Repairing a home build

Tom-D

Tom-D

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
34,740
Display Name
Tom-D
Most of the people who have the tools and materials to repair home builts are the person who built it, an A&P or FBO.

If you were an A&P would you want to take on the liability of working on a home built?
 
why would there be any more liability than working on something with a standard airworthiness cert?
 
Because on a certificated aircraft there is a paper trail for everything that might get put into the aircraft. On an experimental, who knows? Also, odds are an experienced mechanic will have seen most of the stuff on certificateds, and if not can check with a colleague. Experimentals can have all manner of stuff that a mechanic might have never seen.
 
If I were an A&P, I'd probably decide on a case by case basis.
 
tonycondon said:
why would there be any more liability than working on something with a standard airworthiness cert?
Click to expand...
In my way of thinking we have a approved repair methods in publications and can buy airframe parts they were not built at home.

with the home built, the repair must be fabricated by the repair facility.
 
Case by case for sure. But yes, even if there is not a manual to use there is still available documentation for best practices.
 
A Repairman Experimental Aircraft certificate is issued by the FAA on a plastic card like the pilot certificate, to only the one person who was the builder of the aircraft. Lawyers might use that one way or another.

Particularly since there's a consistently higher accident rate in Experimentals any A&P would be looking on a case by case basis, which they should do for certificated aircraft as well. Would anybody knowingly do and sign off work on a certificated aircraft if they knew the operator had questionable operating proceedures of any kind?
 
tonycondon said:
why would there be any more liability than working on something with a standard airworthiness cert?
Click to expand...
*Working* on it, I don't think there is, as long as the A&P thoroughly documents the work that he or she did.

Performing the Condition Inspection is more of a risk, since the A&P is basically approving all the work done by the amateur maintainer over the previous year. I did a huge rebuild of my electrical system this year, and for the Condition Inspection I re-opened the airplane to the same extent as was needed for the electrical work (A fuselage panel that isn't typically expected to be removed) so he could judge my workmanship.

Ron Wanttaja
 
repairman certificate is only for completeing the conditional inpsection.

I would take it on a case by case for sure, taking into account the owner as a main consideration.

Dave Krall CFII said:
A Repairman Experimental Aircraft certificate is issued by the FAA on a plastic card like the pilot certificate, to only the one person who was the builder of the aircraft. Lawyers might use that one way or another.

Particularly since there's a consistently higher accident rate in Experimentals any A&P would be looking on a case by case basis, which they should do for certificated aircraft as well. Would anybody knowingly do and sign off work on a certificated aircraft if they knew the operator had questionable operating proceedures of any kind?
Click to expand...
 
How often is a repair on a homebuilt the root cause of an accident? I don't know if too many homebuilts that have had structural failure in flight. If anything our planes are tested to a higher structural limit than certified. Now you have some engine failures out there but most are the same engines mounted on certified types. Is a Lycoming mounted on a homebuilt more prone to failure than one on a production aircraft? I don't know of anyone not maintaining a certified engine in a non-certified manner. I would think if you used common repair practices that you would normally use on a certified, you should have no worries fixing someone's homebuilt. Generally operator error is our biggest problem in the homebuilt community not maintainence.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Are you limiting the discussion to airframe structural repair or any repair?
Click to expand...

Pretty much the airframe damage.

the rest is simply a replacement of parts bought over the counter. (tires, instruments, ect)

Wouldn't any one be placing them selves into the builders liability loop when they fabricate and install airframe parts, such as a flight control?
 
Ron Wattanja has published several excellent articles about EX/AB safety and root causes of accidents. His work has shown that there is indeed an uptick in the EX/AB category from misbuilt/misrepaired aircraft. I believe there is a similar uptick in aircraft with auto conversion engines. With luck he'll be by himself soon with some actual statistics.
 
Tom-D said:
In my way of thinking we have a approved repair methods in publications and can buy airframe parts they were not built at home.

with the home built, the repair must be fabricated by the repair facility.
Click to expand...

