Repairman Inspection

ELSA regs allow one to take a 16 hour course and become eligible for a Repairman Inspection Rating, and that allows you to perform the annual condition inspection on any Experimental Light Sport Airplane you own. Such a course is outlined here:

http://www.sportair.com/workshops/1R...-Airplane.html

It would be exceptionally wonderful to be able to do something similar for EAB (Experimental Amateur Built) aircraft, to include EAB aircraft that you did not build yourself. How would we start pursuing something like this? Is EAA willing to initiate this?

Thanks,

-Dj

They. Are all about those certified aircraft. It's just $$$.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deej

ELSA regs allow one to take a 16 hour course and become eligible for a Repairman Inspection Rating, and that allows you to perform the annual condition inspection on any Experimental Light Sport Airplane you own. [snip]

It would be exceptionally wonderful to be able to do something similar for EAB (Experimental Amateur Built) aircraft, to include EAB aircraft that you did not build yourself. How would we start pursuing something like this? Is EAA willing to initiate this?

---

I agree with you; I'd love to get a repairman certificate for my Fly Baby. Then I won't have to argue with Tony any more. :-)

It's probably a bit down the queue as far as EAA's priorities. Right now, I think their emphasis is on Third Class medical reform and on the Congressional directives for the FAA to relax some of the controls on maintenance and modification of production-type aircraft. Obviously, more bang-for-the-buck issues than the relatively small number of homebuilt owners that might be affected by allowing their use of the ELSA rules.

Want to see it, though.

Ron Wanttaja

For what it's worth, I took a look at the current FAA certification database. Assuming I've interpreted it properly, there are 10,315 people with the Light Sport - Inspector Repairman certificates (the one that takes a 16-hour course), and 2,410 with Light Sport-Maintenance tickets.

Ron Wanttaja

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwanttaja

I agree with you; I'd love to get a repairman certificate for my Fly Baby. Then I won't have to argue with Tony any more. :-)

It's probably a bit down the queue as far as EAA's priorities. Right now, I think their emphasis is on Third Class medical reform and on the Congressional directives for the FAA to relax some of the controls on maintenance and modification of production-type aircraft. Obviously, more bang-for-the-buck issues than the relatively small number of homebuilt owners that might be affected by allowing their use of the ELSA rules.

Want to see it, though.

Ron Wanttaja

---

You argue, I discuss. Some believe every discussion is an argument, I had a wife who believed this. I divorced her, I don't need that drama in my life.

Just because you hold this repairman certificate does not give the the privilege to do a condition inspection on any airframe. Only the one you hold the repairman's certificate for. The way I understand this certificate anyway.

Again not arguing just discussing. But you call it what you want.

Tony

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1600vw

Just because you hold this repairman certificate does not give the the privilege to do a condition inspection on any airframe. Only the one you hold the repairman's certificate for. The way I understand this certificate anyway.

---

No, the question was about the Light Sport-Inspection repairman certificate. That one lets you do the condition inspection on any Experimental Light Sport that you own. The original poster would like to see a similar policy for Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft.

Ron Wanttaja

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwanttaja

No, the question was about the Light Sport-Inspection repairman certificate. That one lets you do the condition inspection on any Experimental Light Sport that you own. The original poster would like to see a similar policy for Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft.

Ron Wanttaja

---

Ron I do not believe this is correct. Just because you own said airplane does not mean you can do the condition inspection using a repairman's certificate. Two men build an airplane. Both names are on the registration. Only one can get a repairman's certificate for that airframe or airplane. If one owner dies the other owner can not get another repairman's certificate for that airframe. Each airframe or airplane gets one repairman's certificate issued to one person.

This is the way it was explained to me. Now if this is not correct I need to contact the dude at the FAA who told me this.

A father and son build an airplane. The father has the repairman's certificate issued to him. He then dies from who knows what. The son must now hire an A&P to do the condition inspections for he can not get another repairman's certificate for that airframe or airplane. This is how it was explained to me. Make sure the younger builder gets the repairman's certificate and hope he does not expire early from some unknown reason.

