Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:08 AM - Re: LOG BOOKS (linn Walters)
2. 04:11 AM - Re: LOG BOOKS (Kelly McMullen)
3. 05:44 AM - Re: LOG BOOKS (Scott)
4. 05:56 AM - Re: LOG BOOKS (JFLEISC@aol.com)
5. 06:17 AM - Re: LOG BOOKS (Bob J.)
6. 07:19 AM - Re: LOG BOOKS (Scott)
7. 07:19 AM - Re: Re: Garmin 296 (Steve Glasgow)
8. 07:53 AM - Re: Re: Garmin 296 (Tracy Crook)
9. 07:55 AM - Re: LOG BOOKS (JFLEISC@aol.com)
10. 08:43 AM - Re: LOG BOOKS (Scott)
11. 09:15 AM - Re: LOG BOOKS (Bruce Gray)
12. 09:21 AM - Re: LOG BOOKS (John W. Cox)
13. 09:55 AM - Re: Re: Garmin 296 (David Leonard)
14. 10:49 AM - Re: Re: Garmin 296 (Jerry Springer)
15. 11:58 AM - Re: LOG BOOKS (Bob J.)
16. 02:04 PM - Re: LOG BOOKS (Scott)
17. 02:18 PM - Re: LOG BOOKS (Scott)
18. 02:26 PM - Re: LOG BOOKS (JFLEISC@aol.com)
19. 04:28 PM - Re: LOG BOOKS (Jerry Springer)
20. 05:16 PM - Re: LOG BOOKS (Bob J.)
21. 05:19 PM - Re: LOG BOOKS (Charlie England)
22. 06:59 PM - Re: LOG BOOKS (Kevin Horton)
23. 07:12 PM - Re: LOG BOOKS (Mike Robertson)
24. 07:14 PM - Re: LOG BOOKS (RICHARD MILLER)
25. 07:20 PM - Re: LOG BOOKS (Mike Robertson)
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 apologize Bruce. You asked the question, and I provided an answer. I
really don't really give a hoot whether you log your maintenance or
not. As someone else pointed out, the information in your logs is a
reflection of your care and feeding of your airplane. That should be
important to a future owner of your airplane, and is an important
yardstick that measures the value of your airplane. Sorry, I'm not in
the mood for a food fight.
Linn
do not archive
Bruce Gray wrote:
> My eldest son, who is an A&P/IA got his ticket 17 years ago. When I
> saw it, it had his SSN as his license number. I made him turn it back
> in and get one with a random number instead. I doubt if my neighbor
> will give me his SSN. I sure won't give mine out.
>
> Call me stupid, but I don't see where the FAR's require any log
> entries for experimentals except the condition inspection.
>
> Bruce
>
> www.Glasair.org <http://www.glasair.org/>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of linn Walters
> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 12:38 AM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: LOG BOOKS
>
> Bruce Gray wrote:
>
>> There are some that believe that all that needs logging is the
>> Annual Condition Inspection. Anyone and I mean ANYONE can work on
>> an experimental between Annual Inspections, just how would my
>> next door neighbor auto mechanic sign my log after he fixed my
>> engine?
>>
>
> That's easy!:
>
> 4/12/08 897 TT A/E Pulled #3 cylinder and replaced all
> rings, part # RS-4531. Reassembled with new cylinder base
> gasket, part # BG-4983, cylinder head gasket, part # HG-5982A, and
> pushrod tube gaskets PR-AX45 and BX-45. (signed) Joe Shmo (that's
> Bruce's neighbor) 654-32-5678
>
>
> BTW, all the data is bogus, but you get the idea. Similar format
> when doing any maintenance such as replacing tires, battery, oil
> change etc. Of course, the entries go into the respective engine
> or airframe logs. Oh yeah, you should have a prop log too!
>
> Now you can be difficult and just keep notes on a lined pad
> instead of a standard logbook and be legal ...... but explain that
> method of record keeping to a prospective buyer.
>
> Linn
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>> www.Glasair.org <http://www.glasair.org/>
>>
>
>
>href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
>href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>
>
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 |
|
Excuse me!
No where did my previous post indicate that a log entry should not be
signed properly. There simply is zero requirement to say anything about
what prompted the maintenance or repair. Damage, old age, or whatever.
The reason for the repair is IRRELEVANT and should NOT be in the
logbook. Read the regs again. You log what work is performed and what
parts replaced and sign it appropriately.
A review of the properly logged work done will tell all you need to know
as to where to look in a pre-buy. I'll say it again......the incident
or damage or failure that initiated the work is irrelevant. There are
many Piper Cubs flying around that little more than the data plate and a
little of the chrome moly tubing is original.
An inspection of maintenance logbooks should NEVER occur during a ramp
check, because logbooks should NEVER be in or around the aircraft. They
should be kept someplace safe, with copies elsewhere. Yes, they can
request to see logbooks later, but not during the ramp check, as the
simple answer is the logbooks are not here, they are in a safe.
Also, old oil changes and condition inspections in logbooks, entered
properly or not are also irrelevant. No record is required to be kept
after an inspection or maintenance task is repeated. If you did a proper
annual/condition inspection and logged it properly, all previous
inspections records can be thrown away(unless desired for sales
marketing purposes,which has nothing to do with FARs).
Kelly
A&P/IA
RICHARD MILLER wrote:
> 14 CFR 91.417(a) requires that the maintenance record include the
> date of completion of the work and the signature and certificate
> number of the person approving the aircraft for return to service.
