Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:40 AM - Re: Builder Available! (Jim Sears)
2. 05:31 AM - RV6A for Sale (Gene Gottschalk)
3. 05:55 AM - Re: Slick mags/bendix mags (linn Walters)
4. 10:03 AM - Re: Builder Available! (Bob)
5. 11:09 AM - Re: Builder Available! (SteinAir, Inc.)
6. 11:43 AM - Re: Builder Available! (Bret Smith)
7. 01:03 PM - Composite class correct dates (Dave Saylor)
8. 03:00 PM - Re: Builder Available! (linn Walters)
9. 03:11 PM - Re: Builder Available! (linn Walters)
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: Builder Available! |
>> i assume that you are not from the states using a+e, but if you are, look
>> at it from my point of view. if i have to sign off the aircraft, it has
>> to follow the rules, and since i have no rules that tell me autozone
>> parts are ok or not for flight i am stuck in the possition of approving a
>> flying bar stool for flight. i think the faa screwed the pooch here.
>> Second owner on an experimental aicraft puts the i/a in an almost
>> imposible situation. we are not jealous, we just want to keep our
>> tickets. and not get sued. <<
If the new owner works with an A&P to inspect his/her airplane, the owner is
going to be open to suggestions, for the most part. If not, you can kindly
refuse to do the inspection. The A&P can point out those areas of concern
and hopefully convince the owner to make changes that will make the airplane
safer. I've helped an AB-DAR with some inspections and have found things
like improper bolt and nut applications, etc that have bothered me enough
that I suggested changes before flight. Even though I use aircraft grade
wire and terminals, I've seen others who haven't. I would not worry as much
about those items unless they started failing. Using softer grade hardware
store bolts, etc in places were Mil spec bolts are needed would be a
different story. An A&P's job does not have to be difficult. Most of the
errors I've seen have been minor and would not promote an unsafe airplane.
Personally, I'd rather have an A&P give me an honest assessment than to
overlook things that can get me hurt, later. Of course, I would also
appreciate an A&P who would not use his/her ticket as an approval to go hog
wild crazy about fixing those things that don't need fixing, either. There
should be a happy medium in there for both sides.
Jim Sears in KY
EAA Tech Counselor
do not archive
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 |
|
RV6A for sale
Baltimore / Washington D.C. area
Gene Gottschalk
Work: 301 286-0151
Mobile: 410 303-2839
Non-prepunched. Complete documentation, photo album and builders logbook.
Registered N700RV.
Empennage:
Completed except for some fiberglass.
Wings:
Left wing completed except for fiberglass.
Right wing completed except for fiberglass and main skins, inverted fuel
option, electric and manual flap actuator, Whalen wing-tip strobes and
wiring harness, heated pitot, tie down rings, taxi and landing light kit.
Fuselage:
Completed in jig, ready to fit wings and gear and remove from jig to finish
top and cockpit. Includes dual brake assemblies, two five-point Hooker
aerobatic harnesses (including mounting details finished), dual entry steps,
NACA vent kits, plumbing, and eyeball vents, sliding canopy, Panel circuit
breaker/switches (with spares), all flight instruments, accelerometer, fuel
gauges, firewall recess kit (installed). Includes custom-made metal fuselage
jig.
Finishing kit:
Inventoried, not started.
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: Slick mags/bendix mags |
I sure wish you lived near me!!! My mag overhaul guys (locally) are
dwindling due to old age. It looks like overhauling mags is a dying art.
Linn
RV6 Flyer wrote:
> S4LN20 and S4LN21 both ran 2,100 hours and were removed working. I am
> the guy that overhauled both of them before putting them on my RV-6
> 11 years ago.
>
> Gary A. Sobek
> "My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
> 2,159 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
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: Builder Available! |
Richard
I have been reading your posts for a while now. You do have a
predisposition against homebuilt aircraft, regardless of who built
it. I am not an A&P/IA, but what forces you to sign off a
barstool that uses autozone parts? And if you are forced to do so,
why do you buckle to the pressure?
