What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Repairman?s certificate question

Mark33

Well Known Member
I know that only one repairman?s certificate can be obtained on an EAB aircraft, however, here?s my question: If an aircraft was built and then sold but the repairman?s certificate was never applied for or obtained/issued to that original builder, can a subsequent owner of the aircraft apply for and obtain the repairman?s certificate even though they didn?t have anything to do with or play any part in the construction of the airplane?
 
Hmmm...interesting. So it may come down to ?convincing? the FAA that you were the ?primary? builder...or this particular aircraft could remain in ?repairman?s certificate purgatory? for eternity. I personally find this and other aspects of this general topic to be dumb and archaic.

Ok, I?m going to vent a little bit here:

I can understand that a person shouldn?t be allowed to perform a condition inspection on anyone else?s airplane, but you should be allowed to conduct it on your own....regardless if you built it or not. Nobody can convince that a person can work on their airplane all year long, literally doing any and everything to it......repairs, modifications, etc. etc., and continue to fly it safely every single day...even after said repairs/modifications are made, but then magically/mysteriously, on that one special/particular day out of the year the aircraft ?must? be inspected by the original builder or an A&P who possibly knows nothing about this particular aircraft or experimental aircraft in general, so that it?s ?deemed safe? for continued flight. Where?re the logic/common since here? Oh wait, scratch that last statement...we?re talking about the government. I would even concede to a one time thorough once over inspection by an A&P...especially if he or she is familiar with this particular type of experimental that they?re inspecting. After that, the new owner should be allowed to do their own annual condition inspection. I think a MUCH better solution would be to require the new owner to attend a one time maintenance/repair course...similar to what?s required for the LSA guys.

Ok, I feel better now. 🙄
 
Hmmm...interesting. So it may come down to ?convincing? the FAA that you were the ?primary? builder...or this particular aircraft could remain in ?repairman?s certificate purgatory? for eternity. I personally find this and other aspects of this general topic to be dumb and archaic.

Ok, I?m going to vent a little bit here:

I can understand that a person shouldn?t be allowed to perform a condition inspection on anyone else?s airplane, but you should be allowed to conduct it on your own....regardless if you built it or not. Nobody can convince that a person can work on their airplane all year long, literally doing any and everything to it......repairs, modifications, etc. etc., and continue to fly it safely every single day...even after said repairs/modifications are made, but then magically/mysteriously, on that one special/particular day out of the year the aircraft ?must? be inspected by the original builder or an A&P who possibly knows nothing about this particular aircraft or experimental aircraft in general, so that it?s ?deemed safe? for continued flight. Where?re the logic/common since here? Oh wait, scratch that last statement...we?re talking about the government. I would even concede to a one time thorough once over inspection by an A&P...especially if he or she is familiar with this particular type of experimental that they?re inspecting. After that, the new owner should be allowed to do their own annual condition inspection. I think a MUCH better solution would be to require the new owner to attend a one time maintenance/repair course...similar to what?s required for the LSA guys.

Ok, I feel better now. 🙄

I guess I am on the side where the builder ?should? be the only one allowed to obtain a repairman certificate.

But, Mark, you bring up other questions.

What ?if? someone (maybe such as yourself) has built an airplane and previously help a repairman certificate.

Maybe that should be the qualification to be able to apply and be approved to obtain a Repairman's certificate for another experimental aircraft.
 
I guess I am on the side where the builder ?should? be the only one allowed to obtain a repairman certificate.

But, Mark, you bring up other questions.

What ?if? someone (maybe such as yourself) has built an airplane and previously help a repairman certificate.

Maybe that should be the qualification to be able to apply and be approved to obtain a Repairman's certificate for another experimental aircraft.

I?ve actually ran into that exact situation. I had built and received the repairman?s certificate on a -7. I also owned a -4 that I didn?t build. With both airplanes sitting side-by-side, I could do my annual on one...but not the other....please explain the logic here. However, as I mentioned above, I was able/allowed to work on and do any maintenance or modifications that I wanted to on either one all year long, but when it came time for the annual I was only allowed to inspect one of them and sign one logbook. Please...somebody help me!!
 