> 14 CFR 43.9(a)(4) requires that in addition to the name and
> certificate number that the kind of certificate held by the person be
> specified.
>
> this is for all log entries. so if you sign off an oil change with the
> entry of 25hr no date changed oil and filter no signiture have . fun
> when you get the ramp check. what i was trying to say the value of our
> airplane are direcrtly related to the quality of the log books. this
> is especially true when the next owner has to have an a+p do all of
> the sign offs.
>
>
> after a long dicusiion with the local fsdo this morning if any log
> entry is incomplete then it is as if it was never done. cost to repeat
> inspection 4000.00$ aircraft aquired from estate previous owner dead.
> i know every owner wants to claim no damage history, this is a bs
> statement. every aircraft out there has been damaged in some way so
> allow the log to reflect this and at prebuy inspection we know where
> to look to see if the repairs where done right.
>
> ps. when the repair estamate for the exec90 exceeded 30,000 without
> starting the engine the owner decided to bail on the project. remember
> that as an owner builder you can certify what ever you want. as an
> a+p/ia my living is on the line. it will be right no mater the cost.
>
> rick miller
>
> */Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>/* wrote:
>
>
> Common confusion. Logbooks are for recording what maintenance and
> repairs are done, NOT for what prompted the repairs.
> Who cares if a vertical stab is replaced because the plane was
> flipped,
> or because owner wasn't satisfied with his early workmanship?
> While you can generally guess based on what is repaired, there is no
> reason for the incident to be mentioned with the repairs.
>
> JFLEISC@aol.com wrote:
> > In a message dated 3/20/2008 11:14:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> > rickpegser@yahoo.com writes:
> >
> > AND A HARD LANDING THAT RESULTED IN THE REPLACEMENT OF THE MAIN
> > LANDING GEAR AND A REBUILD OF THE TAIL BOOM WAS NOT ENTERED.
> >
> > I'm confused. If the hard landing was not entered and parts were
> > replaced where is the proof that this "landing" ever happened in
> the
> > first place?
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > do not archive
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
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 |
|
How about the initial 25-40 hours fly off time? That must have to go
somewhere...
Maybe entires for maintenance, oil changes, etc. aren't required, but I
think it's a good idea to document stuff. Might come in handy for
resale or insurance claim or...???
do not archive
Scott
Bruce Gray wrote:
> My eldest son, who is an A&P/IA got his ticket 17 years ago. When I
> saw it, it had his SSN as his license number. I made him turn it back
> in and get one with a random number instead. I doubt if my neighbor
> will give me his SSN. I sure won't give mine out.
>
> Call me stupid, but I don't see where the FAR's require any log
> entries for experimentals except the condition inspection.
>
> Bruce
>
> www.Glasair.org <http://www.glasair.org/>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of linn Walters
> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 12:38 AM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: LOG BOOKS
>
> Bruce Gray wrote:
>
>> There are some that believe that all that needs logging is the
>> Annual Condition Inspection. Anyone and I mean ANYONE can work on
>> an experimental between Annual Inspections, just how would my
>> next door neighbor auto mechanic sign my log after he fixed my
>> engine?
>>
>
> That's easy!:
>
> 4/12/08 897 TT A/E Pulled #3 cylinder and replaced all
> rings, part # RS-4531. Reassembled with new cylinder base
> gasket, part # BG-4983, cylinder head gasket, part # HG-5982A, and
> pushrod tube gaskets PR-AX45 and BX-45. (signed) Joe Shmo (that's
> Bruce's neighbor) 654-32-5678
>
>
> BTW, all the data is bogus, but you get the idea. Similar format
> when doing any maintenance such as replacing tires, battery, oil
> change etc. Of course, the entries go into the respective engine
> or airframe logs. Oh yeah, you should have a prop log too!
>
> Now you can be difficult and just keep notes on a lined pad
> instead of a standard logbook and be legal ...... but explain that
> method of record keeping to a prospective buyer.
>
> Linn
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>> www.Glasair.org <http://www.glasair.org/>
>>
>
>
>href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
>href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>
>
--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com
Flying Corben Junior Ace - Building RV-4
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
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 |
|
In a message dated 3/22/2008 7:13:24 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
kellym@aviating.com writes:
this is for all log entries. so if you sign off an oil change with the
> entry of 25hr no date changed oil and filter no signiture have . fun
> when you get the ramp check. what i was trying to say the value of our
> airplane are direcrtly related to the quality of the log books. this
> is especially true when the next owner has to have an a+p do all of
> the sign offs.
>
>
> after a long dicusiion with the local fsdo this morning if any log
> entry is incomplete then it is as if it was never done. cost to repeat
> inspection 4000.00$ aircraft aquired from estate previous owner dead.
> i know every owner wants to claim no damage history, this is a bs
> statement. every aircraft out there has been damaged in some way so
> allow the log to reflect this and at prebuy inspection we know where
> to look to see if the repairs where done right.
One thing agreed upon; If you are going to put it in the log book then it
should be complete. That said; besides oil changes, why put it in there in the
first place? Value of the aircraft or to see if the repairs were done right?
Nonsense! If a repair was done right vs not needing one at all is highly
subjective as to value, one buyer vs another. Also, it has been my experience
that if it is in writing then it is subject to second guessing depending on who
is reading and or manipulating it. A properly done repair or maintenance
should be indistinguishable from original and in that case, without
documentation, I would say prove it was done so how could it be incorrect. The
FAA doesn't
give out awards for outstanding workmanship, their job is prosecution after
the fact so why give them anything to fan the fire. It would be easier to
prove I did something wrong if they could prove I did something in the first
place. If there is no proof I did something its just hearsay or worse libel.
