What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Misinformation!

Unfortunately much of this article is "Hogwash".

ANYONE can perform maintenance and or modifications on an Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft. Remember, Part 43 only applies to the condition inspection because it is referenced in the Operating Limitations.

The reference of the 120 hour repairman course for Light-Sport is applicable to SLSA, not ELSA. For ELSA the Repairman Certification (Inspection) is a 16 hour course and only applies for the condition inspection. Since an ELSA is Experimental, no repairman certificate is required for maintenance.
 
Not trying to start something, but a friend of mine just sent this to me:

http://www.121five.com/admin/FeatureArticles/Owner Performed Aircraft Maintenance.pdf

This contradicts a lot of what I "thought" I knew about experimental and what I can and can not do. I'd like some feedback on the article please.

Thanks,

-Dan

Yes it is BS. The author missed a critical aspect. Part 43 does NOT apply to experimental aircraft.
https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation...ently-asked-questions/non-builder-maintenance

Tim

Edit: See Mel's more complete answer.
 
I would also go as far as to say that even if you didn't build it, if a Repairman's Certificate has not been issued for that specific aircraft, you could still apply for the certificate provided you had the requisite experience and knowledge and could demonstrate that to the FAA (eg you've built other E-AB's but decided to buy this one). IOW it's not tied to the build itself -- that's just the usual way us non-A&P types get the required experience and knowledge.

EDIT: the above is incorrect -- it is tied to the build.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately much of this article is "Hogwash".

ANYONE can perform maintenance and or modifications on an Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft. Remember, Part 43 only applies to the condition inspection because it is referenced in the Operating Limitations.

The reference of the 120 hour repairman course for Light-Sport is applicable to SLSA, not ELSA. For ELSA the Repairman Certification (Inspection) is a 16 hour course and only applies for the condition inspection. Since an ELSA is Experimental, no repairman certificate is required for maintenance.

Thanks Mel, I was hoping you would see this and reply.

-Dan
 
I would also go as far as to say that even if you didn't build it, if a Repairman's Certificate has not been issued for that specific aircraft, you could still apply for the certificate provided you had the requisite experience and knowledge and could demonstrate that to the FAA (eg you've built other E-AB's but decided to buy this one). IOW it's not tied to the build itself -- that's just the usual way us non-A&P types get the required experience and knowledge.

Actually it is tied to the builder. ref; "65.104(a)(2) Be the primary builder of the aircraft to which the privileges of the certificate are applicable;"
 
Last edited:
Actually it is tied to the builder. ref; "65.104(a)(2) Be the primary builder of the aircraft to which the privileges of the certificate are applicable;"

Whoops-- I stand corrected. Although I guess you just have to be part of the build as the definition of "primary builder" seems to be very flexible in the case of group builds.
 
Whoops-- I stand corrected. Although I guess you just have to be part of the build as the definition of "primary builder" seems to be very flexible in the case of group builds.

Yes, it is very flexible. Most FSDOs are very lenient on this, but you do need to be listed as a builder.
 
So I'm confused.....
So if I didn't build my plane, can I completely replace the panel? What if I damage my tail, can I build a new one and replace it?
Or do I have to have an A&P do it?
Richard

If your aircraft is an experimental amateur-built aircraft, you can do anything you want except for the condition inspection.

Looks like you have an RV-10, so you are good-to-go. Just remember, what is legal is not necessarily prudent!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Write the guy & tell him the error of his ways. I just did, with a link to EAA's experimental maintenance page.

Charlie
 
I'm reading this thread and after reading just the introductory paragraph where the author in question says,

"...Back in 2000 I was scheduled to make a power point presentation at that year's Air Venture, but unfortunately an aircraft deal took me to another place instead of Oshkosh. Well I have dusted off the power point, updated it and made it more like an article. So please enjoy."

...and I'm thinking it's a good thing he didn't get up in a pavilion and make this presentation. Or maybe it would have been a good thing if he did. I think he would have been educated right there on the spot. I also wonder if the Airventure folks screen the presentations beforehand.

From his domain name, it appears his business is in buying and selling jet aircraft, so I wonder why he's taking a swipe at Experimental aircraft. I doubt very many people would consider an RV or a Sonex versus a Cessna Citation or a Gulfstream GV. Anyway, this has been educational for all of us. Thanks for all the comments.
 
