Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:18 AM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (Chuck Jensen)
2. 05:07 AM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (Dale Ensing)
3. 06:10 AM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (Kevin Horton)
4. 06:29 AM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (bert murillo)
5. 06:59 AM - Re: ADs (Mark Sletten)
6. 08:59 AM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (Jerry Springer)
7. 08:59 AM - ADs (Wheeler North)
8. 10:22 AM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (Tim Bryan)
9. 11:18 AM - Do AD's really apply? ()
10. 12:07 PM - Need help with my Visio Panel drawing Stencils (Dave Thompson)
11. 12:10 PM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (Kevin Horton)
12. 01:49 PM - Re: Need help with my Visio Panel drawing Stencils (RALPH HOOVER)
13. 02:33 PM - rotating fuselage stand (Lance Sorensen)
14. 05:06 PM - Re: Do AD's really apply? (whose side are you ON? Liberty?) ()
15. 05:06 PM - Re: Do AD's really apply? (Dale Ensing)
16. 05:54 PM - Miscellaneous tools for sale (Don Mack)
17. 06:02 PM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (whose side are you ON? Liberty?) (Bob J.)
18. 06:28 PM - Q on sump fit on O- & IO-360's (Charlie England)
19. 10:37 PM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (RICHARD MILLER)
20. 11:12 PM - Re: Q on sump fit on O- & IO-360's (Greg Young)
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: Do AD's really apply? |
Would somebody please give gmcjet his meds..
Chuck
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 4:59 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re: Do AD's really apply?
Bob:
If you are a EAA member. Log In and use the search
for two letters AD. The first item will be, "Airworthiness
Directives & Amateur Built Aircraft." Click on that and
read. If you are not a member I'll send it to you.
Bob there is an air of prove it, I dare you; I don't
believe you? I don't like your tone. I am trying to
teach you, but if you are not listening, OK fine have
a nice day. I don't care to fight or convince you.
First its not hypothetical it's a FACT. The EAA
works with the FAA lawyers and are going to
Oklahoma and DC all the time. If you don't believe
them fine. I have not put up any "opinion", it is legal
fact that some how has blown your fuse. I am
OK if you disagree, but you have no facts to support
your opinion or refute.
The prove it part? To prove a negative is like saying
prove dogs can't talk. The only regulation you need to
meet is in the front of your experimental aircraft's log
book and there are no comments about AD's or any
other part of the FAR's except the ones noted.
Bob, prove AD's must be complied with. You can't. I have
read all the regs and talked to the lawyers on this matter,
have you?
Second there is no legal precedence, no lawsuits or
rulings from a judge. If you are foreseeing lawsuits
and violations you better comply with all your AD's
to be conservative.
QUOTE:
THIS AIRCRAFT IS AMATEUR BUILT AND
DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE FEDERAL
SAFETY REGULATIONS FOR STANDARD
AIRCRAFT
Questions?
Your protest or challenge is prima facie ridiculous. No
proof is needed. Prove it to yourself. Part 23, 39, 43
and so on don't APPLY! Next you will tell me I
need a A&P to work on my RV.
I gave you the references and you should do your own
research and evaluation. I can't do it for you. You will
never believe me. I did the leg work and called the
EAA and read the Regs. If nothing I said makes sense
to you or rings a cord of truth, I'm not going to
convince you. No hard feelings. Fly safe.
The idea of less or no government nanny state hand
holding, especially aviation, blows people away and
they can't deal with it.
There is no mechanism to MAKE amateur built
experimental planes comply with AD's, except urban
legend and a few FAA/DAR's CYA'ing because it
can't hurt and gives them the feeling of job security.
To be fair, I have been in that position and have not
want to sign something off, certification documents,
analysis or a part 121 flight plan.
Now you tell me how AD's work? You can't. There is
no link to experimental. The Gov is busy trying to
change that, as if other things where not more
important.
Individual news letters from individual FSDO's don't
mean squat; often they are wrong and become a
source of controversy. One FSDO in the middle of no
where wrote a news letter and said AD's apply many
many yrs ago and it floats around. It is wrong. This is
where the EAA lawyers talking to the FAA lawyers
come in. This is not a debate or controversy, its a fact.
Believe what you want, I am OK with that.
I'm not saying you should disregard any or all AD's
out of hand. However if the Ref EAA article is not
good enough for you (I assume you are a member)
and talk to legal they will tell you all the references
and reasons. You apparently don't have trust in my
comments. That is OK, you should research it. Make
yourself happy, all the best.
George
>From: "Bob J." < rocketbob@gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Do AD's really apply?
>Cite the FAR that says AD's only apply to type
>certificated aircraft. No references to EAA's site, no
>personal opinion, just show us where it says
>experimentals are exempt from AD's. Lets see how
>well your argument hypothetically would hold up in
>court.
>Regards,
>Bob Japundza
>RV-6 flying F1 under const.
">Blockbuster Total Access for one month at no cost.
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: Do AD's really apply? |
Question to the DO advocates
Have been monitoring this discussion and I think I'm becoming a
believer. However, I have an AB experimental plane that I built 20 years
ago. The only "aeronautical product" in it. that I can think of, is the
airspeed indicator and the altimeter. How does compliance to ADs apply
to this airplane or make it safer?
I do want to know if there is a flaw in a product. But, isn't it up to
me, and my responsibility, to decide if I want the product in my
airplane, with or without the flaw, just like it was when I put the
product in the airplane when I originally built it? I have high
compression pistons in the O-360 (Lycoming rebuilt by AeroSport Power)
in my RV-6A. I don't think Lycoming approves of that. Is there an AD
that says I can't have the high compression pistons? Isn't that why I
got a 40 hour Phase I when the data plate says it is a Lycoming O-360?