Just my 2 cents.
Jim
**************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL
Home.
(http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15?ncid=aolhom00030000000001)
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 |
|
As an A&P I've run into these situations, in fact one last month. Do you
honestly think that every airplane you've worked on has the logs correct?
If not, what do you want them to say? Its your job as an A&P/IA to make
sure everything going fwd. from your signature on is mechanically correct
and and all AD's complied with (yes they do apply to homebuilts).
Straighten it out and move on. I can't see for the life of me what the FSDO
will do for you, especially if its not in writing from them.
Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying F1 under const
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 11:05 PM, RICHARD MILLER <rickpegser@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> GUYS AND GALS:
>
> I WAS ASKED YESTERDAY TO TO DO A CONDITIONAL INSPECTION ON A EXEC 90
> HELICOPTER. AFTER A REVIEW OF THE LOG BOOKS I WAS UNABLE TO CONFIRM THAT
> THE 100 HR INSPECTION WAS DONE. AND A HARD LANDING THAT RESULTED IN THE
> REPLACEMENT OF THE MAIN LANDING GEAR AND A REBUILD OF THE TAIL BOOM WAS NOT
> ENTERED. IN ADDITION TO THIS ALL, MAINTENANCE ENTRIES FAILED TO HAVE A DATE
> OR SIGNATURE. THIS BECAME A PROBLEM SINCE THE CURRENT OWNER IS THE THIRD
> OWNER AND THE BUILDER IS PRESUMED DEAD. I AM AWAITING A DECISION FROM THE
> LOCAL FSDO RE-GUARDING THE LOGS AND WILL POST THE STORY AS IT PLAYS OUT. YOU
> MIGHT NOT BE AN A/P OR IA BUT YOU ARE STILL RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LOGS
>
> RICK A+P/IA
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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 |
|
When did ADs start becoming applicable to experimental homebuilts? This
was asked of EAA and they said no. Has anyone ever received an AD in
the mail for their homebuilt?
Scott
do not archive
Bob J. wrote:
> As an A&P I've run into these situations, in fact one last month. Do
> you honestly think that every airplane you've worked on has the logs
> correct? If not, what do you want them to say? Its your job as an
> A&P/IA to make sure everything going fwd. from your signature on is
> mechanically correct and and all AD's complied with (yes they do apply
> to homebuilts). Straighten it out and move on. I can't see for the
> life of me what the FSDO will do for you, especially if its not in
> writing from them.
>
> Regards,
> Bob Japundza
> RV-6 flying F1 under const
>
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 11:05 PM, RICHARD MILLER <rickpegser@yahoo.com
> <mailto:rickpegser@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
> GUYS AND GALS:
>
> I WAS ASKED YESTERDAY TO TO DO A CONDITIONAL INSPECTION ON A EXEC
> 90 HELICOPTER. AFTER A REVIEW OF THE LOG BOOKS I WAS UNABLE TO
> CONFIRM THAT THE 100 HR INSPECTION WAS DONE. AND A HARD LANDING
> THAT RESULTED IN THE REPLACEMENT OF THE MAIN LANDING GEAR AND A
> REBUILD OF THE TAIL BOOM WAS NOT ENTERED. IN ADDITION TO THIS ALL,
> MAINTENANCE ENTRIES FAILED TO HAVE A DATE OR SIGNATURE. THIS
> BECAME A PROBLEM SINCE THE CURRENT OWNER IS THE THIRD OWNER AND
> THE BUILDER IS PRESUMED DEAD. I AM AWAITING A DECISION FROM THE
> LOCAL FSDO RE-GUARDING THE LOGS AND WILL POST THE STORY AS IT
> PLAYS OUT. YOU MIGHT NOT BE AN A/P OR IA BUT YOU ARE STILL
> RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LOGS
>
> RICK A+P/IA
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
>
>
--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com
Flying Corben Junior Ace - Building RV-4
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
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 |
|
Do you guys make all the software updates from Garmin? Mine is almost 56
years old and no problems yet.
Steve Glasgow-Cappy
N123SG RV-8
Cappy's Toy
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 |
|
Wow, that was foresite on Garmin's part. Building it even before the first
GPS satelite went up!
Tracy Crook (I make typos too <G>)
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 10:15 AM, Steve Glasgow <willfly@carolina.rr.com>
wrote:
>
> Do you guys make all the software updates from Garmin? Mine is almost 56
> years old and no problems yet.
>
> Steve Glasgow-Cappy
> N123SG RV-8
> Cappy's Toy
>
>
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 |
|
In a message dated 3/22/2008 10:21:51 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
acepilot@bloomer.net writes:
When did ADs start becoming applicable to experimental homebuilts? This was
asked of EAA and they said no. Has anyone ever received an AD in the mail
for their homebuilt?
I have (in conjunction with the lycoming in my RV-4) but as you say they
become, as my AI also says, strong recommendations rather than rules.
Jim
do not archive
**************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL
Home.
(http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15?ncid=aolhom00030000000001)
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 |
|
Now that I can agree with. Recommended, but not required :)
Scott
JFLEISC@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 3/22/2008 10:21:51 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> acepilot@bloomer.net writes:
>
> When did ADs start becoming applicable to experimental
> homebuilts? This was asked of EAA and they said no. Has anyone
> ever received an AD in the mail for their homebuilt?
