Question on Pre-buy on Experimental and Amatuer Built

[kyleb]

You can do the work BUT you still have to work with an A&P as he will have to sign off the annual condition inspection and any major alterations like a glass panel will require putting it back into phase 1 for a 5 hour test period and also require an A&P to sign off the work. Don

I don't believe altering the panel is commonly considered a major alteration. I'm sure there is an argument there, but I've never heard of anyone returning a plane to Phase 1 for a panel upgrade.

 

[tsts4]

You can do the work BUT you still have to work with an A&P as he will have to sign off the annual condition inspection and any major alterations like a glass panel will require putting it back into phase 1 for a 5 hour test period and also require an A&P to sign off the work. Don

The condition inspection comment is correct, the rest not so much. First out of 8130.2, the applicable wording is "After incorporating a major change as described in 14 CFR § 21.93, the aircraft owner is required to reestablish compliance with 14 CFR § 91.319(b)......"

Now 21.93 says "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” (except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section)." So IMO at best a panel upgrade might be a major change, but I doubt it and anecdotal evidence supports that view, at least in the RV community. Admittedly it's a gray area and I'm with Kyle in that you could debate it either way.

In any event, if you were to decide it was a major change, no where is an A&P required to comply with reestablish airworthiness IAW 91.319. You simply notify the local FSDO, put it back into Phase I for a minimum of 5 hours, and then make the appropriate log entry once the test program is complete--no interaction with an A&P necessary.

 

[unsafervguy]

You can do the work BUT you still have to work with an A&P as he will have to sign off the annual condition inspection and any major alterations like a glass panel will require putting it back into phase 1 for a 5 hour test period and also require an A&P to sign off the work. Don

wrong answer. there is no need to get an A&P to sign off anything in an EAB except the condition inspection for someone not holding the repairmans cert.



bob burns

 

[Jimmy cooper]

For Vans RV's there are plenty of knowledgeable folks out there. Just join the Vansairforce forum and ask.

For major modifications such as a prop change you will typically have a 5 hour reversion to phase 1 local flight testing then some specific verbage to enter in the logbook and you may fly as before.

Experimentals will require an annual condition inspection which may be done by either the builder or any A&P (need not have IA).

Plenty of pros on the Rans forum also. Many builders plus you can contact the factory easily. Great aircraft. I like the courrier best. It will hang right with a super cub.

 

[Henning]

So if I buy an all ready built rv and I want to switch the panel to glass am I allowed to do that? Or I buy one with the wings off it. And I want to put the wings back on?

You can do any of that, the only thing you can't do is sign off the annual condition inspection, and in reality calling in a set of pro eyes to look over your rig isn't a bad idea. You can use any A&P, they don't need IA.

 

[Tom-D]

You can do any of that, the only thing you can't do is sign off the annual condition inspection, and in reality calling in a set of pro eyes to look over your rig isn't a bad idea. You can use any A&P, they don't need IA.

What A&P in their right mind would place their name and number in a home built's maintenance records?

Now they'd have liability for the entire aircraft with no standards for airworthiness.
It ain't the FAA that would be the problem, it will be the civil lawyers who they must contend with.

 

[ateamer]

But yet lots of A&Ps do so. They really needy to be consulting with Tom.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

What A&P in their right mind would place their name and number in a home built's maintenance records?

Now they'd have liability for the entire aircraft with no standards for airworthiness.
It ain't the FAA that would be the problem, it will be the civil lawyers who they must contend with.

My A&P doesn't seem to have a problem signing off that the aircraft has been inspected according to FAR 43 Appendix D.

 

[brien23]

What A&P in their right mind would place their name and number in a home built's maintenance records?

Now they'd have liability for the entire aircraft with no standards for airworthiness.
It ain't the FAA that would be the problem, it will be the civil lawyers who they must contend with.

 

[tsts4]

What A&P in their right mind would place their name and number in a home built's maintenance records?

Now they'd have liability for the entire aircraft with no standards for airworthiness.
It ain't the FAA that would be the problem, it will be the civil lawyers who they must contend with.

So who do you think is doing the condition inspections on every non-builder owned E-AB out there?

 

[kyleb]

So who do you think is doing the condition inspections on every non-builder owned E-AB out there?

People not named Tom?

 

[Tom-D]

So who do you think is doing the condition inspections on every non-builder owned E-AB out there?

A&P's that do not realize how the real world operates.

or works under the insurance umbrella of the FBO.

 

[unsafervguy]

when signing off an annual condition inspection you are not saying the aircraft is airworthy. the word airworthy is no where in the sign-off.

the way it should be entered:

I certify that this aircraft has been inspected on________ in accordance with the scope and detail of appendix D part 43 and was found to be in a condition for safe operation.

big difference than saying it is airworthy.

bob

 

[2Airtime2]

when signing off an annual condition inspection you are not saying the aircraft is airworthy. the word airworthy is no where in the sign-off.

the way it should be entered:

I certify that this aircraft has been inspected

and was found to be in a condition for safe operation.

big difference than saying it is airworthy.

bob

The airplane is in a condition of safe operation, right? So, that leads to the next question?

