Repairman certificate

[Marc Zeitlin]

Yeah but on the 8710-1, application for airman's certificate, you have to list the project as justification for issuance. Kind of hard to do that if you aren't listed as a builder.

Pretty sure you mean 8610-1 (which is the one you use for the RC application). But yes - you're correct - if you're getting the RC for a particular plane, that would be the one you'd have to list on that form as the "Record of Experience". And then there would certainly be a discontinuity if you weren't listed on the 8130-12 (but again, they'd have to cross-check).

So it seems as though, to make things right with no chance of paperwork issues, there have to be three forms that all agree - the 8130-12 (list all builders), the 8130-6 (who says it's ready for an AC) and the 8610-1 (the actual application for the RC). Although I suppose, if there are multiple builders, one could argue that the EAA's position isn't totally accurate since builder "A" could say it's ready for an AC while builder "B" gets the RC.

Angels dancing on the head of a pin, at this point...

Having said that, there's no specified amount of work that the applicant has to do on the project -- set one rivet and technically you qualify as far as the application is concerned. The big question is does the applicant have the requisite knowledge to maintain the aircraft. For most of us we gain that knowledge via the build. However, for others, they come into the project with that knowledge.

Agreed.

In my case, even though the FSDO (Washington) knew I was the builder, because I had a different inspector for my repairman's cert interview, I was grilled on my overall maintenance knowledge. He really wasn't concerned with the airframe because he knew I built it. His focus was FWF. I was prepared and passed the interview but it wasn't a cake walk.

Which just goes to show you that the FSDO's are all different, and change over time. I don't think that I was even asked any questions about the plane when my RC was issued - maybe a couple of minor ones, but nothing resembling a "grilling". They figured if I built it (which I had well documented) that I knew something about it. But obviously, YMMV, as every FSDO has their own interpretation of the rules.

[Auburntsts]

Oops - you're right it was the 8610 but the dash 2 not the dash 1 for me. I agree with you overall. The point is all of the paperwork has to match. Also agree 100% on the differences between FSDOs. My guy really wanted to make sure I understood how to maintain the engine and its systems since he had no idea as to my expertise as that is not truly discernable by inspection. For the same reason he didn't care about my builder's log.

[martymayes]

I think both of these cases follow the 8900.1 handbook guidance I posted earlier very closely. There is more than one path for the inspector to follow when issuing a repairman certificate. For example, documentation and/or asking the applicant to demonstrate he has the necessary skills to perform condition inspections and an ability to determine whether or not the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation.

In my case, even though the FSDO (Washington) knew I was the builder, because I had a different inspector for my repairman's cert interview, I was grilled on my overall maintenance knowledge. He really wasn't concerned with the airframe because he knew I built it. His focus was FWF. I was prepared and passed the interview but it wasn't a cake walk.

Sounds like you had to prove to the satisfaction of the inspector that you had the requisite skills. Completely in line with the guidance.

Which just goes to show you that the FSDO's are all different, and change over time. I don't think that I was even asked any questions about the plane when my RC was issued - maybe a couple of minor ones, but nothing resembling a "grilling". They figured if I built it (which I had well documented) that I knew something about it. But obviously, YMMV, as every FSDO has their own interpretation of the rules.

Sounds like the documentation was adequate to prove to the satisfaction of the inspector. Or, if you held an A&P certificate at the time you applied for a repairman certificate, I would certainly think that would be adequate to show you have the requisite skills to perform inspections. After all, A&P's are trained on how to inspect aircraft. Again, completely in line with the guidance.

I like the fact that an inspector's guidance is not rigid. One might not feel that way during the process but having been tested by the FAA many times over the years I have found if you are prepared and have the requisite knowledge, the process is painless. Prepare for the worst and celebrate when it's not.

[Marc Zeitlin]

Or, if you held an A&P certificate at the time you applied for a repairman certificate, I would certainly think that would be adequate to show you have the requisite skills to perform inspections. After all, A&P's are trained on how to inspect aircraft. Again, completely in line with the guidance.

I don't disagree, but I got the A&P 12 years later :-).

...Prepare for the worst and celebrate when it's not.

And this is about the best advice for being happy in ANYTHING :-). Low expectations.

[Anymouse]

...if you held an A&P certificate at the time you applied for a repairman certificate, I would certainly think that would be adequate to show you have the requisite skills to perform inspections. After all, A&P's are trained on how to inspect aircraft. Again, completely in line with the guidance.

Not disagreeing with you at all here, but I just have to wonder why an A&P would bother with getting a Repairman Certificate. The only benefit would be an extra piece of plastic to keep up with.

[Dana]

He said he got the A&P 12 years later...

But some A&Ps go ahead and get the repairman certificate anyway. The idea is that if their is ever an incident related to the aircraft's condition and the FAA pursues certificate action against whoever signed it off, it will be against his repairman certificate, not the more valuable A&P certificate.

[martymayes]

Not disagreeing with you at all here, but I just have to wonder why an A&P would bother with getting a Repairman Certificate. The only benefit would be an extra piece of plastic to keep up with.

I would apply for a repairman certificate for any aircraft I built. You are correct, not needed but I would do it just because I can.