Hmmm...interesting. So it may come down to “convincing” the FAA that you were the “primary” builder...or this particular aircraft could remain in “repairman’s certificate purgatory” for eternity. I personally find this and other aspects of this general topic to be dumb and archaic.

Ok, I’m going to vent a little bit here:

I can understand that a person shouldn’t be allowed to perform a condition inspection on anyone else’s airplane, but you should be allowed to conduct it on your own....regardless if you built it or not. Nobody can convince that a person can work on their airplane all year long, literally doing any and everything to it......repairs, modifications, etc. etc., and continue to fly it safely every single day...even after said repairs/modifications are made, but then magically/mysteriously, on that one special/particular day out of the year the aircraft “must” be inspected by the original builder or an A&P who possibly knows nothing about this particular aircraft or experimental aircraft in general, so that it’s “deemed safe” for continued flight. Where’re the logic/common since here? Oh wait, scratch that last statement...we’re talking about the government. I would even concede to a one time thorough once over inspection by an A&P...especially if he or she is familiar with this particular type of experimental that they’re inspecting. After that, the new owner should be allowed to do their own annual condition inspection. I think a MUCH better solution would be to require the new owner to attend a one time maintenance/repair course...similar to what’s required for the LSA guys.

Ok, I feel better now. ��

I disagree. Condition inspections are for safety. How can someone inspect a component they have no knowledge of or experience with. Following your example, owner works on engine and instruments for countless hours during the year. How does that prepare them to successfully ascertain whether or not the aileron and elevator controls are safe to fly. Until you have maintained and studied the plans for each critical item on a plane, how can that person effectively determine if the condition is as designed/built or in a deteriorated or damaged state? If the builder built the plane, it is a good bet that they understand ALL key systems and components. How could you get this assurance with a non-builder? Think about it from the FAA's perspective. They have some liability if they give the safety sign off capability to someone incapable of performing the task and a passenger dies as a result of a problem.

One could equally argue that it is also dangerous to let the inexperienced person do maintenance. However the annual condition inspection is a safety net to catch a lot /some of the problems caused by the inexperience.

Larry
 
Last edited:
I disagree. Condition inspections are for safety. How can someone inspect a component they have no knowledge of or experience with.

Huhhh??? An A&P with no experience whatsoever with E-AB and the systems often found in our aircraft (but legally entitled to perform a condition inspection) is better prepared to perform a condition inspection than someone who has built an RV?
 
Last edited:
I guess I am on the side where the builder ?should? be the only one allowed to obtain a repairman certificate.

But, Mark, you bring up other questions.

What ?if? someone (maybe such as yourself) has built an airplane and previously help a repairman certificate.

Maybe that should be the qualification to be able to apply and be approved to obtain a Repairman's certificate for another experimental aircraft.

What if there's more than one builder?

That's one of the problems I have with the way the repairman's certificates are done now. Two equal builders, only one gets the certificate. But then, the rules were written a long time ago, when the FAA figured homebuilts would be nothing but a fringe movement of goofy airplanes built by lone oddballs as curiosities. Today's reality, where homebuilts have performance, equipment, and utility rivaling or surpassing certified airplanes, are completed by "regular" people in numbers exceeding certified production, are often built jointly and frequently sold to (and horror of horrors, desired by!) second, third, or even fourth owners, was something the FAA never dreamed of.

It's more personal to me because I was right there alongside my dad for the majority of his build. He has the repairman's cert for his airplane. Some time (hopefully a very long time) from now, should that airplane pass to me, I won't be able to do the inspections despite having built a large chunk of it, having built another quite similar airplane, and having worked for many years supporting in-service aircraft as an engineer.


As Mark33 puts it, it's sort of absurd that anyone off the street can do all the maintenance and any major change desired to a homebuilt... except for that one special day a year when it takes an A&P to look things over. And that A&P need not know anything about homebuilts at all, or indeed have even laid eyes on anything related to a light airplane since A&P school 40 years earlier. I work with a lot of guys who have been A&Ps for a long time (decades) but have never worked anything but big jets and helicopters; hand them a homebuilt to inspect and I seriously think a lot of them would just lock up, given the differences in technology, implementation, documentation, and regulation.

