from those webinar's, you are already behind and will never catch up.

Tony

Chad Jensen
11-27-2013, 10:10 AM
No need for any sort of argument on this subject here fella's. Mrs. Laboda is incorrect, we know that. Kitplanes should respond.

An A&P is only required to sign off on the annual condition inspection (you as an owner can help if you want) if the owner does not hold the repairman certificate. IA is not required.

I haven't gone to A&P school, but I worked in aircraft sales for almost 10 years prior to coming to EAA where I worked side by side with a number of A&P's...many of them in their 60's who have been turning wrenches on airplanes for 40+ years. It wasn't until I began building my RV-7 in 2005 that any of these guys were aware of how maintenance worked on EAB's. Weird, but true. They don't teach it in A&P school from what I am told.

Matt Gonitzke
11-27-2013, 10:19 AM
You mean to tell me when an A&P goes through school they do not explain the regs to them or have to learn them?

I am currently in A&P school...they teach the regs (most of the emphasis is on the regs and paperwork, not as much on how to actually do maintenance part of the work. That's it's own scary story though...) but only what applies to aircraft with a type certificate, as 99% of these mechanics will never touch an EAB. Experimentals are not part of the curriculum in any way. If you're interested in knowing what is and isn't covered, you can go to the FAA website and view the PTS for General, Airframe, and Powerplant, just like you can for the pilot ratings.

cub builder
11-27-2013, 10:37 AM
FWIW, as an A&P that got my ticket through work and study, I never saw one single thing in the study curriculum regarding dealing with E-AB aircraft. The FAA pushed it onto A&Ps simply because in order to get their A&P tickets, they had to demonstrate a level of knowledge in every area of aircraft construction and repair methodology. The FAA concluded that this level of knowledge about aircraft construction and repair methods should be sufficient to enable them to do a safety condition inspection on an E-AB aircraft. However, dealing specifically with E-AB aircraft is not included in any curriculum I have seen. Most A&Ps treat an E-AB condition inspection the same as a 100 hr inspection.

So let's step back in time a bit and look at the history of how we got where we are. When I bought my first E-AB aircraft in 1979, only the FAA could sign an annual inspection on an E-AB aircraft. That's right, let's all look in horror at what it would take now days to get someone from your local GADO (now FSDO) office to stop in annually to inspect your aircraft. What was happening is that the builders were doing their own annuals and putting it in the logs, but had to get someone from GADO to look at the plane and endorse the inspection. So, one of three things happened.

1. The GADO office would hold a periodic "Inspection Day" at an uncontrolled field away from their busy airport where the GADO office was located. Many E-AB aircraft would fly in so the inspectors could look at their planes and endorse the logs. Good idea, but what if they found something that would render the plane as unairworthy? That leaves the owner with his plane grounded away from home. How thorough would you rate an inspection where an inspector may look over 10 - 20 planes during the day? Yeah. Not so good.

2. If you missed the "Inspection Day", you had to fly your plane to the FAA Office provided the plane was still in annual. For me, that meant I had to fly my non-electric, no radio, no transponder plane into an ARSA (now class C) airport to have an inspector with no tools walk out to take a gander at the plane and endorse my log books. Yeah. Another high quality inspection.

3. If the plane was out of annual, you had to get an Airworthiness Inspector to get out of the office and drive to your location to take a quick look at your plane and endorse your log books. Think about what that would take to make it happen today!

As the number of E-AB aircraft were increasing, this was becoming burdensome to the FAA and the cursory inspections really had very little value. I know the one inspection I had under these rules consisted of my flying into an ARSA with no radio and landing with no light signals as the tower personnel were giving me light signals through the sunshade in the tower, which rendered them as not visible. I taxied to the GADO office where I met the inspector who pulled the prop through to check compression, looked under a couple of inspection panels, griped about me not having cut out every inspection hole in the wings, then signed the logs. Altogether, this took about 30 minutes. Then I hand propped my plane taxied out amongst all the passenger jet traffic while using light signals and departed using light signals from the tower. Not exactly a high quality inspection or an ideal way to be flying in and out of busy airports where the GADO offices were located.

The FAA was looking for a solution that would unload the burden from the FAA inspectors and the EAA was looking for a solution to get the inspections out of the hands of the FAA. The EAA contended that the original builder of the plane should possess sufficient knowledge to maintain the aircraft, was already performing the real maintenance and inspections, so should be licensed to endorse the logs. The FAA agreed. Now the only problem was what to do about the E-AB aircraft that had changed hands if the original builder was no longer available or willing to perform inspections. The EAA contended that any A&P should possess the equivalent or better level of knowledge about aircraft construction and maintenance as compared to an amateur aircraft builder and should be allowed to perform a periodic condition inspection on an E-AB aircraft. The FAA agreed. This rule change took effect in 1980 and has not had any significant changes since. You can thank Paul Poberezny for the system we currently have in place rather than a system where we would be paying contract DARs to do annual inspections, which, if unchecked, is where the FAA would have gone.

