---------------------------------------------------------- RV-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 03/26/08: 42 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:10:16 AM PST US From: Kelly McMullen 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 2 _____________________________________ Time: 04:19:19 AM PST US From: Bobby Hester 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 3 _____________________________________ Time: 05:02:24 AM PST US Subject: Re: RV-List: Sun-n-Fun questions From: eddyfernan@aol.com 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:06:23 AM PST US From: "Dale Ensing" Subject: Re: RV-List: 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" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:15:10 AM PST US Subject: RE: RV-List: Sun-n-Fun questions From: "Chuck Jensen" >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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:52:10 AM PST US From: Bob 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 7 _____________________________________ Time: 08:18:49 AM PST US From: "Tim Bryan" 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 8 _____________________________________ Time: 08:30:37 AM PST US From: Eddie Moran 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 9 _____________________________________ Time: 08:45:24 AM PST US From: "Greg Young" Subject: RE: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:47:40 AM PST US From: linn Walters Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:00:04 AM PST US Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: Log book entries From: "John W. Cox" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:11:54 AM PST US From: "Tim Bryan" 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 _____ 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: 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? 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:18:34 AM PST US From: "Ralph Finch" Subject: RE: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:18:35 AM PST US Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply? From: John Jessen 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:43:53 AM PST US From: David Cudney Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:43:54 AM PST US From: "Tim Bryan" 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 17 ____________________________________ Time: 09:48:15 AM PST US From: Subject: RV-List: Re: flying wide open in turb.flying wide open in turb. >From: "Russell Daves" >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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:08:22 AM PST US From: "Terry Watson" Subject: RE: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:15:30 AM PST US From: "Bill Boyd" Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:24:32 AM PST US From: "Thilo Kind" Subject: AW: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:39:00 AM PST US Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply? From: John Jessen 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:48:19 AM PST US Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply? From: "John W. Cox" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:06:04 AM PST US From: "Carl Froehlich" Subject: RE: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:53:14 AM PST US From: "Tim Bryan" Subject: RE: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:21:36 PM PST US From: "Tim Bryan" Subject: RE: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:48:22 PM PST US From: Scott Subject: Re: RV-List: 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" > > To: ; > 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 >> >> >> >> >> > > -- Scott http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/ Flying Corben Junior Ace - Building RV-4 Gotta Fly or Gonna Die ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 02:48:33 PM PST US Subject: RV-List: flap actuator and pitot tube for sale From: "Frazier, Vincent A" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:49:38 PM PST US From: JFLEISC@aol.com Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:15:18 PM PST US From: JFLEISC@aol.com 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 **************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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:39:26 PM PST US From: "Rob Prior" Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:52:42 PM PST US From: Tom & Cathy Ervin Subject: Re: RV-List: 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:21:59 PM PST US From: "Bruce Gray" 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 Subject: Re: RV-List: 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:35:35 PM PST US From: Dana Overall Subject: RE: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:40:25 PM PST US From: Kevin Horton Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:41:56 PM PST US From: RICHARD MILLER Subject: RE: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:28:30 PM PST US From: "Greg Young" Subject: RE: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:39:13 PM PST US From: Kelly McMullen Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:41:42 PM PST US From: Kelly McMullen Subject: Re: RV-List: 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" > > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:51:57 PM PST US From: Mike Robertson 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 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 > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:26:21 PM PST US From: "Tom Gummo" 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-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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:37:59 PM PST US From: "Greg Young" Subject: RE: RV-List: 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? > > > --> > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:44:21 PM PST US From: Subject: RV-List: 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 >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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message rv-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/RV-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/rv-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/rv-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.