Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:29 AM - Re: Builder Available! (Tim Bryan)
2. 09:43 AM - Re: Builder Available! (Jerry Springer)
3. 11:36 AM - Re: Builder Available! (Tim Bryan)
4. 12:47 PM - Re: Slick mags/bendix mags (RICHARD MILLER)
5. 01:38 PM - Re: Builder Available! (RICHARD MILLER)
6. 01:41 PM - Re: A&P Standard (Bob)
7. 02:49 PM - Re: A&P Standard (RICHARD MILLER)
8. 02:57 PM - Re: A&P Standard (Vinnfizz@aol.com)
9. 03:13 PM - Re: Builder Available! (Sam Buchanan)
10. 03:34 PM - Re: A&P Standard (RICHARD MILLER)
11. 03:34 PM - Re: A&P Standard (Tim Bryan)
12. 04:55 PM - Re: A&P Standard (jvanlaak@aol.com)
13. 06:36 PM - Re: A&P Standard (RICHARD MILLER)
14. 07:17 PM - Re: A&P Standard (Tim Bryan)
15. 07:47 PM - Re: A&P Standard (Jerry Springer)
16. 07:52 PM - Re: Builder Available! (Jerry Springer)
17. 08:08 PM - Re: A&P Standard (Kelly McMullen)
18. 08:16 PM - Re: A&P Standard (Kelly McMullen)
19. 08:19 PM - Re: Builder Available! (Jerry Springer)
20. 08:22 PM - Re: A&P Standard (Kelly McMullen)
21. 08:57 PM - Re: A&P Standard (Vinnfizz@aol.com)
22. 09:25 PM - Re: A&P Standard (Vinnfizz@aol.com)
23. 09:56 PM - Re: A&P Standard (Jerry Springer)
24. 11:07 PM - Re: A&P Standard (Ed Holyoke)
25. 11:24 PM - Re: A&P Standard (Vinnfizz@aol.com)
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: | Builder Available! |
Linn,
I am not an A&P but I think that was exactly Richards point. If an A&P is
required to inspect in "accordance with" AND experimental are "allowed to
experiment" then how do you as an A&P inspect an experimental and keep both
in perspective. I don't think he was saying experimental must meet AC43-13.
I do agree with your statement with regards to Bret's comments below and in
line with Richards comments.
Do Not Archive
Tim Bryan
RV-6 Flying
N616TB over 100 hours now
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of linn Walters
> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 5:10 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: 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
>
>
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: Builder Available! |
Remember it is an "ADVISORY" circular not the bible and to say that an
aircraft that does not
meet AC43-13 should not be signed off is BS. There are many acceptable
ways to accomplish
tasks that may not be the way the gov does it but are still safe methods.
do not archive
Tim Bryan wrote:
>
>Linn,
>
>I am not an A&P but I think that was exactly Richards point. If an A&P is
>required to inspect in "accordance with" AND experimental are "allowed to
>experiment" then how do you as an A&P inspect an experimental and keep both
>in perspective. I don't think he was saying experimental must meet AC43-13.
>I do agree with your statement with regards to Bret's comments below and in
>line with Richards comments.
>Do Not Archive
>
>Tim Bryan
>RV-6 Flying
>N616TB over 100 hours now
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
>>server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of linn Walters
>>Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 5:10 PM
>>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: RV-List: 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
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: | Builder Available! |
True, but what standard are A&P's taught to expect when signing off an
annual for instance? Do they have a standard to follow for experimental
aircraft?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jerry Springer
> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 11:42 AM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Builder Available!
>
>
> Remember it is an "ADVISORY" circular not the bible and to say that an
> aircraft that does not
> meet AC43-13 should not be signed off is BS. There are many acceptable
> ways to accomplish
> tasks that may not be the way the gov does it but are still safe
> methods.
>
> do not archive
>
>
> Tim Bryan wrote:
>
> >
> >Linn,
> >
> >I am not an A&P but I think that was exactly Richards point. If an
> A&P is
> >required to inspect in "accordance with" AND experimental are "allowed
> to
> >experiment" then how do you as an A&P inspect an experimental and keep
> both
> >in perspective. I don't think he was saying experimental must meet
> AC43-13.
> >I do agree with your statement with regards to Bret's comments below
> and in
> >line with Richards comments.
> >Do Not Archive
> >
> >Tim Bryan
> >RV-6 Flying
> >N616TB over 100 hours now
> >
> >
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> >>server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of linn Walters
> >>Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 5:10 PM
> >>To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >>Subject: Re: RV-List: Builder Available!
> >>
> <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
> >>
> >>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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
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: Slick mags/bendix mags |
send them to savage magneto in hayward,ca. he does mine, or bench checks them after
i do them in house. rick
--- On Wed, 9/3/08, linn Walters <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> From: linn Walters <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Slick mags/bendix mags
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2008, 5:53 AM
> <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
>
> 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 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: Builder Available! |
guys
to say that i don't like experimental aircraft is wrong, a properly built rv is
one hell of an aircraft, and damn fun to fly. where i have most of my problems
with conditionals is wiring, the next most often is avionics mounts that are
not up to strenght, after that improper hardware most good dars catch this one,
followed i say by wrong type of hoses. i find that most of the problems with
conditionals are as a result of someone tryng to save that last five percent
of money, or they got in a rush when trying to finish that last five percent
that takes 25% of the time.
reference experimental components
some of the new avionics that have come out are great and i would love to have
them in every aircraft. the cheap fuel injection systems are even better.
unique builder mods.
this is the one that gives i/a's the worst nightmares, what you think you might
have done right and looks good, might be an accident waiting to happen. i
know that vans stressed everything they designed, but how do i know that you did,
or in this case the prior builder. and i have no history to work from.
rick
jerry i asked a+e or a+p because i don't know the canada, europe rules
and assumed that you where from there.
--- On Tue, 9/2/08, Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@verizon.net> wrote:
> From: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Builder Available!
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2008, 11:10 PM
> <jsflyrv@verizon.net>
>
> Picky picky picky would you have rather I had said A&P?
>
> do not archive
>
>
> RICHARD MILLER wrote:
>
> <rickpegser@yahoo.com>
> >
> >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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Ralph Finch wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>I'm really not sure what game you're
> playing.