Is the engine the 'product' or are the pistons the 'product'?
Trying to understand this AD thing.
Dale Ensing
RV-6A N118DE
"Read FAR 39. ADs are issued against "products" and not airworthiness
certificates. If an "aeronautical product" has been found to be a
hazard and FAA issues an AD against it you must comply with the AD.
It matters
not what type of Certificate of Airworthiness the aircraft has."
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: Do AD's really apply? |
You need to read the applicability statement of each AD to see exactly
what it applies to. An AD could, in theory, be written against
specific part number high compression pistons, produced in a certain
range of dates, because it was discovered that an error was make
during manufacturing that could lead to piston failure.
Kevin Horton
On 30-Mar-08, at 08:03 , Dale Ensing wrote:
> Question to the DO advocates
>
> Have been monitoring this discussion and I think I'm becoming a
> believer. However, I have an AB experimental plane that I built 20
> years ago. The only "aeronautical product" in it. that I can think
> of, is the airspeed indicator and the altimeter. How does compliance
> to ADs apply to this airplane or make it safer?
>
> I do want to know if there is a flaw in a product. But, isn't it up
> to me, and my responsibility, to decide if I want the product in my
> airplane, with or without the flaw, just like it was when I put the
> product in the airplane when I originally built it? I have high
> compression pistons in the O-360 (Lycoming rebuilt by AeroSport
> Power) in my RV-6A. I don't think Lycoming approves of that. Is
> there an AD that says I can't have the high compression pistons?
> Isn't that why I got a 40 hour Phase I when the data plate says it
> is a Lycoming O-360?
>
> Is the engine the 'product' or are the pistons the 'product'?
>
> Trying to understand this AD thing.
>
> Dale Ensing
> RV-6A N118DE
>
> "Read FAR 39. ADs are issued against "products" and not airworthiness
> certificates. If an "aeronautical product" has been found to be a
> hazard and FAA issues an AD against it you must comply with the AD.
> It matters
> not what type of Certificate of Airworthiness the aircraft has."
>
> Regards,
> Bob Japundza
> RV-6 flying F1 under const.
>
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: Do AD's really apply? |
--- RALPH HOOVER <hooverra@verizon.net> wrote:
> I HAVE SEEN THIS FOR A LONG TIME, PEOOPLE ASK A
QUESTION, ONLY BECAUSE THEY WANT TO ARGUE WITH YOU,
THEY REALLY DO NOT WANT AN ANSWER....
PEOPOLE DO WHA THEY WANT TO DO.... NOT WHAT THEY
SHOULD DO....
EVERY TIME VAN'S PUBLISH, A ADVISORY,? A.D?
YOU SEE THESE PEOPLE, START THE ARGUMENT...
LETS IGNORE THEM....I WILL COMPLY WITH EVERY ONE,
PERIOD.
BERT
>
>
> FAA Form 8130-6, Application for U.S. Airworthiness
> Certificate Includes the
> following certification in section III B
> Certification Basis. In the EAA's
> guidance for this form they recommend that the
> current "AD revision number"
> be included as well as the compliance block checked.
> This adds further
> evidence that AD's need to complied with (not that
> any more was required)
> just another data point.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES (Check if all applicable
> AD's are compiled with and
> give the number of the last AD SUPPLEMENT available
> in the biweekly series
> as of the date of application)
>
>
>
> Ralph & Laura Hoover
>
> RV7A N527LR (reserved and registration application
> filed)
>
> Ready for transport to the airport for final
> assembly.
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of Bob J.
> Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 7:25 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Do AD's really apply?
>
>
>
> George, it still seems that you haven't bothered to
> read FAR part 39. AD's
> apply to PRODUCTS, not type certificated aircraft.
> If your experimental
> aircraft has a PRODUCT installed that is covered by
> an AD, sure as the sky
> is blue and the night is black that you are required
> to comply with the AD.
>
> I have a good friend who happens to be DAR #1, who's
> ratings and
> endorsements span across five pilot certificates.
> He has testified in 27
> court cases or administrative law hearings on behalf
> of the FAA or against
> the FAA. He is 27-0 as an expert witness, and
> travels the world issuing
> CofA's for transport-category, warbirds, and
> expermentals. I would have to
> say he knows his stuff. I asked him if he knew of
> any enforcement actions
> related to non-compliance of AD's on experimental
> aircraft. His response:
> "Yes, it is quite frequent." More of his response:
>
> "Read FAR 39. ADs are issued against "products" and
> not airworthiness
> certificates. If an "aeronautical product" has been
> found to be a
> hazard and
> FAA issues an AD against it you must comply with the
> AD. It matters
> not what type of Certificate of Airworthiness the
> aircraft has."
>
> Regards,
> Bob Japundza
> RV-6 flying F1 under const.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 5:58 PM,
> <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Bob:
> If you are a EAA member. Log In and use the search
> for two letters AD. The first item will be,
> "Airworthiness
> Directives & Amateur Built Aircraft." Click on that
> and
> read. If you are not a member I'll send it to you.
>
>
>
>
>
> Bob there is an air of prove it, I dare you; I don't
>
> believe you? I don't like your tone. I am trying to
> teach you, but if you are not listening, OK fine
> have
> a nice day. I don't care to fight or convince you.
>
>
>
> First its not hypothetical it's a FACT. The EAA
> works with the FAA lawyers and are going to
> Oklahoma and DC all the time. If you don't believe
> them fine. I have not put up any "opinion", it is
> legal
> fact that some how has blown your fuse. I am
> OK if you disagree, but you have no facts to support
>
> your opinion or refute.
