Why do people call Condition Inspections " Annuals"

[Sam Buchanan]

And while we are parsing semantics.....it is condition inspection. The inspection isn't conditional on anything, it is to state the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation.

Repeat after me.....condition, condition, condition......

[Dana]

In some cases experimentals are approved for a shorter phase 1 flight test period when they have a certificated engine/prop combination. In this case an A&P is required to maintain the engine, and presumably then any ADs for that engine apply.

I call it an "annual" or "annual condition inspection" because if I just say "condition inspection" people will think I'm talking about a pre-buy inspection or something like that.

[Sam Buchanan]

In some cases experimentals are approved for a shorter phase 1 flight test period when they have a certificated engine/prop combination. In this case an A&P is required to maintain the engine, and presumably then any ADs for that engine apply.

I call it an "annual" or "annual condition inspection" because if I just say "condition inspection" people will think I'm talking about a pre-buy inspection or something like that.

The 25 hour Phase One does not change who is able to perform maintenance on the engine. Anyone can do any maintenance on an experimental regardless of how long Phase One lasted. If the possessor of the Repairman Certificate is not available/willing then an A&P needs to endorse the logs for the Condition Inspection.

[WLIU]

The good news for some is that the FAA does not issue AD's on VW engines. But they do issue AD's on certificated parts and assemblies and if you use one in your Exp Amateur Built, you might run into an AD that is written to apply to you. The individual who performs a condition inspection should check for this.

I will note that many AD's identify real issues that can occur on both certificated and exp aircraft. Some AD's are just covering a manufacturer's liability. But you do not know which is which unless you read them. If you use certificated parts in your exp, you ignore AD's at your peril. What is the old saying - Aviation is intolerant of ignorance or neglect?

Fly safe,

Wes
N78PS

[Marc Zeitlin]

Please be very careful. "AC"s are not regulatory. Operating limitations and AD's are regulatory.

That is correct.

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.

That is also correct. But that doesn't imply that ALL advice that they give in AC's is wrong - in fact, the great majority of it is correct.

So post #6 is correct, not #7 and #8.

I have done many CI's on many aircraft, and reviewed their Op Limits. I've seen OL's that were written in the 70's, 80's, 90's, 00's, and 10's. I have never seen any OL's that explicitly (or implicitly) stated that the aircraft must comply with AD's written on the airframe (not sure how that would even happen), engine, engine components, or appliances. There is no facility in the 8130.2G order for assigning applicability of AD's to EAB aircraft in the OL's, nor was there, as far as I could tell, in previous versions of the document.

As the AC states, _IF_ an AD is written that explicitly states that it applies to a particular aircraft which might be EAB, THEN it does, and must be complied with. But the OL's do not speak to AD's, and the AC is accurate as written, whether regulatory or not.

The wording "But Not Necessarily Limited To" is NOT the same as "In All Possible Installations", even if someone that Ron W. had to deal with thought it did mean the same thing. That has never been the EAA or the official FAA's interpretation previous to the release of version d of the AC, in my understanding.

Now, as has been discussed many times before, and I reiterate to all of my customers, whether required or not, you're very possibly an idiot if you don't comply with a safety related AD if you've got the item discussed on your airplane - the item does not know whether your plane is TC'd or not.

[Dana]

The 25 hour Phase One does not change who is able to perform maintenance on the engine. Anyone can do any maintenance on an experimental regardless of how long Phase One lasted. If the possessor of the Repairman Certificate is not available/willing then an A&P needs to endorse the logs for the Condition Inspection.

Did that change at some point? I haven't paid attention recently, but I thought at one time there was a reduced test time with a certificated engine... which carried the requirement for the engine to stay certificated, meaning an A&P to work on it (as always, anybody could work on the rest of the plane). As I understood or recall it, you could stop treating the engine as certificated by putting the plane back into phase 1 testing again for some number of hours. But I could have misunderstood it then or misrecall it now.

[Sam Buchanan]

Did that change at some point? I haven't paid attention recently, but I thought at one time there was a reduced test time with a certificated engine... which carried the requirement for the engine to stay certificated, meaning an A&P to work on it (as always, anybody could work on the rest of the plane). As I understood or recall it, you could stop treating the engine as certificated by putting the plane back into phase 1 testing again for some number of hours. But I could have misunderstood it then or misrecall it now.

A certificated prop in combination with a certificated engine can indeed result in a 25 hr Phase 1 instead of 50 hr. But maintenance requirements are the same regardless of the ancestry of the prop and engine. As I recall this has been the case since I have been in the experimental community (~25 years).

An engine cannot "stay certificated" in an aircraft with an experimental airworthiness certificate. Certification requires a particular engine/prop combination in the same airframe in which certification was achieved. In other words, in a type certificated airframe.

But experimentals don't have type certificates. Consequently, it is impossible to have a "certificated" engine in an experimental. Having said that, it is possible to maintain an engine and prop to the same standards as it would have been maintained in a type certificated airframe, but the engine is no longer "certificated".

I've heard builders say they want to "keep their engine certified" so it can be later sold (at a higher price) and installed in a certificated aircraft. Even though the engine may have been maintained to a high level, it would most likely be very difficult to find an A&P/IA to install the engine and endorse the logs without a complete teardown to insure it still meets certification standards. So the intended advantage really doesn't exist.

[Anymouse]

I typically refer to my Condition Inspection as an Annual Inspection because I don't want to have to explain what a Conditional Inspection is to a non-EAB'er.

Did I ever mention how lazy I am??

[FlyingRon]

Same reason people call Flight Reviews 'Biennials.'

[malexander]

And while we are parsing semantics.....it is condition inspection. The inspection isn't conditional on anything, it is to state the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation.

Repeat after me.....condition, condition, condition......

THANK YOU!!!! Sam