Why do people call Condition Inspections " Annuals"

[1600vw]

It is my understanding the answer is "When it no longer has a Lycoming or Continental Data Plate." But you would do better to talk to your local FSDO about their interpretation to that question.



Using Automotive spark plugs and an automotive harness to adapt to them would exempt you from a spark plug or ignition harness A.D. since there won't be any out there against the automotive Spark plugs. An aftermarket or home brewed exhaust would exempt you from an A.D. against that exhaust; again because there won't be an A.D. against a non-TSO exhaust system. But, just because you have an aftermarket or home brewed exhaust doesn't mean I wouldn't look at it for problems and recommend fixing it if there are problems. Same is true for your home brewed oil filter assembly. The alternator is part of the Airframe accessories, so that doesn't apply since we're talking Engine A.D.s and your E-AB airframe sure isn't going to have any A.D.s. But if you had an alternator that had known issues, I'd certainly bring it to your attention as well.



IMHO, Certificated engines do exist in the Experimental world. The FAA recognizes such, which is why you can have a 25 hour phase 1 test period if you use a certificated engine/prop combination on your E-AB aircraft. That is exactly what I did on one of my E-AB aircraft. The engine and prop were in the same combination as they would have been when installed in a certificated aircraft. The engine and prop both met the standards for their individual Type Certificates (including STCs) when they were installed into my aircraft (although I completed a field overhaul to new standards prior to installation). IMHO, if the engine is built and maintained in compliance with it's Type Certificate, then it is still a certificated engine. As such, I would have no problem with mounting it back into a certificated aircraft. I keep seeing people stating otherwise in the forums, but I would respectfully disagree. If it meets the standard of it's type certificate, it can be used as such.

So let's be clear about something here. There is what you may be able to get away with legally, and then there's the issue of asking a mechanic to put his license at risk by signing for an engine that's not up to snuff on it's A.D.s. Those are two different subjects. I've never had an owner offer to indemnify me as a mechanic if the FAA decides they don't like something I signed for, and I don't get to go back and bill the owner for the time I'm going to waste dealing with the FAA because the owner didn't think complying with A.D.s was a necessity.

FWIW, I was wearing an airplane builder hat some 30 years before I got my A&P hat, so I believe I do see both sides of the coin here. For the purposes of this discussion, I've been wearing my A&P hat since the discussion started out with Tony's favorite subject of bashing us ignorant A&Ps. But I must admit, I have had problems tying my shoes in the morning since acquiring the license.

-Cub Builder
A&P, Former EAA Technical Counselor, Former EAA Flight Advisor

Not bashing anyone. But as you can see in the posts this is a subject that people do not see eye to eye on. Just read the posts if you do not believe me.

Tony

[Bill Berson]

You guys arguing that AD's always apply to EAB aircraft might want to read this:

http://starduster.aircraftspruce.com...ges/25960.html

which covers the EAA's position on it - I imagine they've spent a good deal more time analyzing the regs than we have, and their position is that they do NOT apply (legally) and that the FAA is clear in their INTENT on that. The new AC merely clarifies that position. Yes, that message is 10 years old, but other than the new AC, nothing has changed in that time period.

As Jeff Point points out (well, that reads strangely) one (or a few) people misinterpreting the rules doesn't change the rules.

I always RECOMMEND that the owner research and comply with AD's on their engines/appliances if necessary when I do CI's, but I don't require it, as the regs don't require it.

The latest AC39-7D does state that future AD's shall apply to experimental or other types, when so stated in that AD.
I suspect most future engine AD's will indeed likely apply to experimentals.
Since the FAA has decided that some future AD's can apply to experimental engines, props and accessories, the experimental aircraft owner now has the burden to check. The FAA likely won't send any notice.

[Marc Zeitlin]

The latest AC39-7D does state that future AD's shall apply to experimental or other types, when so stated in that AD.

Which is exactly what I pointed out in my first response to this thread.

