While most of the focus on MOSAIC has been about the changes in aircraft classification and the associated pilot requirements, there’s another facet of MOSAIC that has added some extra flexibility for the owners of amateur-built aircraft with regards to the condition inspection.
As many of you know, certified aircraft require an annual inspection that determines that the aircraft is in an airworthy condition. A logbook entry is made by an A&P with inspection authorization. When the Experimental category was created by the FAA, it was determined that the builder would be the best person to complete the “annual” inspection, since they would most likely know more than anyone else about the aircraft. So, they created a new certificate called the repairman certificate, which could only be issued to the original builder. The “annual” inspection would be called a condition inspection and would be to determine that the aircraft was in a condition for safe operation. Technically, Experimental aircraft are not airworthy. The required condition inspection needed to be performed by the holder of the repairman certificate or the holder of an A&P (airframe and powerplant) certificate.
Aircraft usually outlast their owners/builders, and when the aircraft is sold, the original holder of the repairman certificate may no longer be available or located nearby to perform the condition inspection. Now the new owner must seek out an A&P who is willing to sign off the condition inspection. For many years now, the ability to find an A&P willing to do that has become harder, for many reasons.
First, the huge need of the airlines and corporate flight departments for pilots and mechanics has trickled down to the general aviation sector. Add to that, the flight schools are still extremely busy, and those airplanes need maintenance, which leads to even less availability of mechanics to the Experimental sector of aviation.
Another factor is that many A&Ps are unwilling to work on an airplane unfamiliar to them, and in some cases the shops at local airports cite liability as a showstopper, leaving many new owners of Experimental aircraft in a lurch. I do understand the A&Ps who cite unfamiliarity as a reason. I personally have inspected over 2,000 Van’s RV aircraft and have yet to find two of them alike, even when constructed by the same builder.
The FAA heard us with regards to maintenance and with MOSAIC comes some relief. With the completion of a two-day course, non-builder-owners of Experimental aircraft will be allowed to sign off the condition inspection. For those who might live at small airports without any local A&Ps, this is a huge step in the right direction.
Now I know what some of you might be thinking—it used to require either a builder, who potentially spent years building the aircraft and should be intimately knowledgeable about the aircraft, or an A&P who spent at least 36 months of training to sign off the condition inspection. Now, we are going to allow someone to sign off the condition inspection with only two days of training, which may not even be specific to the aircraft?
We all know pilots are inherently cheap, right? Just look at the NTSB accident data files to see how many pilots run their aircraft out of fuel trying to get to the next airport that has 10-cent cheaper fuel! We also know how almost every aircraft owner hates the dreaded annual inspection just due to cost. Did the FAA just give the owners of Experimental aircraft a way out?
Personally, I don’t think so, and I hope that is not going through the minds of Experimental aircraft owners. Like with any FAA certificate, whether for pilots or mechanics, most of the recipients treat them as a stepping stone and a license to learn. Any reasonable person would understand that you cannot possibly learn, much less retain, in two days everything needed to perform a condition inspection on most Experimental aircraft currently flying.
Certainly, there are still, and will continue to be, very simple aircraft that are meant to be flown day VFR, perhaps even without an electrical system. Many will have simple reciprocating or even electric engines that may not require much in the way of maintenance or knowledge to maintain them in a condition for safe operation. However, most Experimental aircraft being built today are very well equipped for day and night IFR, with some even capable of flying pressurized in the flight levels. Some have four- and six-seat capabilities. Many of the pilots and owners have moved into the Experimental aircraft world from certified aircraft due to the lower costs and faster adoption of newer technologies.
Even though the pilot of an Experimental aircraft is required to brief the passengers prior to each flight on the experimental nature of the aircraft, I would submit that most passengers cannot tell the difference between a certified aircraft and an Experimental aircraft and incorrectly assume that the same level of safety is there and is regulated.
I think with freedom comes responsibility. While a two-day course may give someone the right to sign off the condition inspection, it doesn’t mean they should. At least not without some help and guidance until further experience is gained. After all, that is the same practice used in general aviation, the airlines, and even the military. Even though a person graduates from school and is granted a license, they aren’t allowed to sign off inspections until that experience is gained.
So, how does one gain experience, especially when isolated at small airports? Luckily, there is this thing called the internet, where there is a whole world of help tools at your fingertips. Some great sources are the Experimental Aircraft Association builders resource section, where there are hundreds of videos, webinars, and books available. There are many books available on engines and aircraft maintenance, such as Dave Prizio’s book Powering Your Plane, or my own Maintenance Guide for Van’s RV Aircraft.
New owners should take the time to find others familiar with their aircraft and seek out common trouble areas, inspection checklists, and perhaps technical counselors who might be willing to help. FaceTime is a wonderful tool to help get eyes on something you might not understand. I often use it with new owners. Many times, the local A&P is willing to help with part of the condition inspection, as the engine in many RVs is the same as some of the flight school aircraft, whether it is Lycoming or Rotax. They are just unwilling to sign off the condition inspection because they are unfamiliar with the rest of the aircraft. Try to take advantage of the local knowledge wherever possible.
