What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Annual inspection - is the oil change required?

Status
Not open for further replies.

agent4573

Well Known Member
I believe I'm fully aware of the answer to this, but I'm hoping for a unicorn. Poor planning on my part, but we changed the oil about 5 tach hours ago. Now it's time for the annual. Part 43 requires an oil change and an inspection of the filter media. Any chance it's possible to skip this step since we just changed the oil and cut the filter apart?
 
Most unfortunately, Common Sense isn't very common anymore.........

I eagerly await it's early return, ...........but I'm not very hopeful.......

:eek:
 
Did you perform the oil change yourself? Or your A&P? You could just cut open the filter, and drain (paint filter) catch and reuse the 5 hour oil. You should be pulling the Lycoming suction screen every oil change. You probably could even count the prior oil change as you started the condition inspection, and now you are getting around to finishing it.. no body says that the condition inspection needs to be completed all on the same day. Although we don’t do CI as progressive inspections.. I’d like to hear what other mechanics say about this..
 
From part 43 appendix D.

“Internal engine - for cylinder compression and for metal particles or foreign matter on screens and sump drain plugs. If there is weak cylinder compression, for improper internal condition and improper internal tolerances.“

You don’t have to do an oil change, but you are supposed inspect the oil screen. Hard to inspect it without draining the oil.
 
Condition Inspection

To be legal, write your own inspection list this time around replace that step with say...an oil analysis. As long as it is in accordance with the scope and detail of appendix D to part 43 you're good.

(That's funny, Pete.)
 
I would contend there is no "requirement" for anything as it is an experimental. It is what the person signing the condition inspection demands. If s/he needs to see the filter cut open then so be it. What do your op lims say? Do they make reference to Part 43? When I had a US registered experimental they didn't, but that was awhile ago ... Read the Op Lims carefully!
 
I would contend there is no "requirement" for anything as it is an experimental. It is what the person signing the condition inspection demands. If s/he needs to see the filter cut open then so be it. What do your op lims say? Do they make reference to Part 43? When I had a US registered experimental they didn't, but that was awhile ago ... Read the Op Lims carefully!

Both of my op limits (oldest 2015) require a sign off that includes a reference to an inspection following the scope of part 43 (actual wording is a bit more verbose, but just don't remember it), so you cannot make a blanket statement that it doesn't apply to experimental. How closely you match to the actual part 43 is up to interpretation of what "scope of" really means. Clearly some room to wiggle here, but definately not a "doesn't apply to experimental."
 
Last edited:
Are you doing your own condition inspection?

If it were me, and I had just done a oil change 5 hours ago, along with cutting the filter open and all the stuff that goes with it, I would have no problem at all incorporating that into my own inspection, as long as it wasn't like 5 hours tach time months ago and the plane's been sitting since.

However, if I was signing off somebody else's airplane, I wouldn't take their word for it that "oh yeah, we did that 5 hours ago and it was all good."

I also wouldn't try to reuse the oil, or other penny pinching measures.
 
Last edited:
Does 43 apply?

As I read 43 it excludes EAB. What am I missing?
 

Attachments

  • 444B3FFA-6C9B-45E3-966C-938814988DC0.jpg
    444B3FFA-6C9B-45E3-966C-938814988DC0.jpg
    268.4 KB · Views: 222
As I read 43 it excludes EAB. What am I missing?

Except then the Ops Lims say this that your annual CI has to conclude with this sign-off in the log book:

“I certify that this aircraft has been inspected on [insert date] in accordance with the scope and detail of FAR 43 Appendix D, and was found to be in a condition for safe operation.”

(It also has this statement: No person must operate this aircraft unless within the preceding 12 calendar months it has had a condition inspection performed in accordance with the scope and detail of FAR 43 Appendix D, or other FAA-approved programs, and was found to be in a condition for safe operation.)
 
Last edited:
As I read 43 it excludes EAB. What am I missing?

Part 43 as a REGULATION, does not apply to EAB. HOWEVER, your Op Limits require you to perform an inspection following the scope and detail of Part 43. So the procedures and inspection criteria outlined in 43 are relevant, indirectly. How closely you must follow them is up to interpretation and not sure the FAA has ever clarified this via formal interpretation.
 
Last edited:
Regulations

And let’s not ask them to clarify either! We have enough rules and interpretations so my position is to do what’s reasonable within the rules and interpretations that already exist. Never, ever, ever ask the FAA or any government entity anything. Do your own research and then go with it. Ask friends and colleagues within the industry on their interpretations and what they do (like we’re doing here), but never ask the FAA period. About anything…ever. Unless you’re asking them about the weather or their plans after their retirement.
 
