Limit scope of practice. How many private rated would need to know turbine for example. Just as we have private, multi, high performance, complex, etc we could have similar for non-commercial A&P. This idea isn't far from the light sport maintenance training concept.
Get A&P license to maintain own Airplane
- Thread starter MikeG2572
- Start date
1000s. They tried a similar approach in the 90s based aircraft weight. Its very tough to split mx at the private/commercial level. Regardless, follow MOSAIC as I've noted in other threads may just give you what you're looking for.
Because I don’t want to build a plane from scratch and it’s not so simple to find NICE aerobatic planes to buy all over the place. We should legally be able to convert a certified plane to experemental for this purpose, but you can’t
Just saying to break the law and not get caught is an extremely poor argument to govt over reach.
As another poster said, the administrative state only responds and understands force from legislators
I would say buy a hangar first before even doing the IA, they are basicly unavailable all across the country.
Hangar - IA then work on flying
You can buy an already built amateur plane. No assembly needed. Aerobatic too. Next.
You can. Its called Experimental Exhibition. Matter of fact I believe there are a number of different aerobactic planes already flying as Exp/Exh. So what’s your hold-up? Or do you simply prefer to complain about something?
I get on barn stormers periodicly and these planes are rare
Exhibition places pretty extreme limitations on your plane like range flown etc
They have to add in stupid crap, they can’t just let you own a plane and work on it
Also these catagories still require A&P which is harder to get than the IA
If I could convert to amature build that would help especially if I can’t get the IA time waiver, we shall see
Amature built doesn’t have the restrictions exhibition does
akmetal, you seem to miss that when the FAA issues your A/P or IA, they are certifying that you are competent to perform work on any plane, not just your personal plane.
Once you have the certificate, you can decide to do turbo normalized, fuel injected, pressurized aircraft, and no one can stop you, you have the certificate.
Relating this to the modern automotive world, many manufacturers void their warrantee if a non brand specific certified mechanic has done the recommended services specified for the mile related interval procedures. For some brands, this can be very expensive.
The government is not forcing you to do this, but if a certified shop is not near, you will have to take the time to drive to a certified shop.
I was a highly skilled technician in a narrowly focused shop. We had good vacation time, life insurance, health insurance. and retirement plan. The actual cost to the company was two and a half what they paid us. They charged more than 3 times our hourly rate for outside contract work, and eventually quit outside, as they often lost money if there was a later failure that might have been overlooked by our team. The modern aviation repair shop has to pay well to get skilled employees, and good benefits to keep them.
I have been based at an airport with a very marginal A&P, who was not skilled in repairing all the different planes on the field. His backgroound was in a shop that specialized in Pipers, they werew a dealer. They let him go for some reason, and he came to our airport as our only mechanic. Pipers were less than a quarter of the planes based here. Perfectly legal, he had the Certificate. He literally damaged both of our Cessna's, and we did not sue him, as we had found that a bad mechanic is not as bad as no mechanic.
Once you have the certificate, you can decide to do turbo normalized, fuel injected, pressurized aircraft, and no one can stop you, you have the certificate.
Relating this to the modern automotive world, many manufacturers void their warrantee if a non brand specific certified mechanic has done the recommended services specified for the mile related interval procedures. For some brands, this can be very expensive.
The government is not forcing you to do this, but if a certified shop is not near, you will have to take the time to drive to a certified shop.
I was a highly skilled technician in a narrowly focused shop. We had good vacation time, life insurance, health insurance. and retirement plan. The actual cost to the company was two and a half what they paid us. They charged more than 3 times our hourly rate for outside contract work, and eventually quit outside, as they often lost money if there was a later failure that might have been overlooked by our team. The modern aviation repair shop has to pay well to get skilled employees, and good benefits to keep them.
