What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Condition Inspection in One Day

bcam37

Member
For the last 9 years I've done my RV9A's condition inspection with the help of my local shop for the engine. But approaching 10 years, I thought it was time to have an RV expert look it over. Living in FL, I thought of Jessie Saint's operation in Dunnellon X35. I call and arranged to fly in. We allocated 2 days.

But with the help of Isaac, Phillip and Jessie we finished by 5:30pm the first day. This was a complete inspection including changing oil and filter and repacking the wheel bearings. My RV is pretty clean, but Jessie did find and replace a couple of bolts that were too short by a couple of threads (despite their holding well for the last 9 years).

It usually took me a week or more in the past and I had to do almost all of the work. The price was very reasonable and included a free lunch. My only regret was that I didn't think of this sooner.

If you looking for a reason to fly to FL, this might be a good one. I'll be back next year. Thanks guys.
 
My record in the old RV-4 was four hours. I took off the cowling first and let the AI (yes, I know he didn't have to be an AI but that didn't disqualify him) start on the engine. Then I started opening up access panels and floorboards and he followed me around. He had the paperwork done before I had the last screws back in.
 
Before anyone new to the RV community gets the idea that you can do a thorough and proper condition inspection, in accordance with FAR43 appendix D (what our operating limitations require), in four hours..... you can't.

The scenario Bob wrote in his initial post is more what would be expected (20 - 25 man hours or so).

Sure, you can give one a look over in 4 hours, but not done the way it should be done.
 
Are you serious

I'm actually quite stunned that there would be bragging rights to how quickly an inspection was done!

I'm asked all the time if I can do an inspection in a day or two if the owner "helps", my answer.. sorry but a thorogh inspection takes time and there is no possible way to do it all in a day. For aircraft I've inspected previously I allow a week, if I haven't done it before I allow 2 weeks. Heck I generally spend a full day just on FWF assuming nothing major is found.

Can someone go thru the motions of completing an inspection in one day, sure but there are different levels of inspections, one is looking at things with the object of getting the aircraft back in service as quickly as possible, the other is what I refer to as a "detailed" inspection with the object being find and correct any and all potential problems and defects.

And of course allowing for only minimal time for repairs in the schedule pretty much insures you won't find much wrong.

I'm not saying any of the above holds true for the OP or anyone else, my point is that the goal of an inspection is to find and correct problems before they actually become problems and you set yourself up for failure when the goal is "lets get er done" rather than "it'll be done when I'm finished".

I know some will take offense at this post, and that's ok, it is what it is.
 
Not for Everyone - But Works for Me

I have a different condition inspection philosophy. I start through the checklist - but where feasible don't immediately "button up" - but will let it sit overnight and come back the next day and just have another look before closing up a particular section.

I try to allocate a week and try to break the tasks into small pieces.

Approaching seven years and in 5.3 hours will pass 1000.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JGT
If I'm not mistaken, in the latest Kitplanes, Paul Dye wrote that one can shorten the inspection time if one inspects things as you go along, before the annual begins.

I don't know how *much* before the annual one can inspect things and deem that thing inspected for the annual.

For example, if you do a service bulletin check 1 day before the annual I'd see where you could claim it was accomplished and check that off the annual checklist.

But what about 1 week? One month? 3 months?
 
I've got an 8 pages checklist that gets a bit longer every year.

I'll do one section at a time over the course of 2 or 3 weeks and sign it off when I've completed all the sections. I probably spend at least 8 to 10 days total.

I've been working on my inspection for a couple of weeks and I haven't even started removing the baggage wall, seat pans or tunnel cover.

My goal is to put a wrench on everything, lube all control points and replace any parts that are the least bit suspect in addition to doing all the required inspections.
 
