Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:51 AM - Re: Log book entries (N395V)
2. 07:26 AM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (Bob J.)
3. 08:05 AM - Re: Electrical gyros needed. (Eddie Moran)
4. 08:31 AM - Re: Electrical gyros needed. (Bill Boyd)
5. 10:15 AM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (Mike Robertson)
6. 02:17 PM - Re: Re: Nose Gear Fork the Hard Way (Brian Meyette)
7. 03:00 PM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (JFLEISC@aol.com)
8. 03:13 PM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (JFLEISC@aol.com)
9. 03:13 PM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (Kelly McMullen)
10. 03:24 PM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (linn Walters)
11. 03:47 PM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (Neal George)
12. 03:56 PM - Re: Do AD's really apply ()
13. 04:45 PM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (JFLEISC@aol.com)
14. 05:04 PM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (Kelly McMullen)
15. 05:11 PM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (Kelly McMullen)
16. 06:44 PM - New noise in NAV radio (Ken Hill)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Log book entries |
This is paragraph 8 from the above referenced AC
8. APPLICABILITY OF AD's. Each AD contains an applicability statement specifying
the
product (aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance) to which it applies.
Some aircraft
owners and operators mistakenly assume that AD's do not apply to aircraft with
other than
standard airworthiness certificates, i.e., special airworthiness certificates in
the restricted, limited,
or experimental category. Unless specifically stated, AD's apply to the make and
model set forth
in the applicability statement regardless of the classification or category of
the airworthiness
certificate issued for the aircraft. Type certificate and airworthiness certification
information are
used to identify the product affected. Limitations may be placed on applicability
by specifying
the serial number or number series to which the AD is applicable. When there is
no reference to
serial numbers, all serial numbers are affected. The following are examples of
AD applicability
statements:
--------
Milt
2003 F1 Rocket
2006 Radial Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=172995#172995
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Do AD's really apply? |
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Mike Robertson <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> 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.
>
Mike, don't take this the wrong way but unless its in writing on FAA
letterhead from my district FSDO where I operate from and it states exactly
what you say that its OK to not comply with AD's in experimentals, I can't
say I would ever believe your statement. Its because the FAR 39, as it is
written today, is very clear, and there is nothing in the FAR's that exempts
experimentals. Your district may take the correct position of not enforcing
AD's on garage builts and I wholeheartedly applaud that but knowing that
FSDO's are nothing but a loose confederation of fiefdoms, what gets
interpreted one way in one district gets interpreted differently in
another. Heck I know of FSDO offices that don't want anything to do with
small airplanes.
Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying F1 under const.
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Electrical gyros needed. |
Bill, thanks for the reply. Yes, send additional info please. You don't have
a elec dg too?
Eddie Moran
Bill Boyd <sportav8r@gmail.com> wrote:
Eddie- I have a 14 volt artificial horizon that has flown flawlessly many years
in my RV and was replaced with a Dynon EFIS last year. I've been meaning to
put it on eBay but have been too lazy to do so - I was going to get to it this
spring...
I can send you pictures and more detailed description when I get home, if you are
interested. It's standard size, operational as removed, comes with the power
connector, and I will guarantee it not to be DOA. I would want $350 for it
including shipping and insurance.
Bill Boyd
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Eddie Moran <lizzardracing@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi,
I am in need of a standard size electrical dg and an artificial attitude indicator.
I am replacing the vacuum driven instruments on my aircraft.
321-453-0657
Thanks,
Eddie Moran
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Electrical gyros needed. |
Nope, just the horizon. Sorry. I will send pix soon. How much of a hurry
are you in?
-Bill
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Eddie Moran <lizzardracing@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Bill, thanks for the reply. Yes, send additional info please. You don't
> have a elec dg too?
>
> Eddie Moran
>
> *Bill Boyd <sportav8r@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
> *
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Do AD's really apply? |
Bob,
Actually this stand that it is not enforcable, as of today, is in writing.