I have been based at an airport with a very marginal A&P, who was not skilled in repairing all the different planes on the field. His backgroound was in a shop that specialized in Pipers, they werew a dealer. They let him go for some reason, and he came to our airport as our only mechanic. Pipers were less than a quarter of the planes based here. Perfectly legal, he had the Certificate. He literally damaged both of our Cessna's, and we did not sue him, as we had found that a bad mechanic is not as bad as no mechanic.
But if I do work on my car that voids my warrenty I won’t go to jail or be fined by the govt or loose my drivers licence.
How do you not see the problem of govt over reach?
Thst is my only point.
As to your other points hopefully this guy was honest with you about what he worked on, I have only worked on super cubs, bi planes and lycoming engines so if a turbine or different airframe came up I would tell you I’m not competent to work on it without a lot of training. If he lied to you you can’t trust him and in that case no mechanic is better (unless you need the rubber stamp to keep the govt from grounding your planes.
But that’s anybody doing just about anything in any field of work.
Last edited:
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 16,026
- Location
- DXO124009
- Display Name
Display name:
Light and Sporty Guy
Not possible. If it wasn't originally built for recreation / education then it's not E-AB. Yea olde so called 51% rule.
My guy charges a few hundred for the condition inspection on the E-AB that I bought already done been flying.
donjohnston
Pattern Altitude
You've obviously never lived in a state with mandatory vehicle inspections. Where you have to go to authorized shops to get your car inspected.
As for everything else, you think it's easier or will take less time to get your A&P and I/A in than to build an E/AB aircraft?
Now that's funny.
That was changed a number of years ago. But you do need something to “exhibit” which can be anything. Perhaps since you like comparing this to vehicle mx, stick a Chevy V8 on the front of your plane like the CorsairV8 guy did and fly your Exp/Exh heart out. He even performed training in his. That way you get the best of both worlds?
As to the comparison to E/AB both need an A&P only for the yearly condition check, so no other difference on Exp/Exh except for the yearly program letter.
Since all IAs are A&Ps how do you figure this?
Not all fsdo’s agree with you. I don’t think it’s always as easy to convert as you say. Also I speak from experience when I say exhibition is not as well understood and can be a hassle when dealing with the fsdo.
I think he means adding the ia once you have the A&P is easier than getting the A&P. I’m not agreeing, just stating how I interpreted it.
Last edited:
Witmo
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2006
- Messages
- 2,434
- Display Name
Display name:
Tim
Adding the IA is relatively easy compared to getting an A&P beforehand. The only real additional privileges afforded someone with IA are doing annuals and signing off STCs and major repairs.
There can be variables, but in my experience if you have a legit reason to go E/E its definitely easier now. Back when you had aircraft groups, location limits, etc. it was harder for various reasons. But with the guidance change that streamlined the process and cleared a lot of "roadblocks" for lack of a better term.
Unfortunately one of the problems was some people thought they had a path to put their beat up 172 on E/E to save a buck which caused bad blood in some areas. But all in all if you have a need, have a solid plan, it can be easier now than before. As to FSDO issues cant really say as its been years since I saw one involved in E/E since more E/E certs are issued by DARs.
I was hoping he would expand on this supposed waiver he could get to test for his IA right after he got his A&P.
But if the IA is so easy you have to ask why doesn't every mechanic have one?
What is the “legit reason”, “need”, and “plan” to convert your 172 to exhibition?There can be variables, but in my experience if you have a legit reason to go E/E its definitely easier now. Back when you had aircraft groups, location limits, etc. it was harder for various reasons. But with the guidance change that streamlined the process and cleared a lot of "roadblocks" for lack of a better term.
Unfortunately one of the problems was some people thought they had a path to put their beat up 172 on E/E to save a buck which caused bad blood in some areas. But all in all if you have a need, have a solid plan, it can be easier now than before. As to FSDO issues cant really say as its been years since I saw one involved in E/E since more E/E certs are issued by DARs.
I was hoping he would expand on this supposed waiver he could get to test for his IA right after he got his A&P.
