Doing more work on a plane than "allowed"

Non-licensed person doing more than 14 CFR part 43 Appendix A

  • It is not legal to work on the plane without the intent to find an A&P to sign off some day

    Votes: 2 33.3%

  • It is legal, as long as the plane does not ever leave the ground

    Votes: 4 66.7%
  • Total voters
    6
455 Bravo Uniform

455 Bravo Uniform

Final Approach
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
5,346
Location
KLAF
Display Name
Display name:
455 Bravo Uniform
Let's get one thing straight right at the get go: I am not trying to stir the pot, but so what if I do.

Say I am not a private pilot or A&P cert. I buy a basket case (formerly certificated factory aircraft). I work on it for a couple years. I get it running and let's say flyable (safely or not is not the question, let's just say unsafe cuz I don't know what I don't know). I taxi around the field on the weekends. No harm, right? No regulatory non-compliance? Sure, it's not regulatorily airworthy.
 
So your question is: Can a non-pilot taxi a non-airworthy plane?
 
Regarding the poll questions, I'm not an expert on Part 43, but I'm not seeing an applicable exception to this:

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

(a) Except as provided in this section and §43.17, no person may maintain, rebuild, alter, or perform preventive maintenance on an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part to which this part applies. Those items, the performance of which is a major alteration, a major repair, or preventive maintenance, are listed in appendix A.​
 
A more serious answer.

To be on the safe side that no one will try to fly it or consider it to be a legit airplane or question your intents I would at the very least deregister it and surrender the airworthiness certificate to the FSDO. You might even want to remove the data plate and paint over the N numbers.

Of course, if you think you might in the future want to return it to flyabe status, you would leave the data plate in place. Then you would need to reregister it and apply for an airworthiness certificate after an A&P brings it back into compliance.

Many A&P schools have such aircraft at their facility that students work on without log entries being made. Sure the instructor grades their work but no one returns it to service.
 
Don't be tempted to pull a Howard Hughes and taxi a wee bit too fast and lift your modern day Spruce Goose up in the air before saying "Oops" and setting it back down....

 
SkyDog58 said:
A more serious answer.

To be on the safe side that no one will try to fly it or consider it to be a legit airplane or question your intents I would at the very least deregister it and surrender the airworthiness certificate to the FSDO. You might even want to remove the data plate and paint over the N numbers.

Of course, if you think you might in the future want to return it to flyabe status, you would leave the data plate in place. Then you would need to reregister it and apply for an airworthiness certificate after an A&P brings it back into compliance.

Many A&P schools have such aircraft at their facility that students work on without log entries being made. Sure the instructor grades their work but no one returns it to service.
Click to expand...

Ahh, now that's getting to the heart of the question. Dereg and cert surrender may be the answer.

Assuming I put said basketcase together and it runs and might even fly, but I'm not an A&P, and I don't even log stuff, someday if there is an A&P and IA out there that might get the task of going over it with a fine tooth comb, it might become airworthy again (assuming I knew what I was doing and the A&P/IA were willing to risk their certs by signing off).
 
Every hangar lease I have ever signed prohibits things. How it's enforced varies.
 
Long ago I did some work on my T-Craft prior to the annual inspection. I entered it in the logbook, the IA wrote "above work performed by owner", and added his entry for the annual.

Note that anybody can work on a plane under the "supervision" of an A&P. Many non A&P's have completely restored their planes under that provision. I guess it's up to the A&P to decide what "supervision" means.

And many, if not most, owners of older planes do routine maintenance and repairs on their planes themselves and simply don't log it.
 
"It is not legal to work on the plane without the intent to find an A&P to sign off some day" - What the heck is that supposed to mean? Please, let me use my hard earned license to certify stuff you say you did correctly last week / last month / last year? Um, yeah, I don't think so!
 
JAWS said:
"It is not legal to work on the plane without the intent to find an A&P to sign off some day" - What the heck is that supposed to mean? Please, let me use my hard earned license to certify stuff you say you did correctly last week / last month / last year? Um, yeah, I don't think so!
Click to expand...

Exactly as bad as it sounds (I worded it carefully). You picked up on it. In other words, some people might do a boat load of unsupervised work, with the intent on avoiding "supervision" until the last minute and then getting inspection and sign off (see my earlier comment about someone risking their cert for a stranger or just cold hard cash). I wanted the question to be about someone who never intends to have a regulatorily airworthy plane.
 
Last edited:
I knew an owner who did his own annuals, replaced engine cylinders, etc, etc. Was always asking how to do this or that and borrowing tools. Finally told him my tools are off limits and no more advice and no more outdated charts and books from our garbage. He got all ****y, telling me that he knows more than me, I am the problem with aviation, blah, blah, blah. Never an intent on doing the right thing ever. No insurance, no medical, he wound up on the wrong end of Transport Canada (finally!) and was told to never touch another aircraft ever or the long list of infractions would be acted upon. Airplane left the airport, as did he. Though I bet he just "hid it" somewhere. The worst of the worst.

Now, you come talk to me BEFORE doing anything and talk to me like a professional, and follow my advice and not lie to me when I see the plane next, I have no problem helping. I will not BS you and I expect the same in return. Start bending the truth, I will walk away with my certifying light and pen intact! Not my airplane, not my problem!
 
Dana said:
Long ago I did some work on my T-Craft prior to the annual inspection. I entered it in the logbook, the IA wrote "above work performed by owner", and added his entry for the annual.

Note that anybody can work on a plane under the "supervision" of an A&P. Many non A&P's have completely restored their planes under that provision. I guess it's up to the A&P to decide what "supervision" means.

And many, if not most, owners of older planes do routine maintenance and repairs on their planes themselves and simply don't log it.
Click to expand...

Did he just write "above work performed by owner" or did he write your name as required by 43.9?
 
Anybody can make a plane unairworthy. The regs are concerned with what you have to do to have an airworthy aircraft.
 
"intention to fly" will be a key phrase per the regs. If you can make your work look better than factory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top