Jump to content

Inspection schedule for CTSW


Craig

Recommended Posts

Someone mentioned to me that CT's (or LSA's in general, I can't remember) in addition to requiring an Annual inspection have to have an additional inspection every 100 hours that is the equivalent of the Annual in scope and cost. The only info I found on the internet "100 hour inspection if used for training, towing, hire or rental". Can anyone provide some clarity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You did a good search, the 100 hour is only required if the aircraft is for hire.

 

100-Hour Inspection Vs Annual Inspection

Glossary: 100-HOUR INSPECTION— An inspection, identical in scope to

an annual inspection. Must be conducted every 100 hours of flight

on aircraft of under 12,500 pounds that are used for hire.

Reference FAA-H8083-31 Airplane Flying Handbook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bear in mind, the plane's Maintenance Manual may call for certain preventive maintenance and/or inspection at certain intervals, which could be at 100 hr. intervals.

 

Not an FAA mandated 100 hour inspection, but a good idea nonetheless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Craig,

 

This is an area that is fairly mis-understood. There are two areas to consider here. First is the one that Ed talked about. The FAA side of this says; you need annual condition inspection (not an annual, that's certified aircraft) and 100 hr. inspections if the plane is used in training or for hire. That's the FAA and legal requirement side.

 

The other side of this coin is that Rotax and FD (along with most all other LSA Mfg's) have 100 hr. and annual condition inspections in their paperwork.

So here's the deal and a way to work within the system and other ramifications to consider. This keeps you from two inspections per year.

If you fly less than 100 hrs. per year you will get to the annual condition inspection before the 100 hr so do the annual condition and 100 hr together and make sure they are both signed off in the logbook. If you fly more than 100 hrs. per year then you will get to the 100 hr time first so do the 100 hr and include the annual condition inspection and make sure they are both logged in the logbook. They are pretty close to the same. I even include the 200 hr. checks in all my inspections. (No stone un-turned)The FAA doesn't care how often an annual is done and Rotax doesn't care how often the 100 hr is done, but when you log them that is when their count down time starts for the next annual or 100 hr.

Now some will say you can't make me do a 100 hr as a private owner. Technically they are correct, but if you want any warranty service from FD or Rotax it had better have been done and logged. Now you say, well I'm out of warranty who cares. Well you should because many times Rotax and or FD will step in and out of good faith will help with something that has failed prematurely and help out IF you kept good records and did the appropriate timed inspections and made sure you logged certain aspects of those inspections. Every single one of my clients and 98% of all the other clients of mechanics I know all do the Rotax and 100 hr. inspections from FD or other LSA Mfgs. Doing these is actually a benefit to you as an owner because IF the mechanic is doing a good job they will find things while they are minor and before they become huge expensive issues. I find lots of small issues with my clients planes, but nothing ever gets bigger or expensive because it is found early.

So to split hairs for a few hours in our case (LSA 100 hr verses annual condition inspections) will never be beneficial nor the best common sense practice. It's just too easy to do the right thing the first time and it's usually cheaper and less traumatic in the long run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Craig,

 

The simple answer is yes if you actually fly 200 hrs a year (that's a lot of hours per year). You will do the 100 hr. inspections and just include in the logbook the annual. The annual will always be going out to the next 12 month cycle. Plus you will have at least 4 oil changes with 91 oct. and 8 if you use 100LL. You'll have at least 2 spark plug changes. If you use 100LL more than 30% of the time you will have a gearbox inspection at 600 hrs and if you use 91 oct. it will be at 1000 hrs. At 200 hrs per year that will be 1000 hrs in 5 years so you would be due for both the Rotax rubber replacement and the gearbox inspection. The more hours you fly in anything the more the accumulated cost will be in a shorter time. You do not how ever need to go to a top dollar maint. facility. Find someone that doesn't charge an arm and a leg and has a good reputation. maybe someone here on the forum can recommend someone in your area. The annuals or 100 hr inspections should be cheaper too because that mechanic is seeing you every 6 months and there should not be any big changes so the inspection should be quicker and a little more minimal as far as cost. Shop around. You may find someone that can do close time period and repeat inspections for as little as $700 - $900. The better and more complete the first inspection usually helps keep future cost down because of better maint. practices and items are taken care of early.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I recall, although rotax says you must have their training and a current certificate, FAA has ruled that a mechanic only has to be taught the various tasks once and they are good to go. Initial training does not even need to be by a rotax certified person.

