I'm confused about the maintenance and annuals on an experimental I purchase.

[Bill Berson]

Bill, here is the recommended statement for signing off an A-B condition inspection from the operating limitations (item #23 in the most recent revision):

“I certify that this aircraft has been inspected on [insert date] in accordance with the scope and detail of appendix D to part 43, and was found to be in a condition for safe operation.

How do you sign off the condition inspection if part of that statement (the underlined part) is not true?

There is nothing that says any repairs necessary to make the aircraft safe must be performed by the A&P performing the inspection. So I see no reason why the inspecting A&P could not allow the owner or other designated person to make those repairs (unless s/he simply doesn't want to). Of course, those repairs would have to be completed so the aircraft meets the "condition for safe operation" requirement. Only then could the inspecting A&P enter and sign the required statement into the records.

The proper record entry is described in FAR 43.11(a)(5): For unairworthy it requires: "I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with [condition] inspection and a list of discrepancies and unairworthy items dated (date) has been provided for the aircraft owner or operator".

FAR 43.11(a) states persons shall make an entry after any inspection, approving or disapproving.

May not be the common practice, but seems to be the law until I see otherwise.

[martymayes]

The proper record entry is described in FAR 43.11(a)(5): For unairworthy it requires: "I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with [condition] inspection and a list of discrepancies and unairworthy items dated (date) has been provided for the aircraft owner or operator".

FAR 43.11(a) states persons shall make an entry after any inspection, approving or disapproving.

May not be the common practice, but seems to be the law until I see otherwise.

Unfortunately it's not the law because as you stated earlier, the applicability section of Part 43 excludes E/AB aircraft and that exclusion includes 43.11(a)(5).

That's why the operating limitations for an E/AB aircraft include a paragraph on how to perform and sign off the required inspection. Absent that, there would be no rules to follow.


I'm sure the others will point out there are no airworthiness standards for E/AB aircraft, ergo, they can't be found unairworthy.

[Marc Zeitlin]

Unfortunately...

Why "unfortunately"? Do you think that E/AB aircraft should be subject to all the rules that certificated aircraft are? And if so, how would that even work, without TC's and specifications? What about one-off aircraft?

... it's not the law because as you stated earlier, the applicability section of Part 43 excludes E/AB aircraft and that exclusion includes 43.11(a)(5).
That's why the operating limitations for an E/AB aircraft include a paragraph on how to perform and sign off the required inspection. Absent that, there would be no rules to follow.
I'm sure the others will point out there are no airworthiness standards for E/AB aircraft, ergo, they can't be found unairworthy.

You just did :-).

I'm with Marty on this one for the reasons he states - Part 43 exempts E/AB aircraft.

In any case, however, 43.11(a) says:

"The person approving or disapproving for return to service an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part after any inspection performed in accordance with part 91, 125, Sec. 135.411(a)(1), or Sec. 135.419 shall make an entry..."

So, as long as I'm not "disapproving for return to service" the <item in question> I'd argue that the requirement for a logbook entry doesn't apply. And "unairworthy" blah, blah, blah per above.

If I wanted to put a list of "discrepancies" (as noted in 43.411(a)(5) in the logbook, that would be a possibility (if the owner was OK with it), but none of it is prescriptive. The owner can take the plane (still legal to fly [however un-smart it may be] until the current CI expires) go home, fix it (or pay someone else to fix it) and then bring it back to me to show me the discrepancies are fixed, and I can then sign it off. Or, he can pay someone else to inspect the plane again, if he didn't like me or what I told him I thought needed to be done. I cannot ground his plane - I can only refuse to sign off a CI if I deem it unsafe. Now, that's the same as grounding _IF_ the current CI has expired, which is why I said that folks shouldn't wait until the last day of the month to get their CI's signed off :-).

[martymayes]

Do you think that E/AB aircraft should be subject to all the rules that certificated aircraft are?

No, I don't think that at all.

[Bill Berson]

Unfortunately it's not the law because as you stated earlier, the applicability section of Part 43 excludes E/AB aircraft and that exclusion includes 43.11(a)(5).

