Certified Mechanic Requirement

pfarber said:
No you cannot. Read the FAR. An mx may not supervise a 100hr
FAR 65.85:

In addition, he may perform the 100-hour inspection required by part 91 of this chapter on an airframe, or any related part or appliance, and approve and return it to service

IA cannot supervise an annual:
FAR 65.95

(2) Perform an annual, or perform or supervise a progressive inspection according to §§ 43.13 and 43.15 of this chapter.

Notice it never says supervise only perform
Click to expand...
Second time this has been brought up. I do realize an A&P can't sign off and annual and the IA must do the inspection. The owner can assist, take panels off, clean plugs, pack wheel bearings.... I'll be more precise when I post....:rolleyes:
 
True, the inspector must inspect. That's what he/she does. The mechanic (A&P) does the work, that's what he/she does. Sometimes they are both the same person. A&P can log work performed, inspector signs the logs for RTS. That's for annual inspection. For 100 hour, the A&P can both inspect and do the work. And sign the logs for RTS. (Kinda over simplified) As to performing mx other than that outlined in the FARs as owner/operator allowed. (oil change, tires, etc.) Then it must be performed by an A&P, or under the supervision of an A&P to the extent necessary..... So, the owner can also overhaul the mags, R&I cylinders, repair the carb, change a landing gear strut, re-seal landing gear, make up hoses, install avionics, etc. But, the A&P has to be involved to insure it's done properly. That said, it's all dependent on how comfortable the A&P is with the owners work. And that level of confidence does not come easily for most.
 
AKBill said:
Second time this has been brought up. I do realize an A&P can't sign off and annual and the IA must do the inspection. The owner can assist, take panels off, clean plugs, pack wheel bearings.... I'll be more precise when I post....:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Still, no.

You are listing preventative maintenance items. Not the same thing. I don't want an owner/operator to touch a plane before inspection. You clean the plugs, now I can't read them to see if there is an issue. Ditto for packing wheel bearings. You 'destroy' the evidence of a problem that the inspections are meant to uncover. Granted, there is little issue with taking off covers, but the other items are things that I want to see so I can properly determine if there are issues.
 
pfarber said:
I don't want an owner/operator to touch a plane before inspection. You clean the plugs, now I can't read them to see if there is an issue.
Click to expand...
An owner can do a lot more than just removing panels in the context of an inspection. The A&P who does my condition inspection has me pull the plugs, he looks at them, then I clean them and put them back in, everything else like that. He's semiretired, travels and works out of his van and only does owner assisted annuals, he likes working with and educating owners as opposed to being left along in a hangar to do it all himself.
 
It can be a conflicting and aggravating situation for sure. Especially for mechanically inclined folks, engineers, mechanics, jacks of all trades, etc... and I think the OP has a point. But I know it's only part, and not the whole picture ....and I don't mean in any way to belittle the A&P profession or imply any sort of disrespect.....and I am very confident that the OP does too..

In my thinking, the hardest part for an "owner-mechanic" is knowing what they don't know. Knowing when to stop and let someone else do it.
But then again...same thing applies to the certified A&P folks too. They don't know it all either...not by a long shot.
 
I kinda get the feeling that some are biting tongue on this subject
 

  • pfarber said:
    . I don't want an owner/operator to touch a plane before inspection.
    Click to expand...
    Why not? If he documents his work in the record per Part 43 how is that any different than an AP "touching" his aircraft before your inspection?
 
Brad W said:
But then again...same thing applies to the certified A&P folks too. They don't know it all either...not by a long shot.
Click to expand...
True. But there is a process to follow that many/most APs understand/follow that most owners do not know or understand. Makes a big difference.;)
 
squincher said:
...why don't they trust me to decide whether or not I can work on my own plane? ...
Click to expand...

Based on what? I mean, you're claiming that you are a hot shot mechanic and that may be true but the A&P license is simply a certification standard. It doesn't mean that the holder is any smarter than you but are they supposed to just pass them out to anyone who says they can do it? There has to be a method. People are saying go experimental but even on that route in order to have the repairman certificate you had to have built the airplane (or 51% of it) and even then that certificate is only valid for that aircraft. It's just not as simple as it is with motorcycles.
 