As Scott said, this was not a 4-hour annual. It was about 20 man-hours, and was thorough, doing all engine checks, servicing the air filter, cleaning spark plugs, timing mags, cleaning gascolator, lubricating all moving parts, checking all service bulletins and so on. There was nothing major found, which is why it was finished so quickly. He was planning on staying the night for a 2-day inspection, but was finished the first day. There is nothing wrong with taking a week or two, but there is also nothing wrong with taking a day or two as long as a thorough inspection is done.
 
I have a different condition inspection philosophy. I start through the checklist - but where feasible don't immediately "button up" - but will let it sit overnight and come back the next day and just have another look before closing up a particular section.
.

I agree 100%, especially FWF !
 
If I'm not mistaken, in the latest Kitplanes, Paul Dye wrote that one can shorten the inspection time if one inspects things as you go along, before the annual begins.

I don't know how *much* before the annual one can inspect things and deem that thing inspected for the annual.

For example, if you do a service bulletin check 1 day before the annual I'd see where you could claim it was accomplished and check that off the annual checklist.

But what about 1 week? One month? 3 months?

Sure, an inspection can be done in stages, but in the end it will still have taken whatever the combined total time is even if the day you signed it off you only worked one day.

I see nothing wrong with this as long as while you are inspecting... you are truly inspecting, and not just hurrying through the motions so that you can get some panels screwed back on so you can attend a fly-in breakfast the next morning.

My recommendation to anyone doing this is to put together a checklist that is broken into sections and then use it each year so that you could show that at any point during the inspection it has not been more than 12 months since the last inspection.

Here in the Pacific NW we have periods of time when there is very little good flying weather so I personally like to just get it all done at once during that time. I know in other places it is good weather 98% of the time, so I can understand the desire to spread it out a bit.
 
I'll suggest that perhaps some are including "maintenance" in the "inspection". That is not 'required' and can massively increase the amount of time required. Comparing apples to oranges often results in a confusion and debates. ;)

Depending on the aircraft and the complexity of the systems, I agree that an 'inspection' can be done pretty quickly by someone that is familiar and knows what they are doing. It is entirely different for someone that has to read the directions for the buzz box, read the manual to figure out where the sump oil screen is located, or takes four or five tries to safety wire something. Ha! :D
 
I'll suggest that perhaps some are including "maintenance" in the "inspection". That is not 'required' and can massively increase the amount of time required. Comparing apples to oranges often results in a confusion and debates. ;)

Depending on the aircraft and the complexity of the systems, I agree that an 'inspection' can be done pretty quickly by someone that is familiar and knows what they are doing. It is entirely different for someone that has to read the directions for the buzz box, read the manual to figure out where the sump oil screen is located, or takes four or five tries to safety wire something. Ha! :D

I'm not, so I have to disagree.

I have been doing this for a long time and am involved (to some degree) in probably at least a dozen condition inspections on RV's per year.
In our shop (where we have to do 100 hr or every 12 months inspections (whichever comes first) because of our operating limitations being different from the typical issued for E-AB.
So we do know what we are doing, and we typically allot 3 days plus what ever it takes to correct any squawks found (those should always be dealt with separately).
 
Sure, an inspection can be done in stages, but in the end it will still have taken whatever the combined total time is even if the day you signed it off you only worked one day.

I see nothing wrong with this as long as while you are inspecting... you are truly inspecting, and not just hurrying through the motions so that you can get some panels screwed back on so you can attend a fly-in breakfast the next morning.

My recommendation to anyone doing this is to put together a checklist that is broken into sections and then use it each year so that you could show that at any point during the inspection it has not been more than 12 months since the last inspection.


I think there's a little more to it than that:

If on March 31st 2018 I complete my conditional inspection where (among other things) I inspected the "Oxometer", can I really say that the requirements for the NEXT conditional have been met if I fully inspect the "Oxometer" on April 3rd, 2018?

I think the answer is no. And that was the main point of my post.
 
I think there's a little more to it than that:

If on March 31st 2018 I complete my conditional inspection where (among other things) I inspected the "Oxometer", can I really say that the requirements for the NEXT conditional have been met if I fully inspect the "Oxometer" on April 3rd, 2018?

