Repairs on an Experimental/AB

[Russell Peitz]

I'll throw my thoughts, comments and an experience into the ring.

I wouldn't take my Ford F-350 to a Ferrari mechanic, not that the Ferrari mechanics aren't good guys, but they just don't know my F-350. So why take your E-A/B Humdinger 3000 to a mechanic at Big City Jetport FBO? You get the idea. Ask and discuss before having an unknown mechanic work on your plane.

I'm an A&P who stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night so I think I get this.

I have a friend who owns a RV-4, very popular kit, shouldn't be a problem for any average GA mechanic. He took it to a local GA shop and dropped it off for an annual (oh cr*p I mean a condition inspection). A few weeks go by, the phone call comes, we have issues. Some are obvious, he says fix it, others squawks require further work/investigation. A few more weeks, they give him the full list, the estimate is something like $10,000+ to finish the airplane. The arguments start, he says no to some items, they say must fix to sign off the inspection (wrong), feelings get hurt, bad words, etc. Now I get the call, what to do he asks. I tell him to have all work stopped, assemble the aircraft and sign off the condition inspection with a list of discrepancies, we are coming to get the airplane.

$5,000 later he has an airplane sitting on a ramp with an expired condition inspection and a logbook entry with the squawks. I ferried it home. Here was the problem in my opinion. The mechanic was treating this as a certificated aircraft and either didnt have the knowledge of homebuilts or didn't want to put his name in the book, any case I now had to address this list of discrepancies that were put in the logs, which isn't the correct method either, but I digress.

14 items in all, two of the discrepancies really made me think. First classic was "aircraft not wired IAW AC 43.13-1B". How do I correct this in the log? I'm thinking "aircraft doesn't have to be wired IAW AC43.13-1b". However that basically is saying your wrong I'm right. The other was "fuel tanks not constructed IAW design plans", and they don't have to be!! On the wiring I assume he didn't like the routing and electical tape, the wire itself was aviation grade so were the terminals, so we cleaned up the routing and such. On the tanks he didn't like the the tanks had sloshing compound put over top of the pro-seal and call that "unairworthy". Vans aircraft actually suggested this construction method in the late 80's, but since has changed their methods. In either case the construction method used was approved by the FAA when the airplane got its experiment airworthiness certificate, so it really isn't an issue. I ended up referencing a service bulletin from vans that addressed the sloshing compound and we installed an inline fuel filter to catch any slosh that might ever break free (none had or has since)

In the end we had the airplane back in the air, with a fresh condition inspection, from me, for less than $300 in parts plus the owner did most of the labor.

The lesson to all involved is, if you're the mechanic learn to say "I'm not the guy for this" if it's something you either don't want to or can't do. For the owner of the airplane, stay involved, know your options and don't get bullied into fixing stuff that isn't broke.

I know the mechanic involved, he is a good guy, runs a respectable shop, this situation just got out of control. In the experimental world there is a lot of judgement and opinion what constitutes a condition for safe operation, discuss things early and cut bait if need be.

The other side, as mentioned in other posts, is sometimes a mechanic just plain doesn't want to work on something that he/she has to put their name to in a logbook. In that case a simple no thank you for the work will suffice, not snide comments about death traps.

Blue side up....... Sometimes,

Russell

[1600vw]

Russell Peitz: very good article.
This is what I went through. I was working on stuff the FAA had already inspected and called good before the airplane ever flew. Now I am a rebel for using these parts or keeping them in repair or in condition for safe use.
I would love to start a shop and work on nothing but EAB's and do it just as you state. The owner is part of this. The A&P points out what needs addressed and the owner repairs it. After all repairs the owner pays the A&P his fee's of a few hundred bucks and has his aircrafts condition inspection is done.
I still believe not as much liability in a condition inspection. No one says my airplane is safe to fly, I fly it on my own accord or take all the risk. If it breaks and it has, it is not the A&P's fault for nothing about this aircraft is airworthy.