I get that there are lots of people out there who own airplanes who aren't comfortable, knowledgeable, or competent to work on them. But one would think there's an opportunity for a middle ground in both the homebuilt and especially the certified world (where it's pretty much either "can do almost nothing" or "do all work on all aircraft, and get paid for it"). After all, we have multiple levels of ratings and certificates for pilots, and not just "student pilot" or "commercial pilot with all category/class ratings". "One size fits all" maybe worked 70 years ago when the big and little airplanes used the same technology, just on a different scale.

LSA has a means in place for this, where anyone can get a repairman's certificate for their airplane and their airplane only, without having to get qualified to all the work on anything that flies, and get paid for it. The same thing ought to be available to the rest of us through some combination of training and experience.
 
LSA has a means in place for this, where anyone can get a repairman's certificate for their airplane and their airplane only, without having to get qualified to all the work on anything that flies, and get paid for it.

I don't think the 2 day LSA course is the way to go. I have gotten a repairman certificate for each of the 3 E-AB I fully built plus by taking the 2 day LSA class for a purchased 12 and then also when I built my E-LSA 12. Building the airplanes gives you the experience to do a condition inspection and the knowledge to know what you can do and when to seek expert counsel. Taking the LSA class does not give you any experience, just the knowledge of the regulations and a little book and hopefully exposure to a plane inspection. What is lacking is the requirement to have any experience in construction of the plane or knowledge of the many systems and hence the experience and knowledge for their condition inspection.

We do not want that for safety of E-AB planes that are all different and not completely standardized like is required for E-LSA planes. My 2 cents.
 
People who haven’t built the plane have no business attempting to get a repairman certificate. Period! Your putting a bad mark on everyone legitimately building and acquiring the repairman certificate.

I’ve seen this done before and watch them attempting to work on the plane and it’s obvious they don’t know what they are doing.

Remember it’s your life in that plane when you fly it. So if you do something from not knowing and you crash, think of your family and anybody on the ground you’re hurting.

As To an A&P performing the work and knowing more then someone who bought and is flying an RV, **** right they know more. They’ve had to do the years of schooling and the testing to work on any certified airplane and are accountable.

If you feel your sharp enough and qualified enough to work on an RV you bought make friends with an A&P to assist you and sign of on it. Simple solution!

As to the people who do illegally perform the work, two things.
1) Your giving your insurance an out if ever anything happens. First thing they want and check is a copy of the log books.
2) Don’t poke the bear! In this case the bear is the FAA.
 
Last edited:
Huhhh??? An A&P with no experience whatsoever with E-AB and the systems often found in our aircraft (but legally entitled to perform a condition inspection) is better prepared to perform a condition inspection than someone who has built an RV?

Probably wasn't clear, as I was addressing the issue of non-builders doing CI's. My position was that a builder WAS qualified to perform a condition inspection, but a pilot/non-builder with limited experience with the airframe is not. An A&P with no type experience is a different animal, as they generally have broad aviation experience and should be able to apply that with some research to unknown aircraft. In theory, any ways. That doesn't apply to most pilots/non-builders.

Larry
 
Last edited:
Probably wasn't clear, as I was addressing the issue of non-builders doing CI's. My position was that a builder WAS qualified to perform a condition inspection, but a pilot/non-builder with limited experience with the airframe is not. An A&P with no type experience is a different animal, as they generally have broad aviation experience and should be able to apply that with some research to unknown aircraft. In theory, any ways. That doesn't apply to most pilots/non-builders.

Larry

I think the scenario under discussion was about a previous builder who now owns an RV for which no Repairman's Certificate has been issued. My point was that it is hard to argue that someone who has previously built an RV is less qualified to perform the Condition Inspection than an A&P who may have limited or no light aircraft experience.

But until the regs change, this discussion is moot......
 
The rest of the story is that having built the airframe doesn't necessarily mean that you're qualified to do engine and propeller maintenance, even if you do get a repairman's certificate.

