Experimental maintenance questions

[kell490]

If you buy an experimental aircraft EAB can one do custom modifications like adding a glass panel, recovering it, beyond without an A&P signing off? I understand your required to get an A&P to do an annual on it.

E-LSA same question as above if one was to obtain the LSA A&P certificate they offer a class. Does that allow you to modify an E-LSA and do your own maintenance.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Part 43 does not apply to E-AB or E-LSA. No A&P or repairman certificate required except for the condition inspection.
Anyone can maintain / alter an E-AB or E-LSA.
You can take the shorter class to let you do the annual condition inspection on an E-LSA but not an E-AB (which required an A&P or repairman certificate for that particular aircraft)
You can take the longer class to get an LSA repairman certificate to maintain an S-LSA that you own.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

Yep. You can essentially do whatever you want to your own experimental (though some changes may require a "fly off".)

 

[hindsight2020]

world's your oyster my friend. My username checks.

 

[Dana]

E-AB or E-LSA, you can do any maintenance and modifications you want, and you don't even need the LSA repairman certificate. All the repairman certificate does is let you do the annual condition inspection.

For major modifications you need to notify the FSDO and get approval of a test area for a 5 hour test period.

I've made numerous modifications, some minor and some major, to E-ABs I owned but didn't build. I only need to hire an A&P for the condition inspection.

 

[donjohnston]

If you buy an experimental aircraft EAB can one do custom modifications like adding a glass panel, recovering it, beyond without an A&P signing off? I understand your required to get an A&P to do an annual on it.

E-LSA same question as above if one was to obtain the LSA A&P certificate they offer a class. Does that allow you to modify an E-LSA and do your own maintenance.

You can do ANYTHING to the aircraft (except the annual). If it's a "major" modification it requires a phase I period. I don't think that major is clearly defined though. And I don't know if it's a 25 or 40 hour phase I.

 

[flyingron]

The sample op lims that are used today say you need to talk to the FAA and let them know where you're going to be testing it to prove 91.319(b). There's no statement as to the duration necessary to do those tests.

 

[DaleB]

And of course… if it’s E-LSA your modifications can’t take it outside of LSA limits, or it would become a lawn ornament.

 

[Dana]

You can do ANYTHING to the aircraft (except the annual). If it's a "major" modification it requires a phase I period. I don't think that major is clearly defined though. And I don't know if it's a 25 or 40 hour phase I.

§ 21.93(a) ...A “minor change” is one that has no appreciable effect on the weight, balance, structural strength, reliability, operational characteristics, or other characteristics affecting the airworthiness of the product. All other changes are “major changes”...

The sample op lims that are used today say you need to talk to the FAA and let them know where you're going to be testing it to prove 91.319(b). There's no statement as to the duration necessary to do those tests.

Usually they require 5 hours of testing. But good point on the operating limitations. The older language said, "any major change invalidates the airworthiness certificate." The newer language just requires that the FSDO be notified and their approval gotten for the test area. I got my op lims updated so that I could install a different propeller.

 

[kell490]

The only advantage to building when it comes to maintenance is you get the repairmen's cert and you can do your own annual which isn't really much of a difference because you can still do your own repairs on anything the annual discovers. Probably not a bad idea to have an A&P look it over once a year anyway.

 

[unsafervguy]

You can do ANYTHING to the aircraft (except the annual). If it's a "major" modification it requires a phase I period. I don't think that major is clearly defined though. And I don't know if it's a 25 or 40 hour phase I.

thats because there is no annual for an EAB. it gets a condition inspection. different thing entirely. I have seen to many EAB's that were illegal to fly because the condition inspection was signed off as an annual inspection. it has to be signed off by an A&P or the person holding the repairmans cert for that S/N using the verbage callout in the operating limitations issued to the aircraft. I have seen a lot of them with the standard, "I have inspected this aircraft.... that is used for a T/Ced aircraft.
as to modifications, certain modifications do require the aircraft to be returned to phase one. the amount of time, required is up to to the FSDO that you notify of the modification.

 

[Dana]

I have seen to many EAB's that were illegal to fly because the condition inspection was signed off as an annual inspection. it has to be signed off by an A&P or the person holding the repairmans cert for that S/N using the verbage callout in the operating limitations issued to the aircraft. I have seen a lot of them with the standard, "I have inspected this aircraft.... that is used for a T/Ced aircraft.

But has anybody really ever been cited for using the improper language? The specified language is "...aircraft has been inspected in accordance with the scope and detail of part 43, appendix D..."..."or a similarly worded statement". So what does "similarly worded" mean?

