What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Who is going to maintain all the E-AB airplanes?

KatanaPilot

Well Known Member
I had an interesting discussion yesterday with the owner of a build assist facility. He routinely gets calls and emails from RV owners needing some sort of maintenance work - condition inspections, panel upgrades, cracked canopies/windshields, etc.

They just don't have the bandwidth to accept most of this work. In the past, when they have taken on an unfamiliar airplane, they frequently find one or more issues with the airplanes that require excessive (read expensive) rework. Admittedly, they have very high standards - which is why they have been so successful in the build assist niche. The owners of the plane are often upset at the discoveries and the owner of the facility gets an earful.

They are taking the approach of only accepting maintenance work on airplanes that were built at their facilities. This is understandable, but exacerbates what I think is going to be a growing issue facing E-AB owners.

As more E-AB airplanes get sold on the growing secondary market, the new owners who did not build the plane (a) won't get the Repairman Certificate and (b) often don't have the skills nor the interest in performing the maintenance/inspections. Anecdotally, I understand many A&P's have little to no interest in working on E-AB airplanes, further adding to this issue.

So what is the solution? Here in Atlanta, most new A&P's from AIM or the Georgia Technical Colleges want to go work for Delta/Endeavor or Southwest. Very few want a long term career (or even short term) building or working on small airplanes. As mentioned, most maintenance facilities I am aware of won't touch E-AB's. I suspect the situation is the same in most major cities with large airline maintenance facilities.

I know that anyone with a pulse can work on an E-AB, but you still need an A&P for the Condition Inspection. Given the large numbers of planes being built, I don't think this problem will go away or get better anytime soon. Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
My thought is we need a pathway for subsequent owners of EAB aircraft to obtain condition inspection authorization similar to the pathway for Elsa's.
 
There are A&P's that will

I myself, an A&P/IA and a builder of an RV-4 do a substantial amount of work and condition inspections on experimental AC.I know several reputable FAA Repair Stations in the area that also do EAB work as well. There are seemingly as many "bought and flying" experimental aircraft than certified aircraft these days. The FAA does not recognize Condition Inspections as credits toward my yearly minimum requirements to hold my IA, however I do plenty of certified to keep it. Not all A&P's have a level of comfort working on EXP, and they are missing out on work they could have. It takes a full understanding of the EXP world and not working cookie cutter spam cans. I good friend and multiple RV builder(but not an A&P) who purchased a flying RV approached the FAA about obtaining a repairman's cert for it, but was denied. Obviously, he can still do everything but the Condition inspection. I doubt the FAA will budge on their standing of handing out repairman's certs other than what's approved now.
 
Over 50% of the time when I do some work on an RV, it turns into a can of worms and you keep finding more and more issues.

We joke, but it really is true when a new airplane comes into our formation group it will take us 2 years of continuous upgrades before it is up to our standards.
 
A bit unrealistic

There is. Go get an A&P license.

Given that you can no longer utilize the hours spent building an E-AB towards the 1900 hours of training required for an A&P, your answer to the problem is a bit out of reach of most I suspect.

I would enjoy getting my A&P and hope to do so in the near future. I’ll have to either go back to school or try to add up all the hours of supervised maintenance I’ve done over the years to qualify for the sign off - since the building of two airplanes doesn’t help. But even if I’m successful, I’m not going to start working on other airplanes. I’m too old and there is little to no money in it.
 
New A&Ps

Just a perspective.

We have multiple new A&Ps working toward their IA and a few working toward their A&P on the field. I have found most eager to make a few dollars as well as interested in learning about aircraft beyond the flight school trainers they get their hands on. They also don’t moan about showing up after work hours or over the weekend.

I believed that many non-repairman certificate holders have the knowledge and experience to properly and safely inspect their aircraft. This can become a great teaching opportunity for an A&P to see the value and merit of EAB aircraft. Yes, it may add an hour or two to your inspection but they have forced me to look at items I may have not put the same level of scrutiny on.

If the area is beyond your or their skill. Definitely seek an expert opinion of an IA.
 
My thought is we need a pathway for subsequent owners of EAB aircraft to obtain condition inspection authorization similar to the pathway for Elsa's.

My thoughts exactly.

It would require maintenance practices training of some sort but far less than the 1900 hours, and that maintenance practices training could be one-time-only with a certificate of completion.

The rest would focus on their EAB. Perhaps participate all-in with an A&P/IA on one or two full condition inspections then get signed off as the aircraft's repairman.
 