I suspect most future engine AD's will indeed likely apply to experimentals.

No doubt some will.

Since the FAA has decided that some future AD's can apply to experimental engines, props and accessories, the experimental aircraft owner now has the burden to check. The FAA likely won't send any notice.

You can subscribe to get email notices when AD's are written against engines or appliances that you have/use. That way, you won't be left out in the cold. You can then determine if your serial #'s or whatever match the AD and if you're required to comply or if you're N/A.

See:

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...ss_directives/

[1600vw]

This here in lies the problem. This thread has gone just where the Condition Inspection has gone. Its gone General Aviation or GA. With the advent of the Factory built LSA the word " Experimental " takes on a whole new meaning. Now updates or upgrades, things like an AD can come out and they should be followed. Any smart person would follow any advice given from the manufacturer of thier airframe or airplane even if not written in an AD.
The first thing I did when buying my first Rans was called Rans. I gave them all the info like serial number and they told me of all upgrades, those in the GA world would call them AD's. and if they were indeed installed or purchased these updates for this airframe.
This is why a Condition Inspection is called an Annual. Its a state of mind. We have lost the Experimental in Experimental. Today people want Certified. Just read all the post since post one.

Tony

[martymayes]

This here in lies the problem. This thread has gone just where the Condition Inspection has gone. Its gone General Aviation or GA. With the advent of the Factory built LSA the word " Experimental " takes on a whole new meaning.

The word "experimental" has a much broader scope than just homebuilts and it's been that way for a long time. I find it interesting that you feel that the holder of an A&P certificate should be familiar with the ongoing requirements of special a/w certificates issued to homebuilts. Is that one of the training and testing requirements for A&P's?

Yeah, someone says I need an annual on my homebuilt, I'm okay with that. I know what they mean. If someone walks up and ask if your homebuilt is "in license" you're gonna be thrown for a loop. It's all a state of mind.

[rwanttaja]

This is why a Condition Inspection is called an Annual. Its a state of mind. We have lost the Experimental in Experimental.

It's verbal shorthand, nothing more. It's just easier and more concise to say "Annual" than to have to explain to most people what a "Yearly Condition Inspection" is, and why it differs from an annual. Like an annual, the fundamental purpose of a condition inspection is to ensure a plane is safe to fly.

Sure, there's some failures in logic in the term, applied to homebuilts. But it's like when someone says, "ATM machine", or "SSD drive". Doesn't make sense, but you know what they mean.

Ron Wanttaja

[Bill Berson]

You can subscribe to get email notices when AD's are written against engines or appliances that you have/use. That way, you won't be left out in the cold. You can then determine if your serial #'s or whatever match the AD and if you're required to comply or if you're N/A.

See:

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...ss_directives/

thanks for that link. It seems the FAA has stopped sending me paper AD notices by mail for my registered aircraft.

[1600vw]

The word "experimental" has a much broader scope than just homebuilts and it's been that way for a long time. I find it interesting that you feel that the holder of an A&P certificate should be familiar with the ongoing requirements of special a/w certificates issued to homebuilts. Is that one of the training and testing requirements for A&P's?

Yeah, someone says I need an annual on my homebuilt, I'm okay with that. I know what they mean. If someone walks up and ask if your homebuilt is "in license" you're gonna be thrown for a loop. It's all a state of mind.

I would say an A&P should know the difference between a Certified airframe and one that is not. He/she should also know what is needed to keep both flying from the maintenance needed to the paper work.

Tony

[1600vw]

If someone tells me they need an Annual for the EAB, I say no you don't, you need a Condition inspection. There is a difference.

Tony

[martymayes]

I would say an A&P should know the difference between a Certified airframe and one that is not. He/she should also know what is needed to keep both flying from the maintenance needed to the paper work.

Tony, no where in the current FARs is an A&P required to have knowledge/training on homebuilt airplanes. I think the FAA is primarily responsible for your frustration and not so much individual A&P's.