Owner pilot maintenance of an E-AB airplane without repairman's certificate?

[vasrv7a]

Can someone please point to the source that will explain what maintenance an owner pilot of an E-AB airplane can perform who does not have the repairman's certificate for that airplane. I need to replace the electric fuel pump (Facet 40108) on my RV and would like to know if I am required to have an A&P do the work, or am I permitted to do it myself.

Thanx.

Victor

 

[Sid Lambert]

You can do anything that is comfortable and safe yourself. If you are not mechanically inclined it may be best to save it for someone who is or at least consult them.

The only thing you can't do legally is the condition inspection.

If you want to replace the engine with a rubber band powered unit you are free to do so with some paperwork of course.

 

[Mel]

As far as pointing to a regulation. It's actually a "lack" of regulation.

Part 43 is the reg that states who CAN perform maintenance on aircraft and part 43 does not apply to experimental aircraft except where referenced in the operating limitations in regards to the condition inspection.

 

[az_gila]

As far as pointing to a regulation. It's actually a "lack" of regulation.

Part 43 is the reg that states who CAN perform maintenance on aircraft and part 43 does not apply to experimental aircraft except where referenced in the operating limitations in regards to the condition inspection.

Mel,

Even though Part 43 doe not fully apply, I presume that the recording requirements of 91.417 are still applicable.

Is that correct?

 

[Mel]

Mel,
Even though Part 43 doe not fully apply, I presume that the recording requirements of 91.417 are still applicable.
Is that correct?

That is correct!

 

[vasrv7a]

So, if I correctly understand the replies... I am permitted to change the electric fuel pump myself if I so choose. However I am still required to record the activity in the aircraft log book just as I do when changing the oil for instance...?

Thanx everyone...

Victor

 

[Sam Buchanan]

So, if I correctly understand the replies... I am permitted to change the electric fuel pump myself if I so choose. However I am still required to record the activity in the aircraft log book just as I do when changing the oil for instance...?

Thanx everyone...

Victor

There are no regulations per FARs to make any entries in the logs except for completion of the annual condition inspection.

I know this is startling for someone coming out of the certificated universe--welcome to Experimental Aviation!

 

[az_gila]

There are no regulations per FARs to make any entries in the logs except for completion of the annual condition inspection.

I know this is startling for someone coming out of the certificated universe--welcome to Experimental Aviation!

Not if you believe that 91.417 applies to Experimentals -

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id...8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10.5.7.10&idno=14

And the FAA does not use the word "logs" or "log book" - they refer to them as "maintenance records" and can be in any form - even on toilet paper as long as you keep them as required...

....
(1) Records of the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alteration and records of the 100-hour, annual, progressive, and other required or approved inspections, as appropriate, for each aircraft (including the airframe) and each engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance of an aircraft. The records must include—
....

 

[RVDan]

Curious if part 91 rules like 91.407 and 91.417 which are applicable to our experimental aircraft (91.1) and reference back part 43, invokes those limited sections of part 43 by reference?

Seems to me like the language would do that. Therefore, aircraft record entries would be required for the listed types of maintenance??

Anybody oficially know if this is true?

 

[vasrv7a]

Wow... Thanx for all the great info!!!

Much appreciated.

Victor

 

[az_gila]

What Sam said. No requirement to record the activity. May be a good idea to do so, but not required.

Anyone can work on your experimental aircraft. Even you!

Only a holder of the "Repairman Certificate" or an A&P (does not have to hold an IA authorization) can authorize the airplane as airworthy via a condition inspection.

So you think that Experimentals are exempt from the general record keeping portions of 91.417?

Why would that be so?

The links to Part 43 I can see, but preventative maintenance is not really a part 43 issue.

Do the general Operating Limitations exempt record keeping?

 

[Bob Kuykendall]

What Sam said. No requirement to record the activity. May be a good idea to do so, but not required.

Anyone can work on your experimental aircraft. Even you!

Only a holder of the "Repairman Certificate" or an A&P (does not have to hold an IA authorization) can authorize the airplane as airworthy via a condition inspection.

Minor nitpick: In this context, the word "airworthy" has a specific meaning; it means that an aircraft conforms to the data in its type certificate. As EAB aircraft by definition do not have TCs, they can be signed off as "being in a condition for safe operation," but technically speaking they can't be signed off as being "airworthy."

