---------------------------------------------------------- Kitfox-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Thu 07/16/09: 17 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:12:51 AM PST US From: "Dave G" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Tanks 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:15:31 AM PST US From: Catz631@aol.com 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 out now. (http://personals.aol.com/articles/2009/02/18/longer-lives-through-relationships/?ncid=emlweu slove00000001) ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 05:20:14 AM PST US From: "Dave G" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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: On Sun, July 12, 2009 12:29 pm, fox5flyer wrote: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:50:25 AM PST US From: "Bob Brennan" 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 out now. ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 07:27:38 AM PST US From: "John W. Hart" 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 &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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:33:10 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: owner performed maintenance From: "Jim Feldmann" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:16:43 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: 582 gasket set on Ebay From: "akflyer" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:43:49 AM PST US Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: owner performed maintenance From: "Paul Franz - Merlin GT" 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. 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:56:22 AM PST US From: "Bob Brennan" 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 &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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:27:58 AM PST US From: "John W. Hart" 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 &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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:45:16 AM PST US From: "Bob Brennan" 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, " 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 &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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:26:33 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: owner performed maintenance From: "akflyer" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:27:15 AM PST US From: "John W. Hart" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:36:10 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: owner performed maintenance From: "akflyer" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:57:57 PM PST US From: Jim_and_Lucy Chuk Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:21:40 PM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Taking off from your backyard From: "Ken Potter" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:30:19 PM PST US From: Lynn Matteson Subject: Kitfox-List: 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message kitfox-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kitfox-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/kitfox-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/kitfox-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.