I doubt that the FAA will EVER change to anything like LSA for EAB. Untill the maintenance market catch's up to the demand, groups like ours can fill some of the gap. Some of us have a lot of experience with both the airframes and the engines. I have done a lot of work for a couple of folks in my area, as I am retired and enjoy doing it. This gets me a few $'s for AV Gas and saves the owners a good deal of money and time. I can't do CI's, but end up doing the work that the A&P will defer. Unfortunately getting an A&P at may age doesn't make any sense with the insane hurdles that the FAA puts out there. Even though I have 1000's of hours of aircraft work, they will still make me be an apprentice mopping floors for two years. A better ask from the FAA is a more streamlined certificate process that is limited to maintaining EABs. With the current process, it is a one size fits all that most cover the gamut of everything that leaves the ground. It is kind of a shame that they won't adobt a process similar to the pilots license, where expertise areas are added on if required. We don't make airplane pilots train in helicopters just so the FAA can get away with only having one type of license, so why do that to mechanics? It is a highly flawed approach in my mind. I highly doubt that 5 years experience maintaining 172's makes someone qualified to maintain a G5 and vice versa. Also a complete waste of time to make someone learn turbine technology that will never see one.

Larry
 
Last edited:
If I may play devil's advocate...both ways.

The notion that an A&P ticket equates to high standards is just plain wrong. As a group, A&P's are no different from any other trade. Some are great, most are average, and quite a few are awful.

Given the above, how can anyone think a short school is going to turn out folks uniformly qualified to do condition inspections for other people?

Break.

I don't think there is an A&P shortage, not really. They're ending up at the airlines, or corporate, or your local auto or heavy truck dealership, as all offer superior pay and benefits. The "shortage" is just a free market working the way it should. If EAB demand rises, so will compensation. There's a pretty good argument that it's already happening.

BTW, last I checked, A&P test prep schools had waiting lists.
 
Is it true that many corporate A&P employers will not allow their A&Ps to work on aircraft outside their company structure? Can't get a Delta A&P to inspect your Vans on a weekend?
 
Is it true that many corporate A&P employers will not allow their A&Ps to work on aircraft outside their company structure? Can't get a Delta A&P to inspect your Vans on a weekend?

Is there an insurance thing? Seems like an A&P repairing or maintaining an airplane without any liability insurance coverage might be kind of a chancy proposition for him/her. In the event of a "mishap" when the inevitable lawsuits and subrogations start getting flung around, surely the various plaintiff's attorneys will be taking a hard look at the mechanics who took responsibility for that airplane by signing their name in the logs.
 
Last edited:
A&P moonlighting vs employer

While drifting from the thread slightly, an employer doesn't control what you can do with your A&P/IA, however, many will have you sign on the dotted line you will not compete with your employer. I have 43 years with Airline and heavy aircraft MRO, civilian and military, yet continue my passion of GA aviation maintenance with no "conflict" . There is an much unknown caveat many folks don't understand written into the FAR's that limits the continuous days you can work under your certificate without a day off. If you work 5 days a week at airline X and all weekend at GA X, and the FAA has their eye on you,..well you get it. Most airlines and MRO's (at least where I work) have systems in place that will flag a potential violation. Sorry for the thread drift..bottom line, many "full time" airline A&P's are also involved in supporting the GA world.
 
It's a good point you make and certainly not limited to the EAB crowd, peeps with certificated aircraft are in an even tougher bind. There's been a good and recent discussion about this on the Beechtalk forum. I don't know what the answer is but recognizing and discussing the problem is the first step towards a solution and I'm not usually one to defend the FAA but they're in a tough position on this. Their charter is to protect the public and it would seem to me that loosening the requirements is inevitable, otherwise, aircraft are going to be sitting around unused even more-so than they are now. It's a tough one and I've seen if from pretty much every angle at this point.
 
If I may play devil's advocate...both ways.

The notion that an A&P ticket equates to high standards is just plain wrong. As a group, A&P's are no different from any other trade. Some are great, most are average, and quite a few are awful.

Given the above, how can anyone think a short school is going to turn out folks uniformly qualified to do condition inspections for other people?

Break.

I don't think there is an A&P shortage, not really. They're ending up at the airlines, or corporate, or your local auto or heavy truck dealership, as all offer superior pay and benefits. The "shortage" is just a free market working the way it should. If EAB demand rises, so will compensation. There's a pretty good argument that it's already happening.

BTW, last I checked, A&P test prep schools had waiting lists.

I’m not sure about the shortage of A&P’s but you correct about there’s a wide range of skill levels. Like any profession the best go were the money is and with A&P’s that not working on other peoples aircraft. That being said, there are some great A&P’s and shops who work on private aircraft but generally, IMHO, the best go to the airlines, corporate aircraft or good 135 operators. When I graduated from A&P school, the last job we wanted, was one were we had to listen to clients complain and whine about the cost of maintenance.

Break: the rest applies to the broader general discussion.

Buying an experimental aircraft and not being a builder presents some enormous maintence challenges that most buyers are unprepared for. I think buyers are shocked when they realize that their new bird has so many custom parts that are not easily sourced and there are so few maintenance techs avaiable to make things right.

