MX question.

fiveoboy01

fiveoboy01

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Apr 21, 2013
Messages
2,321
Location
Madison, WI
Display Name
Display name:
Dirty B
PM tasks aside, can the owner do any MX on an aircraft with an AP sign off/inspection?

I've read the relevant FAR and it says that the owner can do any maintenance that the AP is authorized to do with supervision to the extent necessary to ensure the work is completed properly.
 
When you take your plane to the shop, it's not uncommon for non A&Ps to do work on the plane, which is directed, overseen and signed off on by an A&P. You can do the same thing, provided your A&P is willing to sign off on your work.

For preventive maintenance, you can sign off on the work provided you're a private pilot (or higher) and owner of the aircraft. See 14 CFR 43 appendix A.
 
The reason for my question:

In October, my engine case cracked. I had a full overhaul done.

I removed and installed the engine myself, and my understanding was that an AP can inspect and sign off on my work. I just finished up the last little bits of the install(needed a new CHT/heat probe for a cylinder) middle of last week and was going to call an AP to inspect and sign off on it.

The other day someone raked me over the coals and said what I did was illegal. So I'm not sure if I screwed myself here or what. The relevant FAR is a little ambiguous...
 
Anybody can make a plane unairworthy. The FARs detail with how you make/keep things airworthy.

Usually supervision means that. You talk to the A&P about what you're doing and they check out what you did (perhaps while it is still in progress). I can't say that I know two many A&Ps that would sign off anything if a pilot walks in and says he just changed out his own engine.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
The reason for my question:

In October, my engine case cracked. I had a full overhaul done.

I removed and installed the engine myself, and my understanding was that an AP can inspect and sign off on my work. I just finished up the last little bits of the install(needed a new CHT/heat probe for a cylinder) middle of last week and was going to call an AP to inspect and sign off on it.

The other day someone raked me over the coals and said what I did was illegal. So I'm not sure if I screwed myself here or what. The relevant FAR is a little ambiguous...
Click to expand...

Did you "return it to service"? If not, what you did was not in violation. I hope you've coordinated with an A&P before hand though; just showing up with a new motor bolted on and asking for a logbook signature may not fly with your mechanic.

Good luck.
 
I haven't flown it and don't intend to until the work is signed off.

I'm not concerned about the quality of the work. The install is probably better than what 50% of APs out there would do, judging by some of the "repairs" I've had done on my airplane up to this point. I do understand that it might not be easy to convince an AP of that, though.

In any case, I didn't coordinate prior. This might be my mistake, and I do understand how a mechanic might be hesitant to sign off. I do know a couple.. guess I'll start making some calls.
 
flyingron said:
Anybody can make a plane unairworthy. The FARs detail with how you make/keep things airworthy.

Usually supervision means that. You talk to the A&P about what you're doing and they check out what you did (perhaps while it is still in progress). I can't say that I know two many A&Ps that would sign off anything if a pilot walks in and says he just changed out his own engine.
Click to expand...

And I know a few that will $ign off anything a$ long as the price i$ right. :rolleyes:
 
Many times the paid mechanics working on your plane or not A&Ps. They are working under an A&P's supervision. How else could they get the experience required to become an A&P?

I performed engine removal, overhaul, and re-install under an A&P's supervision. It was definitely arranged before hand and he was definitely significantly involved. It is his signature that appears in all of the paperwork.
 
RotorAndWing said:
And I know a few that will $ign off anything a$ long as the price i$ right. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, this is definitely not the route I want to go.

I've no issue with the work being inspected. I WANT it inspected, not rubber-stamped for a few extra bucks.
 
There is nothing illegal with what you've done so far. That person is an idiot.

Now that said, I would coordinate beforehand.
 
I'm a new A&P but here's my take on it. I wouldn't do it unless I was overseeing the project from the beginning. I would want to see the firewall and the engine mount with the engine off just in case there was some damage or issue that would be concealed when the engine was back on. The A&P is certifying that everything is A OK all the way through the process and if the engine falls off due to a crack in the mount that wasn't noticeable once the engine was replaced then it's his license on the line, not yours.