And let’s not ask them to clarify either! We have enough rules and interpretations so my position is to do what’s reasonable within the rules and interpretations that already exist. Never, ever, ever ask the FAA or any government entity anything. Do your own research and then go with it. Ask friends and colleagues within the industry on their interpretations and what they do (like we’re doing here), but never ask the FAA period. About anything…ever. Unless you’re asking them about the weather or their plans after their retirement.

Are you referencing the old saying; "It's easier to beg forgiveness than to ask permission."?
 
Are you referencing the old saying; "It's easier to beg forgiveness than to ask permission."?

I think that he meant if you give the FAA on option to clarify, it will be universally easier for them to bust you than if left unclear. They are likely to fall on the side of making it tougher vs easier in my experience.
 
My suggestion for the future is to do more calendar time based oil changes. My average flying hours over the last 4 years has been about 100/year.
Oil changes are recommended every 4 months, so 3 changes a year. I do the oil change at the annual in June, then the next one is at the end of summer, then another in early winter. With a spin on filter you can push the oil changes out to every 50 hours. I seem to always fall between 30-40 hours between changes at just about 4 months.
I always inspect the filter element and take an oil sample for analysis. The scope of Part 43 Appendix D (d) (3) is pretty clear that you need to inspect the screen/filter/drain for metal. It doesn't say explicitly that you have to drain/change the oil. You could "meet the spirit" of the scope here by taking an oil sample for analysis with a pump from the dipstick.
 
Here's what I do: use common sense.

If it's only been a month or two since I changed the oil and filter (and every time I send in a sample for analysis), then no, I'm not wasting money changing the oil again. If it's been longer, then probably, depending on hours flown.

No need to overthink this.
 
I believe I'm fully aware of the answer to this, but I'm hoping for a unicorn. Poor planning on my part, but we changed the oil about 5 tach hours ago. Now it's time for the annual. Part 43 requires an oil change and an inspection of the filter media. Any chance it's possible to skip this step since we just changed the oil and cut the filter apart?

My question is, how long did it take you to get those 5 hours? I’ve had annual inspections done on certified airplanes that took more than a month, and the oil/filter change was done when I took it in for the annual. The annual was still signed off, even though it was finished during the following month. I know that you’ve put 5 hours on it, but the A&P put some time on the engine too during test runs, and occasionally a flight or two. Common sense says don’t do another oil change so soon unless you found something suspicious during the oil change you did a little earlier. If it took you 6 months to accumulate those 5 hours, then yes, I think you should give it another look.
 
My question is, how long did it take you to get those 5 hours? I’ve had annual inspections done on certified airplanes that took more than a month, and the oil/filter change was done when I took it in for the annual. The annual was still signed off, even though it was finished during the following month. I know that you’ve put 5 hours on it, but the A&P put some time on the engine too during test runs, and occasionally a flight or two. Common sense says don’t do another oil change so soon unless you found something suspicious during the oil change you did a little earlier. If it took you 6 months to accumulate those 5 hours, then yes, I think you should give it another look.

No A&P, just me. Oil was changed 4 weeks ago. It has about 8 hours on it now, will have 10 on it after this weekend and I'm planning on putting it down for annual Monday. Common sense says just leave it alone, but also I'm an idiot and this conversation is moot.

I'm making my list of tasks I need to do during annual, and it just occured to me that I want to install the raven inverted oil system during this annual. I already have the return fitting from the half raven installed, so I don't need to drain it completely, but I do think I need to pull the screen for the inverted pickup. It was interesting to see the take from people, and I appreciate the input, but it looks like draining the oil is needed to facilitate other maintenance (FOM).
 
HOWEVER, your Op Limits require you to perform an inspection following the scope and detail of Part 43. So the procedures and inspection criteria outlined in 43 are relevant, indirectly.

HOWEVER, 43.1(b)(1) is included in Part 43 so technically you would be able to sign off as per your Op Limits that you indeed DID perform an inspection that is within the scope and detail of Part 43.
 
HOWEVER, 43.1(b)(1) is included in Part 43 so technically you would be able to sign off as per your Op Limits that you indeed DID perform an inspection that is within the scope and detail of Part 43.

