Chances for owner-perfomed condition inspections for C172s, Cherokees, Beech Sundowners etc Under Mosaic Program In the near future?

[Cesarmx]

Apparently the FAA is giving GA a break under the Mosaic program as to the owners performing annuals for light sport airplanes- after owner proper training and applying for the certificate changes ( if the corresponding local FSDO allows it ).
I only wonder what are the chances in the near future of something similar transferring into GA certificated airplanes such
as C172, C182, PA28 etc. I think it would be a great idea because it would save us owners lots of spent time, money, headaches finding an AP willing to do annuals when we needed them etc.

Thanks

 

[Doc Holliday]

 

[hindsight2020]

OP, with due respect, you haven't been paying attention. The answer is zero.

The explanation is found within the post-NPRM related commentary, resultant from years of MOSAIC feet-dragging. At any rate, the response provided by the FAA in the last MOSAIC document, which was discussed here some months back (I have it somewhere, can't remember the page off the top of my head) paints a very clear picture of why that is the conclusion you should reach to your question.

In summary, it wasn't a tangential issue for them, or otherwise some accidental oversight on their part to not include fac-built. They specifically cited/addressed the experimental and certified divide as their bifurcation line, when deciding to move forward with inspection authority relief for the EAB non-builders, but not for the latter. IOW they're fully aware of your ask, they just said no.

BL, sometimes the best hand is knowing when to fold 'em. I owned 3 fac builts through the years, I got the same receipts. If you ever want to escape that insufferable signatory-rental captured reindeer games, and obsolescence-forcing repetitive AD perversions, you gotta go EAB. Waiting for Godot [on your/former question] ain't gonna work out, ask me how I know.

 

[Cesarmx]

About 10 years ago When BasicMed idea came into play it seemed like an impossibility to be approved not only by the FAA but by US Congress too ( it took about four years). So far since its approval it has not been suspended meaning it is working fine and has kept many private pilots flying!

 

[midlifeflyer]

Only one I can envision is the creation of a pathway to allow conversion of Part 23/CAR 3 aircraft to an experimental category that permits LSRI/LSRM maintenance.

 

[Dana]

Apparently the FAA is giving GA a break under the Mosaic program as to the owners performing annuals for light sport airplanes- after owner proper training and applying for the certificate changes ( if the corresponding local FSDO allows it ).

It's not for light-sport planes; it's for experimental-amateur built planes. Light-sport has always been able to have the owner do the annual if they took the class.

The FSDO doesn't have a choice on whether to "allow" it; the regulations permit it. All the FSDO does is process the paperwork, though they may delegate the aircraft paperwork to a DAR.

But as others have said there's zero chance it will be extended to non-experimentals in the "near future", and near zero chance long term.

 

[hindsight2020]

Don't get me wrong, I'm open to stand corrected, I'm just saying in my lived experience, it hasn't manifested as a time-reasonable COA is all.

 

[Cesarmx]

Thanks all for the clarification!

 

[Clip4]

Apparently the FAA is giving GA a break under the Mosaic program as to the owners performing annuals for light sport airplanes- after owner proper training and applying for the certificate changes ( if the corresponding local FSDO allows it ).
I only wonder what are the chances in the near future of something similar transferring into GA certificated airplanes such
as C172, C182, PA28 etc. I think it would be a great idea because it would save us owners lots of spent time, money, headaches finding an AP willing to do annuals when we needed them etc.

Thanks

How much time, money, and headache is it for you today finding an IA willing to perform annual inspections?
What is the proper training one will need to determine if conditions such as spar carry though corrosion on a C177 is an airworthiness issue?

 

[Doc Holliday]

How much time, money, and headache is it for you today finding an IA willing to perform annual inspections?
What is the proper training one will need to determine if conditions such as spar carry though corrosion on a C177 is an airworthiness issue?

All you need for an annual inspection is someone to sign the logbooks off.

 

[Bell206]

Only one I can envision is the creation of a pathway to allow conversion of Part 23/CAR 3 aircraft to an experimental category that permits LSRI/LSRM maintenance.

A second approach could be to expand the knowledge requirements and privelages of an LSRM to those aircraft but restrict the certificate by aircraft model, gross weight, or some similar fashion. This would be a much less intrusive method than converting TC'd aircraft like the TCCA Owner Maintained category or the previous Primary Non-Commercial attempt here.