Personally, I can be very observant inspecting somebody else's work, but I'm absolutely blind to my own errors.

Ed
 
Gentlemen, thank you all for the thoughtful input on the subject. The insight and all of the good points that y’all have highlighted are all very valid indeed.

The main point that I was trying to get across is that there has to be a better way of doing things rather than just continuing to do it the same old way because “that’s the way we’ve always done it”. Like I previously said, I find it dumb and archaic to have two identical airplanes sitting side-by-side...one I built and one I didn’t,...both that I’m perfectly within my legal rights to do any and all modifications and maintenance on, but I can legally only sign the logbooks for the annual inspection on one of them. That’s just dumb...period.

Like I’d also mention, I think a smarter way of doing this would be to maybe require a person to actually go through a basic maintenance course...not just a two day “how to fill out paperwork” course. I think a week long, hands on, basic maintenance course along with a little bit of theory would work wonders. Even though I’ve built my own airplane I feel like I could benefit greatly from some classroom lecture along with some hands-on experience.

As an example, when I read some of the post in this forum and the questions being asked....even by people that’s actually built their airplane (myself included), I can’t help but to think how valuable a little bit of formal training from real experts would be.

So, once again, if I’m competent and have enough confidence in my skills to maintain the ongoing maintenance of my aircraft...and have gone through a basics maintenance course, I’m convinced that there’s absolutely no reason that I shouldn’t be able to do the annual condition inspection on both of my airplanes...the one I built... and the one I bought.

***Edit: I think some folks that are replying to this topic are mixing apples and oranges.

The condition inspection has nothing to do with ongoing daily maintenance.

The points that I am trying to make only pertain to someone that’s experienced with their particular type of aircraft and competent enough to maintain it. As it stands now, if you the owner didn’t even have enough skills to fuel your own airplane and you got your buddy who “kind of” knows how to work on a lawnmower do all of your maintenance throughout the year, you’d be perfectly legal to do just that. Yes, without a doubt this type of person has no business doing their own condition inspection...much-less their ongoing maintenance.

The person that I’m talking about is the one who has the skills...possibly gained from building their own airplane and/or from a basics maintenance course, should be allowed to do their own C.I., even if they weren’t the original builder. As an example, take a guy like Dan H. that I think the mass majority of us respect his knowledge and skills. If he were to purchase an airplane from someone, should he be required to hire an A&P to come do his C.I. every year on that airplane? As the rules stand right now, that’s exactly what he’d have to do. Dan, I’m sorry for invoking your name, but I’m only trying to make a point to the naysayers. As I’d previously mentioned, I’d even go as far as having an A&P involved with the first C.I. where they could go over everything with you on the first go around of that particular aircraft just to make sure you were comfortable with it.

Once again, for some of you that’s commenting on this subject, please don’t mix the apples and oranges.
 
Last edited:
The points that I am trying to make only pertain to someone that’s experienced with their particular type of aircraft and competent enough to maintain it. As it stands now, if you the owner didn’t even have enough skills to fuel your own airplane and you got your buddy who “kind of” knows how to work on a lawnmower do all of your maintenance throughout the year, you’d be perfectly legal to do just that. Yes, without a doubt this type of person has no business doing their own condition inspection...much-less their ongoing maintenance.

The person that I’m talking about is the one who has the skills...possibly gained from building their own airplane and/or from a basics maintenance course, should be allowed to do their own C.I., even if they weren’t the original builder. As an example, take a guy like Dan H. that I think the mass majority of us respect his knowledge and skills. If he were to purchase an airplane from someone, should he be required to hire an A&P to come do his C.I. every year on that airplane? As the rules stand right now, that’s exactly what he’d have to do. Dan, I’m sorry for invoking your name, but I’m only trying to make a point to the naysayers. As I’d previously mentioned, I’d even go as far as having an A&P involved with the first C.I. where they could go over everything with you on the first go around of that particular aircraft just to make sure you were comfortable with it.

I have seen very few laws or regs in my life, targetted at a general public population, that are designed to distinguish beteween the skills represented by Dan and the guy who can't fuel his own plane. I can't argue the logic, but how do find people qualified to make that determination and then develop detailed guidelines to help them make that distinction?