Yes it is BS. The author missed a critical aspect. Part 43 does NOT apply to experimental aircraft.
https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation...ently-asked-questions/non-builder-maintenance

Tim

Edit: See Mel's more complete answer.

Correct.

I just sent Jeremy an e-mail providing him with that info and offered to discuss it if he wanted (It is better to educate those who work primarily on the certificated side of general aviation, than give them more reason to look down on the experimental side).
 
I'm reading this thread and after reading just the introductory paragraph where the author in question says,

"...Back in 2000 I was scheduled to make a power point presentation at that year's Air Venture, but unfortunately an aircraft deal took me to another place instead of Oshkosh. Well I have dusted off the power point, updated it and made it more like an article. So please enjoy."

...and I'm thinking it's a good thing he didn't get up in a pavilion and make this presentation. Or maybe it would have been a good thing if he did. I think he would have been educated right there on the spot. I also wonder if the Airventure folks screen the presentations beforehand.

From his domain name, it appears his business is in buying and selling jet aircraft, so I wonder why he's taking a swipe at Experimental aircraft. I doubt very many people would consider an RV or a Sonex versus a Cessna Citation or a Gulfstream GV. Anyway, this has been educational for all of us. Thanks for all the comments.

There is prettty much no peer review that I can see for forum presentations at Oshkosh - anyone can present anything they want. It is something that I think needs addressing....until then, it is "buyer Beware"!

Paul
 
There is prettty much no peer review that I can see for forum presentations at Oshkosh - anyone can present anything they want. It is something that I think needs addressing....until then, it is "buyer Beware"!

Paul

Went to many more FORUMs this year than I have in past years. What I noticed was most were put on by a vendor selling something. Yes there was a large tilt toward the selling side. Both the Champion Ignition and Lincoln Welding while supporting their sales, were extremely helpful in getting information and skills out to people attending their forums even if they did not sell anything.
 
Correct.

I just sent Jeremy an e-mail providing him with that info and offered to discuss it if he wanted (It is better to educate those who work primarily on the certificated side of general aviation, than give them more reason to look down on the experimental side).

I received a nice reply from the articles author.
He said the article was written 17 years ago and is apparently still floating around the internet.
He said the info he provide was confirmed by the St. Louis FSDO at that time.
I let him know that even 17 years ago, it was not correct, but since many FSDO people still believe it today, I am not surprised that he got that response them.
 
There is prettty much no peer review that I can see for forum presentations at Oshkosh - anyone can present anything they want. It is something that I think needs addressing....until then, it is "buyer Beware"!

Paul

That's pretty much why I stopped going to most of the forums with obvious exceptions; they were often thinly disguised infommercials.
 
He said the info he provide was confirmed by the St. Louis FSDO at that time.
I let him know that even 17 years ago, it was not correct, but since many FSDO people still believe it today, I am not surprised that he got that response them.
When I went to the FSDO to get the LSR-I certificate for my RV-12, one of the guys there was very careful to tell me that the LSR-I cert ONLY allowed me to do the condition inspection on my E-LSA, but not any maintenance or repairs.

I suppose he was technically correct... since you don't need the certificate to do those things in the first place. I'm pretty sure that wasn't what he meant, but I wasn't going to argue the point with him. I just smiled, thanked him, took my paperwork and left.
 
Mel,

That was my understanding, but in the nutso world we live in how do i prove that? It seems crazy that I can, and have, done serious work to my plane but I can't do a simple condition inspection.

You might think so, yet photos posted right here on VAF from time to time show work that is of unbelievably poor quality and/or downright unsafe. The FAA had to draw a line somewhere, and they kept to their philosophy, right or wrong, that "inspectors" need more (experience, ratings) than "workers". You're always free to work for, and obtain, an A&P certificate (no IA needed) to inspect your, or any, EAB aircraft.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You might think so, yet photos posted right here on VAF from time to time show work that is of unbelievably poor quality and/or downright unsafe. The FAA had to draw a line somewhere, and they kept to their philosophy, right or wrong, that "inspectors" need more (experience, ratings) than "workers". You're always free to work for, and obtain, an A&P certificate (no IA needed) to inspect your, or any, EAB aircraft.

But why should one have to be trained in things like radial engines, thrust reversers, rib stitching, helicopter rotor balancing, pressurization systems, and get the equivalent of two years of a full-time job doing those things--in general, get a government license to work on any aircraft from a C150 to an A380, R-22, AW-609, or the Goodyear blimp, for hire--just to be able to maintain their own one personally-owned not-for-hire airplane?

