Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 106

Thread: Why do people call Condition Inspections " Annuals"

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    1,609

    Why do people call Condition Inspections " Annuals"

    Why is it most people refer to thier Condition Inspection as an Annual? An Annual and a Condition Inspection are two different inspections. Does anyone see the reason why a Condition Inspection should Not be called an Annual?

    Tony

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    FA40
    Posts
    767
    just a wild guess, but maybe conditionals are erroneously called annuals because they're done every year?

  3. #3
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,948
    Quote Originally Posted by 1600vw View Post
    Why is it most people refer to thier Condition Inspection as an Annual? An Annual and a Condition Inspection are two different inspections. Does anyone see the reason why a Condition Inspection should Not be called an Annual?
    Taxonomy via Similarity. They are basically identical to a production aircraft's annual inspection, it's natural to call it by the same name. The only difference is that there's no certification standard (type certificate) to compare it to.

    It's also a good short cut. Tell non-homebuilder that your plane is having its "Conditional" inspection, they don't know what you mean. Use the term "annual inspection" and even non-pilots immediately grasp what's going on.

    I tend to use the word "annual," unless I'm actually talking to my A&P to set it up. Then I use "Conditional Inspection" so he knows that I KNOW the difference.

    Next: Biennial vs. Biannual Flight Review! :-)

    Ron Wanttaja

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    1,609
    Quote Originally Posted by rwanttaja View Post
    Taxonomy via Similarity. They are basically identical to a production aircraft's annual inspection, it's natural to call it by the same name. The only difference is that there's no certification standard (type certificate) to compare it to.

    It's also a good short cut. Tell non-homebuilder that your plane is having its "Conditional" inspection, they don't know what you mean. Use the term "annual inspection" and even non-pilots immediately grasp what's going on.

    I tend to use the word "annual," unless I'm actually talking to my A&P to set it up. Then I use "Conditional Inspection" so he knows that I KNOW the difference.

    Next: Biennial vs. Biannual Flight Review! :-)

    Ron Wanttaja

    I have spoke with many A&P's who did not understand many things about a Condition inspection because they believe these are annuals. The biggest one being an IA is needed. Then they believe a Condition Inspection comes with the same liability as an Anual when this just is not the case.

    Short cuts are never good in aviation. If a non-homebuilder does not understand what a Condition Inspection is they need an education. Non-pilots grasp what an annual is. Really, I never knew what an annual was before I started flying. Maybe I am stupid.

    I have come across so many A&P's who do not know the difference between the two. They never even knew the word Condition was an inspection. They thought and believed all annual's are just that. They are not.

    A condition inspection is not like an annual. There are so many differences between they two. I could list them all.

    Ron I respect what you write so please give me a list of what is the same in an Annual and a Condition inspection.

    Condition inspection.
    I have no AD's to follow.
    I have no manufacturer check list to follow.
    I need no IA to sign my log book
    My airplane is not signed as being airworthy.
    Ect.

    Now please tell me what is the same besides this is done annually?

    Tony

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    1,205
    I don't see any problem with the phrase: "annual condition inspection". I think the FAA uses this phrase at times.
    The instructions for a homebuilts annual condition inspection are listed in the aircraft operating limitations, where it says to comply with appendix D of part 43.
    Certified aircraft annuals must also comply with appendix D. (Appendix D is rather simplistic)

  6. #6
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,948
    Quote Originally Posted by 1600vw View Post
    A condition inspection is not like an annual. There are so many differences between they two. I could list them all.

    Ron I respect what you write so please give me a list of what is the same in an Annual and a Condition inspection.

    Condition inspection.
    I have no AD's to follow.
    I have no manufacturer check list to follow.
    I need no IA to sign my log book
    My airplane is not signed as being airworthy.
    Ect.

    Now please tell me what is the same besides this is done annually?
    14 CFR Part 43 Appendix D describes what must be included in annual and 100-hour inspections. While Part 43 does not apply to Experimentals, our operating limitations almost always specify the airplane be inspected to the scope and detail of Appendix D.

    As far not having to follow ADs, this is not true...according to the latest interpretation by the FAA. Homebuilts must comply with ADs depending on the wording of the AD. If the AD for a piece of equipment does not limit it to particular aircraft types, then the AD applies to any aircraft...production or homebuilt...where the equipment is installed.

    For instance, AD 69-09-01 was issued on Eisemann magnetos more than 45 years ago. The applicability says, "Applies to all type AM-4, AM-6, LA-4, and LA-6 Eisemann magnetos installed on, but not necessarily limited to:" (Emphasis added)

    The "not necessarily limited to" is what the FAA interprets as making the AD applicable to a homebuilt. Now, someone could replace all the data plates on every piece of equipment in their engine compartment to obscure the basic nature of the parts...but few builders actually do that. So if it says "Eisemann AM-4", according to the FAA, the AD applies.

    And yes, I'm speaking from experience. I had to partially disassemble the mags in my Fly Baby to show compliance with the AD.

    True, we have no manufacturer's checklist to follow. But Part 43 does not require the owner of a production aircraft to use a manufacturer's checklist. It requires the use of a checklist, but says "...it can be of the person's own design." But since Part 43 doesn't apply to homebuilts, we aren't required to use a checklist.

