Repairman Inspection

[1600vw]

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

[rwanttaja]

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

[Marc Zeitlin]

... 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.

[rwanttaja]

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

[cub builder]

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

[Mike M]

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.

[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

[cub builder]

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

[rwanttaja]

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

[cub builder]

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