Why do people call Condition Inspections " Annuals"

[1600vw]

Why is it most people refer to thier Condition Inspection as an Annual? An Annual and a Condition Inspection are two different inspections. Does anyone see the reason why a Condition Inspection should Not be called an Annual?

Tony

[Mike M]

just a wild guess, but maybe conditionals are erroneously called annuals because they're done every year?

[rwanttaja]

Why is it most people refer to thier Condition Inspection as an Annual? An Annual and a Condition Inspection are two different inspections. Does anyone see the reason why a Condition Inspection should Not be called an Annual?
Taxonomy via Similarity. They are basically identical to a production aircraft's annual inspection, it's natural to call it by the same name. The only difference is that there's no certification standard (type certificate) to compare it to.

It's also a good short cut. Tell non-homebuilder that your plane is having its "Conditional" inspection, they don't know what you mean. Use the term "annual inspection" and even non-pilots immediately grasp what's going on.

I tend to use the word "annual," unless I'm actually talking to my A&P to set it up. Then I use "Conditional Inspection" so he knows that I KNOW the difference.

Next: Biennial vs. Biannual Flight Review! :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[1600vw]

Taxonomy via Similarity. They are basically identical to a production aircraft's annual inspection, it's natural to call it by the same name. The only difference is that there's no certification standard (type certificate) to compare it to.

It's also a good short cut. Tell non-homebuilder that your plane is having its "Conditional" inspection, they don't know what you mean. Use the term "annual inspection" and even non-pilots immediately grasp what's going on.

I tend to use the word "annual," unless I'm actually talking to my A&P to set it up. Then I use "Conditional Inspection" so he knows that I KNOW the difference.

Next: Biennial vs. Biannual Flight Review! :-)

Ron Wanttaja


I have spoke with many A&P's who did not understand many things about a Condition inspection because they believe these are annuals. The biggest one being an IA is needed. Then they believe a Condition Inspection comes with the same liability as an Anual when this just is not the case.

Short cuts are never good in aviation. If a non-homebuilder does not understand what a Condition Inspection is they need an education. Non-pilots grasp what an annual is. Really, I never knew what an annual was before I started flying. Maybe I am stupid.

I have come across so many A&P's who do not know the difference between the two. They never even knew the word Condition was an inspection. They thought and believed all annual's are just that. They are not.

A condition inspection is not like an annual. There are so many differences between they two. I could list them all.

Ron I respect what you write so please give me a list of what is the same in an Annual and a Condition inspection.

Condition inspection.
I have no AD's to follow.
I have no manufacturer check list to follow.
I need no IA to sign my log book
My airplane is not signed as being airworthy.
Ect.

Now please tell me what is the same besides this is done annually?

Tony

[Bill Berson]

I don't see any problem with the phrase: "annual condition inspection". I think the FAA uses this phrase at times.
The instructions for a homebuilts annual condition inspection are listed in the aircraft operating limitations, where it says to comply with appendix D of part 43.
Certified aircraft annuals must also comply with appendix D. (Appendix D is rather simplistic)

[rwanttaja]

A condition inspection is not like an annual. There are so many differences between they two. I could list them all.

Ron I respect what you write so please give me a list of what is the same in an Annual and a Condition inspection.

Condition inspection.
I have no AD's to follow.
I have no manufacturer check list to follow.
I need no IA to sign my log book
My airplane is not signed as being airworthy.
Ect.

Now please tell me what is the same besides this is done annually?

14 CFR Part 43 Appendix D describes what must be included in annual and 100-hour inspections. While Part 43 does not apply to Experimentals, our operating limitations almost always specify the airplane be inspected to the scope and detail of Appendix D.

As far not having to follow ADs, this is not true...according to the latest interpretation by the FAA. Homebuilts must comply with ADs depending on the wording of the AD. If the AD for a piece of equipment does not limit it to particular aircraft types, then the AD applies to any aircraft...production or homebuilt...where the equipment is installed.

For instance, AD 69-09-01 was issued on Eisemann magnetos more than 45 years ago. The applicability says, "Applies to all type AM-4, AM-6, LA-4, and LA-6 Eisemann magnetos installed on, but not necessarily limited to:" (Emphasis added)

The "not necessarily limited to" is what the FAA interprets as making the AD applicable to a homebuilt. Now, someone could replace all the data plates on every piece of equipment in their engine compartment to obscure the basic nature of the parts...but few builders actually do that. So if it says "Eisemann AM-4", according to the FAA, the AD applies.

And yes, I'm speaking from experience. I had to partially disassemble the mags in my Fly Baby to show compliance with the AD.

True, we have no manufacturer's checklist to follow. But Part 43 does not require the owner of a production aircraft to use a manufacturer's checklist. It requires the use of a checklist, but says "...it can be of the person's own design." But since Part 43 doesn't apply to homebuilts, we aren't required to use a checklist.

But is that a *good* thing? Shouldn't a responsible Repairman or A&P use what checklists are available...or develop their own... to ensure all the important items are covered? Wouldn't a checklist make a Condition inspection of a Lancair IVP (retractable gear, turbocharged, constant speed prop, pressurized) a LOT safer?

A lot of homebuilders believe in them. Do a Google search, for instance, on "RV aircraft annual inspection checklist." Heck, the Fly Baby community collaborated on a condition inspection checklist (http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/ci.pdf).

As far as not needing an IA to sign the logbook for a conditional inspection, that's certainly right. But if you've purchased a flying homebuilt instead of building one, you need an A&P to sign the logbook. My A&P has my Fly Baby logs right now, signing off the Condition Inspection. Heck, my Fly Baby's annual used to be "signed off" by an IA...just because the A&P I found had the authorization (he didn't mention the IA in his logbook entry).

And yes, homebuilts are not signed off as being "Airworthy"... because the definition of "Airworthy" includes the IA's verification that the aircraft still conforms to its Type Certificate. My homebuilt gets signed as being in a condition for safe operation.

For the most part, this difference is just semantics. It used to take the A&P/IA about eight hours to annual my old Cessna 150. Of that, maybe 15 minutes were spent on the certification data. If the plane hadn't been repaired or modified in the past year, there's really not that much to being "airworthy" other than the same inspection that should be done on a homebuilt.

Ron Wanttaja

[Marc Zeitlin]

As far not having to follow ADs, this is not true...according to the latest interpretation by the FAA. Homebuilts must comply with ADs depending on the wording of the AD. If the AD for a piece of equipment does not limit it to particular aircraft types, then the AD applies to any aircraft...production or homebuilt...where the equipment is installed.
Although I agree with most of what you wrote regarding the differences and similarities between "Annuals" and "Condition Inspections" (and although you're usually correct and I agree with you when you are :-) ), you've got this backwards.

From AC39-7D, released on 3/2/2012, section 9 explicitly states:

"... Unless statedotherwise (see subparagraph 9b of this AC), ADs only apply to type-certificated (TC) aircraft,including ADs issued for an engine, propeller, and appliance."

This is VERY clear that if the FAA wants an AD to apply to an non-TC'd aircraft, they have to explicitly say so. Part (9b), referenced above, states:

"The AD applicability statement will identify if the AD applies tonon-TC’d aircraft or engines, propellers, and appliances installed thereon."

So the default is that AD's don't apply unless explicitly called out. So far, I haven't seen an AD that applies to EAB aircraft, but I only pay attention to canards.

[Mike M]

Certainly was up for grabs before the "d" revision! The examples there helped. If it doesn't have the magic words "applies to any" etc, then it doesn't apply to all. Still wiggle room for the inventive mind on either side of the discussion but darn little. Excellent example of how hard it is to craft universally understood, simple instructions when dealing with intelligent type A personalities. Annual inspection for operating condition. Already have an annual inspection. Call this one a condition inspection, then, you take the last donut and let's beat the traffic going home. Yep, I can imagine the meeting that wrote that rule. :)

[WLIU]

"From AC39-7D"

Please be very careful. "AC"s are not regulatory. Operating limitations and AD's are regulatory. In the world of the FAA you must follow the op lims and AD's over AC's. The FAA, like the IRS, does not always give correct advice.

So post #6 is correct, not #7 and #8. Unfortunately, you have to parse this stuff like a lawyer.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

[1600vw]

"From AC39-7D"

Please be very careful. "AC"s are not regulatory. Operating limitations and AD's are regulatory. In the world of the FAA you must follow the op lims and AD's over AC's. The FAA, like the IRS, does not always give correct advice.

So post #6 is correct, not #7 and #8. Unfortunately, you have to parse this stuff like a lawyer.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

Everything in aviation has to be phrased in a such and such way, but the phrase Condition Inspection. People call it whatever they want and no one cares. But call an ASI a speedometer and see what it gets you. They both do the same thing.

So AD's must be followed on an EAB, really this is news to me. For one who issue's an AD on a VW engine. Or a Prop made by some company without any certifications? There are no AD's that I must follow. The first A&P I hired to do my Condition Inspection wanted to find all AD's on my airplane. He sat in front of a computer for hours doing I have no idea what. Then he wanted an IA to sign my log book. I kept telling him this was a condition inspection, he kept calling it an annual. Its not an annual.

AD's must be followed on a type certificate airframe, not on an EAB. We who fly these EAB's can not even see eye to eye on this. How do we expect the people who enforce the rules or play by them to understand this. Never will happen until we get get it together and stop calling our Condition Inspections an Annual.


An annual is done annually to make sure an airplane is air worthy. A condition inspection is done yearly to make sure it's in a safe condition for operation. Nothing about the two are the same.