But if the IA is so easy you have to ask why doesn't every mechanic have one?
I dont believe I said it could be done for a stock 172?? Some people thought after the guidance change they could which was incorrect.
ok, either I misread you or you edited some posts. Not an accusation, just a fact. Now as I re-read I’m not seeing you suggest a conversion, but for whichever reason I thought you did first time through.
It was just a response to an email to the fsdoThere can be variables, but in my experience if you have a legit reason to go E/E its definitely easier now. Back when you had aircraft groups, location limits, etc. it was harder for various reasons. But with the guidance change that streamlined the process and cleared a lot of "roadblocks" for lack of a better term.
Unfortunately one of the problems was some people thought they had a path to put their beat up 172 on E/E to save a buck which caused bad blood in some areas. But all in all if you have a need, have a solid plan, it can be easier now than before. As to FSDO issues cant really say as its been years since I saw one involved in E/E since more E/E certs are issued by DARs.
I was hoping he would expand on this supposed waiver he could get to test for his IA right after he got his A&P.
But if the IA is so easy you have to ask why doesn't every mechanic have one?
Not sure what the deal is with all animosity and “bad blood” as soon as someone gains a path to not needing an IA anymore for a particular aircraft
Plus what if you wanted to add smoke and do sky writing for hire
No edited posts. I was replying to his experimental and aerobatic comment in post above the one you quoted. Aerobatic aircraft have been mostly E/E "qualified." Same with gliders and a few other types. No mention of a run of the mill Piper or Cessna unless you want to stick a V8 up front. So I guess I'm not following your questions??
Perhaps give me an example of what you're seeing?
By "brought to us" you mean imported? If so, then no. There is no international agreement that permits the acceptance of another country's experimental classification. Once a non-TC aircraft hits our shore it must meet the FAA Special AWC experimental requirements just as a E/AB aircraft and any other "experimental" aircraft must. They are all "conversions."
My understanding is that when a type certificated aircraft is converted to E/E for something like a V-8 engine swap, the modified components (the engine in this case) can be worked on by anybody, but the unmodified rest of the aircraft still needs an A&P to work on it. That doesn't apply when the entire aircraft is considered experimental, like the imported acro ships.
hindsight2020
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 7,000
- Display Name
Display name:
hindsight2020
for context, understand you're jousting with archetypes who made a lucrative living being remoras to the status quo. Remember Red from Shawshank? On the inside he was someone that could get things done for ya, he was depended on, he was rewarded for it. On the outside he couldn't get ya a library card.
Remoras are sensitive to that assurance, which helps you understand their simping for the status quo. They're also generally contemptuous of the recreational owner operator, who they malign/handwave away as cheapskate malcontents that shouldn't be allowed inside the circle of trust they and they alone can keep safe.
The space is filled with self-important people like that. In fairness, similar dynamics exist in the aeromed/HIMS/AME side of things.
Thank you, that actually makes a lot of sense. I am happy that my local FSDO and the tudors/DME are working with me
I think these are some of the people that love these unique planes and people willing to keep them running and flying, I have a 1990 Pitts s2b so while it’s not a ww2 steerman it’s pretty cool.
The university has old radial engines with nice cut seats as well as at-7 ? turbines cut away. I was a little bitter I failed my O&P the first time but it was my fault plus I tried to do the whole a&p at once, this time I’m breaking them up, I thought I’m a dual PE how hard can this be lol.
Going through dauntless power plant and general now until I’m regularly getting 90% + then redue thecwrittrns and the Tudor will walk me through O&P’s
I’m having the asa O&P book scanned to pdf to go through as well.
Last edited:
The experimental certificate applies to the whole aircraft as Part 43 is no longer applicable. I’ve heard of something similar from the E/AB world on the status of certified engines and ADs. The defining point is not the V8 installation, but rather the aircraft no longer conforms to its TC and is not airworthy under a Standard AWC. So the only way to operate that aircraft is under a Special AWC experimental certificate and any mx requirements are listed in the ops limits vs Part 43. If that makes sense.
