About Annuals

[CTLSi]

......

[FastEddieB]

As far as I can recall, for each and every GA plane I've owned or encountered, the scope of the annual and 100 hr. inspections have been identical.

Not to say it's always the case, but it sure seems like the norm.

[3Dreaming]

As far as I can recall, for each and every GA plane I've owned or encountered, the scope of the annual and 100 hr. inspections have been identical.

Not to say it's always the case, but it sure seems like the norm.

Many do have the same checklist. The minimum scope and detail is set forth by regulation. (CFR 43 Appendix D) That is not to say that a manufacturer might not have additional items that are aircraft specific that need taken care of on a annual basis. Also for the standard category world an A&P can do the 100 hour inspections, but it requires an IA for annual inspections.

This brings up another good point about why the inspections have different names. Only an IA or repair station can do Annual inspections, an A&P or LSRM can not. An A&P or LSRM can do a condition inspection on a SLSA. If an SLSA needed a annual inspection instead of a condition inspection then a A&P or LSRM could not do the inspection, because the FAA does not give them the privilege of doing annual inspections.

[roger lee]

A 912is computer dump is not a required Rotax 25 hr. warranty inspection. This should have been and a lot more than a computer dump should have been logged. This may put you out on a limb without documentation of the 25 hr. inspection. I hope this is just a matter of semantics or others are in the same boat if they have issues and fail to do inspections. I know FD and Rotax both want 100 hr. inspections as it states in the Line Miant. manual for both Rotax and FD. Even FD says to follow the engine MFG recommendations and engine specifics in their manual and on the check list. Just because one person says it's okay, it won't hurt them if they are wrong, it isn't their plane. The people at the Rotax Flying and Safety Club is who you have to satisfy and who approves warranty issues on the engine. Not FD or a distributor.

I hope when you say readout that was a complete 25 hr. inspection because without it and lack of any documentation there of could put your warranty at risk if you need it. Whom ever does your maintenance you need to make sure they follow the proper procedures. It's your butt (a.k.a. wallet) on the line not theirs.

It would behouve anyone with a 912is engine to read the manuals and not solely rely on hearsay info. Even aircraft MFG's are wrong at times as I have helped correct several issues with some of the MFG's..

Read the 912is Line maint. manual. Section 05-10-00 page 7 about doing both 100 hr. and annuals.

Then section 05-20-00 pg. 3, but pay additional attention to page 4 about the Required 25 hr.
FD won't care if you do the 25 hr. Rotax inspection. They won't be the ones to cover an engine warranty issue. If you fail to do this inspection and need warranty you may be in some trouble. Usually peiople who fail to do this inspection or 100 hrs. usually have poor maint. practices and that's why so many Rotax claims both in and out of warranty get denied. Poor documentation.

[CTLSi]

......

[roger lee]

Log dump and inspection are worlds apart. A log dump is only a tiny part of an inspection.

[3Dreaming]

I just want to expand on the annual/condition inspections a little. For the pilot owner it is not such a big deal what you call the inspection, you just need to know it is to be done every 12 months or "annually". My take on the wording comes from a different point of view being a mechanic. For a mechanic what the inspection is called is a big deal. For the different types of aircraft mechanics LSRM, A&P, and IA (an IA is not really a mechanic it is an authorization to do inspections not maintenance). Mechanics have privileges and limitations placed on their certificates just like pilots do. In the case of Designrs he took his airplane to Paul for the inspection. Paul, is a LSRM, so he can do the annually required condition inspection on Designrs SLSA. Had the airplane been a light sport with a standard issue airworthiness certificate like a Ercoupe, Paul could not have done the annually required annual inspection. In fact as a LSRM Paul is not allowed to perform maintenance on the Ercoupe under the privileges of his certificate. Now an A&P mechanic could perform maintenance on both airplanes. He can even do a 100 hour inspection on both aircraft and the condition inspection on the SLSA, but he still can't do the annual inspection on the Ercoupe. Not unless he also has an Inspection Authorization. The inspection authorization allows him to do the annual inspection required by 91.409.

[sandpiper]

As long as we are in to semantics, I'm not sure the Ercoupe you mention can be called a light sport. Isn't it an airplane with a standard airworthiness certificate that meets the requirements to be flown by a sport pilot?

[CharlieTango]

For standard category aircraft.
§91.409 Inspections.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may operate an aircraft unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months, it has had—

(1) An annual inspection in accordance with part 43 of this chapter and has been approved for return to service by a person authorized by §43.7 of this chapter; or

(c) Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do not apply to—

(1) An aircraft that carries a special flight permit, a current experimental certificate, or a light-sport or provisional airworthiness certificate;

For light sport aircraft.

§91.327 Aircraft having a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category: Operating limitations

(b) No person may operate an aircraft that has a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category unless—

(2) A condition inspection is performed once every 12 calendar months by a certificated repairman (light-sport aircraft) with a maintenance rating, an appropriately rated mechanic, or an appropriately rated repair station in accordance with inspection procedures developed by the aircraft manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA;

Why is the language different?

within the preceding 12 calendar months
vs
once every 12 calendar months

They both don't mean the same thing at all.

[3Dreaming]

As long as we are in to semantics, I'm not sure the Ercoupe you mention can be called a light sport. Isn't it an airplane with a standard airworthiness certificate that meets the requirements to be flown by a sport pilot?

Actually to be called a light sport it has to meet the CFR 1.1 definition. In the definition there is no mention of what kind of airworthiness certificate it holds. The FAA even has a list of type certified light sport aircraft.

https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/lig ... Models.pdf

[3Dreaming]

Why is the language different?

within the preceding 12 calendar months
vs
once every 12 calendar months

They both don't mean the same thing at all.

I agree that the language is different, but that is the way it is written in the regulations.

[3Dreaming]

Why is the language different?

within the preceding 12 calendar months
vs
once every 12 calendar months

They both don't mean the same thing at all.

I agree that the language is different, but that is the way it is written in the regulations.

I went back and looked at both regulations. The difference in wording may have to do with the fact that there are exceptions that allow the aircraft to be flown without having the inspection completed in 91.409, such as with a special (ferry) permit. There are no exceptions written into 91.327. For whatever reason whoever wrote 91.327 chose to make the wording different.

[drseti]

Remember that, for pilots, the FARs are the bible. Just like other bibles, this one's chapters were all written by different people. So, why shouldn't we expect inconsistencies?

[sandpiper]

As long as we are in to semantics, I'm not sure the Ercoupe you mention can be called a light sport. Isn't it an airplane with a standard airworthiness certificate that meets the requirements to be flown by a sport pilot?

Actually to be called a light sport it has to meet the CFR 1.1 definition. In the definition there is no mention of what kind of airworthiness certificate it holds. The FAA even has a list of type certified light sport aircraft.

https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/lig ... Models.pdf

I learn something every day. The F.A.R's can easily give one a headache.

[3Dreaming]

I learn something every day. The F.A.R's can easily give one a headache.

You can say that again. As far as what is a light sport the EAA coined term "Light Sport Eligible" has created some confusion from the get go.