Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:10 AM - Re: Re: Log book entries (Kelly McMullen)
2. 04:19 AM - Sun-n-Fun questions (Bobby Hester)
3. 05:02 AM - Re: Sun-n-Fun questions (eddyfernan@aol.com)
4. 05:06 AM - Re: Sun-n-Fun questions (Dale Ensing)
5. 05:15 AM - Re: Sun-n-Fun questions (Chuck Jensen)
6. 07:52 AM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (Bob)
7. 08:18 AM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (Tim Bryan)
8. 08:30 AM - Electrical gyros needed. (Eddie Moran)
9. 08:45 AM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (Greg Young)
10. 08:47 AM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (linn Walters)
11. 09:00 AM - Re: Re: Log book entries (John W. Cox)
12. 09:11 AM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (Tim Bryan)
13. 09:18 AM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (Ralph Finch)
14. 09:18 AM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (John Jessen)
15. 09:43 AM - Re: Electrical gyros needed. (David Cudney)
16. 09:43 AM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (Tim Bryan)
17. 09:48 AM - Re: flying wide open in turb.flying wide open in turb. ()
18. 10:08 AM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (Terry Watson)
19. 10:15 AM - Re: Electrical gyros needed. (Bill Boyd)
20. 10:24 AM - AW: Re: Do AD's really apply? (Thilo Kind)
21. 10:39 AM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (John Jessen)
22. 10:48 AM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (John W. Cox)
23. 11:06 AM - Re: Electrical gyros needed. (Carl Froehlich)
24. 11:53 AM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (Tim Bryan)
25. 12:21 PM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (Tim Bryan)
26. 02:48 PM - Re: Sun-n-Fun questions (Scott)
27. 02:48 PM - flap actuator and pitot tube for sale (Frazier, Vincent A)
28. 02:49 PM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (JFLEISC@aol.com)
29. 03:15 PM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (JFLEISC@aol.com)
30. 03:39 PM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (Rob Prior)
31. 03:52 PM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (Tom & Cathy Ervin)
32. 04:21 PM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (Bruce Gray)
33. 04:35 PM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (Dana Overall)
34. 04:40 PM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (Kevin Horton)
35. 04:41 PM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (RICHARD MILLER)
36. 05:28 PM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (Greg Young)
37. 05:39 PM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (Kelly McMullen)
38. 05:41 PM - Re: Re: flying wide open in turb.flying wide open in turb. (Kelly McMullen)
39. 06:51 PM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (Mike Robertson)
40. 08:26 PM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (Tom Gummo)
41. 08:37 PM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (Greg Young)
42. 10:44 PM - Do AD's really apply? YES ()
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Log book entries |
I guess you weren't aware that there are on-line IA renewal courses that
can be taken if you aren't at home when the local renewal courses happen.
I'd sure like to see guidance in an FAA publication calling for a "why"
for any repair. Only guidance I recall from ACs and FARs call for the 4
w's, period. I can't say in a lot of aircraft shopping that I have ever
seen a "why" in a logbook of a certified aircraft, whether it had gear
up, wing change, prop change, engine change, etc. I find the quickest
way to terminate discussions with Principal Maintenance Inspectors is to
ask them to help you find where is says you have to do whatever their
pronouncement of the day is. Either they are right and have the item at
their fingertips, or there is no basis. YMMV
RICHARD MILLER wrote:
> hi guys
>
> just got back from the dreaded fsdo today. I had to retake my
> i/a exam had allowed it to expire while overseas. I passed again but
> the exam is a bitch and the new computer system had problems. i talked
> to them about the exec 90 problem again and amateur built aircraft
> logs in general. The consensus was that 90% of them have major
> problems. the conversation include three asi's, a Dom and two i/a's.
> Without a legal decision from the feds the final outcome was that all
> entries shall include four "w" 's What when how and who.
> typical entry
>
> what
> changed oil and filter
>
> when
> tach/hobbs time and date
>
> how
> using aeroshell 15-50 8 qts filter# ?????
>
> who
>
> joe blow repairman # xxxxxxxxx
>
>
> and yes ad's do apply
>
> Lets be honest if you are flying an airplane with a outstanding ad,
> you are stupid.
>
> typical entry
>
> what
> complied with ad ??-??-??
>
> how
> as per paragraph XXX inspect/install kit/replaced . whatever
>
> when
> tach/hobbs time and date
>
> who
>
> joe blow repairman # xxxxxxxxx
>
> next we went on to some of the tough ones, airworthiness limitation
> ie, time inspections and component replacement times. the exec 90 in
> particular.
>
> service bulletins are optional as we all know, but the mandatory
> replacement times and inspection due to the fact that this is a
> helicopter are required. by the way you would be insane not to comply
> with this any way.
>
> log entry
> what and how
> inspected aircraft per 100 hr requirements as per maintenance manual
> XXX revXXX date XXX replaced the following components per mm.
>
> just need to add the when and the who.
>
>
> the conversation drifted to prop strikes, major airframe repairs and
> unlogged incidents.
>
> if a propeller is changed or overhauled then enter why. delamination
> erosion, cracking. else i will assume a prop strike. and require the
> requisite insp.
>
> airframe repairs
> what so i know where to look
> when as required
> why so i have some idea of the energy involved
>
> unlogged incidents.
>
> replaced main landing gear
>
> why deformity due to hard landing, or due to bad intial installation.
> rick m
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Sun-n-Fun questions |
I plan on flying to Sun-n-Fun and while doing my flight planning I have
a few questions. The two different altitudes listed for the Lake Parker
arrival, the lowest one is for aircraft that fly 100 knots 115 mph, the
higher one is for aircraft that fly 150 knots 170 mph. Which one do you
guys use? Do you find that the lower one has planes that are flying too
slow for an RV or do you find that the higher one has planes that are
faster than an RV?
I cruise right now at about 150-160 mph, don't have all my pants on yet.
Have you ever parked in Homebuilt camping? My RV is not painted and not
ready to be sitting beside the prize winners yet, I'm thinking I'd
rather just came with my plane.
--
----
Surfing the web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my flying RV7A web page:
http://home.newwavecomm.net/bobbyhester/MyFlyingRV7A.htm
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sun-n-Fun questions |
The 100 kts and lower altitude works fine for RV's.? The controllers try to give
you a little spacing as you enter the Lake Parker arrival.? Just practice flying
around at 100 kts before coming to the show.
Plenty of unpainted RV's will be parked in the RV parking area near show center.?
With that being said it's hard to beat camping with your plane!? I'm flying
in but camping with friends in the main campground.? Email me if you have any
questions.
Eddy Fernandez
RV9A-240hrs
-----Original Message-----
From: Bobby Hester <bobbyhester@newwavecomm.net>
Sent: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 7:15 am
Subject: RV-List: Sun-n-Fun questions
?
I plan on flying to Sun-n-Fun and while doing my flight planning I have a few questions.
The two different altitudes listed for the Lake Parker arrival, the
lowest one is for aircraft that fly 100 knots 115 mph, the higher one is for aircraft
that fly 150 knots 170 mph. Which one do you guys use? Do you find that
the lower one has planes that are flying too slow for an RV or do you find that
the higher one has planes that are faster than an RV??
?
I cruise right now at about 150-160 mph, don't have all my pants on yet.?
?
Have you ever parked in Homebuilt camping? My RV is not painted and not ready to
be sitting beside the prize winners yet, I'm thinking I'd rather just came with
my plane.?
?
-- ----?
Surfing the web from Hopkinsville, KY?
Visit my flying RV7A web page:?
http://home.newwavecomm.net/bobbyhester/MyFlyingRV7A.htm?
?
?
?
?
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sun-n-Fun questions |
Suggest you fly the higher altitude pattern at SNF and keep your speed up if
the there are many planes in the pattern. My experience is that there can be
planes just too slow for comfortable/safe flying RVs at the lower/slower
pattern.
Recommend Homebuilt camping and don't worry about your unpainted RV. There
are always a few unpainted planes there. It is still a beautiful! You can
compete with the show stoppers next year after it has been painted.
Dale Ensing
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bobby Hester" <bobbyhester@newwavecomm.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 7:15 AM
Subject: RV-List: Sun-n-Fun questions
>
> I plan on flying to Sun-n-Fun and while doing my flight planning I have a
> few questions. The two different altitudes listed for the Lake Parker
> arrival, the lowest one is for aircraft that fly 100 knots 115 mph, the
> higher one is for aircraft that fly 150 knots 170 mph. Which one do you
> guys use? Do you find that the lower one has planes that are flying too
> slow for an RV or do you find that the higher one has planes that are
> faster than an RV?
>
> I cruise right now at about 150-160 mph, don't have all my pants on yet.
>
> Have you ever parked in Homebuilt camping? My RV is not painted and not
> ready to be sitting beside the prize winners yet, I'm thinking I'd rather
> just came with my plane.
>
> --
> ----
> Surfing the web from Hopkinsville, KY
> Visit my flying RV7A web page:
> http://home.newwavecomm.net/bobbyhester/MyFlyingRV7A.htm
>
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Sun-n-Fun questions |
>I cruise right now at about 150-160 mph, don't have all my pants on yet.>
Bobby, it doesn't matter what arrival you use at Sun-n-Fun, it you ain't got you
pants on you are likely to encounter problems. Granted, there is a wide range
of acceptable behavior (and unacceptable too, for that matter) in Florida these
days, but I'm thinking the no pants thing may still be a problem.
Chuck
Do Not Archive
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Do AD's really apply? |
At 08:52 AM 3/25/08, you wrote:
>I was one
>of those that thought AD's don't apply to experimentals. Wow. I'm glad I
>learned the truth of the matter.
I received an AD in the mail last night for my IO-360 in my RV. This
is in spite of the fact that the aircraft registration states my
engine is unknown. How does the FAA know??!!
The AD requires me to inspect and or replace parts as needed on a
Bendix fuel servo. Since I have an Airflow Performance servo, I
figure this AD does not apply. But on the other hand, technically
there is no such thing as an IO-360 with an Airflow Performance
servo, that would be an uncertified engine and we all know that the
Lycoming IO-360 is a certified engine. The data plate on my engine
says it is a Lycoming IO-360, therefore I must comply with the AD
even though it is not possible.