 

[donjohnston]

thats because there is no annual for an EAB. it gets a condition inspection. different thing entirely. I have seen to many EAB's that were illegal to fly because the condition inspection was signed off as an annual inspection. it has to be signed off by an A&P or the person holding the repairmans cert for that S/N using the verbage callout in the operating limitations issued to the aircraft. I have seen a lot of them with the standard, "I have inspected this aircraft.... that is used for a T/Ced aircraft.
as to modifications, certain modifications do require the aircraft to be returned to phase one. the amount of time, required is up to to the FSDO that you notify of the modification.

Here we go again.

How often is that inspection done?

it would be funny if it weren’t so predictable.

 

[DaleB]

Here we go again.

How often is that inspection done?

it would be funny if it weren’t so predictable.

Yup. It’s a condition (NOT “conditional”) inspection, and it’s done annually. So if someone sees me with the cowl off and says, “Oh, annual time again?” I just tell them yes, rather than going on about the fact that there are no “annual” inspections for Experimentals. Well, because there are…. The annual inspection is just called the condition inspection.

 

[unsafervguy]

But has anybody really ever been cited for using the improper language? The specified language is "...aircraft has been inspected in accordance with the scope and detail of part 43, appendix D..."..."or a similarly worded statement". So what does "similarly worded" mean?

Here we go again.

How often is that inspection done?

it would be funny if it weren’t so predictable.

if you do not what to follow regulations be my guest.
but here is the legal aspect of the wording.

the FAR spell out required inspections. far 91.409 applies to T/C aircraft. it used the term annual inspection. it states:"An annual inspection in accordance with part 43" it also states: "unless it is performed by a person authorized to perform annual inspections and is entered as an “annual” inspection in the required maintenance records.

now, that part does not apply to EAB, but the op limits do and they state;" No person must operate this aircraft unless within the preceding 12 calendar
months it has had a condition inspection performed in accordance with the scope and detail of 14 CFR part 43, appendix D, or other FAA-approved programs, and was found to be in a condition for safe operation. it also states: "Condition inspections must be recorded in the aircraft logbook and maintenance
records showing the following, or a similarly worded, statement: “I certify that this aircraft has been inspected on [insert date] in accordance with the scope and detail of14 CFR part 43, appendix D, and was found to be in a condition for safe operation.” also stated :"An experimental aircraft builder certificated as a repairman for this aircraft under 14 CFR § 65.104 or an appropriately rated FAA-certificated mechanic may perform the
condition inspection required by these operating limitations. words matter.

notice that the words annual inspection" do not appear in any of those. if somebody fills out the required records and uses the words annual inspection, they have not met the requirements of the operating limits of the aircraft. anybody that flys that aircraft could be violated for flying an illegal aircraft. also any IA that uses the words annual inspection could face action against their IA certificate for violotaion of 43.11 (a) "the type of inspection and a brief description of the extent of the inspection." signing it as annual inspection also violates 43.11 (a) 4 "Except for progressive inspections, if the aircraft is found to be airworthy and approved for return to service, the following or a similarly worded statement - “I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with (insert type) inspection and was determined to be in airworthy condition.” you cannot declare an aircraft not built to any airworthy standards to be airworthy, thats the whole point of the difference.

 

[donjohnston]

if you do not what to follow regulations be my guest.
but here is the legal aspect of the wording.

the FAR spell out required inspections. far 91.409 applies to T/C aircraft. it used the term annual inspection. it states:"An annual inspection in accordance with part 43" it also states: "unless it is performed by a person authorized to perform annual inspections and is entered as an “annual” inspection in the required maintenance records.

now, that part does not apply to EAB, but the op limits do and they state;" No person must operate this aircraft unless within the preceding 12 calendar
months it has had a condition inspection performed in accordance with the scope and detail of 14 CFR part 43, appendix D, or other FAA-approved programs, and was found to be in a condition for safe operation. it also states: "Condition inspections must be recorded in the aircraft logbook and maintenance
records showing the following, or a similarly worded, statement: “I certify that this aircraft has been inspected on [insert date] in accordance with the scope and detail of14 CFR part 43, appendix D, and was found to be in a condition for safe operation.” also stated :"An experimental aircraft builder certificated as a repairman for this aircraft under 14 CFR § 65.104 or an appropriately rated FAA-certificated mechanic may perform the
condition inspection required by these operating limitations. words matter.

