How to find an A&P for a second hand Experimental
Joseph Pearce
I fly out of (SQL in CA) they said NO way do they do annuals on
experimental. The owner of the Long EZ has become medically
incapacitated and hence the reason for the sale.
If I did buy this plane (or any other experimental) how do I find
someone to do the annuals?
Cheers,
DAlexan424
I would suggest going to one of the EAA Chapter 20 meetings at San Carlos, or
Chaper 62 meetings down at Reid Hillview, the later seems to be a chapter more
into building. Ask for one of their tech consultants in the fiberglass dept.
They should at least get you steered in the right direction. I have used them a
couple of times for my Velocity which is based currently out of my garage in
Daly City, so we're neighbors at least.
They teckkie guys may know of a loop-hole or something to help out with the
FAA.
Good luck,
Dale Alexander
Velocity 173 RG Elite
Susan McLean
inspection or an annual on an experimental. I have never worked on one, and
since I'm not an expert, I doubt that I'd be the best mechanic for you, as
an example.
Admittedly, there is tremendous risk and liability for the A&P/IA since he
has no knowledge of the quality of the work that went into building the
plane in the first place. I imagine the objection is risk related and
insurance related since the liability policy of the shop may well state that
no work can be covered on experimental aircraft.
This is a real problem for the sellers of experimental aircraft, and this is
why they sell for way less than the comparable sled from Piper/Beech/Cessna.
Ultimate decision is yours. Now you know why they call them 'homebuilts' -
you have to be able to maintain them yourself.
In the meantime, my guess is that there is a Long EZ club, and they should
be able to help you - that's what clubs do.
Good luck in your search.
Pat Barry
Joseph Pearce wrote in message <38D3F75A...@us.oracle.com>...
JFLEISC
found is that very few A&Ps know that an experimental gets an annual "safety"
inspection, not the 'annual' in the normal sense of the word. They do not sign
off that the aircraft is 'airworthy', only that it is "in a condition for safe
flight".
Make sure that they understand this. Most that I have delt with don't.
After you have familiarized yourself with the plane don't even think about
letting an A&P work on it without you being there. Since all homebuilts are
different even the best and most well meaning guys will innocently start trying
to take apart some things that weren't meant to be.
Oh yes, If you check your 'operating limitations' you should find that you
don't need an AI, only an A&P to do the signoff. Another misconception.
Jim
O-ring Seals
<tige...@camtech.net.au> wrote:
>I'm an A&P and I have no knowledge as to why your shop will not do an
>inspection or an annual on an experimental. I have never worked on one, and
>since I'm not an expert, I doubt that I'd be the best mechanic for you, as
>an example.
>
>
>Pat Barry
Pat,
Perhaps the shop that declined the job was an Approved Repair Station.
They can only work on certified airceaft.
O-ring Seals
A D Marzo
Michael
> Admittedly, there is tremendous risk and liability for the A&P/IA since he
> has no knowledge of the quality of the work that went into building the
> plane in the first place.
Minor nit - no IA is required to sign off an annual (actually a condition
inspection) on an experimental. As for quality of original work - well,
I guess I don't see it that way. There are lots of things on an aircraft
that you just can't inspect. If you sign off a rag-tube bird, sure you can
punch the fabric - but how do you catch corrosion on the lower
longerons? There's always some amount of risk that something bad
will happen, and I don't see that you're risking more with a 10 year
old homebuilt than a 50-year old certified airplane. And some IA's
actually feel there is less risk signing for a homebuilt because if one of
them falls apart the FAA doesn't look as hard for someone to hang.
Basically, it's a personal thing. It's your ticket and you're free to asess
the risk however you want but I don't think anyone really knows.
> I imagine the objection is risk related and
> insurance related since the liability policy of the shop may well state
that
> no work can be covered on experimental aircraft.
Could be - or maybe they simply don't feel they really know what to do.
Could be that the head mechanic simply doesn't like homebuilts and won't
touch them - I know a guy who won't even fly an experimental. ANY
experimental. His choice.
I know several shops in Houston that will cheerfully work on experimentals
and some that won't. I know at least one A&P who has no problem with
working on experimentals that are rag&tube or wood or metal but won't
touch glass or carbon fiber - says he doesn't know how and is too old to
learn.