Silvaire said:
It's just not as simple as it is with motorcycles.
Click to expand...

Too many owners have found that out the hard way. They kill themselves in an airplane they fixed themselves. The problem comes all the way down to this:

upload_2021-12-19_11-11-37.png

And that little green slice? The stuff we know? That's being really generous. In terms of the world's body of knowledge, none of us would have a visible slice of it. And the yellow segment should be much bigger.
 
Well, a lot of people kill themselves on motorcycles they fixed themselves too...
 
Silvaire said:
Well, a lot of people kill themselves on motorcycles they fixed themselves too...
Click to expand...
Probably only taking themselves with them.

If you want to work on your plane (other than preventative) either find an A/P that will supervise and sign off on your work. Build your own EAB and get the repairman's certificate. Move to Canada to do your own maintenance and never let the plane back in the US. Or get your A/P. Some guys log the build time on their eab to get the AP...but you still can't sign off your own inspection without having the IA.
 
I don’t intend this in a bad way or to discourage owner maintenance. Some actually do a decent job. It’s certainly not been the normal in my experiences but some owners do alright. I’ve used my A&P for 34 years now. Seen plenty of bad work from both A&Ps and non A&Ps. The owners I’ve dealt with however, are commonly uneducated in regards to maintenance standards. We see it a lot on prebuys. Almost always when a seller has been heavily involved in maintenance I find enormous amounts of discrepancies. They aren’t trying to cut corners at all, they just don’t have the background. They almost always have an old IA man in a truck story to tell. Usually “he’s the best mechanic under the sun” blablabla. The old guy (let’s) them participate. Meanwhile, the mechanics in the shop are shaking heads thinking that they never want to become “the old man in the truck” guy. Reason is a lot of the traveling IAs aren’t looking at much other than quick cash and a morning visit before having lunch with mamma. There’re having the (usually unqualified) owner do most the work. It’s not uncommon for the owners assignment to just make them feel like they’ve done something helpful, or saved a little money. Meanwhile the IA collects a small fee for pencil wiping another annual. It’s not always the case of course! It’s just very common in this business. I had a discussion with one of our FAA inspectors last week who brought this subject up himself. He’s very put out by this situation that is appearing more and more often these days.
The last couple prebuys I completed had this type maintenance. One had a number of issues including a terribly loose bellcrank bolt that was wallowing about. The other was just a nightmare, but great for the buyer because I found so much stuff they ended up reducing the price by over 30k. Even then the so called “excellently maintained, and currently flown airplane” couldn’t even be flown off the field legally without a few thousand in maintenance to get it out of there legally. I’m no guru, still learning, just sharing my experience.
 
Jdm said:
I don’t intend this in a bad way or to discourage owner maintenance. Some actually do a decent job. It’s certainly not been the normal in my experiences but some owners do alright. I’ve used my A&P for 34 years now. Seen plenty of bad work from both A&Ps and non A&Ps. The owners I’ve dealt with however, are commonly uneducated in regards to maintenance standards. We see it a lot on prebuys. Almost always when a seller has been heavily involved in maintenance I find enormous amounts of discrepancies. They aren’t trying to cut corners at all, they just don’t have the background. They almost always have an old IA man in a truck story to tell. Usually “he’s the best mechanic under the sun” blablabla. The old guy (let’s) them participate. Meanwhile, the mechanics in the shop are shaking heads thinking that they never want to become “the old man in the truck” guy. Reason is a lot of the traveling IAs aren’t looking at much other than quick cash and a morning visit before having lunch with mamma. There’re having the (usually unqualified) owner do most the work. It’s not uncommon for the owners assignment to just make them feel like they’ve done something helpful, or saved a little money. Meanwhile the IA collects a small fee for pencil wiping another annual. It’s not always the case of course! It’s just very common in this business. I had a discussion with one of our FAA inspectors last week who brought this subject up himself. He’s very put out by this situation that is appearing more and more often these days.
The last couple prebuys I completed had this type maintenance. One had a number of issues including a terribly loose bellcrank bolt that was wallowing about. The other was just a nightmare, but great for the buyer because I found so much stuff they ended up reducing the price by over 30k. Even then the so called “excellently maintained, and currently flown airplane” couldn’t even be flown off the field legally without a few thousand in maintenance to get it out of there legally. I’m no guru, still learning, just sharing my experience.
Click to expand...

