PDA

View Full Version : Annual Inspection runout during engine Overhaul



BCAIRPORT
11-06-2013, 09:27 PM
I am an A&P, I overhauled the engine on my Cessna during which time the Annual Inspection ran out.
My IA wants me to bring the plane to his shop for the Annual inspection. The annual was due by the end of September.
Now November 6. Are there provisions in the regulations that allow me to fly the out of annual aircraft to the IA's shop or do I have to get a ferry Permit?
The engine overhaul is complete and ground test runs have been completed successfully and I have signed off the engine work.

Matt Gonitzke
11-06-2013, 09:33 PM
You will need a ferry permit.

WLIU
11-07-2013, 08:54 AM
If you have not done one, take a look at - http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/field_offices/fsdo/phl/local_more/media/ferry_permit.pdf

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

Tom Downey
11-07-2013, 09:41 AM
That is the purpose of a ferry permit.

BCAIRPORT
11-08-2013, 07:38 AM
Thanks to those you replied.
Found an IA that will come to my location and do an owner assisted annual inspection.
Much simpler process.
BD

Tom Downey
11-08-2013, 09:57 AM
That's the best idea

1600vw
11-08-2013, 12:59 PM
Nice thing about owning an EAB. I need no IA to do a Condition inspection and nothing on my airplane is ever logged as airworthy. Also not as much liability on the A&P's part for he will never log in my books that anything on my airplane is airworthy. Its in a condition for safe operation. But A&P's still run from doing a Condition inspection on an EAB. I will never understand this.

WLIU
11-09-2013, 05:12 PM
1600vw, I think that you misunderstand what the A&P is doing by signing your aircraft's log at the end of a condition inspection. That signature in a legal sense, means that the A&P does indeed certify that the aircraft is airworthy. Using the words "in condition for safe operation", in a strict legal sense, is another way of saying "airworthy". So the A&P accepts responsibility and liability by signing off that condition inspection. That is likely why some A&P's are not comfortable doing those inspections as they are not knowledgeable or comfortable with the airworthiness standards for that class of aircraft.

The EAA has a great article online at - http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/articles/2011-04_darside.asp - that tries to explain why the FAA has the individual doing an annual inspection on a certificated aircraft vs a condition inspection on an E-AB, use different language in the aircraft log. The reasoning is typical government bureaucrat, but the end result in both cases is that the individual who does a condition inspection or an annual inspection takes responsibility for the mechanical state of the aircraft at the time that the inspection is done. For better or worse, that is what a plaintiff's lawyer will assert after a crash.

So I assume that you take an airworthy ship to your condition inspector and at the end of its yearly inspection the signature endorses that it is indeed airworthy.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

martymayes
11-09-2013, 09:08 PM
But A&P's still run from doing a Condition inspection on an EAB. I will never understand this.

Tony, most A&P's are trained at a Part 147 school where the curriculum does not not address EAB aircraft. Students are drilled and tested on regs applicable to aircraft with standard a/w certificates, not special a/w certificates. They can quote the legal definition for "airworthy" in their sleep, so they only know one standard for return to service and they know how to apply Part 43. Until one is educated on the differences, what you describe should not be unexpected. I'll wager at one time, you didn't know the difference either. ;-)

cub builder
11-12-2013, 02:40 PM
As an A&P, I simply don't want to be on the hook for an airplane where everything is suspect. I'll do them for builders/owners/planes that I know well with a well proven design, but if some Joe walks in off the street and wants me to do an inspection on an Experimental he has just purchased that has an engine configuration I have never seen before, or has been maintaining and modifying for the last year... sorry, but I don't want to spend my time looking for the gotchas having to do with design or inferior workmanship and I don't want to deal with his family after he does more modifications to the plane and kills himself. If he wants me to do his annual, he's going to have to deal with me looking at his work throughout the year and will have to comply with my conventions on maintenance.

A few years ago I completed an annual on an EAB plane for a friend, then a week later he promptly planted the plane in the ground. Fortunately, he survived with minor injuries, but in his first call to me he said "The engine failed during cruise flight", which left me with that sinking feeling that despite him being a friend and me doing a very thorough annual, I am about to be sued. Later I learned that it lost power because he had the fuel selector on an empty tank and was so panicked that he failed to move the selector the other tank when the engine shut down in cruise flight. When he made his first call to me, he hadn't fessed up to the FAA about running out of fuel yet.

Think through that scenario, then think about whether you would want to start putting your signature in log books for planes that are designed, built and maintained by amateurs. I don't want to be on the hook for someone else's mistakes. Not to pick on you 1600VW, but I'll use you as an example. If your plane came to me for an annual, how do I know whether your engine has a cast or forged crank in it? How do I know if it was assembled correctly? Would I be willing to sign my name to an engine with a single ignition (I have no idea whether yours is single or dual)? What specs do I set the timing to and that is based on who's data? Just because you deem it as good enough doesn't mean your heirs won't decide to clean out my retirement accounts if something should happen to you in flight. Because of the higher crash and fatality rate with EAB aircraft, insurance carriers often times will not cover shops if they work on EAB aircraft. While I will do some EAB aircraft, I am very picky about which ones I do, and the likelihood of me doing one for someone that just shows up and asks is almost nil.

