I'm confused about the maintenance and annuals on an experimental I purchase.

[martymayes]

You bet I trust the speaker in a webinar put on by the EAA before any random comment on the internet.

Not a random comment. Straight out of an FAA publication - Order 8130.2F Chg. 3:

(23) Condition inspections must be recorded in the aircraft maintenance records showing the following, or a similarly worded, statement: “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 be in a condition for safe operation.” The entry will include the aircraft’s total time-in-service, and the name, signature, certificate number, and type of certificate held by the person performing the inspection.

I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer but I fail to see where an alternate method of signing off a condition inspection is described, permitted and/or acceptable. That's why I asked for someone to point out a reference which supports a different method of recording a condition inspection. Otherwise, it's a fallacy.

[Bill Berson]

No, that was discussed above... unless the A&P signs off that the aircraft is "in a condition for safe operation", it can't be flown, period.

Well, that is how I would sign your log because it puts the burden for repairs on you. Of course it can't be flown till the repair entry is made.
I have signed logs this way with certified airplanes and the FAA approved the log entry because it is the proper procedure when the inspector can't sign it off as airworthy or "condition for safe operation".

[Marc Zeitlin]

Well, that is how I would sign your log because it puts the burden for repairs on you. Of course it can't be flown till the repair entry is made.
I have signed logs this way with certified airplanes and the FAA approved the log entry because it is the proper procedure when the inspector can't sign it off as airworthy or "condition for safe operation".

Yes, but with a certificated aircraft, if you say "discrepancies so-and-so must be corrected", only an A&P can perform that work and then the A&P can sign it off as being done (unless it's major and you need an IA, blah, blah).

With an E/AB aircraft, only the RC holder or an A&P can sign it off for a CI, even though ANYONE can actually perform the work and sign the logbooks as having performed the work.

So even if you leave it to the owner to DO the work, without an A&P signoff of "in a condition for safe operation", the plane's not legal, because YOU didn't use that wording in the logs when you signed it. He'll either need you to sign it again or get another A&P to sign it off correctly and legally.

So the owner can make the "repair" entry, certainly, but that doesn't make the plane legal to fly.

[martymayes]

Well, that is how I would sign your log because it puts the burden for repairs on you. Of course it can't be flown till the repair entry is made.
I have signed logs this way with certified airplanes and the FAA approved the log entry because it is the proper procedure when the inspector can't sign it off as airworthy or "condition for safe operation".

And that works with certified airplanes because of the rules in Part 43. Anybody can look up the regs and understand the process.

With an E/AB those regs don't apply. Operating limitations provide guidance for the periodic inspection and sign off and that's what we are obligated to follow. Anyone should be able to look at the OL and understand the process.

[Dana]

Today I talked to a different A&P who understands the difference between what's required for certificated aircraft required to follow an STC'd covering process and what's required for experimentals, so all is good.

Yes, it's different for a certificated aircraft. Years ago I had an annual done on my Taylorcraft; we had to cut the fabric to remove some bird nests from the wings. I flew it home with duct tape, a ferry permit, and a note in the logbook to the effect that "when the fabric is properly repaired the aircraft will be considered airworthy." But as you point out that still required an A&P to sign off the final repairs, unlike an experimental.

When I bought the plane I had to go to the FSDO for a replacement airworthiness certificate. I asked about the test area in the op limitations (the original test area was 3000 miles away from me). He said they could issue me a new set of limitations with a new test area but they might require a new DAR inspection, so he advised me to leave well enough alone unless necessary.

[Bill Berson]

Yes, but with a certificated aircraft, if you say "discrepancies so-and-so must be corrected", only an A&P can perform that work and then the A&P can sign it off as being done (unless it's major and you need an IA, blah, blah).

With an E/AB aircraft, only the RC holder or an A&P can sign it off for a CI, even though ANYONE can actually perform the work and sign the logbooks as having performed the work.

So even if you leave it to the owner to DO the work, without an A&P signoff of "in a condition for safe operation", the plane's not legal, because YOU didn't use that wording in the logs when you signed it. He'll either need you to sign it again or get another A&P to sign it off correctly and legally.

So the owner can make the "repair" entry, certainly, but that doesn't make the plane legal to fly.