-CubBuilder

FlyingRon
11-27-2013, 11:50 AM
The same thing as with everything else an A&P does. If he doesn't know, he needs to find out. I bet half the stuff you do you didn't learn in A&P school but rather from AC's, service bulletins, maintenance manuals, etc... For most homebuilts these days, who can do the inspection is spelled out right in the operating limitations (it's in the specimen ones the FAA inspectors have been using to issue the airworthiness certificates for decades.

1600vw
11-27-2013, 12:07 PM
CubBuilder: Great info on this. We must remember that in the EAB world we do not call these "Annual inspection" but " Condition Inspections". The A&P's I have spoke with were calling an EAB yearly inspection and Annual, it is not. It is done annually but they do not call it that.
Another thing that really amazed me was when asking for this inspection to be done. All A&P's wanted to sign off my airplane as airworthy. Nothing about my airplane is airworthy. Because of this the liability on the A&P's part is less then with a General Aviation airplane. But because A&P's do not understand this they run from EAB's. They have a lot less at risk working on something that is never airworthy then on something that flies or is airworthy.

Just say-in

Tony

FlyingRon
11-27-2013, 12:19 PM
Further the statement of "condition for safe operation" is even EXPLICITY STATED in the (sample) operating limitations. The A&P or holder of the repairman certificate doesn't need to look further for what determination and certification is necessary.

1600vw
11-27-2013, 12:24 PM
CubBuilder: Great info on this. We must remember that in the EAB world we do not call these "Annual inspection" but " Condition Inspections". The A&P's I have spoke with were calling an EAB yearly inspection and Annual, it is not. It is done annually but they do not call it that.
Another thing that really amazed me was when asking for this inspection to be done. All A&P's wanted to sign off my airplane as airworthy. Nothing about my airplane is airworthy. Because of this the liability on the A&P's part is less then with a General Aviation airplane. But because A&P's do not understand this they run from EAB's. They have a lot less at risk working on something that is never airworthy then on something that flies or is airworthy.

Just say-in

Tony

Because of this, it is up to the owner of these EAB's to make sure those whom love him or would care if something happens to him while flying this EAB, understands that nothing on these airplanes are airworthy or signed off that way by the A&P.
That its up to the owner and pilot to make sure that on every flight that airplane is " Good to Go". For its these folks whom will go after everyone if your airplane breaks in flight when in fact it was on the owner pilot.
Now they might believe you are nuts for flying what you do, but only then do they understand, its on you and not some mechanic whom looks at your airplane once a year to sign logs. I went over this with everyone in my family whom might care if something was to happen. Its not a nice or pretty conversation but it must be done, if explained correctly they will love EAB's.

Just Say-in

Tony

jjhoneck
11-27-2013, 12:31 PM
Thanks much for the history lesson. As a longtime EAAer, but relative newcomer to the EAB world, I had no idea of the history behind condition inspections, or the debt of gratitude owed to Paul.

rwanttaja
11-27-2013, 01:18 PM
I had to switch A&Ps on my Fly Baby last year, and the new guy hasn't been out of school long and hadn't had much E-AB experience. He *is* a good A&P, though, nice and picky and very knowledgeable about the hardware.


We've had a few discussions (they're not arguments, 'cause only his vote counts). Last year, he insisted on performing some 50-year-old ADs on accessories. This year, he asked me to turn on the nav lights and strobes, and I had to point out that I couldn't since I hadn't hooked 'em back up since rebuilding the electrical system 18 months ago. This threw him a bit; he started wondering if I had to keep the airplane in the same configuration as when it was originally licensed or go back through a test phase. I gently disagreed, he did his own research, and there was no problem.

Too bad, though. I was ready to offer to put "INOPERATIVE" signs next to the switches. Since the switches are in a drawer at home, this would have been no problem. :-)

Hey, EAA: With the new "Non Commercial" category on the way, you should work with the FAA to issue an Advisory Circular on Condition Inspections. This should apply to both the new category, and to those of us who have to hire mechanics for our homebuilt condition inspections.

Ron Wanttaja

cub builder
11-27-2013, 03:22 PM
I think we've had this discussion about A&Ps and E-AB Aircraft before. Some A&Ps avoid E-AB work because it is a significant increase in their insurance if they want to include E-AB aircraft work under their insurance. So the Insurance companies clearly see this as an additional liability. For me, I pick and choose. I will only inspect an E-AB aircraft that I think is well built and has an owner that is engaged (hands on) with me in the maintenance. Whether one can mitigate liability or not by signing as serviceable rather than airworthy is up to the lawyers, but the mechanic is still paying the lawyer to defend him.

