Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:12 AM - Re: Fuel Tanks (Dave G)
2. 05:15 AM - Re: owner performed maintenance (Catz631@aol.com)
3. 05:20 AM - Re: Kreem Problem Again (Dave G)
4. 05:50 AM - Re: owner performed maintenance (Bob Brennan)
5. 07:27 AM - Re: owner performed maintenance (John W. Hart)
6. 08:33 AM - Re: owner performed maintenance (Jim Feldmann)
7. 09:16 AM - Re: 582 gasket set on Ebay (akflyer)
8. 09:43 AM - Re: owner performed maintenance (Paul Franz - Merlin GT)
9. 09:56 AM - Re: owner performed maintenance (Bob Brennan)
10. 10:27 AM - Re: owner performed maintenance (John W. Hart)
11. 10:45 AM - Re: owner performed maintenance (Bob Brennan)
12. 11:26 AM - Re: owner performed maintenance (akflyer)
13. 11:27 AM - Re: owner performed maintenance (John W. Hart)
14. 11:36 AM - Re: owner performed maintenance (akflyer)
15. 12:57 PM - Re: Re: owner performed maintenance (Jim_and_Lucy Chuk)
16. 04:21 PM - Re: Taking off from your backyard (Ken Potter)
17. 04:30 PM - Oshkosh request...off topic (Lynn Matteson)
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 |
|
I wonder how the progress of leadfree avgas is coming. That would solve
a lot of problems. There has been little in the way of news that I've
seen.
----- Original Message -----
From: Noel
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 2:58 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Fuel Tanks
I can't say too much about the tanks but the PM has passed legislation
that requires all service stations in Canada to sell 10% ethanol gas
within the next four years. Darned if I know how he is going to get the
crap to remote places or islands like Anticosti, Vancouver, Baffin or
Newfoundland
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don Hudgeon
Sent: 14 July 2009 11:22
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Kitfox-List: Fuel Tanks
I have some questions concerning fiberglass fuel tanks and auto fuel.
I am considering the purchase of an Avid MK4 that is a 1992 model. The
kit was first flown in 2005 and as far as I know has used auto fuel
since then. I am not sure about the history of the tanks as the builder
is deceased.It has about 170 hrs on the tach. Can anyone tell me how
long it takes for the auto fuel to damage the tank? How do I tell if
there is damage? Is this Kreem procedure discussed here the best way to
protect or repair the tanks? I will be exporting to Canada, so will be
able to use non-ethanol fuel from now on. Would appreciate comments and
suggestions. Thaks. Don
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-Listhttp://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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: owner performed maintenance |
Paul,
We are talking apples and oranges here. My Kitfox,as an example, is
licensed as an amateur built experimental aircraft. As such I can do all the
maintenance on the aircraft (with some exceptions). I am not hampered by a list
of preventative maintenance items IF I was the original builder I could also
do the annual condition inspection. However I am not the builder so I have
to have an A&P do that. As stated previously this has been this way for a
long time and is one of the benefits of owning an experimental aircraft.
Now IF my aircraft was licensed as an ELSA (or SLSA) that is a different
story. I believe that is what you are referring to. This whole thing is a
very confusing issue as illustrated in the many forums held at Lakeland and
Sebring on that very subject.
Dick Maddux
Fox 4
Milton,Fl
**************Can love help you live longer? Find out now.
(http://personals.aol.com/articles/2009/02/18/longer-lives-through-relationships/?ncid=emlweu
slove00000001)
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: Kreem Problem Again |
The regular nitril gloves we all use ;-) do not hold up to MEK. They'll
make it for a minute or two. Buy Neoprene gloves, they can take it for
at least an hour. Sensitivity varies, when I first encountered MEK I was
doing polyfiber and had no real issues, but later on my eyes burned and
itched for a few days. Now I can't be around the fumes for much more
than a minute before the irritation starts
I stopped using Polyfiber and switched to Stewarts systems. Short
learning curve but it truly is wonderful stuff, no environmental or
health concerns at all.
----- Original Message -----
From: Weiss Richard
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kreem Problem Again
Here's an MSDS link for MEK. It's not a friendly chemical, but
handled properly it's okay.
Just wear protective gloves and safety glasses (in case of it
splashes) and you should be fine.
http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/m4628.htm
Rick Weiss
N39RW Series V Speedster, 912ULS
SkyStar S/N 1
Port Orange, FL
On Jul 12, 2009, at 5:30 PM, Paul Franz - Merlin GT wrote:
<paul@eucleides.com>
On Sun, July 12, 2009 12:29 pm, fox5flyer wrote:
<fox5flyer@idealwifi.net>
Good post Paul. Do you have any documentation that MEK is toxic,
or at
least any more than Acetone? I haven't been able to find anything
other
than anecdotal.
No, other than the allegation that there have been cases of a toxic
shock nature that
were fatal.
No, I don't plan on making any mixed drinks with it, but
I've smelled a lot of that stuff and I'm still here. Then again,
I don't
let any more get on my skin that I have to. Just being cautious.
MEK is regarded by PNL (Battelle, Richland) to have significant
exposure risk as
compared to acetone.
I did not refer to any MSDS for my posting and should have as Lowell
has pointed out.
