What should I do?

[drseti]

Paul, a LSRM-I can perform the annual condition inspection on a E-LSA that he owns and has taken the 16 hour course for, regardless of who built the airplane. Tom

You may be right, Tom -- I believe it was that way originally, but am not sure of the status of various proposed changes over the last couple of years. I do know for certain that the 16 hour course is not sufficient to do an annual on an E-AB - you have to be the original builder. As I mentioned in a prior post, Carol Carpenter is the expert. I'll ask her.

[drseti]

OK, gang, I think I've found the relevant information, and I stand corrected. Apparently, the annual condition inspection on an E-AB can be performed by an A&P with Inspection Authorization (IA), or by the original builder if he or she holds a Repairman Certificate. In the case of an E-LSA, the requirement is an A&P (no IA required), LSRM (the 120 hour course), or LSRI (the 16 hour course). For S-LSAs, 100 hours and annuals can be performed by an A&P (no IA required) or LSRM (but not by LSRI).

Please note that I could not find all these requirements in a single place. They're scattered through several FARs, as well as an Advisory Circular or two. FAA doesn't make things easy!

BTW, this is exactly why I love these forums. I learn so much...

[Jon V]

Apparently, the annual condition inspection on an E-AB can be performed by an A&P with Inspection Authorization (IA), or by the original builder if he or she holds a Repairman Certificate.

I don't think the IA is needed. I know when I was actively researching before buying parts for an RV-8A the consensus was "builder or any A&P."

Additional digging...

AC 65-23 (change 1) says:

Code: Select all

c. When provided by the aircraft operating limitations, exhibition, air racing, and amateur-built aircraft may be inspected (condition inspections) by FAA-certificated mechanics holding an airframe and powerplant rating, or appropriately rated repair stations, in accordance with part 43, appendix D.

That AC also lays out the repairman cert that an amateur builder can get.

No mention of an IA. I looked through some other FAA docs (not fun) and couldn't see anything else to imply an IA was required.

[drseti]

AC 65-23 (change 1) says:

Oh, goody, yet another advisory circular to keep track of!

[bryancobb]

A&P Certicicates (A.I.) are all that is required to do the Condition Inspection (Annual) on an Experimental aircraft. (EAB)

As everyone also knows, the builder (with a Repairman Certificate) can.

FAA Order 8130-2D is the authority.

[Jon V]

A&P Certicicates (A.I.) are all that is required to do the Condition Inspection (Annual) on an Experimental aircraft. (EAB)
...
FAA Order 8130-2D is the authority.

Not to be picky, but.

8130-2D has been cancelled for years. The current order is 8130-2G.

The authority is FAR 91.319 (i), which says:

Code: Select all

(i) The Administrator may prescribe additional limitations that the Administrator considers necessary, including limitations on the persons that may be carried in the aircraft.

8130-G is the document describing what the standard 91.319(i) additional limits will be. The standard limits, as set forth in 8130-G, are:

Code: Select all

(22) No person must operate this aircraft unless within the preceding 12 calendar
months it has had a condition inspection performed in accordance with the scope and detail of
14 CFR part 43, appendix D, or other FAA-approved programs, and was found to be in a
condition for safe operation. As part of the condition inspection, cockpit instruments must be
appropriately marked and needed placards installed in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.9. In
addition, system-essential controls must be in good condition, securely mounted, clearly marked,
and provide for ease of operation. This inspection will be recorded in the aircraft logbook and
maintenance records.
(23) Condition inspections must be recorded in the aircraft logbook and maintenance
records showing the following, or a similarly worded, statement: “I certify that this aircraft
has been inspected on [insert date] in accordance with the scope and detail of
14 CFR part 43, appendix D, and was found to be in a condition for safe operation.” The
entry will include the aircraft’s total time-in-service (cycles if appropriate), and the name,
signature, certificate number, and type of certificate held by the person performing the
inspection.

There is no wording there which stipulates an inspection authorization (AI), just that they must record the cert. number and type held by the inspector. The AC I quoted a couple posts ago says an A&P may perform the inspection - there is no mention of inspection authorities/AI requirements.

