Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:06 AM - Re: Re: How do you work this soldering iron? (James Kilford)
2. 07:03 AM - Re: FSDO horror shows (Charles Brame)
3. 07:12 AM - Re: FSDO horror shows (Kelly McMullen)
4. 07:15 AM - Re: Poor Man's Battery tester (B. Ray Griffith)
5. 08:02 AM - Re: FSDO horror shows (Ed Holyoke)
6. 08:12 AM - Re: FSDO horror shows (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 08:39 AM - Re: FSDO horror shows (Stein Bruch)
8. 09:12 AM - Re: FSDO horror shows (Ed Holyoke)
9. 09:34 AM - Re: FSDO horror shows (Ed Holyoke)
10. 10:39 AM - Re: FSDO horror shows (BobsV35B@aol.com)
11. 12:52 PM - Re: FSDO horror shows (Kelly McMullen)
12. 01:58 PM - Re: Re: Poor Man's Battery tester (John MacCallum)
13. 06:16 PM - Re: Re: Poor Man's Battery tester (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 07:46 PM - Re: FSDO horror shows (Ed Holyoke)
15. 08:23 PM - Re: FSDO horror shows (BobsV35B@aol.com)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: How do you work this soldering iron? |
This amazes me! It's brilliant in its simplicity!
James
On 19 December 2012 05:43, rparigoris <rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us> wrote:
> rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
>
> Hi Group
>
> OK figured it out.
>
> This is the iron:
> http://www.stevenjohnson.com/soldering/pics/reinhard-mccabe-glow-point.jpg
>
> Here are the instructions:
>
> http://www.stevenjohnson.com/soldering/pics/reinhard-mccabe-glow-point-inst.gif
>
> Interesting website:
> http://www.stevenjohnson.com/soldering/electricirons.htm
>
> One was for sale:
>
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Soldering-Iron-NEW-WITH-TAGS-WORKS-ON-A-BATTERY-RARE-no-reserve-/170919825685?nma=true&si=xfE%2BuetYdsHGvil0c6U0uiCK6VY%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557
>
> I guess it will end up living in my hangar!
>
> Ron P.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390675#390675
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FSDO horror shows |
My question is, why would you consider installing a wing leveler as a
major alteration?
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
>>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Ed Holyoke<bicyclop@pacbell.net>
wrote:
>>>> I went into the FSDO to get a new set of operating limitations for
my RV as
>>>> the old ones didn't have any provision for making a major
alteration and I
>>>> was in the process of installing a wing leveler.
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FSDO horror shows |
It is per part 43, Appendix A, because it is attached to and affects the
flight controls. Whether that means another abbreviated Phase I depends
on your FSDO and your judgement.
On 12/19/2012 8:02 AM, Charles Brame wrote:
> My question is, why would you consider installing a wing leveler as a
> major alteration?
>
> Charlie Brame
> RV-6A N11CB
> San Antonio
>
>
>>>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Ed Holyoke<bicyclop@pacbell.net
>>>> <mailto:bicyclop@pacbell.net>> wrote:
>>>>> I went into the FSDO to get a new set of operating limitations for
>>>>> my RV as
>>>>> the old ones didn't have any provision for making a major
>>>>> alteration and I
>>>>> was in the process of installing a wing leveler.
> *
>
>
> *
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Poor Man's Battery tester |
Hay Bob what is up with the battery tester?
Ray
From: B. Ray Griffith
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 3:19 PM
Subject: Poor Man's Battery tester
I built the poor mans tester Figure 2-4 in AeroElectric Connection. My
only modification was I have three bulbs in parallel to simulate the
load I have on the battery that I estimate at 11amps to run my fuel
pump, ECU, and Ignition. The problem is when I connect the test to the
battery and have all three bulbs on the tester kicks off at 13 volts
with one bulb it kicks off about 10.5 Volts and with 2 bulbs it kicks
off at 12 volts. I have rebuilt the unit with new 10v Zener and I get
the same results. Does anyone have any suggestions what I have done
wrong is do I need to change the resistor size between the load (bulbs)?