Now maybe some A&P IA with a law degree can explain what type of
Logbook entry I should make. I would never want some A&P IA to ever
think I was unsafe just because I fly an experimental and cut corners
on an incorrect Logbook entry!
Of course all of these issues would go away if the FAA just made all
experimental aircraft meet all certified aircraft standards!
Bob
RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Do AD's really apply? |
This idea of AD's applying really puzzles me. How can an experimental
actually be required to comply when the very nature of the word experimental
means we can experiment with what ever we choose? If I want to build an
airplane with a modified I0-360 then that is my experiment.
If you want to keep your engine certified for later use on a certified
airplane, then maybe so.
I am not an A&P nor an AI nor FAA nor did I sleep in a Holiday Inn Express.
I built an experimental so I can do my own thing. Where would one actually
draw the line between the experimental part and the requirements part
anyway.
Tim
Do Not Archive
Experimental 616TB
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 10:45 AM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply?
>
>
> At 08:52 AM 3/25/08, you wrote:
> >I was one
> >of those that thought AD's don't apply to experimentals. Wow. I'm glad
> I
> >learned the truth of the matter.
>
> I received an AD in the mail last night for my IO-360 in my RV. This
> is in spite of the fact that the aircraft registration states my
> engine is unknown. How does the FAA know??!!
>
> The AD requires me to inspect and or replace parts as needed on a
> Bendix fuel servo. Since I have an Airflow Performance servo, I
> figure this AD does not apply. But on the other hand, technically
> there is no such thing as an IO-360 with an Airflow Performance
> servo, that would be an uncertified engine and we all know that the
> Lycoming IO-360 is a certified engine. The data plate on my engine
> says it is a Lycoming IO-360, therefore I must comply with the AD
> even though it is not possible.
>
> Now maybe some A&P IA with a law degree can explain what type of
> Logbook entry I should make. I would never want some A&P IA to ever
> think I was unsafe just because I fly an experimental and cut corners
> on an incorrect Logbook entry!
>
> Of course all of these issues would go away if the FAA just made all
> experimental aircraft meet all certified aircraft standards!
>
> Bob
> RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
>
>
>
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Electrical gyros needed. |
Hi,
I am in need of a standard size electrical dg and an artificial attitude indicator.
I am replacing the vacuum driven instruments on my aircraft.
321-453-0657
Thanks,
Eddie Moran
---------------------------------
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Do AD's really apply? |
You only have to record what you do, not what you don't do. There are plenty
of ADs issued to certified planes that don't apply to a every tail number
they send it to. To make it easy to review ADs from year to year you can
keep an AD log and just show "N/A" and a brief reason why not such as
"component not installed". Not required but a real convenience.
Regards,
Greg Young
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 11:45 AM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply?
>
>
> At 08:52 AM 3/25/08, you wrote:
> >I was one
> >of those that thought AD's don't apply to experimentals. Wow. I'm
> >glad I learned the truth of the matter.
>
> I received an AD in the mail last night for my IO-360 in my
> RV. This is in spite of the fact that the aircraft
> registration states my engine is unknown. How does the FAA know??!!
>
> The AD requires me to inspect and or replace parts as needed
> on a Bendix fuel servo. Since I have an Airflow Performance
> servo, I figure this AD does not apply. But on the other
> hand, technically there is no such thing as an IO-360 with an
> Airflow Performance servo, that would be an uncertified
> engine and we all know that the Lycoming IO-360 is a
> certified engine. The data plate on my engine says it is a
> Lycoming IO-360, therefore I must comply with the AD even
> though it is not possible.
>
> Now maybe some A&P IA with a law degree can explain what type
> of Logbook entry I should make. I would never want some A&P
> IA to ever think I was unsafe just because I fly an
> experimental and cut corners on an incorrect Logbook entry!
>
> Of course all of these issues would go away if the FAA just
> made all experimental aircraft meet all certified aircraft standards!
>
> Bob
> RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Do AD's really apply? |
Tim Bryan wrote:
>
>This idea of AD's applying really puzzles me. How can an experimental
>actually be required to comply when the very nature of the word experimental
>means we can experiment with what ever we choose? If I want to build an
>airplane with a modified I0-360 then that is my experiment.
>
All true
>If you want to keep your engine certified for later use on a certified
>airplane, then maybe so.
>
>I am not an A&P nor an AI nor FAA nor did I sleep in a Holiday Inn Express.
>
Nor I, but I do have a point of view.
>I built an experimental so I can do my own thing.
>
I think we all fit in that category! :-)
> Where would one actually
>draw the line between the experimental part and the requirements part
>anyway.
>
Well, if you have the item in question ...... modified or not ......
then the AD still applies. "Das Fed" covered that.
However, if you don't have the item in question .... then the AD does
not apply. If you've modified the item in question so that the AD
cannot be complied with .... then again, it does not apply. Having said
that, If the AD covers a part that is a reasonable copy (from Japan,
China, or Russia to name a few) it is only wise to apply the AD, and
list it in the logs. Failure to apply the AD (if applicable) would
probably make the airplane unairworthy in the eyes of the FAA and the
legal and insurance systems and might come back to bite you ..... in
more ways than I can cover here.
Bear in mind that ADs are mostly issued to cover a safety-related
problem, and not complying with an applicable AD just doesn't make sense
to me. I also don't see what the problem is.
Linn
>
>Tim
>Do Not Archive
>Experimental 616TB
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
>>server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
>>Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 10:45 AM
>>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply?
>>
>>
>>At 08:52 AM 3/25/08, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I was one
>>>of those that thought AD's don't apply to experimentals. Wow. I'm glad
>>>
>>>
>>I
>>
>>
>>>learned the truth of the matter.
>>>
>>>
>>I received an AD in the mail last night for my IO-360 in my RV. This
>>is in spite of the fact that the aircraft registration states my
>>engine is unknown. How does the FAA know??!!
>>
>>The AD requires me to inspect and or replace parts as needed on a
>>Bendix fuel servo. Since I have an Airflow Performance servo, I
>>figure this AD does not apply. But on the other hand, technically
>>there is no such thing as an IO-360 with an Airflow Performance
>>servo, that would be an uncertified engine and we all know that the
>>Lycoming IO-360 is a certified engine. The data plate on my engine
>>says it is a Lycoming IO-360, therefore I must comply with the AD
>>even though it is not possible.
>>
>>Now maybe some A&P IA with a law degree can explain what type of
>>Logbook entry I should make. I would never want some A&P IA to ever
>>think I was unsafe just because I fly an experimental and cut corners
>>on an incorrect Logbook entry!
>>
>>Of course all of these issues would go away if the FAA just made all
>>experimental aircraft meet all certified aircraft standards!
>>
>>Bob
>>RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Log book entries |
I have never found the FSDO to be dreaded but agree clearly with Kelly
that the Why? Has no place in a formal logbook. It is important to
answer fully and clearly the four W's but additional unnecessary
documentation services little purpose at maintaining a compliant and
safe aircraft.
23 years as a DPE, 20 years as a Chief Instructor, now an IA, and I
agree with Kelly secondly on how to handle the situation. Don't add it.
Ask them to help you find the "Written reference". Separately I could
tell stories (offline) of the advise Alan McArtor, the last Director
under President Reagan gave me and the lesson I learned on the process
of Congressionalizing a federal employee.
I have found the vast majority of FSDO personnel to be hardworking and
can be dealt with in a reasonable manner - they value their careers and
look forward to advancement and recognition. Once Kelly's style of
request for a reference for help went all the way to Washington DC legal
and took over a year. It had to do with "logging of glider tow time
used for pursuit of an additional rating". Some of you might remember
that case study.
Keep those logbooks concise, appropriate and compliant. Let me know if
you ever find a reference to add Why to the mix.
John Cox
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 4:06 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: RE: Log book entries
I guess you weren't aware that there are on-line IA renewal courses that
can be taken if you aren't at home when the local renewal courses
happen.
I'd sure like to see guidance in an FAA publication calling for a "why"
for any repair. Only guidance I recall from ACs and FARs call for the 4
w's, period. I can't say in a lot of aircraft shopping that I have ever
seen a "why" in a logbook of a certified aircraft, whether it had gear
up, wing change, prop change, engine change, etc. I find the quickest
way to terminate discussions with Principal Maintenance Inspectors is to
ask them to help you find where is says you have to do whatever their
pronouncement of the day is. Either they are right and have the item at
their fingertips, or there is no basis. YMMV
RICHARD MILLER wrote:
> hi guys
>
> just got back from the dreaded fsdo today. I had to retake my
> i/a exam had allowed it to expire while overseas. I passed again but
> the exam is a bitch and the new computer system had problems. i talked
> to them about the exec 90 problem again and amateur built aircraft
> logs in general. The consensus was that 90% of them have major
> problems. the conversation include three asi's, a Dom and two i/a's.
> Without a legal decision from the feds the final outcome was that all
> entries shall include four "w" 's What when how and who.
> typical entry
>
> what
> changed oil and filter
>
> when
> tach/hobbs time and date
>
> how
> using aeroshell 15-50 8 qts filter# ?????
>
> who
>
> joe blow repairman # xxxxxxxxx
>
>
> and yes ad's do apply
>
> Lets be honest if you are flying an airplane with a outstanding ad,
> you are stupid.
>
> typical entry
>
> what
> complied with ad ??-??-??
>
> how
> as per paragraph XXX inspect/install kit/replaced . whatever
>
> when
> tach/hobbs time and date
>
> who
>
> joe blow repairman # xxxxxxxxx
>
> next we went on to some of the tough ones, airworthiness limitation
> ie, time inspections and component replacement times. the exec 90 in
> particular.
>
> service bulletins are optional as we all know, but the mandatory
> replacement times and inspection due to the fact that this is a
> helicopter are required. by the way you would be insane not to comply
> with this any way.
>
> log entry
> what and how
> inspected aircraft per 100 hr requirements as per maintenance manual
> XXX revXXX date XXX replaced the following components per mm.
>
> just need to add the when and the who.
>
>
> the conversation drifted to prop strikes, major airframe repairs and
> unlogged incidents.
>
> if a propeller is changed or overhauled then enter why. delamination
> erosion, cracking. else i will assume a prop strike. and require the
> requisite insp.
>
> airframe repairs
> what so i know where to look
> when as required
> why so i have some idea of the energy involved
>
> unlogged incidents.
