Current Rates for Condition Inspections on NON-Builder EAB Aircraft (in the US)

[Toobuilder]

But does 91.417 (a) (1) require any entry in that aircraft record that the condition inspection was performed? (if the aircraft was found to not be in a condition for safe operation)
If not, I don’t see a need to make any entry in the owners log at all.

The "requirement" comes from the operating limitations, not 14 CFR 91. And since most OL's only require a "positive" entry (the airplane IS in a condition for safe operation), one can find it NOT safe a thousand times without the requirement to document it.

 

[Pops]

$650 here. Semiretired traveling A&P/IA, works out of a minivan filled with tools. He lives a few states away (not that far in New England), usually schedules several inspections at the airport and stays in town for a few days. He only does owner assisted inspections and likes to teach and explain, he doesn't like the "just fix it and send me the bill" kind of pilot. He does the inspection, then types up and mails me the sticker when he gets back home.

Around this area for the same type of inspection, the last time I had a certified airplane in 2007 it was $200. Guessing, I would say now its close to your number.

 

[speedracer]

A friend, Mark, with a Long EZ at our airport got an annual (CI) a few months ago. The A/P was in his early 90's. He just sat in a chair and told Mark what to do. The only thing he actually did, hands on, was replace the threads in a spark plug hole. Charged him two hundred bucks for the CI.

 

[Marc Zeitlin]

But does 91.417 (a) (1) require any entry in that aircraft record that the condition inspection was performed? (if the aircraft was found to not be in a condition for safe operation)
If not, I don’t see a need to make any entry in the owners log at all.

Ah, but the OPERATING LIMITATIONS for the aircraft require a logbook entry (and describe what it should say), whether Part 43 or Part 91 does or not. And the OL's win.

So a logbook entry for the CI signoff is required by the OL's, and maintenance entries are required by 91.417.

<edit> Oops - @Toobuilder beat me to this.

 

[Marc Zeitlin]

A friend, Mark, with a Long EZ at our airport got an annual (CI) a few months ago. The A/P was in his early 90's. He just sat in a chair and told Mark what to do. The only thing he actually did, hands on, was replace the threads in a spark plug hole. Charged him two hundred bucks for the CI.

And I can guarantee you that this CI was worth less than the paper it was written on. As you know, Bob, after watching me do at least part of the Pre-Buy on your Long-EZ, which took the better part of 6 hours at the plane WITH assistance from the prospective buyer, if I don't touch, wiggle, or look directly at a thing, I have no idea what is going on. Telling someone not totally familiar with a particular airplane or an airplane type what to do is useless. Your friend Mark might have gotten away relatively cheaply, but what he didn't get was an actual CI.

 

[Wanttaja]

Ah, but the OPERATING LIMITATIONS for the aircraft require a logbook entry (and describe what it should say), whether Part 43 or Part 91 does or not. And the OL's win.

And, of course, this is not new. My Operating Limitations are dated July 1982:

Condition inspections shall be recorded in the aircraft maintenance records, showing the following or a similarly worded statement: "I certify that this aircraft has been inspected on (insert date) in accordance with the scope and detail of Appendix D, Part 43, and found to be in a condition for safe operation." The entry will include the aircraft total time in service; and the name, signature, and certificate type and number of the person performing the inspection.

I have the PDFs of my aircraft records, but the above paragraph was in a separate .txt file that I had hand-retyped at some point in the past. I think I've been in this conversation before.....

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Marc Zeitlin]

...I think I've been in this conversation before.....

Only about 7.32 bazillion times. After <mumble> many years, there are no new aviation conversations...

I can't tell you what percentage (but it isn't anywhere close to the zero that it should be - far closer to 20%) of E-AB aircraft owners either don't know that they have OL's, don't know where they are, haven't read them, or have no idea what they're for. I ask folks to show me their OL's and they whip out their POH. Sigh. They're part of the Airworthiness Certificate, for Cthulhu's sake...

 

[BBerson]

Ah, but the OPERATING LIMITATIONS for the aircraft require a logbook entry (and describe what it should say), whether Part 43 or Part 91 does or not. And the OL's win.

So a logbook entry for the CI signoff is required by the OL's, and maintenance entries are required by 91.417.

<edit> Oops - @Toobuilder beat me to this.

I found a sample operating limitation from here Amateur Built Operating Limitations that appears new to me. Does this look new? ( “FSDO-approved program”)

25. Inspections must be recorded in the aircraft logbook and maintenance records showing the following, or a similarly worded, statement: “I certify that this aircraft has been inspected on [insert date] in accordance with the scope and detail of the [identify program, title] FSDO-approved program dated ________, and found to be in a condition for safe operation.” The entry will include the aircraft’s total time-in-service (cycles if appropriate), and the name, signature, certificate number, and type of certificate held by the person performing the inspection.