So, having more A&P’s available does not seem to solve the problem of EAB maintence. These aircraft by and large were built by enthusiasts and at least for me, I have no desire to maintain someone else’s EAB aircraft.
 
a pathway for subsequent owners of EAB aircraft to obtain condition inspection authorization

Witnessing the very liberal aviation (I kid you not, this is what the vast majority of foreign countries think) the US & Canada enjoy, I've always been surprised at this not being an option.

I live in what must be one of the most regulated countries of the world, ruled by growing bureaucracy trying to undermine all privileges relating to aviation... yet, the buyer of an E-AB (called homebuilt over here) can get an inspection authorisation.

This usually entails attending a recognised administration course given by our homebuilders association, acquiring and logging maintenance experience on the aircraft (usually one 100h inspection (yes, this is required stuff here) and a CI which we call annual). Once this is done, our FOCA (Federal Office of Civil Aviation) will have the candidate assessed with a theoretical and practical exam. Once this is done, a restricted authorisation is delivered to the owner. This authorisation gives the bearer the right to perform all inspections, including said annual (CI), and perform minor modifications and repairs. The authorisation is restricted to the one specified aircraft, and is renewed upon application every 5 years.
 
A&P

Approaching 60 years since I test flew the first airplane I built, I think far too many of A&P's are totally lacking in skills and experience to work on most EAB aircraft. There are many that I would not allow near my airplane.
I am a multiple aircraft builder, some experience with certified aircraft maintenance, but never got the A&P. This really came from a personal decision decades ago that I do not want to work on another person's certified airplane. I have worked on EAB's for others, ranging from some simple jobs to major rebuilds.
I am again slowly getting involved with working on EAB's for non builders. I have decided at this time to limit myself to Wittman Tailwind, Pitt's S1 series and RV3 thru RV9. I have an A&P next door who will do condition inspections and two other A&P/AI on the field if needed.
I will also provide owner assisted condition inspections.
I will be making a formal announcement soon and will pay Doug for an ad. I have already given him extra money and will be giving him more soon. I have also decided to give Doug $25 every time I buy or sell anything on the forum.
 
Would a pilot educated in maintenance of their aircraft not be a safer pilot?

Has the Elsa maintenance pathway resulted in an increase in accidents?
 
Who is going to maintain them?? Great question, I don't have an answer unfortunately. IMO the future doesn't look so hot, not only for E-AB's, but for anything that doesn't burn Jet A.

The cost of entry into the GA segment keeps going up with no end in sight and the cost to stay in the game keeps going up as well.

Where does it stop?? Most people will be priced out of this industry in the next 10 years IMO if things don't change.
 
Approaching 60 years since I test flew the first airplane I built, I think far too many of A&P's are totally lacking in skills and experience to work on most EAB aircraft. There are many that I would not allow near my airplane.
I am a multiple aircraft builder, some experience with certified aircraft maintenance, but never got the A&P. This really came from a personal decision decades ago that I do not want to work on another person's certified airplane. I have worked on EAB's for others, ranging from some simple jobs to major rebuilds.
I am again slowly getting involved with working on EAB's for non builders. I have decided at this time to limit myself to Wittman Tailwind, Pitt's S1 series and RV3 thru RV9. I have an A&P next door who will do condition inspections and two other A&P/AI on the field if needed.
I will also provide owner assisted condition inspections.
I will be making a formal announcement soon and will pay Doug for an ad. I have already given him extra money and will be giving him more soon. I have also decided to give Doug $25 every time I buy or sell anything on the forum.

There are probably many like you with the experience to do the type of work, but personally I would be scared to death of the liability issues. I imagine that without an A&P, it would be extremely hard to get liability insurance to cover performing maintenance on somebody else's aircraft.

When working on a certificated aircraft with accurate records, you can at least be somewhat confident that the rest of the aircraft is as it supposed to be. There are no such promises with an EAB, possibly exposing you to liability for things you didn't even know about.

As an example, I was perfectly comfortable removing my fuel tank, fixing a leak, and reinstalling it. I was also comfortable upgrading to an IFR GPS and autopilot. I wouldn't do either of those things on somebody else's RV in any official capacity or for compensation. Let's say there is some other, unknown to me, fuel delivery issue that causes an accident. I just fixed their fuel tank, so it would be really easy to try to hold me accountable. Not a can of worms I want to open.

While there are probably many non A&P's right here on this forum who I would much rather have work on my RV than most A&P's, I wouldn't blame them for wanting nothing to do with it, unfortunately.

Chris
 
Need

There is a need for more E-AB service centers.

I only know of one in the USA. There needs to be more. I have only seen a few "repair stations" that did E-AB work occasionally as a normal routine. I have also seen "repair stations" that would not touch E-AB aircraft.