>
> replaced main landing gear
>
> why deformity due to hard landing, or due to bad intial installation.
> rick m
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Do AD's really apply? |
Hi Linn,
Well there isn't really a problem, but a discussion. My engine actually
doesn't have a data plate that says it is a Lycoming but rather an Aerosport
Power engine. Does this mean any AD's that target a Lycoming 0-360 would
not apply to me? Every part on there as far as I know are Lycoming parts.
Now, realize that if I received notice that said there was a problem with
some part I have, I would feel compelled to correct it, but keeping a
paperwork trail of AD's is not something I really could care less about.
And if I was of mind to disagree with something they wanted fixed, I would
not feel compelled to do so since this is an experimental. I was thinking
it was simply just my choice. I am not dumb enough to deliberately or
stubbornly wish to ignore safety issues, but like I said, just discussion.
Tim
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of linn Walters
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply?
Tim Bryan wrote:
<n616tb@btsapps.com>
This idea of AD's applying really puzzles me. How can an experimental
actually be required to comply when the very nature of the word experimental
means we can experiment with what ever we choose? If I want to build an
airplane with a modified I0-360 then that is my experiment.
All true
If you want to keep your engine certified for later use on a certified
airplane, then maybe so.
I am not an A&P nor an AI nor FAA nor did I sleep in a Holiday Inn Express.
Nor I, but I do have a point of view.
I built an experimental so I can do my own thing.
I think we all fit in that category! :-)
Where would one actually
draw the line between the experimental part and the requirements part
anyway.
Well, if you have the item in question ...... modified or not ...... then
the AD still applies. "Das Fed" covered that.
However, if you don't have the item in question .... then the AD does not
apply. If you've modified the item in question so that the AD cannot be
complied with .... then again, it does not apply. Having said that, If the
AD covers a part that is a reasonable copy (from Japan, China, or Russia to
name a few) it is only wise to apply the AD, and list it in the logs.
Failure to apply the AD (if applicable) would probably make the airplane
unairworthy in the eyes of the FAA and the legal and insurance systems and
might come back to bite you ..... in more ways than I can cover here.
Bear in mind that ADs are mostly issued to cover a safety-related problem,
and not complying with an applicable AD just doesn't make sense to me. I
also don't see what the problem is.
Linn
Tim
Do Not Archive
Experimental 616TB
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply?
<panamared5@brier.net>
At 08:52 AM 3/25/08, you wrote:
I was one
of those that thought AD's don't apply to experimentals. Wow. I'm glad
I
learned the truth of the matter.
I received an AD in the mail last night for my IO-360 in my RV. This
is in spite of the fact that the aircraft registration states my
engine is unknown. How does the FAA know??!!
The AD requires me to inspect and or replace parts as needed on a
Bendix fuel servo. Since I have an Airflow Performance servo, I
figure this AD does not apply. But on the other hand, technically
there is no such thing as an IO-360 with an Airflow Performance
servo, that would be an uncertified engine and we all know that the
Lycoming IO-360 is a certified engine. The data plate on my engine
says it is a Lycoming IO-360, therefore I must comply with the AD
even though it is not possible.
Now maybe some A&P IA with a law degree can explain what type of
Logbook entry I should make. I would never want some A&P IA to ever
think I was unsafe just because I fly an experimental and cut corners
on an incorrect Logbook entry!
Of course all of these issues would go away if the FAA just made all
experimental aircraft meet all certified aircraft standards!
Bob
RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Do AD's really apply? |
I received the same Emergency AD. Naturally that worried me. Had my life
been in danger? Was I about to open a letter that would cost me thousands
of dollars in compliance? As I read it, my concern turned to puzzlement.
Had somebody removed my carburated C-90 engine and bolted on a fuel-injected
IO-360 to my Aircoupe? Why would the FAA send this Emergency AD otherwise?
Or, maybe they knew through a secret government black ops program that I
would put an IO-360 on the RV-9A I was building....sending the AD as kind of
a preemptive strike.
Or maybe they were just screwups. NO! Could not be!
Ralph Finch
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply?
I received an AD in the mail last night for my IO-360 in my RV. This is in
spite of the fact that the aircraft registration states my engine is
unknown. How does the FAA know??!!
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Do AD's really apply? |
Ugh. I can't resist. Here goes. Be forewarned. It's ramble time. I
think the delete key is just to the right of your pinky.
Some feel that the FAA is there to punish when they can; others feel it is
there for the safety of the flying public and/or those who live beneath the
flying public. Others feel they are there because it helps keep the
insurance companies solvent. The sociologists amongst us problem know best
why they are there, but anyway....
Let's assume for one moment that they are a bureaucracy that grew up to help
keep planes from being built, maintained and flown in a manner that
continued to cause a whole bunch of deaths, something which was happening
when this flying activity really started to, uh, take off. Everything was
truly experimental. We all know it grew into a big elephant, but it still
does one thing pretty well (although not perfectly), it accumulates
information. And, when it believes it has enough about a risk to said
flying public or the public beneath the flyers, it, at a minimum, gets the
word out. You can argue all day long about if that word is justified or too
late or too early....but they do try to make decisions that, in their
judgment, given their facts, their analysis, and their mindset might just
help keep us flying and not crashing.
The question, of course, is, do we need to heed that advice, given that
we've decided to go the experimental route (which, if we are flying a Van's
airframe behind a Lycoming derivative, equipped to be day, day/night, IFR
according to the regs makes me wonder just how experimental we really are.
I mean, how much experimenting did 90% of us do, really...)? I think there
are at least two answers. First, if you want to continue to have the luxury
to experiment and fly the way we've determined we'd like to, I would think
you'd want to play along and track those AD's and take care of them. Big,
bad bureaucracies just love to wrap their arms around more of what they
believe they should control. Second, it's you're arse, and perhaps the
arses of a few others, that reside in that experimental machine. Those at
the FAA didn't put out the AD because they had nothing to do that day. They
put it out because they had enough evidence to indicate there might be
enough of a trend in their data to indicate that a serious threat to your
arse existed.
If the FAA declared unequivocally that us "experimental" types didn't even
have to read the AD's, let alone do anything about them, then would you
actually not do so? I know that on some level this is a "rights" question.
And on another level it is a "good old hot-rod days" leave me alone and go
away I want to do my own thing question. To be clear, I really care that
I'm able to build and work on my own plane. That matters a lot to me. It
is my passion. I don't get to do it much, but I think about it all the
time. It is an ability and luxury I would fight to preserve. I also
believe that it is healthy to push back on big bureaucracies, else they
become even bigger and more intrusive than they are. But stats are stats,
and I thank them for tracking what's happening, and I thank them for letting
me know so I can take action.
Do the AD's apply? Absolutely. Are they mandatory? Well, if they take
that data plate away, I would argue no. But I still want to get that AD in
the mail, understand why it was issued, take a very hard look at my set up
and make the wise choice to act.
Ok, I feel better, and, by the way, I'll also fight for the right to keep
such a public dialogue on a governmental body going, and to have the right
to publicly challenge that institution.
Enough already. Must have been something in my morning tea.... I think
I'll go experiment.
John Jessen
GlaStar flying
RV-10 slow building
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 8:15 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply?
This idea of AD's applying really puzzles me. How can an experimental
actually be required to comply when the very nature of the word experimental
means we can experiment with what ever we choose? If I want to build an
airplane with a modified I0-360 then that is my experiment.
If you want to keep your engine certified for later use on a certified
airplane, then maybe so.
I am not an A&P nor an AI nor FAA nor did I sleep in a Holiday Inn Express.
I built an experimental so I can do my own thing. Where would one actually
draw the line between the experimental part and the requirements part
anyway.
Tim
Do Not Archive
Experimental 616TB
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 10:45 AM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply?
>
>
> At 08:52 AM 3/25/08, you wrote:
> >I was one
> >of those that thought AD's don't apply to experimentals. Wow. I'm
> >glad
> I
> >learned the truth of the matter.
>
> I received an AD in the mail last night for my IO-360 in my RV. This
> is in spite of the fact that the aircraft registration states my
> engine is unknown. How does the FAA know??!!
>
> The AD requires me to inspect and or replace parts as needed on a
> Bendix fuel servo. Since I have an Airflow Performance servo, I
> figure this AD does not apply. But on the other hand, technically
> there is no such thing as an IO-360 with an Airflow Performance servo,
> that would be an uncertified engine and we all know that the Lycoming
> IO-360 is a certified engine. The data plate on my engine says it is a
> Lycoming IO-360, therefore I must comply with the AD even though it is
> not possible.
>
> Now maybe some A&P IA with a law degree can explain what type of
> Logbook entry I should make. I would never want some A&P IA to ever
> think I was unsafe just because I fly an experimental and cut corners
> on an incorrect Logbook entry!
>
> Of course all of these issues would go away if the FAA just made all
> experimental aircraft meet all certified aircraft standards!
>
> Bob
> RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
>
>
>
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Electrical gyros needed. |
Check out the TruTrak ADI with gps heading-- I have one but have yet
to fly with it.
dave
On Mar 26, 2008, at 8:26 AM, Eddie Moran wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am in need of a standard size electrical dg and an artificial
> attitude indicator. I am replacing the vacuum driven instruments on
> my aircraft.
>
> 321-453-0657
>
> Thanks,
> Eddie Moran
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Do AD's really apply? |
John,
I am not questioning weather I should be notified or receive the AD's. I
like most would certainly want to know about all the research that is going
on. And frankly, I have every intent on changing anything that is deemed to
be a problem for me or my arse. The only question I have is the tracking,
paperwork issue where my planes value is inhibited by if I complied with any
particular AD or not. It is experimental! It is my choice! I appreciate
getting the information; I just want to keep my airplane experimental and
judged by its value and not by its paperwork trail. That is for the
certified aircraft and why I no longer own one. Just my opinion of course.
I have no opinion as to weather the FAA employees have nothing to do or are
trying to be devious. Wasn't part of my point at all.
Tim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 10:15 AM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply?
>
>
> Ugh. I can't resist. Here goes. Be forewarned. It's ramble time. I
> think the delete key is just to the right of your pinky.