>
> I have (in conjunction with the lycoming in my RV-4) but as you say
> they become, as my AI also says, strong recommendations rather than rules.
>
> Jim
>
> do not archive
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home
> <http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15?ncid=aolhom00030000000001>.
>
>
--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com
Flying Corben Junior Ace - Building RV-4
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
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 |
|
Yes, I just recieved an Emergency AD (2008-06-51) from the FAA in the
mail.
This AD applies to all RSA 5 and RSA 10 fuel injection servos. Good
reading
and I'm going to comply.
Bruce
<http://www.glasair.org/> www.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: LOG BOOKS
Now that I can agree with. Recommended, but not required :)
Scott
JFLEISC@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 3/22/2008 10:21:51 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
acepilot@bloomer.net writes:
When did ADs start becoming applicable to experimental homebuilts? This
was
asked of EAA and they said no. Has anyone ever received an AD in the
mail
for their homebuilt?
I have (in conjunction with the lycoming in my RV-4) but as you say they
become, as my AI also says, strong recommendations rather than rules.
Jim
do not archive
_____
Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home
<http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15?ncid=
aolhom0
0030000000001> .
--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com
Flying Corben Junior Ace - Building RV-4
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
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 |
|
What can often be lost in the delivery is the intent. ADs are published
by the FAA in the Federal Registry to the entire planet. Airframe,
Engine, Propeller and Appliance ADs are just four examples. Everyone
has access and hypothetically receives notice by that method of
circulation even in the deepest parts of Africa within USPS delivery.
Manufacturers of Airframe, Engines, Propellers and Appliances for
regulatory and insurance liability reasons send a more structured and
easier to read format by USPS to known users of their products. When a
Certificated Engine AD is issued, all of the manufacturers who use the
product are obligated to inform the end user. The end user may just be
under some responsibility to address all such appropriate ADs.
As builders, we too often think only of our selves as" End Users" and
wait for something by USPS mail to come from "the manufacturer" (like
with certificated production aircraft). As the manufacturer of record,
it seems logical we would inform ourselves that an Emergency AD issued
on the product we chose to use is now in need of immediate attention.
Emergency ADs tend to get the quicker response. An Airworthiness
"Directive" is not the same as an "Advisory" Circular. Once litigation
begins both requirements can become painfully self evident.
When the Builder/Manufacturer does not understand or have interest in
maintaining compliance for further operation under Part 91, that is a
personal issue between the Owner/Operator and the "perceived" risk to
the non flying General Public. It is the FAA that protects the General
Public. With research, I think you will find the value in knowledge of
all appropriate maintenance (both required and recommended) as well as
sound and prudent Preventative Maintenance as an Owner/Operator is a
great and wise thing.
Then there is the issue of what is required for the Annual Inspection or
in our cases "the Conditional Inspection".
Your question is a great one. Knowing the answer and complying with it
is a requirement to operating a civil aircraft (FAR 91) even under
Experimental certification. Attached is an Emergency AD which may well
effect some members reading these posts. They are probably waiting by
the mailbox for the letter they have yet to send themselves on the
appliance, placed on the engine, placed on the kit assembly of airframe
parts, "Installed and placed in service" by Them, which became their
pride and joy.
Note: See Attachment
Repairman. Oh yeh, those are the guys who do the Conditionals on those
exact airplanes. Well they will catch the Emergency AD when the time
comes. Now when is compliance with an Emergency AD required? (See
Attachment for 2008-06-51 as an example) Eighteen reports of Loss of
engine power and subsequent loss of control of the airplane (often
leading in termination of the operator's life). Oops, this one is so
important it must be done by an FAA-licensed mechanic. That will leave
out all of those Repairmen mentioned above. When is it effective?
IMMEDIATELY before the next flight operation to protect the General
Public. Attorneys are just standing by... and I though one of them
might have answered your post as trained professionals on "Binding Legal
Notice".
Again your question is more important than tagging it with "Do not
Archive". The notice method was instantly available ON THE INTERNET so
don't wait by the mailbox for this one. Don't believe that you can "pen
and ink" this logbook entry either. Go directly to someone you respect
to protect yourself and our right to continue to fly. "This one is a
rule, not a recommendation". It has now been 10 days since the affected
aircraft must cease operation until compliant repairs and proper logbook
entries are complete.
Have a great and safe Easter Sunday.
John Cox - professional airline mechanic
amateur RV-10 builder, A&P /IA, EAA TC, former pilot examiner, pilot
________________________________
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JFLEISC@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 7:53 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: LOG BOOKS
In a message dated 3/22/2008 10:21:51 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
acepilot@bloomer.net writes:
When did ADs start becoming applicable to experimental
homebuilts? This was asked of EAA and they said no. Has anyone ever
received an AD in the mail for their homebuilt?
I have (in conjunction with the lycoming in my RV-4) but as you say they
become, as my AI also says, strong recommendations rather than rules.
Jim
do not archive
________________________________
Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home
<http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15?ncid=
aol
hom00030000000001> .
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 |
|
Problem is, that you never know there is a problem until it is too late.
Early in my flying career I was doing a cross country and borrowed my
friends new-fangled GPS, - a garmin 95. The database was a little over a
year old and I figured that not much could have changed.
The problem is that they had moved the Denver airport, and it never occured
to me that the database was using the old airport and class B. I remenber
cruising on into Boulder at night thinking "Boy, look at all those airliners
lined up. Sure seems like I am flying right through the middle of the final
approach. GPS says I am outside class B though, so I'm OK." ....
