Prebuy vs. Annual

[martymayes]

Marty,
Actually the 2004 FAA document I linked was not current. The current 2010 version has some important changes for I.A. renewal this year.
Better check it out if you are an I.A., since it requires new documentation for 2011 and we have less than one month left in the year.
After some research today, I found the I.A. guide has been split into two parts now:

FAA-8082-11C http://www.faa.gov/training_testing/...g-8082-11c.pdf
and
FAA-8082-19 http://www.faa.gov/training_testing/...-g-8082-19.pdf

The second one explains the new renewal documentation.
Bill

Yes, thanks Bill. I have the new doc in my library but haven't looked at it yet. I knew the FAA put their new plan in writing since they are now hot to trot to strip authorization from as many IA's as possible.

[Bill Berson]

With further thought, the 2010 I.A. guide does NOT have all that is needed for I.A. renewal. The new requirements are here:
http://www.eaa.org/news/2011/New_IA_policy.pdf

sorry about the thread drift.
Bill

[Mike Busch]

Yes, thanks Bill. I have the new doc in my library but haven't looked at it yet. I knew the FAA put their new plan in writing since they are now hot to trot to strip authorization from as many IA's as possible.

Other than the revised guidance to PMIs concerning the interpretation of the phrase "actively engaged" in 65.91, I was not aware that there were any other changes that would affect IA renewal. There have been no changes to 65.93 since 2007 (when the renewal cycle changed from 1 year to 2 years), and there have been no changes to 65.91 since 1985. What are the changes that concern you?

I have heard that some FSDOs have been saying that attendance at an approved 8-hour renewal seminar is no longer an acceptable basis for IA renewal, but that cannot possibly be correct because it's written right into 65.93 and the only way the FAA could change this would be to amend 65.93 with a full rulemaking action (NPRM, comment period, final rule) and that simply has not happened (nor do I believe it's even being contemplated).

The FAA did come out with FSDO guidance saying that "actively engaged" meant "swings wrenches full-time." There was a huge negative reaction to this, and the FAA quickly rescinded that guidance and replaced it with guidance saying that part-timers could be considered to be "actively engages," as could IAs working in supervisory and management capacities that did not actually swing wrenches very often.

If you are aware of any other changes beside the "actively engaged" interpretation, please let me know ASAP. Thanks...Mike

[Bill Berson]

Mike,
As I understand the new I.A. renewal process, some sort of documentation will be required in addition to the I.A. Seminar to prove "actively engaged". The amount of documentation is not specified.

I started a new thread here:http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?...=7083#post7083

Bill

[Tom Downey]

Other than the revised guidance to PMIs concerning the interpretation of the phrase "actively engaged" in 65.91, I was not aware that there were any other changes that would affect IA renewal. There have been no changes to 65.93 since 2007 (when the renewal cycle changed from 1 year to 2 years), and there have been no changes to 65.91 since 1985. What are the changes that concern you?

I have heard that some FSDOs have been saying that attendance at an approved 8-hour renewal seminar is no longer an acceptable basis for IA renewal, but that cannot possibly be correct because it's written right into 65.93 and the only way the FAA could change this would be to amend 65.93 with a full rulemaking action (NPRM, comment period, final rule) and that simply has not happened (nor do I believe it's even being contemplated).

The FAA did come out with FSDO guidance saying that "actively engaged" meant "swings wrenches full-time." There was a huge negative reaction to this, and the FAA quickly rescinded that guidance and replaced it with guidance saying that part-timers could be considered to be "actively engages," as could IAs working in supervisory and management capacities that did not actually swing wrenches very often.

If you are aware of any other changes beside the "actively engaged" interpretation, please let me know ASAP. Thanks...Mike

There was never any rule change, it was to do with policy in the enforcement of the actively engaged portion of 61.91, as you stated in your first sentence.

[teknosmurf]

Thanks for the insight Mike. That is exactly what I was looking for from you. I have read lots about annual vs. prebuy, but as you said their are lots of articles out there. I like the thought pattern and reasoning you presented

[DanChief]

A friend of mine just had a pre-buy conducted on his airplane by a potential buyer's A&P-IA.

Let's just say there's no GA airplane I've ever flown that would have passed this "pre-buy."

A few gems listed as "Airworthiness" items:

COWL FLAP RUBBER WORN
DIRECTIONAL GYRO PRECESSES

Seriously?

[martymayes]

A friend of mine just had a pre-buy conducted on his airplane by a potential buyer's A&P-IA.

A few gems listed as "Airworthiness" items:

COWL FLAP RUBBER WORN
DIRECTIONAL GYRO PRECESSES

The definition of "airworthy" has always differed substantially depending of if you are buying or selling.

[DanChief]

In this case "airworthy" = "Extortion Bullet points"

[Bill Greenwood]

Many year ago I went to look at a J3 Cub that was for sale. I had always wanted one, had recently done a checkout in one and really enjoyed the sightseeing, saw small airstrips and features that I had not noticed in the many times I had flown over them in my Mooney.I foudn it easy to fly and land.
This Cub was for sale in a nearby town. I had seen it when an FAA friend of the owner had brought it to an airshow,flying it from the front seat, and over the phone it sounded good., and looked like at least an average Cub.
I asked my friend Ray Middleton, an expert I A and restorer, as well as Champ owner to come with me to do the pre buy look.
We got there and the owner was not too happy that I had an expert with me. Ray pulled out a yellow leagal pad and a pen and went to work. As he wrote item after item on the pad the owner got less and less happy, especially when he filled up the front and went on the back side. Finally Ray had about 52 items and the owner was extra unhappy. Many items were minor, but two were safety items. There was a fuel line in the engine compartment chaffing on a tube and was already worn part way through, a leak might have started a fire. Also an aileron control cable chaffing.
Needless to say i didn't buy that Cub, and later got a better one.