Futhermore, what is wrong with autozone parts? The halogen light
bulb I use for a landing light from autozone has never failed in 6
years of flying. But the landing light on the Citabria I used to
fly would burn out every 25 hours?
The parts that have failed on my aircraft have been certified parts,
seldom if ever does a non certified part fail. Just my
experience. For the record, never have I had an autozone part fail
(landing lights, cockpit lights, fuses, wire terminals, battery
terminals, solenoids, paint, fiberglass, resin, weatherseal, velcro,
RTV, Locktite, primer, fusebox, etc (like anything else, they wear
out, but don't fail prematurely). There probably is certified
Velcro, but really, what's the point?
And by your own posts, the Slick Mags, a certified part, is a piece
of junk? If autozone sells an alternative that in the automobile
field seldom if ever fails, why then would I want to put a certified
piece of junk on my aircraft?
In numerous posts you have mentioned how difficult your job is
because of homebuilts that use non standard or non certified
parts. I understand your concern. But, you are on what is mostly a
homebuilt list telling us that the FAA should not allow homebuilts
that are not certified to FAA standards, since they will eventually
be sold to non-builders who will not be able to maintain them. You
might find a more agreeable audience on a certified aircraft list
rather than on a homebuilt list.
Just my opinion, for what is that is worth, probably not much.
Bob
RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
At 11:40 PM 9/2/08, you wrote:
>
>.... if you are, look at it from my point of view. if i have to sign
>off the aircraft, it has to follow the rules, and since i have no
>rules that tell me autozone parts are ok or not for flight i am
>stuck in the possition of approving a flying bar stool for flight.
>i think the faa screwed the pooch here. Second owner on an
>experimental aicraft puts the i/a in an almost imposible
>position. we are not jealous, we just want to keep our tickets. and
>not get sued.
rick
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: | Builder Available! |
Mainly what it comes down to here is education and knowledge. If you don't
know the "rules" then perhaps one should learn them, because they are in
fact quite clear....about what you can use and what you can't when and where
on an experimental. Sure, some FAA people and some FSDO's aren't all that
well educated, but the rules do exist. Each homebuilt that has been
certificated has been manufactured by someone. That someone was issued
Operating Limitations, and coupled with good knowledge of the FAR's and the
43.13 any A&P or IA should be able to work on one (because the aircraft did
have a mfgr as well as an airworthiness certificate). Whether or not they
are comfortable or knowledgeable enough to do so is what remains. It's kind
of like some Avionics shops requiring people to have a certified altimeter
or certified encoder to do a Transponder or Pitot Static check....that's
just ignorance of the requirements. We have a number of A&P's on staff, a
couple IA's, and we also are a certificated FAA 145 repair station. We are
comfortable with Experimentals as well as certified stuff because we know it
and we work hard to keep ourselves educated. The rules are different
indeed, but not to the point where anyone should be scared. If you're that
scared then I'd humbly suggest not working on them, be it airframe, engine,
avionics or instruments.
Last point, the second owner doesn't even need an IA to begin with, and many
second or third owners don't even hire IA's.....again, goes to knowledge of
the "rules".
My 2 cents as usual!
Cheers,
Stein
do not archive...
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of RICHARD MILLER
>Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 11:40 PM
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Builder Available!
>
>
>
>jerry
>
>i assume that you are not from the states using a+e, but if you
>are, look at it from my point of view. if i have to sign off the
>aircraft, it has to follow the rules, and since i have no rules
>that tell me autozone parts are ok or not for flight i am stuck in
>the possition of approving a flying bar stool for flight. i think
>the faa screwed the pooch here. Second owner on an experimental
>aicraft puts the i/a in an almost imposible situation. we are not
>jealous, we just want to keep our tickets. and not get sued.
>rick
>
>
>--- On Sat, 8/30/08, Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> From: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@verizon.net>
>> Subject: Re: RV-List: Builder Available!
>> To: rv-list@matronics.com
>> Date: Saturday, August 30, 2008, 9:20 PM
>> <jsflyrv@verizon.net>
>>
>> I find that a lot of A&Es and AIs are just a tad bit
>> jealous of home
>> builders. Some are even down right hostile
>> and do not think it is right that we should be able to work
>> on an
>> aircraft when they have spent a sizable
>> amount of time and money getting their certficates. Now
>> this statment
>> really gets me going.