>
> Some feel that the FAA is there to punish when they can; others feel it is
> there for the safety of the flying public and/or those who live beneath
> the
> flying public. Others feel they are there because it helps keep the
> insurance companies solvent. The sociologists amongst us problem know
> best
> why they are there, but anyway....
>
> Let's assume for one moment that they are a bureaucracy that grew up to
> help
> keep planes from being built, maintained and flown in a manner that
> continued to cause a whole bunch of deaths, something which was happening
> when this flying activity really started to, uh, take off. Everything was
> truly experimental. We all know it grew into a big elephant, but it still
> does one thing pretty well (although not perfectly), it accumulates
> information. And, when it believes it has enough about a risk to said
> flying public or the public beneath the flyers, it, at a minimum, gets the
> word out. You can argue all day long about if that word is justified or
> too
> late or too early....but they do try to make decisions that, in their
> judgment, given their facts, their analysis, and their mindset might just
> help keep us flying and not crashing.
>
> The question, of course, is, do we need to heed that advice, given that
> we've decided to go the experimental route (which, if we are flying a
> Van's
> airframe behind a Lycoming derivative, equipped to be day, day/night, IFR
> according to the regs makes me wonder just how experimental we really are.
> I mean, how much experimenting did 90% of us do, really...)? I think
> there
> are at least two answers. First, if you want to continue to have the
> luxury
> to experiment and fly the way we've determined we'd like to, I would think
> you'd want to play along and track those AD's and take care of them. Big,
> bad bureaucracies just love to wrap their arms around more of what they
> believe they should control. Second, it's you're arse, and perhaps the
> arses of a few others, that reside in that experimental machine. Those at
> the FAA didn't put out the AD because they had nothing to do that day.
> They
> put it out because they had enough evidence to indicate there might be
> enough of a trend in their data to indicate that a serious threat to your
> arse existed.
>
> If the FAA declared unequivocally that us "experimental" types didn't even
> have to read the AD's, let alone do anything about them, then would you
> actually not do so? I know that on some level this is a "rights"
> question.
> And on another level it is a "good old hot-rod days" leave me alone and go
> away I want to do my own thing question. To be clear, I really care that
> I'm able to build and work on my own plane. That matters a lot to me. It
> is my passion. I don't get to do it much, but I think about it all the
> time. It is an ability and luxury I would fight to preserve. I also
> believe that it is healthy to push back on big bureaucracies, else they
> become even bigger and more intrusive than they are. But stats are stats,
> and I thank them for tracking what's happening, and I thank them for
> letting
> me know so I can take action.
>
> Do the AD's apply? Absolutely. Are they mandatory? Well, if they take
> that data plate away, I would argue no. But I still want to get that AD
> in
> the mail, understand why it was issued, take a very hard look at my set up
> and make the wise choice to act.
>
> Ok, I feel better, and, by the way, I'll also fight for the right to keep
> such a public dialogue on a governmental body going, and to have the right
> to publicly challenge that institution.
>
> Enough already. Must have been something in my morning tea.... I think
> I'll go experiment.
>
> John Jessen
> GlaStar flying
> RV-10 slow building
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 8:15 AM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply?
>
>
> This idea of AD's applying really puzzles me. How can an experimental
> actually be required to comply when the very nature of the word
> experimental
> means we can experiment with what ever we choose? If I want to build an
> airplane with a modified I0-360 then that is my experiment.
>
> If you want to keep your engine certified for later use on a certified
> airplane, then maybe so.
>
> I am not an A&P nor an AI nor FAA nor did I sleep in a Holiday Inn
> Express.
> I built an experimental so I can do my own thing. Where would one
> actually
> draw the line between the experimental part and the requirements part
> anyway.
>
> Tim
> Do Not Archive
> Experimental 616TB
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> > server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 10:45 AM
> > To: rv-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply?
> >
> >
> > At 08:52 AM 3/25/08, you wrote:
> > >I was one
> > >of those that thought AD's don't apply to experimentals. Wow. I'm
> > >glad
> > I
> > >learned the truth of the matter.
> >
> > I received an AD in the mail last night for my IO-360 in my RV. This
> > is in spite of the fact that the aircraft registration states my
> > engine is unknown. How does the FAA know??!!
> >
> > The AD requires me to inspect and or replace parts as needed on a
> > Bendix fuel servo. Since I have an Airflow Performance servo, I
> > figure this AD does not apply. But on the other hand, technically
> > there is no such thing as an IO-360 with an Airflow Performance servo,
> > that would be an uncertified engine and we all know that the Lycoming
> > IO-360 is a certified engine. The data plate on my engine says it is a
> > Lycoming IO-360, therefore I must comply with the AD even though it is
> > not possible.
> >
> > Now maybe some A&P IA with a law degree can explain what type of
> > Logbook entry I should make. I would never want some A&P IA to ever
> > think I was unsafe just because I fly an experimental and cut corners
> > on an incorrect Logbook entry!
> >
> > Of course all of these issues would go away if the FAA just made all
> > experimental aircraft meet all certified aircraft standards!
> >
> > Bob
> > RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: flying wide open in turb.flying wide open in turb. |
>From: "Russell Daves" <dav1111@erfwireless.net>
>Subject: Re: flying wide open in turb.flying wide open in turb.
Didn't read the article yet but bottom line YOU CAN DIE.
Airplanes are not invincible and even jetliners have broken
apart for gust. (Japan over mount fuji.)
Fly below at or Va - maneuvering in severe turb.
Even the Boeing's I fly have turb air penetration air-speeds.
---------------------------------
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 |
|
| Subject: | RE: Do AD's really apply? |
Tim,
I think you have it a little reversed concerning your Aerosport Power engine
and Lycoming parts. The only Lycoming part I have discovered to date on my
Aerosport Power engine is the oil dipstick. There may be others but I
haven't found them yet. On the other hand, I think you can have a Lycoming
engine that has had most of the Lycoming parts replaced with Superior parts
and still be called a Lycoming. The Superior parts are the same that are
used to build the Aerosport engine.
I guess Bart can build an engine out of any parts that he wants to use and
put his Aerosport Power brand on it. Or maybe it is just a matter of
semantics. Superior builds parts for Lycoming engines. Are those parts
Lycoming or Superior?
Back to work.
Terry
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 9:07 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply?
Hi Linn,
Well there isn't really a problem, but a discussion. My engine actually
doesn't have a data plate that says it is a Lycoming but rather an Aerosport
Power engine. Does this mean any AD's that target a Lycoming 0-360 would
not apply to me? Every part on there as far as I know are Lycoming parts.
Now, realize that if I received notice that said there was a problem with
some part I have, I would feel compelled to correct it, but keeping a
paperwork trail of AD's is not something I really could care less about.
And if I was of mind to disagree with something they wanted fixed, I would
not feel compelled to do so since this is an experimental. I was thinking
it was simply just my choice. I am not dumb enough to deliberately or
stubbornly wish to ignore safety issues, but like I said, just discussion.
Tim
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Electrical gyros needed. |
Eddie- I have a 14 volt artificial horizon that has flown flawlessly many
years in my RV and was replaced with a Dynon EFIS last year. I've been
meaning to put it on eBay but have been too lazy to do so - I was going to
get to it this spring...
I can send you pictures and more detailed description when I get home, if
you are interested. It's standard size, operational as removed, comes with
the power connector, and I will guarantee it not to be DOA. I would want
$350 for it including shipping and insurance.
Bill Boyd
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Eddie Moran <lizzardracing@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am in need of a standard size electrical dg and an artificial attitude
> indicator. I am replacing the vacuum driven instruments on my aircraft.
>
> 321-453-0657
>
> Thanks,
> Eddie Moran
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | RE: Do AD's really apply? |
Hi Bob,
I got that, too - the US government didn't even mind paying for the letter
to be sent all the way to me here in Germany. And I don't own anything with
a Lycoming or Contintal (just a Rotax 912...).
No seriously, I might remember having signed up for that service a long time
ago and now they send those Emergency AD's, regardlesss of whether they
apply to me or not...
Thilo
-----Ursprngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] Im Auftrag von Bob
Gesendet: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 5:45 PM
An: rv-list@matronics.com
Betreff: Re: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply?
At 08:52 AM 3/25/08, you wrote:
>I was one
>of those that thought AD's don't apply to experimentals. Wow. I'm glad I
>learned the truth of the matter.
I received an AD in the mail last night for my IO-360 in my RV. This
is in spite of the fact that the aircraft registration states my
engine is unknown. How does the FAA know??!!
The AD requires me to inspect and or replace parts as needed on a
Bendix fuel servo. Since I have an Airflow Performance servo, I
figure this AD does not apply. But on the other hand, technically
there is no such thing as an IO-360 with an Airflow Performance
servo, that would be an uncertified engine and we all know that the
Lycoming IO-360 is a certified engine. The data plate on my engine
says it is a Lycoming IO-360, therefore I must comply with the AD
even though it is not possible.
Now maybe some A&P IA with a law degree can explain what type of
Logbook entry I should make. I would never want some A&P IA to ever
think I was unsafe just because I fly an experimental and cut corners
on an incorrect Logbook entry!
Of course all of these issues would go away if the FAA just made all
experimental aircraft meet all certified aircraft standards!
Bob
RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
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 |
|
| Subject: | RE: Do AD's really apply? |
Tim,
I understand; I agree with you. I don't think I said "devious."
I do believe in paper trails sufficient for the information and safety of
someone who is buying one of our beloved experimental's. I just bought one
myself, and I was very happy to know as much about that plane as I could.
It comforted me no end that the builder and intermediate owner, as well as
their A&P IA, were meticulous in their documentation, along with the Why's,
which were either documented or part of the pre-buy Q&A. They, I believe,
held nothing back from me about the plane and its construction and
"problems." The horrendous and, perhaps except for the commercial side of
flying, unnecessarily burdensome paper trail syndrome of the certified's was
an unfortunate necessity. One that I, too, want nothing to do with.
So, you and I don't really disagree. I just needed to get my mind flushed.
I also wanted to make my own case for people to pay close attention to AD's,
especially those doing their own engine work. And I think we would do all
of us a big favor if we were meticulous in our documentation. It's an
experimental family out there. Let's not hold back for fear that someone
might be looking over our shoulder, ready to pounce because we've said too
much. If you don't want to write the "why" down in an official logbook,
fine. As others have pointed out, it's not required.