notice that the words annual inspection" do not appear in any of those. if somebody fills out the required records and uses the words annual inspection, they have not met the requirements of the operating limits of the aircraft. anybody that flys that aircraft could be violated for flying an illegal aircraft. also any IA that uses the words annual inspection could face action against their IA certificate for violotaion of 43.11 (a) "the type of inspection and a brief description of the extent of the inspection." signing it as annual inspection also violates 43.11 (a) 4 "Except for progressive inspections, if the aircraft is found to be airworthy and approved for return to service, the following or a similarly worded statement - “I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with (insert type) inspection and was determined to be in airworthy condition.” you cannot declare an aircraft not built to any airworthy standards to be airworthy, thats the whole point of the difference.

I see you don't have an avatar. Might I suggest:

 

[Bell206]

But has anybody really ever been cited for using the improper language?

FWIW: Yes they have. But was mainly due to the ignorance of the mechanic in believing what the E/AB owner told him. Bottomline there is a legal difference in the terms conditon inspection and annual inspection. And playing the semantics game outside signing that inspection only leads to more confusion for those with minimal experience in the matter. No different than stating ADs dont apply to E/AB, TC components need A&P to work on, and so on. But to each their own.

 

[donjohnston]

And playing the semantics game outside signing that inspection only leads to more confusion for those with minimal experience in the matter. No different than stating ADs dont apply to E/AB, TC components need A&P to work on, and so on. But to each their own.

I would submit that if someone doesn't know what the official name of the inspection on an E/AB aircraft is, or the correct wording of the logbook entry for said inspection, that they should not be performing the inspection in the first place.

And if someone is relying on random, anonymous people on the internet for guidance on whether the logbooks on an aircraft they are looking purchase are correct, they're going to have a bad time.

But to each their own, right?

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

I would submit that if someone doesn't know what the official name of the inspection on an E/AB aircraft is, or the correct wording of the logbook entry for said inspection, that they should not be performing the inspection in the first place.

My A&P IA had to look it up since he doesn't do E-ABs very often.

And if someone is relying on random, anonymous people on the internet for guidance on whether the logbooks on an aircraft they are looking purchase, they're going to have a bad time.

Should I care that previous inspections didn't meet the requirements and the aircraft was flown in an "un-airworthy" condition by previous owners?

 

[FastEddieB]

Should I care that previous inspections didn't meet the requirements and the aircraft was flown in an "un-airworthy" condition by previous owners?

Might be pedantic, but at Experimental maintenance seminars the point was made that an Experimental is never deemed to be airworthy, only "...found to be in a condition for safe operation".

"Airworthy" is a term that only applies to T/C aircraft and has a specific meaning, not applicable to Experimental.

 

[MonkeyClaw]

Maybe it would be a good idea to print out the correct wording and tape it to the front of the log book for the A&P to reference when performing the sign off?

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Might be pedantic, but at Experimental maintenance seminars the point was made that an Experimental is never deemed to be airworthy, only "...found to be in a condition for safe operation".

"Airworthy" is a term that only applies to T/C aircraft and has a specific meaning, not applicable to Experimental.

"Un-conforming-to-op-lims" then?
Should I care?

 

[FastEddieB]

"Un-conforming-to-op-lims" then?
Should I care?

I don’t think so. As long as a current condition inspection deems it “in a condition for safe operation”, I don’t think past lapses would come into play. But I stand ready to be corrected by anyone better versed in this sort of thing.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Maybe it would be a good idea to print out the correct wording and tape it to the front of the log book for the A&P to reference when performing the sign off?

The magic incantation that keeps you safe should be in the operating limitations which should be in the airplane.

 

[unsafervguy]

I don’t think so. As long as a current condition inspection deems it “in a condition for safe operation”, I don’t think past lapses would come into play. But I stand ready to be corrected by anyone better versed in this sort of thing.

it comes in to play if the FAA is looking to hang you.

 

[pfarber]

My A&P IA had to look it up since he doesn't do E-ABs very often.


Should I care that previous inspections didn't meet the requirements and the aircraft was flown in an "un-airworthy" condition by previous owners?

The FAA police have been notified. Stand still with your hands in the air until thr authorities arrive.

 

[Witmo]

One question along with "Is it safe to fly"that is required to determine airworthiness is: Does the aircraft conform to its type certificate data sheet and if not has it been properly altered? An aircraft without a type certificate such as an EAB has no tcds so it cannot be legally airworthy. If you own an airplane with a TC and you've never read through it, you should print it out and read it. Lots of interesting information.