But putting all the lawyer stuff aside, for me, it's really a matter of whether I want to look at my prospective customer's family later down the line after he has created a smoking hole in the ground and me wondering if there was anything else I could have done either as a mechanic or as a friend to have prevented it. I have had the distinct displeasure of that experience with both certificated and E-AB aircraft when I was the last mechanic to turn a wrench on it. It's a sickening feeling even if you are not at fault. I don't enjoy meeting with the NTSB or discussing a pilot friend's demise with his/her loved ones. The fact is, it happens more often with E-AB aircraft for a variety of reasons. So I am very picky about which ones I will work on. With my friends that have either built or bought their own E-AB aircraft, I donate many, many hours towards helping them make sure they have a sound steed underneath them. For others that are building a design that, in my opinion, is marginal in design, strength, or is using an engine I wouldn't fly, I stay far away from them. I don't actively discourage them, but I also can not in good conscience help facilitate someone killing themselves. I have seen the end result too often.

You may have just bought a pristine Roger Ramjet E-AB plane that you think is the cat's pajamas, but as a mechanic, I am not obligated to work on it. Part of my judgement is whether I think there is a good chance that you are going to kill yourself in that plane, whether it's the plane's fault or my opinion that the pilot is not up to flying that plane. If I think there's a good probability that it's going to get you killed, you'll have to find someone else to do your inspection.

Many will vehemently disagree with my view point, but this is all based on my experience in having owned 4 E-AB aircraft, 3 of which I built, and being a long time hobby A&P, and EAA Chapter President. We all have to make those decisions for ourselves.

-CubBuilder

martymayes
11-27-2013, 05:49 PM
You mean to tell me when an A&P goes through school they do not explain the regs to them or have to learn them?

Oh they teach them all about regulations. But inspections for amateur built airplanes are not in the regulations.


All A&P's wanted to sign off my airplane as airworthy.

Again, the language for recording a condition inspection is right there in the operating limitations. Takes about ~2 min to read it.

Mike M
11-27-2013, 06:34 PM
...But putting all the lawyer stuff aside, for me, it's really a matter of whether I want to look at my prospective customer's family later down the line after he has created a smoking hole in the ground and me wondering if there was anything else I could have done either as a mechanic or as a friend to have prevented it....

the rest of your post was thoughtful and discrete, too. thank you. it explains well why those of us who have A&P work on some, not on others. so. folks, if you have an E-AB and ask cub builder or me or some other folks to work on it and we take a look at you and your aircraft but suddenly remember we're "too busy" - y'all might want to consider why.

1600vw
11-28-2013, 05:23 AM
Again, the language for recording a condition inspection is right there in the operating limitations. Takes about ~2 min to read it.[/QUOTE]

I know this and you know this..then I wonder why the A&P's signed it they way they did. I had to start asking...what are you going to put in my log book. Its as simple as you state above, why can't the people whom are trained to do this get it correct?

Instead of telling the person looking for a condition inspection you are to busy, why not look the man straight in the eyes and tell him, I do not like what I see in your airplane and in you. Correct this and we will talk. Telling the person you are to busy helps him squat. He walks away believing you are indeed to busy or just a jerk.

Why not be up front and honest with the owner/pilot. Maybe they will step back and take a long look at the situation. If they don't its not on you, you tried to explain the problems.

Tony

1600vw
11-28-2013, 05:56 AM
Ron Wanttaja:
Last year while doing the repairs and getting my airplane ready for its condition inspection I had an A&P walk by and asked. Is that part " I forget what they call an airworthy part or one made for a certified airplane" But he asked if this part was certified for aviation use. I told him I could put a kitchen sink in my airplane and fly it and its legal. We had a long talk about that.
I then started pointing out all the non-aviation parts on my airplane. He shook his head walking away saying stuff like I am nuts, crazy, stupid, I believe a few other words came out of his mouth before he got out of ear shot or I could not hear him anymore. I just stood their smiling. The last thing I heard him say....Don't ask me to sign that thing as airworthy.

Mike M
11-28-2013, 04:50 PM
...Instead of telling the person looking for a condition inspection you are to busy, why not look the man straight in the eyes... be up front and honest...Tony

Don't call a person a coward and a liar on a public forum. Check your private messages.

1600vw
11-28-2013, 07:10 PM
Don't call a person a coward and a liar on a public forum. Check your private messages.

{"Instead of telling the person looking for a condition inspection you are to busy, why not look the man straight in the eyes and tell him, I do not like what I see in your airplane and in you. Correct this and we will talk."

that's the first step i take, telling them what should be obvious. since it was not obvious to them, they usually don't listen or don't understand and certainly don't "...step back and take a long look at the situation."

what you are writing in the thread proves what i'm saying.

"Last year while doing the repairs and getting my airplane ready for its condition inspection I had an A&P walk by and asked. Is that part " I forget what they call an airworthy part or one made for a certified airplane" But he asked if this part was certified for aviation use. I told him I could put a kitchen sink in my airplane and fly it and its legal. We had a long talk about that. I then started pointing out all the non-aviation parts on my airplane. He shook his head walking away..."

go back and read your posts of Yesterday, 06:34 and 09:18 AM, today at 6:23 and 6:56 AM. everybody else is an idiot, only you know how to do it right, you're using non-aircraft parts intentionally, and you're argumentative about it. think it over.}





This was sent to me in a private message.