Name withheld to protect the guilty. :-)
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 7:15 AM, Steve Glasgow <willfly@carolina.rr.com>
wrote:
>
> Do you guys make all the software updates from Garmin? Mine is almost 56
> years old and no problems yet.
>
> Steve Glasgow-Cappy
> N123SG RV-8
> Cappy's Toy
>
>
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 |
|
Does not the 296 have an internal memory battery? Are you talking about
the battery that powers the GPS, I understand it is the internal memory
battery that
is causing the problems?
Jerry
Leland Collins wrote:
>
>I've had the same problem with my 4-year old Garmin 296 being unable to lock onto satellites after loosing its internal date. I think its a dead battery problem because the battery looses about 20% of its charge overnight. I just ordered a new battery from www.batteriesamerica.com for $59 plus $11 shipping. Garmin supposedly now has the part number 010-10517-01 as a replacement for the original 011-00955-00 unit. The replacement part has a larger capacity rating. The replacement unit is the same for the 396 and 496.
>Leland
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=171523#171523
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Well, show me the FAR that exempts AD's from applying to experimentals. I
don't know what the EAA bases their position on, because there is no rule
whatsoever that supports their argument. I don't think their argument could
hold up in a court of law.
Lets start by looking at FAR part 39.3, the regulation in question: "FAA's
airworthiness directives are legally enforceable rules that apply to the
following *products*: aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and
appliances."
Almost all FAR's have an applicability section. Notably absent from part 39
is an applicability section. There's no wording anywhere in the FAR's,
particularly part 39, that says AD's don't apply to experimentals.
The key word in 39.3 is "*products*". It doesn't matter what type or
category aircraft the "*product*" is installed in, its still a product and
since its a product AD's do apply. Again to emphasize FAR 39 does not grant
exemptions to the experimental category and thus as the regulation states
AD's apply to all aircraft products.
The language of FAR 39 can allow the FAA can issue AD's to experimental
aircraft, experimental aircraft engines, experimental propellers, and
experimental appliances, even toilet seats in aircraft with commodes but
that hasn't happened (yet).
I had this pointed out to me by DAR #1 who has been a DAR for over 35 years
and has issued CofA's to hundreds of aircraft, mostly transport category
along with many experimentals and warbirds. He can recite FAR's verbatim. He
knows his stuff.
Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying F1 under const.
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 9:15 AM, Scott <acepilot@bloomer.net> wrote:
> When did ADs start becoming applicable to experimental homebuilts? This
> was asked of EAA and they said no. Has anyone ever received an AD in the
> mail for their homebuilt?
>
> Scott
>
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 |
|
How about this required placard:
Passenger Warning- THIS AIRCRAFT IS AMATEUR-BUILT AND DOES NOT COMPLY
WITH THE FEDERAL SAFETY REGULATIONS FOR STANDARD AIRCRAFT. This warning
must be in full view of all passengers.
ADs concern safety. Experimentals do not comply with Federal safety
regulations per placarding. Therefore, by deduction, ADs do not apply
to experimentals.
How does the FAA know what equipment has been installed in my plane?
What if I built a replacement stainless steel needle in my carburetor
and an AD comes out on the original factory seat in the type carburetor
I have that calls for immediate replacement of the part. Do I have to
remove my part and put in the new factory part? Don't think so. Not
sure, but I don't have an "equipment list" for mine (I bought
it...didn't build it) that shows what is on there, so how do they know
what carb I have?
Again, I'm not saying it may not be wise to comply, but I don't think I
can say I HAVE to comply.
Scott
do not archive and I hope not to start a fight! ;)
Bob J. wrote:
> Well, show me the FAR that exempts AD's from applying to
> experimentals. I don't know what the EAA bases their position on,
> because there is no rule whatsoever that supports their argument. I
> don't think their argument could hold up in a court of law.
>
> Lets start by looking at FAR part 39.3, the regulation in question:
> "FAA's airworthiness directives are legally enforceable rules that
> apply to the following products: aircraft, aircraft engines,
> propellers, and appliances."
>
> Almost all FAR's have an applicability section. Notably absent from
> part 39 is an applicability section. There's no wording anywhere in
> the FAR's, particularly part 39, that says AD's don't apply to
> experimentals.
>
> The key word in 39.3 is "products". It doesn't matter what type or
> category aircraft the "product" is installed in, its still a product
> and since its a product AD's do apply. Again to emphasize FAR 39 does
> not grant exemptions to the experimental category and thus as the
> regulation states AD's apply to all aircraft products.
>
> The language of FAR 39 can allow the FAA can issue AD's to
> experimental aircraft, experimental aircraft engines, experimental
> propellers, and experimental appliances, even toilet seats in aircraft
> with commodes but that hasn't happened (yet).
>
> I had this pointed out to me by DAR #1 who has been a DAR for over 35
> years and has issued CofA's to hundreds of aircraft, mostly transport
> category along with many experimentals and warbirds. He can recite
> FAR's verbatim. He knows his stuff.
>
> Regards,
> Bob Japundza
> RV-6 flying F1 under const.
>
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 9:15 AM, Scott <acepilot@bloomer.net
> <mailto:acepilot@bloomer.net>> wrote:
>
> When did ADs start becoming applicable to experimental
> homebuilts? This was asked of EAA and they said no. Has anyone
> ever received an AD in the mail for their homebuilt?