Don't sign anything, just do the work and collect cash only.
 
Henning said:
Don't sign anything, just do the work and collect cash only.
Click to expand...

I can think of 3 different FAR violations in doing that, plus the fact that when the lawyers get to court they will have an easy do proving you were hiding the shoddy workmanship that you did to cause this accident.
 
Tom-D said:
I can think of 3 different FAR violations in doing that, plus the fact that when the lawyers get to court they will have an easy do proving you were hiding the shoddy workmanship that you did to cause this accident.
Click to expand...

What FARs would you be violating given it is an Experimental?

BTW, they need proof of proximate cause of your shoddy work causing the accident.
 
Anyone can work on experimentals. A&P or the person holding the repairman's cert can sign off the condition inspection.

Most if not all airframe parts on RV's are available at Van's.

There is no increased liability working on experimentals -V- certifieds. Probably less.
 
Tom-D said:
Pretty much the airframe damage.

the rest is simply a replacement of parts bought over the counter. (tires, instruments, ect)

Wouldn't any one be placing them selves into the builders liability loop when they fabricate and install airframe parts, such as a flight control?
Click to expand...
Here is the problem....it is our legal system. How much money do you have??? If you are a dirt poor trunker.....they probably aren't going to go after you unless it is criminal negligence. If you have alot of assets, you need alot of insurance, because the lawyers are going to try to associate the accident to your work any way they can in order to get at those assets. Then it is up to you and your insurance company to prove innocence.

But that really isn't much different when dealing with the certified airplane world. Only difference is that in the certified world, there are more players (Aircraft manufacturer and other parts manufacturers) with their own lawyers and insurance companies, so I suppose you could argue that you have a greater exposure as an A&P working on an EAB since there are fewer other pockets to go after.
 
Henning said:
What FARs would you be violating given it is an Experimental?

BTW, they need proof of proximate cause of your shoddy work causing the accident.
Click to expand...

Lawyers don't need proof of anything to sue.:eek:

I also wonder what FAR's are being violated since the original owner can do the annual condition inspection without coming anywhere near an A&P / IA and sign off on any work. if its not the original owner, I think the same applies but can be educated.

Cheers
 
X3 Skier said:
Lawyers don't need proof of anything to sue.:eek:

I also wonder what FAR's are being violated since the original owner can do the annual condition inspection without coming anywhere near an A&P / IA and sign off on any work. if its not the original owner, I think the same applies but can be educated.

Cheers
Click to expand...

You don't even need to work on the plane to get sued, however winning is another matter altogether.
A non A&P requires a Repairman's Certificate for that airframe & S/N to sign off the Condition Inspection, that is typically only issued to the original builder of record or if you have done substantial work to the plane which involved all the systems.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
What FARs would you be violating given it is an Experimental?

BTW, they need proof of proximate cause of your shoddy work causing the accident.
Click to expand...

There is no exemption in FAR 43 for maintenance entries for EXP-AB aircraft.

Plus the fact FAR 91 places the owner operator's requirement to get entries.
 
Henning said:
BTW, they need proof of proximate cause of your shoddy work causing the accident.
Click to expand...
In a perfect world, maybe. Not in the US. They don't need proof of squat to sue... and often not to win, either. You can get sued for bloody near anything, and given that juries are made up of people with no clue about aviation (or anything else, it would seem)... you might lose, whether there is any actual fault or not.
 
Tom-D said:
There is no exemption in FAR 43 for maintenance entries for EXP-AB aircraft.

Plus the fact FAR 91 places the owner operator's requirement to get entries.
Click to expand...

part 43 doesn't apply to experimentals
 
Tom-D said:
There is no exemption in FAR 43 for maintenance entries for EXP-AB aircraft.

Plus the fact FAR 91 places the owner operator's requirement to get entries.
Click to expand...