That's the gaping hole--there's no middle ground, and it's mostly impractical for anyone to pursue it unless they're planning to make aviation maintenance their career. It would be like having no pilot ratings below commercial with an instrument rating--who would bother investing that much time and effort if they weren't doing it for a career?
 
. It would be like having no pilot ratings below commercial with an instrument rating--who would bother investing that much time and effort if they weren't doing it for a career?

Well, myself for one. And I know others, including some with an ATP they did just for the challenge. But back to the topic: There are a lot of states where you have to pay someone to inspect your car every year. Until that philosophy changes, the government will require airplane inspections, done by inspectors that have some sort of license to do so. Honestly, I think the FAA never anticipated the large secondary (used) market that has sprung up for EAB aircraft, and now that it's a reality, they don't know how to manage it.
 
Can 2nd owner do maintenance

So, after reading all this, what is the conclusion to the question? Can owner who is not original builder of experimental RV do maintenance?

Can someone who buys an experimental airplane like RV-7 do all the maintenance except for annual inspection where inspection means only inspect but new owner can do all the maintenance?

Or, when an experimental airplane is sold to a new owner who is not the original builder can he/she do any maintenance other than oil changes?

Thanks for summary.
 
Steve, your dog can do all the maintenance, and all the repairs, and all the modifications, as long as you can get his paw print in the log book.

The only limitation is the annual condition inspection; you need a "repairman's" certificate *for that particular aircraft*, or an A&P ticket, to sign that off.
 
I know this has been discussed many times. I read everything I could regarding maintenance on experimental A/C. I installed the cylinders on my 8 and made an entry in the log book. I just got a pre-buy inspection done and the A&P/AI saw my entry and told me I wasn't authorized to do that work. I didn't argue with him because it would be pointless. The buyer now has second thoughts after hearing what the mechanic told me.
 
So, after reading all this, what is the conclusion to the question? Can owner who is not original builder of experimental RV do maintenance?
Yes.
Can someone who buys an experimental airplane like RV-7 do all the maintenance except for annual inspection where inspection means only inspect but new owner can do all the maintenance?
Yes.
Or, when an experimental airplane is sold to a new owner who is not the original builder can he/she do any maintenance other than oil changes?
Yes.

All three get the same answer, because it's essentially the same question. :) Rv7charlie has it right.

The one glaring anomaly is E-LSA & S-LSA. A non-builder can indeed get the repairman certificate for one of those that they own, which allows them to do the condition inspection on that airplane. (there's another LSR-M certificate that allows you to perform inspections on any E/S-LSA). LSA rules are kind of quirky in several areas, and that's one where it works to the owner's advantage.
 
So, after reading all this, what is the conclusion to the question? Can owner who is not original builder of experimental RV do maintenance?

Can someone who buys an experimental airplane like RV-7 do all the maintenance except for annual inspection where inspection means only inspect but new owner can do all the maintenance?

Or, when an experimental airplane is sold to a new owner who is not the original builder can he/she do any maintenance other than oil changes?

Thanks for summary.

Steve, your dog can do all the maintenance, and all the repairs, and all the modifications, as long as you can get his paw print in the log book.

The only limitation is the annual condition inspection; you need a "repairman's" certificate *for that particular aircraft*, or an A&P ticket, to sign that off.
What RV7Charlie said. Not only can your dog do any and all maintenance, repairs, modifications but so can any human being on the planet.

Your trusted auto mechanic can come over, yank the engine out, tear it down, put it back together, and hand you the keys and say "good to go" -- LEGALLY!

However, he cannot sign it off as "airworthy" -- LEGALLY!
 
What RV7Charlie said. Not only can your dog do any and all maintenance, repairs, modifications but so can any human being on the planet.

Your trusted auto mechanic can come over, yank the engine out, tear it down, put it back together, and hand you the keys and say "good to go" -- LEGALLY!

However, he cannot sign it off as "airworthy" -- LEGALLY!

Actually, no one can (though many people incorrectly use that language in the log book). 'Airworthy' is defined, in this case, as conforming to a type certificate; none of us has one for our homebuilts.
 