Edited to add: Regarding the OP, this article has the information you're looking for:

http://www.wanttaja.com/avlinks/MAINT.HTM

Thanks, Bob K.

 

[az_gila]

Recording work

What Sam said. No requirement to record the activity. May be a good idea to do so, but not required.

Anyone can work on your experimental aircraft. Even you!

Only a holder of the "Repairman Certificate" or an A&P (does not have to hold an IA authorization) can authorize the airplane as airworthy via a condition inspection.

Minor nitpick: In this context, the word "airworthy" has a specific meaning; it means that an aircraft conforms to the data in its type certificate. As EAB aircraft by definition do not have TCs, they can be signed off as "being in a condition for safe operation," but technically speaking they can't be signed off as being "airworthy."

Edited to add: Regarding the OP, this article has the information you're looking for:

http://www.wanttaja.com/avlinks/MAINT.HTM

Thanks, Bob K.

That article implies that all work needs to be recorded in this line...

"...Let me clarify this. Anyone can work on an experimental aircraft and sign off the work..."

Does anyone else think that maintenance work on an Experimental does not need to be recorded?

 

[RVbySDI]

Ok guys, for the benefit of removing any confusion I have created, I have deleted my post on this thread. God knows I am no expert on the FAA regulations. I will refrain from making comments about such regulations in the future.

Oh, and Gil, just to clarify, I do indeed record any repairs or maintenance work that I do on my aircraft, regardless of what the regulations do or do not say about record keeping.

 

[Toobuilder]

...Does anyone else think that maintenance work on an Experimental does not need to be recorded...?

If you're looking for a poll, then my answer is "yes"... If you're looking for an online slugfest, try somewhere else.

And for the record, I don't think AD's apply either!

 

[az_gila]

FAR link?

If you're looking for a poll, then my answer is "yes"... If you're looking for an online slugfest, try somewhere else.

And for the record, I don't think AD's apply either!

Not looking for a poll, and I agree about the AD's as long as the AD Applicability section does not include experimentals - they usually don't.


It is just saying (on record and in public) that no record keeping required is a pretty drastic statement and no-one can seem to point to any bit of the FARs or other regulations to back up that statement.

Even though Part 43 is not applicable, almost all (all?) of Part 91 does apply to Experimentals.

Can you back up your no record keeping statement with a regulation?

I'm not looking for a slugfest, just some backup for a pretty drastic statement...


For clarification - Part 91 applicability

§91.1 Applicability.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section and §§91.701 and 91.703, this part prescribes rules governing the operation of aircraft (other than moored balloons, kites, unmanned rockets, and unmanned free balloons, which are governed by part 101 of this chapter, and ultralight vehicles operated in accordance with part 103 of this chapter) within the United States, including the waters within 3 nautical miles of the U.S. coast.

(b) Each person operating an aircraft in the airspace overlying the waters between 3 and 12 nautical miles from the coast of the United States must comply with §§91.1 through 91.21; §§91.101 through 91.143; §§91.151 through 91.159; §§91.167 through 91.193; §91.203; §91.205; §§91.209 through 91.217; §91.221, §91.225; §§91.303 through 91.319; §§91.323 through 91.327; §91.605; §91.609; §§91.703 through 91.715; and §91.903.

(c) This part applies to each person on board an aircraft being operated under this part, unless otherwise specified.

(d) This part also establishes requirements for operators to take actions to support the continued airworthiness of each airplane.


91.701 and 91.703 is for operations outside the US.

 

[Toobuilder]

Ok, my take, since you asked...

I believe the intent of documenting maintenance on aircraft falls right in line with the reason for an annual inspection on a certified aircraft - ensuring compliance with the TC. Or more succinctly, to maintain configuration control. Does anyone (aside from the owner) really CARE if the oil has been changed out on a C-172? No. You really only care that it is there. But removing the oil, filter and suction screen render the aircraft noncompliant with the TC, and therefore it is "unairworthy" temporarily. If you add air to a slightly low tire on this same airplane, do you document it? Of course not. It was compliant with the TC before, and it never deviated from that configuration. Aircraft maintenance recording is first and foremost about configuration control. Scheduling, convenience, safety, etc., are byproducts of this overarching requirement.