And since MOSAIC changed the LSR certificate standards to the same ACS standards used for an A&P, the regulatory foundation is there. The main issue is to remain within the existing ICAO airworthiness equirements so as not to alienate those aircraft maintained by non-A&P mechanics like the TCCA program. Might make for an interesting grassroots project for the PoA membership to advance the idea to the appropriate people?

 

[Clip4]

All you need for an annual inspection is someone to sign the logbooks off.

Maybe that is all you need Doc, I need someone who actually does an inspection following the manufacturer’s checklist.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Maybe that is all you need Doc, I need someone who actually does an inspection following the manufacturer’s checklist.

Can't recognize sarcasm?.........

 

[bonefishpete]

Now how does Owner Annuals showing up in aircraft log books going to affect used aircraft values? Pre Buys?

 

[Clip4]

A second approach could be to expand the knowledge requirements and privelages of an LSRM to those aircraft but restrict the certificate by aircraft model, gross weight, or some similar fashion. This would be a much less intrusive method than converting TC'd aircraft like the TCCA Owner Maintained category or the previous Primary Non-Commercial attempt here.

And since MOSAIC changed the LSR certificate standards to the same ACS standards used for an A&P, the regulatory foundation is there. The main issue is to remain within the existing ICAO airworthiness equirements so as not to alienate those aircraft maintained by non-A&P mechanics like the TCCA program. Might make for an interesting grassroots project for the PoA membership to advance the idea to the appropriate people?

Learning is obtained through experience. What experience does the average private pilot have inspecting his aircraft annually or maintaining aircraft? Little to none.

I have done owner assisted annuals, hung engines, electrical, brakes, repaired skins ect for decades, but for an annual inspection, I rely on the professionals who actually have a lot of experience to at least assist with the process.

 

[AlphaPilotFlyer]

As hindsight said, there is zero chance. The FAA, and industry, will continue to resist allowing certified to transition to experimental except for a few basis. There was a little known SAWC category introduced in 1990s called primary that would allow owner to do maintenance and some inspections if taking approved course from manufacturer. but any meaningful alterations to the certified design required formal cert plan and certification process which left it meaningless due to costs with only a few primary conversions ever completed.

The other issues, although bit more technical, FAA has load standing policies about cert to exp AB, making it almost impossible to go from cert to exp AB. more over, part 43 pertains to certified and previous certified aircraft….including section stating who can work on them…..so variance from the reg gets more complicated.

Too bad as owner mx can significantly reduce ownership costs, and I believe make you a better pilot understanding what makes their plane tick.

 

[Doc Holliday]

As hindsight said, there is zero chance. The FAA, and industry, will continue to resist allowing certified to transition to experimental except for a few basis. There was a little known SAWC category introduced in 1990s called primary that would allow owner to do maintenance and some inspections if taking approved course from manufacturer. but any meaningful alterations to the certified design required formal cert plan and certification process which left it meaningless due to costs with only a few primary conversions ever completed.

The other issues, although bit more technical, FAA has load standing policies about cert to exp AB, making it almost impossible to go from cert to exp AB. more over, part 43 pertains to certified and previous certified aircraft….including section stating who can work on them…..so variance from the reg gets more complicated.

Too bad as owner mx can significantly reduce ownership costs, and I believe make you a better pilot understanding what makes their plane tick.

Right now we actually have "owner mx" going on and it has resulted in planes being in below **** poor operating conditions. Those wanting to reduce operating cost (i.e. cheap owners) seek out the signature sellers for inspections to reduce cost.

The FAA created this when they opened up Inspection Authorizations to anyone holding an A&P for three years and a simple multiple choice written test. Before that the IA was carefully selected and tested to insure standards were held up.

For those who want to do their own thing (maintenance) the FAA already has a route for that called Experimental.

 

[Cesarmx]

As hindsight said, there is zero chance. The FAA, and industry, will continue to resist allowing certified to transition to experimental except for a few basis. There was a little known SAWC category introduced in 1990s called primary that would allow owner to do maintenance and some inspections if taking approved course from manufacturer. but any meaningful alterations to the certified design required formal cert plan and certification process which left it meaningless due to costs with only a few primary conversions ever completed.

The other issues, although bit more technical, FAA has load standing policies about cert to exp AB, making it almost impossible to go from cert to exp AB. more over, part 43 pertains to certified and previous certified aircraft….including section stating who can work on them…..so variance from the reg gets more complicated.

Too bad as owner mx can significantly reduce ownership costs, and I believe make you a better pilot understanding what makes their plane tick.