--
Paul A. Franz
Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
Bellevue WA
"In Washington, one person's waste is another person's pork. Every
dime spent by the federal government has well-connected advocates
who swear the money is vital to the national interest. ... It's not
that people in government aren't as good or competent as those in
the private sector (though that may be true). The difference lies in
the incentives and feedback they face. Bureaucracies have little
check on what they do, no bottom line, no market prices for their
'output.' What they do have is an incentive to spend all the money
budgeted or risk getting less next year. As Milton Friedman used to
say, no one spends other people's money as carefully as he spends
his own. It is absurd to think the humongous constellation of
federal bureaucracies is going to identify and root out 'waste' in
any significant way. It's just not in the nature of the beast."
-- ABC's "20/20" co-anchor John Stossel
Plan your work for today
an========================
========================-
= -->
===========
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: | owner performed maintenance |
Dick,
If your aircraft has an Airworthiness Certification (not "licensed") as SLSA
you have the same restrictions as to what you can do on it as any factory
built STC (Standard Type Certificate) aircraft such as a Piper or Cessna.
However an SLSA aircraft owner has the unique ability to do a 1-time change
to ELSA certification (can never change it back to SLSA). The SLSA/now ELSA
aircraft is still bound by STC approvals and restrictions regarding parts
and modifications, but the owner now can do the work and inspections
him/herself.
An ELSA aircraft has few restrictions as to parts and modifications although
it is always wise to stick to the kit manufacturer's recommendations and
airworthiness notifications, which for any Experimental aircraft are not
mandatory like they are with STC aircraft.
I think the confusion comes in when people here offer opinion off the top of
their heads. Sorry to be such a stickler for facts but here is the link to
the FAA site regarding Airworthiness Certification and all the implications,
which I hope I am summarising in a more readable form in this thread(?)
http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certification/
Bob Brennan - N717GB
ELSA Repairman, inspection rated
1991 UK Model 2 ELSA Kitfox taildragger
Rotax 582 with 3 blade GSC prop
Wrightsville Pa
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Catz631@aol.com
Sent: 16 July 2009 8:04 am
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: owner performed maintenance
Paul,
We are talking apples and oranges here. My Kitfox,as an example, is
licensed as an amateur built experimental aircraft. As such I can do all the
maintenance on the aircraft (with some exceptions). I am not hampered by a
list of preventative maintenance items IF I was the original builder I
could also do the annual condition inspection. However I am not the builder
so I have to have an A&P do that. As stated previously this has been this
way for a long time and is one of the benefits of owning an experimental
aircraft.
Now IF my aircraft was licensed as an ELSA (or SLSA) that is a different
story. I believe that is what you are referring to. This whole thing is a
very confusing issue as illustrated in the many forums held at Lakeland and
Sebring on that very subject.
Dick Maddux
Fox 4
Milton,Fl
_____
Can love help you live longer? Find
<http://personals.aol.com/articles/2009/02/18/longer-lives-through-relations
hips/?ncid=emlweuslove00000001> out now.
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: | owner performed maintenance |
Bob,
Your attention is invited to Title 14: Part 43 -MAINTENANCE, PREVENTIVE
MAINTENANCE, REBUILDING, AND ALTERATION, Paragraph 43.1 (d).
URL: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr
<http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=ac58ea778437f87fb6
cef7d984262c50&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:1.0.1.3.21.0.363.1&idno=14>
&sid=ac58ea778437f87fb6cef7d984262c50&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:1.0.1.3.21.
0.363.1&idno=14
,
It clearly states: " (b) 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."
Amateur built Experimental aircraft are issued a "Special airworthiness
certificate " denoting Experimental.
Also, in Title 14: Part 43 -MAINTENANCE, PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE, REBUILDING,
AND ALTERATION, Paragraph 43.1 (d). (Same URL), expounds on Light Sport
Category maintenance and alterations.
John Hart
KF IV, NSI Subaru
A&P
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Brennan
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 7:36 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: owner performed maintenance
Dick,
If your aircraft has an Airworthiness Certification (not "licensed") as SLSA
you have the same restrictions as to what you can do on it as any factory
built STC (Standard Type Certificate) aircraft such as a Piper or Cessna.
However an SLSA aircraft owner has the unique ability to do a 1-time change
to ELSA certification (can never change it back to SLSA). The SLSA/now ELSA
aircraft is still bound by STC approvals and restrictions regarding parts
and modifications, but the owner now can do the work and inspections
him/herself.
An ELSA aircraft has few restrictions as to parts and modifications although
it is always wise to stick to the kit manufacturer's recommendations and
airworthiness notifications, which for any Experimental aircraft are not
mandatory like they are with STC aircraft.
I think the confusion comes in when people here offer opinion off the top of
their heads. Sorry to be such a stickler for facts but here is the link to
the FAA site regarding Airworthiness Certification and all the implications,
which I hope I am summarising in a more readable form in this thread(?)
http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certification/
Bob Brennan - N717GB
ELSA Repairman, inspection rated
1991 UK Model 2 ELSA Kitfox taildragger
Rotax 582 with 3 blade GSC prop
Wrightsville Pa
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Catz631@aol.com
Sent: 16 July 2009 8:04 am
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: owner performed maintenance
Paul,
We are talking apples and oranges here. My Kitfox,as an example, is
licensed as an amateur built experimental aircraft. As such I can do all the
maintenance on the aircraft (with some exceptions). I am not hampered by a
list of preventative maintenance items IF I was the original builder I
could also do the annual condition inspection. However I am not the builder
so I have to have an A&P do that. As stated previously this has been this
way for a long time and is one of the benefits of owning an experimental
aircraft.