> >>>I went to a workshop/build class that started
> with my
> >>>
> >>>
> >>empennage in kit
> >>
> >>
> >>>form and after 6 days of instruction and
> building left
> >>>
> >>>
> >>with a nearly
> >>
> >>
> >>>completed emp. I and the instructor worked
> about 45
> >>>
> >>>
> >>hours each on the
> >>
> >>
> >>>building, for a total of 90 hours--just for the
> emp.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>An interesting
> >>
> >>
> >>>data point, because the other builders I've
> talked
> >>>
> >>>
> >>to that did all the
> >>
> >>
> >>>emp work themselves and also of course were
> >>>
> >>>
> >>self-taught took several
> >>
> >>
> >>>times 90 hours; 200-300 I think. Which goes to
> show
> >>>
> >>>
> >>that hours of
> >>
> >>
> >>>building is very dependent on skill and prior
> >>>
> >>>
> >>knowledge.
> >>
> >>
> >>>You say you are confused. I say you are a
> fanatic:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>extremely devoted
> >>
> >>
> >>>to a cause and disapproving, even angry, of
> those who
> >>>
> >>>
> >>do not share
> >>
> >>
> >>>your level of commitment to that cause.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >>> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> >>> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]
> On
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Behalf Of John Cox
> >>
> >>
> >>> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 8:13 PM
> >>> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >>> Subject: RE: RE: RV-List: Builder
> Available!
> >>>
> >>> Okay, I'll play Ralph.
> >>>
> >>> You did (50-50) or 25.51% of the total
> assembly,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>the hired
> >>
> >>
> >>> professionals did 25.49% for an exact cut
> of >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>51.00% of the
> >>
> >>
> >>> assembly. Congrats! Fabrication by the
> >>>
> >>>
> >>manufacturer of parts did
> >>
> >>
> >>> <48.99%. Result 100.00% of the final
> product.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Step to the window
> >>
> >>
> >>> for you Lottery Winnings.
> >>>
> >>> The FAA is working with manufacturer's
> of
> >>>
> >>>
> >>approved OBAM kit
> >>
> >>
> >>> aircraft to establish the Fab percentage.
> Existing
> >>>
> >>>
> >>kit approvals
> >>
> >>
> >>> will fall below 49.0% and may be as little
> as 0.5%
> >>>
> >>>
> >>for Plans
> >>
> >>
> >>> built. Under the new proposed Policy (not a
> rule)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>the
> >>
> >>
> >>> documentation of Build Assist will require
> a new
> >>>
> >>>
> >>more specific
> >>
> >>
> >>> written log of Builder Assist (not just
> hired
> >>>
> >>>
> >>guns). Under the new
> >>
> >>
> >>> rules, how will you reach 51.0% or better
> from the
> >>>
> >>>
> >>work that you
> >>
> >>
> >>> personally do? Not what your check wrote.
> Not that
> >>>
> >>>
> >>you also might
> >>
> >>
> >>> want the DAR to process your request to be
> called
> >>>
> >>>
> >>a Repairman so
> >>
> >>
> >>> you can complete Conditional Inspections.
> >>>
> >>> Many kits require 2000+ man/hours to
> complete (the
> >>>
> >>>
> >>RV-10 more like
> >>
> >>
> >>> 2500-2750 hours). Your 25.51% would equal
> 550
> >>>
> >>>
> >>hours spread over
> >>
> >>
> >>> two weeks is 275 hours per week. You were
> on the
> >>>
> >>>
> >>floor maybe 40
> >>
> >>
> >>> hours (lets make that 60 hours per week) of
> the
> >>>
> >>>
> >>most physical work
> >>
> >>
> >>> you have done in decades with only 20
> seconds to
> >>>
> >>>
> >>catch your
> >>
> >>
> >>> breath. Two weeks = 120 hours to Taxi. I am
> now
> >>>
> >>>
> >>lost and confused
> >>
> >>
> >>> how you met the 550 hours (I lost 175 hours
> >>>
> >>>
> >>somewhere) of build
> >>
> >>
> >>> other than the exhausting effort to write
> the
> >>>
> >>>
> >>check for the TWTT
> >>
> >>
> >>> program. Now don't read too much into
> the
> >>>
> >>>
> >>above math. Marc Cook,
> >>
> >>
> >>> Editor of Kitplanes thinks this is
> complaint (and
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Ethical) with
> >>
> >>
> >>> the intent of amateur built kit
> manufacture. Van
> >>>
> >>>
> >>sells more kits,
> >>
> >>
> >>> Stein sells more avionics, Abby sells more
> >>>
> >>>
> >>interiors, the US
> >>
> >>
> >>> aviation industry sells more hardware.
> life is
> >>>
> >>>
> >>GOOD.
> >>
> >>
> >>> You say you didn't even own a shop vac.
> Many
> >>>
> >>>
> >>builders will acquire
> >>
> >>
> >>> more than $2,000 of build tools that no
> amount of
> >>>
> >>>
> >>effort will
> >>
> >>
> >>> cause them to pry from their "Cold,
> Dying
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Hand". I have tried to
> >>
> >>
> >>> buy some of them, boy was that an insult.
> >>>
> >>> Now here is the rub. I went over to the
> dark side
> >>>
> >>>
> >>in 2001 to
> >>
> >>
> >>> become a legitimate "Real" kit
> builder.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Quit my career, attended
> >>
> >>
> >>> A&P school (at more than 50 years old),
> >>>
> >>>
> >>completed Orals and
> >>
> >>
> >>> Practicals. Got my IA, became an EAA Tech
> Advisor,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>have help
> >>
> >>
> >>> scores of builders and went to work for the
> >>>
> >>>
> >>airlines to gain even
> >>
> >>
> >>> more tribal knowledge. Most - but not many
> OBAM
> >>>
> >>>
> >>builders are
> >>
> >>
> >>> prideful and think they have a handle on
> the
> >>>
> >>>
> >>knowledge to maintain
> >>
> >>
> >>> their pride and joy. They have a right to
> sell it
> >>>
> >>>
> >>to John Q.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Public with a willingness to write a check
> in that
> >>>
> >>>
> >>pursuit. I will
> >>
> >>
> >>> offer than many do little to show any DAR
> that
> >>>
> >>>
> >>they know squat as
> >>
> >>
> >>> to how to maintain let alone troubleshoot,
> life
> >>>
> >>>
> >>altering
> >>
> >>
> >>> mechanical issues that tend to arise. Now,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>don't go ballistic
> >>
> >>
> >>> here.I am reading about that damned
> Slick Mag
> >>>
> >>>
> >>bulletin with my
> >>
> >>
> >>> other eye. I acknowledge the system worked
> well
> >>>
> >>>
> >>until the money
> >>
> >>
> >>> created the "Professional Build
> Assist".