 

However, if I was taking my plane to a shop, I would look for a mechanic that not only was rotax trained but also kept rotax current.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Craig,

 

This is an area that is fairly mis-understood. There are two areas to consider here. First is the one that Ed talked about. The FAA side of this says; you need annual condition inspection (not an annual, that's certified aircraft) and 100 hr. inspections if the plane is used in training or for hire. That's the FAA and legal requirement side.

 

The other side of this coin is that Rotax and FD (along with most all other LSA Mfg's) have 100 hr. and annual condition inspections in their paperwork.

So here's the deal and a way to work within the system and other ramifications to consider. This keeps you from two inspections per year.

If you fly less than 100 hrs. per year you will get to the annual condition inspection before the 100 hr so do the annual condition and 100 hr together and make sure they are both signed off in the logbook. If you fly more than 100 hrs. per year then you will get to the 100 hr time first so do the 100 hr and include the annual condition inspection and make sure they are both logged in the logbook. They are pretty close to the same. I even include the 200 hr. checks in all my inspections. (No stone un-turned)The FAA doesn't care how often an annual is done and Rotax doesn't care how often the 100 hr is done, but when you log them that is when their count down time starts for the next annual or 100 hr.

Now some will say you can't make me do a 100 hr as a private owner. Technically they are correct, but if you want any warranty service from FD or Rotax it had better have been done and logged. Now you say, well I'm out of warranty who cares. Well you should because many times Rotax and or FD will step in and out of good faith will help with something that has failed prematurely and help out IF you kept good records and did the appropriate timed inspections and made sure you logged certain aspects of those inspections. Every single one of my clients and 98% of all the other clients of mechanics I know all do the Rotax and 100 hr. inspections from FD or other LSA Mfgs. Doing these is actually a benefit to you as an owner because IF the mechanic is doing a good job they will find things while they are minor and before they become huge expensive issues. I find lots of small issues with my clients planes, but nothing ever gets bigger or expensive because it is found early.

So to split hairs for a few hours in our case (LSA 100 hr verses annual condition inspections) will never be beneficial nor the best common sense practice. It's just too easy to do the right thing the first time and it's usually cheaper and less traumatic in the long run.

 

Excellent information and approach to the issue Roger. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So long as an SLSA Mfg list who can do the inspections then an RLSM-A or an A&P can do the work. Most all list these guys, but in the beginning I caught a few that did not which ruled them out. I did call a few and they actually changed their manuals to include each one.

You do not need to be Rotax schooled. That said too many people with no Rotax training make too many mistakes. A good LSA mechanic will have some knowledge of LSA rules/regs, plus have some training from someone on the Rotax. No matter what a mechanic says the Rotax is different than a Cont. or Lycoming and the maint. should reflect that.

 

The FAA says any mechanic can do the work on a Rotax, but they must have training (doesn't have to be Rotax specific school), must have the proper tools and must have the manuals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

A late comment:

A simple way to view required inspections on SLSA is this. There is only one type of required inspection for SLSA. It is called a "Condition" inspection. It is a whole aircraft inspection each and every time it is performed. This means that it must take the same amount of time to perform (exactly the same scope and detail) each time it is performed. The only thing that could change the amount of labor required, would be additional alteration inspection requirements say from one aircraft to another (of the same model).

The terms "100 hr." inspection and "Annual" inspection do not apply to SLSA. That being said, previous comments are correct as to WHEN condition inspections are required to be performed (Annually for everyone, and 100 hr TIS additionally for aircraft operated for hire).

Also, aircraft manufacturers cannot stipulate WHO is authorized to perform these required inspections. The regulations do that.

 

Doug Hereford

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice job, Doug.

 

Now, to beat this horse to death, let me pose an analogy. Feel free to correct.

 

Some countries (Germany comes to mind) and some states require that your car be inspected on a schedule by an accredited mechanic. It's the law. I think that is comparable to the condition inspection (except that we can do the condition inspection more often if indicated, per above discussions).

 

Car, battery, tire, and other manufacturers may also have a service interval they publish. This is changing oil, flushing the transmission fluid, rotating tire, exchanging battery, flushing the radiator, etc. Same as Rotax and Flight Design and other manufacturers say. It's not the law (unless incorporated in the law by reference, such as if you are doing charter work, etc.). It may be required to maintain warranty.

 

Now, how many of you have flushed your radiator and transmission on schedule? Not all? And if you did it, did you take it back to the factory dealer or did you let an independent do it? Tsk, tsk.