Thanks,
Ray
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FSDO horror shows |
Howdy Charlie,
It's an alteration to the flight controls. Look at appendix A to Part 43
for the definitions of major/minor. My new oplims (and all the recent
ones) have wording in them that require notification to the FSDO of
intent to re-enter Phase 1 and to get their concurrence with your
intended flight test area. Another issue was that my old oplims read
day/night VFR. There was no provision in the oplims to be legal for IFR,
so I had two reasons to want to update my operating limitations.
It's a good idea to re-read your oplims every now and then as they are
binding and not just ballast. ;-) The oplims on a certificated aircraft
are contained in the POH and of course we are subject to Part 91.
Ed
On 12/19/2012 7:02 AM, Charles Brame wrote:
> My question is, why would you consider installing a wing leveler as a
> major alteration?
>
> Charlie Brame
> RV-6A N11CB
> San Antonio
>
>
>>>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Ed Holyoke<bicyclop@pacbell.net
>>>> <mailto:bicyclop@pacbell.net>> wrote:
>>>>> I went into the FSDO to get a new set of operating limitations for
>>>>> my RV as
>>>>> the old ones didn't have any provision for making a major
>>>>> alteration and I
>>>>> was in the process of installing a wing leveler.
> *
>
>
> *
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FSDO horror shows |
At 09:12 AM 12/19/2012, you wrote:
>
>It is per part 43, Appendix A, because it is attached to and affects
>the flight controls. Whether that means another abbreviated Phase I
>depends on your FSDO and your judgement.
How did Part 43 become attached to an OBAM
aircraft project?
Bob . . .
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | FSDO horror shows |
Of course there is the statement in 43 that very clearly states:
"This part does not apply to any aircraft for which the FAA has issued an
experimental
certificate, unless the FAA has previously issued a different kind of
airworthiness certificate
for that aircraft."
I too was a bit curious why you voluntarily asked for more restrictive
OpLims and invite the entire situation to begin with when it's clearly not
needed? I get the IFR thing (sorta-that's not as cut and dried as you may
may have thought either), but I'd be careful not to mix requirments from
TC'd aircraft with our OBAM planes. I do get to deal with the rules quite
often, becase we get inspected/audited regularly by the FAA to maintain our
certification..but we've also been working on these experimentals for
decades and have come to know the nuances quite well. Dealing with the FAA
is it's own dance, but once you learn the dance it's not that difficult.
Sometimes they need educated, sometimes we do.
No flames intended, just curiosity.
Cheers,
Stein
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ed
Holyoke
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: FSDO horror shows
Howdy Charlie,
It's an alteration to the flight controls. Look at appendix A to Part 43 for
the definitions of major/minor. My new oplims (and all the recent ones) have
wording in them that require notification to the FSDO of intent to re-enter
Phase 1 and to get their concurrence with your intended flight test area.
Another issue was that my old oplims read day/night VFR. There was no
provision in the oplims to be legal for IFR, so I had two reasons to want to
update my operating limitations.
It's a good idea to re-read your oplims every now and then as they are
binding and not just ballast. ;-) The oplims on a certificated aircraft are
contained in the POH and of course we are subject to Part 91.
Ed
On 12/19/2012 7:02 AM, Charles Brame wrote:
My question is, why would you consider installing a wing leveler as a major
alteration?
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Ed Holyoke<bicyclop@pacbell.net> wrote:
I went into the FSDO to get a new set of operating limitations for my RV as
the old ones didn't have any provision for making a major alteration and I
was in the process of installing a wing leveler.
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FSDO horror shows |
Howdy Bob,
There is a reference to appx. A and D to 43 contained in the operating
limitations. A for definition of major alterations, D for a reference of
what must be inspected.
Pax,
Ed
On 12/19/2012 8:11 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 09:12 AM 12/19/2012, you wrote:
>> <kellym@aviating.com>
>>
>> It is per part 43, Appendix A, because it is attached to and affects
>> the flight controls. Whether that means another abbreviated Phase I
>> depends on your FSDO and your judgement.