I have to comply with my OP limitation, I do not have to comply with any AD's. My airplane is not an airworthy airframe. What ad's are there. Please post them for me so I can follow them. I will follow them if someone points me to just one. I will follow it. There are none.

[Sam Buchanan]

And while we are parsing semantics.....it is condition inspection. The inspection isn't conditional on anything, it is to state the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation.

Repeat after me.....condition, condition, condition...... :cool:

[Dana]

In some cases experimentals are approved for a shorter phase 1 flight test period when they have a certificated engine/prop combination. In this case an A&P is required to maintain the engine, and presumably then any ADs for that engine apply.

I call it an "annual" or "annual condition inspection" because if I just say "condition inspection" people will think I'm talking about a pre-buy inspection or something like that.

[Sam Buchanan]

In some cases experimentals are approved for a shorter phase 1 flight test period when they have a certificated engine/prop combination. In this case an A&P is required to maintain the engine, and presumably then any ADs for that engine apply.

I call it an "annual" or "annual condition inspection" because if I just say "condition inspection" people will think I'm talking about a pre-buy inspection or something like that.

The 25 hour Phase One does not change who is able to perform maintenance on the engine. Anyone can do any maintenance on an experimental regardless of how long Phase One lasted. If the possessor of the Repairman Certificate is not available/willing then an A&P needs to endorse the logs for the Condition Inspection.

[WLIU]

The good news for some is that the FAA does not issue AD's on VW engines. But they do issue AD's on certificated parts and assemblies and if you use one in your Exp Amateur Built, you might run into an AD that is written to apply to you. The individual who performs a condition inspection should check for this.

I will note that many AD's identify real issues that can occur on both certificated and exp aircraft. Some AD's are just covering a manufacturer's liability. But you do not know which is which unless you read them. If you use certificated parts in your exp, you ignore AD's at your peril. What is the old saying - Aviation is intolerant of ignorance or neglect?

Fly safe,

Wes
N78PS

[Marc Zeitlin]

Please be very careful. "AC"s are not regulatory. Operating limitations and AD's are regulatory.That is correct.

In the world of the FAA you must follow the op lims and AD's over AC's. The FAA, like the IRS, does not always give correct advice.That is also correct. But that doesn't imply that ALL advice that they give in AC's is wrong - in fact, the great majority of it is correct.


So post #6 is correct, not #7 and #8.I have done many CI's on many aircraft, and reviewed their Op Limits. I've seen OL's that were written in the 70's, 80's, 90's, 00's, and 10's. I have never seen any OL's that explicitly (or implicitly) stated that the aircraft must comply with AD's written on the airframe (not sure how that would even happen), engine, engine components, or appliances. There is no facility in the 8130.2G order for assigning applicability of AD's to EAB aircraft in the OL's, nor was there, as far as I could tell, in previous versions of the document.

As the AC states, _IF_ an AD is written that explicitly states that it applies to a particular aircraft which might be EAB, THEN it does, and must be complied with. But the OL's do not speak to AD's, and the AC is accurate as written, whether regulatory or not.

The wording "But Not Necessarily Limited To" is NOT the same as "In All Possible Installations", even if someone that Ron W. had to deal with thought it did mean the same thing. That has never been the EAA or the official FAA's interpretation previous to the release of version d of the AC, in my understanding.

Now, as has been discussed many times before, and I reiterate to all of my customers, whether required or not, you're very possibly an idiot if you don't comply with a safety related AD if you've got the item discussed on your airplane - the item does not know whether your plane is TC'd or not.

[Dana]

The 25 hour Phase One does not change who is able to perform maintenance on the engine. Anyone can do any maintenance on an experimental regardless of how long Phase One lasted. If the possessor of the Repairman Certificate is not available/willing then an A&P needs to endorse the logs for the Condition Inspection.

Did that change at some point? I haven't paid attention recently, but I thought at one time there was a reduced test time with a certificated engine... which carried the requirement for the engine to stay certificated, meaning an A&P to work on it (as always, anybody could work on the rest of the plane). As I understood or recall it, you could stop treating the engine as certificated by putting the plane back into phase 1 testing again for some number of hours. But I could have misunderstood it then or misrecall it now.

[Sam Buchanan]

Did that change at some point? I haven't paid attention recently, but I thought at one time there was a reduced test time with a certificated engine... which carried the requirement for the engine to stay certificated, meaning an A&P to work on it (as always, anybody could work on the rest of the plane). As I understood or recall it, you could stop treating the engine as certificated by putting the plane back into phase 1 testing again for some number of hours. But I could have misunderstood it then or misrecall it now.

A certificated prop in combination with a certificated engine can indeed result in a 25 hr Phase 1 instead of 50 hr. But maintenance requirements are the same regardless of the ancestry of the prop and engine. As I recall this has been the case since I have been in the experimental community (~25 years).

An engine cannot "stay certificated" in an aircraft with an experimental airworthiness certificate. Certification requires a particular engine/prop combination in the same airframe in which certification was achieved. In other words, in a type certificated airframe.

But experimentals don't have type certificates. Consequently, it is impossible to have a "certificated" engine in an experimental. Having said that, it is possible to maintain an engine and prop to the same standards as it would have been maintained in a type certificated airframe, but the engine is no longer "certificated".

I've heard builders say they want to "keep their engine certified" so it can be later sold (at a higher price) and installed in a certificated aircraft. Even though the engine may have been maintained to a high level, it would most likely be very difficult to find an A&P/IA to install the engine and endorse the logs without a complete teardown to insure it still meets certification standards. So the intended advantage really doesn't exist.

[Anymouse]

I typically refer to my Condition Inspection as an Annual Inspection because I don't want to have to explain what a Conditional Inspection is to a non-EAB'er.

Did I ever mention how lazy I am??

[FlyingRon]

Same reason people call Flight Reviews 'Biennials.'

[malexander]

And while we are parsing semantics.....it is condition inspection. The inspection isn't conditional on anything, it is to state the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation.

Repeat after me.....condition, condition, condition...... :cool:


THANK YOU!!!! Sam:)

[Jeff Point]

But experimentals don't have type certificates. Consequently, it is impossible to have a "certificated" engine in an experimental. Having said that, it is possible to maintain an engine and prop to the same standards as it would have been maintained in a type certificated airframe, but the engine is no longer "certificated".
Bingo. Taking it a step further, because the engine is no longer "certificated" the moment that you bolt it to an E-AB, AD compliance is not required in order to maintain "certification" because there is no certification. This does not address the wisdom of compliance, just the legal requirements.

[Mike M]

...From AC39-7D, released on 3/2/2012, section 9 explicitly states:

"... Unless stated otherwise (see subparagraph 9b of this AC), ADs only apply to type-certificated (TC) aircraft,including ADs issued for an engine, propeller, and appliance."

This is VERY clear that if the FAA wants an AD to apply to an non-TC'd aircraft, they have to explicitly say so. Part (9b), referenced above, states:

"The AD applicability statement will identify if the AD applies to non-TC’d aircraft or engines, propellers, and appliances installed thereon."...


AC39-7D, "...ADs apply only to type-certificated aircraft, including ADs issued for an engine, propeller, and appliance." Spot on target.

And this becomes even more clear when compared to the previous version, AC39-7C:

"8. 8. APPLICABILITY OF AD's...Unless specifically stated, AD's apply to the make and model set forth in the applicability statement regardless of the classification or category of the airworthiness certificate issued for the aircraft..."


I had some worries about the D model at first. Started a thread on the subject back then:

http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?2043-AC-No-39-7D-Subject-Airworthiness-Directives&highlight=airworthiness+directives

Mostly because I didn't know enough about the subject (yep, that happens a lot.) C model vs D model. Pretty significant change. Very obvious what they meant when the two versions are compared. Very doubtful it wasn't intentional. The C model was about 17 years old when killed. Some of us didn't know Charlie very well. And many of those who did know him missed his obituary.

[cub builder]

Bingo. Taking it a step further, because the engine is no longer "certificated" the moment that you bolt it to an E-AB, AD compliance is not required in order to maintain "certification" because there is no certification. This does not address the wisdom of compliance, just the legal requirements.

That may or may not be true, but when your E-AB aircraft sporting a Lycoming engine on the nose is involved in an incident, the FAA inspector is going to go right to the engine log and look for A.D compliance. You may not agree with him gigging you and the A&P that signed your condition inspection (if you don't have a Repairman Certificate), but regardless of whether you agree or not, you and whoever signed the condition inspection will be on defense. I have seen it happen.

In this case, the non-certificated the wood prop failed where it had recently picked up a rock ding and threw some 6" off one tip. The pilot executed a forced landing, but was unable to get squared up on his intended landing site causing damage to the landing gear and some minor damage to the airframe. The FAA inspector Insisted on a review of the engine logs for AD compliance even though it wasn't relevant to the failure and the engine was undamaged. The owner conveniently lost to logs so as to not involve the A&P that had signed the logs (it was not up to date on it's A.D.s). The log book was found at a later date after the FAA had lost interest.

Lesson for me as an A&P (and it wasn't me that had signed the CI), if you have a certificated engine on the front of your plane and bring it to me for a CI, it's going to comply with the AD list for that engine. If you don't like it, then find an A&P that's willing to risk his license to save you a couple of $$.

We can discuss interpretation of regulations to our little hearts delight here in the blogosphere, but in the real world, someone's likely to be on the hook for non-compliance. You can be right, but it's still costly, time consuming and aggravating to prove the FAA inspector to be wrong. As an A&P, I find having conversations with the FAA and NTSB following accidents to be one of the less enjoyable parts of the job. And I sure don't want be on the defensive if I have to have one of those conversations.