Me telling an A&P when I am working on my Azusa Brakes and wheels is being a know it all as you call me...You are all wet.....I do not claim to know everything but I know what I am talking about here.

Do not send me a private message like this and not expect me to post it to the world.

I have all the right in the world to work on and install Azusa brakes....argumentative you call me.

Tony

1600vw
11-28-2013, 07:17 PM
The A&P really got a kick out of my wheel barrow tires....They are in the designs the plans call for wheel barrow tires, and uzusa brakes, am I wrong for using them? Everyone says stick to the plans?

1600vw
11-29-2013, 07:35 PM
I believe we found a big problem within the experimental world. If its not a Certified part or aircraft do not show it to some A&P's.

This thread proves it.

Tony

Mike M
11-29-2013, 11:44 PM
I believe we found a big problem within the experimental world. If its not a Certified part or aircraft do not show it to some A&P's.

This thread proves it.

Tony

Maybe this thread doesn't prove aversion to non-aviation components prudently selected, engineered, built to plans, conservatively operated. My first E-AB had 2-stroke, pull-cord starter, golf cart tires on go-cart wheels with cable brakes, plastic fuel lines, etc etc. Present aircraft has shopping cart tailwheel and automotive electronic ignition etc. Regularly fly friend's E-AB with a corvair engine. No problem, never had anyone turn down rides with me.

1600vw
11-30-2013, 05:44 AM
Maybe this thread doesn't prove aversion to non-aviation components prudently selected, engineered, built to plans, conservatively operated. My first E-AB had 2-stroke, pull-cord starter, golf cart tires on go-cart wheels with cable brakes, plastic fuel lines, etc etc. Present aircraft has shopping cart tailwheel and automotive electronic ignition etc. Regularly fly friend's E-AB with a corvair engine. No problem, never had anyone turn down rides with me.

I don't believe this is about anyone wanting to ride in an experimental airplane. To have the conversation we did I would expected that form a non EAA member. I would have expected someone whom has flown an Experimental and whom is an A&P and a member of the EAA to have a little understanding on this subject.

If you have flown the types of planes we are talking about, why the private message to me attaching what I said. You acted like I was walking all over the rules for Experimental when in fact I am doing nothing that everyone else is doing in the experimental world whom flies these little airplanes.

I was trying to show a problem some are having with their Experimental airplanes and A&P's doing the condition inspection. I did not expect to be attached by the Members of this EAA Club for doing this. I can not be the only one having these problems. But if no one mentions it how does anyone know. This forum should be used for more then saying hello and sharing pics. No wonder aviation is going down the tubes, we are all against each other, no one working together.
Am I proud to be an EAA member? not so much.......

Tony

Mike M
11-30-2013, 06:33 AM
Good point about rides vs getting conditional inspections done. I've shopped several E-ABs offered by second or third owners, all said it was no problem hiring inspector. Before getting A&P cert, I hired conditionals, no problem other than scheduling. Since getting certificate I've done several for others. And refused to do some as I previously noted.

How about other folks? Any problems or success stories on giving or getting conditional inspections?

1600vw
11-30-2013, 06:45 AM
Good point about rides vs getting conditional inspections done. I've shopped several E-ABs offered by second or third owners, all said it was no problem hiring inspector. Before getting A&P cert, I hired conditionals, no problem other than scheduling. Since getting certificate I've done several for others. And refused to do some as I previously noted.

How about other folks? Any problems or success stories on giving or getting conditional inspections?

I like this post....

1600vw
11-30-2013, 08:04 AM
I received this in a private message.................

Praise in public, argue in private. The private message was because you accused me of cowardice and lying, accused all A&P mechanics of being ignorant, IA inspectors of being intransigent. Other readers don't have reason to know what I posted to you. It was your choice to fight on the open forum, but it is still not my choice. I prefer not to fight at all.

You still don't get it. Attitude, sir, attitude. You say you want to learn but the tone of your posts was and continues to be argumentative and confrontational. Step back, relax, EAA is a great place to learn what you seek.

pacerpilot
11-30-2013, 10:04 AM
I recommend "Intransigent" as the word of the day!

RogerT
12-03-2013, 04:49 AM
I did not read the article but commented on a posting. Someone whom read the article should respond to this, and don't post the article then expect me to respond. Seems you have the link and know what this is about, why tell me to do this?

Tony

OP here.

I emailed the editorial@kitplanes.com address as soon as I read the article. That was about a week and a half ago .. haven't heard anything back yet.
Funny thing is .. in the Ask The DAR article a few pages later .. the same thing is addressed correctly.

RT

1600vw
12-03-2013, 05:32 AM
OP here.

I emailed the editorial@kitplanes.com address as soon as I read the article. That was about a week and a half ago .. haven't heard anything back yet.
Funny thing is .. in the Ask The DAR article a few pages later .. the same thing is addressed correctly.