It is from a report to the Aircraft Certification Management Team date Apr
il 28-30, 1998. This report has not be revised or redone since and is stil
l valid. That said, it doesn't mean it couldn't change tomorrow. The actu
al statement is to be found on page two of the report under the summary of
conclusions, paragraph 1.
The reason I bring this up is exactly what you are talking about, which is
local choice of trying to enforce an AD. The Eastern region tried to make
AD appicable in 2003. When this Memo reached Washington AD, they Eastern R
egion was forced to retract their Memo. This is also supported by an artic
le that can be found in the FAA news magazine May/June 1999 issue.
A couple of years ago, right after FAR 39 changed the wording, I checked wi
th our HQ in DC to check and see if the wording change now included Experim
entals. The answer was that yes, they apply, but are still not enforcable
and that the Report from April 1998 was still the definitive/ruling documen
t.
Again, I am not trying to get into whether or not complying with an AD is t
he intelligent thing to do, rather I am just addressing the legal issue.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
atronics.comSubject: Re: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply?
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Mike Robertson <mrobert569@hotmail.com> wr
ote:
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.Mik
e, don't take this the wrong way but unless its in writing on FAA letterhea
d from my district FSDO where I operate from and it states exactly what you
say that its OK to not comply with AD's in experimentals, I can't say I wo
uld ever believe your statement. Its because the FAR 39, as it is written
today, is very clear, and there is nothing in the FAR's that exempts experi
mentals. Your district may take the correct position of not enforcing AD's
on garage builts and I wholeheartedly applaud that but knowing that FSDO's
are nothing but a loose confederation of fiefdoms, what gets interpreted o
ne way in one district gets interpreted differently in another. Heck I kno
w of FSDO offices that don't want anything to do with small airplanes.Regar
ds,Bob JapundzaRV-6 flying F1 under const.
_________________________________________________________________
Test your Star IQ
http://club.live.com/red_carpet_reveal.aspx?icid=redcarpet_HMTAGMAR
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Nose Gear Fork the Hard Way |
as described in earlier posts on this thread and on VAF
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=24523
and
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?p=210298#post210298
removing the nose gear leg just wasn't going to be an option for me. To make
a long story short, I used the $50 Japanese die from MSC and did most of the
threads with that. However, it got tighter and tighter as I added threads,
with a LOT of binding, despite using lots of lubricant and back-and-forth.
By the time I'd done 7/8" of threads, it was so tight, I was using a 2'
cheater pipe and broke the handle on the die holder.
I bought a new $120 US-made die from F&D Tool, and it worked super. First,
even adjusted all the way out, it cut more into the threads I'd already
created, so the die wasn't binding up any more. Then it did the rest of the
threads easily, with no binding & no cheater bar needed. If you're needing
a lot of force, your die is probably worn out.
You CAN thread it yourself, but be sure to get a very good US-made
adjustable die, use lots lubricant and back-and-forth motion,. It doesn't
save any money, though, so the only reason for doing it is for people whose
leg or leg bolt is in too tight to get out, as mine was.
for details, see http://brian76.mystarband.net/engineFeb08.htm#feb24
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly Patterson
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 7:54 AM
Subject: RV-List: Re: Nose Gear Fork the Hard Way
> ________________________________ Message 4
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 02:03:00 PM PST US
> From: Rquinn1@aol.com
> Subject: RV-List: Vans New front forks for RV6 and 7As
>
> I just received my new front gear leg fork from Vans to complete the
> modification recommend by Vans.
> The fork did not look new, in fact it appears to have been installed
> before.
> I phone Vans and was told by Joe that this is the result of the
> contractor's jig. Has any else noticed this?
>
> Also I plan to make the modifications during my next annual and at that
> time
> I plan to leave the gear leg in place and rethread and cut the leg as
> required. Does any one have the correct thread size?
>
> Thanks
>
> Rollie & Rod
> RV6A 799RQ
> El Paso Int Airport
>
I completed my nose gear re-work this long weekend, though I went about it
the old fashioned way re-using all my parts. Here's how it went...
