Modification to EAB/LSA Aircraft

[Gerry]

A bit a of a complicated question, but here goes. Can a subsequent owner of an EAB aircraft modify the aircraft? For example lets say that aircraft has engine A and original builder signed of 40 hour test period and a note that says its LSA compliant, ie stall speed, weight, speed at some RPM. If subsequent owner makes an engine model change to say engine B (same HP, etc), can they test fly airplane, verify parameters and subsequently make a log entry that it is LSA compliant at stall speed, weight and perhaps a new RPM? I guess the question is the original owner the only one that can make changes such as this or can subsequent owner?

[Dana]

Any subsequent owner can make any modifications he likes. "Major" modifications require the FAA to be notified and the aircraft to go back into phase 1 flight testing for some period determined by the FAA (5 hours is typical). I don't believe there has to be any note explicitly saying it's "LSA compliant", but any changes in speeds should be noted in the logbook.

[Mike M]

This isn't an answer, it's related questions. Why make an entry in an EAB log saying LSA compliant? I don't see a requirement for such an entry in FAA Order 8130.2. If it and the aviator meet "the specs" for LSA, it may be operated that way, no entry required that I could find. Where'd you find it? Thanks.

[1600vw]

The only log book entry that must be entered for an Experimental eab is a condition inspection. You do not have to have a daily flight log. No law or rule says you do. If there is one please post it for those like me who believe otherwise.

Tony

[Mike M]

The only log book entry that must be entered for an Experimental eab is a condition inspection. You do not have to have a daily flight log. No law or rule says you do. If there is one please post it for those like me who believe otherwise.

Tony

Concur with Tony, absolutely no daily flight log required (although that wasn't asked). I've seen some beauties kept like a photo scrapbook for future enjoyment reliving pleasant memories and perhaps they should be separate journals rather than logbooks which will have to be presented in a mishap investigation and lost in the paperwork vortex. Or transferred with sale. As to "only logbook entry" well read the specific aircraft's Ops Limits. The Ops Limits on an older aircraft may vary but the current requirements include:

FAA Order 8130.2H Para 460 h 4 a
FAA Order 8130.2H App C Para 2
FAA Order 8130.2H EAB operating limitation #13, #22, #24, #37 or #38, #39 if acro flight is desired, #40 (e.g. external GoPro), #41

[Marc Zeitlin]

The only log book entry that must be entered for an Experimental eab is a condition inspection. You do not have to have a daily flight log. No law or rule says you do. If there is one please post it for those like me who believe otherwise.

TonyI disagree.

While you certainly do not have to log flights at all, much less daily, you do need to log at LEAST all Major Changes along with Condition Inspections, per the Operating Limitations.

Also, although EAB's are not bound by the requirements of Part 43 (except as directed by the OL's), we ARE bound by Part 91, and 14 CFR 91.405(b) clearly requires that:

Each owner/operator of an aircraft ensures that maintenance personnel (which for EAB aircraft is whoever did the work on the plane) make appropriate entries in the aircraft maintenance records..

While somewhat indirect, this means that maintenance records must be kept for EAB aircraft. If you do something to the plane (change the oil, replace the brake pads, etc.), you're supposed to log it.

[martymayes]

That's a somewhat liberal interpretation of the regs. 91.405(b) requires a maintenance entry only to ensure the aircraft has been "returned to service," a Part 43 term that is not really applicable to a homebuilt. Who qualifies as "maintenance personnel" for a homebuilt? What are his privileges and limitations? What content and form are required for these homebuilt maint. records? Where do I find this info?

[martymayes]

I
A bit a of a complicated question, but here goes. Can a subsequent owner of an EAB aircraft modify the aircraft?

Yes.

[Marc Zeitlin]

That's a somewhat liberal interpretation of the regs. 91.405(b) requires a maintenance entry only to ensure the aircraft has been "returned to service," a Part 43 term that is not really applicable to a homebuilt. Who qualifies as "maintenance personnel" for a homebuilt? What are his privileges and limitations? What content and form are required for these homebuilt maint. records? Where do I find this info?So let's take a look a bit further. Besides the CI and Major Changes (which I assume you stipulate must be recorded in the maintenance records), 91.413 requires a transponder check every 24 months, and if you fly IFR, 91.411 requires a static system check every 24 months. Both of these must be recorded in the maintenance records. Also, an ELT check is required every 12 months per 91.207, and that must be recorded. So even without 91.405, there are a number of other items that must be in the maintenance records other than just the CI signoff.