The operating limitation for the condition inspection, specifies the inspection be done in accordance with FAR 43, Appendix D.
The operating limitation isn’t referencing the entire part 43. It is only referencing appendix D, which is a list of all of the things that are supposed to be done by a mechanic during a condition inspection, that is located at the back of FAR 43.
The whole reason that this is listed as an operating limitation is to reapply it to the aircraft as a requirement since FAR 43 doesn’t apply.
I.E., the FAA wants the same tasks completed for an experimental condition inspection, but they had to write that requirement back in via the operating limitations for the aircraft.
 
This is right on the regression line!

The operating limitation for the condition inspection, specifies the inspection be done in accordance with FAR 43, Appendix D.
The operating limitation isn’t referencing the entire part 43. It is only referencing appendix D, which is a list of all of the things that are supposed to be done by a mechanic during a condition inspection, that is located at the back of FAR 43.
The whole reason that this is listed as an operating limitation is to reapply it to the aircraft as a requirement since FAR 43 doesn’t apply.
I.E., the FAA wants the same tasks completed for an experimental condition inspection, but they had to write that requirement back in via the operating limitations for the aircraft.

Lancair builder/flyer/repairman here. I had questions about exactly what the regs are re the annual condition inspection, so I started reading this thread.

It's clear the FAA is repeatedly contradicting itself in the operating limitations issued referencing the need to do inspections per the scope and detail of Part 43 Appendix D while simultaneously saying that Part 43 (which includes Appendix D!) does not apply to experimental aircraft. Because the fact that the referenced Appendix D is contained within Part 43, combined with the fact that Part 43 explicitly states that it does not apply to experimental aircraft, means logically that Appendix D does not apply to experimental aircraft.

I do think a court would believe that the FAA **meant** to include the steps in Appendix D as reasonable guidance, at the very least. But the fact that they have contradicted themselves would allow a good lawyer to have a field day if they tried to enforce any requirement, unless there is already precedent on the issue. If I were a judge (and I'm not), I would say the operating limitation statement can hardly be interpreted as saying that Appendix D is any more than guidance given that the reference Part of the regs says explicitly it doesn't apply to experimentals. If the FAA meant something else, they should have said so!
 
Last edited:
Lancair builder/flyer/repairman here. I had questions about exactly what the regs are re the annual condition inspection, so I started reading this thread.

It's clear the FAA is repeatedly contradicting itself in the operating limitations issued referencing the need to do inspections per the scope and detail of Part 43 Appendix D while simultaneously saying that Part 43 (which includes Appendix D!) does not apply to experimental aircraft. Because the fact that the referenced Appendix D is contained within Part 43, combined with the fact that Part 43 explicitly states that it does not apply to experimental aircraft, means logically that Appendix D does not apply to experimental aircraft.

I do think a court would believe that the FAA **meant** to include the steps in Appendix D as reasonable guidance, at the very least. But the fact that they have contradicted themselves would allow a good lawyer to have a field day if they tried to enforce any requirement, unless there is already precedent on the issue. If I were a judge (and I'm not), I would say the operating limitation statement can hardly be interpreted as saying that Appendix D is any more than guidance given that the reference Part of the regs says explicitly it doesn't apply to experimentals. If the FAA meant something else, they should have said so!

That sounds a lot like a “Jailhouse Lawyer” defense, but you know the thing about jailhouse lawyers is that they are already in jail……
 
Lancair builder/flyer/repairman here. I had questions about exactly what the regs are re the annual condition inspection, so I started reading this thread.
It's clear the FAA is repeatedly contradicting itself in the operating limitations issued referencing the need to do inspections per the scope and detail of Part 43 Appendix D while simultaneously saying that Part 43 (which includes Appendix D!) does not apply to experimental aircraft. Because the fact that the referenced Appendix D is contained within Part 43, combined with the fact that Part 43 explicitly states that it does not apply to experimental aircraft, means logically that Appendix D does not apply to experimental aircraft.
I do think a court would believe that the FAA **meant** to include the steps in Appendix D as reasonable guidance, at the very least. But the fact that they have contradicted themselves would allow a good lawyer to have a field day if they tried to enforce any requirement, unless there is already precedent on the issue. If I were a judge (and I'm not), I would say the operating limitation statement can hardly be interpreted as saying that Appendix D is any more than guidance given that the reference Part of the regs says explicitly it doesn't apply to experimentals. If the FAA meant something else, they should have said so!