Tony

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1600vw

Ron I do not believe this is correct. Just because you own said airplane does not mean you can do the condition inspection using a repairman's certificate. Two men build an airplane. Both names are on the registration. Only one can get a repairman's certificate for that airframe or airplane. If one owner dies the other owner can not get another repairman's certificate for that airframe. Each airframe or airplane gets one repairman's certificate issued to one person.

This is the way it was explained to me. Now if this is not correct I need to contact the dude at the FAA who told me this.

A father and son build an airplane. The father has the repairman's certificate issued to him. He then dies from who knows what. The son must now hire an A&P to do the condition inspections for he can not get another repairman's certificate for that airframe or airplane. This is how it was explained to me. Make sure the younger builder gets the repairman's certificate and hope he does not expire early from some unknown reason.

Tony

---

For E/AB aircraft you're correct. For ELSA aircraft you're not. Go back and look at the first post - it has a description of the situation for ELSA aircraft, with a link to the course that will allow the OWNER (not builder) of an ELSA aircraft to legally do his/her own CI.

The OP would like the same capability for E/AB aircraft, which as you state, is NOT currently the case.

I'm on the fence here - I think there are many E/AB aircraft for which even a 40 - 60 hour course might not be enough to allow the owner to be knowledgeable enough to perform his/her own CI's. Gotta think on this a bit more (not that it's likely to happen in the foreseeable future, anyway).

This is the age of the internet and computerized testing. There is no reason why we could not take a series of knowledge tests to qualify for a repairman certificate. After all, we pay to take a computer based knowledge test so there is a financial incentive to read part 43 and not blow multiple test attempts. So passing some subject matter tests and an 8 hour course should get the job done. But since we are talking about the FAA, this advance into the 21st century is unlikely at this time.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1600vw

Ron I do not believe this is correct. Just because you own said airplane does not mean you can do the condition inspection using a repairman's certificate. Two men build an airplane. Both names are on the registration. Only one can get a repairman's certificate for that airframe or airplane. If one owner dies the other owner can not get another repairman's certificate for that airframe. Each airframe or airplane gets one repairman's certificate issued to one person.

---

The term "Repairman Certificate" has a broader definition than that used in homebuilding. Per 14CFR 65.103, "A certificated repairman may perform or supervise the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration of aircraft or aircraft components appropriate to the job for which the repairman was employed and certificated, but only in connection with duties for the certificate holder by whom the repairman was employed and recommended. "

For the non-homebuilding world, a Repairman Certificate is typically issued to an employee of an FAA-certified Repair Station or an Air Carrier to permit him or her some authority in a fairly narrow area. The employer must vouch that the person has been appropriately trained and is qualified for the specific task they are to do. An A&P can work on everything, a Repairman Certificate holder, in comparison, might be authorized only to remove, balance, and replace control surfaces.

The Repairman Certificate for Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft is covered in 14CFR 65.104.

(a) To be eligible for a repairman certificate (experimental aircraft builder), an individual must—

(1) Be at least 18 years of age;

(2) Be the primary builder of the aircraft to which the privileges of the certificate are applicable;

This is different from the Repairman Certificates issued for Light Sport Aircraft, which are defined in 14CFR 65.107:

(b) The holder of a repairman certificate (light-sport aircraft) with an inspection rating may perform the annual condition inspection on a light-sport aircraft:

(1) That is owned by the holder;

(2) That has been issued an experimental certificate for operating a light-sport aircraft under §21.191(i) of this chapter; and

(3) That is in the same class of light-sport-aircraft for which the holder has completed the training specified in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section.

So if you take the appropriate course (16 hours long), you can perform the condition inspection of any ELSA that you own.