>
> Scott
>
>
--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com
Flying Corben Junior Ace - Building RV-4
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
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 |
|
If you are an EAA member, go to
http://members.eaa.org/home/govt/issues/airworthy.asp? and sign in an
read EAA's argument of why they say ADs do not apply to homebuilts.
Scott
again, do not archive
Bob J. wrote:
> Well, show me the FAR that exempts AD's from applying to
> experimentals. I don't know what the EAA bases their position on,
> because there is no rule whatsoever that supports their argument. I
> don't think their argument could hold up in a court of law.
>
> Lets start by looking at FAR part 39.3, the regulation in question:
> "FAA's airworthiness directives are legally enforceable rules that
> apply to the following products: aircraft, aircraft engines,
> propellers, and appliances."
>
> Almost all FAR's have an applicability section. Notably absent from
> part 39 is an applicability section. There's no wording anywhere in
> the FAR's, particularly part 39, that says AD's don't apply to
> experimentals.
>
> The key word in 39.3 is "products". It doesn't matter what type or
> category aircraft the "product" is installed in, its still a product
> and since its a product AD's do apply. Again to emphasize FAR 39 does
> not grant exemptions to the experimental category and thus as the
> regulation states AD's apply to all aircraft products.
>
> The language of FAR 39 can allow the FAA can issue AD's to
> experimental aircraft, experimental aircraft engines, experimental
> propellers, and experimental appliances, even toilet seats in aircraft
> with commodes but that hasn't happened (yet).
>
> I had this pointed out to me by DAR #1 who has been a DAR for over 35
> years and has issued CofA's to hundreds of aircraft, mostly transport
> category along with many experimentals and warbirds. He can recite
> FAR's verbatim. He knows his stuff.
>
> Regards,
> Bob Japundza
> RV-6 flying F1 under const.
>
Message 18
| 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 |
|
In a message dated 3/22/2008 3:00:49 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
rocketbob@gmail.com writes:
Lets start by looking at FAR part 39.3, the regulation in question: "FAA's
airworthiness directives are legally enforceable rules that apply to the
following products: aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances."
So are you telling me that if General motors issues a recall for the Chevy
engine that happens to be the same in my experimental the FAA can require me to
have the dealer repair it? I don't buy it. Why then am I supposed to take
the data plate off my Lyc which is installed in my experimental? The same one
I
hot rodded with custom "one of a kind" cam and intake. What about, for
example, the AD on Lycoming oil pumps? Suppose my "experimental" Lyc has a custom
Ford V8 oil pump that I machined to fit in my own machine shop, reasoning
that since there are 100 'bagillion Fords with comparatively few oil pump
problems (I'm being hypothetical here so don't go off on Fords) my engine is
now
much more reliable. I even flew off the 40 hrs to prove it.
As for litigation, an old and dear friend of mine who worked as a
defense attorney specializing in tort law told me its not about what is legal
or
illegal, right or wrong, but what one can convince a jury of so his client
wins.
Jim
do not archive
**************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL
Home.
(http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15?ncid=aolhom00030000000001)
Message 19
| 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 |
|
Just for the record taking data plate off is myth also.
JFLEISC@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 3/22/2008 3:00:49 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> rocketbob@gmail.com writes:
>
> Lets start by looking at FAR part 39.3, the regulation in
> question: "FAA's airworthiness directives are legally enforceable
> rules that apply to the following products: aircraft, aircraft
> engines, propellers, and appliances."
>
> So are you telling me that if General motors issues a recall for the
> Chevy engine that happens to be the same in my experimental the FAA
> can require me to have the dealer repair it? I don't buy it. Why then
> am I supposed to take the data plate off my Lyc which is installed in
> my experimental? The same one I hot rodded with custom "one of a kind"
> cam and intake. What about, for example, the AD on Lycoming oil pumps?
> Suppose my "experimental" Lyc has a custom Ford V8 oil pump that I
> machined to fit in my own machine shop, reasoning that since there are
> 100 'bagillion Fords with comparatively few oil pump problems (I'm
> being hypothetical here so don't go off on Fords) my engine is now
> much more reliable. I even flew off the 40 hrs to prove it.
> As for litigation, an old and dear friend of mine who worked as a
> defense attorney specializing in tort law told me its not about what
> is legal or illegal, right or wrong, but what one can convince a jury
> of so his client wins.
>
> Jim
>
> do not archive
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home
> <http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15?ncid=aolhom00030000000001>.
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
Message 20
| 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 |
|
Guys, just as much as I'd like for AD's to not apply to experimentals, they
do. The EAA can say what they want to, but the regs in Part 39 are very
clear, intentionally written so that the FAA can write AD's for whatever
they deem necessary. The statement on EAA's website that says "39.1 require
s
that the aircraft have a type design as defined in 21.31" is flat out
wrong. 39.1 makes no reference to 21.31. Again, there is no language in
part 39 that specifically states that part 39 only applies to type
certificated aircraft, and not experimentals. It clearly defines what part
39 applies to: an aircraft *product*. They know damn well what the
difference is between a product and a type certificated aircraft or type
certificated aircraft parts and as such, wrote the reg the way it is so the
y
have the power to issue an AD at will, on anything they want to. You may
not agree with this and dislike it, but it is what it is. I don't like it
either!
Jerry is also correct that removing a data plate is a myth also, because it
can be easily argued that a part in question is a product regardless of it
having a dataplate or not. A duck is a duck and it can be easily proven in
front of a judge. Part 39.15 clearly states:
=A7 39.15 Does an airworthiness directive apply if the product has been
changed?