Actually, no one can (though many people incorrectly use that language in the log book). 'Airworthy' is defined, in this case, as conforming to a type certificate; none of us has one for our homebuilts.
Yes, 'Airworthy' is a term I should not use so generically. Actually, this is the wording I use when signing off my condition inspection:

"I certify that this aircraft has been inspected on <DATE> in accordance with the scope and detail of appendix D part 43 and was found to be in a condition for safe operation."
Followed by my signature and Repairman Certificate Number.
 
It would be like having no pilot ratings below commercial with an instrument rating--who would bother investing that much time and effort if they weren't doing it for a career?
Well, myself for one. And I know others, including some with an ATP they did just for the challenge.
But the difference in your cases is that you weren't a student pilot, subject to all of the student pilot limitations (no passengers, strict instructor supervision, etc) up to that point. How many people do you really think would even bother to start flight training if they had to get 250 total hours, 40 hours of instrument time, 50 hours cross-country, etc., and pass all of the requisite exams, and spend $30k or more and a couple of years of calendar time, just to be able to take their significant other or child on a flight around the patch on a nice evening? Light GA would pretty much disappear outside of flight schools supplying professional pilots, professional pilots in their spare time, and the occasional really rich guy and their kids.

But back to the topic: There are a lot of states where you have to pay someone to inspect your car every year. Until that philosophy changes, the government will require airplane inspections, done by inspectors that have some sort of license to do so.
I don't know if some kind of inspection requirement will ever go away... but I also submit that the idea that the qualifications for doing the inspections (and indeed, almost any maintenance at all on certified aircraft) should be two years' full-time experience and qualification to work on all aircraft to paying-passenger-carrying standards is unsustainable from a financial standpoint. The FAA itself has even realized this, and proposed in 2013 the "Primary Non-Commercial" category, which would allow certified aircraft to be maintained similarly to how purchased homebuilts are today (owner can do all maintenance including modifications with uncertified parts; A&P must do condition inspection). But this is still just a proposal from an FAA working group, and has not yet been turned into a proposed rule despite the wording already being worked out by that working group.


Honestly, I think the FAA never anticipated the large secondary (used) market that has sprung up for EAB aircraft, and now that it's a reality, they don't know how to manage it.
You're exactly right on this, though I'd argue that the FAA is terrible at anticipating anything.

The problem is, many (most?) A&Ps are unfamiliar with the regulations applicable (and not) to E-AB aircraft, and without extensive E-AB experience most are probably not familiar with a lot of the technology we have available for our airplanes. Just look at the posts earlier in this thread. There are lots of A&Ps out there are who are legally qualified to perform condition inspections on an RV or other homebuilt, yet haven't touched a light airplane since A&P school a decade or three ago because all they've worked on is heavy jets.

At the same time, you have a fairly large base of very knowledgeable people who have extensive experience building and working on light airplanes, and/or with a professional background in related areas. They would easily be capable of safely maintaining and inspecting and airplane that they owned, whether they built it or not. Yet the only avenue they have to being able to do this involves learning a mass of information and hundreds of hours performing tasks that will never be applicable to the one or two airplanes they will ever own and work on.

Basically, it is my proposal that the FAA should at least (a) implement the P-NC category as described in the Part 23 ARC report from 2013, and (b) create a standard set of procedures or qualifications by which a person, who was not the primary builder of the aircraft, may be issued the repairman's certificate for a specific E-AB aircraft that they own. As I've pointed out elsewhere, item (b) is of specific personal interest to me.
 
A&P Cert

At the same time, you have a fairly large base of very knowledgeable people who have extensive experience building and working on light airplanes, and/or with a professional background in related areas. They would easily be capable of safely maintaining and inspecting and airplane that they owned, whether they built it or not. Yet the only avenue they have to being able to do this involves learning a mass of information and hundreds of hours performing tasks that will never be applicable to the one or two airplanes they will ever own and work on.

Hey Martin, I'm still pretty new to the forums, but been lurking for a few months. I was doing some research before I started my build and it's my understanding that you can get an A&P just by the experience one acquires from building E-AB aircraft to meet the required hours of working. And on RVs, it seems that if you've built one, you're probably more than halfway there. Maybe that's only one of the qualifications (airframe vs powerplant) but it's nothing to sneeze at to get to apply for that mechanic qualification only by showing some logs, taking a written test, and demonstrating some repair/maintenance tasks. It seems like there's at least SOME thought put into this kind of situation that benefits those with a lot of experience with homebuilts.
 