Local EAA chapter is a good location to start looking for who can help you with repairs and maintenance on your E-AB airplane in the area near you.

I have said and have heard others say that "the cheapest thing about flying is the pilot." As an E-AB pilot / owner, we need to pay what it costs to get good service.

Just because you can afford to buy a used E-AB airplane does not mean that you will not be paying someone once a year to have a required "Condition Inspection" completed. I recommend that buyers find someone that can do the required inspections on an on going basis before they purchase.

It would be a great service to the E-AB community if an organization put together a list of all "Repair Stations" and A&Ps that are available to do work on E-AB aircraft.
 
As a group, A&P's are no different from any other trade. Some are great, most are average, and quite a few are awful.

Isn't it appalling to find out that nearly FIFTY PERCENT of all A&P's have below average skills!! :)

Or is it more surprising that nearly 50% have ABOVE average skills. :)
 
Like any profession the best go were the money is and with A&P’s that not working on other peoples aircraft. That being said, there are some great A&P’s and shops who work on private aircraft but generally, IMHO, the best go to the airlines, corporate aircraft or good 135 operators.

I respectfully disagree, I think the *best are the guys that are in it for the love of airplanes and aviation as a whole. Like the peeps here on the forum that built their own airplanes. As a good A&P friend of mine says..."Aircraft maintenance used to be a religion". Unfortunately, there are too many negatives now to offset the love of aviation so those guys are dropping off and the new generation is smart enough not to want to invest a bunch of their time into something that *might pay some dividends later on. Therefore, no exposure, no opportunity for the love of aviation to set it. It's a conundrum.
 
I live in what must be one of the most regulated countries of the world, ruled by growing bureaucracy trying to undermine all privileges relating to aviation... yet, the buyer of an E-AB (called homebuilt over here) can get an inspection authorisation.

This usually entails attending a recognised administration course given by our homebuilders association, acquiring and logging maintenance experience on the aircraft (usually one 100h inspection (yes, this is required stuff here) and a CI which we call annual). Once this is done, our FOCA (Federal Office of Civil Aviation) will have the candidate assessed with a theoretical and practical exam. Once this is done, a restricted authorisation is delivered to the owner. This authorisation gives the bearer the right to perform all inspections, including said annual (CI), and perform minor modifications and repairs. The authorisation is restricted to the one specified aircraft, and is renewed upon application every 5 years.

This sounds like a great plan. I wonder why EAA has not tried to do this here in the USA.
 
I live in what must be one of the most regulated countries of the world, ruled by growing bureaucracy trying to undermine all privileges relating to aviation... yet, the buyer of an E-AB (called homebuilt over here) can get an inspection authorisation.

I think this is about to happen in Australia, which is also one of the most over-regulated countries in the world.

CASA has been reviewing Part 43 maintenance regulations for quite some time (long enough to be running late)

One of the reforms they're including is a graduated set of maintenance authorizations for E/AB aircraft.

The intention is to enable a non-builder owner of an Experimental aircraft to maintain it, up to and including carrying out annual condition inspections, following a course of training.

The intensiveness of the training corresponds to the type of authorization. There'd be light-weight courses for line-maintenance, slightly heavier-weight ones for doing condition inspections on your own airplane, and more significant commitments for being able to do condition inspections and repairs on classes of aircraft. The courses would be aligned with systems, engine types, structure types; So training to do a condition inspection on your own airplane if it was composite construction with retractable undercarriage would be different from training required to maintain an RV.

We're currently expecting draft regulations around the middle of this year.

Under current regulations in Australia, an E/AB builder can get the equivalent of a repairman certificate which authorizes them to maintain an aircraft if they've built 51% of it, but a non-builder who buys an E/AB aircraft needs to follow approximately the same maintenance constraints they'd need to follow if it was a certified airplane: Pilot-authorized servicing in accordance with Schedule 8, annual inspections performed commercially by the same Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineers (LAMEs) who look after Cessnas and Cirruses.

- mark
 
I have been helping do EAB repairs for the last several years as something to do in my early retirement. There is definitely a need! I always have several projects lined up in advance. I've been going to A&P classes and will finish up in this next semester. Once I have the A&P, I'll be available to do condition inspections. See the link to my blog in my signature if you want to read more about it.
 
Wild North

In Canada, subsequent owners of EAB aircraft have the same privileges as the original builder with no additional training requirements. Aircraft do not appear to be falling out of the sky. Could be a data point for those advocating in other jurisdictions.

Cheers, Sean
 
There is a need for more E-AB service centers.

I only know of one in the USA. There needs to be more. I have only seen a few "repair stations" that did E-AB work occasionally as a normal routine. I have also seen "repair stations" that would not touch E-AB aircraft.

