DAR Inspections at Cost?

[Bob H]

Back around 2003, the EAA realized that more DARs were needed to signoff builder's planes. The EAA gave $1000 scholarships to individuals completing the DAR program with the proviso that the new DAR do builder inspections at his cost to the EAA member builder for one year. I selected such a DAR in 2004 to inspect the Pulsar I was finishing and the final cost was around $100, a very reasonable price.
I'm getting close to completing a Zenith 701 and would like to know if such DARs are still doing inspections at cost?
Bob H

[Frank Giger]

I don't know about DAR's, but it's worth the phone call to the FDSO to see if they have someone available to do the inspection. I'd long been told that the only real route was through a DAR as the FAA was simply too busy to do them.

When our preferred DAR was no longer able to do them (medical reasons), I had finally found a guy that with transportation would have come out at around a grand. On a whim I called our local FAA office and was told that I may have to wait as long as two weeks before they could send someone out.

:eek:

Yeah, two weeks was okay.

[Scooper]

I am in the process of setting up an appointment with Brian Carpenter, principal at Rainbow Aviation and a DAR, to inspect my AMD CH601XLi SLSA and to help me with the paperwork to convert it to an ELSA. Carol Carpenter quoted me roughly $450 for the service.

[1600vw]

I believe it depends on location and who you know. A friend told me when he had his airplane inspected the DAR only wanted gas money for doing it. The DAR had to travel an hour or more to get to him.

[cub builder]

DARs are independent contractors, so they charge what they consider to be a reasonable rate for their time. It's not fixed by the FAA. Most also charge travel time. I've never heard of them doing inspections for "cost", but that doesn't mean the program doesn't or didn't exist.

Also, the FSDO is supposed to do the inspections for free, but most FSDOs will tell you they are far too busy and will either schedule you 6 months out, or won't do it at all. However, every once in a while, you can find an Airworthiness Inspector at the FSDO that is willing to come do an inspection. We had one available in our area for a while, but the only way the FSDO would let him have a car to come out here was if he was doing a FAASTeam presentation for a group. So the chapter would schedule him to do a presentation when someone had their plane ready to inspect, and he would do both the same day. That way, the inspection was free. You might contact your local FSDO and see if one of their FAASTeam presenters is also an Airworthiness Inspector and would be willing to do an Airworthiness Inspection for an Experimental if the opportunity was presented. If that's the case, schedule him to do a presentation to a pilot group in the evening, and while he's there...

-Cub Builder

[gbrasch]

I tried but could not get the FAA to inspect my plane for free, so I found a local DAR to do it, $500 cash for the 30 minute event.

[Marc Zeitlin]

I tried but could not get the FAA to inspect my plane for free, so I found a local DAR to do it, $500 cash for the 30 minute event.How in Cthulhu's name can anyone determine if an EAB aircraft is in a condition for safe operation (which, to my mind, is what the DAR/FSDO rep needs to be able to do to issue an AC) in two hours (which is what it took the two FSDO guys to do my inspection in 2002) much less 30 minutes?

If I was a DAR (which I tried to apply to be a year or two ago, but they were in the process of changing their process, so it never went through) I would treat an AC inspection as if it were a Condition Inspection, and it would take 8 - 12 hours, minimum for the type of planes on which I work (canards, mostly). But that's just me, obviously...

[Sam Buchanan]

I've built three aircraft that required a special airworthiness certificate and none of the actual inspections took more than thirty minutes. The remainder of the visit was devoted to paperwork which took longer than the inspection.

The DAR is not expected to perform a condition inspection, the builder must endorse the log book stating the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation prior to the DAR visit. The FAA/DAR visit is to catch gross malpractice by the builder and to assure all paperwork is correct. DARs have told me that they can tell within five minutes of arrival whether or not the aircraft will be a candidate for a certificate. If the builder has his act together and there are no obvious defects the DAR will be willing to conduct the visit in a prompt manner.

I don't think many builders would be willing to subject themselves to a twelve hour DAR visit, much less pay for that much labor! ;)

[Marc Zeitlin]

I've built three aircraft that required a special airworthiness certificate and none of the actual inspections took more than thirty minutes. The remainder of the visit was devoted to paperwork which took longer than the inspection.I don't doubt that for a second. I have done Pre-Buy examinations on aircraft that shouldn't have been given an AC, even if the inspector never got within 20 ft. of the airplane. It's obvious they never did even the least amount of rudimentary checking to determine whether an AC should have been granted.


The DAR is not expected to perform a condition inspection, the builder must endorse the log book stating the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation prior to the DAR visit.That is true. However, here's what 8130.2H, section 460(g)(4) says the inspector is supposed to do:

g. Aircraft Inspection. The FAA must arrange with the applicant to make the aircraft available for inspection to determine, at a minimum, the following:
.
.
(4) The flight control system, engine(s), propeller(s), pitot static system, and associated instruments operate properly.