I think MOSAIC has unlocked lots of freedom for owners of Experimental aircraft with regards to maintenance. I believe it is up to us to prove that they have made the right decision, and we will take our responsibility seriously. Doing so will help to keep the fun factor alive!
I’ve been flying a simple open-cockpit airplane (Bowers Fly Baby) for forty years, and have been the primary person involved in their maintenance (I wasn’t the builder for either Fly Baby). I’ve removed and replaced cylinders, I’ve reworked the entire electrical system, I’ve removed and replaced magnetos, starters, and generators & alternators (including replacing the Delco generator with an alternator). I’ve done extensive re-rigging (replaced all the flying wires and turnbuckles), glued up repairs for internal issues, removed and replaced the wheels and brakes, installed radios, transponders, and ADS-B out units, and any number of other tasks.
But…still, not sure I’m ready to start doing my own condition inspections. I’ve been strongly impressed by the A&Ps I’ve hired over the years to go through my airplane once a year. These guys know what to look for; they understand how aircraft and engines wear over time. Especially, despite extensive wrenching on the airplane, I don’t consider myself much of an engine expert.
Good friend of mine built a trophy-winning Long-EZ. *He* didn’t do his engine inspections either, despite having installed the thing.
Don’t get me wrong: I applaud the MOSAIC-produced changes that allow folks to get the certificates that allow them to perform their own condition inspections. I will undoubtedly take one of the courses, soon.
Still..I probably will ask a knowledgeable person, with more mechanical background than me…to take an occasional deep look at my airplane.
Now, about the TIMING of that: I wish MOSAIC would have implemented provisions to allow aircraft hours to drive when a Condition Inspection is due. I fly my airplane about 35 hours a year. My operating limits specify a Condition Inspect every calendar year…which means that my airplane has to be completely disassembled every 35 flight hours.
That’s…really wasted effort, and puts undue wear on the aircraft. I’d love for that to get changed to something like “Condition Inspection every 100 hours or every two years, whichever occurs first.”
Ah, well. Maybe next update.
I love your attitude. You are a great example!
This would be an excellent opportunity for local and regional EAA Chapters to act on their calling and their mission statement to those operating under the rules of MOSAIC. These organizations claim a wealth of knowledge and understanding of model-specific Experimental Aircraft and can lead in this time of transition.
Yes… Don’t forget EAA Tech Counselors!
Very well written Vic!
You make a very valid and important point; needing a second pair of critical eyes is important for all of us .I love turning wrenches nearly as much as I still enjoy flying and I push hard for excellence in both areas. I’ve learned over a lot of years that critique is very needed.
Thanks for what you do.
Thanks Vic – this was a fantastically well balanced article. I completely agree. In my lifetime I’ve rebuilt cars, wrenched on the many airplanes I’ve owned, and recently rebuilt a warbird (Chinese Nanchang), but I’m always very happy to have an experienced set of eyes look everything over. I’d enjoy taking a course to get the capability to sign it off myself, but frankly, I’d probably still pay an A&P to shine a flashlight all over the important bits, and and to sit for a minute to discuss the airplane with me. Makes it more fun!
And, I must say, I am very impressed to see Ron and Paul leaving comments here. I’ve read just about everything you both have written. Appreciate your passion for aviation and writing!
Thanks. Yours is the attitude that I hope many others will follow.
Great article, Vic! I built and fly a Zenith aircraft and have learned much from you over the years.
Congrats on building!
Have not looked under the Mosaic hood much…to clarify, is this limited to amateur built experimental or all experimental (e.g. Exhibition)?
As an Exhibition owner I’ve done the majority of maint and the grunt work of Condition Inspection (panel removal, bearings, oil, etc) to let my A&P focus on the mirror/flashlight aspect and finesse or “black magic” items.
If it does apply to Exhibition, I’d still do the “owner impeded” inspection for the fresh set of eyes looking at things I may be looking past. I will probably investigate the course as “continuing education” and if applicable to Exhibition, it would be a fallback if I also end up short an A&P.
Now, about those Exhibition annual program letters to the FSDO…
MOSAIC covers a lot of stuff. The Order which covers everything is FAA 8130.2K. It’s in the process of being rewritten now to include MOSAIC so we will have to wait and see. I expect lots of changes.
It does not apply to Exhibition. The newly revised regulation on this is 14 CFR 65.109(a)(2). That says an LSRM can do the inspections on an aircraft That has an experimental airworthiness certificate issued in accordance with § 21.191(g), (i), (k), or (l) of this chapter. When you go read those sections of 21.191, you see EAB, S-LSA, and E-LSA.