I don't need an IA

1600vw

1600vw

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
2,004
Location
Central IL
Display Name
Display name:
H.A.S.
I was speaking with an A&P about my Annual on my Experimental HB. I told him I was looking for an A&P and he does not need to be an IA.

This man looked at me and said, just what makes you think you do not need an IA, its an N numbered bird.

I told him its an Experimental and those do not need an IA. He said I knew not of what I speak..like most say..I no nothing.

I told him to stay right where he is and I would go print out the regs and show him.

So I printed out where it says I do not need an IA. and showed him.

He said I would still have an IA do this annual.

I then showed him another letter I printed from a man at the FAA whom said if any IA signs an Annual using their IA certificate for an Experimental Airplane and this man found out about it, this man was calling that A&P IA into his office and explaining the FAR's to him. He said he is tired of seeing logbooks signed by IA's for Annual Condition inspections on experimental airplanes.

He walked away shaking his head..Not real sure what that meant.
 
Did you print the reg that also states that Experimental don't get annuals?

They get a yearly 'conditional' inspection.

edit: but an A&P can perfrom this inspection.
 
VanDy said:
Did you print the reg that also states that Experimental don't get annuals?

They get a yearly 'conditional' inspection.

edit: but an A&P can perfrom this inspection.
Click to expand...

Understand.....I call the Condition inspection an annual...For are you not doing it annually or yearly..So really is this not called an.....Annual condition inspection?

I believe its called splitting hairs. I like splitting firewood myself.

Tony
 
An "annual inspection" must be performed by an IA. A "condition inspection" on an Experimental-AB needs only an A&P. Call it the wrong thing, and you get the wrong answer. So, tell that A&P you need a "condition inspection," not an "annual," even if you think that's "splitting hairs."
 
While an A&P or holder of the repairman certificate for that aircraft can conduct and log the condition inspection, I think the comment about IA's signing off experimental annuals is sort of ludicrous. First an IA is authorized to do it. Second with one exception, the scope is equivalent (the presence of appropriate placards and operating limitations, but one could argue that even that is covered in properly doing an annual paperwork).
 
Ron Levy said:
An "annual inspection" must be performed by an IA. A "condition inspection" on an Experimental-AB needs only an A&P. Call it the wrong thing, and you get the wrong answer. So, tell that A&P you need a "condition inspection," not an "annual," even if you think that's "splitting hairs."
Click to expand...


Now I understand..Thanks for clearing this up. I am new to all this and only fly a little HB Experimental, she is 40 HP. Twin Cylinder.
 
Last year I spent almost 1000 for repairs and my condition inspection. I hope this year my condition inspection is a 1/4 of that.
 
1600vw said:
Last year I spent almost 1000 for repairs and my condition inspection. I hope this year my condition inspection is a 1/4 of that.
Click to expand...

I'm hoping that the next annual on my '77 172n is less than twice that.
 
1600vw said:
I was speaking with an A&P about my Annual on my Experimental HB. I told him I was looking for an A&P and he does not need to be an IA.

This man looked at me and said, just what makes you think you do not need an IA, its an N numbered bird.

I told him its an Experimental and those do not need an IA. He said I knew not of what I speak..like most say..I no nothing.

I told him to stay right where he is and I would go print out the regs and show him.

So I printed out where it says I do not need an IA. and showed him.

He said I would still have an IA do this annual.

I then showed him another letter I printed from a man at the FAA whom said if any IA signs an Annual using their IA certificate for an Experimental Airplane and this man found out about it, this man was calling that A&P IA into his office and explaining the FAR's to him. He said he is tired of seeing logbooks signed by IA's for Annual Condition inspections on experimental airplanes.

He walked away shaking his head..Not real sure what that meant.
Click to expand...

If the dude is that stupid you don't want him near your plane.
 
Henning said:
If the dude is that stupid you don't want him near your plane.
Click to expand...


I kinda thought the same thing. I was trying to teach him something.