Absolutely, working hands on my own airplane during annuals with IA on supervision has brought me better understanding of my airplane functioning! If concerned about AD interpretation, many AP's and IAs when the AD is not not totally understood, do consult with the FAA, aircraft manufacturer, other sites online to be better informed, why can’t the owner do the same and sign it off after some airplane-specific training and utilizing all the tools mentioned? Is the AP the sole soul in the planet who can interpret the Regs faithfully and us the owners Can’t?
The FAA because of the design of its own Regs has gotten us into a “bottle neck” that is so hard to go around limiting us owners - the ones willing to learn more and get our hands greasy-to gain experience and save us money and time and strangle the US economy too!

Somebody above already said this privilege could be limited at the beginning to certain certified airplanes I.e. by AS , weight, # of seats, and only its owner will do the inspection job etc, and more complicated harder -to -comply ADs for instance, left to the IA? ( I know my limitations as pilot and mechanic and will not venture into replacing the wing spar or the engine of my airplane without my IA by my side!). Trusting your IA’s judgement is imperative too, and
Not all pilots are built the same and neither are the APs!

 

[Doc Holliday]

Now how does Owner Annuals showing up in aircraft log books going to affect used aircraft values? Pre Buys?

The same way it affects values now when someone looks at a logbook with a lot of annual signoffs but little maintenance noted, then they see inspection panels with painted over screws that have never been opened, engine compartments that look like a rats nest, accessories that look old and tired with no evidence of ever being maintained, oil and fuel leaks, oleo struts with chrome flaking and pitting, brake rotors rusted and obviously worn beyond limits, hoses that were installed when the plane was built 60 years ago, etc, etc.

 

[Cesarmx]

Doc, I call that owner’s negligence!

 

[Doc Holliday]

Doc, I call that owner’s negligence!

A lot of owners call that "cost savings".

 

[Bell206]

Learning is obtained through experience. What experience does the average private pilot have inspecting his aircraft annually or maintaining aircraft? Little to none.

So, in the context of my post above, if you were to attend a certified training course, similar to one for obtaining a LSR or A&P, but the course was specifically designed to maintain only Part 23/CAR3 aircraft eligible for light sport pilot operation, you would not be able to maintain your eligible aircraft once you completed your certificate?

There was a little known SAWC category introduced in 1990s called primary that would allow owner to do maintenance and some inspections if taking approved course from manufacturer.

If you are referring to the 21.184 Primary category, that was an attempt to bridge the gap between Part 23 aircraft and E/AB aircraft during a huge push to revitalize private aviation in general at that time. Unfortunately, as the other efforts got more traction and Cessna started to produce aircraft again, the private market never responded to Primary aircraft leading to its demise. Ironically, if you compare the Primary requirements to LSA and MOSAIC, there are many similarities to each other. However, if that same market that killed the Primary aircraft doesn't step up and support the upcoming MOSAIC/Part 22 aircraft, then it will also face the same fate as the Primary effort did.

The other issues, although bit more technical, FAA has load standing policies about cert to exp AB, making it almost impossible to go from cert to exp AB. more over, part 43 pertains to certified and previous certified aircraft….including section stating who can work on them…..so variance from the reg gets more complicated.

Again, not quite. E/AB has always been a separate category since day one because they do not have a TC. And the reason Part 43.1 makes a distinction with experimental aircraft is if the experimental aircraft was previous issued a different AWC then once it is no longer experimental, Part 43 would again become applicable to that aircraft.

And to add, there is nothing that prevents you from developing your own E/AB from the design, parts, and pieces of a TC’d aircraft so long as you meet the major portion requirements in 21.191(g). And as I recall, several people have already done this to include one based on the C180.

 

[Dana]

So, in the context of my post above, if you were to attend a certified training course, similar to one for obtaining a LSR or A&P, but the course was specifically designed to maintain only Part 23/CAR3 aircraft eligible for light sport pilot operation, you would not be able to maintain your eligible aircraft once you completed your certificate?

Theoretically, but there is no such course, and unlikely to be one in the forseeable future. And I will say, the LSRI course (which I recently took) covers only the bare minimums; if the student isn't already involved in the maintenance of their aircraft (as most experimental owners are), then that course alone really isn't sufficient.

Again, not quite. E/AB has always been a separate category since day one because they do not have a TC. And the reason Part 43.1 makes a distinction with experimental aircraft is if the experimental aircraft was previous issued a different AWC then once it is no longer experimental, Part 43 would again become applicable to that aircraft.