Hey Martin, I'm still pretty new to the forums, but been lurking for a few months. I was doing some research before I started my build and it's my understanding that you can get an A&P just by the experience one acquires from building E-AB aircraft to meet the required hours of working. And on RVs, it seems that if you've built one, you're probably more than halfway there. Maybe that's only one of the qualifications (airframe vs powerplant) but it's nothing to sneeze at to get to apply for that mechanic qualification only by showing some logs, taking a written test, and demonstrating some repair/maintenance tasks. It seems like there's at least SOME thought put into this kind of situation that benefits those with a lot of experience with homebuilts.

I'd love to hear from those of have successfully gone this route, and received any credit for homebuilding. Did you have to know a friendly A&P to sign you off? Did you need to find the right person at the FAA? How much more powerplant training did it require?

I want to get my A&P someday, partially just for the knowledge, or maybe as a retirement gig, but right now with a full time job outside of aviation, it just isn't feasible. I also a have a feeling that there are a lot of others out there on this forum who are probably more knowledgeable about light aircraft than most A&P's, but like me, don't have the time, money, or connections, to jump through all the FAA hoops. I agree that a rating for light, piston engine aircraft only, would make sense and be a bit more in reach for many of us. Unfortunately, not only the FAA, but existing A&Ps, and probably even maintenance schools, would be dead-set against this.

Chris
 
Last edited:
I'd love to hear from those of have successfully gone this route, and received any credit for homebuilding.

Chris

I suspect Ironflight (Paul Dye) will jump into this discussion at some point. :)

He can tell you firsthand how much effort is required for a custom aircraft builder to acquire the A&P rating (Kitplanes magazine, Editor's Log, May 2017).
 
Last edited:
I suspect Ironflight (Paul Dye) will jump into this discussion at some point. :)

He can tell you firsthand how much effort is required for a custom aircraft builder to acquire the A&P rating (Kitplanes magazine, Editor's Log, May 2017).

Yep I remember that article, will have to pull it up again.(found it http://www.kitplanes.com/issues/34_5/exploring/Editors-Log-0517_21819-1.html) It sounds like the key is building a relationship with an A&P, and also keeping excellent records. It also sounds like a good excuse to go to the Lycoming school and build up the resume!

Chris
 
Last edited:
I will not speak for him but if you contact Caveman on this forum you may ask him these questions. He just completed his certification this spring doing exactly what you are discussing. I am sure he can give you a lot of insight.
 
I suspect Ironflight (Paul Dye) will jump into this discussion at some point. :)

He can tell you firsthand how much effort is required for a custom aircraft builder to acquire the A&P rating (Kitplanes magazine, Editor's Log, May 2017).

I actually think that editorial pretty well sums it up Sam. After getting approved, I still had to spend three weeks studying for and taking the three writtens, then ten days doing a prep class for the Oral and Practical - and taking the exam.

Simply building an airplane (or two, or three...) is not the equivalent of decades of working on a variety of airplanes, spending pretty much your whole professional life in airplanes, and having airplanes on the brain pretty much all the time.

Finally, what I think is most relevant to the discussion, is an old scene from the TV show MASH. Colonel Potter has just helped another surgeon in the OR with a suggestion that saved a patient's life. Someone says something like "Wow Colonel, you're a genius!" His response was "If I'm such a genius, how come I just stitched my glove to this young man's intestine?"

The point being that no matter how good we think we are, or someone else thinks we are, we still miss things. Inspecting airplanes is not the same as building them, or maintaining them - and it requires the humility to know that we can still let things go by without notice. I like to have others inspect my work, and while it can bruise the ego, the goal is to have safer airplanes - not pats on the back.

Training in good inspection techniques is different than building or maintaining - and perhaps that is where we should concentrate if we want a more universal inspection authority - how to do a good inspection!
 
. . . Training in good inspection techniques is different than building or maintaining - and perhaps that is where we should concentrate if we want a more universal inspection authority - how to do a good inspection!
Well Paul, outside of experience, self-education and perpetual conscientious self-improvement, who teaches that course? If that course exists let me know, I'll sign up!
 
Well Paul, outside of experience, self-education and perpetual conscientious self-improvement, who teaches that course? If that course exists let me know, I'll sign up!

That is the 30 months of on the job experience that the FAA requires if a formal training course has not been completed.

I agree with Paul.
The experience developed building an airplane does not develop all of the skills required to inspect an airplane. That is why in my condition inspection forum I encourage people to get assistance from an experienced A&P for at least the first year or two, even if the hold the Repairmans Certificate for their airplane.
 