>
> How did Part 43 become attached to an OBAM
> aircraft project?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FSDO horror shows |
Howdy Stein,
Less restrictive oplims, not more. The old set stated that VFR day and
night were authorized. There was no mention of "unless properly equipped
for IFR" like the new set. Didn't seem like a lot of wiggle room on
that. The old set had no pathway for any major modifications. If I had
made the mod under the old oplims, I would have been in violation and
the only way to fix it up would have been an inspection and a brand new
AW cert with new oplims. So, I just asked for that without the
inspection. If I remember correctly, my old oplims didn't allow for
flight over densely populated areas with no reference to for the purpose
of take off or landing. Much more restrictive oplims than I have now.
I wanted to be in compliance, and I think that is a good idea in
general. Think about the consequences of having bad paperwork after an
incident - certificate actions, denial of insurance claim, possible
lawsuits, etc. If I had known what the response to my simple request
would be, I would probably still have had to move ahead or just shelve
the mods and give up on the idea of IFR. I would have done a lot more
research first, though. That's why I say to have every duck lined up
before walking in their door. I thought that I had, but there were
several ducks of which I was unaware. ;-)
Pax,
Ed
On 12/19/2012 8:39 AM, Stein Bruch wrote:
>
> Of course there is the statement in 43 that very clearly states:
>
> "This part does not apply to any aircraft for which the FAA has issued
> an experimental
>
> certificate, unless the FAA has previously issued a different kind of
> airworthiness certificate
>
> for that aircraft."
>
> I too was a bit curious why you voluntarily asked for more restrictive
> OpLims and invite the entire situation to begin with when it's clearly
> not needed? I get the IFR thing (sorta--that's not as cut and dried as
> you may may have thought either), but I'd be careful not to mix
> requirments from TC'd aircraft with our OBAM planes. I do get to deal
> with the rules quite often, becase we get inspected/audited regularly
> by the FAA to maintain our certification....but we've also been
> working on these experimentals for decades and have come to know the
> nuances quite well. Dealing with the FAA is it's own dance, but once
> you learn the dance it's not that difficult. Sometimes they need
> educated, sometimes we do.
>
> No flames intended, just curiosity.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Stein
>
> *From:*owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of
> *Ed Holyoke
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 19, 2012 10:02 AM
> *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: FSDO horror shows
>
> Howdy Charlie,
>
> It's an alteration to the flight controls. Look at appendix A to Part
> 43 for the definitions of major/minor. My new oplims (and all the
> recent ones) have wording in them that require notification to the
> FSDO of intent to re-enter Phase 1 and to get their concurrence with
> your intended flight test area. Another issue was that my old oplims
> read day/night VFR. There was no provision in the oplims to be legal
> for IFR, so I had two reasons to want to update my operating limitations.
>
> It's a good idea to re-read your oplims every now and then as they are
> binding and not just ballast. ;-) The oplims on a certificated
> aircraft are contained in the POH and of course we are subject to Part 91.
>
> Ed
>
> On 12/19/2012 7:02 AM, Charles Brame wrote:
>
> My question is, why would you consider installing a wing leveler as a
> major alteration?
>
> Charlie Brame
>
> RV-6A N11CB
>
> San Antonio
>
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Ed
> Holyoke<bicyclop@pacbell.net
> <mailto:bicyclop@pacbell.net>> wrote:
>
> I went into the FSDO to get a new set of operating
> limitations for my RV as
>
> the old ones didn't have any provision for making a
> major alteration and I
>
> was in the process of installing a wing leveler.
>
> * *
> * *
> * *
> * <-= -- Please Support Your Lists This Month nbsp; (And Get Some AWESOME FREE November is the Annual List Fund Raiser. Click below to find out more Free Incentive Gifts AeroElectricwww.aeroelectric.com <http://www.aeroelectric.com><www.buildersbooks.com <http://www.buildersbooks.com>www.homebuilthelp.comhttp://www.matronics.com/c= -Matt Dralle, List - The AeroElectric-List Email List utilities such as List Photoshare, and much much --> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List*
> http://forums.matronics.com====
> * *
> *
>
>
> *
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FSDO horror shows |
Good Afternoon Ed,
My interpretation of the language: "stated that VFR day and night were
authorized." is just that. Day and Night VFR are authorized.