And to add, there is nothing that prevents you from developing your own E/AB from the design, parts, and pieces of a TC’d aircraft so long as you meet the major portion requirements in 21.191(g). And as I recall, several people have already done this to include one based on the C180.

People using wings or other major components from TC'd airplanes and calling it an E-AB "Jones Special" is the reason for the so-called "51% rule".

 

[Cesarmx]

Yes, a different subpart 43 may be created for “owner inspections” without loosing the “certified category”.
When the Basic Med initiative was first introduced not many people gave it a fair chance of survival, however it went to US Congress and after four years it was passed and adopted. The three-tier medical certifcate classes reamained intact; those wanting to change to BasicMed could do it without losing their PPL privileges, it was not downgraded to Sport license !
Why then, can’t something similar be created ( in a similar way but in the Maintenance part 43 and in a different subpart) for Some light certified airplanes without being downgraded to Experimental category?

Yes, some may say these airplanes would loose value because it was owner-maintained, but new prospect buyers will make it go thru a pre purchase anyways!

Just a thought or idea……

 

[Clip4]

So, in the context of my post above, if you were to attend a certified training course, similar to one for obtaining a LSR or A&P, but the course was specifically designed to maintain only Part 23/CAR3 aircraft eligible for light sport pilot operation, you would not be able to maintain your eligible aircraft once you completed your certificate?


If you are referring to the 21.184 Primary category, that was an attempt to bridge the gap between Part 23 aircraft and E/AB aircraft during a huge push to revitalize private aviation in general at that time. Unfortunately, as the other efforts got more traction and Cessna started to produce aircraft again, the private market never responded to Primary aircraft leading to its demise. Ironically, if you compare the Primary requirements to LSA and MOSAIC, there are many similarities to each other. However, if that same market that killed the Primary aircraft doesn't step up and support the upcoming MOSAIC/Part 22 aircraft, then it will also face the same fate as the Primary effort did.


Again, not quite. E/AB has always been a separate category since day one because they do not have a TC. And the reason Part 43.1 makes a distinction with experimental aircraft is if the experimental aircraft was previous issued a different AWC then once it is no longer experimental, Part 43 would again become applicable to that aircraft.

And to add, there is nothing that prevents you from developing your own E/AB from the design, parts, and pieces of a TC’d aircraft so long as you meet the major portion requirements in 21.191(g). And as I recall, several people have already done this to include one based on the C180.

Underlined and highlighted your statement - If I had attended a training course similar to AP, it would take 18 months of full time study. Is that your proposal?

Most freshly minted AP wouldn’t attempt many of the repairs some on here do with EAs. There are some really mechanically and experienced pilots, there are also some that are really clueless and think they know what they are doing.

 

[Cesarmx]

Underlined and highlighted your statement - If I had attended a training course similar to AP, it would take 18 months of full time study. Is that your proposal?

Most freshly minted AP wouldn’t attempt many of the repairs some on here do with EAs. There are some really mechanically and experienced pilots, there are also some that are really clueless and think they know what they are doing.

No, I am suggesting something similar to what the Bonanza society gives on maintenance to their owners for instance…..not a full AP course. Trying to make it simple and not more complicated……some may abdicate that will bring more accidents, not necessarily ( same thing was said about “relaxed” physical exam under BasicMed that it would bring more accidents which has been proven otherwise, it still is in effect after several years now).
This principle or idea may be tried for few years and will see the accident rate statistics before and after and compare, and it could be rescinded if the idea is proven to be unsafe! - same thing under BasicMed Med the way it was done.
Yes, per my experience, there are also some honest and experienced APs out there who know what they are doing and some that are clueless too and making pilots spend money unnecessarily that are not required under Part 91 just because of their argument of “safety”.

 

[Bell206]

Theoretically, but there is no such course, and unlikely to be one in the forseeable future.

Except the theoretical side changed a bit with the MOSAIC shift of LSR certification standards to the ACS standards (A&P). And if you combine that shift with the previous Part 66 attempt in the 90s to develop a tiered mechanic certification system, the MOSAIC change opens the regulatory door to implement new repairman/mechanic certificate level(s) that remains in sync with ICAO requirements (key point).

And I will say, the LSRI course (which I recently took) covers only the bare minimums; if the student isn't already involved in the maintenance of their aircraft (as most experimental owners are), then that course alone really isn't sufficient.

That statement also describes most A&Ps after they leave school. Theres a reason those repairman and A&P certificates are called a “license to learn.” Those classes are only designed to teach the minimums, so the rest is up to you to learn.

