Is there any special / favored wording for a repairman (not an A&P) to use when signing-off the annual condition inspection on an Experimental - Home Built?
Printable View
Is there any special / favored wording for a repairman (not an A&P) to use when signing-off the annual condition inspection on an Experimental - Home Built?
Yes you will find this wording I believe in your operating limitations.
I certify that this aircraft has been inspected on________ in accordance with the scope and detail of appendix D part 43 and was found to be in a condition for safe operation.
The entry will include the aircraft Total time in service and name and signature , and certificate type and number of the person performing the inspection.
Sorry what I posted was for an A&P....
Nothing is need to do any repairs on a experimental. No log book entry is needed.
The repairman will sign the condition inspection just as the A&P would. The wording will be the same. This is if you hold the repairman certificate for said airplane.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1600vw
As Tony says, the statement from the operating limitations is copied verbatim into the record, signed/dated/etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byron J. Covey
Thanks guys.
I thought the A&P would declare the airplane "airworthy" whereas the repairman finds the airplane in "a condition for safe operation."Quote:
Originally Posted by 1600vw
No declaration of airworthiness required.Quote:
Originally Posted by steve
Nothing about an experimental is airworthy. This is why doing a Condition inspection is such a non event for the A&P. Meaning his neck is not on the line like an Annual. The condition inspection is just saying the airplane is in good condition for operation. The A&P is not saying its an airworthy airplane. He is saying its an aircraft in CONDITION for safe operation.Quote:
Originally Posted by steve
The one who said the airplane is airworthy is the FAA when they gave it its airworthy certificate. All the A&P or repairman is saying is that aircraft is in as close to the same Condition it was in when this airworthy certificate was issued. Nothing more or nothing less.
In the history of aviation an A&P has NEVER been sued over a Condition Inspection. The reason is in the wording of the certificate. He is not saying its an airworthy airplane. The FAA did that. He is saying its inn a safe condition for Operation. Huge difference then an Annual.
I am amazed how many A&P's do not know this. I would say 80-90% are not aware that this is the rules for an Experimental aircraft. On the airplane I fly today, the first Condition inspection that had to be done after I purchased her, was signed by an IA who signed it just as an Annual. This IA did not know all I needed was an A&P for this condition inspection nor did he know the wording needed to write my condition inspection.
I was told by a man in the FAA, that if he see's this log book entry as this IA wrote it, this FAA person would be calling this A&P "IA" and explaining the FAR's to him. He was not happy to hear this is how A&P's where handling these Condition Inspection. Today I know better and will never let an A&P"IA" sign my log book as an Annual inspection. First I will not use an IA for my Condition Inspection, That gives you that deer in the headlight look from a lot of A&P's that are not IA's. They are not use to signing log books and you will be hard pressed to find one who will. They all believe their world will come to an end if they do indeed sign this log book and you crash. This is so far from the truth its funny.
The in's and out's of the Condition inspection.
This will give you all the info you need on this subject. Everyone should watch and listen to this that are involved with Experimental AB Aircraft from owners to A&P's and IA's.
http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=2608772875001
The FAA makes no such proclamation, nor do they offer a certifying statement saying the aircraft is airworthy. The special airworthiness certificate is simply an authorization to operate in US airspace.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1600vw
I wouldn't wager anything on that statement I didn't want to lose because it has indeed happened.Quote:
In the history of aviation an A&P has NEVER been sued over a Condition Inspection.
I like to see your poling data on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1600vw
Everything I stated I heard in a webinar. Not the one I posted but another. I will post the webinar but it does no good if no one watches or lessens to it. But I will post them. It comes from a couple different webinars.Quote:
Originally Posted by martymayes
Tony
The fact is, a homebuilt aircraft cannot meet the FAA definition of "Airworthy", which is why the condition inspection sign-off does not use the word "Airworthy" but rather states that the aircraft is in a "condition for safe operation". Here's an explanation of the definition of "Airworthy", as found in FAA Order 8130.2....
200. Definition Of The Term “Airworthy” for U.S. Type-Certificated (TC) Aircraft.
Although the term “airworthy” is defined in 14 CFR § 3.5(a), a clear understanding of its meaning is essential for use in the FAA’s airworthiness certification program. Below is a summary of the conditions necessary for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate. A review of case law relating to airworthiness reveals two conditions that must be met for an aircraft to be considered “airworthy.” Title 49, United States Code (49 U.S.C.) § 44704(c) and 14 CFR § 21.183(a), (b), and (c) state that the following two conditions necessary for issuance of an airworthiness certificate:
a. The aircraft must conform to its type design. Conformity to the type design is considered attained when the aircraft configuration and the engine, propeller, and articles installed are consistent with the drawings, specifications, and other data that are part of the TC. This includes any supplemental type certificate (STC) and repairs and alterations incorporated into the aircraft.
b. The aircraft must be in a condition for safe operation. This refers to the condition of the aircraft relative to wear and deterioration, for example, skin corrosion, window delamination/crazing, fluid leaks, and tire wear.
Note: If one or both of these conditions are not met, the aircraft would not be considered airworthy. Aircraft that have not been issued a TC must meet the requirements of paragraph 200b of this order.
The note at the end is telling. Since a homebuilt aircraft does not have a "type design" and does not have a type certificate, it cannot meet BOTH requirements found in the definition of "airworthy". Thus, it can be in "a condition for safe operation" but not "airworthy" in the eyes of the FAA.
Check the FAA's sign-off in the logbook of a homebuilt. You'll see the the FAA (or DAR) does not mention anything about airworthiness or even "condition". The sign-off only states that the aircraft "meets the requirements of the certificate requested". In other words, it's legal. The builder/owner (applicant) must make the statement in the logbook that the aircraft is in a "condition for safe operation" (but not "airworthy")
Hope this helps!
What if the A&P doing the condition inspection finds discrepancies? Should he submit a list of discrepancies to the owner and sign the log as per 43.11(a)(5)?
No. Part 43 does not apply to EAB aircraft, per 43.1(b). So the ONLY document that tells the A&P (or repairman) what to write in the logs is the specific aircraft's Operating Limitations. Mine say to write approximately this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Berson
"I Certify that I inspected this aircraft (N83MZ) on July 20th, 2017 in accordance with the scope and detail of Appendix D to Part 43 of the FAR's and found it in a Condition for Safe Operation."
The actual language is in the passive voice, but I like to write in the active voice, so this is how I phrase it.
When I do CI's on other people's aircraft (and I do about 30/year), I use whatever language their OL calls for. Since it says "inspected and found in a etc.", I ONLY sign off CI's if I found the aircraft in a condition for safe operation. In about 1/4 of the CI's I do, I find stuff that keeps me from signing off the CI. I give the owner the option to either hire me to do the work, or to do the work himself, prove to me that he did it in a manner that I approve (pics, description, whatever) and THEN I sign off their logbook with the approximate wording above. When I find safety related stuff that keeps me from signing off the CI, I give the owner a written list of the residual items (that's what I call them) but I don't write anything in the logs, since there's no requirement in the OL's to do so - only to sign it off as safe if I find it safe, and the airplane cannot be flown legally if it hasn't been signed off.
So no signing a log if it's not in a condition for safe operation, and a signoff when it is.
Thanks for that, Marc; it's pretty much how I figured it would go.
Kinda like a Flight Review - if one is substandard, the CFI simply doesn't sign off.