Ron Wanttaja

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WLIU

There is no reason why we could not take a series of knowledge tests to qualify for a repairman certificate. After all, we pay to take a computer based knowledge test so there is a financial incentive to read part 43 and not blow multiple test attempts. So passing some subject matter tests and an 8 hour course should get the job done.

---

I'm going to respectfully disagree. I've built a Quickie Q2 and a COZY MKIV. I currently make a living working on canard composite aircraft, and I'm an A&P and do Condition Inspections on other folks' aircraft (RV's included). You can see my CV at my BA website, if you care about my qualifications to make the following statements.

I can barely familiarize a non-builder owner with a Long-EZ/Varieze/COZY/Berkut aircraft in 8 -10 hours, if they hang around the whole day while I'm doing the CI, are interested and ask a lot of questions. It's a brief overview of all the aspects of the plane, at best.

The owner should be intimately familiar with the aircraft plans and build process - that could take 100 hours of study, easy. The owner should be intimately familiar with all of the aircraft's newsletters, updates, mandatory changes, etc. That can take another 100 hours of study (both studies while poking at the airplane so that the owner can see what the words mean and apply to). Next, as you say, the owner should be familiar with the Part 43 Appendix D requirements for inspections, as well as any aircraft particular inspection requirements - I've got a checklist I use that includes over 250 individual items to check for each aircraft.

Merely understanding and memorizing the words in Part 43, Appendix D is about 1% of what's required to be qualified to do a REAL Condition Inspection on these aircraft. Learning the rest of the FAA CFR requirements (Not FAR, Ron :-) ) might be another 1 - 2%. Every one of the E/AB aircraft types has it's own knowledge requirements - someone would have to put together a complex curriculum that would require both class learning as well as hand's on work for every aircraft type. This would be 100's of hours (hence the length of time it takes to get an A&P, much less an IA) and would be far more than some multiple choice computer test.

With all the experience I've got in composite aircraft, if I purchased a rag and tube plane and someone told me that I could learn everything I'd need to know to do a CI on one (even just MY plane) in 8 - 16 hours, I'd say they were deluded, and if I thought I was competent to do so, I'd be deluding myself.

My $0.02.

Have to say I pretty much agree with Marc, here. It's not an issue of knowledge (which is instantly available these days), it's a matter of practical experience. Moreover, it's the ability to *merge* the knowledge and experience when things get a bit hinky.

Oh, for sure, I'd love to have a Repairman Certificate for my Fly Baby so I don't have to depend on an A&P every year. I have been the sole maintainer for one Fly Baby or the other for ~25 years or more. I have removed and replaced cylinders, generators, starters, exhaust systems, rewired electrical systems, revamped the instrument panels, all stuff that requires an A&P in the certified world. I pulled the engine out of my VW "Thing" twenty years ago and rebuilt it.

But do I think I'm qualified to judge the condition of a C-85? No, in all honesty, not really. Frankly, I'm not all that comfortable working on the engine; I sweat just pulling the spark plugs.

Now, if I took a one-week course on small Continental engine servicing, I'd feel a LOT more confident. But we'd still have to factor in the overall practical experience. On another thread, I mentioned how my most-recent A&P was not long out of training. He's been busy the last three years, looking at a lot of airplanes and delving into a lot of engines. This obviously gives him a much better basis for evaluating the condition of most aircraft.

Used to share a hangar with a friend who built an award-winning Long-EZ. Every year, he'd push my Fly Baby outside while he disassembled his EZ for the condition inspection. Then he'd button it back up...except for the cowling. He brought in an A&P every year to inspect the engine. He built every piece of that airplane, but felt better getting a true expert to look at the engine.

In the Ex-AB world, builders can receive the Repairman Certificate to inspect their airplane. It's a precious, well-earned privilege. But in all honesty, building an airplane does NOT teach you how it wears over time...especially the engine, which for most builders is just a big blob they bolt in place and hook hoses and wires to. For example, few builders have to perform internal inspections and repairs on magnetos during the construction process, but the Repairman Certificate entitles them to do so.