Therefore, Experimentals, with no TC, have no "configuration" to maintain except for the very broad categories listed in the OL. Nobody (aside from the owner) "cares" if a wheel and tire were removed just as long as the aircraft "is in a condition for safe operation" at the time of flight.

Is a well-documented maintenance record a good idea? Certainly. But on an E-AB with no real requirement other than to remain "safe" and generally within the "Phase 1" configuration, a run of the mill maintenance entry serves no regulatory purpose.

Now, if someone can point to a regulation that says "you shall document all E-AB maintenance..." I will change my stance 100%. But as long as it is open to interpretation, I'm going to rely on my experience in the aerospace industry to guide my opinion.

 

[az_gila]

Thanks for the reply.

It seems we disagree on the meaning (and wording) of 91.417, which I interpret as being applicable to all aircraft, including E-AB -

....
(1) Records of the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alteration and records of the 100-hour, annual, progressive, and other required or approved inspections, as appropriate, for each aircraft (including the airframe) and each engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance of an aircraft. The records must include—
....

I say it does meet your requirement -

"...Now, if someone can point to a regulation that says "you shall document all E-AB maintenance..." I will change my stance 100%. But as long as it is open to interpretation, I'm going to rely on my experience in the aerospace industry to guide my opinion...."



It would be interesting to get an official ruling...

 

[RVbySDI]

Thanks for the reply.

It seems we disagree on the meaning (and wording) of 91.417, which I interpret as being applicable to all aircraft, including E-AB -

....
(1) Records of the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alteration and records of the 100-hour, annual, progressive, and other required or approved inspections, as appropriate, for each aircraft (including the airframe) and each engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance of an aircraft. The records must include?
....

I say it does meet your requirement -

"...Now, if someone can point to a regulation that says "you shall document all E-AB maintenance..." I will change my stance 100%. But as long as it is open to interpretation, I'm going to rely on my experience in the aerospace industry to guide my opinion...."



It would be interesting to get an official ruling...

Gil,
As I have already stated, I am no expert on FAA Regulations but what bothers me about your reference is the section that states . . .as appropriate, for each aircraft. . .

The regulation you are referring to does not define exactly what mechanism is to be used to determine what is appropriate. It appears to me that, by your logic, we must all be performing 100 hour inspections, annuals, and progressive inspections also. If the interpretation does not follow that logic, well, then, the dilemma I see is that we must use some other regulation to determine what is or is not appropriate for a 100 hour inspection, annual, progressive and other required or approved inspection.

I suppose one could argue that the "other required or approved inspection" encompasses the condition inspection we perform on experimental aircraft. But to me that is an inference made from an interpretation not the literal reading of a regulation.

 

[Toobuilder]

Thanks for the reply.

It seems we disagree on the meaning (and wording) of 91.417, which I interpret as being applicable to all aircraft, including E-AB...

Fair enough. Our disagreement is not at all surprising considering the FAA often disagrees with itself when interpreting these regs.

But consider this:

Because there are no standards for the actual maintenance to be performed with on an experimental, what is the regulatory value of documenting that maintenance? For instance, if you have the neighbors 10 year old kid change a cylinder on your engine, what is the value in documenting that action from a regulatory, safety or configuration control standpoint? None, because there is no assurance (or by default, "requirement") that the job was performed correctly, and therefore, the documentation can not accurately represent the present condition of the aircraft. "Safe operation" still falls to you, the operator. With a certified aircraft, a licensed mechanic is "certifying" that he used his training and skill to maintain the configuration and compliance with the TC. With an E-AB, the logbook may or may not reflect the current condition of the aircraft - without the qualification to back up a certification statement the entry is just meaningless words on a page...

 

[az_gila]

Gil,
As I have already stated, I am no expert on FAA Regulations but what bothers me about your reference is the section that states . . .as appropriate, for each aircraft. . .

The regulation you are referring to does not define exactly what mechanism is to be used to determine what is appropriate. It appears to me that, by your logic, we must all be performing 100 hour inspections, annuals, and progressive inspections also. If the interpretation does not follow that logic, well, then, the dilemma I see is that we must use some other regulation to determine what is or is not appropriate for a 100 hour inspection, annual, progressive and other required or approved inspection.