Yes, an airworthiness directive applies to each product identified in the
airworthiness directive, even if an individual product has been changed by
modifying, altering, or repairing it in the area addressed by the
airworthiness directive.
Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying F1 under const.
Message 21
| 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 |
|
Please define 'myth'.
My neighbor built homebuilt 'A' & installed a Lyc O-320. FAA (the actual
civil servants, not DAR) came out to do the inspection & forced him to
surrender the data plate before they would issue his EAB paperwork on
the plane.
He later took the plane out of service, built homebuilt 'B' & installed
the same engine that had been on homebuilt 'A'. FAA from the same FSDO
(again, actual Feds) came out to do the inspection. Demanded to see his
dataplate for the Lyc; told him it shouldn't be removed. Answer: 'You
should know where it is; you took it.'
The only reality is *your* reality (or mine, or his, or hers, or...), at
any given moment.
The explanation I've heard about ADs is that while the FAA has the
*power* to issue them on homebuilts, it has never happened. Even a
certified engine, if it's installed on a non-certified airframe, is now
in an environment for which it's never been officially tested &
approved. So it's technically (and legally) no longer what the dataplate
said it was before being installed on the homebuilt. As we all know &
someone pointed out, it's perfectly legal to make any mod desired on
anything hanging on an EAB a/c. What would be the point of issuing an AD
on something that has no legal or technical existence? If I decide that
a wooden carb float makes more sense to me than one of the half-dozen or
so various AD-mandated floats that have been out there over the years,
which AD would apply to my wood float?
Of course, my opinion is worth slightly less than what you paid, as the
only letters after my name are B&S (Economics) ;-)
Charlie
Jerry Springer wrote:
> Just for the record taking data plate off is myth also.
>
>
> JFLEISC@aol.com wrote:
>> In a message dated 3/22/2008 3:00:49 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>> rocketbob@gmail.com writes:
>>
>> Lets start by looking at FAR part 39.3, the regulation in
>> question: "FAA's airworthiness directives are legally enforceable
>> rules that apply to the following _products_: aircraft, aircraft
>> engines, propellers, and appliances."
>>
>> So are you telling me that if General motors issues a recall for the
>> Chevy engine that happens to be the same in my experimental the FAA
>> can require me to have the dealer repair it? I don't buy it. Why then
>> am I supposed to take the data plate off my Lyc which is installed in
>> my experimental? The same one I hot rodded with custom "one of a
>> kind" cam and intake. What about, for example, the AD on Lycoming oil
>> pumps? Suppose my "experimental" Lyc has a custom Ford V8 oil pump
>> that I machined to fit in my own machine shop, reasoning that since
>> there are 100 'bagillion Fords with comparatively few oil pump
>> problems (I'm being hypothetical here so don't go off on Fords)
>> my engine is now much more reliable. I even flew off the 40 hrs to
>> prove it.
>> As for litigation, an old and dear friend of mine who worked as a
>> defense attorney specializing in tort law told me its not about what
>> is legal or illegal, right or wrong, but what one can convince a jury
>> of so his client wins.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> do not archive
>>
Message 22
| 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 |
|
The FAA opinion dates from 1998, and it makes sense given the way
that FAR 39.1 was worded at that time. But FAR 39.1 was amended in
2002, and the current wording no longer talks about "type design".
The way that the regs in FAR 39 are currently worded, ADs would apply
to experimental aircraft, depending on how the applicability of the
specific AD is worded.
Kevin Horton
On 22 Mar 2008, at 20:12, Bob J. wrote:
> Guys, just as much as I'd like for AD's to not apply to
> experimentals, they do. The EAA can say what they want to, but the
> regs in Part 39 are very clear, intentionally written so that the
> FAA can write AD's for whatever they deem necessary. The statement
> on EAA's website that says "39.1 requires that the aircraft have a
> type design as defined in 21.31" is flat out wrong. 39.1 makes no
> reference to 21.31. Again, there is no language in part 39 that
> specifically states that part 39 only applies to type certificated
> aircraft, and not experimentals. It clearly defines what part 39
> applies to: an aircraft product. They know damn well what the
> difference is between a product and a type certificated aircraft or
> type certificated aircraft parts and as such, wrote the reg the way
> it is so they have the power to issue an AD at will, on anything
> they want to. You may not agree with this and dislike it, but it
> is what it is. I don't like it either!
>
> Jerry is also correct that removing a data plate is a myth also,
> because it can be easily argued that a part in question is a
> product regardless of it having a dataplate or not. A duck is a
> duck and it can be easily proven in front of a judge. Part 39.15
> clearly states:
> =A7 39.15 Does an airworthiness directive apply if the product has
> been changed?
>
> Yes, an airworthiness directive applies to each product identified
> in the airworthiness directive, even if an individual product has
> been changed by modifying, altering, or repairing it in the area
> addressed by the airworthiness directive.
>
> Regards,
> Bob Japundza
> RV-6 flying F1 under const.
>
Message 23
| 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 |
|
FAR 91, Subpart J for aircraft maintenance requires ALL maintenance be ente
red in the aircraft records. You do NOT need to put your SSN as long as yo
u follow all the other parts of what constitutes a log entry per FAR 43.9.
This requirement for log entries is NOT one of the ones not required for e
xperimental aircraft.