I think the answer is no. And that was the main point of my post.

Not clear on what you are saying... those dates are only 3 days apart.

BTW.... minor point, but we do condition inspections, not conditional inspections.
 
Not clear on what you are saying... those dates are only 3 days apart.

BTW.... minor point, but we do condition inspections, not conditional inspections.

Yes 3 days apart..an extreme example to make the point/question clear. I'm not making a statement I'm asking a question.

Again the point/question is:

1) I read an article that stated that one can do inspections as you "go along" such that there is less to do during the yearly condition inspection.

2) If I do that, what is an acceptable time period?

Obviously the author is not saying that inspecting a part 3 days after the condition inspection will allow you to include it as "inspected" during next years conditional.

Equally obviously, if you inspect a part 1 week prior to next year's inspection, you can most likely check that item off the list.

But what is the time period in between those extremes?
 
So here's more what I think a typical example is like. My CI is due in May. A couple of weeks ago, I was due for an oil change *and* my mags were coming up on 500 hours, so I took the opportunity to do the oil change, have the mags inspected and signed off, and while the mags were out and all that, I did the FWF portion of my annual CI checklist (plugs, leakdown test, lube rod ends, check torques, etc etc etc.

I think that's fair...it's not hugely long until the annual, and it avoids having to decowl and muck around with things twice (e.g., if I'm reinstalling the mags, then I have to time them, so why should I do it again just 6-8 weeks later?).

I'll likely do another portion (landing gear) when I get back from a weekend trip this coming weekend, as I need to flip the tires, so may as well do the full monty on the gear, brakes, lines, etc., and call that part done. And so on, until all parts of the plane have been inspected/maintained and the checklist of items is complete.

Thus, I can do portions as they "naturally" come up for being maintained, rather than all at once (I've done that, too), and I think it's okay.

Now, if it was 6 months, then I think that's far too long between the work and the inspection. I guess the question is...how long is "too long", for any given part of the CI?
 
There is no regulation that says the aircraft must be "in annual" at all times.
The regulations simply state that to be flown, the aircraft must have had a condition (not conditional) inspection within the past 12 calendar months.
One can certainly let the condition inspection expire. It just cannot be flown during the time that the inspection has expired.
 
Last edited:
Anything keeping us from setting up a progressive inspection cycle?

If we take the operating limitations literally, I think there is (maybe).

They require a condition inspection to have been completed and recorded every 12 calendar months.

The example given for recording the inspection is "I certify this AIRCRAFT has been inspected in accordance with ........."
So the expected log book entry is all inclusive. I don't see this as leaving an option for signing off just a portion.

As for the legality of doing it in stages....
Since the required inspection interval is specified as 12 calendar months, if the log entry is made on March 1, the airplane is good until March 31 of the following year.
With that being the case, I see no reason someone would ever have any trouble if they did a staged inspection as long as it occurred within a months time.
 
So here's more what I think a typical example is like. My CI is due in May. A couple of weeks ago, I was due for an oil change *and* my mags were coming up on 500 hours, so I took the opportunity to do the oil change, have the mags inspected and signed off, and while the mags were out and all that, I did the FWF portion of my annual CI checklist (plugs, leakdown test, lube rod ends, check torques, etc etc etc.

I think that's fair...it's not hugely long until the annual, and it avoids having to decowl and muck around with things twice (e.g., if I'm reinstalling the mags, then I have to time them, so why should I do it again just 6-8 weeks later?).

I'll likely do another portion (landing gear) when I get back from a weekend trip this coming weekend, as I need to flip the tires, so may as well do the full monty on the gear, brakes, lines, etc., and call that part done. And so on, until all parts of the plane have been inspected/maintained and the checklist of items is complete.

Thus, I can do portions as they "naturally" come up for being maintained, rather than all at once (I've done that, too), and I think it's okay.

Now, if it was 6 months, then I think that's far too long between the work and the inspection. I guess the question is...how long is "too long", for any given part of the CI?

