Why do people call Condition Inspections " Annuals"

[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

[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.