Now IF my aircraft was licensed as an ELSA (or SLSA) that is a different
story. I believe that is what you are referring to. This whole thing is a
very confusing issue as illustrated in the many forums held at Lakeland and
Sebring on that very subject.
Dick Maddux
Fox 4
Milton,Fl
_____
Can love help you live longer? Find
<http://personals.aol.com/articles/2009/02/18/longer-lives-through-relations
hips/?ncid=emlweuslove00000001> out now.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matronhref
"http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
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: owner performed maintenance |
Well, if the EAA is not authoritative enough for you, let's try the FAA's own documents.
This is from the faa.gov website:
Detailed Explanation of Primary
Regulations (Parts 43 and 91)
14 CFR Part 43 Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, Rebuilding, and Alteration
43.1 Applicability
Paragraph (a) states quite clearly that aircraft (whether
U.S.- or foreign-registered operating under part 121 or
135) and component parts thereof, must be maintained
in accordance with the rules set forth in this part.
However, although paragraph (b) states quite clearly
the type of aircraft for which this part does not apply,
it seems to have led to considerable confusion within
the aviation industry. If an aircraft is flying with a
Special Airworthiness Experimental certificate (FAA
Form 8130-7, Special Airworthiness Certificate pink
color certificate) and that is the only airworthiness
certificate this aircraft has ever had, then part 43 does
not apply.
If this is reversed, counteracted, excepted, modified or further defined somewhere
else in the regs, perhaps you can direct me to that area.
--------
Jim Feldmann, 3rd owner
1994 Kitfox IV Speedster / 912
Working on my Sport Pilot Certificate
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=253344#253344
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: | Re: 582 gasket set on Ebay |
I have been using them with no issues.. 300 hrs on one engine and about 50 on each
of the other 2. just DO NOT use the pistons that he sells. They are junk.
Learned this the hard way when we had one engine partial failure, and a total
failure in mine (I made the runway with a 20 knot tailwind and about 1' to
spare). In both cases the rings collapsed and resulted in 0 compression. Darn
thing does not run too well that way..
--------
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Leonard Perry aka SNAKE
Soldotna AK
Avid "C" / Mk IV
582 IVO IFA
Full Lotus 1450
#1 snake oil salesman since 1-22-2009
hander outer of humorless darwin awards
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=253351#253351
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: owner performed maintenance |
On Thu, July 16, 2009 5:04 am, Catz631@aol.com wrote:
> Paul,
> We are talking apples and oranges here. My Kitfox,as an example, is
> licensed as an amateur built experimental aircraft. As such I can do all the
> maintenance on the aircraft (with some exceptions). I am not hampered by a list
> of preventative maintenance items IF I was the original builder I could also
> do the annual condition inspection. However I am not the builder so I have
> to have an A&P do that.
Did you read the article I posted? It is pretty clear and unambiguous to me. You
can
perform no more work on the Experimental than you can on a certified aircraft since
you are neither an A&P or hold a repairman's certificate for your aircraft.
Enforcement of this seems to be almost completely lacking but it would come to
a head
should an insurance or accident investigation occur.
> As stated previously this has been this way for a
> long time and is one of the benefits of owning an experimental aircraft.
Don't kid yourself. That is simply not true. You are allowed to perform only minor
repairs and there is a specifically defined list of the scope of these 31 items.
I
have appended it to this posting. If you have any doubts, you can phone the FAA
or
just read the appropriate FAR's and CFR's listed in the article.
> Now IF my aircraft was licensed as an ELSA (or SLSA) that is a different
> story. I believe that is what you are referring to. This whole thing is a
> very confusing issue as illustrated in the many forums held at Lakeland and
> Sebring on that very subject.
As previously explained, there are some enhancements available if you take the
required training classes for ELSA. But if your aircraft was originally registered
as
Experimental you cannot change it to ELSA for the purpose of this privilege.
Here's the article again. Read it over.
<http://www.globalair.com/articles/cox/article.asp>
If you question any aspect of it call the FAA for guidance. Quoting near the end
of
the article:
Get to know your Local FAA FISDO Personnel
There are nine domestic FAA Regions that are home to 83 Flight Standards District
Offices (FSDO's) in the U.S.A.
Each FSDO is staffed by knowledgeable Maintenance Inspectors, who have been trained
to
oversee, assist and provide you with guidance in the field of aircraft maintenance.
To get the location of your FSDO office, call the FAA Aviation Safety Hotline at:
1-866-835-53222.
The 31 items that you CAN do yourself
1. Removal, installation, and repair of landing gear tires.
2. Replacing elastic shock absorber cords on landing gear.
3. Servicing landing gear shock struts by adding oil, air, or both.
4. Servicing landing gear wheel bearings, such as cleaning and greasing.
5. Replacing defective safety wiring or cotter keys.
6. Lubrication not requiring disassembly other than removal of nonstructural items
such as cover plates, cowlings, and fairings.