The stock fork came off, stripped it of bolts and bushings, and I hacksawed
off 1" from the bottom. This took about 1 hour of sawing by hand. I *highly*
recommend a powered saw by all means. A die grinder then sliced the bottom
wedges (moving aft) toward the axle. The rough cut is now done.
Then came a bunch of grinding & filing & polishing to get everything
parallel and airworthy. I stopped when the top and bottom bushing faces were
within 0.005". The major fork work is now done.
With the weld on the bottom removed, I needed to get some strength back. I
was not interested in re-welding and heat-treating the fork, so I chose to
add a 5/16" dia. x 5/8" long allen head "set screw" as a shear pin. This is
placed just aft of the fork pivot, and 3/8" above the cut, in the meaty hunk
of aluminum fork. Drill & tap, then set with locktite.
I also added a couple 3/4" lightening holes near the axle, just like the new
fork. This was followed by a deburr and cleanup, with a shot of paint to
finish. Pound the bushings back in, replace the bolts and grease zerk, and
it is ready to install. Note: the stock zerk location *just* clears the
bushing when re-installed, so it did not require any modification.
Now the really hard part...threading the gear leg. We did it on the plane. I
used an adjustable 1.25 x 16TPH die with 18" extension handles on both sides
of the die holder. It took 2 guys wrestling the die for about an hour to cut
the threads. The gear leg gets so hot you can almost burn yourself! Used
lots of oil and backed off 1/8 turn after every 1/2 turn cutting. It took 3
passes while necking the die down to get the nut to easily spin on. (The
next day I was a sore puppy!) This die was able to get 2 gear legs cut and
is now missing many teeth...pretty much trashed. I have the 2.5" die holder
(w/die) for $25 shipped if you want to buy it and try it. New die is about
$40.
Last step is to die grind off the bottom 1" of the gear leg, clean up with a
grinder, redrill the cotter pin holes, and put it all back in place. Same
mounting for the wheel pants...so no changes there. Went for a test hop and
my first comment is...no more nose wheel shimmy at ~18 knots...that's nice!
Hope it stays that way.
Maybe 8 hours of work (some of which is very hard). If I did it again...I
would send the leg to the shop for cutting of the threads. The $100 saved
was a pain of hard labor and I'm not 21 any more like my helper. Doing it in
a vise would be a little better, but not much! The other work was just
another day of building airplanes, which is much like fishing, only more
productive and always satisfying.
If you want an old fork - send me an email and I'll sell it for $50 shipped.
It is minus one bushing that was used for a shim.
Happy New Year and Blue Skies!
__________________
Kelly Patterson
kbob at cox dot net
190 hours
RV-6A N716K
PHX,AZ
11:29 AM
Checked by AVG.
6:50 PM
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Do AD's really apply? |
In a message dated 3/26/2008 7:42:40 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
khorton01@rogers.com writes:
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.
The Bendix servo hasn't been 'changed, modified, altered, or repaired', its
not now and never was there. Does this mean that an AD applies to "Joe's"
aircraft even if the part in question was installed on "John's" aircraft?
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 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Do AD's really apply? |
In a message dated 3/27/2008 1:17:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
mrobert569@hotmail.com writes:
A couple of years ago, right after FAR 39 changed the wording, I checked
with our HQ in DC to check and see if the wording change now included
Experimentals. The answer was that yes, they apply, but are still not enforcable
and
that the Report from April 1998 was still the definitive/ruling document.
Again, I am not trying to get into whether or not complying with an AD is
the intelligent thing to do, rather I am just addressing the legal issue.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
That, I will agree with.
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 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Do AD's really apply? |
It only applies if the aircraft in question has the appliance in
question installed, and has been serviced during the time interval
identified in the AD. If the appliance is normally included in that
model engine, it might be reasonable to note in the AD records that said
aircraft is not equipped with a Bendix/Precision servo. Otherwise,
ignore it as not-applicable to your aircraft.
Many AD's are issued citing a number of brands of aircraft that MIGHT
have had appliance in question, and in those cases it saves time to have
a note that said appliance is absent, so that the next A&P looking at
the aircraft doesn't have to research it again.
