Modification to EAB/LSA Aircraft

[Gerry]

Good comments here. Here is my take away:

1. No need to log anything about LSA compliance in maintenance records
2. Of course all maintenance will be logged in maintenance records as a normal practice for all aircraft.
3. No major changes to flight characteristics and operating limitations so no action required on that part.

As a side note from this I understand there is no specific log entry required for an EAB aircraft to operate as an LSA?

[Frank Giger]

No, there is no specific log entry.

LSA compliance is through the POH and limitations in gross weight, max cruise speed, number of seats in the aircraft, and stall speed.

[Marc Zeitlin]

Not every EAB has a transponder nor an ELT.

You're correct. But most do, and those that do, need to have those checks logged. Do you disagree with that?

Please inform us "me" of the other info that would need to be in this log. Not taking into account what it takes to make the airplane airworthy.

Haven't we had this conversation before? Since EAB aircraft do not have Type Certificates, they can't be "airworthy", they can only be "in a condition for safe operation".

We assume this has been done. This is for daily use type of stuff.

What is it about 91.417 that's unclear to you? It states what needs to be logged and how, and by whom. In our case, the "by whom" is "whoever did the work", which could be anyone, including your 2 year old kid, your grandmother, or your dog (if it's handy with tools), but the need for logging whatever work is done to the plane is, unless you believe that you're not governed by 14 CFR 91.417, clear.

Log everything that's done to the plane - oil, brakes, tightening loose stuff, replacing parts, repairs, maintenance, etc.

Does everyone do this? Nope. I see many logbooks, when performing CI's and Pre-Buy Examinations, that include nothing but what you've described - CI's, if that. And I tell the owner and/or the prospective buyer that the airplane has not been maintained per the regulations, and that they need to clean up their act. Some do, some don't. There is, as far as I can tell, no penalty for not following the rules (except maybe from an insurance company, since they COULD claim that the aircraft wasn't legal to fly, but I have only heard of one instance of that), but that doesn't change what the rules are.

And if you ever want to sell the plane, having complete logs showing that you actually paid attention to the airplane will increase the resale value.

[1600vw]

You're correct. But most do, and those that do, need to have those checks logged. Do you disagree with that?

Haven't we had this conversation before? Since EAB aircraft do not have Type Certificates, they can't be "airworthy", they can only be "in a condition for safe operation".

What is it about 91.417 that's unclear to you? It states what needs to be logged and how, and by whom. In our case, the "by whom" is "whoever did the work", which could be anyone, including your 2 year old kid, your grandmother, or your dog (if it's handy with tools), but the need for logging whatever work is done to the plane is, unless you believe that you're not governed by 14 CFR 91.417, clear.

Log everything that's done to the plane - oil, brakes, tightening loose stuff, replacing parts, repairs, maintenance, etc.

Does everyone do this? Nope. I see many logbooks, when performing CI's and Pre-Buy Examinations, that include nothing but what you've described - CI's, if that. And I tell the owner and/or the prospective buyer that the airplane has not been maintained per the regulations, and that they need to clean up their act. Some do, some don't. There is, as far as I can tell, no penalty for not following the rules (except maybe from an insurance company, since they COULD claim that the aircraft wasn't legal to fly, but I have only heard of one instance of that), but that doesn't change what the rules are.

And if you ever want to sell the plane, having complete logs showing that you actually paid attention to the airplane will increase the resale value.

That is correct for the signing of the CI. But to get the airplane registered the FAA send a forum stating its airworthy. The log book if I am not mistaken has to show this. I believe mine does. It's the only time the mention of airworthy comes into the mix. If I am not mistaken.

Tony

[martymayes]

So let's take a look a bit further. Besides the CI and Major Changes (which I assume you stipulate must be recorded in the maintenance records), 91.413 requires a transponder check every 24 months, and if you fly IFR, 91.411 requires a static system check every 24 months. Both of these must be recorded in the maintenance records. Also, an ELT check is required every 12 months per 91.207, and that must be recorded. So even without 91.405, there are a number of other items that must be in the maintenance records other than just the CI signoff.

Next, we move on to 91.417, which requires a log of all maintenance (EAB aircraft are certainly bound by part 91, yes?) and indicates the content and form of the records. And 91.407 states that an aircraft cannot be operated unless approved for return to service. Now, we can certainly agree that Part 43 does NOT apply to EAB aircraft per 43.1, so references to WHO does the return to service are not bound by part 43, but since we can also agree that ANYONE can work on EAB aircraft (except for the CI signoff), I believe that ANYONE can sign the maintenance logs as having performed the work. But the work MUST be logged and signed off, no matter who's signature/name is attached.

In the interest of not obfuscating the original premise, for now I'll stick to maintenance records only.

