Annual Inspection runout during engine Overhaul

[pacerpilot]

I'm with you CubBuilder. I'm not an A&P but I fully understand your concern. The best all of us can do is establish a relationship with our A&P and make sure he/she is comfortable with our planes. Also, we need to make sure that the maintenance and repairs we do are done with full visibility and input from the A&P and that they are within our ability. Let's also not forget that education goes both ways too. I once had an A&P threaten to report me to the Feds because I was operating an unsafe aircraft. He was worried about me hand propping my 1946 Taylorcraft ever time I flew. He had never seen an airplane without an electric system! But back on topic, BCAIRPORT, a ferry permit is about a 60 minute task. I've done it several times and found the guys at the local FSDO to be quite helpful and interested in getting me the permit as quickly as possible. Of course the Houston guys are usually pretty enthusiastic about EAB's, vintage or, odd airplanes.

[martymayes]

The signature in the logs verifies a condition inspection has been performed IAW the aircraft operating limitations.

There is no statement certifying the aircraft has been inspected and found to be in compliance with applicable regs as required in Part 43 for store bought aircraft.

As for being sued over a condition inspection, I'd say the odds of that are similar to having the winning lottery ticket, or 1 in 175,000,000.

[Max Torque]

Marty's correct, an annual condition inspection is to be completed in accordance with the Aircraft Operating Limitations (which normally refer one over to Part 43)....and just as with certified planes, the inspection is to be performed according to the scope and detail set forth in Part 43 Appendix D, at minimum. (Manufactures may require more.) Also, whoever performs the inspection, be it someone with a Repairman Certificate or A&P (normally listed as "appropriately rated FAA certificated mechanic") still is held to recording the inspection in accordance with the requirements of 14 CFR part 43, sections 43.9and 43.11
The reason Part 43 normally comes into the picture is because most of the operating limitations - at least those I've seen - are worded something like this:
“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] inaccordance 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 total time in service, and the name, signature, certificate number, and type of certificate held by the person performing the inspection.”

[1600vw]

Marty's correct, an annual condition inspection is to be completed in accordance with the Aircraft Operating Limitations (which normally refer one over to Part 43)....and just as with certified planes, the inspection is to be performed according to the scope and detail set forth in Part 43 Appendix D, at minimum. (Manufactures may require more.) Also, whoever performs the inspection, be it someone with a Repairman Certificate or A&P (normally listed as "appropriately rated FAA certificated mechanic") still is held to recording the inspection in accordance with the requirements of 14 CFR part 43, sections 43.9and 43.11
The reason Part 43 normally comes into the picture is because most of the operating limitations - at least those I've seen - are worded something like this:
“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] inaccordance 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 total time in service, and the name, signature, certificate number, and type of certificate held by the person performing the inspection.”

Great post..
The problem lies when one calls this inspection as the title of this thread. When one calls this inspection an annual and you speak with an A&P whom does not deal with Experimental aircraft this A&P believes this is indeed and Annual and not a Condition Inspection.
Now I did not say every A&P in the world feels this way but some, and when I say all I have spoke with I do not mean every A&P in the world but the few I have spoke with in my world. I have been told I am speaking about every A&P in the world and calling them inept.

Tony

[BCAIRPORT]

Thanks Tony and all.
If the very first post is read, you will notice that I stated that the aircraft was a "Cessna".
No mention of Condition Inspections and Experimental Aircraft was made.
I realize that this IS an EAA forum but not all members fly ONLY Experimental Aircraft.
The Question WAS answered early in the posts.
Game over!
Let it Lie.
Go help someone that needs help. Please.
Bob Doughty
Originator of this Thread.

[1600vw]

Thanks Tony and all.
If the very first post is read, you will notice that I stated that the aircraft was a "Cessna".
No mention of Condition Inspections and Experimental Aircraft was made.
I realize that this IS an EAA forum but not all members fly ONLY Experimental Aircraft.
The Question WAS answered early in the posts.
Game over!
Let it Lie.
Go help someone that needs help. Please.
Bob Doughty
Originator of this Thread.

yes I noticed this after I posted. Thanks for not ripping me a new one over that. I have read threads from others whom state the EAA has gone GA.

Tony Sweet

[BCAIRPORT]

I am not sure I understand " EAA has gone GA".
I have always been "both" as are most.
I would guess that fewer had their first airplane ride in an Experimental and did their initial flight training in an Experimental.
I also fly a Marquart Charger MA5 and am the Owner/Moderator of the MA5 Group on YAHOO! Groups.
The Experimental Group are the movers and shakers of the General Aviation World.
BUT....There should be no separation if we are to keep our rights to break free of the bonds of gravity.
Bob Doughty

[1600vw]

I am not sure I understand " EAA has gone GA".
I have always been "both" as are most.
I would guess that fewer had their first airplane ride in an Experimental and did their initial flight training in an Experimental.
I also fly a Marquart Charger MA5 and am the Owner/Moderator of the MA5 Group on YAHOO! Groups.
The Experimental Group are the movers and shakers of the General Aviation World.
BUT....There should be no separation if we are to keep our rights to break free of the bonds of gravity.
Bob Doughty

I believe if the founder wanted the GA world to be part of this it would be the EAA-GA. I do not believe the founder had GA in mind when he started this club. I believe GA was left outside and only experimentals was the subject at hand.
Now correct me on this and set me straight for I am sure I am wrong and Paul was all about GA and wanted this club to be more General Aviation based.
Tony

[Frank Giger]

I'm sure Paul never ran out to a guy flying a certified aircraft while waving his arms shouting "oh, hail noes!" at any fly-in or meeting.

The EAA has always been inclusive, though its primary focus was on homebuilding, because Paul and crew believed it was the most cost effective way for the Average Joe to get up in the air.

Similarly, folks that restore certified aircraft are homebuilders on steriods. Not only do they do all the same things that homebuilders do, they have to put up with a huge amount of trouble meeting the design specs and procedures.

[1600vw]

I'm sure Paul never ran out to a guy flying a certified aircraft while waving his arms shouting "oh, hail noes!" at any fly-in or meeting.

The EAA has always been inclusive, though its primary focus was on homebuilding, because Paul and crew believed it was the most cost effective way for the Average Joe to get up in the air.

Similarly, folks that restore certified aircraft are homebuilders on steriods. Not only do they do all the same things that homebuilders do, they have to put up with a huge amount of trouble meeting the design specs and procedures.

Frank with all respect I must disagree. Someone rebuilding or restoring a Certified airplane plays by a complete different set of rules then a man building a HB. Nothing on a HB is airworthy. Everything on a Certified airplane is airworthy and must come tagged to prove it. Also it takes an A&P to work on a Certified airplane. My 5 year old Grand daughter could work on my airplane and its legal.

Nothing about the two are the same.

Whats the same about the two? You get in, start it, get the engine running, point them into the wind, get them moving fast enough to produce lift, and you leave earth. Everything else is different.