Gelcoat repair

Visualize a glider on a experimental certificate:

1- Does it take a "pro" (I.E a glider repair shop used to do this on a
regular basis) to redo the gelcoat on a glider legally, or can it be
done by anyone?

2- What needs to be entered in the logbooks, if any?

Thanks

On Nov 18, 7:41*am, jeplane wrote:
Visualize a glider on a experimental certificate:

1- Does it take a "pro" (I.E a glider repair shop used to do this on a
regular basis) to redo the gelcoat on a glider legally, or can it be
done by anyone?

2- What needs to be entered in the logbooks, if any?

In the US, 14CFR43.1(b), Applicability, says that Part 43 applies does
not apply to experimental aircraft. That includes a huge mass of
verbiage about who can perform and sign off various repairs. Ergo,
none (as in not any) of that verbiage applies to experimental
aircraft.

That isn't to say that there aren't any rules, just that they're not
in Part 43. One place where there definitely rules about this is in
the operating limitations that accompany the special airworthiness
certificate issued for the purposes of operating an experimental
aircraft. Those OpLims are actually part of the special AW cert, and
the AW certificate is not valid unless accompanied by them in the
aircraft. So make sure you have your OpLims document and that you have
it in the aircraft. I usually keep two copies in the aircraft; one
folded up and tucked into the clear plastic document holder with the
AW cert and the registration cert, and one tucked under the seat
cushion that I can refer to at need (in flight if necessary).

Personally, if the OpLims do not specifically state that maintenance
and repair must be performed by persons with thus and such
certification (A&P, IA or whatever), I would operate under the
assumption that anybody can do the repair until it is demonstrated
otherwise with a reference to something relevant in the 14CFE or in
the OpLims. If I did the repair, I would document it in the logs with
simple, clear language and sign it with my airman's cert number.

One major control over the maintenance and repair of experimental
aircraft is that the annual condition inspection (not an airworthiness
inspection, by the way) must be signed off by either an A&P mechanic
or an IA or the holder of a repairbeing certificate applicable to the
particular aircraft. If you are the holder of the repaircreature
certificate, no sweat, you hold both the authority and the
responsibility. If you are not said certificate holder, you have to do
the repair in such a way as that you can convince an A&P or IA to sign
off on the condition inspection. If you do a shoddy job and document
it poorly, you might have trouble getting that inspection signoff. So
do good work using good practices such as those described in AC43.13
where applicable, and keep good records of what you did.

Thanks, Bob K.
www.hpaircraft.com

On Nov 18, 10:41*am, jeplane wrote:
Visualize a glider on a experimental certificate:

1- Does it take a "pro" (I.E a glider repair shop used to do this on a
regular basis) to redo the gelcoat on a glider legally, or can it be
done by anyone?

2- What needs to be entered in the logbooks, if any?

Thanks

Does not take a "pro" as long as you can accomplish the following
elements.
1 Determine whether gelcoat damage being removed/repaired does not
reach structural layers.
2. Remove correct amount of gelcoat without damaging underlying
structure.
3 Know how to properly evaluated and repair consequences of failing to
do '2" above correctly.
4. Able to do actions required to ensure that control surfaces meet
mass and moment specifications in aircraft
maintenace manual. This almost always requires removal and
reinstallation after weighing. Nobody who has done this very often
leaves surfaces on. This requires logbook entry by qualified
individual- A&P.
5. Able to accomplish appropriate weight and balance record keeping
and revision to operation limits. Logbook entry by A&P.

Many gliders are started on this path by"non pros". The list is long
of those that get completed later by "pros" at greater
expense than hoped. It can be lots more work to fix mistakes and
sometimes permanent damage results.
If you want to do it yourself, please enlist the help and guidance of
soemone known to be skilled in this.
Good Luck
UH

On Nov 18, 9:04*am, wrote:
...
4. Able to do actions required to ensure that control surfaces meet
mass and moment specifications in aircraft
maintenace manual. This almost always requires removal and
reinstallation after weighing. *Nobody who has done this very often
leaves surfaces on. This requires logbook entry by qualified
individual- A&P.

Hank, remember that we are talking about an experimental aircraft,
which 14CFR43.1(b) exempts from everything in part 43. So unless the
OpLims require an A&P signoff, I would [citation needed] any generic
statement about an A&P signoff being required.

5. Able to accomplish appropriate weight and balance record keeping
and revision to operation limits. Logbook entry by A&P.

Same as above.

Many gliders are started on this path by"non pros". The list is long
of those that get completed later by "pros" at greater
expense than hoped.

Many gliders and airplanes have also been built, maintained, and
repaired by "non pros," at lower expense, with greater performance and
utility, and greater enjoyment than hoped.