That "service center" is reportedly now just a one person shop and is (according to local sources) - for sale. While valuable, I doubt a one person shop can provide much in the way of throughput given the needs of the market. Also kind of hard to see much value in the business when all of the expertise and reputation will be gone when the principal sells and walks out the door.
 
Last edited:
I think another question is what standards E-AB should be maintained too. I mean I have a sticker in my airplane which says its not maintained to FAA standards.

That makes this really complex. No matter how much you hate the over regulated certified world it gives a mechanic some level of protection. If he did everything the FAA said he at least has some decent defense argument in a lawsuit.

Now for a E-AB what’s the defense? In particular if the mechanic decides to overrule some manufacturer or other guidance which is frequently done for E-ABs.

Despite all that E-ABs are very safe. Looking at some of the comment on VAF you would think RVs should fall out of the sky every day. They don’t . So the freedom the FAA is giving the community is working. However if you get others in the community which are supposed to take on liability you are on a slippery slope to the certified world.

Oliver
 
The simple solution to liability is to have no money and no insurance, then the lawyers won't waste time with you.

If you have money or insurance or both, you will be a target even if you do everything perfectly. The estate will sue you even if the pilot runs out of fuel and augers in.
 
Things being posted here about Baseleg Aviation are not exactly true. We are not a one person shop. I have had gallbladder surgery last week so I have had to step back quite a bit this month. We are helping owners find alternatives where we can. It's also lead me to do some "outside-the-box" thinking regarding the bigger picture of maintenance needs in the world of amateur-built aircraft. Personally, I think MOSAIC has the potential to really exaccerbate this problem, and you will see my thoughts on that in an upcoming KitPlanes column.

At Base Leg Aviation think we have built a pretty successful model servicing the AB market, and have a very loyal customer base of hundreds of customers. That being said, the main gist of the thread has to do with the unavailability or unwillingness of A&P's to work on AB aircraft, the need for which is growing exponentially with the proliferation of non-builder owners.

While we at Base Leg Aviation in Atlanta have a large cadre of customers, it is a miniscule portion of the needs out there. I have for years tried to share the knowledge I've gained via columns in Kitplanes, Sport Aviation, webinars, and books, and even Youtube. I'm just weeks away from publishing a very thorough maintenance guide for RV's, which can be used by everyone, especially those unfamiliar with RV's.

Past that, we are going to expand in the very near future by offering training classes for anyone who wants to understand maintenance on RV's, as well as performing your own Condition Inspections. This should help scale up the knowledge pool out there, I hope. It will be open to everyone, including A&P's who think they might work on RV's. The more knowledge we can share the better off we all will be, with this endeavor hopefully having a positive impact on insurance and accident rates.

I certainly welcome your thoughts. :)


Happy New Year!

Vic
 
Last edited:
Like anything else, the more time you work in a field, the more expertise and knowledge you gain. Like the PPL, the A&P ticket is a ticket to learn. I got my A&P 16 years ago and went into a part 135 operation (no GA jobs anywhere in my area, and did not want to move). Left there in the great recession, worked elsewhere. Got back into it when we bought our own airplane.

Would I feel comfortable doing a condition inspection on an E-AB? No, not at this time. As noted by the others, in the certified world, one has a reasonable expectation that everything is generally the same and in compliance with the aircraft manufacturer's design.

For E-AB, it's a huge question mark. The vast majority of people maintain their aircraft in an airworthy state and really take to heart safety. But here is also the rub. The E-AB owner has the option to "change this, or that". Is it safe or a good idea? More than likely yes. But would an A&P feel comfortable putting their signature on the dotted line? That is the question. I won't mention the liability concerns.

How do we get more A&Ps into the GA world? Support your local mechanic. Yes, it's expensive but what isn't in aviation. Hiring employees is expensive (more so now with the shortage of pilots and A&Ps). FBOs might be more willing to hire staff if they know there is a need out there. On the flip side, the older mechanic needs to be patient and willing to share the knowledge and experience to the younger/new mechanics.

The other challenge for the small FBO/mechanics is facilities. This is where the government can help by providing grants or small business loans to those willing to make the effort. the SBA loans in themselves are a pain, having gone through that mess myself.
 
Type specific approval . . . .

Krea -thanks for bringing this up - -I have been thinking about this change in the market and lack of ready available (for all) RV service locations that have the knowledge of a good builder. It seems like unpleasant things waiting to happen to me, and this discussion is providing a good baseline for the breadth of the issue.


Lots of very good points made across the spread of issues with the quality and experience of the population of A&P/IA out there today. This is not just for RV's although it may be more acute at this time with the large number of non-builder owners.

Like DanH, I have concluded that a simple A&P certificate is not sufficient for every job and some shouldn't change oil. The type specific knowledge, for engine and airframe, is required to properly maintain any aircraft to a true quality standard IMO.