Please understand, I fully support the current policies for Ex-AB repairman certificates. Yes, our rate of "Maintenance Error" is greater than the Certified world (about the same as Builder Error, actually) but the percentage of occurrence in the accident lists is still pretty low.

But I was pretty surprised about the institution of the Light Sport-Inspection Repairman Certificate as part of the Sport Pilot reforms. At the time, I was tasked to write a summary of the new rules for KITPLANES magazine. I read the LS-I provision...and couldn't believe it. I actually called the FAA to get the specific confirmation that the 16-hour course would enable an owner to inspect his or her ELSA airplane.

Do I support extension of the program to Ex-AB aircraft that meet the 14CFR Part 1 Light Sport Aircraft definition? I do, and would take the required courses like a shot.

But...like my friend, I'd probably still hire an A&P to look over the engine every year.

Ron Wanttaja

I took the 16-hour course and hold the light-sport aircraft repairman certificate with an inspection rating and perform the annual condition inspections on the two light-sport aircraft I own. (The N-numbers an individual is authorized to inspect are specified on the certificate.) The 16-hour course will NOT teach you everything needed to perform the inspection. The bulk of the course content is focused on the FAA regulations, the aircraft's required paperwork, and how to legally record the inspection in the logs. Very little of the course covers actual hands-on inspection procedures and techniques. Some of it is hands on, but it is like reading the index of the the encyclopedia you need to know. Armed with the certificate, the determination to seek out and learn more about your aircraft, and the common sense to call in an expert when you're smart enough to recognize you're in over your head, the LSA Repairman certificate is a great thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deej

ELSA regs allow one to take a 16 hour course and become eligible for a Repairman Inspection Rating, and that allows you to perform the annual condition inspection on any Experimental Light Sport Airplane you own. Such a course is outlined here:

http://www.sportair.com/workshops/1R...-Airplane.html

It would be exceptionally wonderful to be able to do something similar for EAB (Experimental Amateur Built) aircraft, to include EAB aircraft that you did not build yourself. How would we start pursuing something like this? Is EAA willing to initiate this?

Thanks,

-Dj

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dusterpilot

I took the 16-hour course and hold the light-sport aircraft repairman certificate with an inspection rating and perform the annual condition inspections on the two light-sport aircraft I own. (The N-numbers an individual is authorized to inspect are specified on the certificate.) The 16-hour course will NOT teach you everything needed to perform the inspection. The bulk of the course content is focused on the FAA regulations, the aircraft's required paperwork, and how to legally record the inspection in the logs. Very little of the course covers actual hands-on inspection procedures and techniques. Some of it is hands on, but it is like reading the index of the the encyclopedia you need to know. Armed with the certificate, the determination to seek out and learn more about your aircraft, and the common sense to call in an expert when you're smart enough to recognize you're in over your head, the LSA Repairman certificate is a great thing.

---

Lets look at the original post. This person would like to take an EAB that has been already built and get a Repairman's certificate. This certificate was more then likely given to the original builder so he could do his own Condition Inspections. No one else can get another repairman's certificate for that airframe or airplane. It will now take an A&P to do this condition inspection. If the new owner is an A&P he or she is set. If not the new owner will have to hire this out to an A&P.

Tony

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1600vw

Lets look at the original post. This person would like to take an EAB that has been already built and get a Repairman's certificate. This certificate was more then likely given to the original builder so he could do his own Condition Inspections. No one else can get another repairman's certificate for that airframe or airplane. It will now take an A&P to do this condition inspection. If the new owner is an A&P he or she is set. If not the new owner will have to hire this out to an A&P.

---

Are you this obtuse on purpose?

It is fairly obvious that the OP understood what the regulations currently ARE (which is all that you've restated) - everyone else understood this. What he was asking was whether it would be possible to CHANGE the E/AB regulations so that they more closely resembled the ELSA regulations, which he also stated. That is what the rest of us have been discussing - the notion of changing the E/AB regs to be similar to the ELSA regs, and whether that's a good idea or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marc Zeitlin

Are you this obtuse on purpose?