7. Making simple fabric patches not requiring rib stitching or the removal of
structural parts or control surfaces. In the case of balloons, the making of small
fabric repairs to envelopes (as defined in, and in accordance with, the balloon
manufacturers' instructions) not requiring load tape repair or replacement.
8. Replenishing hydraulic fluid in the hydraulic reservoir.
9. Refinishing decorative coating of fuselage, balloon baskets, wings tail group
surfaces (excluding balanced control surfaces), fairings, cowlings, landing gear,
cabin, or cockpit interior when removal or disassembly of any primary structure
or
operating system is not required.
10. Applying preservative or protective material to components where no disassembly
of
any primary structure or operating system is involved and where such coating is
not
prohibited or is not contrary to good practices.
11. Repairing upholstery and decorative furnishings of the cabin, cockpit, or balloon
basket interior when the repairing does not require disassembly of any primary
structure or operating system or interfere with an operating system or affect the
primary structure of the aircraft.
12. Making small simple repairs to fairings, nonstructural cover plates, cowlings,
and
small patches and reinforcements not changing the contour so as to interfere with
proper air flow.
13. Replacing side windows where that work does not interfere with the structure
or
any operating system such as controls, electrical equipment, etc.
14. Replacing safety belts.
15. Replacing seats or seat parts with replacement parts approved for the aircraft,
not involving disassembly of any primary structure or operating system.
16. Trouble shooting and repairing broken circuits in landing light wiring circuits.
17. Replacing bulbs, reflectors, and lenses of position and landing lights.
18. Replacing wheels and skis where no weight and balance computation is involved.
19. Replacing any cowling not requiring removal of the propeller or disconnection
of
flight controls.
20. Replacing or cleaning spark plugs and setting of spark plug gap clearance.
21. Replacing any hose connection except hydraulic connections.
22. Replacing prefabricated fuel lines.
23. Cleaning or replacing fuel and oil strainers or filter elements.
24. Replacing and servicing batteries.
25. Cleaning of balloon burner pilot and main nozzles in accordance with the balloon
manufacturer's instructions.
26. Replacement or adjustment of nonstructural standard fasteners incidental to
operations.
27. The interchange of balloon baskets and burners on envelopes when the basket
or
burner is designated as interchangeable in the balloon type certificate data and
the
baskets and burners are specifically designed for quick removal and installation.
28. The installations of anti-misfueling devices to reduce the diameter of fuel
tank
filler openings provided the specific device has been made a part of the aircraft
type
certificate data by the aircraft manufacturer, the aircraft manufacturer has provided
FAA-approved instructions for installation of the specific device, and installation
does not involve the disassembly of the existing tank filler opening.
29. Removing, checking, and replacing magnetic chip detectors.
30. Removing and replacing self-contained, front instrument panel-mounted navigation
and communication devices that employ tray-mounted connectors that connect the
unit
when the unit is installed into the instrument panel, (excluding automatic flight
control systems, transponders and microwave frequency distance measuring equipment
(DME)). The approved unit must be designed to be readily and repeatedly removed
and
replaced, and pertinent instructions must be provided. Prior to the unit's intended
use, an operational check must be performed in accordance with the applicable sections
of part 91.
31. Updating self-contained, front instrument panel-mounted Air Traffic Control
(ATC)
navigational software data bases (excluding those of automatic flight control systems,
transponders and microwave frequency distance measuring equipment (DME), provided
no
disassembly of the unit is required and pertinent instructions are provided. Prior
to
the unit's intended use, an operational check must be performed in accordance with
applicable sections of part 91.
--
Paul A. Franz
Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
Bellevue WA
Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors
to live at the expense of everybody else.
-- Frederic Bastiat, French Economist (1801-1850)
"It is the duty of every good citizen to use all the opportunities
which occur to him, for preserving documents relating to the history of
our country."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Hugh P. Taylor, October 4, 1823
"The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first
to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and
most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the
next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them
virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust."
--Alexander Hamilton or James Madison, Federalist No. 57, 19 February 1788
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: | owner performed maintenance |
John,
Sorry but I am missing your point here. Is there anything that I said in my
posting that these references or you disagree with? Or is possibly wrong or
mis-stated? I appreciate any corrections if they are needed but you'll need
to be more specific.
Thanks,
bob
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Hart
Sent: 16 July 2009 10:25 am
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: owner performed maintenance
Bob,
Your attention is invited to Title 14: Part 43 -MAINTENANCE, PREVENTIVE
MAINTENANCE, REBUILDING, AND ALTERATION, Paragraph 43.1 (d).
URL: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr
<http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=ac58ea778437f87fb6
cef7d984262c50&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:1.0.1.3.21.0.363.1&idno=14>
&sid=ac58ea778437f87fb6cef7d984262c50&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:1.0.1.3.21.
0.363.1&idno=14
,
It clearly states: " (b) 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."
Amateur built Experimental aircraft are issued a "Special airworthiness
certificate " denoting Experimental.
Also, in Title 14: Part 43 -MAINTENANCE, PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE, REBUILDING,
AND ALTERATION, Paragraph 43.1 (d). (Same URL), expounds on Light Sport
Category maintenance and alterations.
John Hart
KF IV, NSI Subaru
A&P
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Brennan
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 7:36 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: owner performed maintenance
Dick,
If your aircraft has an Airworthiness Certification (not "licensed") as SLSA
you have the same restrictions as to what you can do on it as any factory
built STC (Standard Type Certificate) aircraft such as a Piper or Cessna.