That's why the operating limitations for an E/AB aircraft include a paragraph on how to perform and sign off the required inspection. Absent that, there would be no rules to follow.


I'm sure the others will point out there are no airworthiness standards for E/AB aircraft, ergo, they can't be found unairworthy.

Here is what I found in Order 8130-2F, see below. In three places it says condition inspections must be recorded. It also says "similarly worded", which gives the A&P some authority to change the wording, I think.
So I am asking what is common practice for the A&P that finds unairworthy items on a condition inspection?


from 8130-2F page 165:

(22) No person must operate this aircraft unless within the preceding 12 calendar months it hashad a condition inspection performed in accordance with the scope and detail of appendix D to part 43,or other FAA-approved programs, and was found to be in a condition for safe operation. As part of thecondition inspection, cockpit instruments must be appropriately marked and needed placards installed inaccordance with § 91.9. In addition, system-essential controls must be in good condition, securelymounted, clearly marked, and provide for ease of operation. This inspection will be recorded in theaircraft maintenance records.
(23) Condition inspections must be recorded in the aircraft maintenance records showing thefollowing, or a similarly worded, statement: “I certify that this aircraft has been inspected on [insertdate] in accordance with the scope and detail of appendix D to part 43, and was found to be in acondition for safe operation.” The entry will include the aircraft’s total time-in-service, and the name,signature, certificate number, and type of certificate held by the person performing the inspection.
NOTE: Limitations 24 and 25 will be issued in lieu of limitations 22 and 23for turbine-powered amateur-built aircraft.
(24) This aircraft must not be operated unless it is inspected and maintained in accordance withan inspection program selected, established, identified, and used as set forth in § 91.409(e), (f), (g),
and (h). This inspection must be recorded in the aircraft maintenance records.
(25) Inspections must be recorded in the aircraft maintenance records showing the following,or a similarly worded, statement: “I certify that this aircraft has been inspected on [insert date] inaccordance with the scope and detail of the [identify program, title] FSDO-approved program dated________, and found to be in a condition for safe operation.” The entry will include the aircraft’s totaltime-in-service (cycles if appropriate), and the name, signature, certificate number, and type ofcertificate held by the person performing the inspection.

[Marc Zeitlin]

Here is what I found in Order 8130-2F, see below. In three places it says condition inspections must be recorded.

Yep. And if I finish a CI and am ready to sign the airplane off as safe, then I record it in the logbook. I don't regard the CI as being complete until the plane is safe to fly, so I don't record it if it isn't.

What if someone asks me to take a look at their plane and I see something I regard as unsafe? Do I hunt down their logbook and put an entry in it? No... I don't regard the fact that they've asked me to do a CI as being different - there's no clock running, or setpoint created at that time. To me, the recording is required at the END of the CI, and in my interpretation, that only occurs when the plane is safe to fly and documented to be so.

It also says "similarly worded", which gives the A&P some authority to change the wording, I think.

It does, but I always write exactly what that aircraft's Op-Limits specify the wording to be - I haven't found any reason to change it yet.

So I am asking what is common practice for the A&P that finds unairworthy items on a condition inspection?

I can't tell you what everyone does, but I can tell you what _I_ do. I give the owner a list of discrepancies that I think make the plane unsafe. I never use the word "unairworthy", because it doesn't mean anything in the context of an E/AB aircraft, as we've discussed. I tell the owner that I wouldn't fly the plane if <X> and <Y> aren't addressed, ask if they want me to address them and tell them what it will cost to do so. So far, everyone has had me do the work, but if they didn't, I'm not going to hold either the aircraft or the logbook hostage. They can pay me for my time and take the plane.

Since the pilot is responsible for the aircraft being ready to fly (meaning safe and legal), and the owner is responsible for maintenance, all I can do is give them the information required for them to be safe. What they do with that information is up to them. And since there are differences of opinions as to what's safe (given some of the stuff I've seen that's been signed off before I get to the plane, there's a WIDE range of opinion), I cannot say with absolute certainty that I'm correct - there is no Type Certificate to which the aircraft must conform - just my opinion of safety, based on aeronautical knowledge and AC43-13, etc.