>
>
>
> The prove it part? To prove a negative is like
> saying
> prove dogs can't talk. The only regulation you need
> to
> meet is in the front of your experimental aircraft's
> log
> book and there are no comments about AD's or any
> other part of the FAR's except the ones noted.
>
>
>
> Bob, prove AD's must be complied with. You can't. I
> have
> read all the regs and talked to the lawyers on this
> matter,
> have you?
>
>
>
> Second there is no legal precedence, no lawsuits or
> rulings from a judge. If you are foreseeing lawsuits
>
> and violations you better comply with all your AD's
> to be conservative.
>
>
>
> QUOTE:
>
> THIS AIRCRAFT IS AMATEUR BUILT AND
> DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE FEDERAL
> SAFETY REGULATIONS FOR STANDARD
> AIRCRAFT
>
>
>
> Questions?
>
> Your protest or challenge is prima facie ridiculous.
> No
> proof is needed. Prove it to yourself. Part 23, 39,
> 43
> and so on don't APPLY! Next you will tell me I
>
> need a A&P to work on my RV.
>
>
>
> I gave you the references and you should do your own
>
> research and evaluation. I can't do it for you. You
> will
> never believe me. I did the leg work and called the
> EAA and read the Regs. If nothing I said makes
> sense
> to you or rings a cord of truth, I'm not going to
> convince you. No hard feelings. Fly safe.
>
>
>
> The idea of less or no government nanny state hand
> holding, especially aviation, blows people away and
> they can't deal with it.
>
>
>
> There is no mechanism to MAKE amateur built
> experimental planes comply with AD's, except urban
> legend and a few FAA/DAR's CYA'ing because it
> can't hurt and gives them the feeling of job
> security.
>
> To be fair, I have been in that position and have
> not
>
=== message truncated ==
Like movies? Here's a limited-time offer: Blockbuster Total Access for one month
at no cost.
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text4.com
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 |
|
Wheeler North said:
> In many instances a violation would be difficult
> to impose, but a civil action would be very easy to argue.
Not to mention a denied insurance claim...
Regards,
Mark Sletten
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: Do AD's really apply? |
Here is a link that covers this all very well and explains why an AD
does or does not apply to experimental aircraft.
It is a bit lengthy but read it all through for explanations.
http://starduster.aircraftspruce.com/wwwboard/messages/25960.html
Jerry
bert murillo wrote:
>
>
>--- RALPH HOOVER <hooverra@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>> I HAVE SEEN THIS FOR A LONG TIME, PEOOPLE ASK A
>>
>>
>QUESTION, ONLY BECAUSE THEY WANT TO ARGUE WITH YOU,
>THEY REALLY DO NOT WANT AN ANSWER....
>PEOPOLE DO WHA THEY WANT TO DO.... NOT WHAT THEY
>SHOULD DO....
>
>EVERY TIME VAN'S PUBLISH, A ADVISORY,? A.D?
>YOU SEE THESE PEOPLE, START THE ARGUMENT...
>LETS IGNORE THEM....I WILL COMPLY WITH EVERY ONE,
>PERIOD.
>BERT
>
>
>>
>>
>>FAA Form 8130-6, Application for U.S. Airworthiness
>>Certificate Includes the
>>following certification in section III B
>>Certification Basis. In the EAA's
>>guidance for this form they recommend that the
>>current "AD revision number"
>>be included as well as the compliance block checked.
>>This adds further
>>evidence that AD's need to complied with (not that
>>any more was required)
>>just another data point.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES (Check if all applicable
>>AD's are compiled with and
>>give the number of the last AD SUPPLEMENT available
>>in the biweekly series
>>as of the date of application)
>>
>>
>>
>>Ralph & Laura Hoover
>>
>>RV7A N527LR (reserved and registration application
>>filed)
>>
>>Ready for transport to the airport for final
>>assembly.
>>
>>
>>
>> _____
>>
>>From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
>>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On
>>Behalf Of Bob J.
>>Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 7:25 PM
>>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Do AD's really apply?
>>
>>
>>
>>George, it still seems that you haven't bothered to
>>read FAR part 39. AD's
>>apply to PRODUCTS, not type certificated aircraft.
>>If your experimental
>>aircraft has a PRODUCT installed that is covered by
>>an AD, sure as the sky
>>is blue and the night is black that you are required
>>to comply with the AD.
>>
>>I have a good friend who happens to be DAR #1, who's
>>ratings and
>>endorsements span across five pilot certificates.
>>He has testified in 27
>>court cases or administrative law hearings on behalf
>>of the FAA or against
>>the FAA. He is 27-0 as an expert witness, and
>>travels the world issuing
>>CofA's for transport-category, warbirds, and
>>expermentals. I would have to
>>say he knows his stuff. I asked him if he knew of
>>any enforcement actions
>>related to non-compliance of AD's on experimental
>>aircraft. His response:
>>"Yes, it is quite frequent." More of his response:
>>
>>"Read FAR 39. ADs are issued against "products" and
>>not airworthiness
>>certificates. If an "aeronautical product" has been
>>found to be a
>>hazard and
>>FAA issues an AD against it you must comply with the
>>AD. It matters
>>not what type of Certificate of Airworthiness the
>>aircraft has."
>>
>>Regards,
>>Bob Japundza
>>RV-6 flying F1 under const.