-CubBuilder

pacerpilot
11-12-2013, 06:22 PM
I'm with you CubBuilder. I'm not an A&P but I fully understand your concern. The best all of us can do is establish a relationship with our A&P and make sure he/she is comfortable with our planes. Also, we need to make sure that the maintenance and repairs we do are done with full visibility and input from the A&P and that they are within our ability. Let's also not forget that education goes both ways too. I once had an A&P threaten to report me to the Feds because I was operating an unsafe aircraft. He was worried about me hand propping my 1946 Taylorcraft ever time I flew. He had never seen an airplane without an electric system! But back on topic, BCAIRPORT, a ferry permit is about a 60 minute task. I've done it several times and found the guys at the local FSDO to be quite helpful and interested in getting me the permit as quickly as possible. Of course the Houston guys are usually pretty enthusiastic about EAB's, vintage or, odd airplanes.

martymayes
11-12-2013, 08:41 PM
The signature in the logs verifies a condition inspection has been performed IAW the aircraft operating limitations.

There is no statement certifying the aircraft has been inspected and found to be in compliance with applicable regs as required in Part 43 for store bought aircraft.

As for being sued over a condition inspection, I'd say the odds of that are similar to having the winning lottery ticket, or 1 in 175,000,000.

Max Torque
11-29-2013, 06:53 PM
Marty's correct, an annual condition inspection is to be completed in accordance with the Aircraft Operating Limitations (which normally refer one over to Part 43)....and just as with certified planes, the inspection is to be performed according to the scope and detail set forth in Part 43 Appendix D, at minimum. (Manufactures may require more.) Also, whoever performs the inspection, be it someone with a Repairman Certificate or A&P (normally listed as "appropriately rated FAA certificated mechanic") still is held to recording the inspection in accordance with the requirements of 14 CFR part 43, sections 43.9and 43.11
The reason Part 43 normally comes into the picture is because most of the operating limitations - at least those I've seen - are worded something like this:
“Condition inspections must be recorded in the aircraft maintenance records showing the following, or a similarly worded, statement: 'I certify that this aircraft has been inspected on [insert date] inaccordance with the scope and detail of appendix D to part 43, and was found to be in a condition for safe operation.' The entry will include the aircraft total time in service, and the name, signature, certificate number, and type of certificate held by the person performing the inspection.”

1600vw
11-30-2013, 09:01 AM
Marty's correct, an annual condition inspection is to be completed in accordance with the Aircraft Operating Limitations (which normally refer one over to Part 43)....and just as with certified planes, the inspection is to be performed according to the scope and detail set forth in Part 43 Appendix D, at minimum. (Manufactures may require more.) Also, whoever performs the inspection, be it someone with a Repairman Certificate or A&P (normally listed as "appropriately rated FAA certificated mechanic") still is held to recording the inspection in accordance with the requirements of 14 CFR part 43, sections 43.9and 43.11
The reason Part 43 normally comes into the picture is because most of the operating limitations - at least those I've seen - are worded something like this:
“Condition inspections must be recorded in the aircraft maintenance records showing the following, or a similarly worded, statement: 'I certify that this aircraft has been inspected on [insert date] inaccordance with the scope and detail of appendix D to part 43, and was found to be in a condition for safe operation.' The entry will include the aircraft total time in service, and the name, signature, certificate number, and type of certificate held by the person performing the inspection.”


Great post..
The problem lies when one calls this inspection as the title of this thread. When one calls this inspection an annual and you speak with an A&P whom does not deal with Experimental aircraft this A&P believes this is indeed and Annual and not a Condition Inspection.
Now I did not say every A&P in the world feels this way but some, and when I say all I have spoke with I do not mean every A&P in the world but the few I have spoke with in my world. I have been told I am speaking about every A&P in the world and calling them inept.

Tony

BCAIRPORT
11-30-2013, 04:37 PM
Thanks Tony and all.
If the very first post is read, you will notice that I stated that the aircraft was a "Cessna".
No mention of Condition Inspections and Experimental Aircraft was made.
I realize that this IS an EAA forum but not all members fly ONLY Experimental Aircraft.
The Question WAS answered early in the posts.
Game over!
Let it Lie.
Go help someone that needs help. Please.
Bob Doughty
Originator of this Thread.