-Cub Builder

[Sam Buchanan]

That may or may not be true, but when your E-AB aircraft sporting a Lycoming engine on the nose is involved in an incident, the FAA inspector is going to go right to the engine log and look for A.D compliance. You may not agree with him gigging you and the A&P that signed your condition inspection (if you don't have a Repairman Certificate), but regardless of whether you agree or not, you and whoever signed the condition inspection will be on defense. I have seen it happen.

In this case, the non-certificated the wood prop failed where it had recently picked up a rock ding and threw some 6" off one tip. The pilot executed a forced landing, but was unable to get squared up on his intended landing site causing damage to the landing gear and some minor damage to the airframe. The FAA inspector Insisted on a review of the engine logs for AD compliance even though it wasn't relevant to the failure and the engine was undamaged. The owner conveniently lost to logs so as to not involve the A&P that had signed the logs (it was not up to date on it's A.D.s). The log book was found at a later date after the FAA had lost interest.

Lesson for me as an A&P (and it wasn't me that had signed the CI), if you have a certificated engine on the front of your plane and bring it to me for a CI, it's going to comply with the AD list for that engine. If you don't like it, then find an A&P that's willing to risk his license to save you a couple of $$.

We can discuss interpretation of regulations to our little hearts delight here in the blogosphere, but in the real world, someone's likely to be on the hook for non-compliance. You can be right, but it's still costly, time consuming and aggravating to prove the FAA inspector to be wrong. As an A&P, I find having conversations with the FAA and NTSB following accidents to be one of the less enjoyable parts of the job. And I sure don't want be on the defensive if I have to have one of those conversations.

-Cub Builder

I suppose the question that begs to be asked is....at what point does a Lycoming cease being certificated?

Do automotive spark plugs cause it to lose "certificated" status? What about an experimental ignition system? Aftermarket (non-TSO'ed) exhaust system? An alternator from a 1978 Honda Civic (that is what is on my O-320)? High compression pistons that never were installed by the factory in that particular engine? A home-brew remote oil fiter adapter?

And what about those of us burning automotive gas in our "Lycomings"?

How is "certificated" engine defined by the over-reaching FAA inspectors since no such animal exists on an aircraft with an experimental airworthiness certificate?

[cub builder]

I suppose the question that begs to be asked is....at what point does a Lycoming cease being certificated?

It is my understanding the answer is "When it no longer has a Lycoming or Continental Data Plate." But you would do better to talk to your local FSDO about their interpretation to that question.



Do automotive spark plugs cause it to lose "certificated" status? What about an experimental ignition system? Aftermarket (non-TSO'ed) exhaust system? An alternator from a 1978 Honda Civic (that is what is on my O-320)? High compression pistons that never were installed by the factory in that particular engine? A home-brew remote oil fiter adapter?

And what about those of us burning automotive gas in our "Lycomings"?


Using Automotive spark plugs and an automotive harness to adapt to them would exempt you from a spark plug or ignition harness A.D. since there won't be any out there against the automotive Spark plugs. An aftermarket or home brewed exhaust would exempt you from an A.D. against that exhaust; again because there won't be an A.D. against a non-TSO exhaust system. But, just because you have an aftermarket or home brewed exhaust doesn't mean I wouldn't look at it for problems and recommend fixing it if there are problems. Same is true for your home brewed oil filter assembly. The alternator is part of the Airframe accessories, so that doesn't apply since we're talking Engine A.D.s and your E-AB airframe sure isn't going to have any A.D.s. But if you had an alternator that had known issues, I'd certainly bring it to your attention as well.



How do you define "certificated" engine since no such animal exists on an aircraft with an experimental airworthiness certificate?

IMHO, Certificated engines do exist in the Experimental world. The FAA recognizes such, which is why you can have a 25 hour phase 1 test period if you use a certificated engine/prop combination on your E-AB aircraft. That is exactly what I did on one of my E-AB aircraft. The engine and prop were in the same combination as they would have been when installed in a certificated aircraft. The engine and prop both met the standards for their individual Type Certificates (including STCs) when they were installed into my aircraft (although I completed a field overhaul to new standards prior to installation). IMHO, if the engine is built and maintained in compliance with it's Type Certificate, then it is still a certificated engine. As such, I would have no problem with mounting it back into a certificated aircraft. I keep seeing people stating otherwise in the forums, but I would respectfully disagree. If it meets the standard of it's type certificate, it can be used as such.

So let's be clear about something here. There is what you may be able to get away with legally, and then there's the issue of asking a mechanic to put his license at risk by signing for an engine that's not up to snuff on it's A.D.s. Those are two different subjects. I've never had an owner offer to indemnify me as a mechanic if the FAA decides they don't like something I signed for, and I don't get to go back and bill the owner for the time I'm going to waste dealing with the FAA because the owner didn't think complying with A.D.s was a necessity.

FWIW, I was wearing an airplane builder hat some 30 years before I got my A&P hat, so I believe I do see both sides of the coin here. For the purposes of this discussion, I've been wearing my A&P hat since the discussion started out with Tony's favorite subject of bashing us ignorant A&Ps. :) But I must admit, I have had problems tying my shoes in the morning since acquiring the license. :rollseyes:

-Cub Builder
A&P, Former EAA Technical Counselor, Former EAA Flight Advisor

[Jeff Point]

Sounds like you had a bad experience with an inspector who didn't know the regs. I don't blame you for being gun shy, but the regs don't change because one inspector misinterprets them.

[Bill Berson]

Read FAR 39:
The FAA issues Airworthiness Directives when an unsafe "condition" is found in a product, and the condition is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Since each EA-B airframe is one of a kind, there is no need for the FAA to advise other owners of same type design since only one exists and there is no type design.
But the FAA must issue an AD for a defective engine, if the engine was made under a Type Certificate since other of these engines are likely to have the same problem.
The owner is primarily responsible for maintaining the aircraft in airworthy "condition" including compliance with AD's (see FAR 91.403). I can't find any excemption for EA-B from this AD compliance requirement found in FAR 91.403.

Ultralights are excempt from AD's because ultralights are excempt from FAR91 entirely. (91.1)

[Marc Zeitlin]

Read FAR 39:
The FAA issues Airworthiness Directives when an unsafe "condition" is found in a product, and the condition is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Since each EA-B airframe is one of a kind, there is no need for the FAA to advise other owners of same type design since only one exists and there is no type design.
But the FAA must issue an AD for a defective engine, if the engine was made under a Type Certificate since other of these engines are likely to have the same problem.
The owner is primarily responsible for maintaining the aircraft in airworthy "condition" including compliance with AD's (see FAR 91.403). I can't find any excemption for EA-B from this AD compliance requirement found in FAR 91.403.You guys arguing that AD's always apply to EAB aircraft might want to read this:

http://starduster.aircraftspruce.com/wwwboard/messages/25960.html

which covers the EAA's position on it - I imagine they've spent a good deal more time analyzing the regs than we have, and their position is that they do NOT apply (legally) and that the FAA is clear in their INTENT on that. The new AC merely clarifies that position. Yes, that message is 10 years old, but other than the new AC, nothing has changed in that time period.

As Jeff Point points out (well, that reads strangely) one (or a few) people misinterpreting the rules doesn't change the rules.

I always RECOMMEND that the owner research and comply with AD's on their engines/appliances if necessary when I do CI's, but I don't require it, as the regs don't require it.

[Frank Giger]

Same reason people call Flight Reviews 'Biennials.'

And cross tip screw drivers as "Phillips head" and adjustable wrenches as "Crescent wrenches."

[rwanttaja]

And cross tip screw drivers as "Phillips head" ...
I always thought a "Phillips Screwdriver" was Vodka and Milk of Magnesia... :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[1600vw]

It is my understanding the answer is "When it no longer has a Lycoming or Continental Data Plate." But you would do better to talk to your local FSDO about their interpretation to that question.



Using Automotive spark plugs and an automotive harness to adapt to them would exempt you from a spark plug or ignition harness A.D. since there won't be any out there against the automotive Spark plugs. An aftermarket or home brewed exhaust would exempt you from an A.D. against that exhaust; again because there won't be an A.D. against a non-TSO exhaust system. But, just because you have an aftermarket or home brewed exhaust doesn't mean I wouldn't look at it for problems and recommend fixing it if there are problems. Same is true for your home brewed oil filter assembly. The alternator is part of the Airframe accessories, so that doesn't apply since we're talking Engine A.D.s and your E-AB airframe sure isn't going to have any A.D.s. But if you had an alternator that had known issues, I'd certainly bring it to your attention as well.



IMHO, Certificated engines do exist in the Experimental world. The FAA recognizes such, which is why you can have a 25 hour phase 1 test period if you use a certificated engine/prop combination on your E-AB aircraft. That is exactly what I did on one of my E-AB aircraft. The engine and prop were in the same combination as they would have been when installed in a certificated aircraft. The engine and prop both met the standards for their individual Type Certificates (including STCs) when they were installed into my aircraft (although I completed a field overhaul to new standards prior to installation). IMHO, if the engine is built and maintained in compliance with it's Type Certificate, then it is still a certificated engine. As such, I would have no problem with mounting it back into a certificated aircraft. I keep seeing people stating otherwise in the forums, but I would respectfully disagree. If it meets the standard of it's type certificate, it can be used as such.