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you Dan. The reference to appendix D of part 43 does NOT contradict the fact that part 43 does not apply. It simply states that you must perform the condition inspection on your Experimental Aircraft in the same manor as you would on a Standard Category aircraft.
 
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you Dan. The reference to appendix D of part 43 does NOT contradict the fact that part 43 does not apply. It simply states that you must perform the condition inspection on your Experimental Aircraft in the same manor as you would on a Standard Category aircraft.

To be clear, I believe the steps in part 43 appendix D are useful, and while I have some quibbles with some of the steps (e.g., compression readings by themselves have limited value if the engine is making full power), I am not contesting whether the steps are a good idea.

However, the FAA can't say in one breath that Part 43 Appendix D doesn't apply to experimental aircraft and then say an inspection should be in accordance with Appendix D of that part without creating massive confusion from an endless circle of convoluted reasoning. "Follow the scope and this detail of a reg that doesn't apply." Well, the scope and detail of the reg says the scope and detail doesn't apply. So it means do nothing. If the FAA wanted the steps in Appendix D followed in the conditional inspections of experimental aircraft, it should have said that that component of the reg (Appendix D) DOES apply to experimental aircraft, contrary to the Applicability section of the reg that says the reg (which contains the Appendix) doesn't apply.

Here's another point about which I'd be interested in your perspective. My operating limitations indicate the need for an annual condition inspection "per the scope and detail of Part 43, Appendix D, manufacturer or other FAA-approved programs." The OLs further instruct that the log book entry for my annual condition inspection should say "per the scope and detail of Part 43, Appendix D" or "per the manufacturer's inspection procedures." My understanding is that I am the manufacturer of my airplane -- the aircraft registration states as much. If that is correct, this wording indicates that I (the manufacturer) can develop procedures that could vary from Part 43, Appendix D. Am I reading this incorrectly?

Now, my personal checklist is heavily guided by Part 43, Appendix D. But I don't read my operating limitations as requiring that they follow Part 43, Appendix D to the letter. Actually, when I first read these limitations, I thought that allowing the inspection to be "per the manufacturer's inspection procedures" was there in recognition of the contradictions embodied in applying parts of a reg when the reg itself explicitly says it doesn't apply to the circumstance in question. To me, the inclusion of the second and third possibilities (the manufacturer and other FAA programs) means that Appendix D does not have to be followed to the letter. I can't see how it does.

Happy and safe flying,
Dan
 
To be clear, I believe the steps in part 43 appendix D are useful, and while I have some quibbles with some of the steps (e.g., compression readings by themselves have limited value if the engine is making full power), I am not contesting whether the steps are a good idea.

However, the FAA can't say in one breath that Part 43 Appendix D doesn't apply to experimental aircraft and then say an inspection should be in accordance with Appendix D of that part without creating massive confusion from an endless circle of convoluted reasoning. "Follow the scope and this detail of a reg that doesn't apply." Well, the scope and detail of the reg says the scope and detail doesn't apply. So it means do nothing. If the FAA wanted the steps in Appendix D followed in the conditional inspections of experimental aircraft, it should have said that that component of the reg (Appendix D) DOES apply to experimental aircraft, contrary to the Applicability section of the reg that says the reg (which contains the Appendix) doesn't apply.

Here's another point about which I'd be interested in your perspective. My operating limitations indicate the need for an annual condition inspection "per the scope and detail of Part 43, Appendix D, manufacturer or other FAA-approved programs." The OLs further instruct that the log book entry for my annual condition inspection should say "per the scope and detail of Part 43, Appendix D" or "per the manufacturer's inspection procedures." My understanding is that I am the manufacturer of my airplane -- the aircraft registration states as much. If that is correct, this wording indicates that I (the manufacturer) can develop procedures that could vary from Part 43, Appendix D. Am I reading this incorrectly?

Now, my personal checklist is heavily guided by Part 43, Appendix D. But I don't read my operating limitations as requiring that they follow Part 43, Appendix D to the letter. Actually, when I first read these limitations, I thought that allowing the inspection to be "per the manufacturer's inspection procedures" was there in recognition of the contradictions embodied in applying parts of a reg when the reg itself explicitly says it doesn't apply to the circumstance in question. To me, the inclusion of the second and third possibilities (the manufacturer and other FAA programs) means that Appendix D does not have to be followed to the letter. I can't see how it does.