This was a LongEZ, wasn't it? I know another A&P who owns two of them
and will cheerfully annual one. It's just a matter of picking the person.
> This is a real problem for the sellers of experimental aircraft, and this
is
> why they sell for way less than the comparable sled from
Piper/Beech/Cessna.
First off, that's not true. For one thing the market is smaller -
when you try to buy a C-150/152/172 or Cherokee or something of that
nature, you're competing against a bunch of flight schools. When you go
a step up and start looking at C-182/206/210 or Lance/Dakota you're
competing against commercial operators and business flyers. Experimentals
are only valuable to individuals. Supply and demand plays a role.
Second, try defining comparable. Can you get a Kitfox cheaper than a Champ?
Those are comparable. What certified aircraft is a Velocity comparable to?
Have you seen what they go for? I've got a friend with a 100hp LongEZ.
Sure
it's way faster than a similarly engined C-150, but it's still a two-seater,
and
he lives on a 3000 ft grass strip and can't take a passenger in the summer.
What's that worth?
Bottom line, I don't think that some shops not wanting to work on homebuilts
really plays any role at all in their market value. The toys can be had
cheaply,
but the serious performers (Velocity, Lancair, RV-8) bring prices higher
than
those of certified aircraft of similar complexity and engine size - largely
because
they are better performers.
> Ultimate decision is yours. Now you know why they call them
homebuilts' -
> you have to be able to maintain them yourself.
That's not true. I know several people who own experimental aircraft that
they do NO maintenance on - they have it all done professionally. Of ocurse
in my mind that destroys the major reason for owning an experimental, but
to each his own.
> In the meantime, my guess is that there is a Long EZ club, and they should
> be able to help you - that's what clubs do.
Yeah - I'm sure they'll have a long list. EAA will also have a long list of
A&P's
who don't mind experimentals.
I'm somewhat biased, but I own one certified and one experimental aircraft
and I will never again buy a certified aircraft.
Michael
mike regish
>
> I'm somewhat biased, but I own one certified and one experimental aircraft
> and I will never again buy a certified aircraft.
>
> Michael
Did you but your experimental second hand? Why exactly do you prefer it
over certified aircraft?
--
mike regish
PP-ASEL
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/mregish
Michael
> Did you but your experimental second hand?
More like fifth hand (I think I'm the sixth owner).
> Why exactly do you prefer it over certified aircraft?
Two reasons - cost/performance ratio and maintenance flexibility.
Let's start with what it is. It's a modified (T-Tail) Schreder HP-11.
It is an all-metal glider (thus can be kept tied down outside).
I paid just under $7000 for it, including an enclosed trailer. It is in
good condition, except for the paint. For that money, and in that
condition, my choice of certified all-metal gliders is... zip. For
only a little more, I could get a mostly metal (fabric control surfaces)
Schweitzer 1-26E with an open trailer. The book L/D for the
HP-11 is 37:1, though I think it really gets about 35:1. The book
L/D for the 1-26E? Only 23:1. And at a lower speed, too.
Of course I could get a wood&fabric bird for less, but now I'd
have to hangar it or assemble/disassemble it every time I wanted
to fly it. No thanks. Of course there are reasons. It is rather
more challenging to take off and land than a 1-26. I still have to
pick my days to fly it. It's way more fun, too.
But the real reason is maintenance flexibility. When I redid the
electrical system and avionics in my TriPacer, I had to do everything
as per original or get field approvals for every change. The result
was doing more work, compromising on the results, and jumping
through hoops to get stuff signed off. And while I have my 337
for the stuff I did, that still is no guarantee of anything. All it takes
is some random IA deciding that there should have been a field
approval (like what happened to Jay with the strobes) and I'm
hosed. So I have to be real careful about who I let look at it.
It's not a labor cost issue - I can do most of the work myself and
I can sometimes trade for the work I can't do myself . I've got an IA
who will sign off what I do without charging me - but it has to be
done the approved way, and often that's a pain. And then there
are AD's. Don't even start with me on the AD's. Most of them
exist for a reason - but the compliance methods are often insane.
My muffler AD is nuts - dropping down the whole exhaust system
every 100 hours is totally unnecessary when you can check for
cracks with a CO detector.