Next, we move on to 91.417, which requires a log of all maintenance (EAB aircraft are certainly bound by part 91, yes?) and indicates the content and form of the records. And 91.407 states that an aircraft cannot be operated unless approved for return to service. Now, we can certainly agree that Part 43 does NOT apply to EAB aircraft per 43.1, so references to WHO does the return to service are not bound by part 43, but since we can also agree that ANYONE can work on EAB aircraft (except for the CI signoff), I believe that ANYONE can sign the maintenance logs as having performed the work. But the work MUST be logged and signed off, no matter who's signature/name is attached.

Unless you're going to argue that some parts of 14CFR Part 91 don't apply to EAB aircraft, but I don't know how one would do that - 91.1 has no exemptions for EAB aircraft...

[1600vw]

Not every EAB has a transponder nor an ELT. Please inform us "me" of the other info that would need to be in this log. Not taking into account what it takes to make the airplane airworthy. We assume this has been done. This is for daily use type of stuff.

Tony

[Gerry]

Good comments here. Here is my take away:

1. No need to log anything about LSA compliance in maintenance records
2. Of course all maintenance will be logged in maintenance records as a normal practice for all aircraft.
3. No major changes to flight characteristics and operating limitations so no action required on that part.

As a side note from this I understand there is no specific log entry required for an EAB aircraft to operate as an LSA?

[Frank Giger]

No, there is no specific log entry.

LSA compliance is through the POH and limitations in gross weight, max cruise speed, number of seats in the aircraft, and stall speed.

[Marc Zeitlin]

Not every EAB has a transponder nor an ELT.You're correct. But most do, and those that do, need to have those checks logged. Do you disagree with that?


Please inform us "me" of the other info that would need to be in this log. Not taking into account what it takes to make the airplane airworthy.Haven't we had this conversation before? Since EAB aircraft do not have Type Certificates, they can't be "airworthy", they can only be "in a condition for safe operation".


We assume this has been done. This is for daily use type of stuff.What is it about 91.417 that's unclear to you? It states what needs to be logged and how, and by whom. In our case, the "by whom" is "whoever did the work", which could be anyone, including your 2 year old kid, your grandmother, or your dog (if it's handy with tools), but the need for logging whatever work is done to the plane is, unless you believe that you're not governed by 14 CFR 91.417, clear.

Log everything that's done to the plane - oil, brakes, tightening loose stuff, replacing parts, repairs, maintenance, etc.

Does everyone do this? Nope. I see many logbooks, when performing CI's and Pre-Buy Examinations, that include nothing but what you've described - CI's, if that. And I tell the owner and/or the prospective buyer that the airplane has not been maintained per the regulations, and that they need to clean up their act. Some do, some don't. There is, as far as I can tell, no penalty for not following the rules (except maybe from an insurance company, since they COULD claim that the aircraft wasn't legal to fly, but I have only heard of one instance of that), but that doesn't change what the rules are.

And if you ever want to sell the plane, having complete logs showing that you actually paid attention to the airplane will increase the resale value.

[1600vw]

You're correct. But most do, and those that do, need to have those checks logged. Do you disagree with that?

Haven't we had this conversation before? Since EAB aircraft do not have Type Certificates, they can't be "airworthy", they can only be "in a condition for safe operation".

What is it about 91.417 that's unclear to you? It states what needs to be logged and how, and by whom. In our case, the "by whom" is "whoever did the work", which could be anyone, including your 2 year old kid, your grandmother, or your dog (if it's handy with tools), but the need for logging whatever work is done to the plane is, unless you believe that you're not governed by 14 CFR 91.417, clear.

Log everything that's done to the plane - oil, brakes, tightening loose stuff, replacing parts, repairs, maintenance, etc.

Does everyone do this? Nope. I see many logbooks, when performing CI's and Pre-Buy Examinations, that include nothing but what you've described - CI's, if that. And I tell the owner and/or the prospective buyer that the airplane has not been maintained per the regulations, and that they need to clean up their act. Some do, some don't. There is, as far as I can tell, no penalty for not following the rules (except maybe from an insurance company, since they COULD claim that the aircraft wasn't legal to fly, but I have only heard of one instance of that), but that doesn't change what the rules are.

