Inspection Requirements when "Out of Annual"

[N404CX]

What are the inspection requirements when an aircraft is out of annual?

I often see this term on used aircraft for sale, and it has an ominous implication; but are the requirements more rigorous or not?

Thanks in advance. -glen

[1600vw]

Depends if you are talking Experimental or GA airplanes.

With Experimental EAB type airplanes, not a lot of info on some airframes. Its up to the owner to know what to check during a Condition Inspection. This inspection is just that, the person is making sure the airplane is in the same condition it was in when the FAA gave it its airworthy certificate. This inspection is not stating the airplane is in fact any thing more or less then what they FAA stated it was when inspected by the FAA inspectors or DAR.

GA, it's a complete different ball game. That is an Annual Airworthy inspection and must be handled in a certain way.

In its simplest form.

Tony

[cub builder]

It only means the annual inspection is past due. So the question becomes, how far past due? And why? Let's say for instance, the plane is being sold because the pilot is no longer able to pass a medical, but the plane is in otherwise good condition and the annual has just lapsed, the implication for a buyer is that you would need to get a ferry permit to take the plane to another field or to your own mechanic to have the annual inspection done. Someone has to look the plane over to get the ferry permit, so there is some expense implied, but it's really not a big deal to do. However, if the plane has been sitting for a number of years or the annual was allowed to lapse because it was going to be prohibitively expensive to get the plane through another annual, then the implications can get a bit expensive to get the plane moved unless you plane to dismantle and trailer it home. The rules are the same if it's an Experimental. It's just a matter of who can look at it and approve it for flight.

-CubBuilder

[1600vw]

The rules for an annual for a GA and a Condition inspection for a experimental are not the same. The wording logged into the log book are different as are many other things. Experimental does not have to comply with any standards like a GA airplane.

It does not matter if the airplane is two days or two years out of annual. Its all the same.

He did not ask about ferry permits.

Tony

[martymayes]

I often see this term on used aircraft for sale, and it has an ominous implication; but are the requirements more rigorous or not?

no. same standards apply.

[rwanttaja]

As everyone has been saying, the requirements are no different whether the plane is in or out of annual.

However, the *implications* might raise some flags. If the airplane has been idle and neglected, some significant deterioration may have occured. An A&P friend recently looked at an "out of annual' airplane. Turns out it hadn't flown for eight years. It took several days' work to get the plane in good enough shape to sign off the annual.

"Out of annual" is not enough data to automatically reject the airplane. As the OP says, it does have an ominous ring, but an airplane one week "out of annual" is probably in better shape than one that's a full decade out. You're going to want an A&P or the like to inspect the plane anyway, just be prepared for some problems if it's been sitting a while.

Ron Wanttaja

[Kurt Flunkn]

Assuming we're talking about a part 91 airplane, the requirements are in FAR part 91, sub-part E titled, "Maintenance, Preventative maintenance, and alterations. The performance requirements are in FAR part 43. Look at:

91.403 - General - states that the owner is responsible for maintenance

91.409 - Inspections - lays out the requirements for inspections for the different type of operations. This is an annual inspection for most non-experimental and non-for-hire operators.

91.411 and 91.413 establish the requirements for pitot-static / transponder checks (although an airplane can pass an annual with an expired pitot-static / transponder check, it just cannot be flown).

Appendix D of FAR 43 contains the scope and detail of items to be included in an annual inspection.

[martymayes]

91.411 and 91.413 establish the requirements for pitot-static / transponder checks (although an airplane can pass an annual with an expired pitot-static / transponder check, it just cannot be flown).

You only need a static check for IFR; and you only need a transponder check if you need to turn on the transponder. Neither of those prevent the airplane from being flown VFR.

[FlyingRon]

....unless you happen to live in or need to fly within the airspace that requires a transponder.

[1600vw]

....unless you happen to live in or need to fly within the airspace that requires a transponder.


If you fly a single seat and a Non-electric airplane, transponder or radio not required.

[FlyingRon]

If you fly a single seat and a Non-electric airplane, transponder or radio not required.

Gets you out of SOME but not all of the airspace-requiring transponders.

[1600vw]

What it does for me, keeps me away from any airspace that requires talking with ATC. I could say it keeps me VFR but the SP rule's do that.

[1600vw]

But we are drifting.

When it comes to the topic at hand. It's so simple. Depends if you are talking EAB, LSA, SLSA, GA, if for hire or for recreation. Each one hold's different standards or rules on how, when and why for the Inspection's that must be done yearly.

It matters not if this inspection is one day out or 10 years out, the inspection will still be the same. Now what you find that needs repaired will be different say on an airplane that is one day out compared to an airplane 10 years out. I believe we all know this. No different if its a car or what ever. The longer it sits the more it takes to get it up and running again.

Don't use it and you will loose it. Not a myth.

Tony

[FlyingRon]

Yep, people often confuse the annual INSPECTION with maintenance that needs to be done to satisfy the discrepancies found during that annual.

In fact, an IA can conduct the inspection but in some cases the owner-pilot can be the one who signs off the return to service.

[1600vw]

I have more then once grounded my airplane in the middle of the flying season for things that come up during the year after the condition inspection. I do the condition inspection for my own piece of mind. I want every part looked at that I can.

I told my IA one day, yea I know I need no IA but this A&P friend is an IA, look over this airplane with a fine tooth comb and ground her over any little thing. He said, no you do not want me doing this for your airplane will never fly again.

Its a balancing act when it comes time for the Condition Inspection. Seeing as this is the EAA I call all these inspection Condition inspections. If this was a GA forum I would call them Annuals.