However an SLSA aircraft owner has the unique ability to do a 1-time change
to ELSA certification (can never change it back to SLSA). The SLSA/now ELSA
aircraft is still bound by STC approvals and restrictions regarding parts
and modifications, but the owner now can do the work and inspections
him/herself.
An ELSA aircraft has few restrictions as to parts and modifications although
it is always wise to stick to the kit manufacturer's recommendations and
airworthiness notifications, which for any Experimental aircraft are not
mandatory like they are with STC aircraft.
I think the confusion comes in when people here offer opinion off the top of
their heads. Sorry to be such a stickler for facts but here is the link to
the FAA site regarding Airworthiness Certification and all the implications,
which I hope I am summarising in a more readable form in this thread(?)
http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certification/
Bob Brennan - N717GB
ELSA Repairman, inspection rated
1991 UK Model 2 ELSA Kitfox taildragger
Rotax 582 with 3 blade GSC prop
Wrightsville Pa
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Catz631@aol.com
Sent: 16 July 2009 8:04 am
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: owner performed maintenance
Paul,
We are talking apples and oranges here. My Kitfox,as an example, is
licensed as an amateur built experimental aircraft. As such I can do all the
maintenance on the aircraft (with some exceptions). I am not hampered by a
list of preventative maintenance items IF I was the original builder I
could also do the annual condition inspection. However I am not the builder
so I have to have an A&P do that. As stated previously this has been this
way for a long time and is one of the benefits of owning an experimental
aircraft.
Now IF my aircraft was licensed as an ELSA (or SLSA) that is a different
story. I believe that is what you are referring to. This whole thing is a
very confusing issue as illustrated in the many forums held at Lakeland and
Sebring on that very subject.
Dick Maddux
Fox 4
Milton,Fl
_____
Can love help you live longer? Find
<http://personals.aol.com/articles/2009/02/18/longer-lives-through-relations
hips/?ncid=emlweuslove00000001> out now.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matronhref
"http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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: | owner performed maintenance |
Bob,
The first sentence in your previous posting, "
If your aircraft has an Airworthiness Certification (not "licensed") as SLSA
you have the same restrictions as to what you can do on it as any factory
built STC (Standard Type Certificate) aircraft such as a Piper or Cessna.",
prompted my response. Experimental Amateur Built aircraft are not issued a
"standard airworthiness certificate" or "licensed" as SLSA, therefore the
provisions of FAR 43.1 (b) applies, rather than the part of your statement,
"have the same restrictions as to what you can do on it as any factory built
STC (Standard Type Certificate) aircraft such as a Piper or Cessna" .
John Hart
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Brennan
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 11:53 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: owner performed maintenance
John,
Sorry but I am missing your point here. Is there anything that I said in my
posting that these references or you disagree with? Or is possibly wrong or
mis-stated? I appreciate any corrections if they are needed but you'll need
to be more specific.
Thanks,
bob
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Hart
Sent: 16 July 2009 10:25 am
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: owner performed maintenance
Bob,
Your attention is invited to Title 14: Part 43 -MAINTENANCE, PREVENTIVE
MAINTENANCE, REBUILDING, AND ALTERATION, Paragraph 43.1 (d).
URL: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr
<http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=ac58ea778437f87fb6
cef7d984262c50&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:1.0.1.3.21.0.363.1&idno=14>
&sid=ac58ea778437f87fb6cef7d984262c50&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:1.0.1.3.21.
0.363.1&idno=14
,
It clearly states: " (b) 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."
Amateur built Experimental aircraft are issued a "Special airworthiness
certificate " denoting Experimental.
Also, in Title 14: Part 43 -MAINTENANCE, PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE, REBUILDING,
AND ALTERATION, Paragraph 43.1 (d). (Same URL), expounds on Light Sport
Category maintenance and alterations.
John Hart
KF IV, NSI Subaru
A&P
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Brennan
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 7:36 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: owner performed maintenance
Dick,
If your aircraft has an Airworthiness Certification (not "licensed") as SLSA
you have the same restrictions as to what you can do on it as any factory
built STC (Standard Type Certificate) aircraft such as a Piper or Cessna.
However an SLSA aircraft owner has the unique ability to do a 1-time change
to ELSA certification (can never change it back to SLSA). The SLSA/now ELSA
aircraft is still bound by STC approvals and restrictions regarding parts
and modifications, but the owner now can do the work and inspections
him/herself.
An ELSA aircraft has few restrictions as to parts and modifications although
it is always wise to stick to the kit manufacturer's recommendations and
airworthiness notifications, which for any Experimental aircraft are not
mandatory like they are with STC aircraft.
I think the confusion comes in when people here offer opinion off the top of
their heads. Sorry to be such a stickler for facts but here is the link to
the FAA site regarding Airworthiness Certification and all the implications,
which I hope I am summarising in a more readable form in this thread(?)
http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certification/
Bob Brennan - N717GB
ELSA Repairman, inspection rated
1991 UK Model 2 ELSA Kitfox taildragger
Rotax 582 with 3 blade GSC prop
Wrightsville Pa
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Catz631@aol.com
Sent: 16 July 2009 8:04 am
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: owner performed maintenance
Paul,
We are talking apples and oranges here. My Kitfox,as an example, is
licensed as an amateur built experimental aircraft. As such I can do all the
maintenance on the aircraft (with some exceptions). I am not hampered by a
list of preventative maintenance items IF I was the original builder I
could also do the annual condition inspection. However I am not the builder
so I have to have an A&P do that. As stated previously this has been this
way for a long time and is one of the benefits of owning an experimental
aircraft.