Happy and safe flying,
Dan

You'd be wrong. They can, and do, specify precisely what your CI is to be done "in accordance with". They could have said "in accordance with [some book, a series of published papers, an AC, a list of topics, whatever they want]". If it's in your Ops Lims, then that's what you have to adhere to. Mine doesn't have the "manufacturer" approved option. That's a new one on me, but I'm no expert in the history of Ops Lims. Someone else can weight in.

What mine *does* say is that I MUST sign the logbook with the exact wording that includes ONLY "in accordance with the scope and detail of Part 43 Appendix D". That's it.

So how do you sign that, legally, if you don't follow 43 App D?

If you're just being a gadfly, that's fine. But I seriously doubt any of your arguments would hold up in a hearing or in court.

FAA says "do it IAW Part 43 App D", and it's unequivocal that's what they mean.
 
Well, my operating limitations allow substituting "manufacturer's inspection procedures" in place of "Part 43 Appendix D." The questions then become who is the manufacturer and what are his/her procedures? The FAA says I am the manufacturer, but perhaps it's the kit manufacturer?? I don't think so; we builders are listed as the manufacturers of our airplanes.

Interestingly, an article in Kitplanes (https://www.kitplanes.com/yearly-condition-inspection-part-i/) uses terms like "good information" and "guidance" regarding Part 43, Appendix D, and talks about how Appendix D "can help you":

An Experimental must be found to be in a “condition for safe operation.” There is no prescribed standard for making that determination other than Part 43, appendix D of the FARs. That means that you, as the holder of a Repairman Certificate or your A&P mechanic, must make that call. This places an extra responsibility on aircraft owners to determine what is safe, but the FAA has not left you without guidance [emphasis added]. There is a lot of good information [emphasis added] in Part 43, Appendix D. Let’s take a look at how that can help you perform a good condition inspection.​

This doesn't sound like the author of the article views Part 43, Appendix D as a requirement but rather as a source of helpful guidance. And as has been noted, Part 43 explicitly states that it (which presumably means all that it subsumes, including appendices) does not apply to experimentals.

I'll drop this now, but the plain language of my operating limitations -- which reference three alternatives for the scope and detail of the inspection -- does note require following Part 43, Appendix D. I pretty much do, anyway (where else would I get industry standards) but the operating limitations, as stated, do not require this.
 
Well, my operating limitations allow substituting "manufacturer's inspection procedures" in place of "Part 43 Appendix D." The questions then become who is the manufacturer and what are his/her procedures? The FAA says I am the manufacturer, but perhaps it's the kit manufacturer?? I don't think so; we builders are listed as the manufacturers of our airplanes.
Interestingly, an article in Kitplanes (https://www.kitplanes.com/yearly-condition-inspection-part-i/) uses terms like "good information" and "guidance" regarding Part 43, Appendix D, and talks about how Appendix D "can help you":
An Experimental must be found to be in a “condition for safe operation.” There is no prescribed standard for making that determination other than Part 43, appendix D of the FARs. That means that you, as the holder of a Repairman Certificate or your A&P mechanic, must make that call. This places an extra responsibility on aircraft owners to determine what is safe, but the FAA has not left you without guidance [emphasis added]. There is a lot of good information [emphasis added] in Part 43, Appendix D. Let’s take a look at how that can help you perform a good condition inspection.​
his doesn't sound like the author of the article views Part 43, Appendix D as a requirement but rather as a source of helpful guidance. And as has been noted, Part 43 explicitly states that it (which presumably means all that it subsumes, including appendices) does not apply to experimentals.
I'll drop this now, but the plain language of my operating limitations -- which reference three alternatives for the scope and detail of the inspection -- does note require following Part 43, Appendix D. I pretty much do, anyway (where else would I get industry standards) but the operating limitations, as stated, do not require this.

Good Luck in your adventures!
 
Last edited:
Well, my operating limitations allow substituting "manufacturer's inspection procedures" in place of "Part 43 Appendix D." The questions then become who is the manufacturer and what are his/her procedures? The FAA says I am the manufacturer, but perhaps it's the kit manufacturer?? I don't think so; we builders are listed as the manufacturers of our airplanes.