Where does the plane operate?



AIRPLANE

 

[GrampaMark]

The airplane is in a condition of safe operation, right? So, that leads to the next question?

Where does the plane operate?



AIRPLANE

In the regulatory sense, "airworthy" is defined as "...conforms to its Type Certificate Data Sheet or legally altered condition".

Experimental aircraft don't have type certificates. Therefore, those airplanes can't, by definition, be found airworthy.

If you actually decide to get serious about this whole learning to fly thing you will discover that The Rules are a lot bigger deal than you would have ever imagined.

Mark

 

[2Airtime2]

If you actually decide to get serious about this whole learning to fly thing you will discover that The Rules are a lot bigger deal than you would have ever imagined.

Mark

It looks like I may have a problem learning some of this stuff. If it makes sense to me I can hear it one time and get it. But...when an "airplane" is deemed to be in safe condition to operate yet can't be considered airworthy then it makes me think oxymoron and the name should be changed to "enigmaplane".

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

In the regulatory sense, "airworthy" is defined as "...conforms to its Type Certificate Data Sheet or legally altered condition".

Experimental aircraft don't have type certificates. Therefore, those airplanes can't, by definition, be found airworthy.

If you actually decide to get serious about this whole learning to fly thing you will discover that The Rules are a lot bigger deal than you would have ever imagined.

Mark

the key to airworthiness is.....is it "safe" for operation? and....does it conform to the "Type Certificate"?

A slight variation to your answer...but that's the technical answer. The the TCDS is technically not the TC but....it is what most use to find compliance.

Experimental aircraft need to have a "condition" inspection....similar to an annual inspection but is inspected against the builder's "design". A condition inspection is the equivalent of an "annual" for a type certificated aircraft. Although FAR Part 43 specifically states that it does not apply to experimental airworthiness certificates, the operating limitations on the homebuilt apply.

 

[FastEddieB]

It looks like I may have a problem learning some of this stuff. If it makes sense to me I can hear it one time and get it.

Best advice would be to take a deep breath and go with the flow.

OOOMMMMMMMM...

If a statute starts out with...

"In regard to c(1)(3) above, for the purposes of this section, "up" will mean "down" and "left" will mean "right"..."

Just roll your eyes, take a deep breath, learn it and move on.

Otherwise, yes, you will have trouble learning some of this stuff.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"In regard to c(1)(3) above, for the purposes of this section, "up" will mean "down" and "left" will mean "right"..."

Non-movement area is where you can move around all you want.
Movement area is where you can't move without proper authorization.

Side slip is when the aircraft is pointed straight forward.
Forward slip is when the aircraft is pointed towards the side.

I'm sure there are other examples.

 

[FastEddieB]

I'm sure there are other examples.

I like #10 and #11 in my Operating Limitations...

 

[Tom-D]

In the regulatory sense, "airworthy" is defined as "...conforms to its Type Certificate Data Sheet or Properly altered condition".

Mark

FTFY..

 

[jsstevens]

It looks like I may have a problem learning some of this stuff. If it makes sense to me I can hear it one time and get it. But...when an "airplane" is deemed to be in safe condition to operate yet can't be considered airworthy then it makes me think oxymoron and the name should be changed to "enigmaplane".

When I was in ground school and questions like this came up the instructor would say "These are the same people who brought you the tax code." :wink2:

John

 

[Henning]

What A&P in their right mind would place their name and number in a home built's maintenance records?

Now they'd have liability for the entire aircraft with no standards for airworthiness.
It ain't the FAA that would be the problem, it will be the civil lawyers who they must contend with.

I don't know, but luckily most A&Ps are not in their right mind and finding one to sign off your log is as easy as attending the nearest EAA meeting if the mechanic on your field happens to be sane; which isn't all that likely considering they are a GA mechanic.

 

[ateamer]

The FARs was the easiest part of the commercial oral. I told the DPE that after 27 years of law enforcement in California, understanding, interpreting and applying labyrinthian, conflicting and poorly-worded laws was the daily routine. FARs? Same same.

 

[Tom-D]

when signing off an annual condition inspection you are not saying the aircraft is airworthy. the word airworthy is no where in the sign-off.

the way it should be entered:

I certify that this aircraft has been inspected on________ in accordance with the scope and detail of appendix D part 43 and was found to be in a condition for safe operation.

big difference than saying it is airworthy.

bob

Where did I imply the A/C had to be airworthy? With no standards how do you make a decision that it is safe for operations?

 

[Stewartb]

Semantics. Of course it needs to be airworthy. Experimentals have airworthiness certificates just like "real" airplanes. In my own case I have multiple professional mechanics begging to help with my EX project. I won't have any problem getting my repairman's cert but I'll still lean on the pros for assitance when I need it and I wouldn't expect any professional to refuse based on experimental status. Most of the EX planes I'm familiar with exceed FAA construction and maintenance standards. I'm sure there are exceptions to that but none that I know. The most cobbled-up POS airplanes I see are certificated.

 

[flyingriki]

And some of the scariest crap I've had pointed out to me was on certificated aircraft with current annuals.