John
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 9:39 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply?
John,
I am not questioning weather I should be notified or receive the AD's. I
like most would certainly want to know about all the research that is going
on. And frankly, I have every intent on changing anything that is deemed to
be a problem for me or my arse. The only question I have is the tracking,
paperwork issue where my planes value is inhibited by if I complied with any
particular AD or not. It is experimental! It is my choice! I appreciate
getting the information; I just want to keep my airplane experimental and
judged by its value and not by its paperwork trail. That is for the
certified aircraft and why I no longer own one. Just my opinion of course.
I have no opinion as to weather the FAA employees have nothing to do or are
trying to be devious. Wasn't part of my point at all.
Tim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 10:15 AM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply?
>
>
> Ugh. I can't resist. Here goes. Be forewarned. It's ramble time.
> I think the delete key is just to the right of your pinky.
>
> Some feel that the FAA is there to punish when they can; others feel
> it is there for the safety of the flying public and/or those who live
> beneath the flying public. Others feel they are there because it
> helps keep the insurance companies solvent. The sociologists amongst
> us problem know best why they are there, but anyway....
>
> Let's assume for one moment that they are a bureaucracy that grew up
> to help keep planes from being built, maintained and flown in a manner
> that continued to cause a whole bunch of deaths, something which was
> happening when this flying activity really started to, uh, take off.
> Everything was truly experimental. We all know it grew into a big
> elephant, but it still does one thing pretty well (although not
> perfectly), it accumulates information. And, when it believes it has
> enough about a risk to said flying public or the public beneath the
> flyers, it, at a minimum, gets the word out. You can argue all day
> long about if that word is justified or too late or too early....but
> they do try to make decisions that, in their judgment, given their
> facts, their analysis, and their mindset might just help keep us
> flying and not crashing.
>
> The question, of course, is, do we need to heed that advice, given
> that we've decided to go the experimental route (which, if we are
> flying a Van's airframe behind a Lycoming derivative, equipped to be
> day, day/night, IFR according to the regs makes me wonder just how
> experimental we really are.
> I mean, how much experimenting did 90% of us do, really...)? I think
> there are at least two answers. First, if you want to continue to
> have the luxury to experiment and fly the way we've determined we'd
> like to, I would think you'd want to play along and track those AD's
> and take care of them. Big, bad bureaucracies just love to wrap their
> arms around more of what they believe they should control. Second,
> it's you're arse, and perhaps the arses of a few others, that reside
> in that experimental machine. Those at the FAA didn't put out the AD
> because they had nothing to do that day.
> They
> put it out because they had enough evidence to indicate there might be
> enough of a trend in their data to indicate that a serious threat to
> your arse existed.
>
> If the FAA declared unequivocally that us "experimental" types didn't
> even have to read the AD's, let alone do anything about them, then
> would you actually not do so? I know that on some level this is a
"rights"
> question.
> And on another level it is a "good old hot-rod days" leave me alone
> and go away I want to do my own thing question. To be clear, I really
> care that I'm able to build and work on my own plane. That matters a
> lot to me. It is my passion. I don't get to do it much, but I think
> about it all the time. It is an ability and luxury I would fight to
> preserve. I also believe that it is healthy to push back on big
> bureaucracies, else they become even bigger and more intrusive than
> they are. But stats are stats, and I thank them for tracking what's
> happening, and I thank them for letting me know so I can take action.
>
> Do the AD's apply? Absolutely. Are they mandatory? Well, if they
> take that data plate away, I would argue no. But I still want to get
> that AD in the mail, understand why it was issued, take a very hard
> look at my set up and make the wise choice to act.
>
> Ok, I feel better, and, by the way, I'll also fight for the right to
> keep such a public dialogue on a governmental body going, and to have
> the right to publicly challenge that institution.
>
> Enough already. Must have been something in my morning tea.... I think
> I'll go experiment.
>
> John Jessen
> GlaStar flying
> RV-10 slow building
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 8:15 AM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply?
>
>
> This idea of AD's applying really puzzles me. How can an experimental
> actually be required to comply when the very nature of the word
> experimental means we can experiment with what ever we choose? If I
> want to build an airplane with a modified I0-360 then that is my
> experiment.
>
> If you want to keep your engine certified for later use on a certified
> airplane, then maybe so.
>
> I am not an A&P nor an AI nor FAA nor did I sleep in a Holiday Inn
> Express.
> I built an experimental so I can do my own thing. Where would one
> actually draw the line between the experimental part and the
> requirements part anyway.
>
> Tim
> Do Not Archive
> Experimental 616TB
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> > server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 10:45 AM
> > To: rv-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply?
> >
> >
> > At 08:52 AM 3/25/08, you wrote:
> > >I was one
> > >of those that thought AD's don't apply to experimentals. Wow. I'm
> > >glad
> > I
> > >learned the truth of the matter.
> >
> > I received an AD in the mail last night for my IO-360 in my RV.
> > This is in spite of the fact that the aircraft registration states
> > my engine is unknown. How does the FAA know??!!
> >
> > The AD requires me to inspect and or replace parts as needed on a
> > Bendix fuel servo. Since I have an Airflow Performance servo, I
> > figure this AD does not apply. But on the other hand, technically
> > there is no such thing as an IO-360 with an Airflow Performance
> > servo, that would be an uncertified engine and we all know that the
> > Lycoming IO-360 is a certified engine. The data plate on my engine
> > says it is a Lycoming IO-360, therefore I must comply with the AD
> > even though it is not possible.
> >
> > Now maybe some A&P IA with a law degree can explain what type of
> > Logbook entry I should make. I would never want some A&P IA to ever
> > think I was unsafe just because I fly an experimental and cut
> > corners on an incorrect Logbook entry!
> >
> > Of course all of these issues would go away if the FAA just made all
> > experimental aircraft meet all certified aircraft standards!
> >
> > Bob
> > RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | RE: Do AD's really apply? |
Tim - Great question. Answering with a second question, "What specific
mods may a builder of OBAM make, which requires a Second Phase One Fly
Off?" (Flight characteristic changes, major airframe modifications
beyond the scope of the approved kit, power output changes, powerplant
changes, etc.)
And a third question. "What responsible builder would use or install on
their OBAM aircraft a component now publically and officially known to
be found with a defect or likely failure which triggers an AD in the
first place?"
I think Vans article said it well in EAA Sport - "Kicking the Bear".
There are now purported to be over 29,000 non certificated experiments
placing John Q in continually risk of the sky falling. I am not sure I
want John Q. linking the two as one large group of builders.
Do your own thing at all of our peril. Do it within the yet to be
amended rules - Good Deal, Good Luck with the answers and your response
to the NPRM. Let us all know what you find to your question.
John Cox
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 8:15 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply?
This idea of AD's applying really puzzles me. How can an experimental
actually be required to comply when the very nature of the word
experimental
means we can experiment with what ever we choose? If I want to build an
airplane with a modified I0-360 then that is my experiment.
If you want to keep your engine certified for later use on a certified
airplane, then maybe so.
I am not an A&P nor an AI nor FAA nor did I sleep in a Holiday Inn
Express.
I built an experimental so I can do my own thing. Where would one
actually
draw the line between the experimental part and the requirements part
anyway.
Tim
Do Not Archive
Experimental 616TB
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 10:45 AM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply?
>
>
> At 08:52 AM 3/25/08, you wrote:
> >I was one
> >of those that thought AD's don't apply to experimentals. Wow. I'm
glad
> I
> >learned the truth of the matter.
>
> I received an AD in the mail last night for my IO-360 in my RV. This
> is in spite of the fact that the aircraft registration states my
> engine is unknown. How does the FAA know??!!
>
> The AD requires me to inspect and or replace parts as needed on a
> Bendix fuel servo. Since I have an Airflow Performance servo, I
> figure this AD does not apply. But on the other hand, technically
> there is no such thing as an IO-360 with an Airflow Performance
> servo, that would be an uncertified engine and we all know that the
> Lycoming IO-360 is a certified engine. The data plate on my engine
> says it is a Lycoming IO-360, therefore I must comply with the AD
> even though it is not possible.
>
> Now maybe some A&P IA with a law degree can explain what type of
> Logbook entry I should make. I would never want some A&P IA to ever
> think I was unsafe just because I fly an experimental and cut corners
> on an incorrect Logbook entry!
>
> Of course all of these issues would go away if the FAA just made all
> experimental aircraft meet all certified aircraft standards!
>
> Bob
> RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Electrical gyros needed. |
Eddie,
I had a RC Allen electric AI in my 8A for 5 years. It worked as well as one
could expect (fair). I replaced it with a Dynon 10A EFIS (just put it in
the same hole as the RC Allen AI). The Dynon is the same price as just one
electric gyro but is a whole new world for capability, reliably and
simplicity. Use the money you save by not needing to buy an electric DG for
gas. I plan on using the Grand Rapids EFIS in my RV-10.
My recommendation, don't waste time or money on electric gyros.
Carl Froehlich
RV-8A (400 hrs)
RV-10 (wings)
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eddie Moran
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 11:27 AM
Subject: RV-List: Electrical gyros needed.
Hi,
I am in need of a standard size electrical dg and an artificial attitude
indicator. I am replacing the vacuum driven instruments on my aircraft.
321-453-0657
Thanks,
Eddie Moran
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 |
|
| Subject: | RE: Do AD's really apply? |
Hi John,
Yes, I suspect we do agree. A prudent person would keep track of what is
done to the plane for resale value as well as your own records. I think my
primary objection is getting to where I am required certain documentation
that doesn't fit and means I am subject to non compliance when I am trying
to be experimental. I might keep some records for my use or resale use, but
would not be available in the logs for an inspector or insurance company to
have at. My safety and investment is one thing but mandatory gets real
messy with accidents and insurance. I am flying an experimental to get away
from that crap.
Thanks for your response, I do appreciate the discussion.
Tim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 11:36 AM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply?
>
>
> Tim,
>
> I understand; I agree with you. I don't think I said "devious."
>
> I do believe in paper trails sufficient for the information and safety of
> someone who is buying one of our beloved experimental's. I just bought
> one
> myself, and I was very happy to know as much about that plane as I could.