Absent any evidence that an inspection authority is required, I question your parenthetical "(A.I.)".

I'll add that there are thousands of amateur built planes flying around today that have their condition inspections signed off by A&Ps without AI.

[comperini]

There is no wording there which stipulates an inspection authorization (AI), just that they must record the cert. number and type held by the inspector. The AC I quoted a couple posts ago says an A&P may perform the inspection - there is no mention of inspection authorities/AI requirements.

Agreed. No AI required for any type of experimental (amateur-built, E-LSA, edxhibition, or any of the other goofy categories). An experimental is an experimental.

Other common places, people read, thinking an IA is required:

43.7(b) is a common regulation that talks about an AI being a person who can "return an aircraft to service". But, Part 43 doesn't apply to experimentals (except when referenced in the aircraft operating limits)

91.409 discusses AI requirements, but 91.409 also does not apply to experimentals.

[bryancobb]

Not to be picky, but. 8130-2D has been cancelled for years. The current order is 8130-2G.

I stand corrected. Tomorrow it will be 8130-2H

[3Dreaming]

There is no wording there which stipulates an inspection authorization (AI), just that they must record the cert. number and type held by the inspector. The AC I quoted a couple posts ago says an A&P may perform the inspection - there is no mention of inspection authorities/AI requirements.

Agreed. No AI required for any type of experimental (amateur-built, E-LSA, edxhibition, or any of the other goofy categories). An experimental is an experimental.

Other common places, people read, thinking an IA is required:

43.7(b) is a common regulation that talks about an AI being a person who can "return an aircraft to service". But, Part 43 doesn't apply to experimentals (except when referenced in the aircraft operating limits)

91.409 discusses AI requirements, but 91.409 also does not apply to experimentals.

Sometimes it does. I had to do a 337 for a removable fuel tank in the cabin of a clipped wing T-Craft because of CFR 91.203 (c)'s reference to part 43, and part 43.1, (b), (1). This airplane was registered Experimantal Exhibition, but had previously had a standard AWC. Tom

[comperini]

Sometimes it does. I had to do a 337 for a removable fuel tank in the cabin of a clipped wing T-Craft because of CFR 91.203 (c)'s reference to part 43, and part 43.1, (b), (1). This airplane was registered Experimantal Exhibition, but had previously had a standard AWC. Tom

Good catch! Damned regs.

[cerwindel]

Wow we went from one spectrum to another on this thread!

[Jon V]

I have some thoughts on the original question from post 1 in the thread, but I can't really speak as an expert so much as someone in a similar situation, who has stumbled a bit along the way.

The simple version: Instructor first, airplane second, school/airport third. Find the best options available to you for those three, in that order, and go fly. Best means quality + fit to your needs + proximity/availability, and implied in that is "will stay alive and working with me entirely through my certification."

If I got any strong vibe of, "I'm not going to be able to finish here," I'd be very careful. Only one sport plane/down for maintenance may be such a vibe. Instructor not familiar with SP may be another. Walk around the FBO and see how it looks - that's another sign. Talk with the CFI and see if he's someone you get along with/can respect...if not, that's another bad sign. You are going to have to add all those up and make your best judgment, but even then you may not get it right.

At this point I have signatures from five or six different CFIs in my logbook, have flown three types of planes/five tail numbers ranging from 1320 gross to about 2500lb (I think that's what the newer 172s run) gross, and have trained or flown from three different schools. Each of those changes represents money and time lost...and some gain, too, since experience is always good, but if you can avoid copying my example you should.


As for the later part of the discussion... buying a plane would be a huge advantage in controlling all those factors. Suddenly the school/FBO importance drops to almost zero, the chance that you'll change planes (except maybe during repairs) drops dramatically, and you have far broader choices for instructors. There are a lot of CFIs who will train you, in your plane, at reasonable cost...and since they don't have the overhead of a school or the headache and low pay of being an instructor at an FBO/school, you stand a much better chance of staying with your instructor through training.