>>
>>
>>
>>On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 5:58 PM,
>><gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>Bob:
>>If you are a EAA member. Log In and use the search
>>for two letters AD. The first item will be,
>>"Airworthiness
>>Directives & Amateur Built Aircraft." Click on that
>>and
>>read. If you are not a member I'll send it to you.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Bob there is an air of prove it, I dare you; I don't
>>
>>believe you? I don't like your tone. I am trying to
>>teach you, but if you are not listening, OK fine
>>have
>>a nice day. I don't care to fight or convince you.
>>
>>
>>
>>First its not hypothetical it's a FACT. The EAA
>>works with the FAA lawyers and are going to
>>Oklahoma and DC all the time. If you don't believe
>>them fine. I have not put up any "opinion", it is
>>legal
>>fact that some how has blown your fuse. I am
>>OK if you disagree, but you have no facts to support
>>
>>your opinion or refute.
>>
>>
>>
>>The prove it part? To prove a negative is like
>>saying
>>prove dogs can't talk. The only regulation you need
>>to
>>meet is in the front of your experimental aircraft's
>>log
>>book and there are no comments about AD's or any
>>other part of the FAR's except the ones noted.
>>
>>
>>
>>Bob, prove AD's must be complied with. You can't. I
>>have
>>read all the regs and talked to the lawyers on this
>>matter,
>>have you?
>>
>>
>>
>>Second there is no legal precedence, no lawsuits or
>>rulings from a judge. If you are foreseeing lawsuits
>>
>>and violations you better comply with all your AD's
>>to be conservative.
>>
>>
>>
>>QUOTE:
>>
>>THIS AIRCRAFT IS AMATEUR BUILT AND
>>DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE FEDERAL
>>SAFETY REGULATIONS FOR STANDARD
>>AIRCRAFT
>>
>>
>>
>>Questions?
>>
>>Your protest or challenge is prima facie ridiculous.
>>No
>>proof is needed. Prove it to yourself. Part 23, 39,
>>43
>>and so on don't APPLY! Next you will tell me I
>>
>>need a A&P to work on my RV.
>>
>>
>>
>>I gave you the references and you should do your own
>>
>>research and evaluation. I can't do it for you. You
>>will
>>never believe me. I did the leg work and called the
>>EAA and read the Regs. If nothing I said makes
>>sense
>>to you or rings a cord of truth, I'm not going to
>>convince you. No hard feelings. Fly safe.
>>
>>
>>
>>The idea of less or no government nanny state hand
>>holding, especially aviation, blows people away and
>>they can't deal with it.
>>
>>
>>
>>There is no mechanism to MAKE amateur built
>>experimental planes comply with AD's, except urban
>>legend and a few FAA/DAR's CYA'ing because it
>>can't hurt and gives them the feeling of job
>>security.
>>
>>To be fair, I have been in that position and have
>>not
>>
>>
>>
>=== message truncated ==
>
>
>Like movies? Here's a limited-time offer: Blockbuster Total Access for one month
at no cost.
>http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text4.com
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Some of the confusion comes from the fact that it is much more difficult
to
prove an AD applies or has been complied with in the EXP world, as I
previously stated, because there are no standards for parts or processes
therein, or for the final result. Part 39 does not exempt anything but
the
parts for standards and processes do exempt EXPs.
So, theoretically you could build an EXP out of no known, registered, or
traceable parts, then build 20 more each somewhat differently. The FAA
could
issue an AD against all of them because of one dangerous part found in
one,
but it could be hard pressed enforce compliance depending on that part.
In the standard category certified world every part and process has to
be
certified and traceable. This makes ADs a whole lot easier to determine
applicability and compliance.
So if you list your Really Volatile dash Six point Five as having a
Nuclear
Oh One Eighty engine and it has a crankshaft in it with a Lycoming part
number etched in that matches an AD applicability call out, you must
comply.
If the part is the same but is not identifiable as such then you should
still
comply and could be sued for not after the accident, but enforcement
actions
would be difficult.
In the "certified" world that same airplane is not airworthy unless that
part
is in it whether it is labeled or not.
So the next question comes what if the AD calls out all Lycoming engines
that
have crankshafts identical to mine even though mine is not specifically
listed. This is where it gets a little scary in the EXP world because I
could
build up an engine that uses that AD applicable engine part without the
engine data actually showing up as being in need of the AD. This is why
the
FAA is rightly very nervous about engines moving in and out of
certification
(Primarily EXPs an airboats). Again, should comply but tough to prove,
could
get sued.
Therefore, if your engine is a pre 1996ish Lycoming you likely have an
oil
pump one time AD that it must comply with for that engine to be both
legal
and safe to fly with. And it does not matter what you have named your
engine
since it will be fairly easy to determine, post crash, which parts you
had
installed therein.
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: Do AD's really apply? |
What a great article! Thanks Jerry!
Tim
Do Not Archive
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jerry Springer
> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 9:54 AM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Do AD's really apply?
>
>
> Here is a link that covers this all very well and explains why an AD
> does or does not apply to experimental aircraft.
> It is a bit lengthy but read it all through for explanations.
>
> http://starduster.aircraftspruce.com/wwwboard/messages/25960.html
>
>
> Jerry
>
>
>
>
>
>
> bert murillo wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >--- RALPH HOOVER <hooverra@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> I HAVE SEEN THIS FOR A LONG TIME, PEOOPLE ASK A
> >>
> >>
> >QUESTION, ONLY BECAUSE THEY WANT TO ARGUE WITH YOU,
> >THEY REALLY DO NOT WANT AN ANSWER....
> >PEOPOLE DO WHA THEY WANT TO DO.... NOT WHAT THEY
> >SHOULD DO....
> >
> >EVERY TIME VAN'S PUBLISH, A ADVISORY,? A.D?
> >YOU SEE THESE PEOPLE, START THE ARGUMENT...