Agree 100% that building a plane is nowhere near the type of experience needed to be an A&P. It's just unfortunate that there isn't a path to being licensed to work on only small, piston powered planes without going through some of the other, unrelated requirements.

Chris
 
I don't want to muddle this, but one poster said his A&P said he was not "authorized" to replace cylinders on his engine. Isn't that true if the engine is a certificated engine? I always heard to work on the engine the data plate had to be removed or in some other way the engine declared to be non-certificated - like an experimental engine for an experimental aircraft or an air boat.
 
I don't want to muddle this, but one poster said his A&P said he was not "authorized" to replace cylinders on his engine. Isn't that true if the engine is a certificated engine? I always heard to work on the engine the data plate had to be removed or in some other way the engine declared to be non-certificated - like an experimental engine for an experimental aircraft or an air boat.

No. It is BS.
Now, from a legal perspective, if you put a certified motor on an experimental; then want to reinstall it on a certified aircraft. It is legal; but the requirements any A/P or I/A would make you go through is impractical. So do not bother trying.

Tim
 
I don't want to muddle this, but one poster said his A&P said he was not "authorized" to replace cylinders on his engine. Isn't that true if the engine is a certificated engine? I always heard to work on the engine the data plate had to be removed or in some other way the engine declared to be non-certificated - like an experimental engine for an experimental aircraft or an air boat.
I am not an expert, just a Joe out here (Ok, my name isn't Joe) building and flying my own aircraft, but this is misinformation also. I am sure Mel or someone with more detailed knowledge of the regs can explain the particulars of the rules. This is false information from an A&P. Anyone can work on an experimental aircraft. That includes working on an engine that is a "certificated engine" installed on that experimental aircraft.
 
Long story about getting my A&P

I will not speak for him but if you contact Caveman on this forum you may ask him these questions. He just completed his certification this spring doing exactly what you are discussing. I am sure he can give you a lot of insight.

I can't say much that Paul hasn't said already. At this point in my A&P career, I am a rank rookie and feel about as competent as an A&P as I did as a pilot after my private pilot check ride. It is a license to learn.

For any interested in the path I took:

I pursued the A&P for a couple of personal reasons. I love working on airplanes, especially my own & this will allow me to restore and maintain my own aircraft certified or amateur built, now and in the future. I also wanted to be of help to transient pilots who come in to our airport and have mechanical issues.

Another reason I wanted it was for the pure intellectual challenge. I wasn't sure I could pass the exams. I've been out of school for almost 40 years. I'm 61 years young and was happy when I scored in the mid 90's to high 80's. I really surprised my self on the oral and practical. The good Lord was looking after me and I drew some questions in which I had plenty of experience. However, I was thrown several helicopter questions and even the examiner commented that he had never seen that many helo questions on any other A&P test, he had administered. I was worried going in because I had stayed up late studying for several days and I knew there were some holes in my knowledge. Some stuff just doesn't stick as well as it used to.

I worked under the watchful eye of our on field A&P and an A&P IA to attain the 30 months of training. We called the FSDO a couple of times to keep them in the loop and make sure we were meeting the requirements. I spent about two weeks, (a little less) in a certified repair station engine rebuild shop for engine experience and in an induction system repair station rebuilding carbs and getting experience with turbos and fuel injection. The FAA made a visit to the engine repair station once just to confirm I was actually there doing overhauls, rebuilding mags, making hoses, etc.. Once that was done, I needed a letter of recommendation from my teachers and logbook signoffs from the shops. I took my logbooks to the FSDO who signed me off to take the tests. I then spent 2 1/2 weeks at Federal Exams in OKC studying and taking the writtens and pretty much a full day in Shawnee, Ok at the Gordon Cooper Vo-tech taking the oral and practical.

As for the question, does building an amateur built airplane help the cause. ABSOLUTELY! The FSDO did not allow me to count those hours towards the A&P training. And this FSDO gave me the feeling they were still a bit leery of homebuilts, so I tried not to bring it up, again. I fact they asked what I had built and when I told them they warned me that they investigated many accidents in 7's and I needed to be very careful. However, one of the questions asked during my oral and practical paperwork prior to the test was what other certificates I held. When I told them I had a repairman's certificate, that opened a very positive conversation with the examiner. He asked me many questions about building and whether my airplane had a glass panel, did I wire it, did it have electronic ignition, have I been maintaining it for the last 9 years, etc. That seemed to make both of us feel more comfortable and things went much better than I could have hoped.