I suppose one could argue that the "other required or approved inspection" encompasses the condition inspection we perform on experimental aircraft. But to me that is an inference made from an interpretation not the literal reading of a regulation.

Interesting point, but the listing of the bits in between the "ands" needs to be looked at...

...and records of the 100-hour, annual, progressive, and other required or approved inspections, as appropriate, for each aircraft...

This "and" bit covers required inspections that vary for different types of aircraft, with the E-AB covered by the "other required inspections"

I don't see that as negating the other recording requirements covered by the previous "ands".

100 hr inspections are listed, but as you know they are usually not required for most privately operated planes, so your all encompassing assumption cannot be made, even for non-experimental aircraft. What is an appropriate inspection is detailed in the other parts of the FARs.

I too spent a lot of my professional career reading specifications, and think it's pretty clear, well as clear as the FAA gets...

 

[RVDan]

AC 43-9 addresses the requirements for the recording of maintenance, preventative maintenance and inspection in some detail. While it is a 43 series AC it does specifically address part 91 requirements.

I am with Gil, part 91 applies to E-AB and we folow that in other cases (for example we get logbook entries for transponder checks under 91.411/.413 right?). The AC also addresses the principle reasons for requiring entries.

I'm sure after reading the AC there will be lots of comments, but let me add this piece. If I ever do a prebuy inspection on an E-AB and log entries are obvioulsy missing, I recommend against the purchase. Those log entries tell us a lot about what has happened to the aircraft in the past. So rules or not, I would recommend that accurate entries are kept.

 

[Toobuilder]

...I am with Gil, part 91 applies to E-AB and we folow that in other cases (for example we get logbook entries for transponder checks under 91.411/.413 right?). The AC also addresses the principle reasons for requiring entries....

Can "anybody" sign off a transponder check, or does it need to be someone who is trained and qualified to "certify" the equipment? ...See where I'm going with this?

...I'm sure after reading the AC there will be lots of comments, but let me add this piece. If I ever do a prebuy inspection on an E-AB and log entries are obvioulsy missing, I recommend against the purchase. Those log entries tell us a lot about what has happened to the aircraft in the past. So rules or not, I would recommend that accurate entries are kept.

I agree there. The guy who purchased my airplane did so primarily on the strength of the records I kept.

But just like AD's, there is a difference between "best practices" and "requirements of law".

 

[az_gila]

AC 43-9 addresses the requirements for the recording of maintenance, preventative maintenance and inspection in some detail. While it is a 43 series AC it does specifically address part 91 requirements.

I am with Gil, part 91 applies to E-AB and we folow that in other cases (for example we get logbook entries for transponder checks under 91.411/.413 right?). The AC also addresses the principle reasons for requiring entries.

I'm sure after reading the AC there will be lots of comments, but let me add this piece. If I ever do a prebuy inspection on an E-AB and log entries are obvioulsy missing, I recommend against the purchase. Those log entries tell us a lot about what has happened to the aircraft in the past. So rules or not, I would recommend that accurate entries are kept.

Thanks Dan,

I specifically avoided the Advisory Circular since that always creates a flood of "It's not a regulation, it's only a suggestion" responses...
I wanted to keep it on a FAR level since that is the claim for maintenance non-recording on E-AB aircraft.


However, for reference here is AC 43-9

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/list/AC%2043-9C/$FILE/AC43-9C.pdf

 

[az_gila]

Can "anybody" sign off a transponder check, or does it need to be someone who is trained and qualified to "certify" the equipment? ...See where I'm going with this?

.....

Interesting that you bring up the transponder checks.

FAR 91.417 on Maintenance Records starts off with that FAR being a separate item...

Sec. 91.417 ? Maintenance records.
(a) Except for work performed in accordance with ??91.411 and 91.413, each registered owner or operator shall keep the following records...

...see where else this can go when complying with 91.417....

 

[RVDan]

Agreed that AC's are advisory- unless they represent the FAA's interpretation of a rule.

One has to do what they think is right, and for me that means complying with part 91.

On the issue of 91.411, .413, yes it does require a 145 repair station (A&P for leak checks) and further, the rule requires the checks to be done in accordance with Part 43 appendix E and F. So there are examples of 91 referencing back to 43 for E-AB. Otherwise none of us would need to get transponder checks or altimeter checks for IFR.

Just some thoughts...

