What does it mean to "sign off" on a modification to an experimental aircraft?

[son_of_flubber]

Let's say Joe Pilot installs a not-TSO'd six point harness in an experimental glider. He puts an entry in the log book. A month later he has the annual inspection done by an A&P. The A&P puts their "all good" sticker in the log book right under the entry for the new harness.

Has the A&P thus "signed off" on the new harness?

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, November 23, 2013 5:59:46 PM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:
> Let's say Joe Pilot installs a not-TSO'd six point harness in an experimental glider. He puts an entry in the log book. A month later he has the annual inspection done by an A&P. The A&P puts their "all good" sticker in the log book right under the entry for the new harness. Has the A&P thus "signed off" on the new harness?

Replacement of safety belts is an item that is permitted by the FAR's to be done by the owner, and accordingly, would not require any action by the A&P.
The inspection done on an an experimental glider is not and annual inspection, it is a condition inspection.
Hopefully the six point harness that the owner put in is an aircraft harness that simply does not have a TSO approval and label.
If the question is leading to the issue of the inspector being on the hook for work done by the owner, he is the last one that has determined the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation.
UH

[Dan Marotta]

Let's say that, back in the '80s, I installed a surplus Air Force oxygen
system like this,
http://retropopplanet.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/b-24-oxygen-regulator.jpg,
in my ASW-19b.

I took it to my inspector, he examined the installation, approved of my
work, and generated an FFA Form 337 to document the installation.

Let's say, further that, six months later, I got a letter from the FAA
denying the 337 on the basis that there was no reference to "manufacturer's
installation instructions". As it turns out, there were no manufacturer's
installation instructions.

Was my glider still airworthy?

Of course, I immediately removed the system...

> wrote in message
...
On Saturday, November 23, 2013 5:59:46 PM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:
> Let's say Joe Pilot installs a not-TSO'd six point harness in an
> experimental glider. He puts an entry in the log book. A month later he
> has the annual inspection done by an A&P. The A&P puts their "all good"
> sticker in the log book right under the entry for the new harness. Has the
> A&P thus "signed off" on the new harness?

Replacement of safety belts is an item that is permitted by the FAR's to be
done by the owner, and accordingly, would not require any action by the A&P.
The inspection done on an an experimental glider is not and annual
inspection, it is a condition inspection.
Hopefully the six point harness that the owner put in is an aircraft harness
that simply does not have a TSO approval and label.
If the question is leading to the issue of the inspector being on the hook
for work done by the owner, he is the last one that has determined the
aircraft is in a condition for safe operation.
UH

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, November 23, 2013 2:59:46 PM UTC-8, son_of_flubber wrote:
> Let's say Joe Pilot installs a not-TSO'd six point harness in an experimental glider. He puts an entry in the log book. A month later he has the annual inspection done by an A&P. The A&P puts their "all good" sticker in the log book right under the entry for the new harness.
>
>
>
> Has the A&P thus "signed off" on the new harness?

If the sailplane is a Experimental "Amateur Built" and was built by the current owner he can do anything he wants and he can sign off the condition inspection as long as he holds a repairmans certificate for his aircraft. If the sailplane is Experimental "Air Racing" the owner can still install seat belts under Part 91 and sign it in the log book but should consult his Mechanic if the belt attachments are changed. When the Mechanic comes and performs his "Condition Inspection" he should inspect the seat belt installation as he would on any Annual/condition inspection and at that time when he signs off the inspection he is stating that the aircraft is airworthy, and thus signing off on the installation of the seat belts. But it is the pilot who determines that the aircraft is in a airworthy condition before he flies.

[Bob Kuykendall]

>...he signs off the inspection he is stating
> that the aircraft is airworthy, and thus
> signing off on the installation of the seat
> belts. But it is the pilot who determines
> that the aircraft is in a airworthy
> condition before he flies..."

For the most part a true and valid point, but I will raise one minor quibble:

In the context of US aircraft and the regulations thereof, the term "airworthy" has a specific meaning; it means that the aircraft conforms to the data in its type certificate. Both amateur-built and racing experimental aircraft operate under Special Airworthiness Certificates issued for the purpose of operating non-type-certificated aircraft. Technically speaking, since they do not have type certificates, they cannot be "airworthy." The phrase most often substituted in the regulations and elsewhere is "of a condition for safe operation."

Thanks, Bob K.

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

On Saturday, November 23, 2013 2:59:46 PM UTC-8, son_of_flubber wrote:
> Let's say Joe Pilot installs a not-TSO'd six point harness in an experimental glider. He puts an entry in the log book. A month later he has the annual inspection done by an A&P. The A&P puts their "all good" sticker in the log book right under the entry for the new harness.
>
>
>
> Has the A&P thus "signed off" on the new harness?