Isn't it the O/Os duty to keep the records? What prevents him from making the required entries outside the Condition Inspection?
 
DaleB said:
In a perfect world, maybe. Not in the US. They don't need proof of squat to sue... and often not to win, either. You can get sued for bloody near anything, and given that juries are made up of people with no clue about aviation (or anything else, it would seem)... you might lose, whether there is any actual fault or not.
Click to expand...
Problem is that our legal system is biased/geared toward socialism. In law school (tort law for example) they TEACH that who should pay is more dependent on who has the deepest pockets rather than who is most responsible.
 
Tom-D said:
You think not? read 91.407

You will have those entries made by the properly rated persons. be that whom ever.
Click to expand...

The properly rated person for every entry except the Condition Inspection is the non A&P owner operator.
 
steingar said:
Ron Wattanja has published several excellent articles about EX/AB safety and root causes of accidents. His work has shown that there is indeed an uptick in the EX/AB category from misbuilt/misrepaired aircraft. I believe there is a similar uptick in aircraft with auto conversion engines. With luck he'll be by himself soon with some actual statistics.
Click to expand...

He has written several good articles on the subject.... if you subscribe to Kitplanes they are archived in the digital archive section....

Here is one..http://www.kitplanes.com/issues/28_2/exploring/Safety_Is_No_Accident_Auto_Engines_9459-1.html
 
<H2 style="TEXT-ALIGN: left">
§ 91.407 Operation after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration.

(a) No person may operate any aircraft that has undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration unless—

(1) It has been approved for return to service by a person authorized under § 43.7 of this chapter; and

(2) The maintenance record entry required by § 43.9 or § 43.11, as applicable, of this chapter has been made.

(b) No person may carry any person (other than crewmembers) in an aircraft that has been maintained, rebuilt, or altered in a manner that may have appreciably changed its flight characteristics or substantially affected its operation in flight until an appropriately rated pilot with at least a private pilot certificate flies the aircraft, makes an operational check of the maintenance performed or alteration made, and logs the flight in the aircraft records.

(c) The aircraft does not have to be flown as required by paragraph (b) of this section if, prior to flight, ground tests, inspection, or both show conclusively that the maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration has not appreciably changed the flight characteristics or substantially affected the flight operation of the aircraft.

Click to expand...


§ 43.1 Applicability.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section, this part prescribes rules governing the maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alteration of any—

(1) Aircraft having a U.S. airworthiness certificate;

(2) Foreign-registered civil aircraft used in common carriage or carriage of mail under the provisions of Part 121 or 135 of this chapter; and

(3) Airframe, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, and component parts of such aircraft.

(b) This part does not apply to—

(1) Any aircraft for which the FAA has issued an experimental certificate, unless the FAA has previously issued a different kind of airworthiness certificate for that aircraft; or

(2) Any aircraft for which the FAA has issued an experimental certificate under the provisions of § 21.191 (i)(3) of this chapter, and the aircraft was previously issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category under the provisions of § 21.190 of this chapter.

(c) This part applies to all life-limited parts that are removed from a type certificated product, segregated, or controlled as provided in § 43.10.

(d) This part applies to any aircraft issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category except:

(1) The repair or alteration form specified in §§ 43.5(b) and 43.9(d) is not required to be completed for products not produced under an FAA approval;

(2) Major repairs and major alterations for products not produced under an FAA approval are not required to be recorded in accordance with appendix B of this part; and

(3) The listing of major alterations and major repairs specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of appendix A of this part is not applicable to products not produced under an FAA approval.

Click to expand...


My argument would be that since 43.7 doesn't apply to my experimental, to comply with 91.407(a)(1), anyone can return a repair to service and no specific maintenance record entry is required by 43.9 or 43.11, since they don't apply to my aircraft.