It's not that I did not want to do this. I would do anything to be part of aviation but Others are better with words then myself. I am limited or have some problems in this area of putting words to paper, as I am sure others have noticed. I am not the one you want talking to the press.
Tony

rwanttaja
12-03-2013, 09:25 AM
OP here.

I emailed the editorial@kitplanes.com address as soon as I read the article. That was about a week and a half ago .. haven't heard anything back yet.

Speaking from experience, the editors forward emails like this to the author in question. So it can take a bit; the authors aren't full-timers on the staff.

Ron Wanttaja

Russell Peitz
12-03-2013, 02:03 PM
I'll throw my thoughts, comments and an experience into the ring.

I wouldn't take my Ford F-350 to a Ferrari mechanic, not that the Ferrari mechanics aren't good guys, but they just don't know my F-350. So why take your E-A/B Humdinger 3000 to a mechanic at Big City Jetport FBO? You get the idea. Ask and discuss before having an unknown mechanic work on your plane.

I'm an A&P who stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night so I think I get this.

I have a friend who owns a RV-4, very popular kit, shouldn't be a problem for any average GA mechanic. He took it to a local GA shop and dropped it off for an annual (oh cr*p I mean a condition inspection). A few weeks go by, the phone call comes, we have issues. Some are obvious, he says fix it, others squawks require further work/investigation. A few more weeks, they give him the full list, the estimate is something like $10,000+ to finish the airplane. The arguments start, he says no to some items, they say must fix to sign off the inspection (wrong), feelings get hurt, bad words, etc. Now I get the call, what to do he asks. I tell him to have all work stopped, assemble the aircraft and sign off the condition inspection with a list of discrepancies, we are coming to get the airplane.

$5,000 later he has an airplane sitting on a ramp with an expired condition inspection and a logbook entry with the squawks. I ferried it home. Here was the problem in my opinion. The mechanic was treating this as a certificated aircraft and either didnt have the knowledge of homebuilts or didn't want to put his name in the book, any case I now had to address this list of discrepancies that were put in the logs, which isn't the correct method either, but I digress.

14 items in all, two of the discrepancies really made me think. First classic was "aircraft not wired IAW AC 43.13-1B". How do I correct this in the log? I'm thinking "aircraft doesn't have to be wired IAW AC43.13-1b". However that basically is saying your wrong I'm right. The other was "fuel tanks not constructed IAW design plans", and they don't have to be!! On the wiring I assume he didn't like the routing and electical tape, the wire itself was aviation grade so were the terminals, so we cleaned up the routing and such. On the tanks he didn't like the the tanks had sloshing compound put over top of the pro-seal and call that "unairworthy". Vans aircraft actually suggested this construction method in the late 80's, but since has changed their methods. In either case the construction method used was approved by the FAA when the airplane got its experiment airworthiness certificate, so it really isn't an issue. I ended up referencing a service bulletin from vans that addressed the sloshing compound and we installed an inline fuel filter to catch any slosh that might ever break free (none had or has since)

In the end we had the airplane back in the air, with a fresh condition inspection, from me, for less than $300 in parts plus the owner did most of the labor.

The lesson to all involved is, if you're the mechanic learn to say "I'm not the guy for this" if it's something you either don't want to or can't do. For the owner of the airplane, stay involved, know your options and don't get bullied into fixing stuff that isn't broke.

I know the mechanic involved, he is a good guy, runs a respectable shop, this situation just got out of control. In the experimental world there is a lot of judgement and opinion what constitutes a condition for safe operation, discuss things early and cut bait if need be.

The other side, as mentioned in other posts, is sometimes a mechanic just plain doesn't want to work on something that he/she has to put their name to in a logbook. In that case a simple no thank you for the work will suffice, not snide comments about death traps.

Blue side up....... Sometimes,

Russell

1600vw
12-03-2013, 02:42 PM
Russell Peitz: very good article.
This is what I went through. I was working on stuff the FAA had already inspected and called good before the airplane ever flew. Now I am a rebel for using these parts or keeping them in repair or in condition for safe use.
I would love to start a shop and work on nothing but EAB's and do it just as you state. The owner is part of this. The A&P points out what needs addressed and the owner repairs it. After all repairs the owner pays the A&P his fee's of a few hundred bucks and has his aircrafts condition inspection is done.
I still believe not as much liability in a condition inspection. No one says my airplane is safe to fly, I fly it on my own accord or take all the risk. If it breaks and it has, it is not the A&P's fault for nothing about this aircraft is airworthy.

Again great read and I would love to have an A&P like yourself I could call a friend.
Tony

martymayes
12-03-2013, 10:13 PM
A list of "discrepancies" in an E-AB record means nothing. There's no provision for completing a condition inspection and providing the owner with a list of discrepancies, like a store bought airplane inspected under 43.11(a)(5).

Either the condition inspection is performed or it isn't. If someone starts a condition inspection then decides they can't complete it, no record entry is required and if I'm writing the check, the mechanic doesn't get paid. Breach of contract for failing to perform specified task. If there were any discrepancies entered in the maintenance records by the mechanic, he would be sorry he did that. But in the end, they would just be removed from the record, no 'correcting' entry required.