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Oh by the way, the
> >>
> >>
> >>> Professional field it is totally
> unregulated and
> >>>
> >>>
> >>uses untrained
> >>
> >>
> >>> Professional worker, many are not US
> citizens. I
> >>>
> >>>
> >>just have trouble
> >>
> >>
> >>> swallowing how this TWTT and hired guns are
> >>>
> >>>
> >>helping this avocation
> >>
> >>
> >>> that led me to leave a lucrative career to
> pursue
> >>>
> >>>
> >>what my heart
> >>
> >>
> >>> told me was what my Walter Mitty side
> wanted me to
> >>>
> >>>
> >>go out the door
> >>
> >>
> >>> with.
> >>>
> >>> The problem is not with you the builder. It
> is
> >>>
> >>>
> >>with the
> >>
> >>
> >>> bastardization by the EAA, the FAA and the
> DARs
> >>>
> >>>
> >>who would sell out
> >>
> >>
> >>> their neighbor to make a buck. Now
> let's hear
> >>>
> >>>
> >>more dialog on how
> >>
> >>
> >>> much time, how much money and how many
> questions
> >>>
> >>>
> >>the typical OBAM
> >>
> >>
> >>> kit builder answers in an Orals &
> Practicals
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Exam in front of
> >>
> >>
> >>> their DAR. Wouldn't the world be
> perfect if
> >>>
> >>>
> >>the OBAM builder could
> >>
> >>
> >>> match skills in maintaining his pride and
> joy with
> >>>
> >>>
> >>those damned A
> >>
> >>
> >>> & Ps that I resemble in my day job.
> >>>
> >>> My answer, if a Pro touches it move to the
> other
> >>>
> >>>
> >>window and make
> >>
> >>
> >>> it a Primary Aircraft. If an Amateur
> Builder does
> >>>51.0% , tip
> >>> your hat and smile you are a
> Builder/Aviator of
> >>>
> >>>
> >>the First Order.
> >>
> >>
> >>> if you can't complete a comprehensive
> review
> >>>
> >>>
> >>by the DAR on the
> >>
> >>
> >>> skills to maintain it, waive goodbye to
> that
> >>>
> >>>
> >>coveted Repairman
> >>
> >>
> >>> Certificate. Most DARs don't even
> complete a
> >>>
> >>>
> >>comprehensive safety
> >>
> >>
> >>> inspection let alone an Oral towards
> granting a
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Repairman
> >>
> >>
> >>> Certificate. It is all about review of
> correctly
> >>>
> >>>
> >>processed FAA
> >>
> >>
> >>> mandated paperwork.
> >>>
> >>> As an EAA Tech Advisor, I keep pinching my
> check,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>telling myself
> >>
> >>
> >>> "There is no standard" for OBAM.
> Shut
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Up, Smile and help by
> >>
> >>
> >>> pointing out kernels of wisdom that might
> lower
> >>>
> >>>
> >>the accident rate
> >>
> >>
> >>> for the insurance pool that we all pay for.
> For
> >>>
> >>>
> >>those guys and
> >>
> >>
> >>> gals with more money than smarts, I say
> Primary
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Aircraft leave us
> >>
> >>
> >>> struggling kit Builders alone. When I
> engage in
> >>>
> >>>
> >>conversations with
> >>
> >>
> >>> respected Kit builders, it becomes clear
> they have
> >>>
> >>>
> >>the best
> >>
> >>
> >>> interests of their family, their community
> and all
> >>>
> >>>
> >>of us at stake.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Professionals please leave the arena.
> >>>
> >>> Oh, did I mention there are 30 days left to
> make
> >>>
> >>>
> >>courtesy comment
> >>
> >>
> >>> to the FAA on this Rule (Policy) Change.
> >>>
> >>> John Cox
> >>>
> >>> Do not Archive
> >>>
> >>> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> >>> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]
> On
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Behalf Of Ralph Finch
> >>
> >>
> >>> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 7:00 PM
> >>> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >>> Subject: RE: RE: RV-List: Builder
> Available!
> >>>
> >>> Wrong conclusion. In your example the
> aircraft
> >>>
> >>>
> >>owner did only 10%
> >>
> >>
> >>> of the build, obviously not meeting the 51%
> >>>
> >>>
> >>minimum.
> >>
> >>
> >>> In the class or workshop that I took, it
> was
> >>>
> >>>
> >>50-50, there was one
> >>
> >>
> >>> pro guy per amateur owner-builder. And that
> was
> >>>
> >>>
> >>not normal,
> >>
> >>
> >>> usually more amateurs than pros. Anyway we
> all
> >>>
> >>>
> >>worked like dogs
> >>
> >>
> >>> the whole week. If I stopped more than 20
> secs to
> >>>
> >>>
> >>catch my breath
> >>
> >>
> >>> the pro guy was on my case! As an office
> worker I
> >>>
> >>>
> >>hadn't done so
> >>
> >>
> >>> much physical work for decades.
> >>>
> >>> I learned great mechanical skills about
> riveting,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>squeezing,
> >>
> >>
> >>> grinding, etc., all things I really needed
> since I
> >>>
> >>>
> >>didn't know
> >>
> >>
> >>> squat going in. The only thing I didn't
> get
> >>>
> >>>
> >>was time puzzling
> >>
> >>
> >>> through the plans and figuring things out,
> there
> >>>
> >>>
> >>was just no time
> >>
> >>
> >>> for that. We amateurs came out with real,
> new
> >>>
> >>>
> >>skills and
> >>
> >>
> >>> well-built empennages. Now I am toiling in
> my
> >>>
> >>>
> >>garage with help
> >>
> >>
> >>> from VAF, this list, and a couple of
> buddies in
> >>>
> >>>
> >>town who are also
> >>
> >>
> >>> building RVs. But the beginning workshop
> was a
> >>>
> >>>
> >>huge help and
> >>
> >>
> >>> confidence builder for guys like me, who
> don't
> >>>
> >>>
> >>have any handyman
> >>
> >>
> >>> background at all. I didn't even own a
> shop
> >>>
> >>>
> >>vac!
> >>
> >>
> >>> The TWTT and its kind are clearly frauds
> and I
> >>>
> >>>
> >>don't understand
> >>
> >>
> >>> how they're still in business. Why the
> FAA has
> >>>
> >>>
> >>to promulgate new
> >>
> >>
> >>> amateur rules instead of enforcing the
> current
> >>>
> >>>
> >>ones is a mystery
> >>
> >>
> >>> to me. Though I do think the FAA should
> generate
> >>>
> >>>
> >>new rules
> >>
> >>
> >>> allowing the completely pro-built
> experimental
> >>>
> >>>
> >>aircraft but
> >>
> >>
> >>> demanding very high, factory-like build
> standards
> >>>
> >>>
> >>and of course no
> >>
> >>
> >>> repairman's certificate for the owner.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >>> From:
> owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> >>>
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Behalf Of John Cox
> >>
> >>
> >>> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 6:09 PM
> >>> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >>> Subject: RE: RE: RV-List: Builder
> Available!