That said, its whatever the A&P is willing to sign off.
 
Last edited:
By the way, without going back to the FARs, I'd say yeah you deserve to be reamed out. It's like, what part of "under the supervision of" don't you understand? You did all the work and now want someone to take a look at it after its all done. That's not supervision. Why not add a second floor to your house, get it all finished, and then ask the building department to come sign it off for you. Same thing.

Just saying. No disrespect intended.
 
Last edited:
The FARs state supervision to the extent necessary. It's ambiguous, and there's nothing hidden from inspection after the fact, other than your engine mount scenario. This was my line of thinking when doing the install.

If I had torn the engine down, and overhauled it sans supervision, I'd rightfully be told by every AP to get lost.

I know several pilots who do non-pm tasks and their AP trusts them to do the work properly, and inspect and sign off after it's done. Difference here is that I don't have a working relationship with one having been an owner for a short time... so yes definitely my mistake for not getting one involved from the start.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
The FARs state supervision to the extent necessary. It's ambiguous, and there's nothing hidden from inspection after the fact, other than your engine mount scenario. This was my line of thinking when doing the install.

If I had torn the engine down, and overhauled it sans supervision, I'd rightfully be told by every AP to get lost.

I know several pilots who do non-pm tasks and their AP trusts them to do the work properly, and inspect and sign off after it's done. Difference here is that I don't have a working relationship with one having been an owner for a short time... so yes definitely my mistake for not getting one involved from the start.
Click to expand...

It would have been better if you had the A&P actually supervise your work, as opposed to "back dating the checks", but that's water under the bridge.
But since it's just removing and re-installing an engine, not overhauling it or disassembling/reassembling it, I think you should be able to find an A&P willing to carefully inspect your work and question you about it, and eventually sign it off, assuming you did a good job. I have done this work myself as a non-A&P owner, but under the A&P/AI's supervision, so I know it can be done. Good luck!
 
Let's go to the FAR. It is clear that work done outside the scope of preventive maintenance that is not done under the supervision of an authorized mechanic is illegal. You need to have a relationship with an A&P that is available to supervise your work and has agreed to do before beginning. That is the common sense and normal English definition of under supervision. So if you do work without such an ongoing relationship then you are not under supervision. It doesn't matter what you can get some A&P to sign off on, that's irrelevant.


§43.3 Persons authorized to perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alterations.

(a) Except as provided in this section and §43.17, no person may maintain, rebuild, alter, or perform preventive maintenance on an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part to which this part applies. Those items, the performance of which is a major alteration, a major repair, or preventive maintenance, are listed in appendix A.

(b) The holder of a mechanic certificate may perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations as provided in Part 65 of this chapter.

(c) The holder of a repairman certificate may perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations as provided in part 65 of this chapter.

(d) A person working under the supervision of a holder of a mechanic or repairman certificate may perform the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations that his supervisor is authorized to perform, if the supervisor personally observes the work being done to the extent necessary to ensure that it is being done properly and if the supervisor is readily available, in person, for consultation. However, this paragraph does not authorize the performance of any inspection required by Part 91 or Part 125 of this chapter or any inspection performed after a major repair or alteration.
 
I volunteer at a museum wrenching on warbirds on the weekends. I am an IT guy I find the analog nature of the work an enjoyable diversion from the day to day and I just love airplanes.

We have one main A&P who directs, supervises and signs off on all the work. Pretty much everyone else is a volunteer like me. We do everything general maintenance (changing spark plugs and oil), swapping cylinders, complete engine swaps and structural repairs.

I am sure you can find someone to sign off you probably should have done that first but water over the bridge at this point.
 
alfadog said:
(d) A person working under the supervision of a holder of a mechanic or repairman certificate may perform the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations that his supervisor is authorized to perform, if the supervisor personally observes the work being done to the extent necessary to ensure that it is being done properly and if the supervisor is readily available, in person, for consultation. However, this paragraph does not authorize the performance of any inspection required by Part 91 or Part 125 of this chapter or any inspection performed after a major repair or alteration.
Click to expand...