Same for an aircraft imported into the US without a TC. The experimental and restricted categories are basically the only options and if the aircraft is to be used for personal use, E/E is usually your only option for most small aircraft.
You’ll find its the manner in which the application for E/E is made that caused the “bad blood.” Unfortunately, there is a select group of Part 91 recreational aircraft owners who feel entitled to follow their own path when it comes to their hobby. So instead of taking proactive steps to move forward like you are with obtaining you’re A&P, or change to an LSA or E/AB aircraft, or simply follow the rules as they are listed, they prefer to only beech and whine about it. The interesting part is that most of this group are clueless on the how and why of the FARs and the reasons behind them. Be smarter than them.
kontiki
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- May 30, 2011
- Messages
- 1,176
- Display Name
Display name:
Kontiki
I used to joke that my hobby was starting projects, not finishing them. Your proposed objectives require a lot time, effort and money. Being a safe pilot means that you review and practice enough that you can handle all the routine stuff with about 30-40% of your brain. Not many other fields require that much proficiency review.
As far as being a mechanic, there are parts changers and those people that can troubleshoot, rig, work metal, weld, work dope and fabric etc. Some of these specialties take a lot time and effort to really master.
Once you start the training you will probably learn things you did not know before and be tempted to go in other directions. Finding out how much effort they really take comes later.
Overhead and costs related to owning and maintaining an airplane can completely derail development of flying skills. If you are working on a shoe string budget, I'd take it one step at a time.
Last edited:
I’m another that would like ak to answer Bell’s question re “ waiver”.
Unlike the A& P; the IA must be renewed every 2 years.
Obviously this means that multiple Fed Folks will be making those
determinations re eligibility.
Rather than “ waivers “ the determination may be really “ interpretation “
by different people.
Ironically when I was a “civilian” I worked primarily MIL aircraft
and was deemed ineligible.
Later I was Active Duty USAF and worked on a lot of civilian aircraft
but I was eligible!
Strange!
Unlike the A& P; the IA must be renewed every 2 years.
Obviously this means that multiple Fed Folks will be making those
determinations re eligibility.
Rather than “ waivers “ the determination may be really “ interpretation “
by different people.
Ironically when I was a “civilian” I worked primarily MIL aircraft
and was deemed ineligible.
Later I was Active Duty USAF and worked on a lot of civilian aircraft
but I was eligible!
Strange!
unsafervguy
En-Route
my op limits for my E/E states that all work must be done by an certified A&P. now, my limits were put in place years ago, and im in the process of getting them updated so we will see if that one stays in or not. no big deal if it does.
Witmo
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2006
- Messages
- 2,434
- Display Name
Display name:
Tim
I can't speak for all A&Ps but personally, I don't want the added liability and hassle.There can be variables, but in my experience if you have a legit reason to go E/E its definitely easier now. Back when you had aircraft groups, location limits, etc. it was harder for various reasons. But with the guidance change that streamlined the process and cleared a lot of "roadblocks" for lack of a better term.
Unfortunately one of the problems was some people thought they had a path to put their beat up 172 on E/E to save a buck which caused bad blood in some areas. But all in all if you have a need, have a solid plan, it can be easier now than before. As to FSDO issues cant really say as its been years since I saw one involved in E/E since more E/E certs are issued by DARs.
I was hoping he would expand on this supposed waiver he could get to test for his IA right after he got his A&P.
But if the IA is so easy you have to ask why doesn't every mechanic have one?
Doc Holliday
En-Route
This is as black and white as it gets. Not sure how someone could interpret this any different. Note also there is no wording or mention of waivers for this requirement.
65.91 Inspection authorization.
(a) An application for an inspection authorization is made on a form and in a manner prescribed by the Administrator.
(b) An applicant who meets the requirements of this section is entitled to an inspection authorization.