My experimental has no approved data. Nobody has any drawings
on file anywhere. I can, in effect, do anything I want. I can
substitute parts at will, instead of paying through the nose for the
original parts. I can use the techniques that make sense, instead
of making everything conform to AC43-13. I have no AD's to
comply with - and even if I did, I determine what constitutes
compliance.
I have a friend who is an A&P/IA, and he owns two certified airplanes.
One of them is a Champ, and he is jumping through hoops now to
get an electrical system approved for it. He's not done yet, but even
he has already come around to the view that he's never buying
another certified aircraft. It's just too much of a pain jumping through
FAA hoops.
Michael
Bob Urban
>
>My experimental has no approved data. Nobody has any drawings
>on file anywhere. I can, in effect, do anything I want. I can
>substitute parts at will, instead of paying through the nose for the
>original parts. I can use the techniques that make sense, instead
>of making everything conform to AC43-13. I have no AD's to
>comply with - and even if I did, I determine what constitutes
>compliance.
>
>Michael
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The HP-11 is a nice ship.
Myself, I prefer a tad more horsepower.
Gimmee the HP-14. <g>
I would like to inject that AC43-13 is not a frivolous publication.
As a previous owner of an HP-14 and now builder of an RV-3...
I would be quite remiss without referring to it before deviating from it.
With experimentals, compliance may not mandatory, but very sensible.
When the condition inspections come up and you don't hold the repairman's
certificate...... the A&P may just feel bound to use AC43-13 as his bible.
What then?
Soap box=OFF.
BOb U.
Tarver Engineering
7. PRIVILEGES AND LIMITATIONS.
Holders of repairman certificates (experimental aircraft builder) may
perform "condition inspections" on specific aircraft built by the
certificate holder. Consistent with FAR 65.104(b), the aircraft will be
identified by make, model, and serial number as shown on the repairman
certificate. During the aircraft certification procedure, the FAA issues
operating limitations, as necessary per FAR Section 91.42, to ensure an
adequate level of safety. These limitations may require that the subject
aircraft be inspected annually by a repairman (experimental aircraft
builder), the holder of an FAA mechanic certificate with appropriate ratings
(airframe and powerplant), or an appropriately rated FAA repair station.
Condition inspections will be performed in accordance with the scope and
detail of FAR Part 43, Appendix D. Operating limitations will also require
that an appropriate entry be made in the aircraft maintenance records to
show performance of this inspection.
NOTE: It should be noted that the privileges and limitations of FAR
Section 65.104 are not associated with those privileges and limitations of
FAR Section 65.103, titled "Repairman Certificate: Privileges and
Limitations."
So depending on what is written as "limitations" under FAR 91.92 on the
experimental certificate defines the inspector. If the limitations call out
"repairman (experimental aircraft builder)" you need a new Experimental
cert. to make the work legal, as this type of inspector had to have built
the airplane.
John
Michael <cre...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:R6xB4.10078$624.9...@news.flash.net...
> My experimental has no approved data. Nobody has any drawings
> on file anywhere. I can, in effect, do anything I want. I can
> substitute parts at will, instead of paying through the nose for the
> original parts. I can use the techniques that make sense, instead
> of making everything conform to AC43-13. I have no AD's to
> comply with - and even if I did, I determine what constitutes
> compliance.
>
SColang740
the kinds of litigation that aircraft mechanics (as well as airframe, engine,
and various parts manufacturers) face, I don't blame some mechanics from
refusing to work on experimental aircraft. It's their neck on the block, not
yours. Blame the sleazy lawyers, not the mechanics.
I suppose this is a sad commentary on our society. In any event, happy flying!
Michael
> I would like to inject that AC43-13 is not a frivolous publication.
> As a previous owner of an HP-14 and now builder of an RV-3...
> I would be quite remiss without referring to it before deviating from it.
Bingo. That's exactly right. I too have a copy of it, and I do refer to
it when in doubt, but while it's not a frivolous publication, it's not the
last word either. It literally takes decades for anything new to make
its way in there. Nor are AD's issued for frivolous reasons - it's the
compliance that sometimes goes overboard.
> With experimentals, compliance may not mandatory, but very sensible.
Except when it isn't. The problem with certified aircraft is that there
are no exceptions.