>>
>> "Now here is the rub. I went over to the dark side in
>> 2001 to become a
>> legitimate "Real" kit builder. "
>>
>> Like I am not a "real legitimate kit builder"?
>>
>> Jerry
>>
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: Builder Available! |
Bob,
I am assuming that Richard is referring to inspecting homebuilt or OBAM
aircraft that do not meet the standards of AC43-13. My feeling is that any
aircraft that do not meet the minimum standards should NOT be signed-off,
whether homebuilt or certificated.
Bret Smith
RV-9A "Wiring & FWF"
Blue Ridge, GA
www.FlightInnovations.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob" <panamared5@brier.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 11:20 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Builder Available!
>
> Richard
>
> I have been reading your posts for a while now. You do have a
> predisposition against homebuilt aircraft, regardless of who built it. I
> am not an A&P/IA, but what forces you to sign off a barstool that uses
> autozone parts? And if you are forced to do so, why do you buckle to the
> pressure?
>
> Futhermore, what is wrong with autozone parts? The halogen light bulb I
> use for a landing light from autozone has never failed in 6 years of
> flying. But the landing light on the Citabria I used to fly would burn
> out every 25 hours?
>
> The parts that have failed on my aircraft have been certified parts,
> seldom if ever does a non certified part fail. Just my experience. For
> the record, never have I had an autozone part fail (landing lights,
> cockpit lights, fuses, wire terminals, battery terminals, solenoids,
> paint, fiberglass, resin, weatherseal, velcro, RTV, Locktite, primer,
> fusebox, etc (like anything else, they wear out, but don't fail
> prematurely). There probably is certified Velcro, but really, what's the
> point?
>
> And by your own posts, the Slick Mags, a certified part, is a piece of
> junk? If autozone sells an alternative that in the automobile field
> seldom if ever fails, why then would I want to put a certified piece of
> junk on my aircraft?
>
> In numerous posts you have mentioned how difficult your job is because of
> homebuilts that use non standard or non certified parts. I understand
> your concern. But, you are on what is mostly a homebuilt list telling us
> that the FAA should not allow homebuilts that are not certified to FAA
> standards, since they will eventually be sold to non-builders who will not
> be able to maintain them. You might find a more agreeable audience on a
> certified aircraft list rather than on a homebuilt list.
>
> Just my opinion, for what is that is worth, probably not much.
>
> Bob
> RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
>
>
> At 11:40 PM 9/2/08, you wrote:
>>
>>.... if you are, look at it from my point of view. if i have to sign off
>>the aircraft, it has to follow the rules, and since i have no rules that
>>tell me autozone parts are ok or not for flight i am stuck in the
>>possition of approving a flying bar stool for flight. i think the faa
>>screwed the pooch here. Second owner on an experimental aicraft puts the
>>i/a in an almost imposible position. we are not jealous, we just want to
>>keep our tickets. and not get sued.
> rick
>
>
>
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: | Composite class correct dates |
I'm posting the correct dates again. Composites for RV-10s will be Saturday
and Sunday, November 15 and 16.
This course will provide an overview of the composite parts and techniques
used on Van's Aircraft RV-10 kits. We will focus on correct materials and
processes, fitting the composite top and doors, cowl, spinner, fairings, and
other composite parts. You will recieve hands-on training to identify and
use all necessary materials. Examples of completed and in-process assemblies
will be available to view. We will be fitting and installing a cabin top.
Weather permitting, we'll be giving RV-10 demo flights to as many interested
parties as possible--indicate when you sign up if you're interested, first
come, first served, no additional charge.
Who:
Harold Bunyi and Dave Saylor. Harold holds a BS in Aeronautical Engineering
and built kitplane parts in the Phillipines for many years. He has worked at
AirCrafters for 6 years and spends most of his day working with composites.