That question has no answer. If your OPs limits state that the CI is to be performed within 12 months per xxxxxxx, that is what it is. The person signing off the CI takes responsibility for the aircraft being in airworthy condition. If you did the oil change a few weeks early, flew the airplane, then decided it didn't need to be changed at the CI, that is on you. If you deemed that was an acceptable time, so be it.
It's all good until it isn't.
 
Something not mentioned I run into, is not so much how long it has been since an item was inspected, but how much use has there been. For example, if I packed my wheel bearings 6 months ago and the aircraft has not even been pushed around the hangar since then, why repack them just because it is annual time? On the other hand if it has been used 12 hours daily for touch and go practice for 6 months, lets look them over for sure,
 
With that being the case, I see no reason someone would ever have any trouble if they did a staged inspection as long as it occurred within a months time.

Ok now we're getting somewhere. I take it you mean "within a month's time of the condition inspection sign off". Perhaps that's not what you meant. if not, could you clarify?

Then:

How did you arrive at one month?
 
Something not mentioned I run into, is not so much how long it has been since an item was inspected, but how much use has there been. For example, if I packed my wheel bearings 6 months ago and the aircraft has not even been pushed around the hangar since then, why repack them just because it is annual time? On the other hand if it has been used 12 hours daily for touch and go practice for 6 months, lets look them over for sure,

Of course Don. However, you still sign off that they have been inspected within the 12 calendar months. You are falsifying your records by signing off the CI, even if it makes perfect sense, if you didn't inspect them at that time. You don't have to repack them at anytime, just inspect and determine airworthiness, to the degree that you sign on the dotted line.
I don't disagree with you, but again, it's all good until it isn't.
 
Ok now we're getting somewhere. I take it you mean "within a month's time of the condition inspection sign off". Perhaps that's not what you meant. if not, could you clarify?

Then:

How did you arrive at one month?

If it went into the month "in annual" you have that month to inspect and fly, and it is never "out". If it went into the month "out of annual", you have as long as you like to complete it, but you can't fly it until you sign the CI as complete.
 
I'm not, so I have to disagree.

Your not what?? Comparing apples to oranges?

Taking 24 hours (3 days) to do ONLY inspect a simple RV (not all of them are simple) is pretty... well.. slow. If you can get people to pay for that - more power to you.

On the other hand, performing maintenance at the same time (repacking wheel bearings, changing brake pads, changing tires, timing mags, cleaning/gapping plugs, finding/fixing squawks, updating electronics/databases, replacing worn components, etc.) certainly does take time. No doubt that this is the pattern that most follow (do all of this maintenance during the CI) - certainly by those that just own/fly their RV (as opposed to those that know it inside and out and are constantly inspecting and maintaining).

My only point is that harping on a guy for being able to inspect (only) his airplane quickly is probably playing a game of moving goal posts (what one person says/means is probably not clearly understood by the other person). That is usually a pretty silly game.
 
Though it may be legal (maybe), I don't like the idea of a progressive Condition Inspection. Like others, I made up a check list form with fill in the blanks where applicable and an area dedicated to written notes on each page. My RV-10 form grew to 11 pages long before I sold it. The form included a list of all replaceable/consumable items I would or might need, with part numbers and supplier info. Everything I would replace, or consumables I might need to replace, was on hand before I started. There was a page dedicated to AD's and SB's complied with, and new AD's or SB's I needed to complete. The CI form was chronologically followed and completed as I went through the inspection process. Dated and signed when completed, it became a permanent record of the aircraft in a ring binder. This was in addition to the log book entries. I know some people follow a "progressive CI" type format. Replacing brake pads or changing oil in May, flying the plane, then doing the CI a month later without checking the pads again or changing the oil. IMHO, that is not part of a thorough CI. Building and flying airplanes is inherently dangerous enough, even doing everything we can to minimize those risks. Why anyone would want to skimp on a CI is beyond my comprehension and personal safety standards.
 