Interestingly, an article in Kitplanes (https://www.kitplanes.com/yearly-condition-inspection-part-i/) uses terms like "good information" and "guidance" regarding Part 43, Appendix D, and talks about how Appendix D "can help you":

An Experimental must be found to be in a “condition for safe operation.” There is no prescribed standard for making that determination other than Part 43, appendix D of the FARs. That means that you, as the holder of a Repairman Certificate or your A&P mechanic, must make that call. This places an extra responsibility on aircraft owners to determine what is safe, but the FAA has not left you without guidance [emphasis added]. There is a lot of good information [emphasis added] in Part 43, Appendix D. Let’s take a look at how that can help you perform a good condition inspection.​

This doesn't sound like the author of the article views Part 43, Appendix D as a requirement but rather as a source of helpful guidance. And as has been noted, Part 43 explicitly states that it (which presumably means all that it subsumes, including appendices) does not apply to experimentals.

I'll drop this now, but the plain language of my operating limitations -- which reference three alternatives for the scope and detail of the inspection -- does note require following Part 43, Appendix D. I pretty much do, anyway (where else would I get industry standards) but the operating limitations, as stated, do not require this.

Not to beat a dead horse :), but magazine articles are not the FARs. And the FARs clearly state:

91.319 - Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating limitations.
...
(i) The Administrator may prescribe additional limitations that the Administrator considers necessary...

So if the Administrator (as delegated authority to the DAR or FSDO inspector) puts in the requirement as stated above numerous times, then this clause allows them to do so, and it has the force of law. I have no idea when your ops lims with the additional clause about manufacturer's procedures was written...that seems to be a special case or older or something. Maybe a DAR here can weigh in on it, as well as what the current Ops Lims work aid has as the standard language now.

I'm not sure what you're trying to do here...avoid being somehow forced to use the same list of items that everyone else does? Why?
 
Not to beat a dead horse :), but magazine articles are not the FARs. And the FARs clearly state:

So if the Administrator (as delegated authority to the DAR or FSDO inspector) puts in the requirement as stated above numerous times, then this clause allows them to do so, and it has the force of law. I have no idea when your ops lims with the additional clause about manufacturer's procedures was written...that seems to be a special case or older or something. Maybe a DAR here can weigh in on it, as well as what the current Ops Lims work aid has as the standard language now.

I'm not sure what you're trying to do here...avoid being somehow forced to use the same list of items that everyone else does? Why?

I'm not trying to do anything other than point out, as Amadeus did using simple logic in an attempt to contribute to the OPs question, that the FAA's convoluted approach to this issue creates confusion. The scope and detail of part 43 appendix d includes the statement that it doesn't apply to experimentals. That means that abiding by the standard OL to inspect "according to the scope and detail of part 43 appendix d" includes NOT FOLLOWING part 43 appendix d. It's terrible language. But it is right on the regression line for this regulator, which after all gave us the The 737 max episode where a Boeing engineer was effectively made PIC of the aircraft.

The specific language in my OLs is a side issue, although it clearly says that in MY case, for whatever reason, I never have to follow or say the phrase Part 43, appendix d. I'm just a builder pilot, and I have no idea why that is. But if the OPs OLs said the same thing, he never would have had to ask whether he was bound by a silly requirement to do an oil change after 5 hours just to be able to legally fly his airplane.
 
I'm not trying to do anything other than point out, as Amadeus did using simple logic in an attempt to contribute to the OPs question, that the FAA's convoluted approach to this issue creates confusion. The scope and detail of part 43 appendix d includes the statement that it doesn't apply to experimentals. That means that abiding by the standard OL to inspect "according to the scope and detail of part 43 appendix d" includes NOT FOLLOWING part 43 appendix d. It's terrible language. But it is right on the regression line for this regulator, which after all gave us the The 737 max episode where a Boeing engineer was effectively made PIC of the aircraft.

The specific language in my OLs is a side issue, although it clearly says that in MY case, for whatever reason, I never have to follow or say the phrase Part 43, appendix d. I'm just a builder pilot, and I have no idea why that is. But if the OPs OLs said the same thing, he never would have had to ask whether he was bound by a silly requirement to do an oil change after 5 hours just to be able to legally fly his airplane.

Part 43 Appendix D does not give any relief for experimentals following Part 43. Only the whole of Part 43 does that. The OL's do not reference the whole of Part 43 - only specifically appendix D. You can charge that windmill if you like...
 
I'm not trying to do anything other than point out, as Amadeus did using simple logic in an attempt to contribute to the OPs question, that the FAA's convoluted approach to this issue creates confusion.
<snip>

I'm not confused and haven't seen any instances over the past couple of decades of RVers being confused about how their Op Lims relate to FAR 43 Appendix D........