If I were KING for a day, the first action would be a type specific training (like the repairman) resulting in individual approval for maintenance (including annuals) as a reasonable path. However, many of those who buy-not-build and RV are just not the DIY kind of people (not that is anything wrong with that), so even with RV training, there remains maybe a 50% issue of where to take it for heavy service.

Personally, I think there is a need for RV service centers, whether RV only or not. The caveat is they need to be trained as well. Like the A&P who plumbed fuel supply through and orificed fitting.

I found in my former professional life that there is a night and day difference in a "mechanic" and a "prototype mechanic". The mechanic assumes the design and original assembly is proven and not to question just replace the suspect part and all will be ok. The prototype mechanic knows that there are design, disassembly, and part manufacturing defects considerations to be employed in every encounter and issue. We need the latter for the RV world where excursions off the plans and plan defects have been built in.

A nationally available train the trainers program would be perfect for a guy like Scott McDaniel. Walt and Vic too.

The issue of poor real knowledge is not limited to RV's . . .I know a couple of Cirrus owners that have had issues, some serious, by work performed by so called Cirrus experts.

There is a serious lack of paint shop standards challenging the one-time customer as well - -but that is another story. Paint defects wont kill you.
 
This sounds like a great plan. I wonder why EAA has not tried to do this here in the USA.

No intent to bash the FAA here, but remember that something as simple as the Basic Med reform took congress to pass a law FORCING the FAA to do it. AND that had all sorts of supporting data from the light sport group to prove safety. The FAA kicked and screamed the whole way. Both EAA and AOPA, while active combatents in that effort, it never would have happened without Inahofe (Senator whose name I likely mis-spelled) as the cheer leader. EAA was simply no match for the ALPA who fought aggressively against it.
 
Last edited:
I think
The intention is to enable a non-builder owner of an Experimental aircraft to maintain it, up to and including carrying out annual condition inspections, following a course of training.

The intensiveness of the training corresponds to the type of authorization. There'd be light-weight courses for line-maintenance, slightly heavier-weight ones for doing condition inspections on your own airplane, and more significant commitments for being able to do condition inspections and repairs on classes of aircraft. The courses would be aligned with systems, engine types, structure types; So training to do a condition inspection on your own airplane if it was composite construction with retractable undercarriage would be different from training required to maintain an RV.

- mark

A well thought out approach and suspect it will work well for owners and the Gov't. I only wish that something like this could occur here. While many of ou laws are done pretty well and favorable to constituents, we simple do a very poor job of updating laws on the books to reflect change.

Larry
 
Really? No intent to bash the FAA here, but remember that something as simple as the Basic Med reform took congress to pass a law FORCING the FAA to do it. AND that had all sorts of supporting data from the light sport group to prove safety. The FAA kicked and screamed the whole way. Both EAA and AOPA, while active combatents in that effort, it never would have happened without Inahofe (Senator whose name I likely mis-spelled) as the cheer leader. EAA was simply no match for the ALPA who fought aggressively against it.

That's the FAA for you. In my experience, once they've made up their mind on something it literally takes an act of Congress to make them change. Hopefully MOSAIC will be the vehicle to add some kind of expansion/relief here--and with all due respect to Vic, I don't see this as a problem, but an opportunity.

That said, though, a big key part of making that work has to be the availability of good information. I truly believe that most people have the ability to build and/or maintain their own airplane, as long as they have solid data to lean on, but for so long in human history this kind of knowledge (or really, any special knowledge) was hard to come by--look at guilds and the protection of their "craft secrets".

Of course, today we almost have the opposite problem--information is everywhere, and the challenge now is sorting the good from the bad! I sincerely applaud the efforts of Vic and the others out there trying to get good, reliable information into the hands of the E-AB community.
 
Why I do very few CIs

I have tried to assist non-builders by completing their CIs. What I have often encountered is negative comments about my fees and arguments about required maintenance/ repairs. There was a thread not long ago about 91.411 and 413 checks and how much money it cost. Folks complain about the cost and the lack of availability. Those are tied together, folks are this field to make a living.

There are many exceptionally well built EAB aircraft, but there many that need a lot of work. Vic Syracuse has done a great job highlighting some of the things he has found. I don’t need the aggravation of explaining yet again why hardware store bolts don’t cut it or why safety wire is required, or why ALL the panels need to come off etc etc etc.

So I limit myself to friends and aircraft I know. They don’t get charged anything.
 
To play devil's advocate for a moment: Here in Canada there is no requirement for the owner of an Amateur-Built Aircraft to have any kind of maintenance certificate. The owner can perform all maintenance and sign off the annual inspection with zero third-party support, even if they didn't build the aircraft. And yet, the incidence of incidents with Amateur-Built Aircraft in Canada doesn't seem to be any different than the US.