It does not say the IFR is NOT authorized.
Part 91 does spell out what we need to have to fly IFR so I would have gone
ahead and flown IFR on your original AW certificate as soon as the
airplane met Part 91 requirements.
An older FAA inspector told me many years ago that the FARs are not
restrictive, but permissive. Anything that is not specifically prohibited,
is
permissible. Maybe some of the lawyers on this list will let us know if I
have that all wrong!
Once again, much easier NOT to ask the FED.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 12/19/2012 11:35:53 A.M. Central Standard Time,
bicyclop@pacbell.net writes:
Howdy Stein,
Less restrictive oplims, not more. The old set stated that VFR day and
night were authorized. There was no mention of "unless properly equipped f
or
IFR" like the new set. Didn't seem like a lot of wiggle room on that. The
old set had no pathway for any major modifications. If I had made the mod
under the old oplims, I would have been in violation and the only way to f
ix
it up would have been an inspection and a brand new AW cert with new oplim
s.
So, I just asked for that without the inspection. If I remember correctly,
my old oplims didn't allow for flight over densely populated areas with no
reference to for the purpose of take off or landing. Much more restrictive
oplims than I have now.
I wanted to be in compliance, and I think that is a good idea in general.
Think about the consequences of having bad paperwork after an incident -
certificate actions, denial of insurance claim, possible lawsuits, etc. If
I
had known what the response to my simple request would be, I would probabl
y
still have had to move ahead or just shelve the mods and give up on the
idea of IFR. I would have done a lot more research first, though. That's w
hy
I say to have every duck lined up before walking in their door. I thought
that I had, but there were several ducks of which I was unaware. ;-)
Pax,
Ed
On 12/19/2012 8:39 AM, Stein Bruch wrote:
Of course there is the statement in 43 that very clearly states:
"This part does not apply to any aircraft for which the FAA has issued an
experimental
certificate, unless the FAA has previously issued a different kind of
airworthiness certificate
for that aircraft."
I too was a bit curious why you voluntarily asked for more restrictive
OpLims and invite the entire situation to begin with when it=99s cle
arly not
needed? I get the IFR thing (sorta=93that=99s not as cut and d
ried as you may may
have thought either), but I=99d be careful not to mix requirments fr
om TC=99d
aircraft with our OBAM planes. I do get to deal with the rules quite
often, becase we get inspected/audited regularly by the FAA to maintain our
certification.but we=99ve also been working on these experim
entals for
decades and have come to know the nuances quite well. Dealing with the FA
A is it=99
s own dance, but once you learn the dance it=99s not that difficult.
Sometimes they need educated, sometimes we do.
No flames intended, just curiosity.
Cheers,
Stein
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FSDO horror shows |
There are sections of Part 43 that apply to OBAM aircraft by reference
from the oplims. Part 43 Appendix A and D specifically.
While we have a lot of freedom, it isn't absolute freedom.
On 12/19/2012 9:11 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 09:12 AM 12/19/2012, you wrote:
>> <kellym@aviating.com>
>>
>> It is per part 43, Appendix A, because it is attached to and affects
>> the flight controls. Whether that means another abbreviated Phase I
>> depends on your FSDO and your judgement.
>
> How did Part 43 become attached to an OBAM
> aircraft project?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Poor Man's Battery tester |
HI Ray
It's because the load is not a constant current type. The batteries internal
resistance (which varies with the state of charge) along with the connected
load will determine the current flow. The amount of
current the Zener will have to sink to pull the output voltage down to 10.5
volts just adds to the problem. Unless you are willing to pay for or build a
constant current type
Load device you will just have to average the current draw over a set period
of time.
How long do you intend to test the battery for?