Bottom line, I agree with the sentiment that you should seek guidance
wisely, and proceed cautiously, when undertaking critical repair and
maintenance operations. But I would disagree with the idea, implied or
explicit, that working on aircraft is too difficult to be left to any
ordinary folks.

Thanks again, Bob K.
www.hpaircraft.com

On Nov 18, 1:57*pm, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Nov 18, 9:04*am, wrote:

...
4. Able to do actions required to ensure that control surfaces meet
mass and moment specifications in aircraft
maintenace manual. This almost always requires removal and
reinstallation after weighing. *Nobody who has done this very often
leaves surfaces on. This requires logbook entry by qualified
individual- A&P.

Hank, remember that we are talking about an experimental aircraft,
which 14CFR43.1(b) exempts from everything in part 43. So unless the
OpLims require an A&P signoff, I would [citation needed] any generic
statement about an A&P signoff being required.

5. Able to accomplish appropriate weight and balance record keeping
and revision to operation limits. Logbook entry by A&P.

Same as above.

Many gliders are started on this path by"non pros". The list is long
of those that get completed later by "pros" at greater
expense than hoped.

Many gliders and airplanes have also been built, maintained, and
repaired by "non pros," at lower expense, with greater performance and
utility, and greater enjoyment than hoped.

Bottom line, I agree with the sentiment that you should seek guidance
wisely, and proceed cautiously, when undertaking critical repair and
maintenance operations. But I would disagree with the idea, implied or
explicit, that working on aircraft is too difficult to be left to any
ordinary folks.

Thanks again, Bob K.www.hpaircraft.com

I completely agree that we are not talking about some black art, much
as the FAA would like us to believe it is.
That said, there are some areas where real care needs to be taken, a
couple of which I described before.
FWIW- The limitations on both my Experimental Exhibition and Air
racing licensed gliders specifically mention that maintenance is to be
done in accordance with the manual provided with the glider. It does
not say, in all cases, who can do the work.
All this said, care and conservative wisdom can save heart ache. And
maybe some expensive bills.
It is also true that taking a serious interest in doing a good job
maintaining your glider is a very good thing. A very knowledgeble
owner likely will keep his glider is as good, or better shape than
lots of "pros".
CU
UH

On Nov 18, 9:00*am, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Nov 18, 7:41*am, jeplane wrote:

Visualize a glider on a experimental certificate:

1- Does it take a "pro" (I.E a glider repair shop used to do this on a
regular basis) to redo the gelcoat on a glider legally, or can it be
done by anyone?

2- What needs to be entered in the logbooks, if any?

In the US, 14CFR43.1(b), Applicability, says that Part 43 applies does
not apply to experimental aircraft. That includes a huge mass of
verbiage about who can perform and sign off various repairs. Ergo,
none (as in not any) of that verbiage applies to experimental
aircraft.

That isn't to say that there aren't any rules, just that they're not
in Part 43. One place where there definitely rules about this is in
the operating limitations that accompany the special airworthiness
certificate issued for the purposes of operating an experimental
aircraft. Those OpLims are actually part of the special AW cert, and
the AW certificate is not valid unless accompanied by them in the
aircraft. So make sure you have your OpLims document and that you have
it in the aircraft. I usually keep two copies in the aircraft; one
folded up and tucked into the clear plastic document holder with the
AW cert and the registration cert, and one tucked under the seat
cushion that I can refer to at need (in flight if necessary).

Personally, if the OpLims do not specifically state that maintenance
and repair must be performed by persons with thus and such
certification (A&P, IA or whatever), I would operate under the
assumption that anybody can do the repair until it is demonstrated
otherwise with a reference to something relevant in the 14CFE or in
the OpLims. If I did the repair, I would document it in the logs with
simple, clear language and sign it with my airman's cert number.

One major control over the maintenance and repair of experimental
aircraft is that the annual condition inspection (not an airworthiness
inspection, by the way) must be signed off by either an A&P mechanic
or an IA or the holder of a repairbeing certificate applicable to the
particular aircraft. If you are the holder of the repaircreature
certificate, no sweat, you hold both the authority and the
responsibility. If you are not said certificate holder, you have to do
the repair in such a way as that you can convince an A&P or IA to sign
off on the condition inspection. If you do a shoddy job and document
it poorly, you might have trouble getting that inspection signoff. So
do good work using good practices such as those described in AC43.13
where applicable, and keep good records of what you did.