> It comforted me no end that the builder and intermediate owner, as well as
> their A&P IA, were meticulous in their documentation, along with the
> Why's,
> which were either documented or part of the pre-buy Q&A. They, I believe,
> held nothing back from me about the plane and its construction and
> "problems." The horrendous and, perhaps except for the commercial side of
> flying, unnecessarily burdensome paper trail syndrome of the certified's
> was
> an unfortunate necessity. One that I, too, want nothing to do with.
>
> So, you and I don't really disagree. I just needed to get my mind
> flushed.
> I also wanted to make my own case for people to pay close attention to
> AD's,
> especially those doing their own engine work. And I think we would do all
> of us a big favor if we were meticulous in our documentation. It's an
> experimental family out there. Let's not hold back for fear that someone
> might be looking over our shoulder, ready to pounce because we've said too
> much. If you don't want to write the "why" down in an official logbook,
> fine. As others have pointed out, it's not required.
>
> John
>
> Do not archive
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 9:39 AM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply?
>
>
> John,
>
> I am not questioning weather I should be notified or receive the AD's. I
> like most would certainly want to know about all the research that is
> going
> on. And frankly, I have every intent on changing anything that is deemed
> to
> be a problem for me or my arse. The only question I have is the tracking,
> paperwork issue where my planes value is inhibited by if I complied with
> any
> particular AD or not. It is experimental! It is my choice! I appreciate
> getting the information; I just want to keep my airplane experimental and
> judged by its value and not by its paperwork trail. That is for the
> certified aircraft and why I no longer own one. Just my opinion of
> course.
>
> I have no opinion as to weather the FAA employees have nothing to do or
> are
> trying to be devious. Wasn't part of my point at all.
> Tim
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> > server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 10:15 AM
> > To: rv-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply?
> >
> >
> > Ugh. I can't resist. Here goes. Be forewarned. It's ramble time.
> > I think the delete key is just to the right of your pinky.
> >
> > Some feel that the FAA is there to punish when they can; others feel
> > it is there for the safety of the flying public and/or those who live
> > beneath the flying public. Others feel they are there because it
> > helps keep the insurance companies solvent. The sociologists amongst
> > us problem know best why they are there, but anyway....
> >
> > Let's assume for one moment that they are a bureaucracy that grew up
> > to help keep planes from being built, maintained and flown in a manner
> > that continued to cause a whole bunch of deaths, something which was
> > happening when this flying activity really started to, uh, take off.
> > Everything was truly experimental. We all know it grew into a big
> > elephant, but it still does one thing pretty well (although not
> > perfectly), it accumulates information. And, when it believes it has
> > enough about a risk to said flying public or the public beneath the
> > flyers, it, at a minimum, gets the word out. You can argue all day
> > long about if that word is justified or too late or too early....but
> > they do try to make decisions that, in their judgment, given their
> > facts, their analysis, and their mindset might just help keep us
> > flying and not crashing.
> >
> > The question, of course, is, do we need to heed that advice, given
> > that we've decided to go the experimental route (which, if we are
> > flying a Van's airframe behind a Lycoming derivative, equipped to be
> > day, day/night, IFR according to the regs makes me wonder just how
> > experimental we really are.
> > I mean, how much experimenting did 90% of us do, really...)? I think
> > there are at least two answers. First, if you want to continue to
> > have the luxury to experiment and fly the way we've determined we'd
> > like to, I would think you'd want to play along and track those AD's
> > and take care of them. Big, bad bureaucracies just love to wrap their
> > arms around more of what they believe they should control. Second,
> > it's you're arse, and perhaps the arses of a few others, that reside
> > in that experimental machine. Those at the FAA didn't put out the AD
> > because they had nothing to do that day.
> > They
> > put it out because they had enough evidence to indicate there might be
> > enough of a trend in their data to indicate that a serious threat to
> > your arse existed.
> >
> > If the FAA declared unequivocally that us "experimental" types didn't
> > even have to read the AD's, let alone do anything about them, then
> > would you actually not do so? I know that on some level this is a
> "rights"
> > question.
> > And on another level it is a "good old hot-rod days" leave me alone
> > and go away I want to do my own thing question. To be clear, I really
> > care that I'm able to build and work on my own plane. That matters a
> > lot to me. It is my passion. I don't get to do it much, but I think
> > about it all the time. It is an ability and luxury I would fight to
> > preserve. I also believe that it is healthy to push back on big
> > bureaucracies, else they become even bigger and more intrusive than
> > they are. But stats are stats, and I thank them for tracking what's
> > happening, and I thank them for letting me know so I can take action.
> >
> > Do the AD's apply? Absolutely. Are they mandatory? Well, if they
> > take that data plate away, I would argue no. But I still want to get
> > that AD in the mail, understand why it was issued, take a very hard
> > look at my set up and make the wise choice to act.
> >
> > Ok, I feel better, and, by the way, I'll also fight for the right to
> > keep such a public dialogue on a governmental body going, and to have
> > the right to publicly challenge that institution.
> >
> > Enough already. Must have been something in my morning tea.... I
> think
> > I'll go experiment.
> >
> > John Jessen
> > GlaStar flying
> > RV-10 slow building
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 8:15 AM
> > To: rv-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply?
> >
> >
> > This idea of AD's applying really puzzles me. How can an experimental
> > actually be required to comply when the very nature of the word
> > experimental means we can experiment with what ever we choose? If I
> > want to build an airplane with a modified I0-360 then that is my
> > experiment.
> >
> > If you want to keep your engine certified for later use on a certified
> > airplane, then maybe so.
> >
> > I am not an A&P nor an AI nor FAA nor did I sleep in a Holiday Inn
> > Express.
> > I built an experimental so I can do my own thing. Where would one
> > actually draw the line between the experimental part and the
> > requirements part anyway.
> >
> > Tim
> > Do Not Archive
> > Experimental 616TB
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> > > server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 10:45 AM
> > > To: rv-list@matronics.com
> > > Subject: Re: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply?
> > >
> > >
> > > At 08:52 AM 3/25/08, you wrote:
> > > >I was one
> > > >of those that thought AD's don't apply to experimentals. Wow. I'm
> > > >glad
> > > I
> > > >learned the truth of the matter.
> > >
> > > I received an AD in the mail last night for my IO-360 in my RV.
> > > This is in spite of the fact that the aircraft registration states
> > > my engine is unknown. How does the FAA know??!!
> > >
> > > The AD requires me to inspect and or replace parts as needed on a
> > > Bendix fuel servo. Since I have an Airflow Performance servo, I
> > > figure this AD does not apply. But on the other hand, technically
> > > there is no such thing as an IO-360 with an Airflow Performance
> > > servo, that would be an uncertified engine and we all know that the
> > > Lycoming IO-360 is a certified engine. The data plate on my engine
> > > says it is a Lycoming IO-360, therefore I must comply with the AD
> > > even though it is not possible.
> > >
> > > Now maybe some A&P IA with a law degree can explain what type of
> > > Logbook entry I should make. I would never want some A&P IA to ever
> > > think I was unsafe just because I fly an experimental and cut
> > > corners on an incorrect Logbook entry!
> > >
> > > Of course all of these issues would go away if the FAA just made all
> > > experimental aircraft meet all certified aircraft standards!
> > >
> > > Bob
> > > RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | RE: Do AD's really apply? |
John Cox,
I may very well be misinformed and certainly don't know all there is to know
about this subject. I also realize things are changing every day regarding
experimental category aircraft. I do think we tend make assumptions here
that don't fit the reality.
>
> Tim - Great question. Answering with a second question, "What specific
> mods may a builder of OBAM make, which requires a Second Phase One Fly
> Off?" (Flight characteristic changes, major airframe modifications
> beyond the scope of the approved kit, power output changes, powerplant
> changes, etc.)
[Tim]
Well, what exactly is approved kit? I don't think you are suggesting that
because it is approved in some fashion (probably to meet the 51% rule) that
we can't experiment with it or it is automatically safe. I can build and
have flown a one off experimental that was not an approved kit. I am able
to take a vans kit and modify it all I want to. It is experimental.
>
> And a third question. "What responsible builder would use or install on
> their OBAM aircraft a component now publically and officially known to
> be found with a defect or likely failure which triggers an AD in the
> first place?"
[Tim]
That would obviously be a personal decision, but for me I like to be safe.
I just don't want to be mandated to document it in the logs unless I see fit
to do so. I find it interesting that I can install for instance a non
aviation product that has no safety record without any AD responsibility.
But if I install an aviation product for the same purpose and an AD comes
out I have an obligation to do something about it or be condemned. Maybe
the solution is to take the non AD compliant part out and replace it with a
non aviation component to correct the problem. Do you see my point yet?
Please realize I am not suggesting I would do this, just that it makes no
sense to apply this to an experimental.
>
> I think Vans article said it well in EAA Sport - "Kicking the Bear".
> There are now purported to be over 29,000 non certificated experiments
> placing John Q in continually risk of the sky falling. I am not sure I
> want John Q. linking the two as one large group of builders.
>
> Do your own thing at all of our peril. Do it within the yet to be
> amended rules - Good Deal, Good Luck with the answers and your response
> to the NPRM. Let us all know what you find to your question.
>
[Tim]
I have seen a very scary RV-6A that I wouldn't ride in but had an A/W. I
have also flown a one off design airplane that was perfectly safe. You
cannot link an airplane to safety just because it had an A/W cert and you
can't assume just because it was a VANS (or other well known) kit that it is
safe to fly over your head.
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sun-n-Fun questions |
Paint!?!? I think you meant POLISH! :)
Scott "I don't want no stinkin' paint" Littfin
do not archive
Dale Ensing wrote:
>
> Suggest you fly the higher altitude pattern at SNF and keep your speed
> up if the there are many planes in the pattern. My experience is that
> there can be planes just too slow for comfortable/safe flying RVs at
> the lower/slower pattern.
>
> Recommend Homebuilt camping and don't worry about your unpainted RV.
> There are always a few unpainted planes there. It is still a
> beautiful! You can compete with the show stoppers next year after it
> has been painted.