 

[Toobuilder]

Ok, I guess we'll agree to disagree on this issue (what a shock).

To reiterate, I think accurate and complete logbooks have value.

But I also believe there is no regulatory mechanism which would benefit from nonstandard entries made by untrained persons performing maintenance on one off, non configuration controlled aircraft, therefore, in the absence of clear "thou shall..." direction, I'm going with routine logbook entries as "optional".

 

[RV7A Flyer]

IANAL, but I've spent plenty of time with government processes and rules, so here goes my take FWIW.

The regulation in question:

(a) Except for work performed in accordance with ??91.411 and 91.413, each registered owner or operator shall keep the following records for the periods specified in paragraph (b) of this section:

(1) Records of the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alteration and records of the 100-hour, annual, progressive, and other required or approved inspections, as appropriate, for each aircraft (including the airframe) and each engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance of an aircraft. The records must include?

(i) A description (or reference to data acceptable to the Administrator) of the work performed; and

(ii) The date of completion of the work performed; and

(iii) The signature, and certificate number of the person approving the aircraft for return to service.
​

In a nutshell, the debate is over this set of clauses:

"Records of the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alteration and records of the 100-hour, annual, progressive, and other required or approved inspections, as appropriate, for each aircraft ..."

In simple English, this is two active clauses, one concerning *maintenance*, and the other concerning *inspections*.

"Records of the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alteration

and

Records of the 100-hour, annual, progressive, and other required or approved inspections, as appropriate..."

The first clause is not restricted by the "as appropriate" modifier. Thus, it would, it appears, apply uniformly. And I think that makes sense...maintenance, preventive maintenance and "alteration" (whatever that means) gets logged.

The second clause applies to *inspections*...100-hour, annual, whatever is appropriate for the aircraft (i.e., 100-hour inspections have nothing to do with type certificates...that's dependent upon whether the aircraft is used for hire). If 100-hours are not appropriate because the plane is not used for hire, then clearly, there's no need to log it.

*I* would have written this as two separate requirements, but that's because in my line of work, such compound requirements are, uh, bad...see the confusion they lead to?

 

[Toobuilder]

And I get hung up on

(iii) The signature, and certificate number of the person approving the aircraft for return to service.

This makes it clear to me that this only applies in situations where there can be a "certification". As discussed, there are very few areas in E-AB where someone can honestly "certify" anything.

...because if your neighbor, Bubba, who built the fastest airboat on the swamp, did the top overhaul on your engine for you but has never seen a Lycoming OH manual and can't even spell "Type Certificate", will not have a certificate number, nor will be able to "approve" the aircraft for return to service. Unlike an A&P, who's butt is on the line and CAN "certify" and "approve", Bubba's log book entry may have all the right words and great penmanship, but has almost zero value. Yes, you will be able to tell some kind of maintenance happened, but his signature gives you no indication the aircraft is in a "condition for safe flight". Heck, it might even be WORSE off than it was before.

"Certification" is an action, not just words.

 

[RV7A Flyer]

And I get hung up on

(iii) The signature, and certificate number of the person approving the aircraft for return to service.

This makes it clear to me that this only applies in situations where there can be a "certification". As discussed, there are very few areas in E-AB where someone can honestly "certify" anything.

...because if your neighbor, Bubba, who built the fastest airboat on the swamp, did the top overhaul on your engine for you but has never seen a Lycoming OH manual and can't even spell "Type Certificate", will not have a certificate number, nor will be able to "approve" the aircraft for return to service. Unlike an A&P, who's butt is on the line and CAN "certify" and "approve", Bubba's log book entry may have all the right words and great penmanship, but has almost zero value. Yes, you will be able to tell some kind of maintenance happened, but his signature gives you no indication the aircraft is in a "condition for safe flight". Heck, it might even be WORSE off than it was before.

"Certification" is an action, not just words.

Although you may have a valid point about how does someone without any kind of certificate (license) sign off on work done on an E-AB, that's got *nothing* to do with "type certificates" *for a plane*.

"Certificate" means different things, too...pilots can be certificated, and planes can be certificated.

Since anyone can do work on an E-AB (a point not under debate), the question is not about indicating that the aircraft is in condition for safe flight (wording directly from the *annual condition inspection*, which is a required inspection and must be done by the holder of the repairman's certificate or an A&P), but rather it is about *record-keeping*.

