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?

Guys, part 43 does not apply to experimental aircraft... Period.... See 43.1(b)(1). Therefore you do not have to comply with appendix D.... This does not mean that you can't use it as a guide if you want. But you are not required to abide by it.

Also if you read in Part 91.409 (c) in reference to inspections. It says nothing about a conditional inspection. It just states that an annual or 100 hr is not required if an aircraft carries an experimental cert.

While I mostly deal in the certified world, I have actually never read the ops limitations for experimentals. I can not find a reg anywhere in the FARS where it talks about conditional inspections. Could someone point me towards a reg or is the conditional inspection something called out in your aircrafts operating limitations?

In respect to doing annuals and 100hrs... I think it is common practice to perform one from start to finish in a shop and not allow them to be spread out over a month or so. I thought there was somewhere in the regs I had read something about this but I have gone cross eyed trying to find it.

As long as the inspection hasn't expired I wouldn't see an issue on experimental or certified aircraft doing an inspection over time and flying in between. We do this with jets all the time. Working on corporate aircraft I have started an inspection and then put the airplane back together so it could fly only to continue the inspection later. The big issue was to make sure there was still time left on the inspection and it didn't fly through the calander date or Hobbs time.

Most certified owners perform everything all at once because the aircraft usually comes in towards the end of the month of their experiation of annual. Usually I try to have the inspection done and sign it off at the first of the month, that way the owner technically can fly for 13 months on an inspection due to having the plane back on the first and then able to fly through to the end of the month the following year.
 
Walt said:
You can be sure if an accident occurs due to a mechanical malfuction the FAA will be investigating your maintenance practices.
Click to expand...

You are correct, I'm sure they would. It would be a very short investigation as the logbook is the only evidence of maintenance practices for us lowly EA-B owners.
 
MNAv8or said:
Guys, part 43 does not apply to experimental aircraft... Period.... See 43.1(b)(1). Therefore you do not have to comply with appendix D.... This does not mean that you can't use it as a guide if you want. But you are not required to abide by it.

Also if you read in Part 91.409 (c) in reference to inspections. It says nothing about a conditional inspection. It just states that an annual or 100 hr is not required if an aircraft carries an experimental cert.

While I mostly deal in the certified world, I have actually never read the ops limitations for experimentals. I can not find a reg anywhere in the FARS where it talks about conditional inspections. Could someone point me towards a reg or is the conditional inspection something called out in your aircrafts operating limitations?

In respect to doing annuals and 100hrs... I think it is common practice to perform one from start to finish in a shop and not allow them to be spread out over a month or so. I thought there was somewhere in the regs I had read something about this but I have gone cross eyed trying to find it.

As long as the inspection hasn't expired I wouldn't see an issue on experimental or certified aircraft doing an inspection over time and flying in between. We do this with jets all the time. Working on corporate aircraft I have started an inspection and then put the airplane back together so it could fly only to continue the inspection later. The big issue was to make sure there was still time left on the inspection and it didn't fly through the calander date or Hobbs time.

Most certified owners perform everything all at once because the aircraft usually comes in towards the end of the month of their experiation of annual. Usually I try to have the inspection done and sign it off at the first of the month, that way the owner technically can fly for 13 months on an inspection due to having the plane back on the first and then able to fly through to the end of the month the following year.
Click to expand...


EA-B Op-Lims require a "Condition" not "Conditioinal" inspection in accordance with the Scope and Detail of FAR Part 43 Appendix D.
 
MNAv8or said:
Guys, part 43 does not apply to experimental aircraft... Period.... See 43.1(b)(1). Therefore you do not have to comply with appendix D.... This does not mean that you can't use it as a guide if you want. But you are not required to abide by it...
Click to expand...

The "legal" aspects don't apply, but the ops lims require that the "practical" aspects ("detail and scope") certainly do apply. So yes, you are "required" to use 43 D as a "guide".

And it is "condition inspection" not "conditionAL"


Edit: Oops, I see Ken beat me to it.
 
Experimental operating limitations specifically state that the condition inspection is to be conducted "in accordance with the
scope and detail of appendix D of part 43". So Yes, part 43 DOES apply in this situation.

There are a couple of sections that don't normally apply to experimentals but do because of the operating limitations.

Another example is 91.205. This section does not normally apply to experimentals but the operating limitations make it apply for night and/or instrument operations.
 
RV8R999 said:
You are correct, I'm sure they would. It would be a very short investigation as the logbook is the only evidence of maintenance practices for us lowly EA-B owners.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was thinking!

FAA: "I'm here to investigate your maintenance practices"

Pilot: "Here's the logbook entry"

FAA: "OK, have a nice day"
 
RV8R999 said:
EA-B Op-Lims require a "Condition" not "Conditioinal" inspection in accordance with the Scope and Detail of FAR Part 43 Appendix D.
Click to expand...

Ahh, so the Adminstrator (FAA) determines the condition inspection requirement. Sorry did not mean conditional. Are op-lims different from one experimental to another (one rv8 compared to another rv8) or could they be different? I see now why everyone has been quoting the part 43 appendix d issue. While the reg doesn't apply to experimentals, it's easier to say "everything listed here" then listing out everything in the op-lims individually. I do know a gentleman that his op-lims do not include the "scope and detail of 43 appendix D" but he actually listed out everything. When you compared the two it was more or less the same, he just wanted it listed out for some reason, why he did it that way who knows.
 