> >>>
> >>> If the owner is always working and
> doing 10%
> >>>
> >>>
> >>of the build and
> >>
> >>
> >>> the other six builder assist employees
> (ie
> >>>
> >>>
> >>TWTT) do 90% of the
> >>
> >>
> >>> build, but the owner was learning by
> watching,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>listening and
> >>
> >>
> >>> writing a check, do I conclude that you
> think
> >>>
> >>>
> >>this qualifies?
> >>
> >>
> >>> The wide spread misunderstanding
> provides a
> >>>
> >>>
> >>solid base for the
> >>
> >>
> >>> FAA to implement a new policy.
> >>>
> >>> I still love those guys toiling in
> their
> >>>
> >>>
> >>garage with little
> >>
> >>
> >>> outside assistance who pose questions
> and
> >>>
> >>>
> >>become the intent
> >>
> >>
> >>> and integrity of this great ole abused
> rule.
> >>>
> >>> John Cox
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> >>>
> >>>http://forums.matronics.com
> >>>
> >>>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> >>>href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> >>>href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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 |
|
>... but what standard are A&P's taught to expect when signing off an
>annual for instance? Do they have a standard to follow for experimental
>aircraft?
Yes!! Use the same standard that the repairman uses to sign off of
the annual conditional inspection. A good A&P should review the
previous years inspection checklist.
Part of the manufactures responsibility for either a certified
aircraft or a homebuilt is to develop an annual or conditional
inspection checklist. If the A&P can not get one from the aircraft
documents, then get one from another builder/repairman/owner. Or use
a generic inspection checklist that is found in the some of the FAA
circulars on how to inspect a homebuilt (there is an FAA circular on
how to inspect homebuilts). By the way there are numerous RV
inspection checklist examples on the World Wide Web.
Guys, this is really not an issue. It seems more like an excuse to
get rid of homebuilts.
Bob
RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
bob
to start with a+p's don't not sign off annuals, for this inspection we are required
to do in accordance with the appendix. we can use check list as developed
by the manufacturer that comply with the appendix, we can use check list as
developed by the i/a that comply with the appendix, or just use the appendix.
the problem with using certified aircrafts check lists is that most require
compliance with all outstanding service bulletins. and as we all know that is
not required. in order to get around this most sign of inspection as per the appendix.
but we get hit with the bs cya service bulletins, and we also get hit with the
real service bulletins. the trick here is to know the difference.
depending on the airframe i have a list of service bulletins that i feel are required,
and will not sign-off an annual if they are not done. i make all owners
aware of this prior to start of annual. i find it makes thing alot easier in
the end.
so you are going to have an a+p not an i/a do your conditional. go for it. what
you have basically asked is an apprentice, that has little experience with the
airframe or engine to say that everything is all right. he has no experience
with a/d research, does not not where to find the service bulletins on experimental
parts. and has seen a lot less of the field failures that we deal with.
so at this point we have an amateur
build aircraft , inspected by amateurs. owned by idoits. if you have an a+p and
are to lasy to take the test, then don't do inspections.
rick
--- On Thu, 9/4/08, Bob <panamared5@brier.net> wrote:
> From: Bob <panamared5@brier.net>
> Subject: RE: RV-List: A&P Standard
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Date: Thursday, September 4, 2008, 2:38 PM
> <panamared5@brier.net>
>
>
> >... but what standard are A&P's taught to
> expect when signing off an
> >annual for instance? Do they have a standard to follow
> for experimental
> >aircraft?
>
> Yes!! Use the same standard that the repairman uses to
> sign off of
> the annual conditional inspection. A good A&P should
> review the
> previous years inspection checklist.
>
> Part of the manufactures responsibility for either a
> certified
> aircraft or a homebuilt is to develop an annual or
> conditional
> inspection checklist. If the A&P can not get one from
> the aircraft
> documents, then get one from another
> builder/repairman/owner. Or use
> a generic inspection checklist that is found in the some of
> the FAA
> circulars on how to inspect a homebuilt (there is an FAA
> circular on
> how to inspect homebuilts). By the way there are numerous
> RV
> inspection checklist examples on the World Wide Web.
>
> Guys, this is really not an issue. It seems more like an
> excuse to
> get rid of homebuilts.
>
> Bob
> RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
>
>
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: A&P Standard |
(mailto:panamared5@brier.net)
>... but what standard are A&P's taught to expect when signing off an
>annual for instance? Do they have a standard to follow for experimental
>aircraft?
Here is my $0.02 worth to try to clear the air here.
A Certified aircraft in use under Part 91 operations must be inspected by
an A&P with an Inspection Authorization (IA) at least annually. If the
aircraft is used in commercial service a 100 hour Inspection is also required.
(Most
General Aviation aircraft use the same checklist of items for the Annual and
the 100 hour.) They must use the Manufacturer' s Maintenance Manual
Inspection criteria if one was published by the Manufacturer. If there was not
one published by the Manufacturer ( like a Cessna 140) then the A&P w/IA must
use any list desired as long as it meets the same Scope and Detail of the
items listed in FAR Part 43 Appendix D as a minimum.
For the Experimental world an Annual Condition inspection is required and
must be done by at least an A&P. (an IA is not required) using the same scope
and detail as the items listed in FAR 43 Appendix D items as a minimum.
_Click here: FAR Part 43 Appendix D_
(http://www.avweb.com/news/avlaw/181908-1.html)
The term A&E is a leftover term from the United States Civil Aviation
Authority (CAA) which was replaced by the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) back in
1958 . The Air Commerce Act of May 20, 1926 was the first attempt at regulating
aviation. Then the Civil Aeronautics Authority was created in 1938.
In 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt split the Authority into two agencies,
the Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) and the Civil Aeronautics Board
(CAB). The Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) was replaced by the Federal Aviation
Administration when it was moved to the Department of Transportation in 1966.
In the UK and other former British Crown Colonies the mechanics are still
called A&E' s, which stands for Airframe and Engine or technically now all are
called Aviation Maintenance Engineers (AME).
Does that muddy the waters any better?
Ed Flow
A&P w/IA
Flight Engineer
US DHS CBP Air and Marine
'46 Cessna 140
Thatcher CX4 #177 in work.
RV-8 tail still in work.
Do Not Archive
**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
deal here.
