DAR Inspections at Cost?

[Sam Buchanan]

But I'm not a DAR (yet), and this is just my $0.02.

Your reply was a fine example of taking my observations and stretching them to extreme conclusions to support your position, not to mention the manner in which two excellent DAR's reputations were questioned.

What you didn't know about the "thirty minute" inspections is that in two of those cases the DAR had the opportunity to watch the construction of my aircraft over the span of several months via the comprehensive internet build logs documenting the progress of the build (see signature below).

$900 for a CI equivalent level inspection doesn't seem too crazy.

That is very excessive in my opinion after I and other experienced builders have already conducted a condition inspection of the aircraft. Why would I want to shell out $900 for someone to duplicate what has already been done? We are fortunate in our area to have experienced builders (EAA Tech Counselor and A&P in some cases) who are eager to lend extra eyeballs to check a project prior to the DAR visit. I have done the same for several builders in preparation for the DAR arriving on the scene.

However, I do acknowledge some aircraft will require a more extensive inspection than others. The plastic airplanes you are familiar with are a different animal from the ultra-simple Fokker replica I recently completed. Thirty minutes would be long enough to inspect the D.VII more than once...

Best wishes on a productive and prosperous career as a DAR. Please keep in mind the experimental aircraft universe is a close-knit community that operates to a great extent on referrals.

[Low Pass]

DARs are not intended to perform build quality control. They're there, practically speaking, to screen out the people who've not sought advice and inspections from knowledgeable people, and complete necessary documentation. This (inspection component) should be a task that can be accomplished in 1 hr on a conventional light single.

[DaleB]

I can't speak for anyone else, but if the day comes when I need a DAR, I will need a guy to come out and inspect/complete the FAA paperwork to get an airworthiness certificate. The airplane will have already been looked over in great detail by myself, a couple of EAA tech counselors (all multiple repeat offenders), an A&P/IA, and a couple of builders I know who have an impressive and occasionally annoying knack for spotting the tiniest flaws from the hangar doorway. If the DAR wants to crawl through the plane doing a thorough inspection, great -- but by that point it really shouldn't need it.

[Marc Zeitlin]

[QUOTE=Sam Buchanan;57853]What you didn't know about the "thirty minute" inspections is that in two of those cases the DAR had the opportunity to watch the construction of my aircraft over the span of several months via the comprehensive internet build logs documenting the progress of the build (see signature below).If the DAR/FSDO/MIDO inspector spends a bunch of time reviewing on-line or paper build docs, and knows the builder (and trusts them), of course the inspection time will be shorter. In my experience with many homebuilders, this is not the case - the inspector comes to the airplane cold, with no knowledge of it and no time invested except for the travel time, and most builders with whom I've dealt do not create detailed web pages (or, for that matter, very detailed paper build logs either).

No disrespect meant to the DAR's you mentioned - you did not indicate that they were familiar with you or your project, or had invested time examining it remotely before the visit (or that the aircraft was a particularly simple one).

Why would I want to shell out $900 for someone to duplicate what has already been done?

The question isn't whether you'd want to, the question is whether it's needed. A more than tiny minority of plans built aircraft have major issues prior to first flight. Looking at the accident statistics, including airframe/mechanical failures for the first couple of hours of Phase I flight in EAB aircraft indicates that better inspections and reviews of the aircraft could have contributed to higher safety levels. Maybe having a DAR/FAA examiner perform a CI level equivalent inspection isn't the way to solve this problem, but you and the DAR's with which you deal are obviously much more highly qualified than the majority of builders.

We are fortunate in our area to have experienced builders (EAA Tech Counselor and A&P in some cases) who are eager to lend extra eyeballs to check a project prior to the DAR visit. I have done the same for several builders in preparation for the DAR arriving on the scene.

As have I, and that's great that you have those resources available to you. But not everyone does and unless the DAR is familiar with the folks that have done those exams for you and trusts them, how are they to determine safety levels (as the order requires) without a thorough inspection?

However, I do acknowledge some aircraft will require a more extensive inspection than others....

Agreed. There will be some planes that require little in the way of inspection for reasons of lack of complexity or DAR familiarity and others that require a LOT of inspection due to complexity and/or lack of DAR familiarity. YMMV.

Best wishes on a productive and prosperous career as a DAR.

There is nothing, I have found in my time inspecting, examining and working on canard (and some other) aircraft that is prosperous, but I'll take productive - thanks. My customers have all been satisfied, so far.

Please keep in mind the experimental aircraft universe is a close-knit community that operates to a great extent on referrals.

Yep. All my work comes from referrals - I don't advertise, although I have a website. I get about 1% of my work through the website. It's all word of mouth.

[Marc Zeitlin]

I can't speak for anyone else, but if the day comes when I need a DAR, I will need a guy to come out and inspect/complete the FAA paperwork to get an airworthiness certificate. The airplane will have already been looked over in great detail by myself, a couple of EAA tech counselors (all multiple repeat offenders), an A&P/IA, and a couple of builders I know who have an impressive and occasionally annoying knack for spotting the tiniest flaws from the hangar doorway. If the DAR wants to crawl through the plane doing a thorough inspection, great -- but by that point it really shouldn't need it.

You are correct - it really shouldn't need it. And the folks responding on this forum are almost certainly in the category of folks that, because of their willingness to seek out and listen to feedback, won't need it. But as I mentioned earlier, there's more than a small minority of builders who do NOT fit that category, and while they SHOULDN'T need it, they DO. What should be done with those folks?

[DaleB]

You are correct - it really shouldn't need it. And the folks responding on this forum are almost certainly in the category of folks that, because of their willingness to seek out and listen to feedback, won't need it. But as I mentioned earlier, there's more than a small minority of builders who do NOT fit that category, and while they SHOULDN'T need it, they DO. What should be done with those folks?

Oh, I know. I'm relatively new to this and have seen some pretty scary stuff. It's like I have told my wife. There are some planes that I use for inspiration. There are some that I wouldn't want to fly in. There are a few that I wouldn't even sit in on the ground.

[Frank Giger]

My aircraft's inspection lasted about 45 minutes to an hour, plus the paperwork.

First, not all aircraft are equal. My dead simple tube-and-gusset direct linkage biplane is too easy to inspect - there isn't much to it, and what there is can be looked at directly.

Second, he could tell that not only was I the builder, but that I took it seriously.

Not only did I have all the paperwork done, but the plans, builder's log, etc., were laid out in case there was a question.

I had our EAA tech counselor there to take notes on any discrepancies he might find or suggestions to make; I didn't want my hurried scrawling to miss anything. Being a good sort of fellow, he said "hello" to the man and not one word more.

After introducing him to the aircraft and walking him around to show the major points of construction in the briefest way possible I shut up.

Now if I had some super duper composite with retractable gear and woopdewoo electronics to go with the arresting hook for the aircraft carrier I also built, he might have taken longer.

But there's only so much to look at in a simple aircraft.