    But is that a *good* thing? Shouldn't a responsible Repairman or A&P use what checklists are available...or develop their own... to ensure all the important items are covered? Wouldn't a checklist make a Condition inspection of a Lancair IVP (retractable gear, turbocharged, constant speed prop, pressurized) a LOT safer?

    A lot of homebuilders believe in them. Do a Google search, for instance, on "RV aircraft annual inspection checklist." Heck, the Fly Baby community collaborated on a condition inspection checklist.

    As far as not needing an IA to sign the logbook for a conditional inspection, that's certainly right. But if you've purchased a flying homebuilt instead of building one, you need an A&P to sign the logbook. My A&P has my Fly Baby logs right now, signing off the Condition Inspection. Heck, my Fly Baby's annual used to be "signed off" by an IA...just because the A&P I found had the authorization (he didn't mention the IA in his logbook entry).

    And yes, homebuilts are not signed off as being "Airworthy"... because the definition of "Airworthy" includes the IA's verification that the aircraft still conforms to its Type Certificate. My homebuilt gets signed as being in a condition for safe operation.

    For the most part, this difference is just semantics. It used to take the A&P/IA about eight hours to annual my old Cessna 150. Of that, maybe 15 minutes were spent on the certification data. If the plane hadn't been repaired or modified in the past year, there's really not that much to being "airworthy" other than the same inspection that should be done on a homebuilt.

    Ron Wanttaja

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Tehachapi, CA
    Posts
    219
    Quote Originally Posted by rwanttaja View Post
    As far not having to follow ADs, this is not true...according to the latest interpretation by the FAA. Homebuilts must comply with ADs depending on the wording of the AD. If the AD for a piece of equipment does not limit it to particular aircraft types, then the AD applies to any aircraft...production or homebuilt...where the equipment is installed.
    Although I agree with most of what you wrote regarding the differences and similarities between "Annuals" and "Condition Inspections" (and although you're usually correct and I agree with you when you are :-) ), you've got this backwards.

    From AC39-7D, released on 3/2/2012, section 9 explicitly states:

    "... Unless statedotherwise (see subparagraph 9b of this AC), ADs only apply to type-certificated (TC) aircraft,including ADs issued for an engine, propeller, and appliance."

    This is VERY clear that if the FAA wants an AD to apply to an non-TC'd aircraft, they have to explicitly say so. Part (9b), referenced above, states:

    "The AD applicability statement will identify if the AD applies tonon-TC’d aircraft or engines, propellers, and appliances installed thereon."

    So the default is that AD's don't apply unless explicitly called out. So far, I haven't seen an AD that applies to EAB aircraft, but I only pay attention to canards.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    FA40
    Posts
    767
    Certainly was up for grabs before the "d" revision! The examples there helped. If it doesn't have the magic words "applies to any" etc, then it doesn't apply to all. Still wiggle room for the inventive mind on either side of the discussion but darn little. Excellent example of how hard it is to craft universally understood, simple instructions when dealing with intelligent type A personalities. Annual inspection for operating condition. Already have an annual inspection. Call this one a condition inspection, then, you take the last donut and let's beat the traffic going home. Yep, I can imagine the meeting that wrote that rule.
    Last edited by Mike M; 04-15-2015 at 04:53 AM.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    1,342
    "From AC39-7D"

    Please be very careful. "AC"s are not regulatory. Operating limitations and AD's are regulatory. In the world of the FAA you must follow the op lims and AD's over AC's. The FAA, like the IRS, does not always give correct advice.

    So post #6 is correct, not #7 and #8. Unfortunately, you have to parse this stuff like a lawyer.

    Best of luck,

    Wes
    N78PS

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    1,609
    Quote Originally Posted by WLIU View Post
    "From AC39-7D"

    Please be very careful. "AC"s are not regulatory. Operating limitations and AD's are regulatory. In the world of the FAA you must follow the op lims and AD's over AC's. The FAA, like the IRS, does not always give correct advice.

    So post #6 is correct, not #7 and #8. Unfortunately, you have to parse this stuff like a lawyer.

    Best of luck,

    Wes
    N78PS
    Everything in aviation has to be phrased in a such and such way, but the phrase Condition Inspection. People call it whatever they want and no one cares. But call an ASI a speedometer and see what it gets you. They both do the same thing.

    So AD's must be followed on an EAB, really this is news to me. For one who issue's an AD on a VW engine. Or a Prop made by some company without any certifications? There are no AD's that I must follow. The first A&P I hired to do my Condition Inspection wanted to find all AD's on my airplane. He sat in front of a computer for hours doing I have no idea what. Then he wanted an IA to sign my log book. I kept telling him this was a condition inspection, he kept calling it an annual. Its not an annual.

    AD's must be followed on a type certificate airframe, not on an EAB. We who fly these EAB's can not even see eye to eye on this. How do we expect the people who enforce the rules or play by them to understand this. Never will happen until we get get it together and stop calling our Condition Inspections an Annual.


    An annual is done annually to make sure an airplane is air worthy. A condition inspection is done yearly to make sure it's in a safe condition for operation. Nothing about the two are the same.

    I have to comply with my OP limitation, I do not have to comply with any AD's. My airplane is not an airworthy airframe. What ad's are there. Please post them for me so I can follow them. I will follow them if someone points me to just one. I will follow it. There are none.
    Last edited by 1600vw; 04-14-2015 at 06:37 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •