What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Can I perform a "staged" or "progressive" Annual Inspection?

ArVeeNiner

Well Known Member
Can I perform a staged or progressive Annual? That is to say, can I do the engine one weekend then button it up and fly the next day? Then, do the fuselage the next weekend, button it up and fly...and so on?

Or, do I have to take the plane down until the entire Annual is done? This is what I used to do during my owner assisted Annuals years ago on my certified airplane.

Thanks.
 
Probably not...

Progressive inspections can only be performed if authorized by the FSDO. They would require a clear definition as to why you are requesting a progressive schedule....and you can be sure they won't accept "I just don't wanna put it down that long." You had a very lenient IA if you performed a progressive annual on a certified airplane.
 
Not sure what the US regs say, but this is fairly common in Canada, or so I've been led to believe.
 
Last edited:
What you are suggesting is simply starting the inspection "early". Do the engine one weekend, wings next, etc. The only thing that matters is that the airplane is inspected once per year and the logbook entry. There are plenty of people who take weeks to accomplish the inspection, yet the logbook entry has but one date. I have a hard time believing anyone would have a problem as long as the airplane was not operated after the "expiration date" of the previous condition inspection.
 
Can I perform a staged or progressive Annual? That is to say, can I do the engine one weekend then button it up and fly the next day? Then, do the fuselage the next weekend, button it up and fly...and so on?

Or, do I have to take the plane down until the entire Annual is done? This is what I used to do during my owner assisted Annuals years ago on my certified airplane.

Thanks.

The progressive inspection (using this term in a general sense, not in a regulatory manner as it applies to certificated aircraft) is precisely what I do on my RV-6. I'm not aware of any restrictions placed on experimental aircraft that prohibit the progressive inspection.
 
Last edited:
I'm not aware of any issue as long as it's all completed in the same month and signed off by the end of the month its due, ie: annual due in Jan, start on Jan 1 and complete by Jan 31.
 
That's how I do mine

It's not technically a "progressive inspection", because as was pointed out by Jeff, that involves an approved progressive inspection program.

However, there is nothing that says you have to do everything at one time. If you were paying someone else to do it, they would want to do it all at once, but if hold the Repairman Certificate for your airplane (or you're an A&P), you can do it any way you want - as long as you do all the required inspections (per FAR 43 App D).

I usually start mine in the beginning of the month that it's due and finish by the end of the month - and fly the plane some during the month.

I actually think it's safer this way - less likely to have a maintenance induced problem.
 
I usually start mine in the beginning of the month that it's due and finish by the end of the month - and fly the plane some during the month.

I actually think it's safer this way - less likely to have a maintenance induced problem.

That, and there is less self-imposed pressure to finish the entire inspection quickly so you can get back in the air.

Personally, I like to pull the inspection panels one Saturday morning, check everything, reassemble, and fly that afternoon.

I do the same with the wheels/tires/brakes the next weekend.

Then I deal with the engine/prop the following weekend (or two).
 
What you are suggesting is simply starting the inspection "early". Do the engine one weekend, wings next, etc. The only thing that matters is that the airplane is inspected once per year and the logbook entry. There are plenty of people who take weeks to accomplish the inspection, yet the logbook entry has but one date. I have a hard time believing anyone would have a problem as long as the airplane was not operated after the "expiration date" of the previous condition inspection.

What Kelly is suggesting is inspect, fly, inspect, fly, and on, and on....not simply starting the inspection early. The problem with a progressive inspection like this occurs when you have to prove that the engine group, or landing gear group, or hull group, etc. have not exceeded 12 months since last inspected. An aircraft with an approved Progressive Inspection Schedule does not have this problem. While I can't speak to the legality of this on an Experimental airplane, I have a hard time seeing the advantage on a airplane as simple as the RV. Personally (and as an A&P) I wouldn't do it. Be careful whatever is decided.
 
Records

What you are referring to is called a "flying inspection" in the revenue flying world. A Progressive inspection covers the complete scope and detail of an annul at hourly intervals that ensure no one part of the aircraft goes without an inspection in one calender year. Like four different inspections, 50 hours apart, that must be completed in one year. 200 hours flying per year minimum.
For a flying inspection, I think would be prudent to record the maintenance and what part of the inspection is complete before climbing in and flying it. I have the option to do this on certified, revenue aircraft. It needsto be done in an hourly "window" of 20 hours. The paper work needs to show that the aircraft was returned to airworthy condition mid inspection. That also includes correcting any discrepancies prior to release. Of course if you are doing this yourself, and no one is flying with you, and the FAA doesn't know, and the insurance company doesn't find out if something gets bent, well if none of that matters why record anything, right?:eek: If nothing else, keep an inspection checklist with detailed notes with a airworthiness statement and dated signature with your records to consolidate into one entry at completion. Do the engine last as the tach or hobbs time needs to be accurate for oil change and other time sensitive data.
 
Maybe I phrased it wrong. As others have suggested, I was thinking of starting this and completing it within the month that the Annual is due. I wouldn't do this all year long. maybe referring to it as a "phased" Annual is better.

It's sounding like this might be OK.
 
What Kelly is suggesting is inspect, fly, inspect, fly, and on, and on....not simply starting the inspection early...

"Early" is semantics. The point being, start your several weekends worth of inspect/fly far enough out that you can sign the completed inspection within 12 month window of your last condition inspection. If you spread your inspection out over a month, what difference does it make if the airplane is torn down in the hangar for the whole time, or flown some... As long as the date in the logbook indicates the airplane is still "in" the preceding 12, you're golden.
 
Man, I'm amazed, but in a good way. Here we are on page 2 of a thread about annual condition inspections and no one has called it a "Conditional" inspection yet. Yeaaaa! For some reason it really bugs me when people call it that...
 
Huh?

I understand if I do maintenance on any aircraft, I have to record it before flight. Is this a false statement for experimentals?
 
Andrew, I don't ever recall seeing a "mandatory" entry after maintenance. Adding air to the tires is maintenance but minor and simple...so I don't enter anything.

Now, if you pull a cylinder, yes...adding oil....no. I like to enter oil/filter changes, mainly for having a convenient record for when it's due again. I think that common sense goes a long way in this regard because we have an incredible amount of leeway with our experimentals.

Best,
 
I understand if I do maintenance on any aircraft, I have to record it before flight. Is this a false statement for experimentals?

As I understand it, your mandatory logbook entries are dictated by the ops limits. There are plenty of people who ONLY document the condition inspection, regardless of the maintenance actions taken in between.
 
Last edited:
I understand if I do maintenance on any aircraft, I have to record it before flight. Is this a false statement for experimentals?

Yes, as far as I can tell, it is. The only logbook endorsement required per the op lims for our experimental aircraft is the entry to sign the aircraft out of Phase One flight testing and the endorsement for the condition inspection. All other entries are at the option of the owner. You will see logbooks full of every little maintenance detail and logbooks that are nearly empty. As long as the two conditions above are met both types of logbooks are legal.

Welcome to the world of experimental aviation! :)
 
Last edited:
Your op-lims require a "condition" inspection annually. It does not specify the duration, or phasing of the inspection as long as everything in Part 43 appendix D is completed annually. You as the repairman will sign for the airworthiness following the inspeciton. You can inspect your engine in January, the avionics in March, the Landing gear in July, etc.. and Sign off your inspection in December.

cmon think about it... the only thing the FAA sees is your logbook entry. They do not monitor the actual inspection or verify the thoroughness. Any dishonest person could simply sign it off having never inspected the aircraft and nobody would ever know.

For your own sake and those of your passengers inspect the plane in any method which ensures it is thorough and IAW scope and detail of Part 43 appendix D. More important than specific inspection process, in my view, is ensuring everyting goes back together correctly. For me, I spread it out over a 3 month period. YMMV
 
Your op-lims require a "condition" inspection annually.

A little misunderstanding here. Operating limitations do not require a condition inspection "annually". They simple state that the aircraft may not be flown unless a condition inspection has been performed within the last 12 months. You can let the inspection "expire", let the aircraft sit for months, perform the inspection, and be back "in annual". As long as the aircraft has not been flown while "out of annual", you are good to go.
 
I'll offer a parallel here. In the nuclear energy industry, highly regulated by the government (NRC), thousands of inspections (surveillances) are performed each year. Some of these inspections are mandated to be performed daily, some monthly, some yearly and so on.

Many of these inspections take more than one day to perform. Very similar to what is being discussed in this thread. Many interpreted the inspection interval to mean different things until the court made a ruling.

Using this same logic. If an inspection takes more than one day to complete, the completion date for the inspection as recorded in the plant record (for purposes of determining the next inspection) shall be the starting date of the inspection. This ensures that the next inspection is started no later than the prescribed interval.

So if you start your conditional inspection at the end of February and it continues into March, the completion date recorded should be the start date of the inspection, (February). (An explanatory note could be added). The next conditional inspection would be required by the end of February in the following year before you could fly again. (See Mel's note, above, for the definition of current airworthiness which always applies.) And any discrepancy discovered during the protracted inspection would have to be resolved if it affects airworthiness (always true.)

I do not know if the FAA has provided a similar interpretation for date determined inspection requirements. But it would be interesting to know if FAA counsel has provided an interpretation.
 
Last edited:
A little misunderstanding here. Operating limitations do not require a condition inspection "annually". They simple state that the aircraft may not be flown unless a condition inspection has been performed within the last 12 months. You can let the inspection "expire", let the aircraft sit for months, perform the inspection, and be back "in annual". As long as the aircraft has not been flown while "out of annual", you are good to go.

Good clarification..yes, this is clearer. Thanks Mel!
 
So if you start your conditional inspection at the end of February and it continues into March, the completion date recorded should be the start date of the inspection, (February). (An explanatory note could be added). The next conditional inspection would be required by the end of February in the following year.

I do not know if the FAA has provided a similar interpretation for date determined inspection requirements.

Not true with the FAA. See Mel's comment about condition inspections above. I routinely start my inspection in the last week of the due month and make the entry in the beginning of the next month. The requirement is that to be flown the aircraft has to have had an inspection within the last 12 months. Doesn't matter that the aircraft was "out of license" for a day or two if you didn't go flying.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAAST Team Representative
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
Last edited:
...So if you start your conditional inspection at the end of February and it continues into March, the completion date recorded should be the start date of the inspection, (February). (An explanatory note could be added). The next conditional inspection would be required by the end of February in the following year.

I do not know if the FAA has provided a similar interpretation for date determined inspection requirements.

:confused:

This doesn't make sense to me in our case. Imagine that during my condition inspection due to expire, say, at the end of January, I find something that will take many months to repair. The item gets repaired and the plane is finally airworthy in November, I would sign off the plane as being in an airworthy condition as of November and the next condition inpection is due one year later, in November.

Mel?

PS John beat me to it...
 
Last edited:
Not an "apples to apples" comparison.

The major problem with this "parallel" is that a nuclear power plant must be in continuous compliance.
This "continuous compliance" does not apply to aircraft. If the aircraft is not flown, it is not required to be in compliance.
 
The major problem with this "parallel" is that a nuclear power plant must be in continuous compliance.
This "continuous compliance" does not apply to aircraft. If the aircraft is not flown, it is not required to be in compliance.

Mel, make the assumption that the aircraft is being flown. What then?
And my response regards the date of the NEXT inspection (should not matter if flying or not flying). What then?

IS a very interesting question. Let us say I start my conditional, 3 months early. During the first month I inspect the tires and brakes (results were satisfactory). During month two, I do nothing. I complete the inspection in month three. As such, I have always been airworthy. If I record the date in the logbook when the conditional inspection is complete, the inspection of the tires and brakes a year henceforth had not been performed for 15 months.
 
Last edited:
Mel, make the assumption that the aircraft is being flown. What then?
And my response regards the date of the NEXT inspection (should not matter if flying or not flying). What then?

IS a very interesting question. Let us say I start my conditional, 3 months early. During the first month I inspect the tires and brakes (results were satisfactory). During month two, I do nothing. I complete the inspection in month three. As such, I have always been airworthy. If I record the date in the logbook when the conditional inspection is complete, the inspection of the tires and brakes a year henceforth had not been performed for 15 months.

A couple of points:

1) We have our first use of "conditional" in this thread!! It is, of course, a "condition" inspection. Yes, a pet peeve, but let's get the terminology correct.