Again great read and I would love to have an A&P like yourself I could call a friend.
Tony

[martymayes]

A list of "discrepancies" in an E-AB record means nothing. There's no provision for completing a condition inspection and providing the owner with a list of discrepancies, like a store bought airplane inspected under 43.11(a)(5).

Either the condition inspection is performed or it isn't. If someone starts a condition inspection then decides they can't complete it, no record entry is required and if I'm writing the check, the mechanic doesn't get paid. Breach of contract for failing to perform specified task. If there were any discrepancies entered in the maintenance records by the mechanic, he would be sorry he did that. But in the end, they would just be removed from the record, no 'correcting' entry required.

[Mike M]

A list of "discrepancies" in an E-AB record means nothing. There's no provision for completing a condition inspection and providing the owner with a list of discrepancies, like a store bought airplane inspected under 43.11(a)(5). Either the condition inspection is performed or it isn't. If someone starts a condition inspection then decides they can't complete it, no record entry is required and if I'm writing the check, the mechanic doesn't get paid. Breach of contract for failing to perform specified task. If there were any discrepancies entered in the maintenance records by the mechanic, he would be sorry he did that. But in the end, they would just be removed from the record, no 'correcting' entry required.

It only makes sense that if the conditional is done iaw pt43 app D as directed in the operating limitations, one could complete it with a discrepancy list the same way as an annual would be under 43.11(a)(5). then no reinspection would be needed after correction. Save money, save time, still safe, great. But from the references you and i can find so far, common sense + cfr = TILT.

if a client refused to pay the piper if the inspection was not completed, one could complete the inspection and enter “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 not be in a condition for safe operation.” the operating limitations allow a "similarly worded statement" of the inspection result, and adding only three letters is pretty darn similar in format. inspection done, no breach of contract. but also no list of discrepancies in the logbook or otherwise. didn't pay for a list. another inspection would mean another invoice. takes two to tango. if y'wanna dance, i went to Arthur Murray. but that poisons relationships. better to make it clear up front that an inspection does not guarantee a sign-off for safe operation.

i do agree that a list of discrepancies in the log could be removed with "entered in error" since i can't find a requirement to list any discrepancies in either logbook, certificated or E-AB. from what i found, only maintenance performed goes in the logbook.

these are only off-the-cuff opinions. i'm sure if i'm wrong, someone will have an FAA reference to correct me. i'm counting on it!

[martymayes]

It only makes sense that if the conditional is done iaw pt43 app D as directed in the operating limitations, one could complete it with a discrepancy list the same way as an annual would be under 43.11(a)(5). then no reinspection would be needed after correction. Save money, save time, still safe, great. But from the references you and i can find so far, common sense + cfr = TILT.

So who reconciles the discrepancies? Is it not a fact that anyone can perform repairs and maintenance on a homebuilt? When that work is complete, no log entry and/or signature is required to return the aircraft to service. And there is no requirement to maintain a record of any repairs or maintenance.

In your example, the A&P performs a condition inspection, hands a list of discrepancies to the owner, owner tosses list in trash can and flies off into the sunset. The inspection was completed and the owner reconciled the discrepancies. All good, right?

if a client refused to pay the piper if the inspection was not completed, one could complete the inspection and enter “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 not be in a condition for safe operation.” the operating limitations allow a "similarly worded statement" of the inspection result, and adding only three letters is pretty darn similar in format.

Not sure what is accomplished by doing that. By not making any kind of entry, same objective is achieved.

And FWIW, while similar in format, I think a "similarly worded statement" is one that has the same overall meaning.

takes two to tango. if y'wanna dance, i went to Arthur Murray. but that poisons relationships. better to make it clear up front that an inspection does not guarantee a sign-off for safe operation.

I agree, and like certificated aircraft, the breakdown is almost always due to poor communication between owner/operator and mechanic. The expectations of both parties during a condition inspection should be made clear and agreed upon before the first screw is turned.