So let's be clear about something here. There is what you may be able to get away with legally, and then there's the issue of asking a mechanic to put his license at risk by signing for an engine that's not up to snuff on it's A.D.s. Those are two different subjects. I've never had an owner offer to indemnify me as a mechanic if the FAA decides they don't like something I signed for, and I don't get to go back and bill the owner for the time I'm going to waste dealing with the FAA because the owner didn't think complying with A.D.s was a necessity.

FWIW, I was wearing an airplane builder hat some 30 years before I got my A&P hat, so I believe I do see both sides of the coin here. For the purposes of this discussion, I've been wearing my A&P hat since the discussion started out with Tony's favorite subject of bashing us ignorant A&Ps. :) But I must admit, I have had problems tying my shoes in the morning since acquiring the license. :rollseyes:

-Cub Builder
A&P, Former EAA Technical Counselor, Former EAA Flight Advisor


Not bashing anyone. But as you can see in the posts this is a subject that people do not see eye to eye on. Just read the posts if you do not believe me.

Tony

[Bill Berson]

You guys arguing that AD's always apply to EAB aircraft might want to read this:

http://starduster.aircraftspruce.com/wwwboard/messages/25960.html

which covers the EAA's position on it - I imagine they've spent a good deal more time analyzing the regs than we have, and their position is that they do NOT apply (legally) and that the FAA is clear in their INTENT on that. The new AC merely clarifies that position. Yes, that message is 10 years old, but other than the new AC, nothing has changed in that time period.

As Jeff Point points out (well, that reads strangely) one (or a few) people misinterpreting the rules doesn't change the rules.

I always RECOMMEND that the owner research and comply with AD's on their engines/appliances if necessary when I do CI's, but I don't require it, as the regs don't require it.

The latest AC39-7D does state that future AD's shall apply to experimental or other types, when so stated in that AD.
I suspect most future engine AD's will indeed likely apply to experimentals.
Since the FAA has decided that some future AD's can apply to experimental engines, props and accessories, the experimental aircraft owner now has the burden to check. The FAA likely won't send any notice.

[Marc Zeitlin]

The latest AC39-7D does state that future AD's shall apply to experimental or other types, when so stated in that AD.Which is exactly what I pointed out in my first response to this thread.

I suspect most future engine AD's will indeed likely apply to experimentals.No doubt some will.

Since the FAA has decided that some future AD's can apply to experimental engines, props and accessories, the experimental aircraft owner now has the burden to check. The FAA likely won't send any notice.You can subscribe to get email notices when AD's are written against engines or appliances that you have/use. That way, you won't be left out in the cold. You can then determine if your serial #'s or whatever match the AD and if you're required to comply or if you're N/A.

See:

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/airworthiness_directives/

[1600vw]

This here in lies the problem. This thread has gone just where the Condition Inspection has gone. Its gone General Aviation or GA. With the advent of the Factory built LSA the word " Experimental " takes on a whole new meaning. Now updates or upgrades, things like an AD can come out and they should be followed. Any smart person would follow any advice given from the manufacturer of thier airframe or airplane even if not written in an AD.
The first thing I did when buying my first Rans was called Rans. I gave them all the info like serial number and they told me of all upgrades, those in the GA world would call them AD's. and if they were indeed installed or purchased these updates for this airframe.
This is why a Condition Inspection is called an Annual. Its a state of mind. We have lost the Experimental in Experimental. Today people want Certified. Just read all the post since post one.

Tony

[martymayes]

This here in lies the problem. This thread has gone just where the Condition Inspection has gone. Its gone General Aviation or GA. With the advent of the Factory built LSA the word " Experimental " takes on a whole new meaning.

The word "experimental" has a much broader scope than just homebuilts and it's been that way for a long time. I find it interesting that you feel that the holder of an A&P certificate should be familiar with the ongoing requirements of special a/w certificates issued to homebuilts. Is that one of the training and testing requirements for A&P's?

Yeah, someone says I need an annual on my homebuilt, I'm okay with that. I know what they mean. If someone walks up and ask if your homebuilt is "in license" you're gonna be thrown for a loop. It's all a state of mind.

[rwanttaja]

This is why a Condition Inspection is called an Annual. Its a state of mind. We have lost the Experimental in Experimental.
It's verbal shorthand, nothing more. It's just easier and more concise to say "Annual" than to have to explain to most people what a "Yearly Condition Inspection" is, and why it differs from an annual. Like an annual, the fundamental purpose of a condition inspection is to ensure a plane is safe to fly.

Sure, there's some failures in logic in the term, applied to homebuilts. But it's like when someone says, "ATM machine", or "SSD drive". Doesn't make sense, but you know what they mean.

Ron Wanttaja

[Bill Berson]

You can subscribe to get email notices when AD's are written against engines or appliances that you have/use. That way, you won't be left out in the cold. You can then determine if your serial #'s or whatever match the AD and if you're required to comply or if you're N/A.

See:

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/airworthiness_directives/

thanks for that link. It seems the FAA has stopped sending me paper AD notices by mail for my registered aircraft.

[1600vw]

The word "experimental" has a much broader scope than just homebuilts and it's been that way for a long time. I find it interesting that you feel that the holder of an A&P certificate should be familiar with the ongoing requirements of special a/w certificates issued to homebuilts. Is that one of the training and testing requirements for A&P's?

Yeah, someone says I need an annual on my homebuilt, I'm okay with that. I know what they mean. If someone walks up and ask if your homebuilt is "in license" you're gonna be thrown for a loop. It's all a state of mind.


I would say an A&P should know the difference between a Certified airframe and one that is not. He/she should also know what is needed to keep both flying from the maintenance needed to the paper work.

Tony

[1600vw]

If someone tells me they need an Annual for the EAB, I say no you don't, you need a Condition inspection. There is a difference.

Tony

[martymayes]

I would say an A&P should know the difference between a Certified airframe and one that is not. He/she should also know what is needed to keep both flying from the maintenance needed to the paper work.

Tony, no where in the current FARs is an A&P required to have knowledge/training on homebuilt airplanes. I think the FAA is primarily responsible for your frustration and not so much individual A&P's.

[martymayes]

If someone tells me they need an Annual for the EAB, I say no you don't, you need a Condition inspection. There is a difference.

Appendix D of part 43 will suffice in either case. Maybe they are not so different after all.........

[cub builder]

Let's step back about 35 years ago and see how we got here. Prior to 1979 there was no such thing as a "Repairman Certificate". Additionally, A&Ps and IAs could not sign for inspections on E-AB aircraft. Only an FAA Airworthiness Inspector could do inspections on E-AB aircraft. As one can well imagine, that was quickly becoming a problem for the FAA as the E-AB movement took hold and more and more people began building aircraft. The local GADO (General Aviation District Office) started having Inspection meetings where you could fly your E-AB aircraft in to get it's annual inspection. The Inspectors would often times have to inspect 10 or more aircraft in a day. Otherwise, they would have to travel into the field to do the inspections one by one. Obviously, the quality of the inspections in this scenario weren't the best. (Has anyone actually seen an FAA Airworthiness Inspector get their hands dirty?) This was really becoming overwhelming for the GADO offices and something had to change.

I went through one annual inspection with the GADO office under this scenario. I had to fly my non-electric biplane into an ARSA (now class C) airport to the GADO (now FSDO) office so the Airworthiness Inspector could spend 15 minutes looking it over and endorse my logbooks. The inspection was a joke, and quite frankly, having a lot of homebuilts, many non-electric, flying into busy airspace where the GADO offices are located and trying to land with light signals from the tower mixed in with plenty of passenger jet traffic probably wasn't a really great way to operate.

The reality was that the builders were doing their own maintenance, so the FAA decided to issue a Repairman Certificate to give the owners an official blessing to do their own maintenance and sign their own logs. But then there was the issue of how to deal with E-AB aircraft that were no longer owned by the original builder. The FAA decided that since A&Ps possess sufficient knowledge of general principles of aircraft aircraft construction and engine maintenance to perform E-AB inspections, so decided to allow any A&P to perform condition inspections on E-AB aircraft rather than restricting inspections to only A&Ps with an IA (Inspectors Authorization) rating. The FAA didn't have to do this but chose to do this based on he difference between one type of plane being signed off as airworthy vs the other type being signed as serviceable. They could have forced the E-AB community to use mechanics with an IA rating, which would have constricted the E-AB community significantly.

The testing to obtain an A&P license is centered around the technical aspects of performing the job. Knowing and understanding the mechanics of the job is the vast majority of the emphasis. Testing for the IA rating is centered around knowing and understanding the FARs and associated paperwork.

-Cub Builder

[ssmdive]

I typically refer to my Condition Inspection as an Annual Inspection because I don't want to have to explain what a Conditional Inspection is to a non-EAB'er.

Did I ever mention how lazy I am??

This… And then even explain it to some EAB'ers.

[1600vw]

Let's step back about 35 years ago and see how we got here. Prior to 1979 there was no such thing as a "Repairman Certificate". Additionally, A&Ps and IAs could not sign for inspections on E-AB aircraft. Only an FAA Airworthiness Inspector could do inspections on E-AB aircraft. As one can well imagine, that was quickly becoming a problem for the FAA as the E-AB movement took hold and more and more people began building aircraft. The local GADO (General Aviation District Office) started having Inspection meetings where you could fly your E-AB aircraft in to get it's annual inspection. The Inspectors would often times have to inspect 10 or more aircraft in a day. Otherwise, they would have to travel into the field to do the inspections one by one. Obviously, the quality of the inspections in this scenario weren't the best. (Has anyone actually seen an FAA Airworthiness Inspector get their hands dirty?) This was really becoming overwhelming for the GADO offices and something had to change.