And if you ever want to sell the plane, having complete logs showing that you actually paid attention to the airplane will increase the resale value.

That is correct for the signing of the CI. But to get the airplane registered the FAA send a forum stating its airworthy. The log book if I am not mistaken has to show this. I believe mine does. It's the only time the mention of airworthy comes into the mix. If I am not mistaken.

Tony

[martymayes]

So let's take a look a bit further. Besides the CI and Major Changes (which I assume you stipulate must be recorded in the maintenance records), 91.413 requires a transponder check every 24 months, and if you fly IFR, 91.411 requires a static system check every 24 months. Both of these must be recorded in the maintenance records. Also, an ELT check is required every 12 months per 91.207, and that must be recorded. So even without 91.405, there are a number of other items that must be in the maintenance records other than just the CI signoff.

Next, we move on to 91.417, which requires a log of all maintenance (EAB aircraft are certainly bound by part 91, yes?) and indicates the content and form of the records. And 91.407 states that an aircraft cannot be operated unless approved for return to service. Now, we can certainly agree that Part 43 does NOT apply to EAB aircraft per 43.1, so references to WHO does the return to service are not bound by part 43, but since we can also agree that ANYONE can work on EAB aircraft (except for the CI signoff), I believe that ANYONE can sign the maintenance logs as having performed the work. But the work MUST be logged and signed off, no matter who's signature/name is attached.

In the interest of not obfuscating the original premise, for now I'll stick to maintenance records only.

91.407(a)(2) states "The maintenance record entry required by §43.9 or §43.11, as applicable, of this chapter has been made."

Those record entries are NOT required for homebuilts per your own statement "we can certainly agree that Part 43 does NOT apply to EAB aircraft per 43.1"

Ergo, there is nothing that requires a homebuilt to be returned to service after maintenance, ergo, nothing requiring a record entry to be made, ergo, nothing that requires the person doing the work to sign a record, ergo, nothing that requires a record of maintenance be kept. That's all Part 43 stuff which we agree does not apply.



Unless you're going to argue that some parts of 14CFR Part 91 don't apply to EAB aircraft, but I don't know how one would do that - 91.1 has no exemptions for EAB aircraft.....

Humm....91.205 is applicable only to Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S. airworthiness certificates. (that eliminates EAB)

Not sure how 91.23 would apply to EAB.....

All of Subpart F ???? I think it's safe to say some parts of 14CFR Part 91 don't apply to EAB aircraft.

[Dana]

Since EAB aircraft do not have Type Certificates, they can't be "airworthy", they can only be "in a condition for safe operation".

But they do have airworthiness certificates.

[Marc Zeitlin]

In the interest of not obfuscating the original premise, for now I'll stick to maintenance records only.

91.407(a)(2) states "The maintenance record entry required by §43.9 or §43.11, as applicable, of this chapter has been made."

Those record entries are NOT required for homebuilts per your own statement "we can certainly agree that Part 43 does NOT apply to EAB aircraft per 43.1"Even if you want to claim that the record entry isn't required due to the non-applicability of part 43 (and I don't agree that 91.407 doesn't apply, but I'll allow it for the sake of argument), that doesn't exempt EAB aircraft from the requirements of 91.417, which is the one that actually requires that maintenance - any maintenance - be logged for any aircraft, with no exceptions for experimentals and defines what maintenance and how to log it. Except for the section of 91.417 that specifically talks about 43.9 (which is not the part about maintenance, but Major Changes, which is already addressed by the OL's), 91.417 makes no exception for EAB aircraft. So even if 91.407 doesn't apply, 91.417 does.
Ergo, there is nothing that requires a homebuilt to be returned to service after maintenance, ergo, nothing requiring a record entry to be made, ergo, nothing that requires the person doing the work to sign a record, ergo, nothing that requires a record of maintenance be kept. That's all Part 43 stuff which we agree does not apply.See above for the refutation of this - you ignored the 91.417 requirement. Also, see:

http://www.lancairowners.com/2014notagoodyear/

for the Lancair Owners and Builders Association take on the issue - they take the logging of maintenance seriously, know the rules, and are clear on the issues.


Humm....91.205 is applicable only to Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S. airworthiness certificates. (that eliminates EAB)Except that 91.205 is explicitly called out in your OL's for night/IFR operations, so in those cases it does apply. But in any case, my reference to part 91 was to the sections that define maintenance requirements, which is what we were discussing. And as you well know, almost all of part 91 does apply to EAB aircraft.