> Dale Ensing
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bobby Hester"
> <bobbyhester@newwavecomm.net>
> To: <OhioValleyRVators@yahoogroups.com>; <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 7:15 AM
> Subject: RV-List: Sun-n-Fun questions
>
>
>> <bobbyhester@newwavecomm.net>
>>
>> I plan on flying to Sun-n-Fun and while doing my flight planning I
>> have a few questions. The two different altitudes listed for the Lake
>> Parker arrival, the lowest one is for aircraft that fly 100 knots 115
>> mph, the higher one is for aircraft that fly 150 knots 170 mph. Which
>> one do you guys use? Do you find that the lower one has planes that
>> are flying too slow for an RV or do you find that the higher one has
>> planes that are faster than an RV?
>>
>> I cruise right now at about 150-160 mph, don't have all my pants on yet.
>>
>> Have you ever parked in Homebuilt camping? My RV is not painted and
>> not ready to be sitting beside the prize winners yet, I'm thinking
>> I'd rather just came with my plane.
>>
>> --
>> ----
>> Surfing the web from Hopkinsville, KY
>> Visit my flying RV7A web page:
>> http://home.newwavecomm.net/bobbyhester/MyFlyingRV7A.htm
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Flying Corben Junior Ace - Building RV-4
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | flap actuator and pitot tube for sale |
Guys,
A local Rocket builder has a new flap actuator motor and a new Gretz
GA-1000 heated pitot tube for sale. Details on the URL below.
Thanks,
Vince
http://vincesrocket.com/products.htm
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Do AD's really apply? |
In a message dated 3/26/2008 10:54:07 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
panamared5@brier.net writes:
I received an AD in the mail last night for my IO-360 in my RV. This
is in spite of the fact that the aircraft registration states my
engine is unknown. How does the FAA know??!!
The AD requires me to inspect and or replace parts as needed on a
Bendix fuel servo. Since I have an Airflow Performance servo, I
figure this AD does not apply. But on the other hand, technically
there is no such thing as an IO-360 with an Airflow Performance
servo, that would be an uncertified engine and we all know that the
Lycoming IO-360 is a certified engine. The data plate on my engine
says it is a Lycoming IO-360, therefore I must comply with the AD
even though it is not possible.
Now maybe some A&P IA with a law degree can explain what type of
Logbook entry I should make. I would never want some A&P IA to ever
think I was unsafe just because I fly an experimental and cut corners
on an incorrect Logbook entry!
My point exactly!
I would like someone to " 'Splain Lucy" this one.
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 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Do AD's really apply? |
In a message dated 3/26/2008 11:47:51 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
gyoung@cs-sol.com writes:
To make it easy to review ADs from year to year you can
keep an AD log and just show "N/A" and a brief reason why not such as
"component not installed". Not required but a real convenience.
If you "don't" have something in the first place why address it at all
rather than writing it down before the fact. 'Kinda sounds like walking into a
store, not seeing what you like then getting a receipt on the way out for $0.00
to prove to anyone who asks that you didn't buy anything.
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 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Do AD's really apply? |
On 15:11 2008-03-26 JFLEISC@aol.com wrote:
> If you "don't" have something in the first place why address it at
> all rather than writing it down before the fact. 'Kinda sounds like
> walking into a store, not seeing what you like then getting a receipt
> on the way out for $0.00 to prove to anyone who asks that you didn't
> buy anything.
I think that's a bad analogy. A better way to think of it is, you're
making a list of AD's that are peripherally related (ie. they apply to an
extremely similar part, or they apply to what your engine was before you
started playing with the injection, intakes, whatever). Keeping this list
shows to both Das Fed and any potential buyers that you have at least seen
the AD, and considered it's applicability.
Personally, i'd keep a list of AD's and what I did about them. That list
may include a "does not apply", but I would add wording as to *why* I
thought it didn't apply.
-Rob
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Do AD's really apply? |
Bob, I got one too and I have a 360-A1A Carb version!! On top of that for all
the FAA knows I could be running Custom pistons and a cam!!!
That is why it's EXPERIMENTAL!! AD's do not apply!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tom in Ohio
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob" <panamared5@brier.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 12:44:32 PM (GMT-0500) America/New_York
Subject: Re: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply?
At 08:52 AM 3/25/08, you wrote:
>I was one
>of those that thought AD's don't apply to experimentals. Wow. I'm glad I
>learned the truth of the matter.
I received an AD in the mail last night for my IO-360 in my RV. This
is in spite of the fact that the aircraft registration states my
engine is unknown. How does the FAA know??!!
The AD requires me to inspect and or replace parts as needed on a
Bendix fuel servo. Since I have an Airflow Performance servo, I
figure this AD does not apply. But on the other hand, technically
there is no such thing as an IO-360 with an Airflow Performance
servo, that would be an uncertified engine and we all know that the
Lycoming IO-360 is a certified engine. The data plate on my engine
says it is a Lycoming IO-360, therefore I must comply with the AD
even though it is not possible.
Now maybe some A&P IA with a law degree can explain what type of
Logbook entry I should make. I would never want some A&P IA to ever
think I was unsafe just because I fly an experimental and cut corners
on an incorrect Logbook entry!
Of course all of these issues would go away if the FAA just made all
experimental aircraft meet all certified aircraft standards!
Bob
RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Do AD's really apply? |
Perhaps the FAA considered this AD so important it sent it to everyone on
the aircraft registry.
Bruce
www.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tom & Cathy Ervin
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 6:47 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply?
--> <tcervin@embarqmail.com>
Bob, I got one too and I have a 360-A1A Carb version!! On top of that for
all the FAA knows I could be running Custom pistons and a cam!!!
That is why it's EXPERIMENTAL!! AD's do not apply!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tom in Ohio
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob" <panamared5@brier.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 12:44:32 PM (GMT-0500) America/New_York
Subject: Re: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply?
At 08:52 AM 3/25/08, you wrote:
>I was one
>of those that thought AD's don't apply to experimentals. Wow. I'm
>glad I learned the truth of the matter.
I received an AD in the mail last night for my IO-360 in my RV. This
is in spite of the fact that the aircraft registration states my
engine is unknown. How does the FAA know??!!
The AD requires me to inspect and or replace parts as needed on a
Bendix fuel servo. Since I have an Airflow Performance servo, I
figure this AD does not apply. But on the other hand, technically
there is no such thing as an IO-360 with an Airflow Performance
servo, that would be an uncertified engine and we all know that the
Lycoming IO-360 is a certified engine. The data plate on my engine
says it is a Lycoming IO-360, therefore I must comply with the AD
even though it is not possible.
Now maybe some A&P IA with a law degree can explain what type of
Logbook entry I should make. I would never want some A&P IA to ever
think I was unsafe just because I fly an experimental and cut corners
on an incorrect Logbook entry!
Of course all of these issues would go away if the FAA just made all
experimental aircraft meet all certified aircraft standards!
Bob
RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Do AD's really apply? |
Just a quick note here, my DAR stated that I had to "address" any AD that p
ertained to any part on my airplane prior to his inspection. By "address"
he stated I had to make an entry in the appropriate log book stating how I
"addressed" the AD, ie., inspection ever 50 hours, I'll get to it, looks go
od I'll look again later. Since I assembled my engine, I had a lot of AD p
ages to look through. I actually didn't have any AD's which I had not "add
ressed" appropriately.
YMMV
Dana Overall
Richmond, KY i39
RV-7 slider "Black Magic"
Flying
O 360 A1A, C/S C2YR-1BF/F7666A4
http://rvflying.tripod.com/firstflight_010.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMi05-WU2D0#GU5U2spHI_4
http://rvflying.tripod.com
do not archive
_________________________________________________________________
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 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Do AD's really apply? |
On 26 Mar 2008, at 17:46, JFLEISC@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 3/26/2008 10:54:07 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> panamared5@brier.net writes:
> I received an AD in the mail last night for my IO-360 in my RV. This
> is in spite of the fact that the aircraft registration states my
> engine is unknown. How does the FAA know??!!
>
> The AD requires me to inspect and or replace parts as needed on a
> Bendix fuel servo. Since I have an Airflow Performance servo, I
> figure this AD does not apply. But on the other hand, technically
> there is no such thing as an IO-360 with an Airflow Performance
> servo, that would be an uncertified engine and we all know that the
> Lycoming IO-360 is a certified engine. The data plate on my engine
> says it is a Lycoming IO-360, therefore I must comply with the AD
> even though it is not possible.
>
> Now maybe some A&P IA with a law degree can explain what type of
> Logbook entry I should make. I would never want some A&P IA to ever
> think I was unsafe just because I fly an experimental and cut corners
> on an incorrect Logbook entry!
> My point exactly!
> I would like someone to " 'Splain Lucy" this one.
>
Before we start, I need to say that I believe it makes no sense at
all for the regs to make ADs apply to experimental aircraft. But,
we have to work with the regs as they are actually worded, rather
than pretend they were worded the way we think they should be. If
you read FAR 39.3, the wording quite clearly applies to all aircraft,
including experimental aircraft. FAR 39.3 says " FAA's airworthiness
directives are legally enforceable rules that apply to the following
products: aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances".
This wording would clearly apply to amateur-built aircraft. The
wording in FAR 39.3 has changed since the EAA got a legal opinion
that ADs did not apply to experimental aircraft. That opinion was
perfectly valid with the old wording of FAR 39.3, but it was
invalidated by the amendment to FAR 39.3 in 2002.
Several listers have asked what happens if the engine has been
modified such that the AD cannot apply, e.g. by replacing the Bendix
FI system with an AFP FI system. In this case FAR 39.15, 39.17, and
39.19 apply (see the extract from FAR 39 below).
========
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.
39.17 What must I do if a change in a product affects my ability to
accomplish the actions required in an airworthiness directive?
If a change in a product affects your ability to accomplish the
actions required by the airworthiness directive in any way, you must
request FAA approval of an alternative method of compliance. Unless
you can show the change eliminated the unsafe condition, your request
should include the specific actions that you propose to address the
unsafe condition. Submit your request in the manner described in =A739.19.
39.19 May I address the unsafe condition in a way other than that
set out in the airworthiness directive?
Yes, anyone may propose to FAA an alternative method of compliance or
a change in the compliance time, if the proposal provides an
acceptable level of safety. Unless FAA authorizes otherwise, send
your proposal to your principal inspector. Include the specific
actions you are proposing to address the unsafe condition. The
principal inspector may add comments and will send your request to
the manager of the office identified in the airworthiness directive
(manager). You may send a copy to the manager at the same time you
send it to the principal inspector. If you do not have a principal
inspector send your proposal directly to the manager. You may use the
alternative you propose only if the manager approves it.