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
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! |
RICHARD MILLER wrote:
>
> guys
>
> to say that i don't like experimental aircraft is wrong, a properly
> built rv is one hell of an aircraft, and damn fun to fly. where i
> have most of my problems with conditionals is wiring, <snip>
It's *CONDITION* inspection....not conditionals, or conditional
inspection........or annual......
If we are going to set ourselves up as an authority, let's get the
terminology correct.
Thank you. :-)
Sam Buchanan
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: A&P Standard |
ed
under part 91 we are not requiired to use the manufactures inspection.
rick
--- On Thu, 9/4/08, Vinnfizz@aol.com <Vinnfizz@aol.com> wrote:
> From: Vinnfizz@aol.com <Vinnfizz@aol.com>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: A&P Standard
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Date: Thursday, September 4, 2008, 2:56 PM
>
> (mailto:panamared5@brier.net)
>
> >... but what standard are A&P's taught to
> expect when signing off an
> >annual for instance? Do they have a standard to
> follow for experimental
> >aircraft?
>
> Here is my $0.02 worth to try to clear the air here.
> A Certified aircraft in use under Part 91 operations must
> be inspected by
> an A&P with an Inspection Authorization (IA) at least
> annually. If the
> aircraft is used in commercial service a 100 hour
> Inspection is also required. (Most
> General Aviation aircraft use the same checklist of items
> for the Annual and
> the 100 hour.) They must use the Manufacturer' s
> Maintenance Manual
> Inspection criteria if one was published by the
> Manufacturer. If there was not
> one published by the Manufacturer ( like a Cessna 140) then
> the A&P w/IA must
> use any list desired as long as it meets the same Scope
> and Detail of the
> items listed in FAR Part 43 Appendix D as a minimum.
> For the Experimental world an Annual Condition inspection
> is required and
> must be done by at least an A&P. (an IA is not
> required) using the same scope
> and detail as the items listed in FAR 43 Appendix D items
> as a minimum.
>
> _Click here: FAR Part 43 Appendix D_
> (http://www.avweb.com/news/avlaw/181908-1.html)
>
> The term A&E is a leftover term from the United States
> Civil Aviation
> Authority (CAA) which was replaced by the Federal Aviation
> Agency (FAA) back in
> 1958 . The Air Commerce Act of May 20, 1926 was the first
> attempt at regulating
> aviation. Then the Civil Aeronautics Authority was created
> in 1938.
> In 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt split the Authority
> into two agencies,
> the Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) and the Civil
> Aeronautics Board
> (CAB). The Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) was replaced by
> the Federal Aviation
> Administration when it was moved to the Department of
> Transportation in 1966.
> In the UK and other former British Crown Colonies the
> mechanics are still
> called A&E' s, which stands for Airframe and Engine
> or technically now all are
> called Aviation Maintenance Engineers (AME).
> Does that muddy the waters any better?
>
> Ed Flow
> A&P w/IA
> Flight Engineer
> US DHS CBP Air and Marine
> '46 Cessna 140
> Thatcher CX4 #177 in work.
> RV-8 tail still in work.
>
>
> Do Not Archive
>
>
>
>
> **************It's only a deal if it's where you
> want to go. Find your travel
> deal here.
> (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
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 |
|
Bob,
Excellent post and understandable. So here is a hypothetical question:
Mr. John Jones builds an RX-4 and gets his AWC as an experimental Homebuilt
Aircraft. But he decides since it is an experimental and he can do whatever
he wants to he decides to use several non aircraft type parts and automotive
wiring, plus RC model servo equipment for electric trims. Each year if he
also obtained the A&P license for this aircraft can perform the conditional
inspection.
But then in year 4 he is real busy with work so he hires a licensed A&P
mechanic to do his condition inspection. Does that A&P have the leisure to
inspect this aircraft and have no concerns for the parts that were used in
this aircraft? Is he in jeopardy if he inspects this aircraft and one of
those parts causes an accident? This is my real question as an A&P has some
obligation to follow the accepted practices in the aviation field but an
experimental doesn't really have to meet the same criteria. It is an
experiment.
Now to provide the disclaimer: No, I didn't install these parts in my RV
and I have no reason to need to know this for my own purpose. This is
simply trying to clear up this question in my mind. Should a licensed A&P
refuse to sign off a conditional inspection if he decides he wouldn't have
done something the experimenter did. If not then what is the point of the
condition inspection by an A & P other than the builder?
Tim Bryan
RV-6 Flying
N616TB over 100 hours now
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vinnfizz@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: A&P Standard
panamared5@brier.net
>... but what standard are A&P's taught to expect when signing off an
>annual for instance? Do they have a standard to follow for experimental
>aircraft?
Here is my $0.02 worth to try to clear the air here.
A Certified aircraft in use under Part 91 operations must be inspected by
an A&P with an Inspection Authorization (IA) at least annually. If the
aircraft is used in commercial service a 100 hour Inspection is also
required. (Most General Aviation aircraft use the same checklist of items
for the Annual and the 100 hour.) They must use the Manufacturer' s
Maintenance Manual Inspection criteria if one was published by the
Manufacturer. If there was not one published by the Manufacturer ( like a
Cessna 140) then the A&P w/IA must use any list desired as long as it meets
the same Scope and Detail of the items listed in FAR Part 43 Appendix D as a
minimum.
For the Experimental world an Annual Condition inspection is required and
must be done by at least an A&P. (an IA is not required) using the same
scope and detail as the items listed in FAR 43 Appendix D items as a
minimum.
Click <http://www.avweb.com/news/avlaw/181908-1.html> here: FAR Part 43
Appendix D
The term A&E is a leftover term from the United States Civil Aviation
Authority (CAA) which was replaced by the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) back
in 1958 . The Air Commerce Act of May 20, 1926 was the first attempt at
regulating aviation. Then the Civil Aeronautics Authority was created in
1938.
In 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt split the Authority into two agencies,
the Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) and the Civil Aeronautics Board
(CAB). The Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) was replaced by the Federal
Aviation Administration when it was moved to the Department of
Transportation in 1966.
In the UK and other former British Crown Colonies the mechanics are still
called A&E' s, which stands for Airframe and Engine or technically now all
are called Aviation Maintenance Engineers (AME).
Does that muddy the waters any better?
Ed Flow
A&P w/IA
Flight Engineer
US DHS CBP Air and Marine
'46 Cessna 140
Thatcher CX4 #177 in work.
RV-8 tail still in work.
Do Not Archive
_____
It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal
<http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047> here.
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: A&P Standard |
I feel the need to say something here.