Ok now we're getting somewhere. I take it you mean "within a month's time of the condition inspection sign off". Perhaps that's not what you meant. if not, could you clarify?

Then:

How did you arrive at one month?

I explained already.

Because the sign off is good for 12 cal. months, if you sign it off on March 1st 2018, you are legal to fly until March 31 2019. You are good for almost a full month past the date you signed it off the previous year.

I think that is enough justification to say that if you do all of the inspection processes within a months time, no one would make a fuss about it.
 
Phased or progressive inspections

No expert but I think the airplane better be safe for flight (airworthy) the date you put in your log book and sign it off or you might be risking an insurance loss. If you do an inspection a month before you certify the safe condition of your airplane and then fly it 5 hours before you sign the log entry I dont think you are in compliance. Large airplanes and jet aircraft often are done in phases or progressive inspection programs but those are FAA approved..Ive never seen the FAA approve a progressive inspection on a EAB aircraft. Im no expert but something to think about. I dont think progressive inspections are compliant.

Anyone have proof otherwise?

Cm
 
Of course Don. However, you still sign off that they have been inspected within the 12 calendar months. You are falsifying your records by signing off the CI, even if it makes perfect sense, if you didn't inspect them at that time. You don't have to repack them at anytime, just inspect and determine airworthiness, to the degree that you sign on the dotted line.

Wait, what? You're saying that "at that time" (whatever time period that covers, presumably, at the time that one signs the logbook?) one is required to re-inspect things that may have been inspected mere weeks prior? Where did you get that interpretation from?

The exact words are "I certify that this aircraft has been inspected on (insert date) in accordance with the scope and detail of appendix D to part 43 and found to be in a condition for safe operation."

If you start reading that VERY literally, it means that the entire inspection *must* have occurred on (insert date), and I don't think that's the case :)

So is making the ruling that says one can't do some if it one day (or week) and the next part the next day (or week), and so on?
 
No expert but I think the airplane better be safe for flight (airworthy) the date you put in your log book and sign it off or you might be risking an insurance loss. If you do an inspection a month before you certify the safe condition of your airplane and then fly it 5 hours before you sign the log entry I dont think you are in compliance. Large airplanes and jet aircraft often are done in phases or progressive inspection programs but those are FAA approved..Ive never seen the FAA approve a progressive inspection on a EAB aircraft. Im no expert but something to think about. I dont think progressive inspections are compliant.

Anyone have proof otherwise?

Cm

So I change the oil the month before the inspection, and fly 5 hours. Do I need to change the oil again at CI? I have the mags inspected 6 weeks before, and reinstall and time them. Do I need to retime them at CI? I change the tires and breaks a month prior. Do I need to re-inspect the brakes? I pull the inspection panels the week before and lube up the bellcranks and rod ends, check torques, etc., then close it up and fly for a week or so, then do the rest of the CI. Do I need to reopen the panels, re-check the torques, and so on?

What's the value in doing that?
 
Taking 24 hours (3 days) to do ONLY inspect a simple RV (not all of them are simple) is pretty... well.. slow.

My opinion is that this idea proves that a lot of people who hold E-AB repairman certificates don't know what a properly done inspection entails (which is why I have done a few forum presentations on the subject).

I am not meaning that in a judgmental context... just saying that having an FAA guy hand you a piece of paper saying you are authorized to do it, doesn't mean that by osmosis you acquire the knowledge too.
 
I explained already.

Because the sign off is good for 12 cal. months, if you sign it off on March 1st 2018, you are legal to fly until March 31 2019. You are good for almost a full month past the date you signed it off the previous year.

I think that is enough justification to say that if you do all of the inspection processes within a months time, no one would make a fuss about it.

So you were talking about the one month starting on March 1st - last year's signoff date

From your text I couldn't tell if that's what you meant or if you meant one month PREVIOUS to last year's signoff date (March 1st).

Especially since the latter is actually what we're talking about.
 