========
end of extract from FAR 39
========
I am very glad that the situation in Canada is much better. CAR 593
admittedly could be interpreted such that an AD on a type
certificated engine would apply, even if the engine were installed in
an amateur-built aircraft. But, the notes in Standard 593 make it
very clear that ADs in Canada are not intended to apply to amateur-
built aircraft, even if an aeronautical product installed on that
aircraft has an AD against it.
--
Kevin Horton
RV-8 (FInal Assembly)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Do AD's really apply? |
hi all:
Reference extensive mod/repairs that might require a fly off, look at your
operating limitations there should be something about a five hour fly off requirement
to determine the latest aircraft performance numbers. this would apply
to any and all mods that fall under the major alteration of part 43 appendix
?b i think. that will effect aircraft handling or flight characteristics. just
as a flight test report is required on a certified aircraft.
rick
---------------------------------
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Do AD's really apply? |
Your choice - you don't have to create a log even for certified aircraft.
But if you need (or want) to review AD compliance like certified aircraft
must on every annual or for a sale or for those fretting that they can't
just toss the notice without "doing" something then this is a simple thing
to do. For a certified plane your IA is going to pull a list of all
applicable AD's for your airframe, engine, prop and accessories. It can be
huge with tons of stuff that doesn't really apply to your specific airplane.
You can pay him to evaluate each to see if it really requires action and
then, if it does, dig through your logs and find the compliance entry - or
you can create a log the first time and save him some time and yourself some
money on subsequent reviews. Certainly less impact for experimentals but
it's optional for either.
Regards,
Greg Young
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JFLEISC@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply?
In a message dated 3/26/2008 11:47:51 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
gyoung@cs-sol.com writes:
To make it easy to review ADs from year to year you can
keep an AD log and just show "N/A" and a brief reason why not such as
"component not installed". Not required but a real convenience.
If you "don't" have something in the first place why address it at all
rather than writing it down before the fact. 'Kinda sounds like walking into
a store, not seeing what you like then getting a receipt on the way out for
$0.00 to prove to anyone who asks that you didn't buy anything.
Jim
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Do AD's really apply? |
You can take a clue from what I will do on my certified Mooney with the
same engine. I will note in my AD compliance records N/A, fuel servo
overhauled outside applicable dates. In your case I'd say N/A, Precision
FI servo not installed.
KM
A&P/IA
EAA Tech Counselor
Bob wrote:
>
> I received an AD in the mail last night for my IO-360 in my RV. This
> is in spite of the fact that the aircraft registration states my
> engine is unknown. How does the FAA know??!!
>
> The AD requires me to inspect and or replace parts as needed on a
> Bendix fuel servo. Since I have an Airflow Performance servo, I
> figure this AD does not apply. But on the other hand, technically
> there is no such thing as an IO-360 with an Airflow Performance servo,
> that would be an uncertified engine and we all know that the Lycoming
> IO-360 is a certified engine. The data plate on my engine says it is a
> Lycoming IO-360, therefore I must comply with the AD even though it is
> not possible.
>
> Now maybe some A&P IA with a law degree can explain what type of
> Logbook entry I should make. I would never want some A&P IA to ever
> think I was unsafe just because I fly an experimental and cut corners
> on an incorrect Logbook entry!
>
> Of course all of these issues would go away if the FAA just made all
> experimental aircraft meet all certified aircraft standards!
>
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: flying wide open in turb.flying wide open in turb. |
Not to mention L100-30(larger civilian version of C-130) that snapped
both wings off by not slowing for reported turbulence(circa 1975) and
got to say their last words to Anchorage Center on their way down.
gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com wrote:
> >From: "Russell Daves" <dav1111@erfwireless.net
> <mailto:dav1111@erfwireless.net>>
> >Subject: Re: flying wide open in turb.flying wide open in turb.
> Didn't read the article yet but bottom line YOU CAN DIE.
> Airplanes are not invincible and even jetliners have broken
> apart for gust. (Japan over mount fuji.)
>
> Fly below at or Va - maneuvering in severe turb.
> Even the Boeing's I fly have turb air penetration air-speeds.
>
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Do AD's really apply? |
I will reiterate........The FAA will not hold you liable for not complying
with an AD. Whether it is smart or not to not comply is another matter.
For a logbook entry here the log entry would go something like this:
3/26/2008 206.7TT AD2008-1-2(sample) found to be exempt due to Bendix Fue
l seervo not being installed. Airflow Performance fuel servo is installed.
Sign it, Print your name below that and add the word "Owner" or put the w
ord "Repairman" and then your repairman number.
Thats it.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:44:32 -0600> To: rv-list@matronics.com> From: p
anamared5@brier.net> Subject: Re: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply?> > -->
RV-List message posted by: Bob <panamared5@brier.net>> > At 08:52 AM 3/25/
08, you wrote:> >I was one> >of those that thought AD's don't apply to expe
rimentals. Wow. I'm glad I> >learned the truth of the matter.> > I received
an AD in the mail last night for my IO-360 in my RV. This > is in spite of
the fact that the aircraft registration states my > engine is unknown. How
does the FAA know??!!> > The AD requires me to inspect and or replace part
s as needed on a > Bendix fuel servo. Since I have an Airflow Performance s
ervo, I > figure this AD does not apply. But on the other hand, technically
> there is no such thing as an IO-360 with an Airflow Performance > servo,
that would be an uncertified engine and we all know that the > Lycoming IO
-360 is a certified engine. The data plate on my engine > says it is a Lyco
ming IO-360, therefore I must comply with the AD > even though it is not po
ssible.> > Now maybe some A&P IA with a law degree can explain what type of
> Logbook entry I should make. I would never want some A&P IA to ever > th
ink I was unsafe just because I fly an experimental and cut corners > on an
incorrect Logbook entry!> > Of course all of these issues would go away if
the FAA just made all > experimental aircraft meet all certified aircraft
================> > >
_________________________________________________________________
Test your Star IQ
http://club.live.com/red_carpet_reveal.aspx?icid=redcarpet_HMTAGMAR
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Do AD's really apply? |
Looks like Precision Airmotive LLC RSA-5, RSA-10 are included in the new
AD#2008-06-51, I just received today.
Tom Gummo
Apple Valley, CA
Harmon Rocket-II
do not archive
http://mysite.verizon.net/t.gummo/index.html
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Robertson
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 6:47 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply?
I will reiterate........The FAA will not hold you liable for not
complying with an AD. Whether it is smart or not to not comply is
another matter.
For a logbook entry here the log entry would go something like this:
3/26/2008 206.7TT AD2008-1-2(sample) found to be exempt due to
Bendix Fuel seervo not being installed. Airflow Performance fuel servo
is installed. Sign it, Print your name below that and add the word
"Owner" or put the word "Repairman" and then your repairman number.
Thats it.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:44:32 -0600
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> From: panamared5@brier.net
> Subject: Re: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply?
>
>
> At 08:52 AM 3/25/08, you wrote:
> >I was one
> >of those that thought AD's don't apply to experimentals. Wow. I'm
glad I
> >learned the truth of the matter.
>
> I received an AD in the mail last night for my IO-360 in my RV. This
> is in spite of the fact that the aircraft registration states my
> engine is unknown. How does the FAA know??!!
>
> The AD requires me to inspect and or replace parts as needed on a
> Bendix fuel servo. Since I have an Airflow Performance servo, I
> figure this AD does not apply. But on the other hand, technically
> there is no such thing as an IO-360 with an Airflow Performance
> servo, that would be an uncertified engine and we all know that the
> Lycoming IO-360 is a certified engine. The data plate on my engine
> says it is a Lycoming IO-360, therefore I must comply with the AD
> even though it is not possible.
>
> Now maybe some A&P IA with a law degree can explain what type of
> Logbook entry I should make. I would never want some A&P IA to ever
> think I was unsafe just because I fly an experimental and cut
corners
> on an incorrect Logbook entry!
>
> Of course all of these issues would go away if the FAA just made all
> experimental aircraft meet all certified aircraft standards!
>
> Bob
> RV6 "Wicked Wi======
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Test your Star IQ Play now!
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Do AD's really apply? |
There's gotta be something going on behind the scenes (political maybe?).
The printed copy I got didn't have an N-number like they normally do and I
saw a screen crawler on Fox News referencing it. Something like "safety
alert affects thousands of general aviation piston aircraft." I've never
seen a GA AD make the news like that. If something is up politically you
know it can't be good for us.
Regards,
Greg Young
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Gray
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 6:14 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply?
>
>
> Perhaps the FAA considered this AD so important it sent it to
> everyone on the aircraft registry.
>
> Bruce
> www.Glasair.org
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tom
> & Cathy Ervin
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 6:47 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply?
>
>
> --> <tcervin@embarqmail.com>
>
> Bob, I got one too and I have a 360-A1A Carb version!! On
> top of that for all the FAA knows I could be running Custom
> pistons and a cam!!!
> That is why it's EXPERIMENTAL!! AD's do not apply!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Tom in Ohio
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Do AD's really apply? YES |
Good grief...the FAA & manufactures issue an AD & what I read is "kill the messenger",
ignore the AD on "experimental" grounds.
There IS, not maybe or possible, there IS a problem with the gasket guys (& gals)
but read the whole AD there is a start date for the bad gaskets. We pulled
the cowl on HRII and checked the plug: tight. Our last repair was 2002, the start
of the bad gaskets is 2006. Over here at APV we'd rather be safe than DEAD.
Same gasket part# on the IO-540. Sorry guys but the FAA & lots of others are
only trying to help you save your bacon. ALL the A&P's here got the letter too.
Spread the word not stir the S%!(. The life you safe may be your own. Check
the damn gasket....Please. KABONG
>From: Tom Gummo <T.gummo@verizon.net>
>Date: 2008/03/26 Wed PM 10:20:47 CDT
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply?
>Looks like Precision Airmotive LLC RSA-5, RSA-10 are included in the new AD#2008-06-51,
I just received today.Tom Gummo
>Apple Valley, CA
>Harmon Rocket-IIdo not
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! --
|