[Mike M]

Marty, your points are valid.

"Not sure what is accomplished by doing that. By not making any kind of entry, same objective is achieved. "

unless the owner won't pay for an incomplete in$pection. that'$ a different objective. completion = entry.


"anyone can perform repairs and maintenance on a homebuilt...no log entry and/or signature is required...no requirement to maintain a record of any repairs or maintenance..."

that's what i meant when i said it would make sense to record unsatisfactory yearly conditionals the same way as 43.11(a)(5). including a requirement to sign off the discrepancy list. but it doesn't work that way. you're right.

a lot of us put TMI in e-ab logbooks out of habit. as you noted, no normal maintenance and corrective action entries required. just successful yearly conditionals and, depending on equipment and operating area, successful altimeter & elt & xpdr checks required by cfr parts other than 43. check the aircraft's own operating limitations, of course, they may require other entries.

what did i miss?

[1600vw]

I log all repairs for a couple of reasons.
First if I want to sell my airplane I can show the person looking at her that I do indeed keep my airplane in top shape by using New not rebuilt parts when ever I can.
Second I tell the wife, if something happens to me or my airplane breaks in flight and I do not come back anyone can look at my logs and see what was the last work performed. All my work is done by myself no one to blame but me if something goes wrong or breaks. I let her know this up front. Even after a condition inspection she understands no one but me works on my airplane. If it breaks its on me. NO ONE ELSE, and it has broken before right after a condition inspection on the first flight out of the shop. Mike Busch speaks about maintenance induced failures and they do happen.

[Dave Prizio]

Here is the offending passage from Amy Laboda's article: "Someone who has purchased an Experimental, but does not have an A&P certificate, will have to go either to an A&P or the original builder (if he holds the repairman's certificate) in order to have it repaired."

I imagine that Amy Laboda will respond to the feedback about her comment in the next KITPLANES issue. But I will come to her defense right now. What she said is true. What many people think she said is not, but then she didn't say that you couldn't do the repair work yourself. She only said you would have to go to an A&P or the repair cert holder to have it repaired. That is true.

Anyone may work on an E/AB airplane. However, if you are a non-builder owner you will need to get either the holder of the Repairman Certificate (the original builder) or an A&P to sign off your condition inspection. The rub comes when there is a need for major structural repair, such as was mentioned in the article, and you are not an A&P or Rep Cert holder. You can certainly do the repair work yourself, but come inspection time you will need to be able to convince your A&P that your repairs were done in an airworthy manner. For this reason it is prudent to work with your A&P on such repairs from the beginning. If you don't do this you may not be able to get your A&P to sign off on your condition inspection. That will force you to rework the repairs and/or do additional work that you didn't expect to do. Does your A&P have to actually do any of the work? Absolutely not. Does your A&P have to be satisfied that the repair work done by you or whomever you choose to help you is airworthy? You betcha. So you will have to go to an A&P to get your plane repaired. It is just a question of when in the process you do it.

[FlyingRon]

It's still wrong no matter how you weasel it, even if it was taken from the middle of a paragraph on condition inspections. It's just wrong. A condition inspection is need once a year. Inspections (either condition for experimental or annuals for certificated) are NOT repairs.

[deej]

Here is the offending passage from Amy Laboda's article: "Someone who has purchased an Experimental, but does not have an A&P certificate, will have to go either to an A&P or the original builder (if he holds the repairman's certificate) in order to have it repaired."

I imagine that Amy Laboda will respond to the feedback about her comment in the next KITPLANES issue. But I will come to her defense right now. What she said is true.

I have to disagree, Dave. If she said "MAY have to go" I would agree with your assessment, but she said "WILL", implying there is no option. I suspect when she responds, she meant to write "in order to have it inspected", and mistakenly put in the word "repaired" by accident.

-Dj