Thanks, Bob K.www.hpaircraft.com

Lets not get hung up on the letter of the law, here. Re-painting
control surfaces involves suspending the surface at the hinge point (I
like to hang them on twine) in a horizontal position and measuring the
weight at the trailing edge. Readings (in ounces ) X distanse from
hinge line are then checked against the maximum allowed in the hand
book. If out of tolerance, weight must be secured ahead of the hings
line. This is not something I would trust to unskilled hands. Do it
wrong and you go to flutter city. Been there, done that, and don't
wish to revisit the place. Have a knowledgeable guy hold your hand.
Hope this helps,
JJ

On Nov 18, 1:19*pm, wrote:

I completely agree that we are not talking about some black art, much
as the FAA would like us to believe it is...

I fully agree with you, and I agree especially with this point in
particular.

The FAA policy verbiage regarding experimental aircraft in specific,
and general aviation aircraft in general is in some respects at odds
with the actual language in 14CFR. And individual FSDOs are often at
odds with each other about how both the policies and the rules in
14CFR are interpreted and enforced.

My favorite example of this is the language in 14CFR21 that allows
owners of type-certificated aircraft to manufacture replacement parts
for their own aircraft under certain fairly reasonable circumstances.
I've talked with a couple of DERs and DARs who swear up and down that
that cannot possibly be true, and that any part not anointed and
blessed by FAA, TSO, PMA and STC and other TLAs too numerous to
mention is bogus, counterfeit and illegal. And yet there it is in
black and white in 14CFR21.303. Here are my two favorite articles on
this topic:

http://www.faa.gov/news/aviation_new...ulyAug2001.pdf

http://www.faa.gov/news/aviation_new...ulyAug2002.pdf

I like to encourage people to understand exactly what the FAA and the
regulations in 14CFR actually do and do not require when it comes to
the maintenance, repair, and modification of experimental aircraft.
And to further understand the authority under which those requirements
are based.

My somewhat paranoid fear is that if we let ourselves believe that an
officially-blessed signoff is required for every little thing, then
some day the FAA may come to believe it as well. And when they find
out it's not true, they will just go ahead and make it true in the
next round of NPRMs.

Thanks again, and best regards to all

Bob K.
www.hpaircraft.com

On Nov 18, 2:29*pm, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Nov 18, 1:19*pm, wrote:

I completely agree that we are not talking about some black art, much
as the FAA would like us to believe it is...

I fully agree with you, and I agree especially with this point in
particular.

The FAA policy verbiage regarding experimental aircraft in specific,
and general aviation aircraft in general is in some respects at odds
with the actual language in 14CFR. And individual FSDOs are often at
odds with each other about how both the policies and the rules in
14CFR are interpreted and enforced.

My favorite example of this is the language in 14CFR21 that allows
owners of type-certificated aircraft to manufacture replacement parts
for their own aircraft under certain fairly reasonable circumstances.
I've talked with a couple of DERs and DARs who swear up and down that
that cannot possibly be true, and that any part not anointed and
blessed by FAA, TSO, PMA and STC and other TLAs too numerous to
mention is bogus, counterfeit and illegal. And yet there it is in
black and white in 14CFR21.303. Here are my two favorite articles on
this topic:

http://www.faa.gov/news/aviation_new...ulyAug2001.pdf

http://www.faa.gov/news/aviation_new...ulyAug2002.pdf

I like to encourage people to understand exactly what the FAA and the
regulations in 14CFR actually do and do not require when it comes to
the maintenance, repair, and modification of experimental aircraft.
And to further understand the authority under which those requirements
are based.

My somewhat paranoid fear is that if we let ourselves believe that an
officially-blessed signoff is required for every little thing, then
some day the FAA may come to believe it as well. And when they find
out it's not true, they will just go ahead and make it true in the
next round of NPRMs.

Thanks again, and best regards to all

Bob K.www.hpaircraft.com

Well, my answer to all that goobeldeegook is the build my own
sailplane: Once you get the N-number, the FAA inspection and the
Amateur Built CofA, AND your repairmens certificate, you are on your
own and left alone!

Heck, what's so hard about that......

Brad

The process is very messy and can be hazardous to your health.
And it takes many, many hours of careful preperation.
Labor intensive.
As JJ said, mass balance of controls is very important.
400-1000 hours is possible...no joke.
Polyurethane may be best way to go.
GA

On Nov 18, 3:35*pm, glider wrote:
*The process is very messy and can be hazardous to your health.
And it takes many, many hours of careful preperation.
*Labor intensive.
*As JJ said, mass balance of controls *is very important.
* 400-1000 hours is possible...no joke.
*Polyurethane may be best way to go.
*GA


Jim Phoenix nicely documented the refinish on his Nimbus 3.
http://www.jimphoenix.com/?page_id=42

Heck, anything less than 18m will seem like a cakewalk. Just don't
plan on having a social life this winter...

Best regards,
Craig Funston