91.407(a)(2) states "The maintenance record entry required by §43.9 or §43.11, as applicable, of this chapter has been made."

Those record entries are NOT required for homebuilts per your own statement "we can certainly agree that Part 43 does NOT apply to EAB aircraft per 43.1"

Ergo, there is nothing that requires a homebuilt to be returned to service after maintenance, ergo, nothing requiring a record entry to be made, ergo, nothing that requires the person doing the work to sign a record, ergo, nothing that requires a record of maintenance be kept. That's all Part 43 stuff which we agree does not apply.

Unless you're going to argue that some parts of 14CFR Part 91 don't apply to EAB aircraft, but I don't know how one would do that - 91.1 has no exemptions for EAB aircraft.....

Humm....91.205 is applicable only to Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S. airworthiness certificates. (that eliminates EAB)

Not sure how 91.23 would apply to EAB.....

All of Subpart F ???? I think it's safe to say some parts of 14CFR Part 91 don't apply to EAB aircraft.

[Dana]

Since EAB aircraft do not have Type Certificates, they can't be "airworthy", they can only be "in a condition for safe operation".

But they do have airworthiness certificates.

[Marc Zeitlin]

In the interest of not obfuscating the original premise, for now I'll stick to maintenance records only.

91.407(a)(2) states "The maintenance record entry required by §43.9 or §43.11, as applicable, of this chapter has been made."

Those record entries are NOT required for homebuilts per your own statement "we can certainly agree that Part 43 does NOT apply to EAB aircraft per 43.1"

Even if you want to claim that the record entry isn't required due to the non-applicability of part 43 (and I don't agree that 91.407 doesn't apply, but I'll allow it for the sake of argument), that doesn't exempt EAB aircraft from the requirements of 91.417, which is the one that actually requires that maintenance - any maintenance - be logged for any aircraft, with no exceptions for experimentals and defines what maintenance and how to log it. Except for the section of 91.417 that specifically talks about 43.9 (which is not the part about maintenance, but Major Changes, which is already addressed by the OL's), 91.417 makes no exception for EAB aircraft. So even if 91.407 doesn't apply, 91.417 does.

Ergo, there is nothing that requires a homebuilt to be returned to service after maintenance, ergo, nothing requiring a record entry to be made, ergo, nothing that requires the person doing the work to sign a record, ergo, nothing that requires a record of maintenance be kept. That's all Part 43 stuff which we agree does not apply.

See above for the refutation of this - you ignored the 91.417 requirement. Also, see:

http://www.lancairowners.com/2014notagoodyear/

for the Lancair Owners and Builders Association take on the issue - they take the logging of maintenance seriously, know the rules, and are clear on the issues.

Humm....91.205 is applicable only to Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S. airworthiness certificates. (that eliminates EAB)

Except that 91.205 is explicitly called out in your OL's for night/IFR operations, so in those cases it does apply. But in any case, my reference to part 91 was to the sections that define maintenance requirements, which is what we were discussing. And as you well know, almost all of part 91 does apply to EAB aircraft.

I think it's safe to say some parts of 14CFR Part 91 don't apply to EAB aircraft.

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.

[Marc Zeitlin]

Humm....91.205 is applicable only to Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S. airworthiness certificates. (that eliminates EAB)

One other comment regarding 91.205 - OL's will usually state that instruments and equipment installed per 91.205 must be inspected and maintained in accordance with the requirements of Part 91. So if nothing else, at least THESE maintenance activities must be recorded, per your OL's. So we've got the 91.413, 91.411 and 91.207 requirements, as well as the 91.205 requirements. Even if you don't want to accept the 91.417 requirements, the original statement that only CI's are required to be recorded is clearly false.

Also, this:

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...83-30_Ch12.pdf

speaks to the exemption of Experimental aircraft from 91.409 explicitly, but makes no such distinction for 91.417.

I will certainly grant you that there is some controversy on these subjects and there are certainly some folks that agree with you. But in none of the discussions I could find on the matter could anyone point to an explicit regulation or FAA opinion that stated that the requirements of 91.417 do not apply to Experimental aircraft. Since there are many sections of 14 CFR that DO explicitly exempt experimentals, one would think that if they wanted to exempt them, they'd have said so.

[1600vw]

But they do have airworthiness certificates.

But that does not make them airworthy. Nothing about an experimental in airworthy.

I lost the sale on my eab because of this. The man looking to purchase it ask me to sign a forum that said that said airplane was airworthy. I told him how can I say something is airworthy when we all know it's not. I told him I would sign a forum stating the FAA gave it an airworthy certificate but I could not tell him its airworthy. He said his A&P told him I had no idea what I was talking about and trying to scam him. I told him his A&P had no idea what he was talking about.

Back to regular programming.

Tony

[1600vw]

Some good info here:

http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=2873008673001