> >LETS IGNORE THEM....I WILL COMPLY WITH EVERY ONE,
> >PERIOD.
> >BERT
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>FAA Form 8130-6, Application for U.S. Airworthiness
> >>Certificate Includes the
> >>following certification in section III B
> >>Certification Basis. In the EAA's
> >>guidance for this form they recommend that the
> >>current "AD revision number"
> >>be included as well as the compliance block checked.
> >>This adds further
> >>evidence that AD's need to complied with (not that
> >>any more was required)
> >>just another data point.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES (Check if all applicable
> >>AD's are compiled with and
> >>give the number of the last AD SUPPLEMENT available
> >>in the biweekly series
> >>as of the date of application)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Ralph & Laura Hoover
> >>
> >>RV7A N527LR (reserved and registration application
> >>filed)
> >>
> >>Ready for transport to the airport for final
> >>assembly.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _____
> >>
> >>From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> >>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On
> >>Behalf Of Bob J.
> >>Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 7:25 PM
> >>To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >>Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Do AD's really apply?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>George, it still seems that you haven't bothered to
> >>read FAR part 39. AD's
> >>apply to PRODUCTS, not type certificated aircraft.
> >>If your experimental
> >>aircraft has a PRODUCT installed that is covered by
> >>an AD, sure as the sky
> >>is blue and the night is black that you are required
> >>to comply with the AD.
> >>
> >>I have a good friend who happens to be DAR #1, who's
> >>ratings and
> >>endorsements span across five pilot certificates.
> >>He has testified in 27
> >>court cases or administrative law hearings on behalf
> >>of the FAA or against
> >>the FAA. He is 27-0 as an expert witness, and
> >>travels the world issuing
> >>CofA's for transport-category, warbirds, and
> >>expermentals. I would have to
> >>say he knows his stuff. I asked him if he knew of
> >>any enforcement actions
> >>related to non-compliance of AD's on experimental
> >>aircraft. His response:
> >>"Yes, it is quite frequent." More of his response:
> >>
> >>"Read FAR 39. ADs are issued against "products" and
> >>not airworthiness
> >>certificates. If an "aeronautical product" has been
> >>found to be a
> >>hazard and
> >>FAA issues an AD against it you must comply with the
> >>AD. It matters
> >>not what type of Certificate of Airworthiness the
> >>aircraft has."
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>Bob Japundza
> >>RV-6 flying F1 under const.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 5:58 PM,
> >><gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>Bob:
> >>If you are a EAA member. Log In and use the search
> >>for two letters AD. The first item will be,
> >>"Airworthiness
> >>Directives & Amateur Built Aircraft." Click on that
> >>and
> >>read. If you are not a member I'll send it to you.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Bob there is an air of prove it, I dare you; I don't
> >>
> >>believe you? I don't like your tone. I am trying to
> >>teach you, but if you are not listening, OK fine
> >>have
> >>a nice day. I don't care to fight or convince you.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>First its not hypothetical it's a FACT. The EAA
> >>works with the FAA lawyers and are going to
> >>Oklahoma and DC all the time. If you don't believe
> >>them fine. I have not put up any "opinion", it is
> >>legal
> >>fact that some how has blown your fuse. I am
> >>OK if you disagree, but you have no facts to support
> >>
> >>your opinion or refute.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>The prove it part? To prove a negative is like
> >>saying
> >>prove dogs can't talk. The only regulation you need
> >>to
> >>meet is in the front of your experimental aircraft's
> >>log
> >>book and there are no comments about AD's or any
> >>other part of the FAR's except the ones noted.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Bob, prove AD's must be complied with. You can't. I
> >>have
> >>read all the regs and talked to the lawyers on this
> >>matter,
> >>have you?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Second there is no legal precedence, no lawsuits or
> >>rulings from a judge. If you are foreseeing lawsuits
> >>
> >>and violations you better comply with all your AD's
> >>to be conservative.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>QUOTE:
> >>
> >>THIS AIRCRAFT IS AMATEUR BUILT AND
> >>DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE FEDERAL
> >>SAFETY REGULATIONS FOR STANDARD
> >>AIRCRAFT
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Questions?
> >>
> >>Your protest or challenge is prima facie ridiculous.
> >>No
> >>proof is needed. Prove it to yourself. Part 23, 39,
> >>43
> >>and so on don't APPLY! Next you will tell me I
> >>
> >>need a A&P to work on my RV.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>I gave you the references and you should do your own
> >>
> >>research and evaluation. I can't do it for you. You
> >>will
> >>never believe me. I did the leg work and called the
> >>EAA and read the Regs. If nothing I said makes
> >>sense
> >>to you or rings a cord of truth, I'm not going to
> >>convince you. No hard feelings. Fly safe.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>The idea of less or no government nanny state hand
> >>holding, especially aviation, blows people away and
> >>they can't deal with it.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>There is no mechanism to MAKE amateur built
> >>experimental planes comply with AD's, except urban
> >>legend and a few FAA/DAR's CYA'ing because it
> >>can't hurt and gives them the feeling of job
> >>security.
> >>
> >>To be fair, I have been in that position and have
> >>not
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >=== message truncated ==
> >
> >
> >
> >Like movies? Here's a limited-time offer: Blockbuster Total Access for
> one month at no cost.
> >http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text4.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
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: | RV-List:Do AD's really apply? |
>From: Dale Ensing <densing@carolina.rr.com>
>Date: 2008/03/30 Sun AM 07:03:27 CDT
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Do AD's really apply?
The only"aeronautical product" in it. that I can think of, is the airspeed indicator
and the altimeter. I have high compression pistons in the O-360 (Lycoming
rebuilt by AeroSport Power) in my RV-6A. I don't think Lycoming approves of
that.