You talk about the A&P "certifying" something...I think you're casually mixing words like "certificate", "certifying", etc., which have pretty specific meanings. The actual regulation says the person "approves" the aircraft for return to service; they're not "certifying" anything in the legal/FAR sense.

Planes and pilots and mechanics get "certificated". They don't get certified. A plane is "approved" for return to service. It's not certified for return to service.

This sounds pedantic, but the right use of the right words (much like the proper parsing of multiple clauses conjoined into a single statemen) is important. Words matter.

 

[jabarr]

The approved wording for a condition inspection starts with the words "I certify that--------". So doesn't that mean we "certify" in the FAA sense.

 

[Mel]

The approved wording for a condition inspection starts with the words "I certify that--------". So doesn't that mean we "certify" in the FAA sense.

In this case you are "certifying" your statement, not the aircraft.

 

[jabarr]

In this case you are "certifying" your statement, not the aircraft.

That makes sense---thanks.

 

[RV7A Flyer]

and note that an annual condition inspection is *required*, and required to be logged, and can only be "certified" (signed) by an A&P or the holder of the Repairman's Certificate.

I think that bringing in *inspections* (condition or otherwise) is just confusing the issue.

The original question, IIRC, was about logging *maintenance*, not inspections.

To which I submit that the first clause of the FAR listed above is controlling.

HOW ones logs it is a different matter.

 

[Toobuilder]

In this case you are "certifying" your statement, not the aircraft.

And what possible value is that? I can "certify" that I believe the stock market is going to crash tomorrow... Are you going to dump all your stock today?

The reason an A&P's (or repairmans) signature is valuable is because they are trained/have the experience to "approve" a repair or maintenance action. It's not about the ink; its about the experience and expertise behind the ink.

 

[Toobuilder]

Although you may have a valid point about how does someone without any kind of certificate (license) sign off on work done on an E-AB, that's got *nothing* to do with "type certificates" *for a plane...

So how does Bubba, the airboat builder, comply with the requirement to document his "certificate number"?

...Since anyone can do work on an E-AB (a point not under debate), the question is not about indicating that the aircraft is in condition for safe flight (wording directly from the *annual condition inspection*, which is a required inspection and must be done by the holder of the repairman's certificate or an A&P), but rather it is about *record-keeping*.

And what are records? They are used to maintain configuration control. They are used to tell at a glance what the condition of the aircraft is in. Bubba's entry can't accomplish that, no matter how many times he says "I certify".

I think we are simply trying to force a square peg in a round hole here. E-AB's are similar in appearance to the certified world, but a world apart when it comes to the regulatory processes in place to manage a configuration controlled fleet. It's apples and bowling balls...

 

[RV7A Flyer]

And what possible value is that? I can "certify" that I believe the stock market is going to crash tomorrow... Are you going to dump all your stock today?

The reason an A&P's (or repairmans) signature is valuable is because they are trained/have the experience to "approve" a repair or maintenance action. It's not about the ink; its about the experience and expertise behind the ink.

It's pretty much excess verbiage. But it's what the regulations say.

"I certify that I have inspected and blah blah" could just as easily (and if you were to ask my high school English teachers, better) written as

"I have inspected and blah blah"

The extra "I certify" doesn't add anything.

Do you think in a court of law if someone wrote the latter instead of the former that it would make any difference?

 

[RV7A Flyer]

So how does Bubba, the airboat builder, comply with the requirement to document his "certificate number"?

I don't know. That's probably a good question for the FAA. Most likely, that regulation in its entirety (including the part about how to sign) has been there for like 70 years, and since it takes an act of God to change things like that, it never got updated to reflect the growth of E-AB.

I don't quite understand your reasoning...you're using a portion of a subsection regarding the elements of a record entry to invalidate the entire regulation?

Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I would argue that that's probably not a correct legal approach.

And what are records? They are used to maintain configuration control. They are used to tell at a glance what the condition of the aircraft is in. Bubba's entry can't accomplish that, no matter how many times he says "I certify".

I think we are simply trying to force a square peg in a round hole here. E-AB's are similar in appearance to the certified world, but a world apart when it comes to the regulatory processes in place to manage a configuration controlled fleet. It's apples and bowling balls...