And because there is NO requirement for the kinds of material used, you can
NEVER get in trouble for the entry you make, only for the entry you DON'T
make.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
From: Bruce@glasair.orgTo: rv-list@matronics.comSubject: RE: RV-List: LOG B
OOKSDate: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 01:26:40 -0400
My eldest son, who is an A&P/IA got his ticket 17 years ago. When I saw it,
it had his SSN as his license number. I made him turn it back in and get o
ne with a random number instead. I doubt if my neighbor will give me his SS
N. I sure won't give mine out.
Call me stupid, but I don't see where the FAR's require any log entries for
experimentals except the condition inspection.
Bruce
www.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:
owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of linn WaltersSent: Saturday
, March 22, 2008 12:38 AMTo: rv-list@matronics.comSubject: Re: RV-List: LOG
BOOKSBruce Gray wrote:
There are some that believe that all that needs logging is the Annual Condi
tion Inspection. Anyone and I mean ANYONE can work on an experimental betwe
en Annual Inspections, just how would my next door neighbor auto mechanic s
ign my log after he fixed my engine?
That's easy!:4/12/08 897 TT A/E Pulled #3 cylinder and replaced all
rings, part # RS-4531. Reassembled with new cylinder base gasket, part #
BG-4983, cylinder head gasket, part # HG-5982A, and pushrod tube gaskets PR
-AX45 and BX-45. (signed) Joe Shmo (that's Bruce's neighbor) 654-32-5678BT
W, all the data is bogus, but you get the idea. Similar format when doing
any maintenance such as replacing tires, battery, oil change etc. Of cours
e, the entries go into the respective engine or airframe logs. Oh yeah, y
ou should have a prop log too!Now you can be difficult and just keep notes
on a lined pad instead of a standard logbook and be legal ...... but explai
n that method of record keeping to a prospective buyer.Linn
Bruce
www.Glasair.org
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.co
m/Navigator?RV-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
_________________________________________________________________
In a rush? Get real-time answers with Windows Live Messenger.
http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refr
esh_realtime_042008
Message 24
| 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 |
|
hi guys
I posted the original post as an informative only type of thing, but it looks
like it kind of got out of hand. i have held my tickets for over 20 yrs over
and there are probably several thousand aircraft with my ssn in their logs.
When an owner asks me to do a conditional/ prebuy insp of an aircraft i am always
asked what do you think the value is. on an experimental aircraft the i will
deduct up to fifty % of the market value based on the condition of the logs.
You have to remember the simple fact that if you sign it, you fly it, you die
in it, there is no one to come after. i sign for it , you die in it, your relatives
and the faa will be beating down my door.
i will not sign off any conditional inspections unless all mandatory service
bulletins are complied with and the owner signs a letter of understanding that
absolves me of any responsibility.
rick miller
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
Message 25
| 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 |
|
Per a ruling from HQ in 1998 ADs are applicable but because not everyone is
guaranteed to get them we can't enforce the requirement. Where you may st
ill have problems, however, is with your insurance company. Not all, but s
ome, have gotten wise to the lack of a requirement for complying with ADs a
nd have included a little statement that the aircraft must be kept in a con
dition for safe operation whenever the aircraft is operated. I would sugge
st you talk with your insurance agent but as far as the FAA is concerned, y
ou are safe if you don't want to comply with an AD.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
matronics.comSubject: Re: RV-List: LOG BOOKS
When did ADs start becoming applicable to experimental homebuilts? This wa
s asked of EAA and they said no. Has anyone ever received an AD in the mai
l for their homebuilt?Scottdo not archiveBob J. wrote:
As an A&P I've run into these situations, in fact one last month. Do you h
onestly think that every airplane you've worked on has the logs correct? I
f not, what do you want them to say? Its your job as an A&P/IA to make sur
e everything going fwd. from your signature on is mechanically correct and
and all AD's complied with (yes they do apply to homebuilts). Straighten i
t out and move on. I can't see for the life of me what the FSDO will do fo
r you, especially if its not in writing from them.Regards,Bob JapundzaRV-6
flying F1 under const
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 11:05 PM, RICHARD MILLER <rickpegser@yahoo.com> wro
te:
GUYS AND GALS:
I WAS ASKED YESTERDAY TO TO DO A CONDITIONAL INSPECTION ON A EXEC 90 HELICO
PTER. AFTER A REVIEW OF THE LOG BOOKS I WAS UNABLE TO CONFIRM THAT THE 100
HR INSPECTION WAS DONE. AND A HARD LANDING THAT RESULTED IN THE REPLACEMEN
T OF THE MAIN LANDING GEAR AND A REBUILD OF THE TAIL BOOM WAS NOT ENTERED.
IN ADDITION TO THIS ALL, MAINTENANCE ENTRIES FAILED TO HAVE A DATE OR SIGN
ATURE. THIS BECAME A PROBLEM SINCE THE CURRENT OWNER IS THE THIRD OWNER AND
THE BUILDER IS PRESUMED DEAD. I AM AWAITING A DECISION FROM THE LOCAL FSDO
RE-GUARDING THE LOGS AND WILL POST THE STORY AS IT PLAYS OUT. YOU MIGHT NO
T BE AN A/P OR IA BUT YOU ARE STILL RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LOGS
RICK A+P/IA
Be a better friend, newshound, and
--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com
Flying Corben Junior Ace - Building RV-4
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
_________________________________________________________________
In a rush? Get real-time answers with Windows Live Messenger.
http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refr
esh_realtime_042008
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! --
|