CFR 43.3 - Preventive Maintenance question

StraightnLevel

StraightnLevel

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Dec 8, 2023
Messages
1,161
Location
Houston & SE Wisconsin
Display Name
StraightnLevel
Home Airfield
T41, KETB
Last night I spent some time in a hangar with some student pilots and mechanics, discussing a wide range of topics on maintenance and aircraft airworthiness. IMO, this sort of session should be required prior to solo-ing.....but I digress.

At one point, we discussed preventive maintenance. One of the mechanics present was absolutely adamant that an owner/pilot may not perform maintenance unless he/she has a "certificate of competency" as stated in Part 43 Appendix A (c) 30 (i).

Now, as I was taught, 43.3 explicitly allows pilot/owners to perform the specified preventive maintenance items listed in Sec 43 Appendix A (c). However, the passage noted above, seems to say that this is not true for "primary category" aircraft, which appears to be a 30-year-old description for some category similar to LSAs or EABs.....but it's something that I haven't seen used in a practical sense.

Am I missing something, or was this guy mis-applying a very narrow restriction?
 
StraightnLevel said:
Last night I spent some time in a hangar with some student pilots and mechanics, discussing a wide range of topics on maintenance and aircraft airworthiness. IMO, this sort of session should be required prior to solo-ing.....but I digress.

At one point, we discussed preventive maintenance. One of the mechanics present was absolutely adamant that an owner/pilot may not perform maintenance unless he/she has a "certificate of competency" as stated in Part 43 Appendix A (c) 30 (i).

Now, as I was taught, 43.3 explicitly allows pilot/owners to perform the specified preventive maintenance items listed in Sec 43 Appendix A (c). However, the passage noted above, seems to say that this is not true for "primary category" aircraft, which appears to be a 30-year-old description for some category similar to LSAs or EABs.....but it's something that I haven't seen used in a practical sense.

Am I missing something, or was this guy mis-applying a very narrow restriction?
Click to expand...

He's an idiot and misapplying the regulation.
 
StraightnLevel said:
Last night I spent some time in a hangar with some student pilots and mechanics, discussing a wide range of topics on maintenance and aircraft airworthiness. IMO, this sort of session should be required prior to solo-ing.....but I digress.

At one point, we discussed preventive maintenance. One of the mechanics present was absolutely adamant that an owner/pilot may not perform maintenance unless he/she has a "certificate of competency" as stated in Part 43 Appendix A (c) 30 (i).

Now, as I was taught, 43.3 explicitly allows pilot/owners to perform the specified preventive maintenance items listed in Sec 43 Appendix A (c). However, the passage noted above, seems to say that this is not true for "primary category" aircraft, which appears to be a 30-year-old description for some category similar to LSAs or EABs.....but it's something that I haven't seen used in a practical sense.

Am I missing something, or was this guy mis-applying a very narrow restriction?
Click to expand...

He doesn’t refer to himself as a “AnP” by chance?
 
Fascinating. Are there any examples of "primary category"?. I thought I knew all the permutations, but this is one I've never heard of.
 
Hang 4 said:
Are there any examples of "primary category"?.
Click to expand...
There were only a handful certified, but I believe Quicksilver had a PC version. It was a stopgap measure to fill void after Cessna shutdown SEL production and GARA was passed. However, due to GARA the Prime Cat never got market share to grow. Its main draw was additional mx tasks for owners with proper training. Theres an AC out there that gives more details.
 
Hang 4 said:
Fascinating. Are there any examples of "primary category"?. I thought I knew all the permutations, but this is one I've never heard of.
Click to expand...
That was my take after I found the section the guy was referencing. I honestly didn't know that this category existed, and apparently it's still in the CFR, even if there's really no good reason for it.
 
www.auto-gyro.com

Certification - AutoGyro

certification - Safer? AutoGyros are certified to the highest gyroplane ‘Airworthiness Requirements’ in the world, and AutoGyro is rightly proud of this
www.auto-gyro.com www.auto-gyro.com

Primary Category Certificate of Airworthiness (USA). This approval allows the aircraft to be used for flying for fun to aerial work, excepting the carriage of goods or persons. Only AutoGyro has gyroplanes approved to this high standard.
 