I went through one annual inspection with the GADO office under this scenario. I had to fly my non-electric biplane into an ARSA (now class C) airport to the GADO (now FSDO) office so the Airworthiness Inspector could spend 15 minutes looking it over and endorse my logbooks. The inspection was a joke, and quite frankly, having a lot of homebuilts, many non-electric, flying into busy airspace where the GADO offices are located and trying to land with light signals from the tower mixed in with plenty of passenger jet traffic probably wasn't a really great way to operate.

The reality was that the builders were doing their own maintenance, so the FAA decided to issue a Repairman Certificate to give the owners an official blessing to do their own maintenance and sign their own logs. But then there was the issue of how to deal with E-AB aircraft that were no longer owned by the original builder. The FAA decided that since A&Ps possess sufficient knowledge of general principles of aircraft aircraft construction and engine maintenance to perform E-AB inspections, so decided to allow any A&P to perform condition inspections on E-AB aircraft rather than restricting inspections to only A&Ps with an IA (Inspectors Authorization) rating. The FAA didn't have to do this but chose to do this based on he difference between one type of plane being signed off as airworthy vs the other type being signed as serviceable. They could have forced the E-AB community to use mechanics with an IA rating, which would have constricted the E-AB community significantly.

The testing to obtain an A&P license is centered around the technical aspects of performing the job. Knowing and understanding the mechanics of the job is the vast majority of the emphasis. Testing for the IA rating is centered around knowing and understanding the FARs and associated paperwork.

-Cub Builder

More the reason to make sure the wordage is correct. Don't let anyone call your Condition Inspection an Annual.

1600vw

[1600vw]

This… And then even explain it to some EAB'ers.

If these people do not know the difference between a Condition Inspection and an Annual Inspection they need an education. So give them one, teach them something. If they say they do not want to learn anything new, well they should not be flying anything that goes into the air.

They say the EAB world does great at the maintenance and upkeep of its airplanes. Its in the paper work they lack. This comes from the EAA. I can post a webinar. This is part of that paper work, understanding the difference between a Condition Inspection and an Annual Inspection.

1600vw

[cub builder]

More the reason to make sure the wordage is correct. Don't let anyone call your Condition Inspection an Annual.

1600vw

Ha. I call my condition inspections annuals everywhere except in the log books. Oddly enough I do them annually which makes for a handy reference. The fact that you don't like verbal short cuts isn't going to change the rest of the world. You make similar inaccuracies without recognizing it, but everyone has been polite enough to not call you out.

March on Don Quixote. I'm sure there at more Windmills to joust. :D


-Cub Builder

[1600vw]

Ha. I call my condition inspections annuals everywhere except in the log books. Oddly enough I do them annually which makes for a handy reference. The fact that you don't like verbal short cuts isn't going to change the rest of the world. You make similar inaccuracies without recognizing it, but everyone has been polite enough to not call you out.

March on Don Quixote. I'm sure there at more Windmills to joust. :D

-Cub Builder

Like I am the only one who makes inaccuracies. Many have pointed mine out when they make them them self.

I make many mistakes. I am man enough to admit it. Unlike many here. But this is not about me.

1600vw

[1600vw]

http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=2608772875001

[Mike M]

http://eaaforums.org/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bill Berson http://eaaforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?p=48266#post48266)
Since the FAA has decided that some future AD's can apply to experimental engines, props and accessories, the experimental aircraft owner now has the burden to check. The FAA likely won't send any notice.


Which is exactly what I pointed out in my first response to this thread.
No doubt some will.
You can subscribe to get email notices when AD's are written against engines or appliances that you have/use. That way, you won't be left out in the cold. You can then determine if your serial #'s or whatever match the AD and if you're required to comply or if you're N/A.

See:

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/airworthiness_directives/

Thanks for the link. I believe you are 100% right on what you've posted in this thread.

When I started the other thread a while back, it didn't take long to realize that nobody had any idea what I was whining about. This is it, right here. Strong opinions both sides, with FAAspeak and FAApromises and personal experiences and FAAboogeymen and oh oh oh insurance companies to back them up.

Every E/AB owner being able to comply with all the ADs which MIGHT be brought up after an accident or incident investigation is impossible. No matter when they were issued, no matter what they require. No matter what anybody says. So I shut up and vowed to continue using common sense.

For example. I'm fourth owner of my E/AB. It has Rosenhahn wheels and brakes, salvaged gear legs that look a LOT like they came off a Cessna 140, and rudder pedal assemblies and brake master cylinders that look like they came off a Cessna 150. Say I sign up on the website and find out the FAA has issued ADs against C150 master cylinders and C140 gear. There is no part tag on anything but the Rosenhahn assemblies. But the zealot inspecting the bird claims there's no mistaking those Cessna parts so the AD applies! No way. Way. No way. WAY. Sheesh. Find previous owner's receipt for Autozone O-rings that will fit those cylinders. Nah nah neener, those cylinders have been altered so the AD no longer applies! Prove it. No record of non-A&P routine maintenance is required on E/AB. But with them IN there, I don't NEED to prove it because they are no longer an FAA approved part. Prove it. Right, how? Pull them apart and get the number on the O-ring? Right. In your dreams. Come back next week to see the receipts for Cessna O-rings.

Oh, the (example) Cleveland brake pucks AD I never got because those are Rosenhahn brakes? So now what? Don't have receipt, no part number visible, those must be the original Rosenhahn pucks that have been on there since the plane was new, yup, shur. Replace perfectly good ones? With what? They don't even MAKE Rosenhahn brakes anymore.

What? What about the left mag? It's got a tag. Slick throwaway. We'll pretend there is an AD on that part number to check for incorrect ignition wire attachment that should have been done 150 hours ago. Wait a minute. Right mag? Left hole? What? Oh, the left one failed 75 hours ago, I installed EI on right mag hole, moved right mag to left hole. Impossible. Nope, just drill another hole in the shaft and put on the impulse coupling, wha-lah. So it's been modified, AD no longer applies, right? Plus it's been through a conditional inspection with no defects last year, AND it has the original left mag harness on it anyway. Then why wasn't the tag modified or removed? Can't remove tags without FAA approval? Where did THAT come from? Why were there no tags on the gear legs or brake cylinders?

The (example) landing gear AD? It's on the mounts, not the gear legs, no problem. Note it in the logbook? But it's on CESSNAs not this type aircraft. Why note it? Don't worry, you won't be inspecting it next year.

Don't even start on why there is a Wells voltage regulator and an alternator rebuilt by Joe's Auto Electric or .... oh you get the point.

There is NO current way EVERY E/AB owner can know about, much less comply with, all ADs the FAA may have issued or may someday issue.

So now I do what I did before. I'll STFU and sit back down. :)

[Marc Zeitlin]

Every E/AB owner being able to comply with all the ADs which MIGHT be brought up after an accident or incident investigation is impossible. No matter when they were issued, no matter what they require. No matter what anybody says. So I shut up and vowed to continue using common sense.I really think that you're worried here (in your examples) about something that can't happen if folks (owners AND FAA/NTSB/Insurance) pay attention to the regs and is extremely unlikely in any case. Since the ONLY AD's that will apply to EAB aircraft are the ones that explicitly say so, all previous AD's for landing gear legs, magnetos, and the like are inapplicable - they don't mention YOUR plane, nor ANY EAB aircraft. Per the AC, no one can claim (rationally) that the FAA intended them to apply, since they've now clarified their intent.

So the only AD's that you should worry about are the FUTURE ones that MAY explicitly call out your plane or generic EAB aircraft. And what people may THINK a thing looks like means nothing if there's no documentation showing what it is (or was, at one point).

IMO, obviously.


There is NO current way EVERY E/AB owner can know about, much less comply with, all ADs the FAA may have issued or may someday issue.Not sure I agree with this - if you know what your plane is made out of, you can come pretty damn close. I've only got one thing (the remnants of an O-360 engine that's been rebuilt with a lot of aftermarket stuff) on my COZY MKIV that I need to keep track of. At least in the canard world, it's engines, mags and carbs - that's it, almost exclusively.

[Frank Giger]

Let's step back about 35 years ago and see how we got here.

[snip]

-Cub Builder

Thanks for that!

I actually vary the term depending on who I'm talking to. The average airplane owner out there isn't flying an Experimental, so to keep from explaining I use the term annual. If I'm talking to another builder or an A&P I use the term "inspection."

Unless they do AD's on nuts and bolts there isn't anything the FAA is going to put one out that applies to my aircraft so I'm not worried about them. :)

[rwanttaja]

... if you know what your plane is made out of, you can come pretty damn close. I've only got one thing (the remnants of an O-360 engine that's been rebuilt with a lot of aftermarket stuff) on my COZY MKIV that I need to keep track of. At least in the canard world, it's engines, mags and carbs - that's it, almost exclusively.
Well.. on the annual (ahem, "Condition inspection") where the A&P pegged me for a 40-year-old Eisemann AD, he also found an AD note on my ignition switch. So there's lots of little stuff we could get bit with. If you've got steam gauges, you have a whole lot of manufacturer names to keep track of....

Ron Wanttaja

[Marc Zeitlin]

Well.. on the annual (ahem, "Condition inspection") where the A&P pegged me for a 40-year-old Eisemann AD, he also found an AD note on my ignition switch. So there's lots of little stuff we could get bit with. If you've got steam gauges, you have a whole lot of manufacturer names to keep track of....Yes - you're correct. There are theoretically a lot of little things that could have AD's out against them. And you should TRY to know about them, as they COULD be safety issues for you, certainly.