People using wings or other major components from TC'd airplanes and calling it an E-AB "Jones Special" is the reason for the so-called "51% rule".

Interestingly, the original CAM guidance allowed use of structural components from certified aircraft with the stipulation you were not doing so to bypass the major alteration rules on a certified aircraft. So a number of the original E/AB aircraft were nothing more than salvage yard specials with an E/AB data plate. However, as this became a growing issue, they codified the 51% rule about 10 years later to control it but not eliminate it.

Underlined and highlighted your statement - If I had attended a training course similar to AP, it would take 18 months of full time study. Is that your proposal?

No. One, I originally stated to expand on the LSRM, and two, I stated similar to, ie., LSRM = 120 hours/15 days vs new certificate = 360 hours/45 days. Regardless, follow above.

 

[Clip4]

Except the theoretical side changed a bit with the MOSAIC shift of LSR certification standards to the ACS standards (A&P). And if you combine that shift with the previous Part 66 attempt in the 90s to develop a tiered mechanic certification system, the MOSAIC change opens the regulatory door to implement new repairman/mechanic certificate level(s) that remains in sync with ICAO requirements (key point).


That statement also describes most A&Ps after they leave school. Theres a reason those repairman and A&P certificates are called a “license to learn.” Those classes are only designed to teach the minimums, so the rest is up to you to learn.


Interestingly, the original CAM guidance allowed use of structural components from certified aircraft with the stipulation you were not doing so to bypass the major alteration rules on a certified aircraft. So a number of the original E/AB aircraft were nothing more than salvage yard specials with an E/AB data plate. However, as this became a growing issue, they codified the 51% rule about 10 years later to control it but not eliminate it.


No. One, I originally stated to expand on the LSRM, and two, I stated similar to, ie., LSRM = 120 hours/15 days vs new certificate = 360 hours/45 days. Regardless, follow above.

Wow, 120 hours of training. That makes me feel safe being a passenger in your aircraft.

 

[Bell206]

Wow, 120 hours of training.

While they no longer use an hourly quota for maintenance training requirements, I used it only as a representation to show how a secondary level of mx certification could be applied to those limited TC'd aircraft permitted to be operated by a sport pilot. Nothing more.

 

[Cesarmx]

120 hrs of training, good judgement and responsibility on the owners part is better than nothing. APs and IAs still are not immune to honest mistakes.
(This will be of course for the aircraft owner wanting something like this just like BasicMed is without losing the certified category).
I realize an initiative like this will be an uphill battle that may not get us the expected results, but perhaps a good initial push before the FAA such as going thru AOPA, some other private organizations combined efforts with Well known aviation public figure APs maybe the start point.

(A well known AP/ IA that comes to mind is an advocate for aviation safety and is on the pilots side as far as maintenance)

 

[Clip4]

120 hrs of training, good judgement and responsibility on the owners part is better than nothing. APs and IAs still are not immune to honest mistakes.
(This will be of course for the aircraft owner wanting something like this just like BasicMed is without losing the certified category).
I realize an initiative like this will be an uphill battle that may not get us the expected results, but perhaps a good initial push before the FAA such as going thru AOPA, some other private organizations combined efforts with Well known aviation public figure APs maybe the start point.

(A well known AP/ IA that comes to mind is an advocate for aviation safety and is on the pilots side as far as maintenance)

A close plumber friend of mine encouraged do it yourselfers. Said when you are ****ting in a bucket you will pay more.

 

[Bell206]

120 hrs of training,

For some context, the 120 hours was what it took to get a LSRM rating in the airplane category. In the old system it would take 1900 hours for an A&P. The 360 hours/45 days I used in Post 27 was a simple guess to illustrate how you could make the 120 and 1900 requirements merge somewhere in the middle to cover a mx certificate for those light sport TC'd aircraft. While it will probably be higher than 360 hours to keep it at an ICAO compliant level, since both the LSR and A&P certification systems now use the same ACS standards, one could specifically develop a curriculum applicable to those specific aircraft. However, you are right it will be an uphill battle, but if MOSAIC passed with only 1300 public comments on the NPRM, imagine what 10,000 comments on a new mx certificate system will do.

 

[Dana]

Just curious, what percentage of that 1900 hour A&P curriculum is on subjects that don't apply to light-sport aircraft? Turbines, pressurization, etc.