2) The date that goes in the logbook is when the inspection is completed.

3) I doubt any of us who are doing a "phased" inspection are stretching it out over three months. Mine is completed in 2-3 weeks at most. But the plane makes the breakfast runs between "phases". :)

4) The only requirement in regard to the logbook is that it be endorsed to indicate the aircraft is in a condition (there is that word again) for safe operation. Nothing about when the inspection must occur is stated.
 
Based on a little research a while back regarding "progressive" as opposed to "annual" or "condition" inspections, I concluded it is possible to have authorization to do so but it is a long process involving much paper work establishing what will be accomplished on a progressive schedule and that schedule must be approved by the FAA.

This process was established years ago and all major airlines use it. It simply costs too much money to take a revenue generating airplane out of service for a month or six weeks to accomplish what needs be done. I remember when TWA did that at the overhaul base in Kansas City, a Boeing would come back to the line looking like a new airplane paint and all, but it was expensive in terms of lost revenue.

For our purposes, I do not have a problem with inspecting the engine one month and the air frame the next and flying between each event so long as the previous inspection is still current. At least no one has told me I can not do it.

The important issue here is to keep the airplane safe as possible.
 
At least no one has told me I can not do it.

The important issue here is to keep the airplane safe as possible.

+1 !!!! Remember as an American you do not need the governments permission to do something which hasn't been legally regulated already. The bottom line is nothing in the regulations specifies the duration from start to finish of the "condition" inspection therefore you as an American are FREE to figure it out on your own.
 
+1 !!!! Remember as an American you do not need the governments permission to do something which hasn't been legally regulated already. The bottom line is nothing in the regulations specifies the duration from start to finish of the "condition" inspection therefore you as an American are FREE to figure it out on your own.

That comment reminds me of when I worked for a German company from 1981 - 1988. I went to Germany >25 times, and they came over her a lot. One evening over Weissebiers we were talking about the differences in our cultures and governments.

My German friend said to me, "In Germany, if is is not specifically allowed by law, then it is generally illegal. But in the US if it is not specifically prohibited by law, then it is legal." Whether or not that is completely accurate could be debated by both sides, but in general it rings true.

That has always stuck with me, that we are free to do whatever we want, within reason, unless it is strictly prohibited by law.

We are indeed fortunate..... Oh, and since I purchased my plane and have to have an A&P sign the condition inspection, it will be done in a weekend. Unless, of course, there are issues.... :)
 
That comment reminds me of when I worked for a German company from 1981 - 1988. I went to Germany >25 times, and they came over her a lot. One evening over Weissebiers we were talking about the differences in our cultures and governments.

My German friend said to me, "In Germany, if is is not specifically allowed by law, then it is generally illegal. But in the US if it is not specifically prohibited by law, then it is legal." Whether or not that is completely accurate could be debated by both sides, but in general it rings true.

That has always stuck with me, that we are free to do whatever we want, within reason, unless it is strictly prohibited by law.

We are indeed fortunate..... Oh, and since I purchased my plane and have to have an A&P sign the condition inspection, it will be done in a weekend. Unless, of course, there are issues.... :)

This is beautiful! Something that drives me absolutely bananas is posters opineing that something might be against regulations. They continually read more into a reg. than is specifically stated! I classify these folks as inhabitants of the world of "NO". They must have a permission slip for every action!
For crying out loud, you need to have only 1 LOGBOOK ENTRY to fly your experimental plane. Stop reading more into that condition inspection reg. than is there.
Personally I prefer to drink with the crowd that would rather seek forgiveness than permission!

There I feel better!
 
This is beautiful! Something that drives me absolutely bananas is posters opineing that something might be against regulations. They continually read more into a reg. than is specifically stated! I classify these folks as inhabitants of the world of "NO". They must have a permission slip for every action!
For crying out loud, you need to have only 1 LOGBOOK ENTRY to fly your experimental plane. Stop reading more into that condition inspection reg. than is there.
Personally I prefer to drink with the crowd that would rather seek forgiveness than permission!

There I feel better!