I started working with composite kitplanes in 1998. I am an A&P/IA, and I
have finished my personal RV-10 project, along with many other composite and
aluminum projects. I recieved my BS in Aeronautics from San Jose State.
When:
November 15 & 16, 2008
8AM-4PM Saturday
8AM-3PM Sunday
Where:
AirCrafters LLC
Watsonville Airport (KWVI)
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA 95076
831-722-9141
<outbind://40/www.AirCraftersLLC.com> www.AirCraftersLLC.com
Class size is limited to 15 builders
Cost for the course is $350 payable by cash, check or credit card. Please
call or email to register. A 50% deposit is required before November 7.
Balance due before class starts.
Nearest major airport is San Jose International. 45 minute drive to KWVI.
Best Lodging is Watsonville Comfort Inn: 831-728-2300. Ask for the airport
discount. Other lodging is available nearby. Aircraft parking is available
at AirCrafters. Please call if we can help with logistics.
Many thanks for your interest,
Dave Saylor
831-750-0284 CL
<http://www.aircraftersllc.com/> www.AirCraftersLLC.com
****************************************************************************
****************************
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: Builder Available! |
SteinAir, Inc. wrote:
>
> Mainly what it comes down to here is education and knowledge. If you don't
> know the "rules" then perhaps one should learn them, because they are in
> fact quite clear....about what you can use and what you can't when and where
> on an experimental. Sure, some FAA people and some FSDO's aren't all that
> well educated, but the rules do exist.
Stein, can you provide me with a link??? I've been told just the
opposite ...... well, when my Pitts was being inspected he said "if you
made the Pitts out of the cardboard from notepads ..... I'd have a problem".
> Each homebuilt that has been
> certificated has been manufactured by someone. That someone was issued
> Operating Limitations, and coupled with good knowledge of the FAR's and the
> 43.13 any A&P or IA should be able to work on one (because the aircraft did
> have a mfgr as well as an airworthiness certificate). Whether or not they
> are comfortable or knowledgeable enough to do so is what remains. It's kind
> of like some Avionics shops requiring people to have a certified altimeter
> or certified encoder to do a Transponder or Pitot Static check....that's
> just ignorance of the requirements. We have a number of A&P's on staff, a
> couple IA's, and we also are a certificated FAA 145 repair station. We are
> comfortable with Experimentals as well as certified stuff because we know it
> and we work hard to keep ourselves educated. The rules are different
> indeed, but not to the point where anyone should be scared. If you're that
> scared then I'd humbly suggest not working on them, be it airframe, engine,
> avionics or instruments.
>
> Last point, the second owner doesn't even need an IA to begin with, and many
> second or third owners don't even hire IA's.....again, goes to knowledge of
> the "rules".
>
You forgot to add "All you need is an A&P to sign off the conditional
inspection ..... unless you're the builder (which was implied). And
the work doesn't have to be 'under supervision of' and A&P.
> My 2 cents as usual!
>
So, I added a penny!
Linn
> Cheers,
> Stein
>
> do not archive...
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: Builder Available! |
Bret Smith wrote:
>
> Bob,
> I am assuming that Richard is referring to inspecting homebuilt or
> OBAM aircraft that do not meet the standards of AC43-13. My feeling
> is that any aircraft that do not meet the minimum standards should NOT
> be signed-off, whether homebuilt or certificated.
>
> Bret Smith
> RV-9A "Wiring & FWF"
> Blue Ridge, GA
> www.FlightInnovations.com
Hmmm. I disagree .....a little. Since 43-13 was born, we've improved
on a lot of the materials used for construction. Even invented new
ones. I'd rather say that I would EXPECT construction to follow 43-13
..... but remember that these are EXPERIMENTAL aircraft ..... and who
are we to frown on anyones experiment??? My Pitts is pretty much per
plans, and so will be my -10 ...... but I won't take kindly to negative
comments because something I may do won't meet 43-13. Where's the
'experiment' in that??? Of course I'd welcome constructive criticism if
I did something that could shorten my lifespan. My logic (outside of
43-13) may not be perfect.
Linn
do not archive
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! --
|