It is fairly obvious that the OP understood what the regulations currently ARE (which is all that you've restated) - everyone else understood this. What he was asking was whether it would be possible to CHANGE the E/AB regulations so that they more closely resembled the ELSA regulations, which he also stated. That is what the rest of us have been discussing - the notion of changing the E/AB regs to be similar to the ELSA regs, and whether that's a good idea or not.

---

For someone who claims that he doesn't argue, Tony is sure doing a bang-up imitation of it. That's three posts he's made on this thread, containing essentially the same statement (e.g., one cannot receive a repairman certificate for an EAB he didn't build) while completely ignoring the original poster's actual question....

Ron Wanttaja

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwanttaja

For someone who claims that he doesn't argue, Tony is sure doing a bang-up imitation of it. That's three posts he's made on this thread, containing essentially the same statement (e.g., one cannot receive a repairman certificate for an EAB he didn't build) while completely ignoring the original poster's actual question....

Ron Wanttaja

---

If all those A&Ps out their would be more willing to take on someone's home-built, EAB that he or she didn't build it would be so nice, thanks, jw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greeneyes2141

If all those A&Ps out their would be more willing to take on someone's home-built, EAB that he or she didn't build it would be so nice, thanks, jw.

---

Very true. Consider. They may be willing to take on the aircraft but not the owner.

First. Aircraft. Not all E-AB are engineered professionally and competently. Not all are built exactly to the engineer's design. Not all have been maintained to that design through the years and subsequent owners. My limited experience indicates there are basket cases out there with years, perhaps decades of pencil whipped inspections, and some of them are E-AB. When an A&P agrees to perform a condition inspection and finds one of them, we arrive at...

Second, the owner. Operator, sure. Not all of us are maintainers. Operators know it flew into the inspection. They know what they've done to it to keep it going. It should fly out. But. What about the stuff found wrong? The ops limits contains the magic phrase for a successful inspection, but nothing about signing off a "NOT in condition" result. So. Will the owner pay for the inspection alone, up front? Does the owner want the A&P to fix until it passes? Or tie up A&P's shop space until owner gets parts and time to do it? Finish inspection, no signoff, watch owner button up and angrily fly away in an unsafe aircraft (ok, maybe ferry permit, but really?) then race to the bank before the check is voided?

Pretty sure there are more reasons to refuse some people's request to perform a CI. Personality alone, perhaps.

A qualifying path for a make&model or airframe-specific E-AB Repairman certificate is a logical outgrowth of that LSA provision. Yep. Oughta be on the to-do list after abolishing the 3rd class medical?

I laugh at the thought of trying to change this. It will be like what is happening with the third class medical. It will get ignored on someones desk until its forgotten. If its not forgotten it will just be denied. It takes an A&P IA to do an Annual on a GA airplane. It takes an A&P to do a condition inspection on an EAB aircraft. Jusy why does the FAA believe it only takes a repairman's certificate to do a Condition Inspection on an LSA that was factory built. The repairman's certificate is only issued to one builder but now it can be issued to any owner of an LSA. Sounds like a double standard to me. I am amazed the FAA does not say one needs an IA for this inspection on a LSA being its factory built. Why not a Repairman's certificate to do an Annual on a GA. That is what I would be yelling about. If an LSA owner can do this inspection with a repairman's certificate, why not a GA airplane owner. Both are factory built.

This was the point I was trying to make. But I guess I needed to spell it out. Not arguing but discussing. I argue you discuss. I see how it is.

Tony

"They may be willing to take on the aircraft but not the owner."

I see a lot of this. As described above we are seeing second owners of E-AB's with unrealistic expectations.