Lets inject some common sense here, if you remove, install, add or change anything in your aircraft...................make a log notation! This will alert the next inspector to give this area extra vigilance. I have had a seatbelt come loose in flight and a re-located battery interfered with the tow release. A log entry might have caught these improper installations.
JJ

[Dave Nadler]

On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 9:40:22 AM UTC-5, JJ Sinclair wrote:
> Lets inject some common sense here...

Really now JJ, this is R.A.S !!
Common sense has no place here.

[son_of_flubber]

On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 9:40:22 AM UTC-5, JJ Sinclair wrote:

> Lets inject some common sense here,

Not sure if it is common sense, but it is a fact that A&Ps (being human) make mistakes. It is the pilot's job to find the A&P's mistakes before they cause a problem. Practically speaking, only the glider owner/pilot has the time, expertise, motivation, and diligence over time to find the A&P's mistakes.

>I have had a seatbelt come loose in flight....A log entry might have caught these improper installations.

The previous owner of my glider replaced the original Polish style belts in 2000. The owner needed to squeeze into the seat pan and so for comfort, he put the buckles that "wrap" the belt to the anchors underneath the seat pan. The glider had had 10 subsequent annual inspections. In 2013 (unfortunately after my first flight), I pulled on the lap belt and it detached (on the ground). The strap had worked it's way free of the buckle (the owner had only pulled the very tip of the strap through the buckle in order to accommodate his girth. There should be a few "extra" inches pulled through the buckle so that slippage can be detected by inspection before failure occurs.)

Another A&P had replaced the main tire on the glider a few years ago and the glider had not been flown much before I got it. After a few landings, the main wheel partially self-disassembled during a landing (fortunately no accident, just noise). The A&P had forgotten to put a new retaining wire on the assembly and he did not find his own mistake on subsequent inspections..

So if a previous owner or an A&P has put an entry in the log book, it behooves the new owner to review (or have a qualified A&P review)that the work was done properly. I had mistakenly assumed that A&Ps were gods that never made mistakes on straight-forward modifications like a tire change, and I had assumed that modifications that had lasted for ten years were not defective.

Put this one in that list of things that new glider pilots need to learn the hard way.

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, November 23, 2013 2:59:46 PM UTC-8, son_of_flubber wrote:
> Let's say Joe Pilot installs a not-TSO'd six point harness in an experimental glider. He puts an entry in the log book. A month later he has the annual inspection done by an A&P. The A&P puts their "all good" sticker in the log book right under the entry for the new harness.
>
>
>
> Has the A&P thus "signed off" on the new harness?

[[email protected]]

On Monday, November 25, 2013 4:54:50 PM UTC-8, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> >...he signs off the inspection he is stating
>
> > that the aircraft is airworthy, and thus
>
> > signing off on the installation of the seat
>
> > belts. But it is the pilot who determines
>
> > that the aircraft is in a airworthy
>
> > condition before he flies..."
>
>
>
> For the most part a true and valid point, but I will raise one minor quibble:
>
>
>
> In the context of US aircraft and the regulations thereof, the term "airworthy" has a specific meaning; it means that the aircraft conforms to the data in its type certificate. Both amateur-built and racing experimental aircraft operate under Special Airworthiness Certificates issued for the purpose of operating non-type-certificated aircraft. Technically speaking, since they do not have type certificates, they cannot be "airworthy." The phrase most often substituted in the regulations and elsewhere is "of a condition for safe operation."
>
>
>
> Thanks, Bob K.

Good minor quibble point, I believe that the definition of "Airworthy" is "..a condition for safe operation." and you are correct and this is the wording I use when signing off an annual or condition inspection but the pilot looks at as "is the aircraft airworthy or not?" and the pilot is the last link in the chain.

[Papa3[_2_]]

On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 1:30:43 PM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 9:40:22 AM UTC-5, JJ Sinclair wrote:

>
> > Lets inject some common sense here,
>
> Not sure if it is common sense, but it is a fact that A&Ps (being human) make mistakes. It is the pilot's job to find the A&P's mistakes before they cause a problem.

Anyone who has been around aviation long enough probably has a bunch of horror stories like this. The recent near-fatal accident involving a 2-33 rebuilt with the rudder cables crossed leaps to mind. I treat every annual inspection/condition inspection as if it's a cross-check of my own work. Our German gliders tend to come with pretty extensive annual inspection checklists. I use mine along with a few extras I've added over and above and do my own thorough inspection. When my A&P looks the ship over, it would be a miracle if he finds anything, but I would be more than happy if he did....