The FSDO would not sign me off to test without time rebuilding engines. I cannot thank the shops that allowed me to spend time there, enough! They assume a tremendous amount of liability when they do something like that. The only way I can repay them is to send them customers in the future and give them business from our airport.
 
I don't want to muddle this, but one poster said his A&P said he was not "authorized" to replace cylinders on his engine. Isn't that true if the engine is a certificated engine? I always heard to work on the engine the data plate had to be removed or in some other way the engine declared to be non-certificated - like an experimental engine for an experimental aircraft or an air boat.

It is possible to get either the A or the P. You take two tests instead of three. Everyone has to take the general test, which covers things the A or P does not.
 
I am not an expert, just a Joe out here (Ok, my name isn't Joe) building and flying my own aircraft, but this is misinformation also. I am sure Mel or someone with more detailed knowledge of the regs can explain the particulars of the rules. This is false information from an A&P. Anyone can work on an experimental aircraft. That includes working on an engine that is a "certificated engine" installed on that experimental aircraft.
I have never seen a "certificated engine" of any kind. Engines don't get a certificate, the airplane gets a type certificate with a particular engine. I have seen many TSO's engines, but that is a completely different issue.

:cool:
 
I don't want to muddle this, but one poster said his A&P said he was not "authorized" to replace cylinders on his engine. Isn't that true if the engine is a certificated engine? I always heard to work on the engine the data plate had to be removed or in some other way the engine declared to be non-certificated - like an experimental engine for an experimental aircraft or an air boat.

No. It is BS.
Now, from a legal perspective, if you put a certified motor on an experimental; then want to reinstall it on a certified aircraft. It is legal; but the requirements any A/P or I/A would make you go through is impractical. So do not bother trying.

Tim

Tim is correct.
If you put a certified engine on an experimental, the moment a non-certified person does any work on it (outside of the owner maint. that the FAA allows as spelled out in FAR 43), the engine is no long certified and would have to be evaluated to prove it still meets all of the standards and requirements of its original certification.
 
I can't say much that Paul hasn't said already. At this point in my A&P career, I am a rank rookie and feel about as competent as an A&P as I did as a pilot after my private pilot check ride. It is a license to learn.

For any interested in the path I took:

I pursued the A&P for a couple of personal reasons. I love working on airplanes, especially my own & this will allow me to restore and maintain my own aircraft certified or amateur built, now and in the future. I also wanted to be of help to transient pilots who come in to our airport and have mechanical issues.

Another reason I wanted it was for the pure intellectual challenge. I wasn't sure I could pass the exams. I've been out of school for almost 40 years. I'm 61 years young and was happy when I scored in the mid 90's to high 80's. I really surprised my self on the oral and practical. The good Lord was looking after me and I drew some questions in which I had plenty of experience. However, I was thrown several helicopter questions and even the examiner commented that he had never seen that many helo questions on any other A&P test, he had administered. I was worried going in because I had stayed up late studying for several days and I knew there were some holes in my knowledge. Some stuff just doesn't stick as well as it used to.

I worked under the watchful eye of our on field A&P and an A&P IA to attain the 30 months of training. We called the FSDO a couple of times to keep them in the loop and make sure we were meeting the requirements. I spent about two weeks, (a little less) in a certified repair station engine rebuild shop for engine experience and in an induction system repair station rebuilding carbs and getting experience with turbos and fuel injection. The FAA made a visit to the engine repair station once just to confirm I was actually there doing overhauls, rebuilding mags, making hoses, etc.. Once that was done, I needed a letter of recommendation from my teachers and logbook signoffs from the shops. I took my logbooks to the FSDO who signed me off to take the tests. I then spent 2 1/2 weeks at Federal Exams in OKC studying and taking the writtens and pretty much a full day in Shawnee, Ok at the Gordon Cooper Vo-tech taking the oral and practical.