Mike M
12-04-2013, 06:26 AM
A list of "discrepancies" in an E-AB record means nothing. There's no provision for completing a condition inspection and providing the owner with a list of discrepancies, like a store bought airplane inspected under 43.11(a)(5). Either the condition inspection is performed or it isn't. If someone starts a condition inspection then decides they can't complete it, no record entry is required and if I'm writing the check, the mechanic doesn't get paid. Breach of contract for failing to perform specified task. If there were any discrepancies entered in the maintenance records by the mechanic, he would be sorry he did that. But in the end, they would just be removed from the record, no 'correcting' entry required.

It only makes sense that if the conditional is done iaw pt43 app D as directed in the operating limitations, one could complete it with a discrepancy list the same way as an annual would be under 43.11(a)(5). then no reinspection would be needed after correction. Save money, save time, still safe, great. But from the references you and i can find so far, common sense + cfr = TILT.

if a client refused to pay the piper if the inspection was not completed, one could complete the inspection and enter “I certify that this aircraft has been inspected on [insert date] in accordance with the scope and detail of appendix D to part 43, and was found to not be in a condition for safe operation.” the operating limitations allow a "similarly worded statement" of the inspection result, and adding only three letters is pretty darn similar in format. inspection done, no breach of contract. but also no list of discrepancies in the logbook or otherwise. didn't pay for a list. another inspection would mean another invoice. takes two to tango. if y'wanna dance, i went to Arthur Murray. but that poisons relationships. better to make it clear up front that an inspection does not guarantee a sign-off for safe operation.

i do agree that a list of discrepancies in the log could be removed with "entered in error" since i can't find a requirement to list any discrepancies in either logbook, certificated or E-AB. from what i found, only maintenance performed goes in the logbook.

these are only off-the-cuff opinions. i'm sure if i'm wrong, someone will have an FAA reference to correct me. i'm counting on it!

martymayes
12-04-2013, 02:04 PM
It only makes sense that if the conditional is done iaw pt43 app D as directed in the operating limitations, one could complete it with a discrepancy list the same way as an annual would be under 43.11(a)(5). then no reinspection would be needed after correction. Save money, save time, still safe, great. But from the references you and i can find so far, common sense + cfr = TILT.

So who reconciles the discrepancies? Is it not a fact that anyone can perform repairs and maintenance on a homebuilt? When that work is complete, no log entry and/or signature is required to return the aircraft to service. And there is no requirement to maintain a record of any repairs or maintenance.

In your example, the A&P performs a condition inspection, hands a list of discrepancies to the owner, owner tosses list in trash can and flies off into the sunset. The inspection was completed and the owner reconciled the discrepancies. All good, right?


if a client refused to pay the piper if the inspection was not completed, one could complete the inspection and enter “I certify that this aircraft has been inspected on [insert date] in accordance with the scope and detail of appendix D to part 43, and was found to not be in a condition for safe operation.” the operating limitations allow a "similarly worded statement" of the inspection result, and adding only three letters is pretty darn similar in format.

Not sure what is accomplished by doing that. By not making any kind of entry, same objective is achieved.

And FWIW, while similar in format, I think a "similarly worded statement" is one that has the same overall meaning.


takes two to tango. if y'wanna dance, i went to Arthur Murray. but that poisons relationships. better to make it clear up front that an inspection does not guarantee a sign-off for safe operation.

I agree, and like certificated aircraft, the breakdown is almost always due to poor communication between owner/operator and mechanic. The expectations of both parties during a condition inspection should be made clear and agreed upon before the first screw is turned.

Mike M
12-05-2013, 08:25 AM
Marty, your points are valid.

"Not sure what is accomplished by doing that. By not making any kind of entry, same objective is achieved. "

unless the owner won't pay for an incomplete in$pection. that'$ a different objective. completion = entry.


"anyone can perform repairs and maintenance on a homebuilt...no log entry and/or signature is required...no requirement to maintain a record of any repairs or maintenance..."

that's what i meant when i said it would make sense to record unsatisfactory yearly conditionals the same way as 43.11(a)(5). including a requirement to sign off the discrepancy list. but it doesn't work that way. you're right.

a lot of us put TMI in e-ab logbooks out of habit. as you noted, no normal maintenance and corrective action entries required. just successful yearly conditionals and, depending on equipment and operating area, successful altimeter & elt & xpdr checks required by cfr parts other than 43. check the aircraft's own operating limitations, of course, they may require other entries.

what did i miss?

1600vw
12-05-2013, 09:17 AM
I log all repairs for a couple of reasons.
First if I want to sell my airplane I can show the person looking at her that I do indeed keep my airplane in top shape by using New not rebuilt parts when ever I can.
Second I tell the wife, if something happens to me or my airplane breaks in flight and I do not come back anyone can look at my logs and see what was the last work performed. All my work is done by myself no one to blame but me if something goes wrong or breaks. I let her know this up front. Even after a condition inspection she understands no one but me works on my airplane. If it breaks its on me. NO ONE ELSE, and it has broken before right after a condition inspection on the first flight out of the shop. Mike Busch speaks about maintenance induced failures and they do happen.