As I was walking to get the info I needed I was thinking to myself.....Shouldn't this man know this stuff without someone whom flies something that barely fits into the catagory of an "Airplane" telling him.

I just kept my mouth shut and gave him the info.

Thanks for all the comments and for not beating on me to bad for my comunication skills.

One thing for sure, you better know how to communicate in aviation and that does not mean just on a radio.

Tony
 
As noted above, an "Annual" requires an IA, while a "Condition Inspection" does not.

So you're both wrong - he's technically correct that, in that if the words "annual inspection" go in the log it better be signed by an IA. You're wrong for not knowing that. On the other hand, he's wrong for not being smart enough to recognize that since it's an experimental aircraft, what you really WANT (regardless of what you asked for) is a condition inspection.

Sadly, I see more and more of this "inability or unwillingness to try to figure out what the requirement actually IS" in service industries today.
 
It's like any other busness some A&P/IA are good some bad try to stay away from the bad ones.
 
brien23 said:
It's like any other busness some A&P/IA are good some bad try to stay away from the bad ones.
Click to expand...


how do you tell one from the other until you have dealt with both?
 
These are some of the reasons I do not want to go any further into Aviation then this.

If they could make an Ultralight that had a full enclosed cabin and an engine that I would fly behind, I would still be flying ultralights and leave all this to everyone else.

Tony
 
1600vw said:
As I was walking to get the info I needed I was thinking to myself.....Shouldn't this man know this stuff without someone whom flies something that barely fits into the catagory of an "Airplane" telling him.
Click to expand...
Given some of the semantic confusion, it's entirely possible that it was not clear to the A&P that the plane you wanted inspected was an Experimental-Amateur Built. That could be part of the problem.
 
Henning said:
If the dude is that stupid you don't want him near your plane.
Click to expand...

Words of wisdom. I wouldn't let him near my plane given that.
 
1600vw said:
If they could make an Ultralight that had a full enclosed cabin and an engine that I would fly behind, I would still be flying ultralights and leave all this to everyone else.
Click to expand...

What about the J3 Kitten?
 
Ron Levy said:
Given some of the semantic confusion, it's entirely possible that it was not clear to the A&P that the plane you wanted inspected was an Experimental-Amateur Built. That could be part of the problem.
Click to expand...

Awe hell, you mean we must actually communicate !

Why not just throw them the keys and say " spect-tit, and call me", then hand them a blank check.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Words of wisdom. I wouldn't let him near my plane given that.
Click to expand...

The FAA tells us we have machoism, get there itis, anit-authorITAY what not.

This guy is demonstrating pig-headedness, the latest deadly attitude.
 
Tom-D said:
Awe hell, you mean we must actually communicate !

Why not just throw them the keys and say " spect-tit, and call me", then hand them a blank check.
Click to expand...


Do you believe that an A&P should not be familiar with their limitations and allowances? Do you think an A&P should not be aware that there is no 'annual inspection' on an ExAB?
 
dell30rb said:
The FAA tells us we have machoism, get there itis, anit-authorITAY what not.

This guy is demonstrating pig-headedness, the latest deadly attitude.
Click to expand...

I think it gets in with "macho."

Basically the idea that, because I am who I am, you can't possibly know something I don't.
 
Henning said:
Do you believe that an A&P should not be familiar with their limitations and allowances? Do you think an A&P should not be aware that there is no 'annual inspection' on an ExAB?
Click to expand...

Do you believe an A&P should be an expert in everything?
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Do you believe an A&P should be an expert in everything?
Click to expand...


No.. BUT...

Any competent A&P should know an experimental gets a conditional inspection and a IA is not needed... Probably the first question on the FAA's A&P test. :yes:
 
I do compliance / conditional inspections and you folks would be surprised at how many annuals got pulled prior to my inspection.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Do you believe an A&P should be an expert in everything?
Click to expand...

That's not everything, that is base line beginner education. But to answer your question no, but when a professional doesn't know his business, I don't let them near my gear.
 
N801BH said:
No.. BUT...