But your A&P who convinced you that you were required to pay attention to them even though they legally didn't apply apparently didn't understand the regulations correctly. MAYBE it was a good idea that you complied with the AD's - I haven't read them and don't know your plane, so don't know whether it was important in YOUR plane with YOUR configuration. If he had told you that you SHOULD comply because he couldn't sign the CI off because the plane wouldn't be "in a condition for safe operation", THAT would have been reasonable.

If an A&P tries to convince me of something that isn't so, I will (if possible) go to a different A&P, if they can't be educated. And I am an A&P :-).

[lnuss]

...steam gauges...

Hmmm... when did they install steam on aircraft? :( That's been an uncomfortable term in my mind, ever since I first heard it. I cringe...

[rwanttaja]

Hmmm... when did they install steam on aircraft? :( That's been an uncomfortable term in my mind, ever since I first heard it. I cringe...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw6NFmcnW-8

Ron Wanttaja

[lnuss]

Your point is made Ron -- I learned something new today -- thanks for the neat video. Unfortunately, I still cringe with that term...

[Frank Giger]

A lot of aviation terms are rooted in the turn of the 20th Century, which I think is actually pretty cool. Heck, the classic (and still very applicable) Stick and Rudder employs analogies to horseback riding - something the average American was familiar with in the 1940's, but not so much today.

Plus it's a jab at analog instruments by the digital folks, inferring obsolescence. I also take that as a compliment.

Well I'd write more but it's time to wind my pocket watch!

[1600vw]

A lot of aviation terms are rooted in the turn of the 20th Century, which I think is actually pretty cool. Heck, the classic (and still very applicable) Stick and Rudder employs analogies to horseback riding - something the average American was familiar with in the 1940's, but not so much today.

Plus it's a jab at analog instruments by the digital folks, inferring obsolescence. I also take that as a compliment.

Well I'd write more but it's time to wind my pocket watch!

I understand you feel this subject is of no issue. But it is a really big deal to those who look to an A&P to do thier Condition Inspection. It is also a subject the EAA understands needs cleaned up. Homebuilders lack in the area of paper work. This is not me saying this but the EAA. If anyone watched those webinar the EAA posts they hit on this subject.

But from the responses to this post who cares? I believe the FAA cares as does the EAA.

Tony

[rwanttaja]

A lot of aviation terms are rooted in the turn of the 20th Century, which I think is actually pretty cool.

*20th* Century? Many are older than that. Some of the terms we homebuilders throw about are at least 500 years old. Came from the nautical world, of course.

Some examples:

Spar. To a sailor, a Spar is a long piece of wood which supports the sails. It's easy enough to see how the primary component of the wing might get the same name. Airplane spars are generally rectangular, though, while nautical ones are round.

Ribs are found in the wings of aircraft and forming the hulls of ships. The airplane variety were probably so named because they were curved, like the ship ribs. But in honesty, the plane ribs do look more like the anatomical variety than the nautical ones.

Cap Strips: Much smaller version of the Cap Rails on ships, which are admittedly attached at a different angle.

Bulkheads on ships are generally watertight, but on planes they often have holes large enough to stick your feet through. Literally.

Stringers run between ribs of a ship, but between bulkheads of a fuselage.

Rigging is obvious. But while sailing ships have standing rigging and running rigging, aviation calls the equivalents "wires" (as in "Landing wires" or "Flying wires") and "control cables". Note that good 'ol nautical splicing is an AC 43-13 approved method of forming an aviation cable around a turnbuckle.

Rudder is, again, obvious, but the name has probably confused more pilots than the gosport. Every knows you move the rudder to turn a boat...but that's a preconception one must drive out of one's mind when learning to fly.

Any sailor will know what you're talking about when you use the terms pitch and roll. Fore and Aft, and Port and Starboard all came across to aviation.

In a way, it's a pity that more of the nautical terms didn't get carried over to aviation. I'd rather refer to those little holes in my fabric as scuppers than the more prosaic drain holes. Futtock is a crude-sounding term that describes parts of a rib; one could have a lot of fun at Oshkosh with that one.

Still, one can see danger in that route. We probably wouldn't like it if the FAA substituted Keel Hauling for the term "Remedial training". Though if we could talk them into issuing Grog at noon at local fly-ins....

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

A lot of aviation terms are rooted in the turn of the 20th Century, which I think is actually pretty cool. Heck, the classic (and still very applicable) Stick and Rudder employs analogies to horseback riding - something the average American was familiar with in the 1940's, but not so much today.
I have fun with this. At Fly-Ins, I'm usually cycling kids into and out of the cockpit of my Fly Baby. As I brief them on where to step and how to crawl over the side, I point out that open-cockpit airplanes are always boarded from the left side....then ask them why.

The answer: Because that's the side you get on a horse! Most of the pilots of early aircraft were wealthy folks who probably owned horses as well, and I think the tradition followed.

THEN ask them, why do you always get on a horse from the left side?

The answer: So your sword doesn't get tangled....

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

I understand you feel this subject is of no issue. But it is a really big deal to those who look to an A&P to do thier Condition Inspection. It is also a subject the EAA understands needs cleaned up. Homebuilders lack in the area of paper work. This is not me saying this but the EAA. If anyone watched those webinar the EAA posts they hit on this subject.

But from the responses to this post who cares? I believe the FAA cares as does the EAA.
I care when it matters, I don't care when it doesn't. It matters when I'm discussing an upcoming condition inspection with a new A&P (had the current one for three years now, we both know the drill) but it doesn't matter when I'm standing around with my buddies talking about airplanes. And I'm one of those who has to depend on an A&P, and have been bit by the "ADs applicable or not" confusion.

Saying "annual" instead of "condition inspection" is just verbal shorthand. A lot of pilots talk about compliance with the FARs, but, in reality, none of the FARs apply to homebuilt aircraft. I don't bother to correct them.... I know what they mean, and it doesn't bother me. It's just a useful shorthand.

Ron Wanttaja

[Marc Zeitlin]

...A lot of pilots talk about compliance with the FARs, but, in reality, none of the FARs apply to homebuilt aircraft...Are you referring to some subset of FAR's that don't apply? Certainly, saying NONE of the FAR's apply to homebuilts is not correct. Almost, if not all, of part 91 applies, as does part 61, etc. Parts 23, 43 and 45 apply to the extent that the Operating Limitations say so (CI's, definition of major changes, markings, etc.), and Part 39 applies if an AD says so (per the AC we've discussed).

Seems to me that in reality, a large majority of the FAR's apply to E/AB aircraft, at least in part, no? Certainly there are large parts of the FAR's that don't apply, because the OL's don't say that they do, but I can't see how you can say that none of the FAR's apply... Am I missing something?

[rwanttaja]

Are you referring to some subset of FAR's that don't apply?
To the US Government, the "FARs" refer to the Federal Acquisition Regulations. The term "FAR" to refer to Federal Aviation Regulations is non-official. What we commonly call "FARs" are actually Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

If you look in FAR Part 1 (whoops... 14CFR Part 1 :-) there's a list of abbreviations. "FAR" isn't defined. The FAA doesn't officially use the term because of the confusion with the acquisition regulations.

It's a silly trick, I admit. But one could get just as wrapped up about "FARs" as "annuals"....the whole point is, it doesn't really matter.

Ron Wanttaja

[1600vw]

To the US Government, the "FARs" refer to the Federal Acquisition Regulations. The term "FAR" to refer to Federal Aviation Regulations is non-official. What we commonly call "FARs" are actually Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

If you look in FAR Part 1 (whoops... 14CFR Part 1 :-) there's a list of abbreviations. "FAR" isn't defined. The FAA doesn't officially use the term because of the confusion with the acquisition regulations.

It's a silly trick, I admit. But one could get just as wrapped up about "FARs" as "annuals"....the whole point is, it doesn't really matter.

Ron Wanttaja

It doesn't really matter until you need that Condition Inspection done on your EAB and its believed to be an Annual inspection not a Condition Inspection.

Tony

[Marc Zeitlin]

To the US Government, the "FARs" refer to the Federal Acquisition Regulations... It's a silly trick, I admit. But one could get just as wrapped up about "FARs" as "annuals"....the whole point is, it doesn't really matter.Got me :-) :-) :-).

[rwanttaja]

It doesn't really matter until you need that Condition Inspection done on your EAB and its believed to be an Annual inspection not a Condition Inspection.
Ain't gonna happen. I know the difference, even if I use the term "annual" casually. And if by "your" you meant "some generic owner", then it's important we keep the newcomers educated.

And, when necessary, the A&Ps. About 25 years ago, I was flying the Fly Baby prototype as part of the Chapter 26 club. One of the chapter members did the condition inspection for free (though I gave him a nice Christmas present every year). His A&P ticket dated from the 50s, and he did most of the condition inspections, locally.

A few years later, I bought my own Fly Baby (on the recommendation of the A&P... I quote: "BUY that airplane, Ron!") The same guy did the condition inspections on the same basis.

About ten years later, his health no longer let him continue. I found another A&P, a bit younger, with lots of EAB experience. Cost me $250, but he was thorough and understood the whole "safe condition for flight" thing.

About three years back, he got out the A&P business due to liability concerns (airline pilot, had assets a lawyer could go after). The other A&P on the field who did homebuilts was way booked up. But there was a new A&P that a friend suggested I contact. "New" not as, "new to the area", but as in "fresh ticket."

I doubt my airplane was the first homebuilt he'd inspected, but I think he was still feeling his way. This was when he wanted compliance with the ADs. He also thought that the airplane had to conform with the configuration it was in when first certified (e.g., equivalent to a TC compliance check). I got him convinced otherwise on THAT issue.