As for the experience aspect of a Repairman Certificate, your mechanic fresh out of A&P school does not match the ideal characterization of the inspector we want that multiple posts above speak to. Everyone has to start somewhere. And while a segment of the owner popualation seem to take the low road on maintenance, most know that they are going to be the first ones to the scene of an accident. So your average owner, like your average A&P, is motivated to look for issues and take care of them. So please do not take the worst case and use it as the standard for comparison. If we did that for other aviation tasks we would never get in the airplane and fly.

The most important part of the training is knowing when a task is beyond your current skill level and how to ask for help. Holders of Repairman Certificates are not prevented from asking for advice and further instruction from more experienced individuals.

We see certificated A&P's who are awful, and A&P's who are genius craftsmen (persons?). I expect that we see the same in the current builder Repairman population and would see the same in any future Repairman population if there becomes the opportunity for non-builder owners to obtain a Repairman Certificate. Its neither magic nor rocket science. We all start with zero experience. Its what you do next that counts. And any training will provide guidance about that.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike M

Very true. Consider. They may be willing to take on the aircraft but not the owner.

First. Aircraft. Not all E-AB are engineered professionally and competently. Not all are built exactly to the engineer's design. Not all have been maintained to that design through the years and subsequent owners. My limited experience indicates there are basket cases out there with years, perhaps decades of pencil whipped inspections, and some of them are E-AB. When an A&P agrees to perform a condition inspection and finds one of them, we arrive at...

Second, the owner. Operator, sure. Not all of us are maintainers. Operators know it flew into the inspection. They know what they've done to it to keep it going. It should fly out. But. What about the stuff found wrong? The ops limits contains the magic phrase for a successful inspection, but nothing about signing off a "NOT in condition" result. So. Will the owner pay for the inspection alone, up front? Does the owner want the A&P to fix until it passes? Or tie up A&P's shop space until owner gets parts and time to do it? Finish inspection, no signoff, watch owner button up and angrily fly away in an unsafe aircraft (ok, maybe ferry permit, but really?) then race to the bank before the check is voided?

Pretty sure there are more reasons to refuse some people's request to perform a CI. Personality alone, perhaps.

A qualifying path for a make&model or airframe-specific E-AB Repairman certificate is a logical outgrowth of that LSA provision. Yep. Oughta be on the to-do list after abolishing the 3rd class medical?

---

The stats just do not show this. The statistics show that those flying an EAB do a pretty darn good job of maintaining them. What lacks is the paper work. But by this post anyone flying an EAB is doing things wrong or just ignoring problems all together. But the statistics do not point to this. So this argument for an A&P not doing a Condition Inspection is bogus.

Tony

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1600vw

The stats just do not show this. The statistics show that those flying an EAB do a pretty darn good job of maintaining them. What lacks is the paper work. But by this post anyone flying an EAB is doing things wrong or just ignoring problems all together. But the statistics do not point to this. So this argument for an A&P not doing a Condition Inspection is bogus.

---

You're right on the statistics. About 4.3% of homebuilt accidents are due to maintenance error, which is just about the same as the fixed-gear Cherokees (although higher than Cessna 172s).

I can understand A&Ps not wanting to handle EABs. They are more of an unknown quantity, and reference documentation to help the A&P doesn't exist. And as Mike posted, the operator can be a wild card. The A&P's sign-off for the Condition Inspection is essentially taking responsibility for all the work the owner had done in the previous year. Not all that work is inspectable...the mechanic has to trust the owner.

Not to the mention modifications that may exceed the guy's comfort zone. My A&P was real skittish about my "ejection seat" (powered lift seat to help me get out of the airplane). The solution was simple: Seat comes out of the airplane ANYWAY during the Condition Inspection, and the old seat goes in when it comes time to test-run the engine. He signs off the airplane, drives away, and the ejection seat goes back in....

Ron Wanttaja

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1600vw

... Jusy why does the FAA believe it only takes a repairman's certificate to do a Condition Inspection on an LSA that was factory built....

