Order 8900.1 Vol 5, Ch 5 has the requirements how to document the repairman experience toward an A&P.
What do you fly?
Hold up... taking a 16 hours class now gives you the knowledge and experience to determine airworthiness of an aircraft build by another person of unknown knowledge and experience?
Its a 16 HOUR class.
2 different things
I disagree. For a certificated AC it must meet the type certificate and manufactures specifications. Wear items that don't have specific tolerances can be subjective (and I really hate those). Even something like a leak has levels of acceptability. Is it weeping? seeping? dripping? How often?
Thanks for the correction.. still working through the new rules.
If they are still in business they would have the work orders on file.
The courses are around how to INSPECT so you can perform a Condition Inspection. The assumption <must be> that you already know which end of the wrench to hold if you're doing work other than inspecting. And remember - ANYONE can do work on an EAB. So this doesn't really change the qualifications required to work on one. Just to inspect one... Whether 16 or 80 hours is adequate for that is a trivial exercise I'll leave to the reader... ;-)
Its simple. The definition of airworthiness is: conforms to its type design... which is the objective part; and, it is in a condition for safe flight... the subjective side. So unless the type design specifies leak rates, wear limits, etc. it is an objective opinion by the person performing the check, inspection or whatever. And in my experience rarely do those opinions agree 100% of the time between two people.
Not quite. E/AB have no standards to follow, nor does Part 43 apply. LSA do have specific consensus standards which can be more restrictive than the FARs and Part 43 does apply. E/AB is the wild west and until MOSAIC the only sheriffs around were the original builder repairman and the occasional A&P. Now with the inclusion of LSRI/M repairman in the mix there are more potential sheriffs provided they want to get involved in E/AB. But with the expanded definition of LSA I believe there will be a shift more toward LSA than to E/AB.
Part 43 does not apply, but the Operating Limitations require the condition inspection to be done "in accordance with the scope and detail of appendix D to part 43".
True. Except you wont violate Part 43 if you don’t follow it. Rather you violate Part 21. For comparison, if you don’t follow the defined inspection for an S-LSA, you could violate Part 43 in addition to other possible rules simply because of the increased standards an S-LSA must comply with vs an E/AB.
I also don’t kvetch when someone refers to the inspection… done annually… on an Experimental as the “annual inspection”, but there certainly are people who fixate on that kind of stuff. Often the same ones who complain about “BFR”.
Who is? Not I. Call it an annual, call it a BFR, I couldn’t care less. After all, it’s a condition inspection that’s done annually… and a flight review that’s required, you know, biennially. Hell, I’ll even correctly interpret someone’s meaning when they say “biannual” instead of “biennial”. I’ve just lost count of the number of times I’ve seen someone start griping about someone else using a term that doesn’t suit them.
Well, language police aside, the words do matter. It can be hard to communicate effectively without some commonality. Having been through the old logging PIC arguments, I always felt that much of the misunderstanding was related to a failure to recognize the distinction between "certificate, "rating," and "endorsement." That one still happens, although much less frequently.
Pt 91 is only required to have it for 12 months (or until repeated) yet I'm told that an AC without logs is not worth much. A CRS is not going to dump records after two years. In 10 years when that lawsuit comes around they will need something to defend themselves. The FAA is not in the business to protect you from civil liability.
This is not a matter of the FAA trying to protect anyone, this is regulatory.
I can't believe you don't know the difference between contractual and regulatory. Not surprised.
Repeat after me: Learn how a CRS does their record keeping.
but it does matter because if you look at the operating limitations of a EAB you will see limit 15 in there and it says:
Sigh. Really, you need to read the thread. Yes, there is specific wording that should (maybe must) be used in the logbook when you record the inspection. But if you jump back a few posts, what I said was that I don't get wrapped around the axle and feel the need to correct someone every time they refer to the condition inspection on an EAB as an "annual". Or when they refer to a flight review as a "BFR". While not technically correct, the intent and meaning are quite clear. I don't feel the need to try and look like the smartest guy in the room then any more than I do by correcting people's posts for spelling, punctuation, capitalization, or grammar.
What does "similarly worded" mean? An annual inspection is similar to a condition inspection, after all. I wonder if anybody has actually gotten trouble with the FAA because they called an experimental condition an "annual" in the logbook?
Not theoretically but in black and white. The lead in paragraph to Limitation 15 mentioned above specifically states "conditional inspection." And 91.409 specifically states an "annual inspection" as they are two different inspections per the guidance. However, theres nothing wrong with entering "annual condition inspection" so long as "condition" is used for your E/AB. Unfortunately, this is one of those unforced errors that only gives an open invitation for some people to dig deeper.
No. Theoretically. Really. The required wording is indeed quite clear. The theoretical part is that anyone at the FAA will care... ever. That's what I meant.
Yeah, I worked in jet engine certification for two decades. That is my job description. Kicking back reports that said "FAR" for regulations and used a previous name for our company, etc.
Fair enough. However, lack of care by the FAA wont change what the rules or guidance state and following that "theory" simply provides an easy target should it become noticed. For example, hangar fairies tend to caught when something completely unrelated happens which involves a review of the mx records. And in the case of a missing Condition term in your E/AB annual inspection sign off only provides a similar red flag moment that should not be there in the 1st place.
My father has a framed letter in his home office. A major client had sent a terse letter explaining that they were no longer "Dewey, Cheatam, and Howe." They "were now DCH-International, and expected correspondence to reflect the change."
the thing is, education of those that do it wrong, and perpetuate the wrong use, is the key to getting people to do it right.