</H2>
 
X3 Skier said:
Lawyers don't need proof of anything to sue.:eek:

I also wonder what FAR's are being violated since the original owner can do the annual condition inspection without coming anywhere near an A&P / IA and sign off on any work. if its not the original owner, I think the same applies but can be educated.

Cheers
Click to expand...

Only the original builder is eligible to apply for a repairman cert for the aircraft. I'll try to dig up the reference in a bit.


-VanDy
 
Henning said:
The properly rated person for every entry except the Condition Inspection is the non A&P owner operator.
Click to expand...
Really,,,,, show me the exemption for EXP-AB aircraft in 91, or 43..

91.409 has an exemption for inspections, it does not give any exemptions for return to service after maintenance.
 
Tom-D said:
Really,,,,, show me the exemption for EXP-AB aircraft in 91, or 43..

91.409 has an exemption for inspections, it does not give any exemptions for return to service after maintenance.
Click to expand...

43.1(b)(1) as quoted by Tony above.
 
Tom-D said:
Really,,,,, show me the exemption for EXP-AB aircraft in 91, or 43..

91.409 has an exemption for inspections, it does not give any exemptions for return to service after maintenance.
Click to expand...


read what Tony posted. ;)

(b) This part does not apply to—

(1) Any aircraft for which the FAA has issued an experimental certificate, unless the FAA has previously issued a different kind of airworthiness certificate for that aircraft; or

(2) Any aircraft for which the FAA has issued an experimental certificate under the provisions of § 21.191 (i)(3) of this chapter, and the aircraft was previously issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category under the provisions of § 21.190 of this chapter.

Opps! Henning beat me to it.
 
In the history of aviation there has not been a successful lawsuit against the builder, owner, or anyone working on experimentals aircraft. A&P's across the country work on experimental all the time. Our A&P will do my annual condition inspections for $1,000, and he has done them on several of the RV's I owned knowing they were for sale. I had them do a fresh annual and he/we would fix any discrepancies.

Why would anyone turn away honest work? :dunno:
 
Geico266 said:
In the history of aviation there has not been a successful lawsuit against the builder, owner, or anyone working on experimentals aircraft. A&P's across the country work on experimental all the time. Our A&P will do my annual condition inspections for $1,000, and he has done them on several of the RV's I owned knowing they were for sale. I had them do a fresh annual and he/we would fix any discrepancies.

Why would anyone turn away honest work? :dunno:
Click to expand...

Agreed 100 %....

Any decent A&P should know basic aeronautical building methods and practices.... My gut feeling is the latest batch of A&P's and IA's cannot buck a rivet, or fabricate a panel, or use a bead roller, or even understand proper edge distances when laying out replacement parts.. Without those basic principles they will shy away from experimentals because they are afraid to show their ignorance.....

A plane, is a plane, is a plane... Geez..:rolleyes2::rolleyes2:
 
Last edited:
N801BH said:
Agreed 100 %....

Any decent A&P should know basic aeronautical building methods and practices.... My guy feeling is the latest batch of A&P's and IA's cannot buck a rivet, or fabricate a panel, or use a bead roller, or even understand proper edge distances when laying out replacement parts.. Without those basic principles they will shy away from experimentals because they are afraid to show their ignorance.....

A plane, is a plane, is a plane... Geez..:rolleyes2::rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

And with RV's the parts are all pre punched. If it doesn't cleco on there is something wrong. :dunno:

Airplanes are airplanes.

The comments coming from some of the people here are very "uninformed".
 
Henning said:
43.1(b)(1) as quoted by Tony above.
Click to expand...

That is for maintenance not record keeping.


43.1 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section, this part prescribes rules governing the maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alteration of any—

(1) Aircraft having a U.S. airworthiness certificate;
 
Now you're arguing with stupidity so I won't play anymore unless you list the FARs you believe you will violate, otherwise this is just a troll to me. If you are serious, you need to see someone about growing mental infirmity, don't be embarrassed, Reagan had Alzheimer's and was still President.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top