I have been a pilot for 38 years, and A&P for over 30, built 2 airplanes, re
built 3 others, including engineering multiple mods for field approval.
I have owned 31 airplanes, including many experimentals and 5 RVs, doing the
annual condition inspection on all of the experimentals and working with an
AI for most of the annuals on the certificated ones.=C2- I have also done
condition inspections for friends on their airplanes for free, often findin
g things that they needed to fix like fuel lines routed too close to battery
terminals (a common problem on RV-4's with the battery between the pedals).
Despite the rant from rick, I am not an amateur or an apprentice.=C2- My d
ay job is managing aerospace programs for NASA and I have hands on experienc
e from ultralights to the Shuttle.=C2- But since I do not make my living w
ith my A&P I do not need to aggravation and liability exposure of the AI tic
ket.=C2- I choose to limit my FAA rating to the A&P.
Signing the books of any airplane is an adventure.=C2- It is also a choice
.=C2- If the A&P or AI is not comfortable with the condition of the airpla
ne they should not sign.=C2- But I can also tell you that some of the wors
t airplanes I have seen belonged to mechanics and inspectors.=C2- I went t
o buy an airplane owned by a senior inspector for American Airlines one time
and was horrified by its condition.=C2- I would not even fly it let alone
buy it despite its "fresh annual."
B
ut just as a lousy AI can be dangerous, a good conscientious builder can be
the best maintainer you will ever find.
Rick, my boy, you have shot your credibility with me.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Bryan <n616tb@btsapps.com>
Sent: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 6:30 pm
Subject: RE: RV-List: A&P Standard
Bob,
=C2-
Excellent post and understandable.=C2- So here is a hypothetical
question:
Mr. John Jones builds an RX-4 and gets his AWC as an experimental Homebuilt
Aircraft.=C2- But he decides since it is an experimental and he can do wha
tever he
wants to he decides to use several non aircraft type parts and automotive wi
ring,
plus RC model servo equipment for electric trims.=C2- Each year if he also
obtained the A&P license for this aircraft can perform the conditional
inspection.
=C2-
But then in year 4 he is real busy with work so he hires a licensed
A&P mechanic to do his condition inspection.=C2- Does that A&P have the
leisure to inspect this aircraft and have no concerns for the parts that wer
e
used in this aircraft?=C2- Is he in jeopardy if he inspects this aircraft
and one
of those parts causes an accident?=C2- This is my real question as an A&P
has
some obligation to follow the accepted practices in the aviation field but a
n
experimental doesn=99t really have to meet the same criteria.=C2- It
is an
experiment.
=C2-
Now to provide the
disclaimer:=C2- No, I didn=99t install these parts in
my RV and I have no reason to need to know this for my own purpose.=C2- Th
is is
simply trying to clear up this question in my mind.=C2- Should a licensed
A&P refuse
to sign off a conditional inspection if he decides he wouldn=99t have
done
something the experimenter did.=C2- If not then what is the point of the c
ondition
inspection by an A & P other than the builder?
=C2-
Tim
Bryan
RV-6
Flying
N616TB=C2-over
100 hours now
From:
owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.co
m] On
Behalf Of Vinnfizz@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: A&P Standard
=C2-
>... but what standard
are A&P's taught to expect when signing off an
>annual for
instance?=C2- Do they have a standard to follow for experimental
>aircraft?
Here is my $0.02 worth to try to clear the air here.
=C2-A Certified aircraft=C2-in use under Part 91 operations
must be inspected by an A&P with an Inspection Authorization (IA) at least
annually.=C2-If the aircraft is used in commercial service=C2-a 100 hour
Inspection is also required. (Most General Aviation aircraft use the same
checklist of items for the Annual and the 100 hour.) =C2-=C2-=C2- They
must use
the Manufacturer' s Maintenance Manual Inspection criteria=C2-if one
was published by the Manufacturer. =C2-If there was not
one=C2-published=C2-by the Manufacturer=C2-( like a Cessna 140) then t
he
A&P w/IA must use any list desired as long as it=C2-meets the same Scope
and Detail of the items=C2-listed in FAR Part 43 Appendix D as a minimum.
For the Experimental world=C2-an Annual Condition inspection is
required and must=C2-be done by at least an A&P. (an IA is not required)
using the=C2-same scope and detail as the items listed in=C2-FAR 43
Appendix D items as a minimum.
=C2-
=C2-Click
here: FAR Part 43 Appendix D
=C2-
The term A&E is a leftover term from the United States Civil
Aviation Authority (CAA) which was replaced by the Federal Aviation Agency
(FAA) back in 1958 . The Air Commerce Act of May 20, 1926 was the first atte
mpt
at regulating aviation. Then the Civil Aeronautics Authority was created in
1938.
In 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt split the Authority into two
agencies, the Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) and the Civil Aeronauti
cs
Board (CAB). The Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) was replaced by the Federal
Aviation Administration when it was moved to the Department of Transportatio
n
in 1966.
In the UK and other former British Crown Colonies the mechanics
are still called A&E' s, which stands for Airframe and Engine or
techni
cally now all are called Aviation Maintenance Engineers (AME).
Does that muddy the=C2-waters any better?
=C2-
Ed Flow
A&P w/IA
Flight Engineer
US DHS CBP Air and Marine
'46 Cessna 140
Thatcher CX4 #177 in work.=C2-
RV-8 tail still in work.
=C2-
Do Not Archive
=C2-
It's only a deal if it's where you
want to go. Find your travel deal here.
=C2-
=C2-
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
=C2-
S WEB FORUMS -
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: A&P Standard |
Tim
i don't know what you do for NASA but if you don't turn wrenches or supervise
those that do, your a+p is void. engineering does not count. while with my i/a
i would not expect to walk up to the shuttle and declare it ready for flight.
i happen to know that the aircraft i work on have a better then 1/50 flight success
rate. and i also know that if the engine manufacturer told me it would
not work i would not fly.
since the NASA safety record and procedures resulted in the saying " need another
seven astronauts" again and again. i would leave this alone. your shitty
in house quality control has caused to loss of two shuttles, both of which could
have been saved with a proper safety review. in my opinion these were criminal
acts, that should have been prosecuted. if you can show me a nasa manager
in jail, and then you can tell me how good your quality is. i can show you a/i's
that are in jail, for screwing up but i guess if you work for nasa it does
not count.
rick
--- On Thu, 9/4/08, jvanlaak@aol.com <jvanlaak@aol.com> wrote:
> From: jvanlaak@aol.com <jvanlaak@aol.com>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: A&P Standard
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Date: Thursday, September 4, 2008, 4:53 PM
> I feel the need to say something here.