Now, this certainly isn't a CI level requirement - I agree. But it's the MINIMUM, not the maximum that the inspector is supposed to do, and you cannot do this in 30 minutes, or even a couple of hours, in my opinion. Operating "properly", in my view, is somewhat of a proxy for "condition for safe operation".

Not to mention that there eight items in the list - this is only one of them. The rest would take a fair while to accomplish as well, if done correctly.


The FAA/DAR visit is to catch gross malpractice by the builder and to assure all paperwork is correct. DARs have told me that they can tell within five minutes of arrival whether or not the aircraft will be a candidate for a certificate. If the builder has his act together and there are no obvious defects the DAR will be willing to conduct the visit in a prompt manner.I would agree that there are planes which will be obvious rejects within the first 5 minutes. But there will be planes that will look OK from 10 ft. away and have serious and severe safety issues - I've seen many in the CI's and PB's that I've done (about 80 CI's/PB's in the past 4 years). Without a good examination that cannot be done in 30 minutes, these things won't be found. I think that limiting the DAR to only needing to find "gross malpractice" is leaving a lot on the table.


I don't think many builders would be willing to subject themselves to a twelve hour DAR visit, much less pay for that much labor! ;)Probably not, but if someone's willing to pay $400 - $500 for someone to pencil whip some paperwork and wander around the plane once or twice, $900 for a CI equivalent level inspection doesn't seem too crazy.

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

[Kyle Boatright]

The truth is that the network of builders and DAR's is small enough that builders have a sense of the thorough, lax, good, and bad inspectors who serve their area.

I know of one local inspector who effectively pats the prospective airplane on the spinner, fills out the paperwork, then sprints off to deposit the check.

I know of another local inspector who's pretty much guaranteed to spend 2-3 hours looking inside inspection panels, checking for wiring or plumbing issues, and pointing out any other discrepancies that could cause practical (safety) or regulatory problems.

Those two guys charge the same amount. Which one do you want looking at your airplane? You'd be surprised at how much business the "check casher" gets.

[Sam Buchanan]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

[Low Pass]

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

[DaleB]

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

[Marc Zeitlin]

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

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

[QUOTE=Sam Buchanan;57853]Why would I want to shell out $900 for someone to duplicate what has already been done?The question isn't whether you'd want to, the question is whether it's needed. A more than tiny minority of plans built aircraft have major issues prior to first flight. Looking at the accident statistics, including airframe/mechanical failures for the first couple of hours of Phase I flight in EAB aircraft indicates that better inspections and reviews of the aircraft could have contributed to higher safety levels. Maybe having a DAR/FAA examiner perform a CI level equivalent inspection isn't the way to solve this problem, but you and the DAR's with which you deal are obviously much more highly qualified than the majority of builders.


We are fortunate in our area to have experienced builders (EAA Tech Counselor and A&P in some cases) who are eager to lend extra eyeballs to check a project prior to the DAR visit. I have done the same for several builders in preparation for the DAR arriving on the scene.As have I, and that's great that you have those resources available to you. But not everyone does and unless the DAR is familiar with the folks that have done those exams for you and trusts them, how are they to determine safety levels (as the order requires) without a thorough inspection?


However, I do acknowledge some aircraft will require a more extensive inspection than others....Agreed. There will be some planes that require little in the way of inspection for reasons of lack of complexity or DAR familiarity and others that require a LOT of inspection due to complexity and/or lack of DAR familiarity. YMMV.


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


Please keep in mind the experimental aircraft universe is a close-knit community that operates to a great extent on referrals.Yep. All my work comes from referrals - I don't advertise, although I have a website. I get about 1% of my work through the website. It's all word of mouth.

[Marc Zeitlin]

I can't speak for anyone else, but if the day comes when I need a DAR, I will need a guy to come out and inspect/complete the FAA paperwork to get an airworthiness certificate. The airplane will have already been looked over in great detail by myself, a couple of EAA tech counselors (all multiple repeat offenders), an A&P/IA, and a couple of builders I know who have an impressive and occasionally annoying knack for spotting the tiniest flaws from the hangar doorway. If the DAR wants to crawl through the plane doing a thorough inspection, great -- but by that point it really shouldn't need it.You are correct - it really shouldn't need it. And the folks responding on this forum are almost certainly in the category of folks that, because of their willingness to seek out and listen to feedback, won't need it. But as I mentioned earlier, there's more than a small minority of builders who do NOT fit that category, and while they SHOULDN'T need it, they DO. What should be done with those folks?

[DaleB]

You are correct - it really shouldn't need it. And the folks responding on this forum are almost certainly in the category of folks that, because of their willingness to seek out and listen to feedback, won't need it. But as I mentioned earlier, there's more than a small minority of builders who do NOT fit that category, and while they SHOULDN'T need it, they DO. What should be done with those folks?
Oh, I know. I'm relatively new to this and have seen some pretty scary stuff. It's like I have told my wife. There are some planes that I use for inspiration. There are some that I wouldn't want to fly in. There are a few that I wouldn't even sit in on the ground.

[Frank Giger]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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