Dave Prizio
12-05-2013, 11:25 AM
Here is the offending passage from Amy Laboda's article: "Someone who has purchased an Experimental, but does not have an A&P certificate, will have to go either to an A&P or the original builder (if he holds the repairman's certificate) in order to have it repaired."

I imagine that Amy Laboda will respond to the feedback about her comment in the next KITPLANES issue. But I will come to her defense right now. What she said is true. What many people think she said is not, but then she didn't say that you couldn't do the repair work yourself. She only said you would have to go to an A&P or the repair cert holder to have it repaired. That is true.

Anyone may work on an E/AB airplane. However, if you are a non-builder owner you will need to get either the holder of the Repairman Certificate (the original builder) or an A&P to sign off your condition inspection. The rub comes when there is a need for major structural repair, such as was mentioned in the article, and you are not an A&P or Rep Cert holder. You can certainly do the repair work yourself, but come inspection time you will need to be able to convince your A&P that your repairs were done in an airworthy manner. For this reason it is prudent to work with your A&P on such repairs from the beginning. If you don't do this you may not be able to get your A&P to sign off on your condition inspection. That will force you to rework the repairs and/or do additional work that you didn't expect to do. Does your A&P have to actually do any of the work? Absolutely not. Does your A&P have to be satisfied that the repair work done by you or whomever you choose to help you is airworthy? You betcha. So you will have to go to an A&P to get your plane repaired. It is just a question of when in the process you do it.

FlyingRon
12-05-2013, 11:52 AM
It's still wrong no matter how you weasel it, even if it was taken from the middle of a paragraph on condition inspections. It's just wrong. A condition inspection is need once a year. Inspections (either condition for experimental or annuals for certificated) are NOT repairs.

deej
12-05-2013, 01:54 PM
Here is the offending passage from Amy Laboda's article: "Someone who has purchased an Experimental, but does not have an A&P certificate, will have to go either to an A&P or the original builder (if he holds the repairman's certificate) in order to have it repaired."

I imagine that Amy Laboda will respond to the feedback about her comment in the next KITPLANES issue. But I will come to her defense right now. What she said is true.

I have to disagree, Dave. If she said "MAY have to go" I would agree with your assessment, but she said "WILL", implying there is no option. I suspect when she responds, she meant to write "in order to have it inspected", and mistakenly put in the word "repaired" by accident.

-Dj

1600vw
12-05-2013, 02:54 PM
I go to my hanger to fly my airplane and find the tire flat and in fixing the tire I go ahead and remove the wheel and grease the bearings. I can then put it all back together and go fly if there is enough time in the day.

No one has to look at or inspect any repair I did. All legal.

Once a year a Condition inspection must be done and signed off by an A&P not an IA.

Tony

Matt Gonitzke
12-05-2013, 04:37 PM
I go to my hanger to fly my airplane and find the tire flat and in fixing the tire I go ahead and remove the wheel and grease the bearings. I can then put it all back together and go fly if there is enough time in the day.

No one has to look at or inspect any repair I did. All legal.

That particular task can be done by the PIC/owner of a certified aircraft, too, as it's considered preventative maintenance in FAR43 Appendix A.

1600vw
12-05-2013, 05:40 PM
That particular task can be done by the PIC/owner of a certified aircraft, too, as it's considered preventative maintenance in FAR43 Appendix A.

Da..I should know this, great refresher.....

Ok How about I drain the oil and change it then, check and adjust timing on the engine. I then replace the carb. All things I have done. Then tied her down ran her then flew her.

Frank Giger
12-07-2013, 06:44 AM
You were okay until you got past "change the oil."

I got kind of a crazy idea.

While I'll have the repairman certificate for my aircraft, I think it will be a really good idea to introduce the aircraft and talk about homebuilt aircraft maintenance particulars with my on-the-field A&P. You know, kind of a "Hey, look at this! An airplane! Yep, built it myself..." conversation that leads to questions about how it was built and how it's maintained.

Then when Condition Inspection time comes around I have the A&P take a lookie lou out of courtesy and see if he spots something I miss. And then show him the correct log entry and how it's different from an Annual - after which I give him a little something for his time (but not his signature).

Not only will it help me by giving me another set of eyes on the aircraft, it might help him understand E-AB aircraft, and - goodness prevail - if I ever need an A&P to help me when I'm over my head (like performing a compression check) we'll be on the same wave length.

Also, if we know the language that goes on the sticker and wonder if the A&P does or not, why not pre-print it out for him? If he raises an eyebrow, now it's a teaching point - particularly if it's couched in ye ole "hey, this is goofy stuff, but for Experimentals the regulatory language is funky."