Any competent A&P should know an experimental gets a conditional inspection and a IA is not needed... Probably the first question on the FAA's A&P test. :yes:
Click to expand...
If general aviation is the business that said A&P works in then maybe yes, but many do not and for them to not know that, well is not totally shocking to me.
Example: Ex military mech has enough experience to test out. Starts working for major airline. Chances are good that he has no clue what and experimental is.
Example: Vocational school student with no GA type background working regional jets. Probably doesn't know that.

Now if you are working in GA then you should know that, but just having an A&P doesn't mean they know everything.
 
flyingmoose said:
If general aviation is the business that said A&P works in then maybe yes, but many do not and for them to not know that, well is not totally shocking to me.
Example: Ex military mech has enough experience to test out. Starts working for major airline. Chances are good that he has no clue what and experimental is.
Example: Vocational school student with no GA type background working regional jets. Probably doesn't know that.

Now if you are working in GA then you should know that, but just having an A&P doesn't mean they know everything.
Click to expand...


Don't you have to take the written exams though no matter what? I can't imagine this wouldn't be covered on the written.
 
Henning said:
Don't you have to take the written exams though no matter what? I can't imagine this wouldn't be covered on the written.
Click to expand...

It is not, log book entries have about 2 questions on the A and the P
 
Tom-D said:
It is not, log book entries have about 2 questions on the A and the P
Click to expand...

You only need a passing score of 70 for the A&P written test. Figure an airliner with two pilots in the front could be their with a total between the two of them missing 60 percent of the FAA written test questions and if their were three one in the jump seat that could mean a posible total of 90 percent wrong answers on the FAA written test so their only flying on 10 percent. Something to think about next time you get on a airliner.
 
Last edited:
"Pulled an annual" is the same thing as "completing an annual". It's just anothewr word for doing the inspection.
 
darrell said:
"Pulled an annual" is the same thing as "completing an annual". It's just anothewr word for doing the inspection.
Click to expand...

You should have let them think about it, not that any inspector would read the sign off prior to theirs.
 
Tom-D said:
You should have let them think about it, not that any inspector would read the sign off prior to theirs.
Click to expand...

I tried thinking about it.

I know that when someone drinks and drives, the gubmint "pulls" their license - meaning revokes.

When you're building a deck on your house, you "pull" a permit - meaning apply for.
 
I do know that my insurance provider charges additional liability premium for doing condition assessments and repairs to amateur built aircraft.

mitch
 
Tom-D said:
I do compliance / conditional inspections and you folks would be surprised at how many annuals got pulled prior to my inspection.
Click to expand...

It's the same for engines - there is no such thing as an "annual" inspection of an engine but look in any engine logbook and count how many annuals have been pulled on it. This is not a problem however because, although the terminology may be clerically incorrect, it's not as though anyone reading through the logbook is going to be completely stumped as to what that means - as far as what was done.

I've been doing this for a lot of years and have pawed through countless logbooks. Believe me, there is no rigid, set standard for making a logbook entry. Some entry's for an inspection can span pages in which the mechanic will write down every loose screw that was tightened up or smudge of grease that was wiped off while others are as simple and terse as possible.

My method is to simply refer to the checklist used - meaning, if it's on that list it was done.
 
darrell said:
"Pulled an annual" is the same thing as "completing an annual". It's just anothewr word for doing the inspection.
Click to expand...

I reread the posts and finally understood that Tom was commenting that the inspections listed in the logbook for the experimental prior to his Conditional Inspection were written up incorrectly as "annuals."

"Pulling" to me is synonymous to "removing" so his statement didn't make any sense to me originally.
 
Witmo said:
"Pulling" to me is synonymous to "removing" so his statement didn't make any sense to me originally.
Click to expand...

Totally understandable, all depends on your life experience, I suppose.

According to Merriam-Webster online, "remove" is the 2nd definition listed for the transitive verb form of "pull".

"Perform/carry out" is 8th.

There are 11 definitions for the transitive verb form according to Merriam-Webster online.

Seems excessive to me. English is a terrible language. :eek:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top