But there is no need to note any AD applying to say a Continental engine
if you have a Lycoming, or vice versa.
JFLEISC@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 3/26/2008 7:42:40 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> khorton01@rogers.com writes:
>
> 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.
>
> The Bendix servo hasn't been 'changed, modified, altered, or
> repaired', its not now and never was there. Does this mean that an AD
> applies to "Joe's" aircraft even if the part in question was installed
> on "John's" aircraft?
>
> 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 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Do AD's really apply? |
JFLEISC@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 3/26/2008 7:42:40 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> khorton01@rogers.com writes:
>
> 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.
>
> The Bendix servo hasn't been 'changed, modified, altered, or
> repaired', its not now and never was there. Does this mean that an AD
> applies to "Joe's" aircraft even if the part in question was installed
> on "John's" aircraft?
The answer is no. However, that's starting to border on the stupid
question area. This is starting to get scary here. Folks don't want to
log work they did on an AD, folks don't want to have to comply with an
AD, and there's folks that, aparently, can't even read an AD. What's
going on here????
Linn
do not archive.
>
> 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 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Do AD's really apply? |
You READ those things?
It's all I can do to stay awake thru the header info...
neal
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of linn Walters
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply?
JFLEISC@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 3/26/2008 7:42:40 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
khorton01@rogers.com writes:
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.
The Bendix servo hasn't been 'changed, modified, altered, or repaired', its
not now and never was there. Does this mean that an AD applies to "Joe's"
aircraft even if the part in question was installed on "John's" aircraft?
The answer is no. However, that's starting to border on the stupid question
area. This is starting to get scary here. Folks don't want to log work
they did on an AD, folks don't want to have to comply with an AD, and
there's folks that, aparently, can't even read an AD. What's going on
here????
Linn
do not archive.
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Do AD's really apply |
Short answer is NO! If EAA member search their
builders section for info. If still in doubt or wanting more
depth call EAA's legal department. If you can have a
Subaru engine you can have an "experimental Lyc". If
you can carve out your own prop out of wood or
composites than you can have an experimental
Sensenich or Hartzell.
The TRUTH? Well we are at the mercy of the FAA or
their representative who may or may not be really
qualified once in the life of the home built, the initial
approval for Phase I. This can be a real pain in the
back. I have heard it all. A guy had his inspection by a
DAR and he was told he needed and A&P sign off
because the engine was a Lycoming! Look I don't know
if its ignorance, power trip or just guys jealous you have
a beautiful airplane they probably can't make them self
or will ever own? MANY ARE IN SURVIVAL MODE.
They are in PURE Cover There A** mode. They would
rather make you made and be super conservative
needlessly and protect their little Gig as a DAR than get
involved in any controversy, even though the law is
clear. So be aware, they have the power which they us
indeterminately and some times retarded with out
regard to the FAR's or logic.
Now they do have one indisputable argument or logical
reason, WHY NOT? It's a good idea and can't hurt.
That is true so you have to ask yourself is it just being
cheap? Is there any loss of safety? You get to decided
but they tend to impose their "judgment" where they
have no power. They do have the power not to sign it
off and that is it. You can fight it or comply or go
somewhere else. I suspect once in the system you are
"marked" so choose your DAR carefully.
Second if you get Phase one and onto II, than later
change to a prop that is not certified or meets the prop
AD (say a 100 hour inspection) you are OK. The FAA
does not consider a prop change a major mod and they
have no say on AD's.
The COMMON SENSE? Well if there is a serious AD
on engine or Prop or accessories for the engine or prop
than you might be foolish to ignore the AD. Do you want
to fly your wife or kid or grand kid in your plane with say
an AD oil pump or old prop Gov aluminum lines and
fittings? May be may be not.
The new one is the Hartzell 100 hour eddy current
inspection. I talk to many shops and they have never
found a crack. Also the cracks that where found where
in OLD hubs and many off of 300HP agricultural planes.