Though it may be legal (maybe), I don't like the idea of a progressive Condition Inspection. Like others, I made up a check list form with fill in the blanks where applicable and an area dedicated to written notes on each page. My RV-10 form grew to 11 pages long before I sold it. The form included a list of all replaceable/consumable items I would or might need, with part numbers and supplier info. Everything I would replace, or consumables I might need to replace, was on hand before I started. There was a page dedicated to AD's and SB's complied with, and new AD's or SB's I needed to complete. The CI form was chronologically followed and completed as I went through the inspection process. Dated and signed when completed, it became a permanent record of the aircraft in a ring binder. This was in addition to the log book entries. I know some people follow a "progressive CI" type format. Replacing brake pads or changing oil in May, flying the plane, then doing the CI a month later without checking the pads again or changing the oil. IMHO, that is not part of a thorough CI. Building and flying airplanes is inherently dangerous enough, even doing everything we can to minimize those risks. Why anyone would want to skimp on a CI is beyond my comprehension and personal safety standards.

I do exactly the same thing, with an extensive checklist about the same length and with the same sorts of items. I note everything that is done, checking it off and dating it if it's done prior to the date of signing off the CI. the only thing I *don't* do is redoing work for the sake of redoing it. Remember the Waddington effect?

I don't consider it "skimping" to not do a job twice in a short time frame if it doesn't need to be done.

(ETA: Actually, one could even make the argument that doing an inspection (or maintenance and inspection) on *one* portion of the plane, then flying it for a few hours, then doing the next portion, and so on, is in a way *safer*. If I've mucked around with virtually every piece of the plane all at once, the likelihood of me having messed up somewhere is higher than if I had only worked on one area; and if I did mess up even working on one portion, the odds of me finding it and fixing it (or landing safely) are higher, as well. The more parts I work on at one time (essentially), the greater the odds are, also, of messing up *multiple* things which I then get to "discover" in flight! :) )
 
Last edited:
My opinion is that this idea proves that a lot of people who hold E-AB repairman certificates don't know what a properly done inspection entails (which is why I have done a few forum presentations on the subject).

I am not meaning that in a judgmental context... just saying that having an FAA guy hand you a piece of paper saying you are authorized to do it, doesn't mean that by osmosis you acquire the knowledge too.

Certainly sounds judgmental. In fact, I think you said "this guy doesn't have a clue what he is talking about". Maybe I'm wrong about that. Either way, I am always willing to learn.

Are you saying that a condition inspection (let's say on a pretty simple, fixed pitch, dual mag, carb'd RV-4) MUST include maintenance? If so, please point me to the FAR's/OpLims where that is documented - particularly every "maintenance" task that is required and, as you said, "what a properly done inspection entails". That's how a "properly done inspection" is defined right? Whatever is required by the FAR's/OpLims? Or do you have a different definition?

A person's opinion is theirs to hold and completely acceptable but it does not make others wrong.
 
Wait, what? You're saying that "at that time" (whatever time period that covers, presumably, at the time that one signs the logbook?) one is required to re-inspect things that may have been inspected mere weeks prior? Where did you get that interpretation from?

The exact words are "I certify that this aircraft has been inspected on (insert date) in accordance with the scope and detail of appendix D to part 43 and found to be in a condition for safe operation."

If you start reading that VERY literally, it means that the entire inspection *must* have occurred on (insert date), and I don't think that's the case :)

So is making the ruling that says one can't do some if it one day (or week) and the next part the next day (or week), and so on?

No, I just meant ?at that time? you sign the log book you ?certify? it is all airworthy. When the work was done, that day, a week, or months before, you still certify it is ALL airworthy. Sorry if I wasn?t clear.
 
type format. Replacing brake pads or changing oil in May, flying the plane, then doing the CI a month later without checking the pads again or changing the oil. IMHO, that is not part of a thorough CI.

changing the oil just because the condition inspection is due is total ****. It is a CONDITION inspection, if i changed it 10hrs ago, its in a safe condition, the filter was cut and inspected at the proper oil change interval. there is no reason to change it just because its a certain day on the calendar. some common sense needs to be used here people.

bob burns
 
We can argue all day long what is right and what is wrong (you up for a triple feature Sam? :D), but in the end it comes down to two simple things.

