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

[Toobuilder]

Pops, you cut an Oval window Bug in half!?

Say it isnt so!

 

[Pops]

Yep-- Found it in the woods with both doors shot with a shot-gun. All the front forward of the fuel tank rusted bad. All the lower body rear of the rear seats rusted bad. Cut the rust off and used the rest of it. Paid $20 for it from the farmer.

Also about that time I found another 1957. No rust, nice to restore. Just finished painting the body inside and out. Pulled it out of the garage for the first time. Few minutes latter a car stopped and he ask if it was for sale. Told him no, but he offered me so much for it , I couldn't help myself from selling it.
Picture of my 1978 VW Bus Camper. 71K miles and never driven if it was going to rain. Record of every fuel fill up since new. Sold it a few years ago to someone in Riffle , CO. Like new in every way. Alway kept in a heated and AC garage.
Also used the have a 1966 split window VW bus camper. Drove it to OSH many times.

 

[pfarber]

But per 14 CFR Part 43.1(b)(1), Part 43 does not apply to Experimental aircraft. So the requirements of 43.11 don't apply.

But it really does as every E/AB will have a the limitation requiring an inspection conforming to 43 Appendix D. Can you have the FAA take action against you under FAR pt 43? No. But they can cite your limitation if you do not.

 

[Marc Zeitlin]

But it really does as every E/AB will have a the limitation requiring an inspection conforming to 43 Appendix D...

Actually, the language in the current 8130.2J says:

"...a condition inspection performed per the scope and detail of part 43, appendix D..."​

​

or, in the case of older OL's, like mine, issued in 2002:

​

" a condition inspection performed in accordance with the scope and detail of appendix D to part 43..."​

but even if you interpret either of these to mean that 14 CFR Part 43 Appendix D applies with respect to E-AB CI's, there are still 13 paragraphs of Part 43 and a few appendices that do not. In the same way that 14 CFR Part 91.205 is applicable to E-AB aircraft ONLY wrt night and IFR operations as called out in the OL's, but the Day VFR portion of 91.205 is not applicable, because it's not discussed in the OL's and 91.205 specifically states that it's only applicable to standard category aircraft.

And given that Part 43(1)(b) is explicit in saying that it doesn't apply to E-AB aircraft (or experimentals of any kind, with some exceptions, of which E-AB cannot be one), it's pretty clear that the only portion of Part 43 that could possibly be viewed as applying (rather than just being used as a reference for scope and detail) is Appendix D - not the whole of Part 43, as you imply.

Can you have the FAA take action against you under FAR pt 43? No. But they can cite your limitation if you do not.

If a CI is not performed "in accordance..." or "per the scope and detail of..." then theoretically, someone could be cited (in what way?) for not following the prescription of the aircraft's OL's, but given the extremely vague nature of Appendix D to Part 43, which basically says:

"Look at stuff on the plane and make sure it's OK"​

for all intents and purposes, it would be more likely to be maimed by a shark falling from a tornado.

I've heard of folks not getting insurance settlements after not re-establishing compliance with 14 CFR Part 91.319 after a major change, per their OL's, but I've never heard of anyone having issues with the FAA for such, nor have I ever heard of anyone having problems with the FAA because the CI wasn't conducted "per the scope and detail of part 43, appendix D". Not proof, of course, but an indication.

Your claim, though, was that Part 43 applies, and other than appendix D, it does not.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

But it really does as every E/AB will have a the limitation requiring an inspection conforming to 43 Appendix D.

The FAA calls that 'incorporated by reference.' Only the part referenced applies. Alternatively, they could cut and paste Appendix D of Part 43 into the OL's minus legal codification and it would just be a set of instructions. Voila!