Yep, mine too.

Mx standards are so subjective across the board, even in commercial ops. I like it when I have a hard and fast dimension or tolerance to work to, making the decision to repair or replace easy to get across to Mr Owner. But many times my decisions are rooted in my experience, and getting Mr Owner to agree to something that I think is needed and he doesn't is trying. Mag 500 hour inspections come to mind.
 
JAWS said:
Yep, mine too.

Mx standards are so subjective across the board, even in commercial ops. I like it when I have a hard and fast dimension or tolerance to work to, making the decision to repair or replace easy to get across to Mr Owner. But many times my decisions are rooted in my experience, and getting Mr Owner to agree to something that I think is needed and he doesn't is trying. Mag 500 hour inspections come to mind.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, I don’t deal with that too often anymore. My customers are usually cherry picked or possibly a corporate outfit who I also contract fly for. I’ll do random prebuys, only because I enjoy them. The road trip experience, helping a new owner get into a airplane properly, and meeting new people. Usually doing a good job turns into cross country deliveries, or future work. The amazing thing is how hard A&P’s search and struggle to ensure everything is done properly and to learn better ways, or more legal ways to accomplish maintenance actions. Speaking of that, what about continued education? It’s got to be difficult for GA owners to maintain their maintenance proficiency. I’m trying to schedule Continental engine school for next year. Hopefully level 1 and 2. Also very honored to have been accepted to the ABS Maintenance Academy. Both require A&P certification with ABS preferring an IA, documented activities, and references.
 
Why do some Techs always say “ The Man in the van pencil whips everything”?

Do folks really do a better quality task when there are nice carpets and a

cute Receptionist?

My take is it’s not the VENUE but the INTEGRITY of the Tech that is key.

I’ve done inspections in the Presidential Hangar and in barns that meant later cleaning

my boots outside.

As far as complaining about Owners ; “ We have met the enemy and they are us”.

WHY would any A&P put up with Owners that want to cut corners?

Is the Tech that desperate to put food on the table?

You CAN fire those folks that will not play by your rules!

There are people I’ve worked with for 30 + years in some cases.

The key for me has been to COMMUNICATE what YOU expect of them.

Don’t blame them if you keep your mouth shut.


Incidentally I’ve had quite a few owners that that went on to get the A & P and also IA.
 
I didn't see this thought posted yet
I have thought about this in the past and wondered if one of the reasons (in addition to the other good ones posted already) that the FAA does not allow just anyone to work on a/c is - imagine the GA fleet after a few years of this.
Think about the door being opened to allow just anyone to work on airframe/engine/prop, other system or component. You would have a huge range of work quality being done, and adherence to any standard would be out the window. Yes, there are some that can do better than your average A&P - but along with that there would be lots of completely unsatisfactory things being done to airplanes.

I think the FAA would fear a serious decline in the average quality of work being done (notwithstanding the OP's likely diligent and careful work), and a reduction in the level of safety in light aircraft. I think the FAA would not want to see something so potentially deleterious happen to the entire fleet.

Plus, you only own an aircraft, in most cases, for a small fraction of its life. Anything you mess up could potentially affect the next of 10 buyers, over the its decades of life of an.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
I think the FAA would fear a serious decline in the average quality of work being done
Click to expand...
FYI: The FAA's sole concern is compliance with the FARs. Quality is left up to the owner and mechanic as all their work must be performed per those regulations by virtue of Block 6 on your AWC.
 
The owner has the final say for his/ her aircraft.

The mechanic still has the option of not getting involved.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
You suggest the FAA cares naught about quality. I feel I must disagree.
Click to expand...
Perhaps we have a differing definition of what "quality" entails? If two identical jobs are performed on two separate aircraft that both meet the requirements of the FARs and one job is considered to be of higher "quality" than the other, its your belief the FAA will officially comment on that quality difference?
 
Magman said:
The mechanic still has the option of not getting involved.
Click to expand...
Of course. But you'll find there is a growing number of mechanics who do get involved as the demographics are changing within GA on the maintenance side.
 