---

Once again, you're missing the actual written words. It's only an ELSA for which one can take the course and do the CI yourself (as was explicitly stated in the original post), NOT a factory built LSA. Just one that was built by an experimental aircraft builder. And since an LSA/ELSA aircraft does not have a type certificate to meet, and each one can be different (I worked for ICON Aircraft for a year and am familiar with the certification requirements of LSA aircraft), ELSA aircraft are far closer to E/AB aircraft than they are to TC'd aircraft.

So the rest of your comments are moot.

One thing to keep in mind is that there are *Production* aircraft that some A&Ps refuse to deal with, as well.Years ago, my A&P noted that he wouldn't do annuals on Piper Tripacers. He'd apparently had problems with the inspection panels...not the ones into the fabric, but the ones where screws went into metal. IIRC, he'd encountered one where most of the holes had been stripped out and it took a lot of work to get things right. So he refused to do them any more.Ron Wanttaja

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwanttaja

One thing to keep in mind is that there are *Production* aircraft that some A&Ps refuse to deal with, as well.... .Ron Wanttaja

---

Absolutely. As someone stated earlier, my #1 reason for turning away work is the owner. Doesn't matter if it's E-AB, SLSA, or certificated. If I don't like the owner, or I think he's trying to be cheap about the work, I won't touch his plane. If I know he has been slow to pay or troublesome for other mechanics (which is why he's at my door), then I'll turn him away as well. #2 reason for turning away work is that it requires something that is either not in my knowledge base, or I don't have the tools to properly accomplish the work. #3 is that I don't make my living as an A&P. I have another job that pays much better. I won't take food off the table of a mechanic that has a full time shop at the airport and is trying to make a living. So one of the first questions I ask is whether the owner has asked the full time mechanics in the area to do this work. If he hasn't, then I'll defer until he does.

Over 90% of the work I do is owner assisted. It is my privilege to teach owners how to maintain their aircraft, and at the same time, I get to learn from them about their aircraft. But if the owner is hard headed and wants to argue about the work, then we're done. There are a lot of A&Ps out there that do a lot of work on E-AB aircraft, myself included. If you can't find one to work with you, you might want to look at how you treated the last mechanic you asked for help.

-Cub Builder

Absolutely right, everybody, the stats don't support my comments about cheap or unknowledgeable owners causing more accidents. And I'm glad of it!

Some folks got my poorly stated point. Inspection refusals come from individuals not a class or defined demographic. There are perhaps as many reasons as individuals, each valid for that individual and some nonnegotiable - for them.

Consider the criteria for reportable aircraft accidents. And who is responsible for reporting accidents they survive and nobody else sees. One kid touching a hot stove is a much more impressive teaching moment for that kid than reading a worldwide compilation of hospital admission stats for people suffering 3rd degree burns from stoves.

From what I learned doing research on this subject of Condition Inspection and liability on the A&P part. The liability for doing an Condition Inspection on an EAB is much lower on an A&P then it would be if this A&P was working on a GA airplane. There is a webinar put out by the EAA where the speaker speaks of this how the liability is lower. One thing this person spoke about. As we all know an EAB or any experimental is not airworthy and never will be. The A&P is not stating the aircraft is any in state of being airworthy but in a state for safe operation. It goes deeper then this but that was one thing this speaker hit upon.

I can post this webinar for those who do not believe anyone would make such a statement. This comes from the EAA. Its a total myth that an A&P is putting his neck on the line when it come to doing a Condition Inspection on an experimental. Again I can post the webinar where the speaker even says this. Maybe not in those words but he does say this.

Tony

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1600vw

From what I learned doing research on this subject of Condition Inspection and liability on the A&P part. The liability for doing an Condition Inspection on an EAB is much lower on an A&P then it would be if this A&P was working on a GA airplane. There is a webinar put out by the EAA where the speaker speaks of this how the liability is lower. One thing this person spoke about. As we all know an EAB or any experimental is not airworthy and never will be. The A&P is not stating the aircraft is any in state of being airworthy but in a state for safe operation. It goes deeper then this but that was one thing this speaker hit upon.