"Is the engine the 'product' or are the pistons the 'product'?" YES
Last time I checked an 0-360 Lycoming built by ANYONE is still a "Lycoming 0-360"
and that in an airplane would be an "aeronautical product".
If an AD is issued and nothing happens...nothing happens.
BUT if something, anything does happen...the insurance company, the FAA and/or
a lawyer type is going to have a field day with YOU.
Pull the cowl, check the plug (after all the AD on same started all this)I love
the line in the AD "if it moves, it's loose". Remember you check it with your
HAND/FINGERS and it only took a few seconds to check it on the IO-540 in the
HRII. A few minutes to remove & replace the cowl. KABONG
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: | Need help with my Visio Panel drawing Stencils |
Hi People,
I have been on the Zenith list for several years now. I have created an
extensive library of Stencils for Microsoft Visio to be used to draw
instrument panels. I currently have the following panel outlines: Zenith
601, 701, 801, LongEZ and Pietenpol Air Camper. I have had requests to
include panel outlines for the RV family.
What I need is a panel outline with measurements, hopefully, one for each
model. If you download my Stencils and cannot find a device (radio,
instrument, etc.), let me know what it is and where to find a good
straight-on picture. I will then draw them all up and update my stencils.
You can find my stencils for free download at: ch601.org, Builder resources,
<http://ch601.org/resources/panel%20design/Panel%20design.htm> Dave's
Aircraft Instrument Panel Stencils For Microsoft Visio (about a third of the
way down)
I look forward to any help you people can give me. I want the library to
grow.
Thanks,
Dave Thompson
Dave.thompson@verizon.net
P.S. If you use my stencils, Please send me a picture of it. I'm building a
library of people's ideas. Someday, I'll post them for viewing.
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? |
On 30-Mar-08, at 11:54 , Jerry Springer wrote:
>
> Here is a link that covers this all very well and explains why an AD
> does or does not apply to experimental aircraft.
> It is a bit lengthy but read it all through for explanations.
>
> http://starduster.aircraftspruce.com/wwwboard/messages/25960.html
The 1998 legal opinion that is described in that article relies
heavily on the words "type design" that were present in FAR 39.1 back
when that opinion was written. Unfortunately, the FAA amended FAR
39.1 in 2002, removing the words "type design", so the whole basis of
that legal opinion became invalid.
Kevin Horton
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: | Need help with my Visio Panel drawing Stencils |
Dave,
Vans has outlines on his site. They are DXF files that can be
opened in Visio. I didn't see a DXF option in Visio but the ACAD option
works.
http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/downloads.htm
Ralph & Laura Hoover
RV7A N526LR
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Thompson
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 1:59 PM
Subject: RV-List: Need help with my Visio Panel drawing Stencils
Hi People,
I have been on the Zenith list for several years now. I have created an
extensive library of Stencils for Microsoft Visio to be used to draw
instrument panels. I currently have the following panel outlines: Zenith
601, 701, 801, LongEZ and Pietenpol Air Camper. I have had requests to
include panel outlines for the RV family.
What I need is a panel outline with measurements, hopefully, one for each
model. If you download my Stencils and cannot find a device (radio,
instrument, etc.), let me know what it is and where to find a good
straight-on picture. I will then draw them all up and update my stencils.
You can find my stencils for free download at: ch601.org, Builder resources,
<http://ch601.org/resources/panel%20design/Panel%20design.htm> Dave's
Aircraft Instrument Panel Stencils For Microsoft Visio (about a third of the
way down)
I look forward to any help you people can give me. I want the library to
grow.
Thanks,
Dave Thompson
Dave.thompson@verizon.net
P.S. If you use my stencils, Please send me a picture of it. I'm building a
library of people's ideas. Someday, I'll post them for viewing.
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: | rotating fuselage stand |
I have a rotating fuselage stand that fits both the RV9 and RV7
fuselage. This is a very useful device
that saved me countless hours in working on my RV9. I will sell
including shipping for $350. I can be contacted
at lancej@charter.net or post a message on the matronics site.
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Do AD's really apply? (whose side are you ON? Liberty?) |
WHO DO YOU THINK WILL WIN IF THE GOV KILLS HOMEBUILT
KIT PLANES LIKE RV'S WITH MORE RULES? CESSNA, PIPER, LSA
MANUFACTURES FROM EUROPE? YEP
STOP HELPING THE BIG GUY, FIGHT FOR OUR RIGHTS!
WHAT DO YOU THINK CESSNA CEO THINKS WHEN HE HEARS
THERE ARE OVER 5,000 RV's FLYING? LOST SALES. THAN THINKS
HOW CAN WE GET RID OF THEM? MAY BE I AM WAY OFF BUT
THEY HAVE LOBBYIST. WE HAVE EAA AND WE SHOULD SUPPORT
THEIR (OUR) POSITION!
KEEP LIBERTY, DON'T FIGHT IT.
>George, it still seems that you haven't bothered to read FAR
>part 39. AD's apply to PRODUCTS, not type certificated
>aircraft.
Dear Bob:
Where does part 39 say it applies to experimetnals?
Part 39 does NOT apply to experimentals, period,
so your point with all due respect is moot.
The FAA (their rules & wording) specifically stated that,
FAR 39.1 Applicability, does not include experimental aircraft
because it requires that the AIRCRAFT, engine, propeller, appliances
referred to, must have a "type design." NO experimental amateur
built aircraft has a "type design" therefore no AD's can apply to
them. (type referrers to not only the part but the installation.)