 

[Marc Zeitlin]

I found a sample operating limitation from here Amateur Built Operating Limitations that appears new to me. Does this look new? ( “FSDO-approved program”)

25. Inspections must be recorded in the aircraft logbook and maintenance records showing the following, or a similarly worded, statement: “I certify that this aircraft has been inspected on [insert date] in accordance with the scope and detail of the [identify program, title] FSDO-approved program dated ________, and found to be in a condition for safe operation.” The entry will include the aircraft’s total time-in-service (cycles if appropriate), and the name, signature, certificate number, and type of certificate held by the person performing the inspection.

These are fairly standard, but I don't know which version of Order 8130.2<something, where the current version of something is "J"> they're from. But they are certainly representative. You missed the statement that paragraphs 24 and 25 will replace paragraphs 22 and 23 for Turbine powered aircraft (Note just above #24).

So for 99% of E-AB aircraft, paragraph 23 applies wrt CIs, and it does not have the "FSDO approved" statement in it.

 

[BBerson]

These are fairly standard, but I don't know which version of Order 8130.2<something, where the current version of something is "J"> they're from. But they are certainly representative. You missed the statement that paragraphs 24 and 25 will replace paragraphs 22 and 23 for Turbine powered aircraft (Note just above #24).

So for 99% of E-AB aircraft, paragraph 23 applies wrt CIs, and it does not have the "FSDO approved" statement in it.

Ok, got that, thanks.

 

[Hot Wings]

He only does owner assisted inspections and likes to teach and explain

Snag some DNA and clone him!

 

[Turd Ferguson]

But does 91.417 (a) (1) require any entry in that aircraft record that the condition inspection was performed? (if the aircraft was found to not be in a condition for safe operation)
If not, I don’t see a need to make any entry in the owners log at all.

The outcome of a condition inspection is like that of a pilot's flight review:

Either it's satisfactory or it never happened.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

The FAA guys (complete with badges)

You haven't been interrogated until you've been interrogated by an FAA Special Agent (people only think an inspector has a power complex). They flash the badge right up front to show they mean business. I had to grab the agent's leather badge holder and move it closer to my eyes to make sure I was seeing what I thought I was seeing. Sure enough it says "FAA SPECIAL AGENT". Interestingly, they are classified as law enforcement assistant (as opposed to law enforcement officer) and have no actual enforcement authorization.

 

[BBerson]

The outcome of a condition inspection is like that of a pilot's flight review:

Either it's satisfactory or it never happened.

So the inspector can’t just give a list of discrepancies like a TC'd airplane after the inspection was completed?

 

[Toobuilder]

So the inspector can’t just give a list of discrepancies like a TC'd airplane after the inspection was completed?

Depends on the agreement/contract the owner has with the inspector. But the Feds don't require it.

 

[BBerson]

Depends on the agreement/contract the owner has with the inspector. But the Feds don't require it.

I know they don’t require it. But I also don’t see any evidence that it would be prohibited. (searched for condition inspection advisory circulars and found nothing)
It should be possible for an owner to pay for a single inspection sign off with defects listed, and then do the repairs himself and not return for another inspection. A second inspection puts the repair liability back on the inspector.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

So the inspector can’t just give a list of discrepancies like a TC'd airplane after the inspection was completed?

The inspection entry has to state the aircraft is "in condition for safe operation" and if it's not the entry could not be made. The terms "in condition for safe operation" and "in condition for safe operation except for ________" are mutually exclusive

Plus the owner could throw the list away and be good to go.

 

[Toobuilder]

There might be some A&P's that will sign a logbook on the "honor system", but I'm not one of them. If the airplane is in a condition for safe operation, it gets ink; if not, it doesn't. Simple as that.

 

[N804RV]

List doesn’t need to be affixed to the logbook unless the owner wants it. From 43.11 “must give the owner or lessee a signed and dated list of discrepancies.”
And from 91.417 “The owner shall retain… the list of defects…until repaired and returned to service.”

...And with respect to turning over logbooks, the logs belong to the owner, not to me, and if I don't give them back to the owner, I imagine the local police would get involved. Other than not signing off the CI, I can't hold the logs hostage - it's not a TC'd aircraft.

I've heard those 2 points made before. And, while I do believe they are correct, I still know there are A&Ps out there who insist on reviewing the log books and having them in their possession before doing the CI. And, they are the same ones that seem to feel it imperative to fully document their opinions in ink in the logbooks.

Trust me, before I let any A&P I don't know well even look inside my airplane, he or she will be interviewed as to their stance on logbooks and CI documentation.

 

[Kyle Boatright]

I've heard those 2 points made before. And, while I do believe they are correct, I still know there are A&Ps out there who insist on reviewing the log books and having them in their possession before doing the CI. And, they are the same ones that seem to feel it imperative to fully document their opinions in ink in the logbooks.

Trust me, before I let any A&P I don't know well even look inside my airplane, he or she will be interviewed as to their stance on logbooks and CI documentation.

Scan your logs and provide the e-file or a printed version to the A&P. Most A&P's are great people, but even with the good ones, things can get sideways and leave you with lost or hostage logs.

I own an Aeronca project with logs that went "missing" following a spat between a previous owner and his A&P. There's no need to take that risk.