And the AP can't inspect the work after it's been done to ensure it was done properly? To reiterate, to the extent necessary is ambiguous.

What if I personally have known an AP, and he knows that I've been a diesel technician for over 15 years, and he knows my mechanical aptitude likely exceeds that of half the APs in the field? He says "go ahead and install it, I'll look it over when you're done". I don't see any breaking of the regs in that scenario. Do you?

I do admit you've got me on the "readily available for consultation" part of that reg... as I did not consult prior to this. I spoke with several seasoned guys and no one did indicate to me that pulling and installing the engine would be an issue, or that I should get an AP lined up ahead of time.

Anyways, not trying to fight here, just offering that there's some interpretation allowed. In any case, I went about this wrong. Learning experience? I've learned a lot. Unfortunately some of it has been the hard way. Having some trouble getting a sign-off doesn't really compare to the bill for the overhauled engine after owning the airplane for 97 hours:rolleyes:
 
fiveoboy01 said:
And the AP can't inspect the work after it's been done to ensure it was done properly? To reiterate, to the extent necessary is ambiguous.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's all that ambiguous, I think people like to think that it's ambiguous. Inspection after the fact is not work done "under supervision".

What if I personally have known an AP, and he knows that I've been a diesel technician for over 15 years, and he knows my mechanical aptitude likely exceeds that of half the APs in the field? He says "go ahead and install it, I'll look it over when you're done". I don't see any breaking of the regs in that scenario. Do you?
Click to expand...

No. You developed the relationship before starting the work that you are not permitted otherwise to undertake, e.g. removing an engine, so you are under supervision to the degree that the A&P feels supervision is necessary. That's his call. Assuming also that he is available for consultation as necessary.

I do admit you've got me on the "readily available for consultation" part of that reg... as I did not consult prior to this. I spoke with several seasoned guys and no one did indicate to me that pulling and installing the engine would be an issue, or that I should get an AP lined up ahead of time.

Anyways, not trying to fight here, just offering that there's some interpretation allowed. In any case, I went about this wrong. Learning experience? I've learned a lot. Unfortunately some of it has been the hard way. Having some trouble getting a sign-off doesn't really compare to the bill for the overhauled engine after owning the airplane for 97 hours:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
 
alfadog said:
I think people like to think that it's ambiguous.
Click to expand...

Just so we are clear here, I wasn't purposefully attempting to skirt any rules so that I could do the work. If I didn't think I could R&I the engine properly, I wouldn't have even attempted it... I would have utilized an AP from the start, but I didn't think I needed to.

I actually did get a quote from the FBO on the field to R&I the engine only. $2550-ish. That did factor into my decision to do it myself. I've no issue with paying a mechanic to do work, but I have an allergy to being screwed, and I'm not a fan after a previous "repair" that eventually morphed to a fuel leak.

I re-repaired that myself, the right way.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
Just so we are clear here, I wasn't purposefully attempting to skirt any rules so that I could do the work. If I didn't think I could R&I the engine properly, I wouldn't have even attempted it... I would have utilized an AP from the start, but I didn't think I needed to.

I actually did get a quote from the FBO on the field to R&I the engine only. $2550-ish. That did factor into my decision to do it myself. I've no issue with paying a mechanic to do work, but I have an allergy to being screwed, and I'm not a fan after a previous "repair" that eventually morphed to a fuel leak.

I re-repaired that myself, the right way.
Click to expand...

Not talking about you in particular. I just see folks online and IRL seeming to have a difficult time with the idea that work that is supposed to be done by an A&P should be at least thoroughly supervised by an A&P. I'm sure that is the intent of the regulations and I think that if you were buying an airplane, you would like to be confident that all previous work or either done by a licensed mechanic or thoroughly supervised by one. The fact that work varies widely in quality is not really a factor in that from a regulatory standpoint. My solution to that was to go ahead and get the A&P license but that is not an option for everyone.
 