An admiral goal, but it just doesn't fit our countries style of regulation.

I could make the same argument about speeds limits. If my skill and vehicle are capable, why do I have to follow the same limit as the one set up for my 85 year old neighbor with a 30 year old, beat up sedan?

Larry
 
Last edited:
Your original post was regarding getting a repairman certificate for a plane you didn’t build and that’s what my response was addressing.

Regarding what your asking and signing off a condition inspection because you feel you have the knowledge from building and having a repairman certificate from another plane, you can do that also. Most FAA guys who signed off for your repairman certificate will extend the opportunity to be tested for the A&P tests. Passing those tests with enough documented hours working on planes and you can get your A&P license.
 
Your original post was regarding getting a repairman certificate for a plane you didn?t build and that?s what my response was addressing.

Regarding what your asking and signing off a condition inspection because you feel you have the knowledge from building and having a repairman certificate from another plane, you can do that also. Most FAA guys who signed off for your repairman certificate will extend the opportunity to be tested for the A&P tests. Passing those tests with enough documented hours working on planes and you can get your A&P license.

Thanks Ted, but getting an A&P license ready isn?t anything that I have an interest in or want to peruse. Yes, my initial question was regarding obtaining the repairman?s certificate on an aircraft that had never had a repairman?s certificate association with it, which would grant you the privilege to do the C.I. The conversation in the thread soon shifted towards the idea of how it doesn?t make any since for a person to be able to do maintenance or modifications throughout the year on an aircraft they didn?t build and then need to get an A&P to do the C.I. I won?t reiterate my thoughts and ideas but I truly think there?s a better more common since way to approach this topic.
 
There is some discussion circulating around regarding the possibility of modeling the amateur-built repairman certificate on the E-LSA repairman certificate. That is, maybe the regulations could be changed to allow either the primary builder of the aircraft or a person who is the owner of the aircraft and has completed the 16 hour repairman inspection course to qualify for the repairman certificate. Now, don't get too excited about this, and don't start planning any celebrations yet, as this would require a regulatory change and those take time. But discussions are under way, so stay tuned.
 
There is some discussion circulating around regarding the possibility of modeling the amateur-built repairman certificate on the E-LSA repairman certificate. That is, maybe the regulations could be changed to allow either the primary builder of the aircraft or a person who is the owner of the aircraft and has completed the 16 hour repairman inspection course to qualify for the repairman certificate. Now, don't get too excited about this, and don't start planning any celebrations yet, as this would require a regulatory change and those take time. But discussions are under way, so stay tuned.

That would be fantastic! Like I?d previously said, I think it?d be a good idea to expand that even further to maybe a one week/40 hour workshop where you?d actually learn something other than filling out paperwork.
 
With my background in construction, this is similar to what I see with building codes and zoning.

Bottom line: Those writing the rules & regulations cannot possibly account for every situation.
Gotta draw the line somewhere.

A friend and his brother are part of their county's Search & Rescue.
My friend is bitter that the rules state any of the County's equipment trailers can be towed only by 3/4 ton or heavier trucks.
His brother's 1/2 ton has been heavily modified to have better towing capacity than many 3/4s, but the rules are the rules. He cannot tow.

If the county started making exceptions, we're into quite a mess. Who's going to be in charge of inspecting individual trucks? Who's going to take the liability?
Now the simple, easy-to-understand rules are completely fuzzy.

The building department has a variance process for oddball real estate parcels where the standard zoning doesn't make sense.
Takes a lot of time and money to get through the various committees, with no guarantee of prevailing.

I'm thrilled the FAA has used a bit of common sense that if a guy builds an entire airplane, he is qualifies to maintain it, though not a certified mechanic.

I will soon be in the same boat- Looking at buying a completed RV so I can fly during the build process.
I, too, will have the repairman's certificate for only the one I built.

While a rule change would be nice, it will get complicated- Probably to the point where it's easier for the FAA to keep the rules as they are.

The regulations, as they are, don't account for every situation.
But they are simple, and easy to understand.
 
Back
Top