Printable View
New to home build, kit,experimental world, so I have a dumb question for you all.............if I was and IA, why would I want to take the risk and liability and sign off a kit plane?
Just wondering because I love to build things and some day want to build a kit plane.
thanks
Bighorn,
First, when you say sign off, are you referring to the annual condition inspection? If so, the builder who holds the Repairman's Certificate for that specifc aircraft or any A&P (IA not required) can sign off the condition inspection unlike the standard certified world that requires an IA. Second, IMO the risk for the sign off is no different than the risk for the sign-off of a standard certificated aircraft's annual. The question is do you feel comfortable signing off on systems and construction techniques (ie composite vs sheet metal) for which you have limted or no familiarization with?
Man, where's that popcorn smiley when I need one???
First, unlike annual inspections of production aircraft, a condition inspection on an amateur built plane does not need an IA signature. An A&P or Repairman can sign it off. Just wanted to make that clarification.
A&Ps and IAs are paid to exercise discretion and judgement. Any A&P or IA that signs off any aircraft, be it an inspection or maintenance of some kind, is taking a risk. That signature is basically them saying everything is safe and legal. If they're not comfortable with assuming that risk, then they don't have to do the sign off.
So, to answer your question (and I'll assume in this case and A&P and IA are the same), these people do it because it's there job and they're paid to do it. There are several A&Ps that will not touch an experimental. That is their choice. However, there are way more that will work on an experimental on a case by case basis. Again, if they're not comfortable, it is well within their discretion to refuse the work. Unless the thing is a basket case type death trap, an A&P can be normally be found to assist you.
All that being said, there is the case of Repairmen. If you build the plane, you are more than likely eligible to get a Repairman certificate that will allow you to sign off annual condition inspections on that airplane only. In this case, you only need to consult with an A&P when you feel the need.
For the record, I've never had a problem getting an A&P to help me out with my Tango. But then again, I hold a Repairman certificate for my Tango and make it clear that it's my name going on the logbook entry.
Anymouse I hope your popcorn comment was meant to be a tongue in cheek one........the learning curve is different for everyone here and I believe it is a place for all to learn more no matter how educated we have become.
As I stated to begin with I'm "NEW" to the home build areana however not a new pilot. I have assited on my own airplane annuals many years with my A&P IA.
It is the family of the dead that will go back on the A&P. He may be very good at Certfied aircraft but little knowledge on kit planes.
I was hoping for a bit more of a constructive comment. Maybe if there are some seasoned "A&P's or IA's" that care to comment it would be much appreciated.
Thanks
If you want to build an airplane, I think you should go for it Bighorn. After you build your airplane, an FAA inspector or Designated Airworthiness Inspector (DAR) signs the paperwork to make it legal. After that, it needs a once-a-year condition inspection which can be performed by the builder if he applies for and receives a repairman certificate. Otherwise, any willing A&P can perform the inspection. I don't have any qualms about signing off a homebuilt. For one, nothing says it has to be an an "airworthy condition" like a certificated airplane. It just has to appear to be safe. I don't think the liability exposure is no where near that of a certificated airplane.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bighorn
When you read the letter of limitations you will see that the requirements of the inspections is the same as the minimum of an annual on any certified aircraft. and the sign off is almost the same as required under FAR 43 for an annual. So, why not do them. OBTW any A&P can do the inspection and the owner or operator can help just like a real aircraft. (yeah I know that was a joke)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bighorn
Sorry, the popcorn comment was definitely tongue in cheek. It just looked like this was ripe for a good controversial thread. (Check other aviation forums for High Wing vs. Low Wing, Tailwheel vs. Nose Wheel, Slipping with Flaps, etc.)
As far as the other stuff I posted, it was all supposed to be educational.
Right to the fun stuff:
High Wing vs. Low Wing: Biplane. Best and worst of both worlds.
Tailwheel vs. Nose Wheel: Tailwheel. Don't be a pansy.
Slipping with Flaps: Slipping is good for the soul regardless of flaps. See Tailwheel.
On topic:
It comes down to what the A&P is signing for. Has all maintenance according to the POH been done? Are there signs of damage to the aircraft? They're not putting forth any guarantee that a plane won't break down - they're signing that to the best of their knowledge at the time of inspection, the aircraft had met the scheduled maintenance and inspection requirements. No more, no less.
Just like when a DAR issues a flight worthiness certificate. He has only a rough idea if the darned thing is going to be an uncontrollable mess in the air or not! If one has followed the plans (even if self designed) and has a reasonable level of craftsmanship he's going to give it a "go." I'll bet money there are DAR's that have given out certificates on planes they wouldn't pilot or ride in - but they passed because there was no compelling reason to down check them.
Ditto the Doctor that issues flight exams. We've all heard stories of guys passing their physicals and having heart attacks the next day. It's not the doctor's fault - during the hour in the exam room the guy was okay; and that's all he really attested to.
Welcome to EAA Forums bighorn! Your question is one that we frequently answer, and always a good topic of discussion. Good to have you here!
When we built our Starlite, there was no I A involved. We checked off the steps in the plans and directions as we did them, and had some photos of the stages. When it was done, an inspector from the FAA came out and spent an hour or so looking it over and signed it off as ready for test flight. We had to fly 20 hours before leaving the area.