1600vw
11-30-2013, 05:02 PM
Thanks Tony and all.
If the very first post is read, you will notice that I stated that the aircraft was a "Cessna".
No mention of Condition Inspections and Experimental Aircraft was made.
I realize that this IS an EAA forum but not all members fly ONLY Experimental Aircraft.
The Question WAS answered early in the posts.
Game over!
Let it Lie.
Go help someone that needs help. Please.
Bob Doughty
Originator of this Thread.


yes I noticed this after I posted. Thanks for not ripping me a new one over that. I have read threads from others whom state the EAA has gone GA.

Tony Sweet

BCAIRPORT
12-01-2013, 06:03 AM
I am not sure I understand " EAA has gone GA".
I have always been "both" as are most.
I would guess that fewer had their first airplane ride in an Experimental and did their initial flight training in an Experimental.
I also fly a Marquart Charger MA5 and am the Owner/Moderator of the MA5 Group on YAHOO! Groups.
The Experimental Group are the movers and shakers of the General Aviation World.
BUT....There should be no separation if we are to keep our rights to break free of the bonds of gravity.
Bob Doughty

1600vw
12-01-2013, 06:15 AM
I am not sure I understand " EAA has gone GA".
I have always been "both" as are most.
I would guess that fewer had their first airplane ride in an Experimental and did their initial flight training in an Experimental.
I also fly a Marquart Charger MA5 and am the Owner/Moderator of the MA5 Group on YAHOO! Groups.
The Experimental Group are the movers and shakers of the General Aviation World.
BUT....There should be no separation if we are to keep our rights to break free of the bonds of gravity.
Bob Doughty

I believe if the founder wanted the GA world to be part of this it would be the EAA-GA. I do not believe the founder had GA in mind when he started this club. I believe GA was left outside and only experimentals was the subject at hand.
Now correct me on this and set me straight for I am sure I am wrong and Paul was all about GA and wanted this club to be more General Aviation based.
Tony

Frank Giger
12-01-2013, 06:59 AM
I'm sure Paul never ran out to a guy flying a certified aircraft while waving his arms shouting "oh, hail noes!" at any fly-in or meeting.

The EAA has always been inclusive, though its primary focus was on homebuilding, because Paul and crew believed it was the most cost effective way for the Average Joe to get up in the air.

Similarly, folks that restore certified aircraft are homebuilders on steriods. Not only do they do all the same things that homebuilders do, they have to put up with a huge amount of trouble meeting the design specs and procedures.

1600vw
12-01-2013, 07:19 AM
I'm sure Paul never ran out to a guy flying a certified aircraft while waving his arms shouting "oh, hail noes!" at any fly-in or meeting.

The EAA has always been inclusive, though its primary focus was on homebuilding, because Paul and crew believed it was the most cost effective way for the Average Joe to get up in the air.

Similarly, folks that restore certified aircraft are homebuilders on steriods. Not only do they do all the same things that homebuilders do, they have to put up with a huge amount of trouble meeting the design specs and procedures.

Frank with all respect I must disagree. Someone rebuilding or restoring a Certified airplane plays by a complete different set of rules then a man building a HB. Nothing on a HB is airworthy. Everything on a Certified airplane is airworthy and must come tagged to prove it. Also it takes an A&P to work on a Certified airplane. My 5 year old Grand daughter could work on my airplane and its legal.

Nothing about the two are the same.

Whats the same about the two? You get in, start it, get the engine running, point them into the wind, get them moving fast enough to produce lift, and you leave earth. Everything else is different.

Dave Stadt
12-01-2013, 07:47 AM
I believe if the founder wanted the GA world to be part of this it would be the EAA-GA. I do not believe the founder had GA in mind when he started this club. I believe GA was left outside and only experimentals was the subject at hand.
Now correct me on this and set me straight for I am sure I am wrong and Paul was all about GA and wanted this club to be more General Aviation based.
Tony

Paul said from the very beginning "There is room for everyone." If you have not read his book you might want to consider it. Don't forget, his first airplane was a production airplane. Over the years he flew every type of aircraft...certified production, military and EAB. One thing for certain, Paul did not and would not discriminate.

1600vw
12-01-2013, 08:06 AM
Paul said from the very beginning "There is room for everyone." If you have not read his book you might want to consider it. Don't forget, his first airplane was a production airplane. Over the years he flew every type of aircraft...certified production, military and EAB. One thing for certain, Paul did not and would not discriminate.


Another poster from IL. If nothing else we got you talking...This is great..

Yes I believe Dave you are correct, but the subject was and is Experimental. I believe the General Aviation sector brings great wisdom along with them, but we do play by a different set of rules. We have those and maybe I am one of them whom do not want these rules to be intermingled or become one.
Tony

Matt Gonitzke
12-01-2013, 09:28 AM
Also it takes an A&P to work on a Certified airplane. My 5 year old Grand daughter could work on my airplane and its legal.

It takes an A&P to approve for return to service work done on a Certified airplane. Your 5-year-old Grand daughter can work on a certified airplane as long as her work is signed off by a mechanic. :) I restored my certified glider before I had my airframe certificate...