Maybe this is a Lancair problem....... :D
 
I'm not trying to do anything other than point out, as Amadeus did using simple logic in an attempt to contribute to the OPs question, that the FAA's convoluted approach to this issue creates confusion. The scope and detail of part 43 appendix d includes the statement that it doesn't apply to experimentals. That means that abiding by the standard OL to inspect "according to the scope and detail of part 43 appendix d" includes NOT FOLLOWING part 43 appendix d. It's terrible language. But it is right on the regression line for this regulator, which after all gave us the The 737 max episode where a Boeing engineer was effectively made PIC of the aircraft.

The specific language in my OLs is a side issue, although it clearly says that in MY case, for whatever reason, I never have to follow or say the phrase Part 43, appendix d. I'm just a builder pilot, and I have no idea why that is. But if the OPs OLs said the same thing, he never would have had to ask whether he was bound by a silly requirement to do an oil change after 5 hours just to be able to legally fly his airplane.

Your logic is valid only in the context of trying to resolve to a specific meaning that you (and others) seem to be looking for.
As has already been pointed out, numerous times, experimental, operating limitations, exist to be able to write in specific operating requirements for an experimental aircraft, that don’t exist within the FAR’s.
Since we all agree that part 43 does not apply to an experimental aircraft, there would be no standard regarding what the requirements were for doing an annual conditioning inspection. So the operating limitations are used to add that requirement.
An appendix is a reference document. It is not the actual rule in the FAR’s.
The added part regarding or manufactures inspection procedures, came about because of experimental LSA’s. They actually do have inspection procedures, produced by the manufacture, because the airplane is a copy of a certified SLSA of which part of its certification requires the manufacture to produce maintenance an inspection documentation.
 
Last edited:
I'm not confused and haven't seen any instances over the past couple of decades of RVers being confused about how their Op Lims relate to FAR 43 Appendix D........

Maybe this is a Lancair problem....... :D

No, its a logic problem, a writing problem, or really both. I am not the only one who raised the point -- two others on this thread raised it before I did.

Writing clear rules is not easy. If the phrase "Part 43, Appendix D" means only Appendix D and that one should in applying Appendix D assume that 43.1(b)1 does not apply to Appendix D, then we'd be fine. The only remaining question would be what is meant by "in accordance with the scope and detail," but that probably means following the steps.

But if the phrase "Part 43, Appendix D" does not indicate only Appendix D and that one should ignore 43.1(b)1 for the purposes of interpreting the OLs, then the circularity begins. Since the scope and detail of Part 43 (which subsumes the Appendix) includes the fact that it doesn't apply to experimental, the inspector would be within the scope and detail of "Part 43, Appendix D" if he/she did not follow all the steps in Appendix D.

I am not trying to be cute. If the intent of the OLs is that inspections of experimentals must follow the steps listed in Appendix B of Part 43, it should clarify that for the purpose of the OL, 43.1(b)1 does not mean that the steps in Appendix D are not required for experimentals. If the FAA means that the steps in Appendix A offer guidance (as suggested in the Kitplanes article), then the OL should say that.

I honestly don't know which the FAA intended, because the regs/OLs currently are convoluted.

Hey, my only skin in this was that it was time to do my annual (first one) and I knew I needed to follow my OLs and make an appropriate logbook entry. My OLs allow saying either "per the scope and detail of Part 43, Appendix D" or "per the manfacturer's inspection procedures." That caused me to ask myself who is the manufacturer? The FAA says me. I wondered what others do. I started reading and stumbled on this thread. I saw the logical problem raised by other commenters in the way OLs are written referencing a regulation that explicitly says it doesn't apply to experimentals. As is often the case, the language here is unclear.

In any case, my OLs would clearly allow the OPer not to do the oil change after having just changed it. In fact, as I look back at Appendix D of Part 43, it does not list an oil change at all, as another poster observed.
 
I'm not trying to do anything other than point out, as Amadeus did using simple logic in an attempt to contribute to the OPs question, that the FAA's convoluted approach to this issue creates confusion.

Not by anybody here, AFAIK. Nor anybody else with an experimental that *I* ever knew. Seems to be only you who is attempting to manufacture some confusion.

The scope and detail of part 43 appendix d includes the statement that it doesn't apply to experimentals.

No it doesn't.

That means that abiding by the standard OL to inspect "according to the scope and detail of part 43 appendix d" includes NOT FOLLOWING part 43 appendix d.

No it doesn't.

It's terrible language. But it is right on the regression line for this regulator, which after all gave us the The 737 max episode where a Boeing engineer was effectively made PIC of the aircraft.