Hartzell uses the same hub for 150 hp to 300 hp. It
does not take a genius that a prop with 6000 hours of
heavy use on an Ag plane is not like a RV prop with
1000 hours on it. The AD was just shot gunned to
include a bunch of older props. A lot of this is again
being conservative and frankly getting circa 1960's
props off the fleet, a semi force retirement. So can you
expand that inspection to 150 or 250 hours or 500 hrs?
Sure but if something happens you have the moral
and legal responsibility as the pilot and builder at
some point. You have to make a judgment call and
think about it. Now is a known low time hartzell, no
crack verified with no inspections till say 1000 hours
less safe than some experimental prop that has
fleet wide service of a few 100 or a 1000 hours v
a Hartzell design that has been around for 35 years
and been improved after 1/4 million flt hours (?)
in 1000's of props. By the way the hub I am talking
about is the HC-C2YK. The "A" model was started
to be made about 2000? Any way there is not AD
on that prop which is also the same hub as the
new RV blended Airfoil (BA) hub. The inspection
can be done on the plane and it cost $200 an up.
Some shops will want you to remove the prop?
They use an eddy current probe to find a crack
in one location where there is a fillet or gusset as
I recall. If you do hard core aerobatics every day
on you fire breathing 180 or 200 HP Lyc 360 than
you might want to have a look see if your prop is
high time.
---------------------------------
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Do AD's really apply? |
In a message dated 3/27/2008 6:15:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
kellym@aviating.com writes:
It only applies if the aircraft in question has the appliance in
question installed, and has been serviced during the time interval
identified in the AD. If the appliance is normally included in that
model engine, it might be reasonable to note in the AD records that said
aircraft is not equipped with a Bendix/Precision servo. Otherwise,
ignore it as not-applicable to your aircraft.
What is 'normal' on an experimental aircraft? Sounds rather subjective to
me.
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 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Do AD's really apply? |
You really, really, only have to read as far as the applicability
paragraph to decide whether to read further. And many times you only
have to read the title. AD Airbus xyz framus....................you are
done, unless you called your contraption an Airbus.
Neal George wrote:
> You READ those things?
> It's all I can do to stay awake thru the header info...
>
> neal
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *linn Walters
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 27, 2008 6:22 PM
> *To:* rv-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply?
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Do AD's really apply? |
Sheesh,
Use just a hair of common sense. If you have a Lyc IO360A1A, then you
might want to note that your experimental doesn't have the referenced
fuel servo, because every one with a Lycoming dataplate originally came
with said servo. That is what I meant by normal.......in its certified
version, not in your special, experimental that you may have persuaded
the DAR had a certified engine so you could only do a 25 hour flyoff
instead of 40, even though he didn't notice you had changed the servo
and the mags. :-P
JFLEISC@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 3/27/2008 6:15:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> kellym@aviating.com writes:
>
> It only applies if the aircraft in question has the appliance in
> question installed, and has been serviced during the time interval
> identified in the AD. If the appliance is normally included in that
> model engine, it might be reasonable to note in the AD records
> that said
> aircraft is not equipped with a Bendix/Precision servo. Otherwise,
> ignore it as not-applicable to your aircraft.
>
> What is 'normal' on an experimental aircraft? Sounds rather subjective
> to me.
>
> 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 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | New noise in NAV radio |
Last Sunday on a flight from Charleston to Knoxville, my KN-53 Nav radio
developed a noise/static whenever I turned up the volume. The noise is
in both the pilot and passenger headsets. It is bad enough that I have
a difficult time hearing transmissions from NAV sources (weather, FSS,
etc.) It also seems to be picking up surrounding EMF that was not an
issue previously. I borrowed another KN 53 and got the same result.
Also, it is there with the engine not running, but other avionic units
powered up. Understand this was not a problem until recently. I
checked the connections to the antenna and they seem OK. The antenna
does not appear to have any damage. If the antenna leadwire shielding
broke at the tray connector, would it result in this kind of problem?
Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Ken Hill
RV-9A
Kingston, TN
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|