I think you're taking a very limited view of records, that they are *only* for CM. That's not true, since as you noted, E-ABs *have* no such requirement.

Records are also for things like accident investigations, safety, compliance with ADs or other regulations, etc.

 

[Toobuilder]

...I don't quite understand your reasoning...you're using a portion of a subsection regarding the elements of a record entry to invalidate the entire regulation?..

Absolutely. It either ALL applies, or it does not apply. We're talking about regulation here.

...I think you're taking a very limited view of records, that they are *only* for CM...

It is a limited view, it has to be. CM is the overarching requirement. The other benefits are incidental. And this "view" comes from 25+ years of military, civilian and production/OEM aircraft training/experience. I know CM.

...That's not true, since as you noted, E-ABs *have* no such requirement...

EXACTLY! Now you see the light.

 

[RV7A Flyer]

Absolutely. It either ALL applies, or it does not apply. We're talking about regulation here.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think this is correct. There's a principle called separability, and IIRC, in general, the invalidity of a portion of a law does not necessarily invalidate the entire law.

Alternatively (thinking like a lawyer now ), if the person who did the work on an E-AB had no certificate (Pilot or Mechanic), then they could just write "None" for certificate number.

Again, a question for the FAA.

It is a limited view, it has to be. CM is the overarching requirement. The other benefits are incidental. And this "view" comes from 25+ years of military, civilian and production/OEM aircraft training/experience. I know CM.

I know CM, too, with 25+ years in aerospace. What I don't know is the law, with 0 years as a lawyer (I suspect the same is true for you). Which is why I keep saying that, absent a different interpretation from the FAA or an aviation lawyer whom one has retained, I think you'd be better off following the active clause:

"(a) Except for work performed in accordance with §§91.411 and 91.413, each registered owner or operator shall keep the following records for the periods specified in paragraph (b) of this section:

(1) Records of the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alteration..."

I don't see any exception for E-AB in there.

 

[RV7A Flyer]

As for whether 91.anything applies to E-ABs at all...

Sec. 91.401 ? Applicability.
(a) This subpart prescribes rules governing the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations of U.S.-registered civil aircraft operating within or outside of the United States.

(b) Sections 91.405, 91.409, 91.411, 91.417, and 91.419 of this subpart do not apply to an aircraft maintained in accordance with a continuous airworthiness maintenance program as provided in part 121, 129, or ??91.1411 or 135.411(a)(2) of this chapter.

(c) Sections 91.405 and 91.409 of this part do not apply to an airplane inspected in accordance with part 125 of this chapter.
​

I see no exclusion for E-ABs in there.

 

[RV7A Flyer]

I think you're taking a very limited view of records, that they are *only* for CM. That's not true, since as you noted, E-ABs *have* no such requirement.

EXACTLY! Now you see the light.

Petitio principii...you assume that CM is the only reason for documenting maintenance, then take the absence of CM for E-ABs as proof that CM is the only reason for documenting maintenance.

 

[Toobuilder]

So it really comes down to two different paths for an admitedly common issue:

I question the validity of the the regulation based on the fact that you CAN'T comply without perjuring yourself (no cert number for Bubba) as well as my fairly extensive grasp of the regulatory reason for maintaining aircraft records. There's simply no practical reason (aside from "checking a box") to maintain unsubstantiated records for an aircraft. There is some doubt - I'm taking full benefit from it.

You are taking the conservative view and giving the FAA the full benefit of the doubt. That's fine and you might be right (but I'll bet we could find a FSDO that would support each of us!) That's just not in my nature... The Feds need to PROVE it to me.

 

[Toobuilder]

Petitio principii...you assume that CM is the only reason for documenting maintenance, then take the absence of CM for E-ABs as proof that CM is the only reason for documenting maintenance.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about your position!

OTOH, I "KNOW" CM is the primary objective of aircraft records.

That is, unless everything I've been taught in the last 25 years is wrong.

 

[RV7A Flyer]

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about your position!

OTOH, I "KNOW" CM is the primary objective of aircraft records.

That is, unless everything I've been taught in the last 25 years is wrong.

Primary, or only?

It certainly can be the *primary* objective, but not the *sole* objective.

Are you saying that the ONLY reason for keeping maintenance records is for configuration management? That they have NO other purpose?