I can post this webinar for those who do not believe anyone would make such a statement. This comes from the EAA. Its a total myth that an A&P is putting his neck on the line when it come to doing a Condition Inspection on an experimental. Again I can post the webinar where the speaker even says this. Maybe not in those words but he does say this.

Tony

---

Actually, the company (there's only one) that underwrites Aviation Maintenance Technicians charges an additional premium if the shop is going to work on E-AB aircraft. Most shops don't buy that part of the coverage as the income it generates usually doesn't make up for the cost of the insurance premium, let alone actually turning a profit. Mechanics do take on more liability by working on E-AB aircraft as usually they are doing so with no liability insurance coverage, which they would have for working on certificated aircraft.

-Cub Builder

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1600vw

From what I learned doing research on this subject of Condition Inspection and liability on the A&P part. The liability for doing an Condition Inspection on an EAB is much lower on an A&P then it would be if this A&P was working on a GA airplane. There is a webinar put out by the EAA where the speaker speaks of this how the liability is lower.

---

I agree an A&P is not likely to lose a lawsuit regarding a Condition Inspection; the problem is, there's nothing to prevent a widow or orphan from filing a suit should the unfortunate occur. Not losing is great, but if the A&P has to shell out $50,000 in legal expenses to "win", it's not much of a victory.

It's kind of like the worries about liability when selling one's homebuilt aircraft. The number of actual lawsuits is extremely low (one that I know of) but still folks still discuss ways to avoid liability.

Ron Wanttaja

I'll relate a little story here even though we have wondered way off topic...
I used to maintain a high performance E-AB aircraft for a local pilot. I had just finished the Ann... uhem, Condition Inspection. ;) The owner headed off on vacation with the plane. 4 days later I got a call in the evening from the pilot telling me he had just wrecked the plane, but had walked away from the crash with minor scrapes and bruises, but his passenger had sustained a few other injuries, although none too serious. When I asked what happened, all he would say is mechanical engine failure. I spent that night thinking through what I could have possibly done wrong or missed on his inspection, and envisioning my retirement funds evaporating defending myself when his insurance subrogates to sue me for his passenger's medical bills and replacement of his aircraft. Turns out, he wouldn't say what had happened because he didn't want to confess his sins to the NTSB investigators. The mechanical failure turned out to be a failure of the engine to continue running without fuel.

Having been put in the situation with the anxiety where I thought I might be facing some serious repercussions for performing a routine inspection, I really had to take a second look at what I'm willing to do in the way of inspections and maintenance and who I am willing to deal with. Every aircraft I touch has the capability to kill it's owner and nearly every owner leaves a widow that's going to blame me ahead of their loved one.

-Cub Builder

If you do some research you will find that in history no A&P has been sued over a Condition Inspection. Once the attorney reads the wording on a Condition Inspection they go away. What they then do is go after the maker of a part.
John Denver's crash is a good example. The attorneys wanted to go after who ever they could on this one. But after reading the wording on Condition Inspections, they went after the manufacturer of the fuel shut off valve. They did this for two reasons. You can sue anyone for just about anything. But if the person you are suing has nothing that is what you will get. The legal folks have a word for this and I can not remember what it is, And no its not dead beat. So what these attorney's do is go after the folks with deep pockets. They went after the fuel valve manufacturer. This was the example used in that webinar I speak of. He says in that webinar no A&P in history has been sued over a Condition Inspection. He said this does not mean attorneys have not tried. But once they read the wording they " Attorney's" just go away. The people they would need to go after is the FAA for issuing an airworthy certificate for something that is not airworthy. We all know that would be a fight they would loose. So they go after a manufacturer of some part.

All in that webinar I speak of. Not my words but from that webinar.

Tony