The FAA rep may have been an A & P or an I A, don't really know. His signoff does not promise that the plane will fly well or even safe, just that it is built in an acceptable manner, things like welds, and safety wire, etc.
Bighorn - I have a couple of off-the-wall comments for you. They might help you understand more about this whole issue and Experimental aviation in general.
First, there is no difference between Experimental airplanes and certified ones - except for the paperwork. For a plane to be certified it must first exist as an Experimental one. Then it goes through a gruesome set of examinations and tests to eventually earn a Type Certificate. (I'm twisting reality here a bit because there is a difference between experimental planes intended for production and ones intended for recreation and education, but this is a small point.) I suppose it is possible for experimental planes to be piles of junk made with materials from Home Depot and hardware from China, but this is not what I have seen in the real world. Real world kit planes and other examples of the Experimental - Amateur Built genre are just as sturdily built (or better) than factory built TC'd planes and use the same quality materials and hardware. In general the workmanship in flying Experimental planes is better than the factory planes, but this varies with the choice of factory plane to compare. Remember that an amateur that builds a plane expects to fly it himself while the union workers in airplane factories sometimes are more interested in quitting time than the quality of their work. So, for a mechanic to agree to work on a factory plane is a harder choice than to work on an Experimental in most cases.
My other point is the question of liability for injuries or other kinds of losses in Experimental planes is a lot less of a problem than most people imagine. The fact that a plane is Experimental is the first and usually the last issue considered when an accident happens. This is not the same situation as an accident in a certified plane. Everyone who gets into an experimental must see the big "EXPERIMENTAL" tag on the plane and there are other warnings required to tell passengers they are not in a federally approved airplane. It would take a really talented lawyer to convince a jury that someone who got past all these warnings was unjustly squashed flat because of bad design or workmanship in the airplane. I am not aware of this ever happening.
Paul
Camas, WA
Actually, when I "sign off" the Annual inspection on a certified airplane, I am confirming that, as of that date, it was in conformity with the Type Certificate Data Sheet as modified by Supplemental Type Certificates applied to the airplane, Field Modifications applied to the airplane, and Airworthiness Directives applied to the airplane, engine, or accessories. And that it is in a safe condition for flight.
When I "sign off" an annual Condition inspection on an experimental amateur built airplane, I cannot confirm conformity with the TCDS since it doesn't have one. In that case I merely certify that, as of that date, it was in a safe condition for flight. Hence the term "Condition" inspection as opposed to Annual inspection, even though both are required on an annual basis.
Major repairs or alterations on a certified airplane require a 337 form and some type of data or inspection to ensure it is in conformity with the original TCDS or with the original TCDS as modified by FAA APPROVED data and the modification passed by the FAA ( block 3 on the 337 form ) or an approved STC.
Major repairs or alterations on an Experimental Amateur Built airplane require a notification to the FAA and may require a new airworthiness certificate inspection ( FAA or DAR ) and a new or modified "Operating Limitations" letter to accompany it. That will usually also require a new flight test program of so many flight hours before it is released to normal use or passengers are allowed.
As for the approval for flight by the FAA of a homebuilt airplane I am not even sure a "reasonable level of craftsmanship" is a requirement. There are specific requirements for labeling and marking both instruments and the airplane. I know of no constraints on design, construction, or materials used. There are a number of suggestions and guidelines, most originating with the EAA rather than the FAA. I once saw a small biplane, about the size of a Smith Miniplane, that was welded up from schedule 40 and schedule 80 steel pipe. The wings had lumberyard 2x6 spars and lumberyard 1x6 ribs. The engine was a cast iron V8 removed from an old Ford car. ( Ford flathead V8 ) The FAA approved it for flight. He got it up over 100 mph but couldn't get the tail to come up. A stock 49 Ford would have been closer to flying. But the FAA allowed him to try. Their primary limitation, other than the regulated markings, seems to be "Do no harm to anyone but the idiot who chooses to try to fly it!" Which, when you consider it, is a quite reasonable position for them to take. The saving grace for homebuilders, particularly in the early days of the fifties and sixties, was the fact that "if it looked like an airplane, and was built like other airplanes, it would probably fly pretty much like an airplane!" That didn't mean it would necessarily fly well, but it would probably fly. I once flew a homebuilt that had a top speed in level flight at full power of 110 mph. It didn't exactly stall, but if you slowed it down to 100 mph the first indication of an approaching stall was a half snap roll to the right. It did get your attention. It was all properly signed off and approved for flight!
Well my 2 cents, most A/P will not sign off a conditional inspection if the plane does not meet the standards of a Certificated plane that they are familiar with, no matter that experimentals are supposed to be just that if they see a familiar part (for example 7/16 strut forks) they will most likely hold it to the standards of the AD's they are familiar with, right or wrong people are afraid of the boogeyman anymore, if ever a lawsuit has been successful in this type of case i have no idea, I've heard it both ways. I feel as an owner of 2 experimentals that unless you built it there's "almost" no advantage versus owning a certificated plane of similar design, some will argue but the fact is unless you are the builder or an A/P or know one very well you will be at there mercy.
Been there, that's why I'm parting my current plane out and building my own.