Jon, sounds like you need to get out this way for beverages :)
 
This is beautiful! Something that drives me absolutely bananas is posters opineing that something might be against regulations. They continually read more into a reg. than is specifically stated...

+1!

I live in the world of "Yes" (and beg forgiveness often).
 
Yes and no. Remember that this forum covers RV owners in all corners of the world, and that regs vary from country to country.

Yeah, but... the original poster appears to be based in California, so the answer to his original question is "yes". That was easy.
 
I know what all have been doing, but, I am still waiting for Mel's interpretation of the regulations or a ruling from the FAA counsel with respect to the FAA regulations.
 
This thread is making my head hurt. The rules for an experimental aircraft are simple and clear. As Mel and several others have stated the bottom line is that the aircraft must be signed off every 12 months. If one wants to pursue a "progressive" maintenance program, go for it, but you are going to encounter the full weight of the FAA for no real gain. These programs are intended for large operators with fleets of aircraft that fly thousands of hours a year. Just as a starter here are some definitions from the regulatory glossary:


A PROGRESSIVE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM is one which provides for the complete inspection of an aircraft within each 12 calendar months, consistent with the manufacturer's recommendations and other regulatory requirements. In practice, this primarily applies to small aircraft, although FAA Order 8300.9 Section 5 says the progressive inspection system "is particularly adaptable to larger multiengine aircraft and aircraft operated by companies and corporation where high utilization is demanded." See also FAR 91.409(d).


Here is a short quote from the text of FAR 91.409(d):

Progressive inspection. Each registered owner or operator of an aircraft desiring to use a progressive inspection program must submit a written request to the FAA Flight Standards district office having jurisdiction over the area in which the applicant is located, and shall provide--
(1) A certificated mechanic holding an inspection authorization, a certificated airframe repair station, or the manufacturer of the aircraft to supervise or conduct the progressive inspection;
(2) A current inspection procedures manual available and readily understandable to pilot and maintenance personnel containing, in detail--
(i) An explanation of the progressive inspection, including the continuity of inspection responsibility, the making of reports, and the keeping of records and technical reference material;
(ii) An inspection schedule, specifying the intervals in hours or days when routine and detailed inspections will be performed and including instructions for exceeding an inspection interval by not more than 10 hours while en route and for changing an inspection interval because of service experience;
(iii) Sample routine and detailed inspection forms and instructions for their use; and
(iv) Sample reports and records and instructions for their use;
(3) Enough housing and equipment for necessary disassembly and proper inspection of the aircraft; and
(4) Appropriate current technical information for the aircraft.


Read the FAA order and the quoted FAR then decide if the months of work, piles of paper, and probably a paid consultant, are worth a few days saved. Have fun!

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAAST Team Representative
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
Thanks John. Sounds like the answer (for most people who fly RV's) is "no".

Edited to add: In the USA.
 
Not sure what the US regs say, but this is fairly common in Canada, or so I've been led to believe.
Further research reveals that as it turns out, Canadian regs do follow the US regs, and "progressive" maintenance is not lawful in Canada either.

625.86 Maintenance Schedules said:
(1) Pursuant to CAR 605.86, all aircraft, other than ultra-light or hang-gliders, shall be maintained in accordance with a maintenance schedule, approved by the Minister, that meets the requirements of this Aircraft Equipment and Maintenance Standard 625.

(2) (a) As applicable to the type of aircraft, at intervals not to expire later than the last day of the 12th month, following the preceding inspection, Part I and Part II of the Maintenance Schedule detailed in Appendix B of these standards are approved by the Minister for use on other than large aircraft, turbine-powered pressurized aeroplanes, airships, any aeroplane or helicopter operated by a flight training unit under CAR 406, or any aircraft operated by air operators under CAR Part VII.
...

Transport Canada Standard 625 Appendix B - Maintenance Schedules said:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/regserv/cars/part6-standards-a625b-2459.htm
...
(8) Pursuant to CAR 605.86(2), where the aircraft utilization is sufficient to ensure that all items listed in Parts I or II of this appendix are performed within a 12 month period, an owner can request that inspections under this maintenance schedule be performed progressively. In this case, a revised maintenance schedule shall be submitted for the Minister's approval in accordance with the procedures outlined in subsection 625.86(2) of these standards.
...
 