But, shoot. Remember, he didn't know me from Jacques Charles. He didn't know the type of airplane, and had limited experience with condition inspections. About the first words I greeted him with at the hangar were, "Well, I disassembled and rebuilt the entire electrical system last year, so you'll need to take a good look at it." He probably expected auto wiring and wires twisted together. They were there, all right... piled up in a corner of the hangar where I'd thrown them after removing the original electrical system.

But over the last couple of years, things have gone a lot easier. He's gained more experience, probably on homebuilts as well. He's seen enough of my work to feel a bit more confident that I have at least some basic skills. He didn't even re-do my safety wiring this year... could'a knocked me over with a feather. He's an excellent A&P, and his sharp eyes have picked out several items to monitor.

So it's a mutual education exercise. Homebuilt purchasers need to understand what's necessary for the annual condition inspection, and A&Ps need to know what legally must be performed. I'm not aware of an FAA Advisory Circular that specifically addresses EAB Condition Inspections. If there isn't one, there should be. Ironically, there are ACs covering condition inspections of Light Sports and former military aircraft, but not for the largest group of Special Airworthiness aircraft: Experimental Amateur-Built.

One common reference would do wonders. Hmmmm, think I'll bounce the idea off Charlie Becker.



To the US Government, the "FARs" refer to the Federal Acquisition Regulations... It's a silly trick, I admit. But one could get just as wrapped up about "FARs" as "annuals"....the whole point is, it doesn't really matter.Got me :-) :-) :-).

Look at the bright side: If accused, just about all of us can say, truthfully, that we've never violated a FAR! All we need now is a blue dress.....

Ron Wanttaja

[1600vw]

Ron I am sure if you go to some places like Wisconsin, ect. you will find those who know all about experimental airframes and Condition Inspections. But not everyone understands this. I have talked with enough A&P's over Condition Inspection who did not even know an IA is not needed to do this inspection that it was driving me nuts. I got so tired of hearing " are you sure about this" that I wanted to scream.

If this was not an issue I would not have posted this. Believe me this is an issue and even the EAA understands this. Why Joe at the very start of that webinar says this. A condition inspection is not an annual.

This is why I put this out there for others to see who may not know. A Condition Inspections is just that. Then when others start saying it does not matter one way or the other how you word it, they show those who believe there is no difference between the two that really there is no difference between the two. When this is false.

Not every A&P knows the difference. I find it amazing they do not teach this in A&P school, and if they do someone is not listening. Or many are not listening. I talked with one man who does Annuals out of his shop. I asked him about condition inspections and if he would do mine. He said he is no IA but would have his IA sign my book. I started to explain. He said, I have never heard any of this and will have to check if you are correct. Really. The next time I spoke with him he said indeed he does not need an IA, but that he would never sign a Condition Inspection. I got in my car and left. He is a nice man but uninformed. We need to clear this up and having others argue the point does no one in this hobby any good.

I hope the EAA, FAA is watching this thread. Eye opening.

Tony

[Jim Hann]

...If you've got steam gauges, you have a whole lot of manufacturer names to keep track of....

Ron Wanttaja

The joke running around the message board at work (airline pilot humor)

EARLY MODEL DC-8 FLIGHT ENGINEER STATION
http://eaaforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4702&stc=1

[WLIU]

"I find it amazing they do not teach this in A&P school"

Not amazing at all. If you want to make a career of working on airplanes and be financially successful, for 99% of the A&P school graduates working on homebuilts is not the career path. Working on airplanes that burn Jet-A will provide the most job and financial security. That's just the way the world works today. Do you want a retirement plan, a health plan, own a home, a happy spouse and family? A&P's do too.

I will suggest that every A&P who has his own shop and works on our 50 year old airplanes and our experimentals should get lots of appreciation and respect for the character defect that has them follow that path. If a young A&P is not interested, just find one that is and make sure that they feel appreciated and valued. Buy the good guys beer or the occasional lunch. And since they are the one holding the FAA certificate, respect that. 99% are simply trying to keep the airplanes that they look at flying instead of crashing. If a stranger walked up to you and asked for a signature that you base your livelihood on for cheap $$ you, and most of us would decline. Much of the lower end of aviation is about relationships, so take the time to build one.

And if you don't want to deal with A&P's the solution is simple - earn your own certificate. A friend built 4 airplanes and used that experience to qualify for his A&P.

So post #66 has a good description of the process most of us go through with the small airplane mechanics who support us. Another aspect of you get out of aviation what you put in.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

[Mike M]

...But not everyone understands this....was driving me nuts....Not every A&P knows the difference. I find it amazing they do not teach this in A&P school...

Anyone who works on or operates aircraft is familiar with the term "operating limitations", certainly. So show doubters the operating limitations on the E/AB aircraft in question, particularly #14 and #17. If they're too stubborn or stupid to understand that, then gently put down the book and walk away.

[lnuss]

The joke running around the message board at work (airline pilot humor)

That's beautiful, Jim -- thanks.

[martymayes]

Ron I am sure if you go to some places like Wisconsin, ect. you will find those who know all about experimental airframes and Condition Inspections. But not everyone understands this. I have talked with enough A&P's over Condition Inspection who did not even know an IA is not needed to do this inspection that it was driving me nuts. I got so tired of hearing " are you sure about this" that I wanted to scream.

If this was not an issue I would not have posted this. Believe me this is an issue and even the EAA understands this. Why Joe at the very start of that webinar says this. A condition inspection is not an annual.

This is why I put this out there for others to see who may not know. A Condition Inspections is just that. Then when others start saying it does not matter one way or the other how you word it, they show those who believe there is no difference between the two that really there is no difference between the two. When this is false.

Not every A&P knows the difference. I find it amazing they do not teach this in A&P school, and if they do someone is not listening. Or many are not listening. I talked with one man who does Annuals out of his shop. I asked him about condition inspections and if he would do mine. He said he is no IA but would have his IA sign my book. I started to explain. He said, I have never heard any of this and will have to check if you are correct. Really. The next time I spoke with him he said indeed he does not need an IA, but that he would never sign a Condition Inspection. I got in my car and left. He is a nice man but uninformed. We need to clear this up and having others argue the point does no one in this hobby any good.

I hope the EAA, FAA is watching this thread. Eye opening.

Tony
I'm not seeing much of a problem Tony, not aware of planes falling out of the sky because someone referred to a condition inspection as an annual.

[1600vw]

I'm not seeing much of a problem Tony, not aware of planes falling out of the sky because someone referred to a condition inspection as an annual.

This is not about airplanes falling out of the sky. Its about the paper work.

Tony

[martymayes]

This is not about airplanes falling out of the sky. Its about the paper work.



And I appreciate your passion for precise terminology but there's probably better ways to get the point across.

A "fingernail on the chalkboard" term for me is when people refer to aeronautical charts as "maps".....we all know maps are for truck drivers. ;-)

[Byron J. Covey]

And I appreciate your passion for precise terminology but there's probably better ways to get the point across.

A "fingernail on the chalkboard" term for me is when people refer to aeronautical charts as "maps".....we all know maps are for truck drivers. ;-)

You call an image on an iPad a "chart?" :)


BJC

[Jim Hann]

A "fingernail on the chalkboard" term for me is when people refer to aeronautical charts as "maps".....we all know maps are for truck drivers. ;-)
Hey hey now, how do you think I know what highway I'm following when I'm flying "IFR" in my severely VFR Pacer! :D

[Bill Berson]

How about "periodic inspection"?

[Frank Giger]

Oh dear, I'm in trouble...I have referred more than once to the place where the gauges and stuff go on my airplane as the dashboard.

And there's how I labeled the table of my build on the moving part of the upper wing:

http://www.darts-page.com/images/Nieuport/ai008.jpg

[cub builder]

Oh dear, I'm in trouble...I have referred more than once to the place where the gauges and stuff go on my airplane as the dashboard.

And there's how I labeled the table of my build on the moving part of the upper wing:



Frank,

The terminology police are looking for you with your pictorial confession in hand.;)


-Cub Builder

[Frank Giger]

Well, according to Stick and Rudder that's what they should be called in the first place. :)

I use gobs of non-aeronautical terms all the time, as I'm usually talking to people who know almost nothing about aircraft. I didn't cover the fuselage, I stretched fabric over the body of the plane, for example.

Everyone understands a speedometer, gauges, and a dashboard - but nobody I talk to regularly would grasp ASI, instruments, and panel without explaining it.

[Dana]

Well, according to Stick and Rudder that's what they should be called in the first place. :)

Then we should be talking about "flippers" instead of "elevators", too...

[Frank Giger]

I concur.

[Greeneyes2141]

Well the eaa sure can't or won't help people, members, out with getting a conditional inspection done. Anyway. So it doesn't matter what u want to call it. Last month of membership.

[Frank Giger]

Huh? My chapter is full of people ready to give a hand on a conditional inspection, including a referral to a knowledgeable A&P.

[dusterpilot]

Well the eaa sure can't or won't help people, members, out with getting a conditional inspection done. Anyway. So it doesn't matter what u want to call it. Last month of membership.


Huh? My chapter is full of people ready to give a hand on a conditional inspection, including a referral to a knowledgeable A&P.

AGREE! If you're looking to EAA HQ for help with a local problem, you're looking in the wrong place. Get involved with a local chapter. LOTS of help is usually found there. Our Chapter 64 has several great technical counselors and A&Ps willing to take on the task.