 

Let me ask a question of Doug or other mechanics - can an SLSA pass a condition inspection without accomplishing every manufacturer service item? (In other words, Rotax's 100 hour, not the FAA's 100 hour/condition inspection).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim,

The direct answer to your question (in my opinion only) is absolutely yes. Let me explain. In order for an aircraft to "pass" any required inspection, it must be approved for return to service by the inspector (not the manufacturer, the FAA, or any other individual). This is true whether SLSA or standard airworthiness. In the case of SLSA, in order for the aircraft to be approved for RTS, the inspector must CERTIFY that the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation. It is this requirement that places the liability squarely on the inspector's judgement. It is my judgement, that manufacturer's are experts at manufacturing aircraft. They may or may not be experts at maintaining aircraft. An example: I have a customer that operates approx. 30 Aero Commander 500 series aircraft to move freight. As I'm sure you know, these aircraft have been out of production for a very long time. My customer's lowest time aircraft has just under 20,000 hours on it. There is not a single area of this machine that the operator doesn't know inside and out (with regard to maintenance requirements). Aero Commander publishes a requirement to overhaul the aux hydraulic pump every 1200 hrs. TIS. If my customer started doing this, they would possibly go bankrupt, and not enhance safety one bit. They perform inspections on these pumps as required by their inspection program, and change them on condition. I realize that this example does not really prove anything. Suffice to say, each inspector must use his/her own judgement when deciding whether or not to approve for return to service, and obviously insure that all legally required items have been complied with.

 

By law, the SLSA world depends on manufacturer's when it comes to inspection procedures. This is why I continue to point out that they (manufacturer's) must be forced (by the FAA) to acknowledge and conform to the system in this country. Back on the 100 hr vs annual requirements of WHEN for condition inspections. If manufacturer's are publishing different criteria for condition inspections done annually vs. 100hrs TIS, this is ILLEGAL, and may put the inspector, and more importantly, the operator at undo risk. Same goes for continued airworthiness. SLSA manufacturer's must be made to understand, and conform to the SAFETY DIRECTIVE system in this country.

 

So Jim, to restate my answer to your question. For me to "pass" your aircraft on its condition inspection, I will have to have made the determination that no unsafe condition exists by fully and completely inspecting the entire aircraft, and confirming that it is in compliance with all applicable SAFETY DIRECTIVES, AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES, AND AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS. Also, if there are any alterations to the aircraft, I will have had to confirm that they meet the applicable consensus standard, and were approved by the aircraft mfg. Any other so-called manufacturer requirements will be recommended by me if I feel that they may be a good idea, and subsequently approved by you before we perform them. Not complying with these recommendations is (in my opinion) no reason to deny approval for return to service.

 

As an aside, while FAR part 43 app D (scope and detail for an Annual/100hr. inspection) does not apply to SLSA, before I even inspect your aircraft, I will go line-by-line through you manufacturer's inspection procedures checklist and ensure that it (the inspection procedures checklist) meets the part 43 appendix D scope and detail as a bare minimum. With regard to the CT, last I checked, their checklist makes no mention of the BRS. This is absolutely WRONG. I have contacted CT about this in the past, but don't currently perform any inspections on these aircraft to know whether the checklist has been changed, or Safety Directive Issued.

 

Doug Hereford

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To all,

To give some further explanation on Inspector's judgement. As inspectors, we can't approve something for return to service with an unsafe condition present (obvious). What really constitues an unsafe condition? I have heard the opinion given, and even agreed in the past with the opinion that "every aircraft has something wrong with it, and it's the inspector's job to find it." I can't say that I agree with this statement anymore. I do feel that the position one should take when inspecting an aircraft or component part thereof should be one of skeptism. We are looking to find what is wrong (if it exists), not what is right. Roger, it is like the "hunt for V-Fib" philosophy in old ACLS. As pilots it is no different. When we perform pre-flight activities, we are (or should be) looking for reasons not to go.

Since the SLSA world is legally dependent on the MFG, then all I'm saying with regard to requirements is "Put up or shut up". If something really constitues an unsafe condition if not done, then issue a Safety Directive. I realize that this concept is "pie in the sky". Aviation has been having this discussion for decades.

 

Doug Hereford

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Doug,

 

I think the difference between the pilot looking during a pre-flight and a mechanic should be a lot more training and usually experience. The mechanic is also taking things apart at the annual that the pilot doesn't during a pre-flight. We as mechanics should also be looking at things in far more detail. I find many things that a pilot wouldn't normally see or may not have the training to visualize. Of course nothing stops a pilot from getting this education. The other Item is I see 30 LSA a year and the pilot only sees his plane so I get the chance to see many more issues, both in plain sight and hidden ones. I don't think there is really something unsafe about each plane, but there are many things that need a wrench put on them or looked at with an analytical eye. Some things don't break they just have wear issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...