>
> I have been a pilot for 38 years, and A&P for over 30,
> built 2 airplanes, rebuilt 3 others, including engineering
> multiple mods for field approval.
>
> I have owned 31 airplanes, including many experimentals and
> 5 RVs, doing the annual condition inspection on all of the
> experimentals and working with an AI for most of the annuals
> on the certificated ones. I have also done condition
> inspections for friends on their airplanes for free, often
> finding things that they needed to fix like fuel lines
> routed too close to battery terminals (a common problem on
> RV-4's with the battery between the pedals).
>
> Despite the rant from rick, I am not an amateur or an
> apprentice. My day job is managing aerospace programs for
> NASA and I have hands on experience from ultralights to the
> Shuttle. But since I do not make my living with my A&P
> I do not need to aggravation and liability exposure of the
> AI ticket. I choose to limit my FAA rating to the A&P.
>
> Signing the books of any airplane is an adventure. It is
> also a choice. If the A&P or AI is not comfortable
> with the condition of the airplane they should not sign.
> But I can also tell you that some of the worst airplanes I
> have seen belonged to mechanics and inspectors. I went to
> buy an airplane owned by a senior inspector for American
> Airlines one time and was horrified by its condition. I
> would not even fly it let alone buy it despite its
> "fresh annual."
>
> B
> ut just as a lousy AI can be dangerous, a good
> conscientious builder can be the best maintainer you will
> ever find.
>
> Rick, my boy, you have shot your credibility with me.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Bryan <n616tb@btsapps.com>
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 6:30 pm
> Subject: RE: RV-List: A&P Standard
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Bob,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Excellent post and understandable. So here is a
> hypothetical
> question:
>
>
>
> Mr. John Jones builds an RX-4 and gets his AWC as an
> experimental Homebuilt
> Aircraft. But he decides since it is an experimental and
> he can do whatever he
> wants to he decides to use several non aircraft type parts
> and automotive wiring,
> plus RC model servo equipment for electric trims. Each
> year if he also
> obtained the A&P license for this aircraft can perform
> the conditional
> inspection.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> But then in year 4 he is real busy with work so he hires a
> licensed
> A&P mechanic to do his condition inspection. Does
> that A&P have the
> leisure to inspect this aircraft and have no concerns for
> the parts that were
> used in this aircraft? Is he in jeopardy if he inspects
> this aircraft and one
> of those parts causes an accident? This is my real
> question as an A&P has
> some obligation to follow the accepted practices in the
> aviation field but an
> experimental doesnt really have to meet the same
> criteria. It is an
> experiment.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Now to provide the
> disclaimer: No, I didnt install these parts in
> my RV and I have no reason to need to know this for my own
> purpose. This is
> simply trying to clear up this question in my mind.
> Should a licensed A&P refuse
> to sign off a conditional inspection if he decides he
> wouldnt have done
> something the experimenter did. If not then what is the
> point of the condition
> inspection by an A & P other than the builder?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Tim
> Bryan
>
>
>
> RV-6
> Flying
>
>
>
>
>
>
> N616TBover
> 100 hours now
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
> owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of Vinnfizz@aol.com
>
> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 4:57 PM
>
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: A&P Standard
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >... but what standard
> are A&P's taught to expect when signing off an
>
> >annual for
> instance? Do they have a standard to follow for
> experimental
>
> >aircraft?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Here is my $0.02 worth to try to clear the air here.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> A Certified aircraftin use under Part 91 operations
> must be inspected by an A&P with an Inspection
> Authorization (IA) at least
> annually.If the aircraft is used in commercial servicea
> 100 hour
> Inspection is also required. (Most General Aviation
> aircraft use the same
> checklist of items for the Annual and the 100 hour.)
> They
> must use
> the Manufacturer' s Maintenance Manual Inspection
> criteriaif one
> was published by the Manufacturer. If there was not
> onepublishedby the Manufacturer( like a Cessna 140)
> then the
> A&P w/IA must use any list desired as long as itmeets
> the same Scope
> and Detail of the itemslisted in FAR Part 43 Appendix D
> as a minimum.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> For the Experimental worldan Annual Condition inspection
> is
> required and mustbe done by at least an A&P. (an IA
> is not required)
> using thesame scope and detail as the items listed
> inFAR 43
> Appendix D items as a minimum.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Click
> here: FAR Part 43 Appendix D
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The term A&E is a leftover term from the United States
> Civil
> Aviation Authority (CAA) which was replaced by the Federal
> Aviation Agency
> (FAA) back in 1958 . The Air Commerce Act of May 20, 1926
> was the first attempt
> at regulating aviation. Then the Civil Aeronautics
> Authority was created in
> 1938.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt split the Authority
> into two
> agencies, the Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) and
> the Civil Aeronautics
> Board (CAB). The Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) was replaced
> by the Federal
> Aviation Administration when it was moved to the Department
> of Transportation
> in 1966.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In the UK and other former British Crown Colonies the
> mechanics
> are still called A&E' s, which stands for Airframe
> and Engine or
> techni
> cally now all are called Aviation Maintenance Engineers
> (AME).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Does that muddy thewaters any better?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ed Flow
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> A&P w/IA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Flight Engineer
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> US DHS CBP Air and Marine
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> '46 Cessna 140
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thatcher CX4 #177 in work.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> RV-8 tail still in work.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Do Not Archive
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It's only a deal if it's where you
> want to go. Find your travel deal here.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> S WEB FORUMS -
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 |
|
Wow Rick, you need to leave me out of this. I don't work for NASA and I have nothing
bad to say about them, you or anyone else.(well maybe there is someone
but not on this list :-)) I am not an AI nor an A&P and tomorrow I will go fly
my RV just to get off this computer. Y'all have a nice day too.
Do Not Archive this dribble.
Tim Bryan
RV-6 Flying
N616TB over 100 hours now
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RICHARD MILLER
> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 8:34 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: A&P Standard
>
>
> Tim
>
> i don't know what you do for NASA but if you don't turn wrenches or
> supervise those that do, your a+p is void. engineering does not count.
> while with my i/a i would not expect to walk up to the shuttle and
> declare it ready for flight. i happen to know that the aircraft i work
> on have a better then 1/50 flight success rate. and i also know that if
> the engine manufacturer told me it would not work i would not fly.
>
> since the NASA safety record and procedures resulted in the saying "
> need another seven astronauts" again and again. i would leave this
> alone. your shitty in house quality control has caused to loss of two
> shuttles, both of which could have been saved with a proper safety
> review. in my opinion these were criminal acts, that should have been
> prosecuted. if you can show me a nasa manager in jail, and then you can
> tell me how good your quality is. i can show you a/i's that are in
> jail, for screwing up but i guess if you work for nasa it does not
> count.