 

[Cesarmx]

Just curious, what percentage of that 1900 hour A&P curriculum is on subjects that don't apply to light-sport aircraft? Turbines, pressurization, etc.

Good point Dana!
Why should the light certified piston GA pilot be concerned about learning systems when most of those won’t even apply or don’t even have them in our airplanes such as: Turbines, Starter Generators, HVAC, pressurization, anti and de-ice, rudder booster, reverses, inverters, stick shakers, beta range, etc? (My airplane engine does not even have a propeller governor).
The owner mechanic certification and training will be restricted to his/ her airplane and not for commercial purposes to the public.

 

[flyingron]

All you need for an annual inspection is someone to sign the logbooks off.

And to actually perform the inspection. The supervision rules specifically bar that:

However, this paragraph does not authorize the performance of any inspection required by Part 91 or Part 125 of this chapter or any inspection performed after a major repair or alteration.

Now there's a lot of maintenance beyond the inspection that gets typically done at annual time that can be done by a supervised person, but the inspections themselves are not.

 

[Doc Holliday]

But if people keep going to forums and complaining eventually the FAA will take pity on them and issue a special certificate just for them.

Then again one could use the rule making process and get thousands of fellow pilots to comment and stand a good chance of making a change………..

Naw, Internet forum complaining is more effective……….

 

[Doc Holliday]

And to actually perform the inspection. The supervision rules specifically bar that:

However, this paragraph does not authorize the performance of any inspection required by Part 91 or Part 125 of this chapter or any inspection performed after a major repair or alteration.

Now there's a lot of maintenance beyond the inspection that gets typically done at annual time that can be done by a supervised person, but the inspections themselves are not.

The average cheap owner seeks out the signature seller. The “IA” without a toolbox and a few pens in the cab of his pickup. The guy that drives up to the hangar, tells a few tall tales then walks around the airplane. A really good one will even stop and pull the prop through and call that a “compression test”.

Logbooks get filled out and some cash exchanged hands and he’s on his way.

It’s way more common these days.

 

[Bell206]

Just curious, what percentage of that 1900 hour A&P curriculum is on subjects that don't apply to light-sport aircraft? Turbines, pressurization, etc.

No idea, as it wasn't something I ever checked, but I don't know how linear it would be. For example, back when the 1900 hours applied to Part 147 applicants, an experienced-based applicant only needed to document experience equal to 50% of each 147 module curriculum requirements. And with the change to a performance-based certificate system under the ACS, there might be the ability to fine tune a mx certificate training requirement even further than before. For example, its my understanding there are currently some 147 schools that offer accelerated A&P programs which can get you your complete ticket within 8 months that used to take 18-24 months. So when you combine the ACS use with this level of time reduction no telling where they could line-out certificate requirements for such a limited scope of TC'd aircraft. But as I mentioned, the key is to keep those requirements at ICAO acceptance levels.

 

[Cesarmx]

No idea, as it wasn't something I ever checked, but I don't know how linear it would be. For example, back when the 1900 hours applied to Part 147 applicants, an experienced-based applicant only needed to document experience equal to 50% of each 147 module curriculum requirements. And with the change to a performance-based certificate system under the ACS, there might be the ability to fine tune a mx certificate training requirement even further than before. For example, its my understanding there are currently some 147 schools that offer accelerated A&P programs which can get you your complete ticket within 8 months that used to take 18-24 months. So when you combine the ACS use with this level of time reduction no telling where they could line-out certificate requirements for such a limited scope of TC'd aircraft. But as I mentioned, the key is to keep those requirements at ICAO acceptance levels.

If an airplane owner has assisted his/her IA during annuals and general maintenance, could this time be if endorsed in writing by the IA, taken into account towards the total training time that would be required towards the owner- mx for his/her certificated airplane and in ACS/ICAO compliance?

 

[Bell206]

If an airplane owner has assisted his/her IA during annuals and general maintenance, could this time be if endorsed in writing by the IA, taken into account towards the total training time that would be required towards the owner- mx for his/her certificated airplane and in ACS/ICAO compliance?

Yes, but there is a process to do so. Below are the links to the FAA regulation and policy that permits it. Study those to develop your own system and start documenting your mx experiences. And if your mechanic is up to it, you can start the record to include previous experiences your mechanic is willing acknowledge. If you want to take a step further, contact an Airworthiness ASI at your local FSDO and see what format or method they prefer to see when documenting maintenance task experience toward a certificate.

Part 65.77
Order 8900.1 Vol.5 Ch5 Sec2