Cheers
John MacCallum
VH-DUU
RV 10 # 41016
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of B. Ray
Griffith
Sent: Thursday, 20 December 2012 2:15 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Poor Man's Battery tester
Hay Bob what is up with the battery tester?
Ray
From: B. Ray Griffith <mailto:rgriffith@griffithes.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 3:19 PM
Subject: Poor Man's Battery tester
I built the poor mans tester Figure 2-4 in AeroElectric Connection. My only
modification was I have three bulbs in parallel to simulate the load I have
on the battery that I estimate at 11amps to run my fuel pump, ECU, and
Ignition. The problem is when I connect the test to the battery and have
all three bulbs on the tester kicks off at 13 volts with one bulb it kicks
off about 10.5 Volts and with 2 bulbs it kicks off at 12 volts. I have
rebuilt the unit with new 10v Zener and I get the same results. Does anyone
have any suggestions what I have done wrong is do I need to change the
resistor size between the load (bulbs)?
Thanks,
Ray
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Poor Man's Battery tester |
At 09:14 AM 12/19/2012, you wrote:
>Hay Bob what is up with the battery tester?
>
>Ray
It's in process. The board is the same one used on
the new wig-wag controller. My software guy for this
program is the bottleneck. I'll be seeing him this
weekend and will get you an update. As soon as
I have some code to push into the chip, we'll
photograph it for an article and get it back to
you.
Bob . . .
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FSDO horror shows |
Howdy Bob,
I don't have a copy of the old set that I can lay my hands on right now,
but it seems as if it went something like this; "no person shall operate
this aircraft except in VFR conditions." That isn't a permissive
wording. I don't recall how the day/night thing was worded. I believe
the prohibition against operation over densely populated areas had
similar wording and didn't have the except for clause. If they had
wanted to, they probably could have violated me for operating in and out
of my home airport anytime they wanted based on my oplims.
I agree about not asking the fed, but I really didn't have much option
if I wanted to do the mods and be legal.
Pax,
Ed
On 12/19/2012 10:37 AM, BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> Good Afternoon Ed,
> My interpretation of the language: "stated that VFR day and night were
> authorized." is just that. Day and Night VFR are authorized.
> It does not say the IFR is NOT authorized.
> Part 91 does spell out what we need to have to fly IFR so I would have
> gone ahead and flown IFR on your original AW certificate as soon as
> the airplane met Part 91 requirements.
> An older FAA inspector told me many years ago that the FARs are not
> restrictive, but permissive. Anything that is not specifically
> prohibited, is permissible. Maybe some of the lawyers on this list
> will let us know if I have that all wrong!
> Once again, much easier NOT to ask the FED.
> Happy Skies,
> Old Bob
> In a message dated 12/19/2012 11:35:53 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> bicyclop@pacbell.net writes:
>
> Howdy Stein,
>
> Less restrictive oplims, not more. The old set stated that VFR day
> and night were authorized. There was no mention of "unless
> properly equipped for IFR" like the new set. Didn't seem like a
> lot of wiggle room on that. The old set had no pathway for any
> major modifications. If I had made the mod under the old oplims, I
> would have been in violation and the only way to fix it up would
> have been an inspection and a brand new AW cert with new oplims.
> So, I just asked for that without the inspection. If I remember
> correctly, my old oplims didn't allow for flight over densely
> populated areas with no reference to for the purpose of take off
> or landing. Much more restrictive oplims than I have now.
>
> I wanted to be in compliance, and I think that is a good idea in
> general. Think about the consequences of having bad paperwork
> after an incident - certificate actions, denial of insurance
> claim, possible lawsuits, etc. If I had known what the response to
> my simple request would be, I would probably still have had to
> move ahead or just shelve the mods and give up on the idea of IFR.
> I would have done a lot more research first, though. That's why I
> say to have every duck lined up before walking in their door. I
> thought that I had, but there were several ducks of which I was
> unaware. ;-)
>
> Pax,
>
> Ed
>
> On 12/19/2012 8:39 AM, Stein Bruch wrote:
>>
>> Of course there is the statement in 43 that very clearly states:
>>
>> "This part does not apply to any aircraft for which the FAA has
>> issued an experimental
>>
>> certificate, unless the FAA has previously issued a different
>> kind of airworthiness certificate
>>
>> for that aircraft."