Not exactly. The owner of a Type Certificated aircraft can perform a long list of repairs and replace parts listed in 43 app A (preventive maintenance)
If the discrepancies list included items such as:
1) spark plugs worn
2) elastic shock cords worn
3)protective coating needed on engine mount
4)simple fabric patches
etc.
The owner can replace or repair these items and sign the logbook listing these repairs.
In this case, all the items qualify under preventive maintenance. So the owner can also return the aircraft to service under 43.7(f). There is no need for a mechanic to check and approve repairs listed under preventive maintenance.

[Bill Berson]

And that works with certified airplanes because of the rules in Part 43. Anybody can look up the regs and understand the process.

With an E/AB those regs don't apply. Operating limitations provide guidance for the periodic inspection and sign off and that's what we are obligated to follow. Anyone should be able to look at the OL and understand the process.

Yeh, we should be able to look and understand but it isn't that simple. Just look at FAR91.405 where it requires all aircraft be "repaired as prescribed in part 43". There is no exemption for E/AB for repairs in 91.405.

And the Condition inspection requires the inspection be in accordance with the Scope and Detail of part 43 (app D).

So the above two points contradicts where it says experimental are exempt, as mentioned in FAR43.1(b).

[1600vw]

Not a random comment. Straight out of an FAA publication - Order 8130.2F Chg. 3:

(23) Condition inspections must be recorded in the aircraft maintenance records showing the following, or a similarly worded, statement: “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 be in a condition for safe operation.” The entry will include the aircraft’s total time-in-service, and the name, signature, certificate number, and type of certificate held by the person performing the inspection.

I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer but I fail to see where an alternate method of signing off a condition inspection is described, permitted and/or acceptable. That's why I asked for someone to point out a reference which supports a different method of recording a condition inspection. Otherwise, it's a fallacy.

Airplane "A" goes in for Condition inspection. A&P does the inspection and hands the owner a list of things needing addressed. The owner addresses those things on the list. The A&P does not have to do another inspection, its been done. All that needs done is the list of problems need to be repaired or fixed. Another Condition Inspection does not need to be done, it was done and the A&P handed the problems or things needed fixed " discrepancies " to the owner. The inspection is done with discrepancies. No need for another inspection. Its been done.

[Dana]

Not exactly. The owner of a Type Certificated aircraft can perform a long list of repairs and replace parts listed in 43 app A (preventive maintenance)
If the discrepancies list included items such as:

The owner can replace or repair these items and sign the logbook listing these repairs.
In this case, all the items qualify under preventive maintenance. So the owner can also return the aircraft to service under 43.7(f). There is no need for a mechanic to check and approve repairs listed under preventive maintenance.

True. But most of those things aren't things that would cause the failure of an annual inspection, or would be quick fixes the IA would fix in the course of the inspection. But yes, the IA could pass it with discrepancies that the owner could fix himself.

Airplane "A" goes in for Condition inspection. A&P does the inspection and hands the owner a list of things needing addressed. The owner addresses those things on the list. The A&P does not have to do another inspection, its been done. All that needs done is the list of problems need to be repaired or fixed. Another Condition Inspection does not need to be done, it was done and the A&P handed the problems or things needed fixed " discrepancies " to the owner. The inspection is done with discrepancies. No need for another inspection. Its been done.

The problem there is that the A&P has to make an entry in the logbook stating, "I certify that this aircraft has been inspected on (date) in accordance with the scope and detail of FAR43, Appendix D, and found to be in a condition for safe operation." The operating limitations require that or similar wording. Any discrepancies and it's not "in a condition for safe operation" at that point so that logbook entry can't be made.

[1600vw]

The problem there is that the A&P has to make an entry in the logbook stating, "I certify that this aircraft has been inspected on (date) in accordance with the scope and detail of FAR43, Appendix D, and found to be in a condition for safe operation." The operating limitations require that or similar wording. Any discrepancies and it's not "in a condition for safe operation" at that point so that logbook entry can't be made.

Right but another Condition inspection is not needed. All that is needed is to look over the discrepancies and see if they have been addressed, then sign the log book. The Condition Inspection has been done. Another is not needed.