One
In the eyes of the FAA can you prove that the inspection met their imposed requirements. In a legal sense, if you make the required entry in the aircraft's maintenance records and are willing to sign it, you have met those requirements.
In that log book statement your are certifying that the inspection was done in accordance with the Scope and Detail of FAR43 Appendix D.

Just one of the many details of Appendix D is line (d)(3). It says,
(3) Internal engine—for cylinder compression and for metal particles or foreign matter on screens and sump drain plugs.

Note that screens is plural. So if you inspected the oil filter but didn't inspect the suction screen during a recent oil change, and then you don't do it during the condition inspection, you plain and simple haven't done the inspection in accordance with the scope and detail of Appendix D.

Two
Is the inspection done in a way that assures (to the best extent reasonably possible) that the airplane is in a condition for safe operation (experimentials are never airworthy). My opinion is that if the inspection is being done to a level of detail that is anything less than what a professional (A&P/IA) would do , the answer to that would be no.
 
Last edited:
Completely agree.

I think it also worth noting that FAR 43 Appendix D does not include any of what I previously attempted to describe as "maintenance" which takes the bulk of the time (in my experience).

I seriously doubt anyone here (especially the builders) are doing a poor job with their condition inspection. Criticizing someone because they can do what is specified in FAR 43 Appendix D quicker than the next person seems like it ought to be below us.
 
Just one of the many details of Appendix D is line (d)(3). It says,
(3) Internal engine?for cylinder compression and for metal particles or foreign matter on screens and sump drain plugs.

Note that screens is plural. So if you inspected the oil filter but didn't inspect the suction screen during a recent oil change, and then you don't do it during the condition inspection, you plain and simple haven't done the inspection in accordance with the scope and detail of Appendix D.

And if I *did* inspect the screen at the oil change, then I have done it IAW App. D.
 
First of all there is not such a thing as a Pre Purchase inspection. Legally it does not exist so be very careful with all the snake charmers.

Instead, use your Condition Inspection as a guide and you as the buyer together with your inspector decide what you want done in detail.

I always recommend a full blown Condition Inspection. In my book, there's no other way around it if you want my signature in your log books.
 
changing the oil just because the condition inspection is due is total ****. It is a CONDITION inspection, if i changed it 10hrs ago, its in a safe condition, the filter was cut and inspected at the proper oil change interval. there is no reason to change it just because its a certain day on the calendar. some common sense needs to be used here people.

bob burns

Absolutely change the oil again after 10 hours AND cut that oil filter open and inspect that. A lot of bad things can happen in 10 hours and quality CI without an oil/filter change and inspection is sloppy workmanship. If your too lazy, or too cheap to shell out $100 for a oil & filter change,,,well that's on you.
 
Completely agree.

I think it also worth noting that FAR 43 Appendix D does not include any of what I previously attempted to describe as "maintenance" which takes the bulk of the time (in my experience).

I seriously doubt anyone here (especially the builders) are doing a poor job with their condition inspection. Criticizing someone because they can do what is specified in FAR 43 Appendix D quicker than the next person seems like it ought to be below us.

As already noted previously, I was never figuring maint. tasks in the time I suggested a thorough inspection takes.

I have been involved in inspecting a lot of RV's that were previously only maintained and inspected by the original builder, and I have found many instances were things were overlooked.
Spend some time searching the archives of these forums and you will find a LOT of scary stuff that follow on owners have found (sure that happens with certified aircraft also, but that is not what we are talking about). Attend one of Vic's forums and he will tell you about (and show pictures) a lot of a lot of scary stuff that he has found just on the small portion of the RV fleet that he has had eyes on.