>>
>> I too was a bit curious why you voluntarily asked for more
>> restrictive OpLims and invite the entire situation to begin with
>> when its clearly not needed? I get the IFR thing (sortathats
>> not as cut and dried as you may may have thought either), but Id
>> be careful not to mix requirments from TCd aircraft with our
>> OBAM planes. I do get to deal with the rules quite often, becase
>> we get inspected/audited regularly by the FAA to maintain our
>> certification.but weve also been working on these experimentals
>> for decades and have come to know the nuances quite well.
>> Dealing with the FAA is its own dance, but once you learn the
>> dance its not that difficult. Sometimes they need educated,
>> sometimes we do.
>>
>> No flames intended, just curiosity.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Stein
>>
> *
>
>
> *
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FSDO horror shows |
Good Evening Ed,
No doubt that the wording has varied over the years and I have not been
heavily involved in the home built field, but I do not recall having seen the
language you tell us about. I have seen it written as you described earlier
and our Granddaughter has a home built Legend Cub that has the language
stating "VFR Day and Night" or very close to that. We are confident that she
can fly her Cub IFR with the airworthiness certificate she was issued
considering the equipment it now has installed.
As Always. It All Depends!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 12/19/2012 9:47:04 P.M. Central Standard Time,
bicyclop@pacbell.net writes:
Howdy Bob,
I don't have a copy of the old set that I can lay my hands on right now,
but it seems as if it went something like this; "no person shall operate
this aircraft except in VFR conditions." That isn't a permissive wording. I
don't recall how the day/night thing was worded. I believe the prohibition
against operation over densely populated areas had similar wording and didn't
have the except for clause. If they had wanted to, they probably could
have violated me for operating in and out of my home airport anytime they
wanted based on my oplims.
I agree about not asking the fed, but I really didn't have much option if
I wanted to do the mods and be legal.
Pax,
Ed
On 12/19/2012 10:37 AM, _BobsV35B@aol.com_ (mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com)
wrote:
Good Afternoon Ed,
My interpretation of the language: "stated that VFR day and night were
authorized." is just that. Day and Night VFR are authorized.
It does not say the IFR is NOT authorized.
Part 91 does spell out what we need to have to fly IFR so I would have
gone ahead and flown IFR on your original AW certificate as soon as the
airplane met Part 91 requirements.
An older FAA inspector told me many years ago that the FARs are not
restrictive, but permissive. Anything that is not specifically prohibited, is
permissible. Maybe some of the lawyers on this list will let us know if I
have that all wrong!
Once again, much easier NOT to ask the FED.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 12/19/2012 11:35:53 A.M. Central Standard Time,
_bicyclop@pacbell.net_ (mailto:bicyclop@pacbell.net) writes:
Howdy Stein,
Less restrictive oplims, not more. The old set stated that VFR day and
night were authorized. There was no mention of "unless properly equipped for
IFR" like the new set. Didn't seem like a lot of wiggle room on that. The
old set had no pathway for any major modifications. If I had made the mod
under the old oplims, I would have been in violation and the only way to fix
it up would have been an inspection and a brand new AW cert with new oplims.
So, I just asked for that without the inspection. If I remember correctly,
my old oplims didn't allow for flight over densely populated areas with no
reference to for the purpose of take off or landing. Much more restrictive
oplims than I have now.
I wanted to be in compliance, and I think that is a good idea in general.
Think about the consequences of having bad paperwork after an incident -
certificate actions, denial of insurance claim, possible lawsuits, etc. If I
had known what the response to my simple request would be, I would probably
still have had to move ahead or just shelve the mods and give up on the
idea of IFR. I would have done a lot more research first, though. That's why
I say to have every duck lined up before walking in their door. I thought
that I had, but there were several ducks of which I was unaware. ;-)
Pax,
Ed
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|