Repeat, experimental amateur-built planes are non-TC'ed aircraft.
WHY DO YOU HATE homebuilt planes and RV's? (ha-ha)
Fight the government adding restrictions and more laws, don't
help them be more authoritarian!
We all agree you should look and consider all AD's that may
apply to the products you have on your RV. I registered
my RV engine (Lycoming) with Lycoming and thus avail myself
to any SB, SL, SI notices. AD's are handled by the FAA. Yes
I looked for my serial number regarding the crankshaft AD. My
engine was new in mid 1970's and thus made well before the
bad batch of crankshafts manuf in the late 90's. Of course I
looked. I also looked when I overhauled it and put in the
new oil pump and did all the special things to the crank and
rods per Lycs OH manual. I am not dumb. So my engine
meets all AD's, at this time. I'm not a rebel with out a clue.
However I explained my prop issue, it does not meet the
TC type certificate specification (by two thousand of an inch)
and therefore has no "yellow tag". Is good for a Mooney? No.
Is it good for a RV? Yes and it is safe.
If Part 39 applies, than FAR Part 43 Maintenance, Preventive
Maintenance, Rebuilding and Alteration does not apply, and
we all need AI's to do annual inspections and "compliance"
reviews. You are making a Pandora's box that does not exist
and making it hard on yourself and your fellow EAA'ers. Fight
the fight against the Gov not with them.
I make my living under the FAR's and respect them. I also respect
your opinion, safety and the life of my passengers and my own. I
would never do anything unsafe, including ignoring AD's on an
appliance installed in my RV, if I thought it compromised safety.
We are NOT talking judgment or goodness, just FAR's & Liberty!
We are discussing the law. If you read the EAA "legal brief"
position paper, which has been reviewed by the FAA, they
agree. Legal opinion does not become defacto carved in
stone until challenged in court and ruled on. Let's NOT go
down that road. Leave it be. Nuff said. SUPPORT THE EAA!
It is true some politicians heard "These home made aero plane
contraptions made in garages, are flying all over the place with
no rules or regulations!"
The politicians says "WE MUST STOP THIS!" (Kit planes)
It is happening and the 51% rule and fast builds are under
attack NOW! LETS NOT FIGHT EACH OTHER. Be happy we
have libraries and don't be an authoritarian. This is America
for gosh shakes. (WRITE YOUR REPS!)
If you want more Regs keep it up. I say leave it to individuals
to make the judgment. It's a fair topic, a good topic and one
we must be aware of, but keep liberty, don't fight it.
Last example, I buy an experimental XPYZ-360 that is not
from Lyc. I put on an experimental prop, which includes a
BA Hartzell or Sensenich, there are no AD's likely. One,
there are so few of them BUT the FAA could "issue" what
ever edict it feels like. It could ground all RV's tomorrow if
they felt like it! Would that be good?
Take a Lyc O-360-A1A out of a Mooney & put it into a
RV, the 360 Lyc becomes experimental. I can overhaul it,
modify it, (electronic ignition) and put my own data tag on it.
What is the FAA to say or do? Well they do have power;
they can misuse; let's not poke the Rottweiler with a
meat stick.
Let me be clear the Gov and FAA can change the rules and
even ground or restrict anything in the sky. Early RV-3's had a
wing issue. The FAA got involved, no AD's but they did or
where going to ground it or restrict acro! FAA and manufacture
(Van's Aircraft) went through the analysis. It was mostly
pilots overloading the wing, exceeding the flight limits or poor
& improper installation of the rear wing spar. A new design was
developed. No grounding or arco limitations or AD's. Yea!
The FAA is watching, but as long as we are not falling out of
the sky under suspect conditions related to engine/prop
AD's, we should be off the radar.
Why do you want to force this? I don't know, but its my business
if I comply with AD's at this time. I hope it does not change.
The FAA is watching, but if we police our self the need for more
whacked rules goes away. As RV's going into the second hand
hand markets, might be baulked at by some A&P's for non AD
compliance. If selling or buying a RV, the AD issue might be a
factor. It is like airframe insurance or renting planes. We might
have the rating but the insurance company says you don't have
the time. As the manufacture and repairman we have some power
and flexibility. LETS KEEP IT THAT WAY.
Lets not blow our foot off to see if the shotgun works. The
Gov is right now looking at the Pro built for hire issue, 51%
rule. They might do something like make AD's mandatory
and more . I hope your dream that Part 39 becomes mandatory
for RV's is never realized. Next step is no experimental
or alternative engines and props will be allowed. Is that
what you want?
Cessna, Piper and all the Eastern European LSA makers
would love to ban experimentals, to boost sales. I hate to
imply Machiavellian conspiracies but home built planes
are a thorn in their sales. I think the USA bent over far
enough allowing LSA's to come here that are not USA
made and by default banning US airframes and engines
from being LSA's with the low gross weight.
SUPPORT THE EAA's POSITION!
Cheers, freedom is worth fighting for.
>From: "Bob J." <rocketbob@gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Do AD's really apply?
>George, it still seems that you haven't bothered to read FAR
>part 39. AD's apply to PRODUCTS, not type certificated
>aircraft.
---------------------------------
OMG, Sweet deal for Yahoo! users/friends: Get A Month of Blockbuster Total Access,
No Cost. W00t
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: RV-List:Do AD's really apply? |
> BUT if something, anything does happen...the insurance company, the FAA
> and/or a lawyer type is going to have a field day with YOU.
You're making an erroneus assumption KABONG!
Dale
do not archieve
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: | Miscellaneous tools for sale |
Did a little spring cleaning this weekend and have a few tools for sale.
See http://dmack.net/forsale.html for details.