I asked a senior TC person why this was the case, and the response was that TC assumes that an owner of an Amateur-Built Aircraft recognizes the responsibility that they are being given, and will either take it upon themselves to learn the skills they need, or to seek help from people who have the knowledge, when maintenance is needed. Given the consequence of failure could be your life, the incentive to get it right seems pretty high.

It seems odd to me that the bar for this is so high in the US, when the bar for building is lower... In Canada we require pre-cover inspections, etc. as well as a final inspection, vs. only a final inspection in the US.
 
One of the MAJOR issues with an A&P signing off an EAB as "in a safe condition......" IAW the operating limitations, is exactly what is the definition of the "Safe Condition".

As an A&P / IA, when I work on FAA certified aircraft, I can point to the TCDS, FARS, OEM manuals, ADs, etc, to determine the aircraft's compliance to "airworthiness standards". (Note the FAA's definition of Airworthiness and Safe Condition, are not the same). A&P / IAs are trained to use these documents and processes to determine airworthiness and how to maintain them to a known standard(s).

In the case of EABs with operating limitations, the only FAA directive for what a "safe condition" is, is that a once a year condition inspection is required IAW FAR 43, Appendix D (or equivalent inspection processes).

The problem the A&P faces is trying to determine what exactly was / is a "safe condition"?

Is it an EAB aircraft in the same configuration as it was when the SAC was issued? Is it an RV that was built exactly per Vans plans with no extravagant deviations, a prop that has been overhauled IAW the OEMs recommendations, maintained IAW Vans service information?

I have looked at RVs that have been significantly modified well beyond Van's plans, prop, mags, fuel injection servo, etc. well beyond recommended overhaul recommendations and the owner wants me, as an A&P, to accept the responsibility for stating its in a safe condition???

If ever taken to court for the liability of stating in writing that it was in a safe condition, I would have no documentation to stand on.

The problem with the non-owner EAB aircraft fleet, is that many aircraft are plagued with, poor construction, significant modifications without sound engineering, poor maintenance done by people with no understanding of basic mechanical skills....and they want an A&P to take responsibility for it as "safe to operate".


I applaud Vic in what he is doing to help rectify these issues by establishing known inspection processes and being an advocate for following overhaul recommendations.

Is my RV-8 a perfect specimen? Probably not. I try very hard to keep it in a "safe condition", but if anyone sees something on my RV-8 that is unsafe, please point it out to me and I will fix.
 
To play devil's advocate for a moment: Here in Canada there is no requirement for the owner of an Amateur-Built Aircraft to have any kind of maintenance certificate. The owner can perform all maintenance and sign off the annual inspection with zero third-party support, even if they didn't build the aircraft. And yet, the incidence of incidents with Amateur-Built Aircraft in Canada doesn't seem to be any different than the US.

I asked a senior TC person why this was the case, and the response was that TC assumes that an owner of an Amateur-Built Aircraft recognizes the responsibility that they are being given, and will either take it upon themselves to learn the skills they need, or to seek help from people who have the knowledge, when maintenance is needed. Given the consequence of failure could be your life, the incentive to get it right seems pretty high.

It seems odd to me that the bar for this is so high in the US, when the bar for building is lower... In Canada we require pre-cover inspections, etc. as well as a final inspection, vs. only a final inspection in the US.

This is a tough one and one in which I don't necessarily disagree with the FAA. When you build a plane, you develop a lot of knowledge of that plane and therefore quite capable to inspect it and not a huge risk to extend that privilege. When you buy a plane, you potentially have none of that. Further, you have not demonstrated a mechanical aptitude that the builder has. If you can turn 4 crates worth of stuff into a flying airplane, you have PROVEN a level of aptitude. I have met many people that poseess more than enough ability to become a pilot, yet would struggle to know which end of a screwdriver to use. Know little about Canadian culture, but down here in the lower 48, whenever something goes wrong, the finger comes out and someone MUST be blamed and we really like blaming someone other than the one at fault, especially if that someone is a large organization. We tend to build laws and regulations to protect the uninformed, lest the regulators are blamed for not protecting them. Simply expecting the owner to acknowledge the risk along with their own limitations and act accordingly doesn't fit that well in our culture. I am sad to admit this and wish it was different. A good example is lead paint. If a child becomes ill from eating lead paint, it is NEVER the parents fault for letting them eat it. Instead it is the landlord for not replacing it or the gov't for not forcing the landlord to do it. If you own the house, well it is still not your fault, it is the paint manufacturers fault or the governments fault for not forcing you to replace it. You get the picture. Not the best example, but kind of makes the point.

All of that said, I do believe there is a middle ground to be found for us, just will be hard and don't think we'll ever see it to due our regulators resistance to change.

Larry
 
Last edited:
When you build a plane, you develop a lot of knowledge of that plane and therefore quite capable to inspect it and not a huge risk to extend that privilege.

yes... and no...