(BTW, I never disagreed that CM is *a* purpose for record-keeping).

 

[Toobuilder]

It is the primary objective in a broad sense and the "only" objective in a regulatory sense.

While admitting a logbook's value at resale time or when keeping track of oil change intervals, the Feds certainly are not going to write a regulation on the basis of helping the aircraft owner manage his aircraft. No, they need an enforceable means ensure CM. As I’ve stated before, all other benefits are valuable, but incidental.

Bubba's entry in an E-AB maintenance record is neither enforceable by the Feds (no certificate to pull), nor valuable to someone trying to ascertain the current condition of the aircraft (because regardless of what Bubba writes, it might be wrong).

At the bottom line it appears that we’re at an impasse. I’ll not likely be convinced that the Feds are going force a square peg into a round hole and apply the “letter of the law” to a process that can only be partially met, or in “spirit”. If there is a process, there has to be a remedy. All or nothing.

 

[az_gila]

.....
Bubba's entry in an E-AB maintenance record is neither enforceable by the Feds (no certificate to pull), nor valuable to someone trying to ascertain the current condition of the aircraft (because regardless of what Bubba writes, it might be wrong).
.......

Bubba's entry would certainly help when the NTSB does it's investigation over the broken bolt that Bubba over-torqued with his vice grips...

It's also not Bubba's responsibility to make the entry, it's the owners -

"...each registered owner or operator shall keep the following records..."

---------------------

The logs also help adherence to 91.7...

Sec. 91.7 ? Civil aircraft airworthiness.

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition.

(b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur.

 

[Toobuilder]

Bubba's entry would certainly help when the NTSB does it's investigation over the broken bolt that Bubba over-torqued with his vice grips...

Maintenance records can be a valuable (if incidental) piece of info in a crash investigation, for sure. But that value drops dramatically when there is no standard by which it can be measured, such as the case with an E-AB. All they might know is that some form of work was performed on the engine. Also, it seems unreasonable to require by regulation a maintenance entry "just in case" an aircraft crashes. Because as we all know, the NTSB does not much care about finding the cause of crashes for "one off" E-AB aircraft... They want to know about a problem with a "fleet" of aircraft in a known configuration. And the 8,000+ flying RV's are not a "fleet" except in the most broad interpretation. In the Feds eyes, those are 8,000+ individual aircraft

It's also not Bubba's responsibility to make the entry, it's the owners -

"...each registered owner or operator shall keep the following records..."

The operative word being "keep"... Not "make".

Certainly you are not suggesting that an owner make an entry in an aircraft record "certifying" that they performed work accomplished by someone else?

 

[az_gila]

....

The operative word being "keep"... Not "make".

Certainly you are not suggesting that an owner make an entry in an aircraft record "certifying" that they performed work accomplished by someone else?

Not suggesting that - but I am saying it is the owners responsibility to make sure the records are kept to the FAR required standards...

If an A&P did not put down a date or certificate number, it is the owners responsibly to get him to correct the entry. That is quite clearly stated.

As previously stated, the discussion is over what those standards are...

 

[RV7A Flyer]

It is the primary objective in a broad sense and the "only" objective in a regulatory sense.

Interestingly, I searched the entirety of Part 91 subpart E for the word "configuration".

"No matches found"

While admitting a logbook's value at resale time or when keeping track of oil change intervals, the Feds certainly are not going to write a regulation on the basis of helping the aircraft owner manage his aircraft. No, they need an enforceable means ensure CM. As I?ve stated before, all other benefits are valuable, but incidental.

Safety is "incidental"? An interesting view of the regulations. Perhaps not incorrect, I guess.

At the bottom line it appears that we?re at an impasse. I?ll not likely be convinced that the Feds are going force a square peg into a round hole and apply the ?letter of the law? to a process that can only be partially met, or in ?spirit?. If there is a process, there has to be a remedy. All or nothing.

Well, again, plenty of statutes and regulations have separable parts...it IS a principle of law, so it could very well be that the sole item upon which your argument hinges (that the "anyone" who performs work may not have a pilot or mechanic's or repairman's certificate to note as part of the record, and therefore, the entire regulation is void) is not sufficient to avoid keeping those records. At this point, we need some input from either the FAA or, perhaps, someone with more expertise at EAA, to chime in.