My $0.02. I'm sure you'll find A&P's with different interpretations of the rules and of what makes aircraft safe to fly.

[Bill Berson]

Hi Marc,
I haven't inspected and signed a Homebuilt log in these last 30 years, but I may again in the future. Things have changed and I am learning the new rules here from you and Marty. I don't think the word "condition" was used 30 years ago.

But my experience with the FAA leads me to say that not signing logs after an inspection is completed will not go over well with the FAA.
It seems the operating limitations should be more clear about what is a proper log entry when an A&P finds discrepancies on a Homebuilt.

There is quite a bit more to say on this topic, but I need to get to work now on my Homebuilt. More later perhaps.

[Dana]

Another wrinkle: What constitutes "condition"?

I contacted a local A&P to do the condition inspection on the Fisher 404 I recently purchased. He owns two homebuilts himself, but has little experience with wood structures. Along with some easily corrected minor issues, he found one significant structural issue that I think is actually a deficiency in the original design, reported by other owners and builders. I have a plan to repair it, making some changes to repair the damage and make it stronger than it was originally (I'm not an A&P but as an aeronautical engineer I do have the ability to evaluate the changes I'm making). The problem is that from his perspective, the repairs I'm proposing are not "by the book" (i.e. AC43-13). He said, in part, "Since it is a non-standard approach and a major repair, I need you to demonstrate how it effects a repair back to the original plane's specifications without change to the flight characteristics... Using non-standard repair techniques will make you a test pilot. If I agree to sign off, that also puts me in the position of an approving design authority for a test platform. I am uncomfortable with that arrangement."

The change I'm making is actually very similar to the modifications other builders have made during the original construction. In that case, presumably he would have no issue with it. If the repairs had been made before he had seen the plane in its original condition, also presumably it would not have been an issue. I can't see him as an "approving design authority"; even the DAR at the initial signoff doesn't evaluate the design, just the condition.

[Marc Zeitlin]

Another wrinkle: What constitutes "condition"?... The change I'm making is actually very similar to the modifications other builders have made during the original construction. In that case, presumably he would have no issue with it. If the repairs had been made before he had seen the plane in its original condition, also presumably it would not have been an issue. I can't see him as an "approving design authority"; even the DAR at the initial signoff doesn't evaluate the design, just the condition.

As someone who signs off CI's on E/AB aircraft, personally I agree with your position on this matter. ALL I am doing when I sign off an aircraft is saying that in my professional opinion, the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation. I'm NOT validating the design or any modifications done to the plane UNLESS, in my opinion, something is unsafe.

Give you an example - I was asked to do a CI on a Wheeler Express 2000. Found that the rudders were actuated by two push-pull cables - the kind normally used for throttle control. 25 lb. capability, per specs. We could put both feet flat on the rudder pedals, push hard, and still move the TE of the rudder 2" in either direction due to play in the system. After some investigation, I determined that this was EXACTLY PER PLANS regarding the installation. Holy crap. To me, as an A&P and an Aeronautical engineer, this was a clear design defect - just begging for flutter. I declined to do the CI.

On the other hand, I see a zillion Varieze, Long-EZ and COZY's, which, being plans-built, are all customized to some extent, some with some reasonably large mods. I make a judgement, based on AC43.13, engineering knowledge, A&P experience, etc. as to whether the aircraft, AS-IS, is "in a condition for safe flight". If yes, I sign it off. If not, I don't, and make a recommendation as to what to change.

So, yeah - I agree with your position on this matter. If he doesn't think that what you're going to do is SAFE, that's a different story. But if it just doesn't conform to some original plans specification, that's not within his purview, IMO.

[martymayes]

"The problem is that from his perspective, the repairs I'm proposing are not "by the book" (i.e. AC43-13). He said, in part, [I]"Since it is a non-standard approach and a major repair, I need you to demonstrate how it effects a repair back to the original plane's specifications without change to the flight characteristics..."

There is no such thing as a "major repair" (as defined in part 43) on a homebuilt.



Good luck Dana but I don't see this turning out positive. I'd get another A&P to do the inspection.