The thing that frustrates me about this conversation is that instead of people asking about what is different in the way they do an inspection compared to someone that has done it professionally for many years, they are instead trying to justify why they can do it so much faster. I am confident that no one in that category has worked professionally as an aircraft mechanic who, while he is working/inspecting, he knows that peoples lives are at stake.

Talk to anyone that has had a mechanic shadow them during one of their inspections and I am sure you will hear that they learned a lot about what they weren't look at.
BTW, that is one of the things I promote in my forum.... have an experienced mechanic (particularly if you can find one experienced on RV's) work with you for your first condition inspection.
 
Absolutely change the oil again after 10 hours AND cut that oil filter open and inspect that. A lot of bad things can happen in 10 hours and quality CI without an oil/filter change and inspection is sloppy workmanship. If your too lazy, or too cheap to shell out $100 for a oil & filter change,,,well that's on you.

Better to be safe than sorry...change it every 5 hours and cut the filter open. Because, you know, a lot of bad things can happen in 5 hours.

Heck, a lot of bad things can happen on any flight. Better change the oil and cut open the filter after every flight. Just to be safe, you know.
 
The thing that frustrates me about this conversation is that instead of people asking about what is different in the way they do an inspection compared to someone that has done it professionally for many years, they are instead trying to justify why they can do it so much faster. I am confident that no one in that category has worked professionally as an aircraft mechanic who, while he is working/inspecting, he knows that peoples lives are at stake.

Well said 2002.

As an example I currently have an older RV6 in the shop the owner said "no discrepancies that we know of, can we do the inspection in a day or 2 if I help"?

The pilot and his AP friend have been maintaining it for the last 5 years and assured me the airplane was in great shape. Well I turned down the offer to do a quick inspection and asked that he leave the airplane with me for at least a week, turns out the airplane has so many serious issues which I found in the first 4 hours of inspection that it will likely take a month or more to do all the work. One of the items (which I've seen before and posted here on VAF) is the Van's gascolator was incorrectly plumbed and has been doing absolutely nothing for all these years and nobody noticed. That among a slew of other more serious issues has basically grounded the bird.

Owner decided he wanted a second set of eyes on before his Alaska trip, he may make the trip, but not with this airplane.
 
Walt, don't take this the wrong way, I'm genuinely curious about this. I assume this RV6 owner wasn't the builder therefore he has the A&P friend do the CI?

So did the owner ask you to do maintenance on this airplane or just the inspection? If just a condition inspection why would you have the plane for a month?

This reminds me of a Mike Bush webinar.

Travis

As an example I currently have an older RV6 in the shop the owner said "no discrepancies that we know of, can we do the inspection in a day or 2 if I help"?

The pilot and his AP friend have been maintaining it for the last 5 years and assured me the airplane was in great shape. Well I turned down the offer to do a quick inspection and asked that he leave the airplane with me for at least a week, turns out the airplane has so many serious issues which I found in the first 4 hours of inspection that it will likely take a month or more to do all the work. One of the items (which I've seen before and posted here on VAF) is the Van's gascolator was incorrectly plumbed and has been doing absolutely nothing for all these years and nobody noticed. That among a slew of other more serious issues has basically grounded the bird.

Owner decided he wanted a second set of eyes on before his Alaska trip, he may make the trip, but not with this airplane.
 
Last edited:
A lot of bad things can happen in 10 hours and quality CI without an oil/filter change and inspection is sloppy workmanship. If your too lazy, or too cheap to shell out $100 for a oil & filter change,,,well that's on you.

Sloppy workmanship? Too lazy/cheap? Eh, sorry, I disagree.

Better to be safe than sorry...change it every 5 hours and cut the filter open. Because, you know, a lot of bad things can happen in 5 hours.

Heck, a lot of bad things can happen on any flight. Better change the oil and cut open the filter after every flight. Just to be safe, you know.

Ha! Yep, that's kinda how I looked at 9GT's post...
 
Back
Top