Tony

[rwanttaja]

If you fly a single seat and a Non-electric airplane, transponder or radio not required.

If you wish to fly within the Class B or C airspace, then you are required to have the transponder whether or not you have electrical, single seater or no.

Lack of electrical system excuses you from needing to have a transponder within the 30-mile Class B "Veil", as long as you stay out of the actual Class B airspace (inverted wedding cake). Again, doesn't matter how many seats the plane has.

A single seater *is* excused from the ELT requirement.

Ron Wanttaja

[Frank Giger]

Since the original question seems to have been answered, let's get back to drifting!

Ron, I won't be putting in an ELT on the Nieuport Bebe for a host of reasons, but I'm planning on putting in a PLB. I'm thinking about maybe in a pouch low on one of the shoulder straps.

Your thoughts on placement?

[Bob Meder]

If you wish to fly within the Class B or C airspace, then you are required to have the transponder whether or not you have electrical, single seater or no.

Lack of electrical system excuses you from needing to have a transponder within the 30-mile Class B "Veil", as long as you stay out of the actual Class B airspace (inverted wedding cake). Again, doesn't matter how many seats the plane has.

A single seater *is* excused from the ELT requirement.

Ron Wanttaja

Well, you can fly within B or C if you have an aircraft that is not equipped if you make the request at least one hour prior to the flight. See 91.215(d)(3).

[FlyingRon]

Well, you can fly within B or C if you have an aircraft that is not equipped if you make the request at least one hour prior to the flight. See 91.215(d)(3).

Doesn't need to be even an hour before flight. I've departed a few times out of IAD with little more than calling CD and telling them what I was doing. (and one of these times was even post-9/11). One other time was when the primary radar was also out (so I was invisible). I've also managed to arrive at IAD with just a receiver.

However, I'd not rely on that. Just because you asked an hour in advance doesn't mean they will approve it and in this day and age, they're more likely than not to turn you down.

[Bob Meder]

Never had a problem with St. Louis or Omaha (or Knoxville, that one time the transponder blew its brains out), so FWIW.

The hour, BTW, is what the reg states - being who I am, I have to quote it. If ATC wants to be more lenient than that, that's up to the facility.

[rwanttaja]

Since the original question seems to have been answered, let's get back to drifting!

Ron, I won't be putting in an ELT on the Nieuport Bebe for a host of reasons, but I'm planning on putting in a PLB. I'm thinking about maybe in a pouch low on one of the shoulder straps.

Your thoughts on placement?

Hmmmm....not my area of expertise, but the front of the pilot does not seem to be the optimal location. Seems more likely that something could bang into it in a smash. Ideally, you'd get as far away from the engine, fuel tank, etc. as possible, so in the utter worst case, the wisk-broom and garden hose detail knows where to show up.

Yet you've got a portable device....not a permanent install like an ELT.

What seems to see the least damage in accidents? The tail and the wingtips. Perhaps a recessed pouch forward of the horizontal stab or on a lower wingtip. Use velcro inside the recess to hold the PLB, and put a fiberglass cover over it (hinge the front edge, use Velcro to keep it shut). Pop it in when you get to the airport, pull it out when you go home.

A less complex location, probably 95% as safe, would be on the BACK of the pilot's seat. That way any crash forces, etc. would need to get through YOU before the broom and hose folks show up, and you're not likely to care. A lot of the Nieuport seats I've seen don't go the whole width of the fuselage, you could slip the unit around to a carrier on the back of the seat.

Then again, if you've got it in the mode where it's dropping breadcrumbs, it might not make a whole lot of difference. A Nieuport isn't going to get that far in five minutes. The way I fly, the DEBRIS field would probably still overlap the breadcrumb location. :-)

Edit: My inexperience with PLBs is showing...I forgot they typically include a "Mayday" button, and thus should be close enough so that a damaged pilot can activate it. Not only should it be protected as well as possible, it should be positioned so that the pilot can activate it with either hand. Shoulder harness wouldn't be bad...but depending how big it is, you might consider hanging it around your neck on a badge lanyard, tucking the unit into a shirt pocket. The lanyard would make it easier to find if you're damaged or in shock.

Ron Wanttaja

[FlyingRon]

Yeah, that's one of the sillyness in the regs. ATC can authorize it in less than an hour and they can refuse it if you give them an hour, so I have never understood why it is there.

It's like the use of the terms "intended departure" in the reg on VOR ground tests. Are we to presume this is to forestall VOR checks prior to unintentional departures? Or is it to keep you from doing VOR tests at airports you never intend to depart from?

[Frank Giger]

The PLB's I've seen and are considering are a little smaller (or about the same size) than either a cell phone or a handheld aviation radio - I'm not flying in the wilds of Alaska or the remote areas of the Mojave desert, so I don't need super long range.

The most often way Nieuports end up with the pilot in distress is on their backs, usually with a long ooohhhh nooooo being herd by the pilot as they turn turtle (but in the case of soybeans and peanuts it can come quick). My fear is ending up trapped in the seat inverted, uninjured for the most part but unable to get out from under it.

The tube-and-gusset Nieuports are extremely pilot friendly in a wreck, collapsing nicely around the pilot, but not through him. Looking at the NTSB database I found just one fatality, a nose in from 400' at takeoff during flight #1....and I've always wondered if he had shoulder restraints.

In the extreme, there's this, which happened at an airshow in Czechloslovakia:

4101

4102

4104

The pilot was assisted from the aircraft and suffered a broken leg and big restraint bruises.

The DR1 landed without incident.

[Bill Berson]

That Nieuport might still be " in annual"..... But probably wont pass a good preflight inspection :eek:

I would keep the PLB in my pocket.