The specific language in my OLs is a side issue, although it clearly says that in MY case, for whatever reason, I never have to follow or say the phrase Part 43, appendix d. I'm just a builder pilot, and I have no idea why that is. But if the OPs OLs said the same thing, he never would have had to ask whether he was bound by a silly requirement to do an oil change after 5 hours just to be able to legally fly his airplane.

Well that's a bunch of irrelevant stuff. Not to mention that, if you had read 43 App D, there's nothing in there that specifically says you have to do an oil change. Granted, it might be hard to meet (d)(3) *without* doing one, but whether one is required within X hours/Y months of signing off on a CI is a completely different question than your misunderstanding of Ops Lims.
 
Last edited:
How about this one, then?

After incorporating a major change as described in FAR 21.93, the aircraft owner is required to reestablish compliance with FAR 91.319(b) and notify the geographically responsible FSDO of the location of the proposed test area.

But guess what? EABs *have no type certificate*, and part 21 applies to aircraft *with type certificates*. So how can the FAA apply 21.93 to EAB aircraft?

Simple: FAR 91.319 again.
 
In fact, as I look back at Appendix D of Part 43, it does not list an oil change at all, as another poster observed.
14 CFR Appendix D to Part 43(d)(3) states:

"Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall inspect (where applicable) components of the engine and nacelle group as follows:
....

Internal engine - for cylinder compression and for metal particles or foreign matter on screens and sump drain plugs. If there is weak cylinder compression, for improper internal condition and improper internal tolerances."


How does one do that without draining the oil?
 
Last edited:
14 CFR Appendix D to Part 43(d)(3) states:

"Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall inspect (where applicable) components of the engine and nacelle group as follows:
....

Internal engine - for cylinder compression and for metal particles or foreign matter on screens and sump drain plugs. If there is weak cylinder compression, for improper internal condition and improper internal tolerances."


How does one do that without draining the oil?

Yeah, that's what I said :). It'd be hard to without actually changing the oil, but the words "oil change" aren't actually in there (since someone is trying to pick nits and play amateur lawyer). LOL!

The *original* question was along the lines of "hey, I *just* did this action a few weeks ago, what's the point of doing it *again* so soon and where does it say I *have* to?". I think most of us say just use common sense. But that seems to have led to "I can IGNORE the Ops Lims because my internet legal education says I can", so hey...everyone should proceed at their own comfort level. HA HA!
 
How about this one, then?



But guess what? EABs *have no type certificate*, and part 21 applies to aircraft *with type certificates*. So how can the FAA apply 21.93 to EAB aircraft?

Simple: FAR 91.319 again.

Once again, it is the operating limitations, referring to something to provide detail. It is referring to that FAR to define what constitutes a major change.
Without that reference, how would someone know when that operating limitation applied?
 
Once again, it is the operating limitations, referring to something to provide detail. It is referring to that FAR to define what constitutes a major change.
Without that reference, how would someone know when that operating limitation applied?

Yeah, *I* know that. I'm pointing out to the posters who think they can ignore their Ops Lims based on some sketchy legal "theory" that the Ops Lims have *several* places where they re-impose or reference parts of the FARs that are initially inapplicable to EABs.
 
The *original* question was along the lines of "hey, I *just* did this action a few weeks ago, what's the point of doing it *again* so soon and where does it say I *have* to?". I think most of us say just use common sense. But that seems to have led to "I can IGNORE the Ops Lims because my internet legal education says I can", so hey...everyone should proceed at their own comfort level. HA HA!

For the record, no one said anything about ignoring OLs or any regulation. Three people said something about logical flaws and unclear writing that make the rules hard to interpret. Nothing has been said in this thread that addresses the conflicts raised in the regs and the OL language beyond claims that one should ignore plain language in some circumstances and make an assumption about which of two conflicting statements to rely on to avoid circularity. At least one DAR states that most OLs (though apparently not mine) should be read as requiring following the steps in Appendix D of Part 43 when doing an inspection on an experimental. Another person made what seems to be an accusation of jail-breaking due to someone raising questions about the contradictions in the language. Hmm... And others, who appear to have long ago adopted their position on the role of Appendix D for experimentals despite the conflicts that have been raised, find no conflict, in my view because habit rather than logical parsing of language has led them there.

So it goes. It seems obvious that folks over here are not real interested in worrying about clarity on the issue, so I'm sorry I raised it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top