Cessna at one time was going to certify the Cessna 162 in Primary but shrugged their corporate shoulders and went Nah….it would have helped raise the gross weight limits.
 
Primary category was an early (1980s) attempt to accomplish what LSA and later MOSAIC (to an extent) accomplished. The certification process was simpler, it was only for lighter aircraft, and existing standard aircraft could be converted to Primary. It allowed owner maintenance, but only if the owner took an approved course, which nobody offered. I looked at converting my T-Craft back then, but the lack of a course made it pointless.
 
StraightnLevel said:
At one point, we discussed preventive maintenance. One of the mechanics present was absolutely adamant that an owner/pilot may not perform maintenance unless he/she has a "certificate of competency" as stated in Part 43 Appendix A (c) 30 (i).

Now, as I was taught, 43.3 explicitly allows pilot/owners to perform the specified preventive maintenance items listed in Sec 43 Appendix A (c). However, the passage noted above, seems to say that this is not true for "primary category" aircraft, which appears to be a 30-year-old description for some category similar to LSAs or EABs.....but it's something that I haven't seen used in a practical sense.

Am I missing something, or was this guy mis-applying a very narrow restriction?
Click to expand...
He was mis-applying a very narrow restriction. The applicable reg says:

§ 43.3 Persons authorized to perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alterations.​

(g) Except for holders of a sport pilot certificate, the holder of a pilot certificate issued under part 61 may perform preventive maintenance on any aircraft owned or operated by that pilot which is not used under part 121, 129, or 135 of this chapter. The holder of a sport pilot certificate may perform preventive maintenance on an aircraft owned or operated by that pilot and issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category.​

The reg he's quoting specifically says "primary category aircraft" several times, and there are VERY few Primary category aircraft in existence.
 
Clip4 said:
This is not an uncommon statement and misunderstanding of the regulations by a lot of non pilot APs.
Click to expand...
Well considering most pilots have never heard of Primary Category as exampled here, my bet is the only mechanics who would make a similar comment tend to whine about the Snap-on man not showing up at midnight or that there are not enough auto engines in avaition.;)
 
I've encountered A&Ps like that. To me it seemed that they were concerned about losing $$$ if "any pilot" could change spark plugs or tires or oil. If the pilot can do it, that's one less airplane coming through his shop for simple preventive maintenance and money out of his pocket. I've known shops so busy that they would rather not take the time to do a simple oil change.

One key item of "preventive maintenance", don't let the guy that does not know a socket from a boxed end wrench do preventive maintenance.
 
Doc Holliday said:
He doesn’t refer to himself as a “AnP” by chance?
Click to expand...
The mere fact that some people would think that I would lower myself to talk to a student pilot is incomprehensible.

But then again I HAVE ACTUALLY sat in the pilots seat of an A350 so that kinda elevates me above certain piluts. :D
 
pfarber said:
The mere fact that some people would think that I would lower myself to talk to a student pilot is incomprehensible.

But then again I HAVE ACTUALLY sat in the pilots seat of an A350 so that kinda elevates me above certain piluts. :D
Click to expand...

Nice, you got to do a "show and tell" day at the airport. Did they let you drive a tug as well? Let you play with a set of lighted wands?
 
primary cat was faa half ass attempt to make flying simple aircraft cheaper to manufacturer and fly, and pacify steak Holders. Besides being a cert basis for new aircraft, it allowed owners of aircraft ability to convert from standard to primary to save $.

in maintence requirements, it allowed owner to perform a wider range of maintenance tasks than otherwise allowed under standard if owner took an approved course, as long as it wasn't used as a rental (unlike exp, PC allowed it to be a rented out for recreational use and training). so I think answer you seek is owner can do normal owner mx as standard , but can also do more if they have attended an approved course as allowed under the topics of said course. This course was part of the PC cert

PC was a failure as faa policy made it almost as difficult to get anything meaningful modernized by requiring normal part 23 and 33 cert basis, so not likely AnP would come across such a conundrum. it was intended to mimic Canada's owner maintained category, that allowed owners to take older legacy aircraft from standard to more of an experimental experience in terms of cost and the ability to do more maintenance by the owner.

if you are really bored. there is a AC somewhere that details this in more detail....PC was a part 21 cert so will start with AC 21, it's old but like still valid.
 
