Modification to EAB/LSA Aircraft

[martymayes]

If they explicitly exempt Experimental aircraft, yes. But 91.417 does not exempt them, therefore I maintain that maintenance records are required. If you can show me something that indicates that 91.417 doesn't apply to Experimental aircraft, I (and presumably the LOBO) would need to change our tune.

Since 91.417(a)(1)(iii) requires a certificate number in conjunction with the signature, we have a problem for the sign off unless we "cherry pick" those words out of the regulatory text, say it doesn't apply and not use it. However, IAW your own testimony above, homebuilts are not explicity exempted from 91.417, which includes para (a)(1)(iii). If the language said "signature and certificate number where applicable" you'd be home free. But it doesn't say that. Heaven forbid the maintainer is illiterate, I guess that's a whole new can of worms.

Maintenance recording regs become somewhat fuzzy when one tries to apply them to homebuilts. There is nothing that specifically requires it. We can certainly cherry pick regs out of context and apply them to support an argument, but that doesn't make it regulatory. Clubs are other organizations can say such and such is required but that doesn't make it so. There is no reasonable amount of civil proceedings to form a legal precedent, so it's 'swing and a miss' strike three.

I believe owners of homebuilts should voluntarily make a reasonable effort to track maintenance work on the plane but lets face it - what would happen if it doesn't happen? Nothing! How does the FAA take certificate action against someone that has no certificate?

[martymayes]

But they do have airworthiness certificates.

Minor nit, they have a Special Airworthiness Certificate. There are no express or implied airworthiness standards attached, it's just a method to authorize operation in US airspace.

[Jim Hann]

Since 91.417(a)(1)(iii) requires a certificate number in conjunction with the signature, we have a problem for the sign off unless we "cherry pick" those words out of the regulatory text, say it doesn't apply and not use it. However, IAW your own testimony above, homebuilts are not explicity exempted from 91.417, which includes para (a)(1)(iii). If the language said "signature and certificate number where applicable" you'd be home free. But it doesn't say that. Heaven forbid the maintainer is illiterate, I guess that's a whole new can of worms.

Marty, you have a certificate number. It does not say "mechanic" it only says "person" The only person who *might* not have a certificate number is a person who has never soloed. Even Sport Pilot Students have a Student certificate that has a number. I did a bunch of work on my certificated airplane under the supervision of an A&P/IA and my ATP certificate number is in the logbooks for that labor. In all reality it doesn't matter if you sign it off with a number or not, if you are operating said airplane and something happens your pilot certificate is on the line!

Marc, thanks for the informative discussion. Currently have a certificated airplane but looking at experimentals all the time it is good education.

Jim

[martymayes]

Marty, you have a certificate number. It does not say "mechanic" it only says "person" The only person who *might* not have a certificate number is a person who has never soloed. Even Sport Pilot Students have a Student certificate that has a number. I did a bunch of work on my certificated airplane under the supervision of an A&P/IA and my ATP certificate number is in the logbooks for that labor. In all reality it doesn't matter if you sign it off with a number or not, if you are operating said airplane and something happens your pilot certificate is on the line!

Marc, thanks for the informative discussion. Currently have a certificated airplane but looking at experimentals all the time it is good education.

Jim

Hi Jim.

What we were discussing in this thread is that anyone can work on a homebuilt aircraft. ANYONE. They are not required to hold any kind of airman certificate, drivers license, voter registration, AARP card, AAA membership, etc., nothing. They are not even required to know how to read and write.

So my question is: How would a person that has no FAA certificate and can't read or write, make a logbook entry IAW 91.417(a)(1)(iii)???? If they sign their name with an "X" because they can't write their name, would that be satisfactory?????

(BTW, this is just an academic exercise. My point being the gov. would never leave this many holes in the regs for something that is required, trust me).


Regarding your responsibilities while working on a type certificated aircraft:

There is no FAR that requires your pilot certificate number to be recorded in a logbook when you are being supervised by an A&P/IA. Only your name is required (not a signature). Ref: 43.9(a)(3).
I have had someone work on a certificated aircraft under my supervision that did not have any kind of FAA airman certificate. This is permitted under Part 43, however, to comply with the rules his name had to recorded in he logbook as the person who performed the work.

Now, if you are performing preventive maintenance, which you are permitted to do with only a pilot certificate AND you are approving that work, which you are permitted to do with only a pilot certificate, you are required to sign your name, write your certificate number and kind of certificate you hold in the appropriate aircraft logbook. Ref: 43.9(a)(4).

[Sam Buchanan]

The only maintenance log entries required per regulation for an aircraft with an experimental airworthiness certificate is an endorsement by either the holder of the Repairman Certificate for that particular aircraft or an A&P mechanic stating the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation (Condition Inspection).

Any other maintenance entries in the log book are at the discretion of the owner but not required per FARs or the Operating Limitations of the aircraft.

Pitot/static/transponder/encoder checks are another issue but that isn't under consideration in this thread.

The statements above are the regulatory side of the question. From a practical standpoint, maintenance entries may be helpful for tracking hours in service of components and will most likely enhance resale of the aircraft when that time comes. Owners have various personal criteria for what to enter in maintenance logs but the regulatory side of the matter is clear, simple, and established.

[Marc Zeitlin]

The only maintenance log entries required per regulation for an aircraft with an experimental airworthiness certificate is an endorsement by either the holder of the Repairman Certificate for that particular aircraft or an A&P mechanic stating the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation (Condition Inspection).

You state this, but give no supporting evidence. The FAR's are hardly completely consistent, and there are many areas where interpretation is required. _MY_ interpretation of 91.417 is that it requires maintenance be logged. Others I've pointed to agree. You and Marty (and I'm sure many others) disagree. I could not find any regulations one way or the other that make it clearer - it's going to be interpretations both ways.

Any other maintenance entries in the log book are at the discretion of the owner but not required per FARs or the Operating Limitations of the aircraft.

Same comment as above.

Look - it's pretty obvious that there are knowledgeable folks on both sides of this argument, and unless the FAA issues an opinion on the matter, we're going to have to agree to disagree. And since there are no "logbook police", we're not likely to get an FAA opinion on the matter unless someone asks them specifically. And you'd probably get 3 different answers from 3 different FSDO's...

Pitot/static/transponder/encoder checks are another issue but that isn't under consideration in this thread.

Actually, it was, because the original claim was that NOTHING was required to be logged except the CI. If you're agreeing that the 91.207, 91.411 and 91.413 checks must be logged, then you're at least agreeing with me on that point - it's not ONLY the CI.