The only thing "required" on an EAB is the sign off for the annual condition inspection.
Mel I find your post confusing. ELT is not required for single seat OR for other than airplanes(glider, gyrocopter, etc) Where required on non commercial aircraft battery change and function test can be signed off by owner. This in NOT NESSARILY tied to condition inspection, it may very well be due at a different date. Example: New ELT installed six months after condition inspection, ELT function test is due 12 months after installation.
Transponders are not required equipment except to comply with certain airspace requirements. When a transponder is installed the sign off is every 24 months, not by an A&P but by a certified avionics shop/individual.
Dave, do you actually need cooler oil?
You can do that yourself. All you need an A&P for is an inspection once a year.
As far as documentation, not much is required, but I always ask myself, "What would the person who buys my airplane like to see in the logbooks?"
Who can maintain a Homebuilt?
FAR Part 43 specifically states that the rules of that part do not apply to amateur-built airplanes. Therefore, any maintenance on an experimental airplane can be performed virtually by anyone regardless of credentials. (This does not apply to the condition inspection previously discussed). Let common sense be your guide as to what maintenance you conduct yourself.
http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-...equently-asked-questions/condition-inspection
And FAR Part 43.1 (b) states Part 43 does not apply to aircraft issued an experimental certificate.
Yes anyone can work on an Experimental.
OK
To make sure this horse has been adequately flogged:
1. Anyone can work on an EAB.
2. The Condition inspection MUST be signed off by the holder of the Repairman's Certificate for that particular aircraft or an A&P (no IA required).
3. The Transponder and Pitot/static checks must be accomplished and signed by appropriately rated persons/shops only if those checks are otherwise required.
4. NO other log book entries are required for an EAB but are highly recommended.
5. Major maintenance/changes may be performed by anyone BUT....refer to your Operating limitations to see what effect that has.
OK
To make sure this horse has been adequately flogged:
1. Anyone can work on an EAB.
2. The Condition inspection MUST be signed off
3. The Transponder and Pitot/static checks must be accomplished and signed by appropriately rated persons/shops only if those checks are otherwise required.
4. NO other log book entries are required for an EAB but are highly recommended.
5. Major maintenance/changes may be performed by anyone BUT....refer to your flt limitations to see what effect that has.....In my case, the Air Worthiness Cert is invalidated. Some folks would have to reenter the flt test phase.
What did I miss?????
BTW, you do know that you can have your operating limitations amended to the latest version don't you? Then you could put the aircraft back into phase I with a new AW inspection.
65.81 is a requirement for A&P's. It refers to aircraft, not type certificated aircraft. That is a bigger bug a boo than 43.13.A few points to considered when using an A&P to sign off a condition inspection on an EAB. First, I think we all agree that Part 43 does not include EAB. However when an A&P is asked to do a condition inspection on an AEB that has Operating Limitations that include the "inspect IAW the scope and detail of Appendix D of Part 43" statement, many FSDO inspectors interpret that to also mean the A&P will do that inspection IAW the 43.13 Performance Rules (general) and 43.15 Additional Performance Rules for Inspections. Many A&Ps do not agree that these two items apply to inspection EABs, but its a bit a of grey area. In this wonderful world of instant litigation, maybe the A&P wants to play it safe and agree with the FSDO. It has been said that Part 43 does not apply to EAB, but it may apply in certain respects to A&Ps working on them. Also note, that Part 65.81 and 65.85 and 65.87 may also pertain to A&Ps who work on EAB depending on the FSDO's interpretation.
Many A&Ps are getting smart and using the Vans drawings and SBs as a tech data package to establish some level of "performance standard" to inspect EABs to that they are used to working to in the TC'ed world.
In summary, all previous posts are correct, on EABs, you can do almost anything you want. But be thoughtful to how you might have to explain to those worry wart A&PS who might not feel comfortable signing off your condition inspection when they see aluminum angle from Lowes on your pristine EAB.
Possibly work with an A&P ahead of time before making the mod and get an idea of how to make a mod that is line with Vans standards of building or maybe even review AC 43.13.
Annual ELT sign-off IAW 91.207
The new expiration date for replacing (or recharging) the battery must be legibly marked on the outside of the transmitter and entered in the aircraft maintenance record.
(d) Each emergency locator transmitter required by paragraph (a) of this section must be inspected within 12 calendar months after the last inspection for--
(1) Proper installation;
(2) Battery corrosion;
(3) Operation of the controls and crash sensor; and
(4) The presence of a sufficient signal radiated from its antenna.
I don't see a requirement for a "sign-off". What it says is
TBH, I hadn't actually realized that the inspection sans battery replacement was an *annual* requirement, and have been checking that at 2-year intervals while replacing the batteries, so that's good to know. As a matter of course, I do visually check the installation and activate the ELT via the remote button in the panel each year, but I guess I should take it out and whack it to check the g-sensor, too. Good to know.
In the larger picture, I don't put a lot of things in the aircraft maintenance *logbook*, but I do keep the records, nice and organized.
About the only things in the actual logbook are annual condition inspection sign-offs and pitot/static/XPDR certs. All other maintenance is "logged" via records such as the oil reports, etc.
Mel, does the FSDO have to make this amendment, or can a DAR (I am getting less than optimal results from my FSDO)?