Now IF my aircraft was licensed as an ELSA (or SLSA) that is a different
story. I believe that is what you are referring to. This whole thing is a
very confusing issue as illustrated in the many forums held at Lakeland and
Sebring on that very subject.
Dick Maddux
Fox 4
Milton,Fl
_____
Can love help you live longer? Find
<http://personals.aol.com/articles/2009/02/18/longer-lives-through-relations
hips/?ncid=emlweuslove00000001> out now.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matronhref
"http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matronhref
"http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
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: | owner performed maintenance |
John,
I was simply correcting Dick Maddux's previous statement "Now IF my aircraft
was licensed as an ELSA (or SLSA) that is a different story." by clarifying
that an ELSA or SLSA Airworthiness certification is not a "license". A
manufacturer can get a license to build SLSA aircraft that can then be
issued SLSA Certificates, but the aircraft is never "licensed". Just trying
to cut down on the confusion here and keep the facts straight mate, and to
point out that maintenance and inspection privileges for an owner of an ELSA
aircraft and an owner of an SLSA aircraft have very little in common, in
case someone thinks they are the same thing. I also wanted to point out the
little-known fact that an owner of an SLSA aircraft has the option to
convert it to ELSA, which is important for some listers considering buying
kits or factory pre-builts.
bob
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Hart
Sent: 16 July 2009 1:24 pm
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: owner performed maintenance
Bob,
The first sentence in your previous posting, "
If your aircraft has an Airworthiness Certification (not "licensed") as SLSA
you have the same restrictions as to what you can do on it as any factory
built STC (Standard Type Certificate) aircraft such as a Piper or Cessna.",
prompted my response. Experimental Amateur Built aircraft are not issued a
"standard airworthiness certificate" or "licensed" as SLSA, therefore the
provisions of FAR 43.1 (b) applies, rather than the part of your statement,
"have the same restrictions as to what you can do on it as any factory built
STC (Standard Type Certificate) aircraft such as a Piper or Cessna" .
John Hart
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Brennan
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 11:53 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: owner performed maintenance
John,
Sorry but I am missing your point here. Is there anything that I said in my
posting that these references or you disagree with? Or is possibly wrong or
mis-stated? I appreciate any corrections if they are needed but you'll need
to be more specific.
Thanks,
bob
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Hart
Sent: 16 July 2009 10:25 am
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: owner performed maintenance
Bob,
Your attention is invited to Title 14: Part 43 -MAINTENANCE, PREVENTIVE
MAINTENANCE, REBUILDING, AND ALTERATION, Paragraph 43.1 (d).
URL: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr
<http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=ac58ea778437f87fb6
cef7d984262c50&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:1.0.1.3.21.0.363.1&idno=14>
&sid=ac58ea778437f87fb6cef7d984262c50&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:1.0.1.3.21.
0.363.1&idno=14
,
It clearly states: " (b) 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."
Amateur built Experimental aircraft are issued a "Special airworthiness
certificate " denoting Experimental.
Also, in Title 14: Part 43 -MAINTENANCE, PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE, REBUILDING,
AND ALTERATION, Paragraph 43.1 (d). (Same URL), expounds on Light Sport
Category maintenance and alterations.
John Hart
KF IV, NSI Subaru
A&P
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Brennan
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 7:36 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: owner performed maintenance
Dick,
If your aircraft has an Airworthiness Certification (not "licensed") as SLSA
you have the same restrictions as to what you can do on it as any factory
built STC (Standard Type Certificate) aircraft such as a Piper or Cessna.
However an SLSA aircraft owner has the unique ability to do a 1-time change
to ELSA certification (can never change it back to SLSA). The SLSA/now ELSA
aircraft is still bound by STC approvals and restrictions regarding parts
and modifications, but the owner now can do the work and inspections
him/herself.
An ELSA aircraft has few restrictions as to parts and modifications although
it is always wise to stick to the kit manufacturer's recommendations and
airworthiness notifications, which for any Experimental aircraft are not
mandatory like they are with STC aircraft.
I think the confusion comes in when people here offer opinion off the top of
their heads. Sorry to be such a stickler for facts but here is the link to
the FAA site regarding Airworthiness Certification and all the implications,
which I hope I am summarising in a more readable form in this thread(?)
http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certification/
Bob Brennan - N717GB
ELSA Repairman, inspection rated
1991 UK Model 2 ELSA Kitfox taildragger
Rotax 582 with 3 blade GSC prop
Wrightsville Pa
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Catz631@aol.com
Sent: 16 July 2009 8:04 am
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: owner performed maintenance
Paul,
We are talking apples and oranges here. My Kitfox,as an example, is
licensed as an amateur built experimental aircraft. As such I can do all the
maintenance on the aircraft (with some exceptions). I am not hampered by a
list of preventative maintenance items IF I was the original builder I
could also do the annual condition inspection. However I am not the builder
so I have to have an A&P do that. As stated previously this has been this
way for a long time and is one of the benefits of owning an experimental
aircraft.