As far as the FAA is concerned there is a set of standards and requirements, you have to be an A&P to do the work and sign the logs. They aren't necessarily pro-active in trying to alter or change these rules. This is what it says, this is how it's done. You can ask "why does it have to be like that" okay, fine but that's not going to change it. It's like a private pilot needs to have a medical. It's fine for him to drive his four ton pickup truck at high speed in close proximity to stationary and other large moving objects on his way to the airport but God forbid he should crash his 85 hp Ercoupe into a bean field. You can argue it doesn't make sense but those are the rules. Aviation has long been segregated into a transportation category that is considered different from the rest. It's easy to lose sight of the fact that in an airplane, even a little Cessna, you can very quickly get yourself to a spot and over a territory where no roads or paths have ever been built and that no one ever goes to. Yes, far more people die in automobile crashes but how many of them just disappear without a trace, never to be found?
 
Some years ago I met “ Famous Frank xxxx”.

He claimed to do about 400 Annuals per year.

This was in addition to his airline job.

That job included travel perks .

The logs I’ve seen never said “ Airworthy”!
 
Magman said:
The logs I’ve seen never said “ Airworthy”!
Click to expand...
Then how did Famous Frank meets the requirements of 43.11 for his "400 annuals"? Or was he a sly one and signed off all 400 with a discrepancy list?
 
Were they experimental? You don't use "airworthy" for conditional inspections.

EDIT: never mind, those wouldn't be "annuals"
 
You nailed it as “ sly”.

At first I thought this might be BS.

The log entries I saw listed one or two discrepancies that were

relatively minor.

“ Left aileron hinge worn “ or loose rivets etc.

“Old guy in a truck “ or “ the man with the van” would would be nothing

compared to “ No time to spare ? This IA goes by air!”

DC-9 or727!
 
Magman said:
You nailed it as “ sly”.

At first I thought this might be BS.

The log entries I saw listed one or two discrepancies that were

relatively minor.

“ Left aileron hinge worn “ or loose rivets etc.

“Old guy in a truck “ or “ the man with the van” would would be nothing

compared to “ No time to spare ? This IA goes by air!”

DC-9 or727!
Click to expand...
It would be illegal to use airline employee travel benefits in pursuit of a business. And also against company policy and will get you fired.
 
squincher said:
I'm just the opposite; working on stuff is a significant part of my enjoyment in owning it. And buying new tools? Everyday can be Christmas when you have a project that needs new tools.
Click to expand...
I am mechanically inclined. I work on big aircraft for a living. I enjoy working on my airplane, but always and ever under the supervision of an experienced AI. There are a lot of things that do not have an immediately obvious reason as to why, but are there for a reason. It will be the small oversights that will kill you. I know of three people that died because the wrong washer was used on a control linkage.
 
Airworthy doen't need to appear. The signature of the person on the log is authorization to return to service which implies airworthiness (absent statement to the contrary).

Not just the eyes on the thing either in the annual. There's a whole list of tasks in 43 AppD that are assigned to the person performing the inspection.
 
flyingron said:
Airworthy doen't need to appear.
Click to expand...
FYI: if you are signing off a required inspection per 43.11(a)(4) the terms "found airworthy" is required.
flyingron said:
The signature of the person on the log is authorization to return to service which implies airworthiness
Click to expand...
When signing off maintenance (other than inspections) the persons signature is considered an approval for return to service only per 43.9(a)(4). Technically, the aircraft is not considered "airworthy" until it is returned to service. This is one of the reasons there are two separate 43 rules between inspections and maintenance log entries.
 
Bell206 said:
FYI: The FAA's sole concern is compliance with the FARs. Quality is left up to the owner and mechanic as all their work must be performed per those regulations by virtue of Block 6 on your AWC.
Click to expand...
It's the same here in Canada. When the TC inspectors come for an audit, they look at the paperwork, mostly, maybe spend a few minutes looking at an airplane. Many of those guys spent their entire wrenching careers in airline shops and don't know much about light aircraft anyway. The good ones admitted that and would ask us about things in an honest attempt to inform themselves.