Sam Buchanan said:
No......the answer is "yes" as has been stated several times. (head hurting even more....).
Click to expand...
And I'll point out again: not in Canada.

The way I read it, in the US, if you perform all of the yearly maintenance and condition inspections through the course of a calendar year, and then write up a logbook entry when you finish the last item on the list that says "condition inspection completed on this day IAW...etc", then over the long term you will have met the spirit of the requirement... That everything be checked nominally once every calendar year. You might have some items that run 11 months and others 13, and the next year they could be the other way around.

In Canada however, the CAR's do clearly list a procedure approved by the minister that starts with removal of inspection panels and finishes with installation of them. In between are all the items that you'd want to stretch over multiple weekends (or months). If you want to spread some of the larger tasks out across the flying season to reduce downtime or make the workload of an annual more manageable, you have to apply to the minister with your proposed procedure.

At least, according to wording of the regs.
 
Originally Posted by Sam Buchanan:
No......the answer is "yes" as has been stated several times. (head hurting even more....).
Click to expand...

Snowflake said:
And I'll point out again: not in Canada.

The way I read it, in the US, if you perform all of the yearly maintenance and condition inspections through the course of a calendar year, and then write up a logbook entry when you finish the last item on the list that says "condition inspection completed on this day IAW...etc", then over the long term you will have met the spirit of the requirement... That everything be checked nominally once every calendar year. You might have some items that run 11 months and others 13, and the next year they could be the other way around.

In Canada however, the CAR's do clearly list a procedure approved by the minister that starts with removal of inspection panels and finishes with installation of them. In between are all the items that you'd want to stretch over multiple weekends (or months). If you want to spread some of the larger tasks out across the flying season to reduce downtime or make the workload of an annual more manageable, you have to apply to the minister with your proposed procedure.

At least, according to wording of the regs.
Click to expand...

My responses (and the original poster's question) were clearly in regard to experimental requirements in the USA. I am not familiar with Canadian regulations. No doubt our neighbors to the North will appreciate your description of Canadian regs.
 
Last edited:
MNAv8or said:
Ahh, so the Adminstrator (FAA) determines the condition inspection requirement. Sorry did not mean conditional. Are op-lims different from one experimental to another (one rv8 compared to another rv8) or could they be different? I see now why everyone has been quoting the part 43 appendix d issue. While the reg doesn't apply to experimentals, it's easier to say "everything listed here" then listing out everything in the op-lims individually. I do know a gentleman that his op-lims do not include the "scope and detail of 43 appendix D" but he actually listed out everything. When you compared the two it was more or less the same, he just wanted it listed out for some reason, why he did it that way who knows.
Click to expand...

We have a "canned" op lims that we must go by. They are clearly stated in FAA Order 8130.2. We can add any limitations that we think are necessary, but we may NOT remove any.
If someone has op lims without the requirements of using part 43, appendix D, then a specific inspection procedure had to be approved specifically by the FAA or they were issued in error.
 
There's a "List" for that...

As I read this, and think ahead to the day(s) when I will do a condition inspection, I would be very interested in seeing a checklist that someone has compiled for an RV-8. I especially like the thought of having a list of consumable and having them on hand for when they are needed. For now, I would like the list as a learning tool ? as well as a starting point for my own list someday.

Thanks!:D ? and If so inclined, please email your list to : james novak 23 @ gmail dot com (no spaces, of course)
 
I bet

Sam Buchanan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Id bet that if you do an oil change and filter inspection on july1st...and enter that in your log and then you fly your aircraft a few hours and sign off the condition inspection july 10th and july 11th you have an engine failure and the screen is found full of engine parts you will be found in noncompliance. Im not saying anything about whats reasonable..im saying when the feds check your logs you are not going to get any slack from them or your insurance company...



Cm
 
Christopher Murphy said:
Id bet that if you do an oil change and filter inspection on july1st...and enter that in your log and then you fly your aircraft a few hours and sign off the condition inspection july 10th and july 11th you have an engine failure and the screen is found full of engine parts you will be found in noncompliance. Im not saying anything about whats reasonable..im saying when the feds check your logs you are not going to get any slack from them or your insurance company...



Cm
Click to expand...

Ok...it's been five years but I will bite....... ;)

When conducting a condition inspection on my plane over the course of a week or so, nothing goes into the logs until the inspection is complete. The scenario described in the quoted post doesn't apply in my case.

There....good for another five years. :)
 
Same old, same old...

Sam,
Great hearing from you, 20th anniversary of my Prattville RV fly-in you helped me so much with. Time flies, literally.

This post reminds me of a great verse from my favorite book:
"There is nothing new under the sun"...

Conditional responses to favorite RV questions over the years:
1. No it's not a certified airplane.
2. No, it doesn't have to have an Engine logbook. (but it's nice)
3. No, RV service bulletins are not mandatory. (but like a request from your wife you ignore, can come back to haunt you)
4. Experimental is an Experiment.
5. It can't be certified IFR if it's not certified in the first place. (it can however comply with the flight in IMC requirements in the FAR-AIM:))

Just shows to go ya...
Happy Easter, for another five years!
Smokey
 
Last edited:
Another 5 years have passed....

Anybody feeling nostalgic? I do the extended phased condition check. Just the other day, a local A&P stopped in and said "nope, you can't do that legally" I just blinked. Should have said "show me the reg".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top