Now IF my aircraft was licensed as an ELSA (or SLSA) that is a different
story. I believe that is what you are referring to. This whole thing is a
very confusing issue as illustrated in the many forums held at Lakeland and
Sebring on that very subject.
Dick Maddux
Fox 4
Milton,Fl
_____
Can love help you live longer? Find
<http://personals.aol.com/articles/2009/02/18/longer-lives-through-relations
hips/?ncid=emlweuslove00000001> out now.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matronhref
"http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matronhref
"http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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: owner performed maintenance |
sooo, some guy posts an article (we all know that ALL publications including the
local newspapers) never get ANYTHING wrong, so therefore it is the gospel.
I could care less what some other guys puts in an article, the only thing that
matters is the FARs, and they must be read in its entirety,you cant quit at the
first paragraph for 99% of the time. There is usually some sort of an exception
at the end.. something like, unless or except if blah blah blah.
Just some more snake oil to chew on... I feel yet another award waiting in the
wings to be handed out on this issue LOL
--------
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Leonard Perry aka SNAKE
Soldotna AK
Avid "C" / Mk IV
582 IVO IFA
Full Lotus 1450
#1 snake oil salesman since 1-22-2009
hander outer of humorless darwin awards
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=253380#253380
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: | owner performed maintenance |
No disagreement in your below statement. I took your previous post to
include Experimental Amateur Built, so I wanted to point out that
Experimental Amateur built is a =9Cwhole =98nother ball
game=9D. Even so, an owner of an Experimental Amateur Built
cannot do an annual condition inspection unless he/she meets at least
one of the following qualifications:
1. Built the aircraft and is issued a Repairman Certificate for
that aircraft by make, model, and serial number.
2. Holds an A&P Certificate.
3. Owns/operates a Repair station with appropriate endorsements.
As far as I know, those are the only ways an owner may legally complete
an annual condition inspection on an Experimental Amateur built
aircraft. There are no courses such as provided for in the Light Sport
Category that will allow otherwise.
As I read and understand FAR Part 43, there are no restrictions on
working on, or modifying an Experimental Amateur Built aircraft, other
than the catch all stipulation in the Operating Limitations issued to
every Experimental Amateur Built aircraft:
=9CAfter incorporating a major change as described in =C2=A7
21.93, the aircraft owner is required to reestablish compliance with
=C2=A7 91.319(b) and notify the geographically responsible FSDO of the
location of the proposed test area. The aircraft owner must obtain
concurrence from the FSDO as to the suitability of the proposed test
area. If the major change includes installing a different type of
engine (reciprocating to turbine) or a change of a fixed-pitch from or
to a controllable propeller, the aircraft owner must fill out a revised
Form 8130=916 to update the aircraft=99s file in the FAA
Aircraft Registry. All operations must be conducted under day VFR
conditions in a sparsely populated area.=9D
John Hart
KF IV
NSI Subaru
Wilburton, OK
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Brennan
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 12:41 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: owner performed maintenance
John,
I was simply correcting Dick Maddux's previous statement "Now IF my
aircraft was licensed as an ELSA (or SLSA) that is a different story."
by clarifying that an ELSA or SLSA Airworthiness certification is not a
"license". A manufacturer can get a license to build SLSA aircraft that
can then be issued SLSA Certificates, but the aircraft is never
"licensed". Just trying to cut down on the confusion here and keep the
facts straight mate, and to point out that maintenance and inspection
privileges for an owner of an ELSA aircraft and an owner of an SLSA
aircraft have very little in common, in case someone thinks they are the
same thing. I also wanted to point out the little-known fact that an
owner of an SLSA aircraft has the option to convert it to ELSA, which is
important for some listers considering buying kits or factory
pre-builts.
bob
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W.
Hart
Sent: 16 July 2009 1:24 pm
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: owner performed maintenance
Bob,
The first sentence in your previous posting, =9C
If your aircraft has an Airworthiness Certification (not "licensed") as
SLSA you have the same restrictions as to what you can do on it as any
factory built STC (Standard Type Certificate) aircraft such as a Piper
or Cessna.=9D, prompted my response. Experimental Amateur Built
aircraft are not issued a =9Cstandard airworthiness
certificate=9D or =9Clicensed=9D as SLSA, therefore
the provisions of FAR 43.1 (b) applies, rather than the part of your
statement, =9Chave the same restrictions as to what you can do on
it as any factory built STC (Standard Type Certificate) aircraft such as
a Piper or Cessna=9D .
John Hart
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: owner performed maintenance |
below is a copy and paste of an INTERNET article that I found after very quick
google search.. I will also paste the link to the site.
Maintaining Your Airplane
As I mentioned in the previous section, a condition inspection is required every
12 calendar months on amateur-built aircraft. This check is similar to an annual
inspection required by FAR Part 43 on production airplanes. The Phase 2 Operating
Limitations specifically refer to FAR Part 43, Appendix D, as the guide
to performing this inspection. The inspection can be performed by any licensed
A & P mechanic, an FAA Approved Repair Station, or by the builder of the airplane
provided the builder obtains a "Repairmans Certificate" from the FAA.