I think it's safe to say some parts of 14CFR Part 91 don't apply to EAB aircraft.If they explicitly exempt Experimental aircraft, yes. But 91.417 does not exempt them, therefore I maintain that maintenance records are required. If you can show me something that indicates that 91.417 doesn't apply to Experimental aircraft, I (and presumably the LOBO) would need to change our tune.

[Marc Zeitlin]

Humm....91.205 is applicable only to Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S. airworthiness certificates. (that eliminates EAB)One other comment regarding 91.205 - OL's will usually state that instruments and equipment installed per 91.205 must be inspected and maintained in accordance with the requirements of Part 91. So if nothing else, at least THESE maintenance activities must be recorded, per your OL's. So we've got the 91.413, 91.411 and 91.207 requirements, as well as the 91.205 requirements. Even if you don't want to accept the 91.417 requirements, the original statement that only CI's are required to be recorded is clearly false.

Also, this:

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/amt_handbook/media/FAA-8083-30_Ch12.pdf

speaks to the exemption of Experimental aircraft from 91.409 explicitly, but makes no such distinction for 91.417.

I will certainly grant you that there is some controversy on these subjects and there are certainly some folks that agree with you. But in none of the discussions I could find on the matter could anyone point to an explicit regulation or FAA opinion that stated that the requirements of 91.417 do not apply to Experimental aircraft. Since there are many sections of 14 CFR that DO explicitly exempt experimentals, one would think that if they wanted to exempt them, they'd have said so.

[1600vw]

But they do have airworthiness certificates.

But that does not make them airworthy. Nothing about an experimental in airworthy.

I lost the sale on my eab because of this. The man looking to purchase it ask me to sign a forum that said that said airplane was airworthy. I told him how can I say something is airworthy when we all know it's not. I told him I would sign a forum stating the FAA gave it an airworthy certificate but I could not tell him its airworthy. He said his A&P told him I had no idea what I was talking about and trying to scam him. I told him his A&P had no idea what he was talking about.

Back to regular programming.

Tony

[1600vw]

Some good info here:

http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=2873008673001

[martymayes]

If they explicitly exempt Experimental aircraft, yes. But 91.417 does not exempt them, therefore I maintain that maintenance records are required. If you can show me something that indicates that 91.417 doesn't apply to Experimental aircraft, I (and presumably the LOBO) would need to change our tune.


Since 91.417(a)(1)(iii) requires a certificate number in conjunction with the signature, we have a problem for the sign off unless we "cherry pick" those words out of the regulatory text, say it doesn't apply and not use it. However, IAW your own testimony above, homebuilts are not explicity exempted from 91.417, which includes para (a)(1)(iii). If the language said "signature and certificate number where applicable" you'd be home free. But it doesn't say that. Heaven forbid the maintainer is illiterate, I guess that's a whole new can of worms.

Maintenance recording regs become somewhat fuzzy when one tries to apply them to homebuilts. There is nothing that specifically requires it. We can certainly cherry pick regs out of context and apply them to support an argument, but that doesn't make it regulatory. Clubs are other organizations can say such and such is required but that doesn't make it so. There is no reasonable amount of civil proceedings to form a legal precedent, so it's 'swing and a miss' strike three.

I believe owners of homebuilts should voluntarily make a reasonable effort to track maintenance work on the plane but lets face it - what would happen if it doesn't happen? Nothing! How does the FAA take certificate action against someone that has no certificate?

[martymayes]

But they do have airworthiness certificates.

Minor nit, they have a Special Airworthiness Certificate. There are no express or implied airworthiness standards attached, it's just a method to authorize operation in US airspace.

[Jim Hann]

Since 91.417(a)(1)(iii) requires a certificate number in conjunction with the signature, we have a problem for the sign off unless we "cherry pick" those words out of the regulatory text, say it doesn't apply and not use it. However, IAW your own testimony above, homebuilts are not explicity exempted from 91.417, which includes para (a)(1)(iii). If the language said "signature and certificate number where applicable" you'd be home free. But it doesn't say that. Heaven forbid the maintainer is illiterate, I guess that's a whole new can of worms.