1600vw
12-07-2013, 08:12 AM
A seal went out of the front of my mag. I noticed oil dripping from my mag. I thought, no oil in my mag, this should not be. So off comes the cap. The mag was half filled with oil. The points had been running under oil and working. I just flew this airplane the day before. No good.

Being I had no idea how old this mag was, it was not being rebuilt, it was being replaced. So I start calling people whom claim to have new mags. After some drilling I find no indeed these are rebuilt mags being called new, and no one wanted to recharge the magnets. Another story but I want this done.

I finally find a man whom has New Mags in a wooden box setting on a wooden shelf. Just what I wanted, so I order a new mag and wait for the box to come. I go and tell my A&P IA friend what is going on and ask if he will help me. He looks at me and says, after a min or two hesitation, sure when it comes in look me up.

My box arrives and he grabs his buzz box and we head out to the hanger. Before we do anything he hooks the buzz box to the mag. Nothing, zip, zelch, not a thing. We look at it a little bit and he throws his hands up and says, send it back and walks out taking his buzz box with him.

So here I stand looking at this Brand New mag and wondering what is up. I open her up or take the cap off. I grab my multi meter and take a reading across the points. Nothing, notta, zipp...lol This is not right. So I start remembering back to the days we all drove points ignition cars. I get me a nice clean rag and wipe the point a few times. Take another reading, oh, now I have a reading. I check the gap and put her back together.
I remove my old Mag and install my new one. I grab my degree wheel and hook her to the prop. I then make me a pointer and find TDC. I set the timing at around 28 BTD and tighten her up. Remove all tools and Take her out and she starts on the first pull of the prop, and man does she sound good. After about 30 mins running tied down I untie her and put her to bed.

The next morning before sunup I am in the hanger and getting her out. As the sun rises I am on climb out. As I am flying I see the A&P IA pull up. I fly around for about an hr doing touch and go's and such. After I land the A&P IA walks up and says, she sounds great, what did you do. I told him. He thought it was great the mag was not bad, he also said...good job....after this he said..anytime you need a Condition inspection you look me up.

Tony

1600vw
12-08-2013, 05:56 AM
My engine has no electric system, so without a buzz box how do I set the timing? I used the multi-meter. Worked great.

Mike M
12-08-2013, 01:13 PM
http://www.gasenginemagazine.com/Gas-Engines/Building-and-Using-a-Magneto-Timer.aspx

http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/184370-1.html?redirected=1 (http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/184370-1.html?redirected=1)



My engine has no electric system, so without a buzz box how do I set the timing? I used the multi-meter. Worked great.

Valid question. See above. Aircraft electrical system is not needed for certificated aircraft magneto timing.

martymayes
12-08-2013, 08:45 PM
My engine has no electric system, so without a buzz box how do I set the timing? I used the multi-meter. Worked great.

years ago when I was a student in A&P school, I made my own "buzz box" and have used it for many years.
Since it has an internal battery, kinda just like a multimeter, it works great on aircraft with no electrical system. But then I thought that's how most of them worked.

RogerT
12-09-2013, 07:39 AM
I imagine that Amy Laboda will respond to the feedback about her comment in the next KITPLANES issue. But I will come to her defense right now. What she said is true. What many people think she said is not, but then she didn't say that you couldn't do the repair work yourself. She only said you would have to go to an A&P or the repair cert holder to have it repaired. That is true.


That's not true. The operating limitations only say that you have to have a Condition Inspection to the scope and detail of Part 43/D and who can do it. Nothing else in Part 43 applies to Exp/AB. Where is the requirement that repairs be logged on an Exp? I'm not talking good practice .. I'm talking required. If you rebuild/repair a part of
the aircraft to the specifications in the plans, it makes no difference who does it. It's back to it's original condition. Presumably, the original builder (manufacturer)
created a CI checklist that's model specific and complies with the scope and detail requirement. I did for my two planes I built. The builder of the one I
owned and didn't build created one. That checklist and any service bulletins were the basis for the Condition Inspection. My A&P was fine with that. He also
was the owner of an ExpAB. I did all the work and the checklist .. then he went down the checklist and verified the items. You need an A&P who's knowledgeable and comfortable in the Exp arena.

On my builds I've used Part 43 as my "bible" on methods and ideas for different tasks. I've also asked for opinions from an A&P, tech counselor, or builder
experienced with the type. I don't complete a task until I understand it and am conservative in my approach. I think that's good practice .. but sure isn't
required.

RT

RogerT
12-09-2013, 07:53 AM
if a client refused to pay the piper if the inspection was not completed, one could complete the inspection and enter “I certify that this aircraft has been inspected on [insert date] in accordance with the scope and detail of appendix D to part 43, and was found to not be in a condition for safe operation.” the operating limitations allow a "similarly worded statement"

The Operating Limitations require an entry to the effect that the inspection has been completed satisfactorily. Once you start putting unauthorized entries in someone's
logbook you're destroying private property and could have a whole new set of problems. ($$$) Provide a separate discrepancy list and sign it off when those are addressed.

RT