[Greeneyes2141]

AGREE! If you're looking to EAA HQ for help with a local problem, you're looking in the wrong place. Get involved with a local chapter. LOTS of help is usually found there. Our Chapter 64 has several great technical counselors and A&Ps willing to take on the task.


Well not so much so, here in southdakota. Nothing from the boys in Oshkosh, not even a reply!

[1600vw]

I stopped looking to local EAA chapters for help with matters like this that we speak. DusterPilot we need more clubs like you speak of.

[martymayes]

Well the eaa sure can't or won't help people, members, out with getting a conditional inspection done. Anyway. So it doesn't matter what u want to call it. Last month of membership.

What do you want them to do?

[1600vw]

Well the eaa sure can't or won't help people, members, out with getting a conditional inspection done. Anyway. So it doesn't matter what u want to call it. Last month of membership.

Because its getting harder and harder to find those A&P's who know about Experimental EAB's. Its even more important to make sure you call it by its correct name or label. For to mention an Annual one does a totally different or has a different set of rules they play by.

Tony

[Greeneyes2141]

Well this eaa group I thought was to promote avaition grass roots, experimental aircraft, not certified aircraft. Well, when someone has a EAB aircraft and needs Help in keeping it flying, and go to the local club, and no results, then tries and tries the boys in Oshkosh like that's something special, just to have. Them blow u off, what is this club-org. Just money grubbing bunch of blow hards. But they will remind u to pay ur dues .....for what.have a nice day.

[cub builder]

Well this eaa group I thought was to promote avaition grass roots, experimental aircraft, not certified aircraft. Well, when someone has a EAB aircraft and needs Help in keeping it flying, and go to the local club, and no results, then tries and tries the boys in Oshkosh like that's something special, just to have. Them blow u off, what is this club-org. Just money grubbing bunch of blow hards. But they will remind u to pay ur dues .....for what.have a nice day.

One other asked and I will too. So what is it you think the guys in Wisconsin should be doing to get an inspection done on your plane? Perhaps you would rather go back to the some 35 years ago when the condition inspections had to be done by your local GADO office? There were no "Repairman Certificates", and an A&P or A&P/IA also wasn't qualified to inspect an E-AB plane. Only an FAA Airworthiness Inspector. If it wasn't for the EAA, you would be in the position of begging your local FSDO to send out an inspector to do your inspection, and they would get to you.... eventually... with the typical speed and care shown by the FAA. The quality of the inspection was poor at best, but your paperwork had better be perfect.

That is what the EAA has done for you as an E-AB owner. Currently, they are working to keep your flight privileges without unnecessary cost, paperwork and unnecessary medical testing. The EAA does not have a staff of mechanics to send out to perform your inspections. As an owner, you have to do a few things for yourself.

-Cub Builder

[rwanttaja]

One other asked and I will too. So what is it you think the guys in Wisconsin should be doing to get an inspection done on your plane? Perhaps you would rather go back to the some 35 years ago when the condition inspections had to be done by your local GADO office? There were no "Repairman Certificates", and an A&P or A&P/IA also wasn't qualified to inspect an E-AB plane. Only an FAA Airworthiness Inspector. If it wasn't for the EAA, you would be in the position of begging your local FSDO to send out an inspector do your inspection, and they would get to you.... eventually... with the typical speed and care shown by the FAA. The quality of the inspection was poor at best, but your paperwork had better be perfect.

That is what the EAA has done for you as an E-AB owner. Currently, they are working to keep your flight privileges without unnecessary cost, paperwork and unnecessary medical testing. The EAA does not have a staff of mechanics to send out to perform your inspections. As an owner, you have to do a few things for yourself.
Well...I think Greeneyes is just looking for someone to point them at someone who could perform the condition inspection of their homebuilt. That's a reasonable request, but I can't see EAA national trying to maintain a list for the entire country. Maintenance and keeping it current would be a total beast.

Best one could expect is a reference to a local EAA chapter, with the suggestion that the Chapter would have better local knowledge. But Greeneyes apparently didn't get any response at all. It's too bad, but them'r humans in that big building with all the planes....

Ron Wanttaja

[Byron J. Covey]

How about "periodic inspection"?

Good idea. Lets do it once per year, and call it an "annual.":D


Sorry BB, couldn't resist.


BJC

[martymayes]

Well...I think Greeneyes is just looking for someone to point them at someone who could perform the condition inspection of their homebuilt. That's a reasonable request, but I can't see EAA national trying to maintain a list for the entire country. Maintenance and keeping it current would be a total beast.

Best one could expect is a reference to a local EAA chapter, with the suggestion that the Chapter would have better local knowledge. But Greeneyes apparently didn't get any response at all. It's too bad, but them'r humans in that big building with all the planes....


All true and I can see the population sparseness of S. Dakota playing a role here as well. However, with a little investigation it should not be an insurmountable problem. Maybe an internet forum or club for the specific type would point toward some leads.

[Frank Giger]

It comes down to the notion that the EAA, like every large organization, is only as good as the local representation of it. If the local chapter is good, the organization as a whole is good...or at least of merit. When I was in the service I reminded my peers that the Army is us within the unit, and what we made of it. I'll freely admit my first two years did not cast a good reflection on the uniform due to some capricious leadership at the lower levels, but that it ramped up considerably in quality after that.

Even when we dislike the larger organization, the localized conditions can overcome it. It's the classic "I hate Congress, but my Congressman is a good guy" state of affairs.

[1600vw]

Its also who you know or don't know. I am sure in all area's there are those who never have a problem getting a Condition Inspection done on thier Homebuilt or other aviation related objectives done. But there are those within a few miles in the same location who can not get these same objectives done. It's all in who you know.

I had a buddy just the other day tell me that a buddy of his was helping him with something aviation related. I need this same something, but his buddy will not help me in the same way he is helping our mutual friend. Its all in who you know or don't know.

Tony

[Frank Giger]

It's that way in everything, though.

I helped my neighbor fit new windows into his house without hesitation and for nothing more than a "thanks." If he had a friend that needed the same help it's probably not going to happen. Now if his friend was also there to help us out in putting in the neighbor's window, I might, as I'd then know him at least a little bit.

Or maybe if he had some of that value placeholder stuff they print on special paper he wanted to hand over. Few things motivate otherwise hesitant people like government script.

[Dave Stadt]

Well this eaa group I thought was to promote avaition grass roots, experimental aircraft, not certified aircraft. Well, when someone has a EAB aircraft and needs Help in keeping it flying, and go to the local club, and no results, then tries and tries the boys in Oshkosh like that's something special, just to have. Them blow u off, what is this club-org. Just money grubbing bunch of blow hards. But they will remind u to pay ur dues .....for what.have a nice day.

Seems that making sure someone in the area will do a Condition Inspection is something that should be on the to do list during the due diligence process. Don't see that EAA is to blame if you cannot find someone. What do you expect EAA to do?

[1600vw]

Seems that making sure someone in the area will do a Condition Inspection is something that should be on the to do list during the due diligence process. Don't see that EAA is to blame if you cannot find someone. What do you expect EAA to do?

Kinda what this thread is about. Looking to have this Condition Inspection done only to have it called an Annual Inspection and then wanting it treated as an Annual and not a Condition Inspection.

[Mike M]

Its also who you know or don't know. I am sure in all area's there are those who never have a problem getting a Condition Inspection done on their Homebuilt or other aviation related objectives done. But there are those within a few miles in the same location who can not get these same objectives done. It's all in who you know.

I had a buddy just the other day tell me that a buddy of his was helping him with something aviation related. I need this same something, but his buddy will not help me in the same way he is helping our mutual friend. Its all in who you know or don't know.

Tony

Consider. It may not be in who you know. Think about what you wrote. Some people don't have the same trouble one person has finding someone to help him. Think about it.

[Byron J. Covey]

Even when we dislike the larger organization, the localized conditions can overcome it. It's the classic "I hate Congress, but my Congressman is a good guy" state of affairs.

And that is the genesis of the professional politician, and reason that we have the elected representatives that we do have.
:(


BJC

[Raylonr]

Nobody has talked about Experimental exhibition and the other types of Experimental. I understand that if it is registered as Experimental of any type it does not require and A/I for the condition inspection? Or am I in the wrong thread?
Raylon Rogers

[1600vw]

You are correct. Only type certificated airplanes require an IA to do the Annual condition inspection. All Experimental airplanes that do not hold this type certificate get a Condition inspection and any A&P can sign this inspection as can the builder if he/she holds the repairman's certificate.

You are in the correct thread.

Tony

[martymayes]

Nobody has talked about Experimental exhibition and the other types of Experimental. I understand that if it is registered as Experimental of any type it does not require and A/I for the condition inspection? Or am I in the wrong thread?
Raylon Rogers

Good a thread as any, and you are not correct, for example a type certificated airplane that has been placed in the experimental category for something like research and development must continue to be maintained and inspected as prescribed by Part 43.

[Joda]

Good a thread as any, and you are not correct, for example a type certificated airplane that has been placed in the experimental category for something like research and development must continue to be maintained and inspected as prescribed by Part 43.

Right on! Is is only when an aircraft is ORIGINALLY certificated in an experimental category that Part 43 does not apply. If the aircraft first held some other type of certificate (typically standard) and is later issued an experimental certificate, then Part 43 still applies and all requirements must continue to be met.

[rwanttaja]

To echo Marty and Joe...14 CFR Part 43, paragraph 43.1:

(b) This part does not apply to -

(1) Any aircraft for which the FAA has issued an experimental certificate, unless the FAA has previously issued a different kind of airworthiness certificate for that aircraft....

(Emphasis added)

Ron Wanttaja