Even Rivet Fan Spacing Tool - $25
Speed Deburring Tool - Does not include deburring bit. $18
Pistol Grip Pneumatic Cleco Pulling Tool $50.00
Don Mack
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Do AD's really apply? (whose side are you ON? Liberty?) |
George:
Step 1: Read FAR 39 here:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=ed65d4b4a98534ea6be4c14af3cbcb47&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14cfr39_main_02.tpl
So now where is the applicability section? Hmmm. Maybe there isn't one!
Step 2: go back and see your doctor, your Ritalin prescription must have run
out.
:)
Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying F1 under const. <- man I must hate homebuilts, and liberty
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 7:01 PM, <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Part 39 does NOT apply to experimentals, period,
> so your point with all due respect is moot.
>
> The FAA (their rules & wording) specifically stated that,
> FAR 39.1 Applicability, does not include experimental aircraft
> because it requires that the AIRCRAFT, engine, propeller, appliances
> referred to, must have a "type design." NO experimental amateur
> built aircraft has a "type design" therefore no AD's can apply to
> them. (type referrers to not only the part but the installation.)
> and more . I hope your dream that Part 39 becomes mandatory
> for RV's is never realized. Next step is no experimental
> or alternative engines and props will be allowed. Is that
> what you want?
>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Q on sump fit on O- & IO-360's |
Anyone know whether the various sumps for Lyc 360 engines are
interchangeable between the parallel valve & angle valve engines?
I've got a parallel valve engine & a chance to purchase a sump off an
angle valve engine (no p/n supplied for the sump).
Seems unlikely that the original intake tubes would fit, but will they?
If not, are the sumps 'standardized' on inlet tube position so parallel
valve tubes would be available to fit?
Thanks,
Charlie
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Do AD's really apply? |
Guys:
leave it up to me to stir up a hornets nest. I had hoped to inform others
in the field what we are seeing with log books from the experimental side of
the industry. but for some reason this has expanded into a pissing match.
as per "das fed" Ad's do apply to all experimental aircraft but the failure to
comply with an ad is not enforceable due to the fact that the repairman are
not required to have an up to date ad list .
this does not apply to a+p's or i/a that are doing conditional inspections as
we are required to have an up to date ad information. and are supposed to have
been trained in ad research.
airframe:
now why is there no vans rv-9 ad's, because vans has never built a aircraft,
they are all joe smith model vans rv-9, and since there is only one aircraft out
there and since the ad probably means that that one is now only good for beer
cans, it would make no sense to issue an ad for a "type" joe smith rv-9. so
this solves the problem with airframe ad's. but vans has the service bulletins
with respect to the parts that you used to assemble your aircraft. If the guy
that built the part for your airplane tells you that it is screwed and you
don't replace it shame on you.
engine:
most rv are flying with some kind of type certified based engine. while these
engine might still be certified or not, they are most probably built using mostly
certified parts. when these parts have problem ad's are issued for them and
they apply to your engine if you have them installed.
appliance's:
this the one that gets more i/a's in trouble then anyother type of ad. Let say
you decide to use a lighting rheostat out of a piper, that lighting rheostat
has a problem and likes to catch fire. but there is an ad for the piper and the
ad lists all other installations then this ad applies to you as well, even
if it does not you would be a fool not to change it.. Radios and stc's make it
tough for the i/a to find all the ad's applicable to the aircraft. so understand
when you first go to a new i/a with a highly modified aircraft, it will cost
you for us to confirm the status of your ad complience. And there is a chance
that we will miss one. We are human too.
rick m
---------------------------------
No Cost - Get a month of Blockbuster Total Access now. Sweet deal for Yahoo! users
and friends.
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Q on sump fit on O- & IO-360's |
The bolt pattern for the sumps are the same on parallel 320's, 360's and
angle valve 360's. As you surmised the problem is the intake tubes. The
angle valve sump tubes use an O-ring and insert into the sump. The parallel
sump tubes mate with an external sleeve. The geometry is also different. The
exhaust flange on the parallel cylinders are ~1/4" higher than the angle
valve cylinders requiring at minimum a spacer with extra exhaust gaskets and
possibly longer studs to use the angle valve tubes. There may be other
issues depending on which sump you use. I put a C model sump on my first RV.
It's tubes mount further aft that the A model. I had to cut and re-weld 2 of
the tubes along with using the spacers. The C sump also required an oddball
exhaust and modification to my mount. I would not do it again and don't
recommend it. It's possible a poor fit might have caused an induction leak
and contributed to my accident.
The good news is that you can now buy the proper tubes to use the A model
angle valve sump on a parallel engine. They are not cheap but at least they
are plug-and-play. A friend got his from Aerosport. Last year I bought a
sump with stainless tubes from SuperFlight for about $2600. I don't know if
they sell the tubes separately from the sump. I didn't see it on the
SuperFlight site right now. I think they split their engine business off
under another name. Try this link
www.aeroinstock.com/products/Oil-Sump320%252F360/6160/0/product_cat/index.ht
ml or call SuperFlight.
Regards,
Greg Young
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Charlie England
> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 8:24 PM
> To: RV list; rv7-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Q on sump fit on O- & IO-360's
>
> <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
>
> Anyone know whether the various sumps for Lyc 360 engines are
> interchangeable between the parallel valve & angle valve engines?
>
> I've got a parallel valve engine & a chance to purchase a
> sump off an angle valve engine (no p/n supplied for the sump).
>
> Seems unlikely that the original intake tubes would fit, but
> will they?
> If not, are the sumps 'standardized' on inlet tube position
> so parallel valve tubes would be available to fit?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Charlie
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! --
|