See, we're not talking hardware rules and electrical loads - we're talking
methods of fabric reinforcement that were written in the days of cotton
and linen. You know what the acceptable reinforcing materials are for
fabric? Canvas and leather. Period. Sure PVC or naugahyde might
be way better - but it's not in 43-13. How about my panel lights? 43-13
allows for a rheostat. Or I can buy an expensive TSO'd solid state
dimmer. I can build one just as good for $5 in parts - but that's not
legal without a field approval. I have steam gauge instrumentation in
my panel for the same reason.
> When the condition inspections come up and you don't hold the repairman's
> certificate...... the A&P may just feel bound to use AC43-13 as his bible.
> What then?
Get a different A&P. You know, I spent a year restoring a TriPacer.
Under the supervision of someone who just happens to be an A&P, IA,
long time pilot, and engineer. If I had a nickel for every time I heard
"That's a great idea, but you can't do it because I can't sign it because
it's contrary to (AC43-13/Accepted practice/etc) so do it this way
which is more work and not as good" well, I guess I could afford to
trade it in for a Mooney.
Michael
JStricker
"Michael" <cre...@flash.net> wrote in message
> "That's a great idea, but you can't do it because I can't sign it because
> it's contrary to (AC43-13/Accepted practice/etc) so do it this way
> which is more work and not as good" well, I guess I could afford to
> trade it in for a Mooney.
Michael,
You wouldn't really be willing to trade DOWN for a Mooney would you?
8^) (Sorry Mooney guys, I just couldn't resist)
--
John Stricker
"I didn't spend all these years getting to the top of the food chain just to
be a vegetarian"
Jerry Springer
>
>
> So depending on what is written as "limitations" under FAR 91.92 on the
> experimental certificate defines the inspector. If the limitations call out
> "repairman (experimental aircraft builder)" you need a new Experimental
> cert. to make the work legal, as this type of inspector had to have built
> the airplane.
>
> John
>
John I guess I am just dense tonight, or maybe all the time, :) I just
don't
understand what you are trying to say here.
Tarver Engineering
Jerry Springer <jsf...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:38D6E5D1...@teleport.com...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > So depending on what is written as "limitations" under FAR 91.92 on the
> > experimental certificate defines the inspector. If the limitations call
out
> > "repairman (experimental aircraft builder)" you need a new Experimental
> > cert. to make the work legal, as this type of inspector had to have
built
> > the airplane.
> >
> > John
> >
> John I guess I am just dense tonight, or maybe all the time, :)
You wouldn't have a troll name like jerry springer if you weren't a complete
drooler.
> I just
> don't
> understand what you are trying to say here.
I am saying that each individual Homebuilt has an experimental certificate
with clearly written limitations.
John
Matt Lawrence
> Not that Jerry needs any defending but you really ought to know that
> this "Jerry Springer" is not THAT "Jerry Springer".
> Our Jerry has the credentials to comment on ANYTHING related to
> aircraft.
Including the nut in the left seat?
-- Matt
Jerry Springer
LOL especially the nut in the left seat Matt.
John Ammeter
<jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
>
>Jerry Springer <jsf...@teleport.com> wrote in message
>news:38D6E5D1...@teleport.com...
>> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>> >
>>
>> >
>> > So depending on what is written as "limitations" under FAR 91.92 on the
>> > experimental certificate defines the inspector. If the limitations call
>out
>> > "repairman (experimental aircraft builder)" you need a new Experimental
>> > cert. to make the work legal, as this type of inspector had to have
>built
>> > the airplane.
>> >
>> > John
>> >
>> John I guess I am just dense tonight, or maybe all the time, :)
>
>You wouldn't have a troll name like jerry springer if you weren't a complete
>drooler.
>
Not that Jerry needs any defending but you really ought to know that
this "Jerry Springer" is not THAT "Jerry Springer".
Our Jerry has the credentials to comment on ANYTHING related to
aircraft.
John Ammeter
1975 Jensen Healey
RV-6 (sold 4/98)
EAA Technical Counselor
NRA Life Member
ICQ#48819374
TOM BEAN
"Tarver Engineering" <jta...@tminet.com> wrote
snipped
> You wouldn't have a troll name like jerry springer if you weren't a
complete
> drooler.
"Tarver Engineering" has been a troll name for years--you would have figured
it out by now if you weren't a complete door knob.
Jerry Springer
I know exactely who John Tarver is, he made a statement I questioned him
and he answered. What have you done lately Beany?