It looks like one of the problems here is trying to apply the colloquial term "progressive inspection" to the legal definition of the term. The problem with this is that there is no such legal term as applied to E-AB. It's like trying to find out about an annual inspection for E-AB... There isn't one, because you don't perform an "annual" on an E-AB. The term does not apply.

The real question is "Can I spread out my condition inspection over several weeks and continue to fly at the same time". The answer is clearly "yes" - as long as you are flying within 12 months of the last condition inspection logbook entry.

Some of you guys are making this much harder than it has to be.
 
Last edited:
Thanks John. Sounds like the answer (for most people who fly RV's) is "no".

Edited to add: In the USA.

No......the answer is "yes" as has been stated several times. (head hurting even more....).

We are tripping up on semantics. Several posters have referred to a "progressive inspection". This is an FAA-regulated process that is sometimes used during the course of maintenance on certificated aircraft. In my years in the RV community, I have never heard of anyone pursuing this procedure for maintaining their experimental aircraft. I'm not even sure if it is possible to get FAA permission in regard to an experimental aircraft.

The original poster, and what this thread is supposedly about, is in regard to performing the condition inspection in multiple work sessions and flying the aircraft between work sessions. What several of us have pointed out is how this does not violate the requirements of the operating limitations attached to the airworthiness certificate of our experimental aircraft to insure the aircraft has a logbook endorsement within the past 12 months stating the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation.

The answer to the original question is "YES". I don't know how to slice and dice this question any further. :)
 
"to insure the aircraft has a logbook endorsement within the past 12 months stating the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation."

This could be interpreted to mean that the logbook entry is the important thing here, quite the contrary, it's the aircraft inspection per 43. D (which includes the entire aircraft) that must be accomplished within the preceeding 12 months, after completing that task you then record it in the logbook.
 
to insure the aircraft has a logbook endorsement within the past 12 months stating the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation.

This could be interpreted to mean that the logbook entry is the important thing here, quite the contrary, it's the aircraft inspection per 43. D (which includes the entire aircraft) that must be accomplished within the preceeding 12 months, after completing that task you then record it in the logbook.

Oh good grief..............yeah, guess you could interpret my quote that way if you take it out of context and stretch it to ridiculous lengths.......

Bob Collins is rolling in the floor.......... :D
 
This could be interpreted to mean that the logbook entry is the important thing here, quite the contrary, it's the aircraft inspection per 43. D (which includes the entire aircraft) that must be accomplished within the preceeding 12 months, after completing that task you then record it in the logbook.

The only thing the FAA can verify, ever, is the logbook entry. The FAA does not and cannot, monitor the actuall inspection. While I agree the important thing is the airplane is safe and inspected correctly there is no way to PROVE this was done. How you conduct the inspection is not regulated, the log book entry is. I"M OUT
 
Oh good grief..............yeah, guess you could interpret my quote that way if you take it out of context and stretch it to ridiculous lengths.......

Bob Collins is rolling in the floor.......... :D

Perhaps I misinterpreted due to our different backrounds, I've seen plenty of falsification of aircraft records in my day because people are basically lazy and its easier to sign something off than actually do the work. I think its important that folks understand that logbooks are legal documentation of work performed.

You can be sure if an accident occurs due to a mechanical malfuction the FAA will be investigating your maintenance practices.
 
Last edited:
The "inspection" indicates it is safe; the logbook entry makes it "legal".

Lets not forget that there is no magic that ensures the aircraft is safe to fly for the 12 months (and 29 days in some cases) following a lookbook entry. You could crack a head on the very first flight after the condition inspection and never know until 13 months later, or the top of the head comes off. Yes, it is a "reasonable risk" that the airplane will not fall apart in 12 months and 29 days of operation, but that's all it is. And has been pointed out, the only thing the feds care about, as always, is that the paperwork is in order.

For those that are still wrapped around the axle thinking a multi weekend inspection/flying activity violates the spirit of the "12 month rule", consider how many of you time our inspections to end on the first day of the 13th month... The inspection may take several weekends, yet the date in the logbook is often the 1st of the month - thereby giving us a "free" month of flying.
 
Back
Top