I have been giving hands-on maintenance workshops to interested parties for our association on the Old Continent. We recognised early on that it is one thing to assemble, or build, a kit airplane: order and install that shiny Lycosaurus engine, arrange your panel before placing the order for that plug-in dream, unpack and install those shiny wheel and brakes.
But, and the more so for that vital component named engine, performing maintenance on those items is quite different than installing them new.
 
yes... and no...

I have been giving hands-on maintenance workshops to interested parties for our association on the Old Continent. We recognised early on that it is one thing to assemble, or build, a kit airplane: order and install that shiny Lycosaurus engine, arrange your panel before placing the order for that plug-in dream, unpack and install those shiny wheel and brakes.
But, and the more so for that vital component named engine, performing maintenance on those items is quite different than installing them new.

I agree completely! I have written many times before - building, maintaining, and inspecting are three different skill sets. Just because you are good at one or two doesn’t mean you are any good in the third. Teaching the first two is fairly easy (to a good student), but teaching inspecting is more difficult, because there is a certain amount of experience and intuition required, s well as a “good eye”.

Just like most “Leadership” training courses are actually about “management”, most maintenance courses don’t really teach inspection.

Paul
 
Vans

Vans Aircraft has really made building a kit plane much easier. Prepunched kits and now holes to size, they have made assembling a kit easier and faster. With builder assist centers just about about anyone can assemble a kit.

But in that process there is little discussion about maintenance, diagnostic skills, service intervals and sheet metal repair. If someone is not motivated to learn those skill then it falls on the A&P.
 
I asked a senior TC person why this was the case, and the response was that TC assumes that an owner of an Amateur-Built Aircraft recognizes the responsibility that they are being given, and will either take it upon themselves to learn the skills they need, or to seek help from people who have the knowledge, when maintenance is needed. Given the consequence of failure could be your life, the incentive to get it right seems pretty high.

I think this sentiment is important, and often overlooked by second hand owners: you are now the caretaker of a one-off airplane (kit or not). You can't just toss it at the MX shop or local AP and hand them keys and ask where to send the check. It's YOUR airplane, and YOUR responsibility (to yourself) that it's safe and reliable. When I assist people with work on their airplane, I try to make it clear, I am assisting YOU on YOUR airplane, but you are the one RESPONSIBLE for it (I don't get too caught up in liability concerns, for better or worse, cause America is gonna 'Merica re litigation).

Like the PPL, the A&P ticket is a ticket to learn.

This just isn't comparable IMO. A PPL is (at minimum, national average is higher) 40 hrs of training, 20 of that solo. That's theoretically a 1 work-week course on operating an airplane, and Wednesday afternoon, Thurs and Friday you are by yourself, and a checkride to validate that you won't kill yourself, and off you go to carry friends and family into the wild blue sky. You also can't get paid or teach anyone else.

If there was an A&P type path that worked similarly to a PPL I would take it, because I enjoy the hobby and working with my hands on my own airplane. But in reality the A&P is essentially an associates level degree or trade school program, apprenticing during it and exiting as an apprentice to journeyman level aerospace worker. To me, that doesn't compare at all to someone who just got a PPL. If anything, I would say the Swiss or Canadian model described above (or the US LSA repairman model) is a much closer comparison.
 
Very good point. E.g. for the airplane I am building right now all the instructions/plans I got for the fuel tank was “hang it in the front of the fuselage”. Where? In the front. How? Safely.. .

As this thread is labeled to be about E-AB not just Vans I don’t get how the average A&P would decide if my fuel tank was hung safely in that case. I think it was …. .

For Vans you at least have some more details to base a decision on but that’s not true for all of E-AB…. . If I ever sell the Fokker I am pretty sure the buyer will have a hard time finding an A&P. Vans are easy in comparison.

I like the idea of allowing the buyer to take on the inspection responsibility if he wants to. If the data shows it works in Canada why can’t it work here.

Oliver

Vans Aircraft has really made building a kit plane much easier. Prepunched kits and now holes to size, they have made assembling a kit easier and faster. With builder assist centers just about about anyone can assemble a kit.

But in that process there is little discussion about maintenance, diagnostic skills, service intervals and sheet metal repair. If someone is not motivated to learn those skill then it falls on the A&P.
 
This is a great thread! From my experience I would agree that a freshly minted mechanic the A&P is a license to learn, myself included. I went the documented experience route both professional and working on personal aircraft. Studied and took the written tests on my own but went to a prep school to finish up O&P's. Other than one guy in my study group who stood out as a very knowledgeable and overall experienced mechanic, everyone else seemed pretty green. I was surprised that the young guys fresh out of the trade schools seemed to struggle the most. I consider myself an expert/specialist in my field, but still have a lot to learn/experience in tasks I'm allowed to perform as an A&P.
 
Back
Top