I'd love to get my AP, but I assume some sort of school is involved. I simply don't have time for it. If there was a "school yourself" option online etc.. I would. But my guess is that there has to be hands on education as well as the bookwork portion.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
I'd love to get my AP, but I assume some sort of school is involved. I simply don't have time for it. If there was a "school yourself" option online etc.. I would. But my guess is that there has to be hands on education as well as the bookwork portion.
Click to expand...

About 2400 hours of schooling. It's a major undertaking. School I went to has a night program and a day program; 5 hours per day, 25 hours per week in either program and about two and a half years to get through it all.
 
I wish we had an owner maintained category like our northern brethren.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
And the AP can't inspect the work after it's been done to ensure it was done properly? To reiterate, to the extent necessary is ambiguous.
Click to expand...

What is not ambiguous is that there needs to be some supervision, and by your accounts there has been none. To the extent necessary i'm pretty sure would be defined by anybody as more than zero. What you're talking about is inspecting, not supervising, so by your own words you have put yourself outside the regs.

That said, it's likely you can get someone to look the plane over and sign it off. I wouldn't be surprised if they charged you a few hours labor for them to really go through it, when they otherwise wouldn't have had to.......you know, had they been supervising and seen the work before, during, and after.
 
DFH65 said:
I wish we had an owner maintained category like our northern brethren.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. I wasn't familiar with that, so I looked it up. For anyone else that's interested, I'll paste the applicable Canadian regulation below. If I lived in Canada and were not a licensed mechanic, I'm not so sure I would go this route.

(6) Special Certificate of Airworthiness - Owner-maintenance
(amended 2002/03/01)

(a) A Special C of A in the owner-maintenance classification is issued for recreational purposes only.
(amended 2002/03/01)

Information Note:

Aircraft eligible for a Special Certificate of Airworthiness - Owner-maintenance are listed in Appendix H of this Standard.

(b) Each aircraft in respect of which a Special C of A - Owner-maintenance is in effect, is marked on the side of the fuselage, in a position that is readily visible to persons entering the aircraft, in letters at least 10 mm (3/8 in.) high and of a colour contrasting with the background, with a placard containing the following statement:
(amended 2002/03/01)

WARNING
SPECIAL CERTIFICATE OF AIRWORTHINESS - OWNER-MAINTENANCE
THIS AIRCRAFT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS

AVIS
CERTIFICAT SPÉCIAL DE NAVIGABILITÉ - MAINTENANCE PAR LE PROPRIÉTAIRE
CET AÉRONEF N’EST PAS CONFORME AUX NORMES DE NAVIGABILITÉ
INTERNATIONALES RECONNUES

(c) Each aircraft in respect of which a Special C of A - Owner-maintenance is in effect, and each engine, propeller and life-limited part installed on such an aircraft, has the letter “X”; permanently etched, engraved or stamped at the end of the model designation and serial number on the identification plate required by CAR 201.01.
(amended 2002/03/01)

(d) A person may have an aircraft type added to the list of aircraft eligible for a Special C of A - Owner-maintenance, by submitting a written request to the Minister, certifying that the aircraft type and model meet the requirements outlined in paragraph (6)(e).
(amended 2002/03/01)

Information Note:

A written request must be submitted to the Director, Aircraft Maintenance and Manufacturing, Ottawa, Canada, certifying that the aircraft type and model meet the requirements outlined in paragraph (6)(e).

(e) An aircraft type and model may be included in Appendix H of this Standard, Aircraft eligible for a Special Certificate of Airworthiness - Owner-maintenance”, where:
(amended 2002/03/01)

(i) the aircraft is of a type certified in accordance with Chapters 522 or 523 of the Airworthiness Manual, or an equivalent foreign standard;

(ii) the aircraft type certificate does not authorize more than four occupants;

(iii) the maximum certificated take-off weight (MCTOW) of the aircraft does not exceed 1,814 kg (4,000 pounds);

(iv) the aircraft is of a type and model that has not been manufactured during the 60 months preceding the date of application;

(v) fewer than 10% of Canadian aircraft of the type and model concerned are operating in Canadian commercial air service at the time of application;

(vi) the aircraft type and model is powered by a single, normally aspirated, piston engine, and is unpressurized; and

(vii) except for gliders, powered gliders or aircraft with airframes of wooden construction, the aircraft type and model has a fixed landing gear and a fixed pitch propeller.
 