Yup. In Canada you, or someone else, does the work and you certify it like so: "The work described has been performed in accordance with the applicable standards of airworthiness," and put your signature to it. You're certifying that you followed the regulations, which stipulate the way the work is to be done and to what standards. If there's an accident and they find that you did not do as you said you did, you're in trouble. Here, we don't sign the aircraft off as being airworthy; that condition is assumed ("continuing airworthiness") as long as the work has been done legally and all noted airworthiness defects have been corrected, or deferred if permissible. That method makes the mechanic responsible for the work he did, including the inspection, not the mechanical condition of the entire airplane. If a previous mechanic patched a crack so it looks good but the now-hidden underlying damage was not properly dressed, and it fails, the inspecting mechanic could not be expected to spot that. The guy that did the patch is responsible.

Between that certification time and the next inspection the owner or pilot is responsible to make sure that the airplane is still airworthy, to the best of their ability. If the pilot finds fuel dripping off the wing and goes flying anyway, he's the one in legal trouble. The (registered) owner gets applicable Airworthiness Directives mailed to him, since as the owner he's responsible for the airworthiness, and has to act accordingly.
 
Dan Thomas said:
"The work described has been performed in accordance with the applicable standards of airworthiness,"
Click to expand...

I spent 2.5 days at a course where every word in that statement was dissected. The class was standing room only and everyone left with a renewed sense of mortality/morality.

Every task an AME performs should have the four basic elements met before the certification is done.

From CAR Std 566 ...

(A) identify the applicable standard for the task;

(B) select the proper tools;

(C) perform the work correctly without supervision; and

(D) complete the necessary documentation.

The Air Transat Airbus that became a glider over the Atlantic is a good case study in "applicable maintenance standards".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236
 
Magman said:
At first I thought this might be BS.

The log entries I saw listed one or two discrepancies that were

relatively minor.
Click to expand...

Yea, sounds like BS. First off, you don't list discrepancies after an inspection in a log entry. Not to say that somebody wouldn't do it. The toughest part of a first inspection by an IA on an old airplane is the logbook review. Some mechanics just seem to have felt that they had to fill up the whole page and if you think doctors have bad handwriting....
 
My comment was that FFx was doing about 8 Annuals per week on a part time

basis in multi states.

Plus his regular job.

I don’t believe he ever found an aircraft Airworthy.

There are folks that want discrepancies listed to eliminate doubt on

why the aircraft was not found to be Airworthy.

“Cracked exhaust on #3 cylinder” is nowhere as bad as “ Excess ferrous particles in

screen”.

Regarding eab time and 65.77.

There are FSDO’s and FSDON’T’s.

Not all are created equal and interpretations vary between them as well

as within with different inspectors.

There can be folks that make their own rules.

That maybe good or bad.
 
Der Fliegermeister said:
Be careful with this one. I've heard aof more than a few FSDOs that won't accept this experience
Click to expand...
And just to add, some FSDOs/ASIs are also particular in how they accept "legit" maintenance experience. Best route to take is to contact a mx ASI at the FSDO and see what their requirements are for documenting maintenance experience for test authorizations before you start. Another option from what I understand is that the FAA will accept experience based on individuals who obtain an LSAM repairman certificate and work on LSAs.
 
Der Fliegermeister said:
Be careful with this one. I've heard aof more than a few FSDOs that won't accept this experience
Click to expand...

current guidance in FAA Handbook 8900.1, Volume 5, Chapter 5, Section 2, paragraph 5-1135(B) says: "work on an experimental, amateur-built aircraft will receive evaluations on its own merits to determine whether it fulfills the experience requirements.
also in their book:
Programs without Approval. Applicants who have not graduated from an FAA-approved AMTS or JSAMTCC A&P certification program must present documents from an employer, coworker, or other sources satisfactory to the Administrator to establish the required record of time and experience.1) Applicants will document a proportionate amount of experience directly applicable to the certificate and ratings sought. The applicant must have verifiable experience in 50 percent of the subject areas listed for the rating sought (refer to part 147 appendices B, C, and D) in order to be eligible

it all comes down to documentation. if you do not show that your build was "under the supervision of an A&P' none of it counts. also, the areas documented are are relevant. building an aircraft and hanging a brand new engine on the front really counts for nothing toward the P part of the certificate. most the work building would come under the A portion.
so the answer is, it MAY qualify for some credit or it may qualify for none. when I did my A&P they considered it with all the other documentation I submitted and determined that I qualified to test.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top