FAA Advisory Circular 65-23A is available for information concerning application
and privileges of this certificate. In short, the primary builder of the airplane
is eligible to apply for this certificate which then permits inspection
of the airplane and a logbook endorsement of the condition check. It is noteworthy
that the primary builder must be one person. If a group of people builds
an airplane, only one can be designated as the primary builder. In addition,
the issuance of the repairmans certificate only applies to the one airplane that
has been built by the primary builder and no other airplane regardless of same
type, etc..
Normal maintenance on an experimental airplane can be performed virtually by anyone
regardless of credentials. Once again, this does not apply to the condition
check previously discussed. You can perform maintenance items on the engine
whether or not it is "certified". Once a certified engine is placed on an amateur-built
aircraft and is operated, it no longer conforms to its type design.
This means that the engine can no longer be placed on any aircraft other than
an amateur-built until it has been inspected and found to meet its type design.
It also must be found to be in a condition for safe operation "airworthy".
Once again, common sense should rule. We do not want to overhaul an engine on
our airplane unless we are equipped to do so with tools and proper knowledge.
I will point out that FAR Part 43 specifically states that the rules of that part
do not apply to amateur-built airplanes. With that in mind, anyone can maintain
the airplane. However, remember in our earlier discussion that Part 43, Appendix
D was referenced in Phase 2 operating limitations presented to the builder
at the time of inspection. It is referenced as a guide to be used in conducting
condition inspections. That means Part 43, Appendix D does apply to the
condition inspection because of this reference. The FAA has further clarified
AD (Airworthiness Directives) as they apply to amateur-built airplanes. Airworthiness
Directives cannot apply to any part on an amateur-built airplane unless
that specific airplane is cited along with who should do the work and to what
standards. The reason for this is because once an approved part is placed on
an experimental airplane it is no longer considered an approved part. Again,
let me emphasis that just because a regulation does not require an action it
still may be prudent and within our best interest to conform to an AD note. We
are striving to improve the safety record of this industry and in all cases we
must act on the side of common sense and good practice.
http://exp-aircraft.com/library/alexande/rules.html
seems pretty clear to me, and is right in line with the FARs as I have read them
and understand them.
I get to take tests every year on CFRs, codes etc to make sure that in my position
I can properly read, comprehend and apply the regs codes etc, to keep us in
compliance with the law DEC DOT etc. So far I have aced every test, including
ones I took last week.
--------
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Leonard Perry aka SNAKE
Soldotna AK
Avid "C" / Mk IV
582 IVO IFA
Full Lotus 1450
#1 snake oil salesman since 1-22-2009
hander outer of humorless darwin awards
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=253383#253383
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: owner performed maintenance |
I'm not going to quote the FARs=2C but will tell what I have been through w
ith doing work on an experimental airplane. Almost 4 years ago=2C I swappe
d out the 532 in my Avid B for a 582. FAA had to do an inspection of the a
irplane because the plane had a pre 1991 airworthyness certifcate. The FAA
inspector was completly aware that I had done all the work myself and not
under the supervison of an AnP either. He looked at my log books and had n
o problem with me doing the work. 2 1/2 years ago=2C I bought an Avid MK I
V that had sat for a number of years without being flown. It hadn't had th
e complete 40 hrs Phase one time flown off it so because I moved it to a di
fferent FSDOs location=2C another FAA inspection had to be done on the plan
e. Different inspector came up to my place from the Minneapolis FSFO. I h
ad taken the engine out of the plane and had new seals installed in the eng
ine and then replaced it and this inspector was completly aware of that bec
ause I told him so. He had no problem with me doing the work either. A y
ear later=2C I replaced the 582 engine with a Jabiru engine and informed th
e FSDO of the engine change as required by my operating limitations. Again
not a problem for the Minneapolis FSDO. I really don't think Minnesota"s
FSDO has a different set of rules than the rest of the U.S. Take care all
=2C I have to get back to work on the plane! (I'm recovering the MK IV)
Jim Chuk Avids=2C Kitfox 4 Mn
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=253383#253383
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live=99: Keep your life in sync.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_BR_life_in_synch_062009
Message 16
| 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: Taking off from your backyard |
Wow, I can't believe the "red tape" involved in putting in an airfield in the
US. Here in Canada the Feds have exclusive jurisdiction over airports (including
private) as upheld by the Supreme Court. A municipality cannot interfere,
restrict zoning etc., including inspections of hangers by the building inspector.
But the comments about neighbors are right on the mark. You have to maintain
good relations with the neighbors and I really like the BBQ idea once
I get my private field up and running some day.
Cheers
Ken
--------
Ken Potter
Model II, No. 483
Rotax 582, C-Box,
98% Complete
C-FJKP (marks reserved)
Lanark, Ontario
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=253413#253413
Message 17
| 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: | Oshkosh request...off topic |
Rex Phelps, Kitfox driver from Michigan, has asked me to post his
request for a wingman to fly with him to Oshkosh. His usual wingman
can't make it this year. He is planning on leaving for Osh on Friday,
and stopping for fuel at Valparaiso, Indiana, I believe he said. Call
him if you can meet up with him. Ph. # is 586-918-3838.
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 704.4 hrs
Sensenich 62"x46" Wood prop
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
Status: flying
do not archive
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! --
|