I still don't think the OP deserves reaming or raking over the coals. Nothing's illegal until he tries to either sign off the work himself or fly it without it being signed off. You can argue all you want about interpretations, but it all depends on the A&P signing it off in reality. As R&W, there are folks who will sign off anything if the price is right. There are also some who won't sign off anything an owner does, period. If he can't find an A&P to sign it off who he trusts as is, he may have to either redo the work or pay to have it redone.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I still don't think the OP deserves reaming or raking over the coals. Nothing's illegal until he tries to either sign off the work himself or fly it without it being signed off. You can argue all you want about interpretations, but it all depends on the A&P signing it off in reality. As R&W, there are folks who will sign off anything if the price is right. There are also some who won't sign off anything an owner does, period. If he can't find an A&P to sign it off who he trusts as is, he may have to either redo the work or pay to have it redone.
Click to expand...

He was he was illegal the moment he began to do work on his aircraft that falls outside the scope of preventive maintenance while not under the supervision of an A&P mechanic. It has nothing to do with return to service. I think he realized his mistake now and I'm sure everything will come out alright but that doesn't change the facts of the situation
 
What really needs to be remembered here is don't get on the internet or social media and spell out everything in detail, i.e. don't bring attention to yourself.

As far as legality? Well, that could go on and on and be debatable. If the FAA got wind of this (as described by the OP) then a case could be made that the intent of removing the engine was to overhaul, reinstall and return to airworthiness. And there are maintenance procedures to do just that, and the A&P signing off the work is signing off the process as well as the return to airworthiness.

Best advise? Use your best discretion and keep details away from the public.

Just one man's opinion, YMMV.
 
I'm an open and honest type of person, not really worried about what possible repercussions might arise from my mistake.
 
Other than torque specs, what else can't be inspected that could only be inspected during the installation process?

Everything else can functionally be checked. Leaks, ignition operation, proper routing of hoses and wiring harnesses, all those things can be inspected after the installation, can they not?

Your assertion would hold more water to me if I had torn the engine down and rebuilt it myself and then asked the AP to sign off on it.
 
DFH65 said:
I wish we had an owner maintained category like our northern brethren.
Click to expand...
The U.S. has a population of 321,368,864, Canada only has 35,099,836. I'm pretty sure the difference is due to fiery death raining from the sky because they allow some aircraft to be maintained with an insufficient quantity of certificates.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
The U.S. has a population of 321,368,864, Canada only has 35,099,836. I'm pretty sure the difference is due to fiery death raining from the sky because they allow some aircraft to be maintained with an insufficient quantity of certificates.
Click to expand...

I have no way of knowing, but I bet there are more pilots per capita in Canada than there are in the US.

But I for one don't buy your premise.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
I'm an open and honest type of person, not really worried about what possible repercussions might arise from my mistake.
Click to expand...

You asked an open and honest question. And got answers. Find an A&P willing to sign off your work and be done with it. All you are going to get from the peanut gallery here is grief. The non peanut gallery is giving good advice.

And I wouldn't engage the peanut gallery here from this point forward.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
You asked an open and honest question. And got answers. Find an A&P willing to sign off your work and be done with it. All you are going to get from the peanut gallery here is grief. The non peanut gallery is giving good advice.

And I wouldn't engage the peanut gallery here from this point forward.
Click to expand...

But what fun would that be:D

I still argue that "to the extent necessary" can certainly mean zero. I can confidently say that my install is as good as any AP would have done. It's not rocket science, it's a simple install. But the experts are sure to call BS on me. Let em:)

Done over, I'd do it different, but bridge/water thing...

I'll make contact with the AP who did the prebuy and talk to him about it.
 
It's not that hard to find a good APIA to let you do the work (if proven able) and just inspect and sign. No biggie, plus you're fully set for international, commercial, etc use.
 
Is there a difference between an AP signing off, and an IA signing off on work performed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top