(c) To be eligible for an inspection authorization, an applicant must—
(1) Hold a currently effective mechanic certificate with both an airframe rating and a powerplant rating, each of which is currently effective and has been in effect for a total of at least 3 years;
(2) Have been actively engaged, for at least the 2-year period before the date he applies, in maintaining aircraft certificated and maintained in accordance with this chapter;
(3) Have a fixed base of operations at which he may be located in person or by telephone during a normal working week but it need not be the place where he will exercise his inspection authority;
(4) Have available to him the equipment, facilities, and inspection data necessary to properly inspect airframes, powerplants, propellers, or any related part or appliance; and
(5) Pass a written test on his ability to inspect according to safety standards for returning aircraft to service after major repairs and major alterations and annual and progressive inspections performed under part 43 of this chapter.
An applicant who fails the test prescribed in paragraph (c)(5) of this section may not apply for retesting until at least 90 days after the date he failed the test.
Here's from the Order 8900.1, Vol 5, Chapter 5, Section 7
5-1279 ELIGIBILITY. The ASI needs to evaluate the applicant’s eligibility using the
following criteria before proceeding to test authorization. None of the requirements of § 65.91
can be waived by the ASI.
A. Certification. The applicant must hold a current Mechanic Certificate, with both
A&P ratings, that has been in effect for at least 3 years. If the ASI is unable to determine that the
applicant meets the 3-year requirement based on the Mechanic Certificate issue date or a review
of the Safety Performance Analysis System (SPAS) data, the ASI should contact the Airmen
Certification Branch (AFB-720) for verification of the original date of issue. The applicant must
have been actively engaged in maintaining certificated aircraft for at least the 2-year period
before applying
Checkout_my_Six
Touchdown! Greaser!
notice the word..... "entitled".
This one is quite different than other FAA designees.....who need to have the "need" and "ability" for the designee approval.
This one is quite different than other FAA designees.....who need to have the "need" and "ability" for the designee approval.
Doc Holliday
En-Route
notice the word..... "entitled".
This one is quite different than other FAA designees.....who need to have the "need" and "ability" for the designee approval.
Doesn't change the requirements. It simply means once someone has meet the basic requirements they can test.
Checkout_my_Six
Touchdown! Greaser!
How did I say it changed anything?
And there are ASI's who think you may not be "ready".....that's not what the rule says.
Doc Holliday
En-Route
Go read the guidance from the 8900.1 I posted. Show me where in the guidance it stipulates the ASI can determine "you may not be ready yet" if the applicant meets the regulation.
Checkout_my_Six
Touchdown! Greaser!
I have no idea what you post....my experience with FSDOs and HDQrs is my reference. I've dealt with ASI's who felt they had certain powers....till they were smacked by AFS350.
Doc Holliday
En-Route
You have little to no working knowledge of the 8900.1, or what an AW ASI does at the FSDO level. That's very obvious.I have no idea what you post....my experience with FSDOs and HDQrs is my reference. I've dealt with ASI's who felt they had certain powers....till they were smacked by AFS350.
BTW, during STRING the AW ASI's are taught how to issue certificates and the IA is covered, in detail. So your OWT is just that.
I wonder why my FSDO told me they could waive that time requirement. I will ask for the waiver form and see what it says on it
Doc Holliday
En-Route
Please do, and post it here. Thanks.
From what I’ve seen a common stumbling block is “ actively engaged”.
Subject to interpretation.
IIRC - The forerunner to IA’s was the DAMI - Designated Aircraft Maintenance
Inspector. At the “ Periodic Inspection “ they would “ hang the ticket”
( AWC) which was valid for 1 year.
Based on “ need” is what I believe.
Subject to interpretation.
IIRC - The forerunner to IA’s was the DAMI - Designated Aircraft Maintenance
Inspector. At the “ Periodic Inspection “ they would “ hang the ticket”
( AWC) which was valid for 1 year.
Based on “ need” is what I believe.