As for the question, does building an amateur built airplane help the cause. ABSOLUTELY! The FSDO did not allow me to count those hours towards the A&P training. And this FSDO gave me the feeling they were still a bit leery of homebuilts, so I tried not to bring it up, again. I fact they asked what I had built and when I told them they warned me that they investigated many accidents in 7's and I needed to be very careful. However, one of the questions asked during my oral and practical paperwork prior to the test was what other certificates I held. When I told them I had a repairman's certificate, that opened a very positive conversation with the examiner. He asked me many questions about building and whether my airplane had a glass panel, did I wire it, did it have electronic ignition, have I been maintaining it for the last 9 years, etc. That seemed to make both of us feel more comfortable and things went much better than I could have hoped.

The FSDO would not sign me off to test without time rebuilding engines. I cannot thank the shops that allowed me to spend time there, enough! They assume a tremendous amount of liability when they do something like that. The only way I can repay them is to send them customers in the future and give them business from our airport.

Don't sell your self short Joe.
To me it sounds like you attained a world of experience beyond what many A&P candidates have when they graduate from a formal School.
Good for you taking the initiative to learn.
 
I was fortunate as I was able to qualify for my A&P as a result of work I did in the Air Force. I worked in the inspection dock doing all manner of inspections on F-15's. I also had authorization to inspect and sign off other people's work. All I had to do to get permission to take the tests was show a copy of my training records and present a letter from my supervisor attesting to the fact that I had been doing this work for more than 3 years. I think the rules may have changed since then and this may not be available any more.

As a result, I feel fairly competent to inspect my aircraft, though I still try to get someone else to look at it also. On military aircraft most critical items required ore than one set of eyes. Naturally, I didn't get the training on piston engines and still seek a lot of help firewall forward.

I think what the experience gave me is a good idea of what my limitations are, what I can do myself, and what I need to seek out help on. Fortunately, where I ma there is lots of help available.
 
Tim is correct.
If you put a certified engine on an experimental, the moment a non-certified person does any work on it (outside of the owner maint. that the FAA allows as spelled out in FAR 43), the engine is no long certified and would have to be evaluated to prove it still meets all of the standards and requirements of its original certification.

This is exactly what I thought, and what I tried to write. Anyone can work on the engine in an experimental aircraft, but it is no longer considered suitable for use in a certificated aircraft without sign-off by an A&P/AI. Not sure what this might entail . . . or how you should (legally) indicate its change of status.
 
Coming back to points that Paul Dye and Mel made, there clearly is a specific set of skills one needs to acquire in order to be a competent inspector.

Early in my career, as an apprentice on the hangar floor, I caught several glaring airworthiness issues which had been missed or overlooked by multiple licensed AME's (Canadian equivalent to the A&P). For some time I was unpopular on the hangar floor, so much that our Chief Engineer jokingly told me to keep my (bleeping) hands in my pockets and my (bleeping) eyes focused on my shoes! One of the defects I found was a major structural crack which, if unrepaired, would have resulted in catastrophic structural failure. The first helicopter in which I found the crack was grounded for several weeks for repairs. The lads in the shop got better with the subsequent machines, but the fix still took several hundred person-hours. No wonder the Chief Engineer didn't want me to find any more latent defects.

Why am I telling this story? Simply because my father had taught me to be a quality inspector when I worked in his business. He taught me how to really LOOK for defects, and how to always FEEL for defects. He has no idea how that training in his furniture manufacturing business would stand me in such good stead in the aerospace industry.

Coming back to Paul and Mel's comments, one really does have to learn how to be an inspector. No matter the certificate you hold, if you're new to the game, get some experienced hands and eyes to help with your first few inspections.

Oh, here's a trick the value of which I've been learning in recent years as I've aged. My eyes need much more light in order to be able to see clearly; as a result I am almost always wearing an LED headlamp. With the headlamp producing a focused pool of light it's much easier to conduct a thorough inspection by keeping one's eyes trained on objects within the light beam and then carefully moving that beam around the area being inspected. The light beam helps you remain focused and free from distraction. See, getting old isn't ALL bad! :)
 
To Canadian Joy's point, I have had a similar occurrence. While in Tech. School at Sheppard AFB learning to be a Crew Chief, I found my first defect and grounded my first plane, on our first day in the hangar. We were doing gear swings on a T-38 and while I was in the cockpit, just out of habit, I did a normal flight control check. After kicking the rudder pedals I did a double take and looked again. When I kicked the left pedal, the rudder swung right and vice versa.

I got the instructor's attention and showed him, and of, he didn't believe me since the airplane was supposed to be back out on the flight line the next day and was on the flying schedule. He double checked and, sure enough, the rudder was rigged backwards. Day one, save one.
 
Back
Top