This kind of thing, which is common, is why I start every definitive statement with “I’m pretty sure…”. *

Rec pilot, powered lift… and there’s a whole set of faa maintained data for c-46s, because Rob Everts keeps ONE in part 121 service, ha!

* I end every checklist with “x checklist complete, except for the stuff I missed.”

Tools
Nothing but honest
 
I teach pilots how to change their oil. Only thing I'm against is tire changes for some people. I've changed tires from many owners that did it and it was bad. Bolts way over torqued, tubes bound and pinched, axle nuts either way too tight or too loose.... no cotter pin.... there is a long list. Pretty much everything else, I'll teach them how to do so they stay out of my hair. If they show competency and have the tools, I'll show them but so far, only one has met that standard.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Let you play with a set of lighted wands?
Click to expand...
I would never stoop to that level and touch a light wand. Man, some people just don't have standards. All the cool kids have strobe lights. Jeeze, do you even aviation bro??

Did you know that you can't see the wing walkers from the Captains seat of an A350? Oh, wait, I forgot, you wouldn't know that, would you? Pity. Maybe on 'take a muggle to work day' you'll be able to sit on the flight deck. And no, not even on ETACS. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
 
Bell206 said:
So, since I sat in the pilot's seat of a C5 Galaxy when I was 10, does that elevate me above you since its bigger than your A350?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
C-5 at 10? Pffft. I sat in one in Stuttgart West Germany at 8. TRY AND KEEP UP.

My first flights were at an Army Airfield. On any given flight I was in the pattern with CH-47s, AH-1 Cobra's and even the very new Blackhawks.

I also got to fly the (at the time) state of the art CH-47 simulator with the largest sim scale map for flight training in the world (SFTS)

Again, TRY TO KEEP UP.
 
pfarber said:
I would never stoop to that level and touch a light wand. Man, some people just don't have standards. All the cool kids have strobe lights. Jeeze, do you even aviation bro??

Did you know that you can't see the wing walkers from the Captains seat of an A350? Oh, wait, I forgot, you wouldn't know that, would you? Pity. Maybe on 'take a muggle to work day' you'll be able to sit on the flight deck. And no, not even on ETACS.
Click to expand...
Why would you need to see wing walkers from the captains seat? And what's your fascination with getting to sit in an airliner cockpit seat?

While you got your day to go play in a cockpit for show and tell, many of us spent decades flying various transport jets all over the world. You by your own words struggled to get a PPL and that was the end of your pilot accomplishments.


pfarber said:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
Click to expand...

I find it amazing a mid 50's man acts like a 12 year old in his mom's basement. You have some serious maturity issues.
 
Bell206 said:
Ha. Except if I had to try to keep up with you, I'd have to start moving backwards. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Its ok to admit you envy me. Heck if I were you I'd envy me.

You're in a safe space.
 
pfarber said:
Its ok to admit you envy me. Heck if I were you I'd envy me.
Click to expand...
Ha. Well, for there to be any “envy” you would first have to possess some personal quality that others wished they had…………………..:oops:
 
StraightnLevel said:
Last night I spent some time in a hangar with some student pilots and mechanics, discussing a wide range of topics on maintenance and aircraft airworthiness. IMO, this sort of session should be required prior to solo-ing.....but I digress.

At one point, we discussed preventive maintenance. One of the mechanics present was absolutely adamant that an owner/pilot may not perform maintenance unless he/she has a "certificate of competency" as stated in Part 43 Appendix A (c) 30 (i).

Now, as I was taught, 43.3 explicitly allows pilot/owners to perform the specified preventive maintenance items listed in Sec 43 Appendix A (c). However, the passage noted above, seems to say that this is not true for "primary category" aircraft, which appears to be a 30-year-old description for some category similar to LSAs or EABs.....but it's something that I haven't seen used in a practical sense.

Am I missing something, or was this guy mis-applying a very narrow restriction?
Click to expand...
There is an interpretation available on this. Remember the pilot is responsible for determining if the aircraft is airworthy prior to flight.

The Mccreery interpretation answers some of these questions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top