Marty, you have a certificate number. It does not say "mechanic" it only says "person" The only person who *might* not have a certificate number is a person who has never soloed. Even Sport Pilot Students have a Student certificate that has a number. I did a bunch of work on my certificated airplane under the supervision of an A&P/IA and my ATP certificate number is in the logbooks for that labor. In all reality it doesn't matter if you sign it off with a number or not, if you are operating said airplane and something happens your pilot certificate is on the line!

Marc, thanks for the informative discussion. Currently have a certificated airplane but looking at experimentals all the time it is good education.

Jim

[martymayes]

Marty, you have a certificate number. It does not say "mechanic" it only says "person" The only person who *might* not have a certificate number is a person who has never soloed. Even Sport Pilot Students have a Student certificate that has a number. I did a bunch of work on my certificated airplane under the supervision of an A&P/IA and my ATP certificate number is in the logbooks for that labor. In all reality it doesn't matter if you sign it off with a number or not, if you are operating said airplane and something happens your pilot certificate is on the line!

Marc, thanks for the informative discussion. Currently have a certificated airplane but looking at experimentals all the time it is good education.

Jim

Hi Jim.

What we were discussing in this thread is that anyone can work on a homebuilt aircraft. ANYONE. They are not required to hold any kind of airman certificate, drivers license, voter registration, AARP card, AAA membership, etc., nothing. They are not even required to know how to read and write.

So my question is: How would a person that has no FAA certificate and can't read or write, make a logbook entry IAW 91.417(a)(1)(iii)???? If they sign their name with an "X" because they can't write their name, would that be satisfactory?????

(BTW, this is just an academic exercise. My point being the gov. would never leave this many holes in the regs for something that is required, trust me).


Regarding your responsibilities while working on a type certificated aircraft:

There is no FAR that requires your pilot certificate number to be recorded in a logbook when you are being supervised by an A&P/IA. Only your name is required (not a signature). Ref: 43.9(a)(3).
I have had someone work on a certificated aircraft under my supervision that did not have any kind of FAA airman certificate. This is permitted under Part 43, however, to comply with the rules his name had to recorded in he logbook as the person who performed the work.

Now, if you are performing preventive maintenance, which you are permitted to do with only a pilot certificate AND you are approving that work, which you are permitted to do with only a pilot certificate, you are required to sign your name, write your certificate number and kind of certificate you hold in the appropriate aircraft logbook. Ref: 43.9(a)(4).

[Sam Buchanan]

The only maintenance log entries required per regulation for an aircraft with an experimental airworthiness certificate is an endorsement by either the holder of the Repairman Certificate for that particular aircraft or an A&P mechanic stating the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation (Condition Inspection).

Any other maintenance entries in the log book are at the discretion of the owner but not required per FARs or the Operating Limitations of the aircraft.

Pitot/static/transponder/encoder checks are another issue but that isn't under consideration in this thread.

The statements above are the regulatory side of the question. From a practical standpoint, maintenance entries may be helpful for tracking hours in service of components and will most likely enhance resale of the aircraft when that time comes. Owners have various personal criteria for what to enter in maintenance logs but the regulatory side of the matter is clear, simple, and established.

[Marc Zeitlin]

The only maintenance log entries required per regulation for an aircraft with an experimental airworthiness certificate is an endorsement by either the holder of the Repairman Certificate for that particular aircraft or an A&P mechanic stating the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation (Condition Inspection).You state this, but give no supporting evidence. The FAR's are hardly completely consistent, and there are many areas where interpretation is required. _MY_ interpretation of 91.417 is that it requires maintenance be logged. Others I've pointed to agree. You and Marty (and I'm sure many others) disagree. I could not find any regulations one way or the other that make it clearer - it's going to be interpretations both ways.


Any other maintenance entries in the log book are at the discretion of the owner but not required per FARs or the Operating Limitations of the aircraft.Same comment as above.

Look - it's pretty obvious that there are knowledgeable folks on both sides of this argument, and unless the FAA issues an opinion on the matter, we're going to have to agree to disagree. And since there are no "logbook police", we're not likely to get an FAA opinion on the matter unless someone asks them specifically. And you'd probably get 3 different answers from 3 different FSDO's...


Pitot/static/transponder/encoder checks are another issue but that isn't under consideration in this thread.Actually, it was, because the original claim was that NOTHING was required to be logged except the CI. If you're agreeing that the 91.207, 91.411 and 91.413 checks must be logged, then you're at least agreeing with me on that point - it's not ONLY the CI.