>
> rick
>
>
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: A&P Standard |
Vinnfizz@aol.com wrote:
"For the Experimental world an Annual Condition inspection is required
and must be done by at least an A&P. (an IA is not required) using
the same scope and detail as the items listed in FAR 43 Appendix D items
as a minimum."
I may be misunderstanding what you wrote but a condition inspection is
not required to be done by at least and A&P the person who holds the
repairman's certificate
for that particular airplane my do the inspection.
do not archive
Jerry
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Builder Available! |
>
>
>jerry i asked a+e or a+p because i don't know the canada, europe rules
>and assumed that you where from there.
>
>
>
>
From nether of those places but am old enough to know where the term
A&E originated from
and it is still commonly used today but old timers.
Jerry
do not archive
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: A&P Standard |
No problem with your suggestions. But until you have all of your
certificates at risk, don't tell an A&P it isn't an issue. We have to
live with whatever happens to the aircraft from the time of inspection
until the next inspection. With homebuilts we have no way of knowing
what is done to the plane the minute after we sign it off.
At least with a certified aircraft we know anything done has to follow
the regs and be done by authorized individuals. I'm all for OBAM
airplanes, have one under construction for myself...yes, it is an RV.
Bob wrote:
>
> Guys, this is really not an issue. It seems more like an excuse to
> get rid of homebuilts.
>
> Bob
> RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
>
>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: A&P Standard |
Also zero requirement to comply with service bulletins, unless they are
incorporated into an AD.
Remember, owner can refuse to do service bulletins, can tell you to sign
the inspection as unairworthy if you insist, and you give a list of
discrepancies. The owner himself can dismiss everyone you cite as
service bulletin not complied with, and get any old A&P to repair
anything else and return the aircraft to service.
It IS after all, only an inspection. Repair is up to the owner.
Kelly
A&P/IA
RICHARD MILLER wrote:
>
> ed
> under part 91 we are not requiired to use the manufactures inspection.
> rick
>
>
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: Builder Available! |
Jerry Springer wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> jerry i asked a+e or a+p because i don't know the canada, europe rules
>> and assumed that you where from there.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> From nether of those places but am old enough to know where the term
> A&E originated from
> and it is still commonly used today but old timers.
>
> Jerry
> do not archive
>
obviously should have said "BY" old timers
do not archive
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: A&P Standard |
Well, then you should know there is no such rating of AI. It is
Inspection Authorization, or IA. Everyone is different. I hold my plane
to a standard that I don't want any other A&P to find fault with.
Doesn't mean it is perfect, but it is airworthy. After all, I fly myself
and my family in it, behind the engine that I assembled and signed off.
Just as you find in certified aircraft, there are huge variations in
quality and maintenance between aircraft, perhaps larger in homebuilt
aircraft...from fantastic museum piece, to accident waiting to happen.
KM
A&P/IA
jvanlaak@aol.com wrote:
> I feel the need to say something here.
>
> I
> Despite the rant from rick, I am not an amateur or an apprentice. My
> day job is managing aerospace programs for NASA and I have hands on
> experience from ultralights to the Shuttle. But since I do not make
> my living with my A&P I do not need to aggravation and liability
> exposure of the AI ticket. I choose to limit my FAA rating to the A&P.
>
> Signing the books of any airplane is an adventure. It is also a
> choice. If the A&P or AI is not comfortable with the condition of the
> airplane they should not sign. But I can also tell you that some of
> the worst airplanes I have seen belonged to mechanics and inspectors.
> I went to buy an airplane owned by a senior inspector for American
> Airlines one time and was horrified by its condition. 20I would not
> even fly it let alone buy it despite its "fresh annual."
>
> But just as a lousy AI can be dangerous, a good conscientious builder
> can be the best maintainer you will ever find.
> *
> *
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: A&P Standard |
In a message dated 9/4/2008 6:36:16 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
rickpegser@yahoo.com writes:
--> RV-List message posted by: RICHARD MILLER <rickpegser@yahoo.com>
ed
under part 91 we are not required to use the manufactures inspection.
rick
Rick,
I don't agree with that statement!
Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations is pretty specific here. Part 91 Sec
91.409 says aircraft (read all aircraft under part 91) must have undergone an
annual inspection in accordance with part 43 of this chapter within the
preceding 12 calendar months. That means all of 43. That means specifically 43.16
is applicable. Therefore an inspection or other maintenance specified in an
Airworthiness Limitations section of a manufacturer's maintenance manual or
Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, IS Mandatory!
Here are the sections quoted, underline, italics,bold, emphasis mine.
Federal Aviation Regulation
Sec. 91.409
Part 91 GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
Subpart E--Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, and Alterations
Sec. 91.409
Inspections.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may
operate an aircraft unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months, it has had--
(1) An annual inspection in accordance with part 43 of this chapter and has
been approved for return to service by a person authorized by Sec. 43.7 of
this chapter;
Sec. 43.16
Airworthiness Limitations.
Each person performing an inspection or other maintenance specified in an
Airworthiness Limitations section of a manufacturer's maintenance manual or
Instructions for Continued Airworthiness shall perform the inspection or other
maintenance in accordance with that section, or in accordance with operations
specifications approved by the Administrator under part 121 or 135, or an
inspection program approved under Sec. 91.409(e).
(e) Large airplanes (to which part 125 is not applicable), turbojet
multiengine airplanes, turbopropeller-powered multiengine airplanes, and
turbine-powered rotorcraft.
**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
deal here.
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: A&P Standard |
In a message dated 9/4/2008 10:49:11 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
jsflyrv@verizon.net writes:
I may be misunderstanding what you wrote but a condition inspection is
not required to be done by at least and A&P the person who holds the
repairman's certificate
for that particular airplane my do the inspection.
do not archive
Jerry
Jerry you are correct there,
I purposely left out that part as we were discussing an A&P on Part 91
aircraft, if the Builder/Manufacturer of an Experimental aircraft has been issued
a Repairman Certificate for that aircraft he is also authorized to perform
the annual Condition Inspection for Experimental aircraft. If you didn't build
it or apply for the Repairman Certificate the inspection has to be performed
by at least an A&P.
Ed
In a message dated 9/4/2008 10:49:11 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
jsflyrv@verizon.net writes:
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@verizon.net>
Vinnfizz@aol.com wrote:
"For the Experimental world an Annual Condition inspection is required
and must be done by at least an A&P. (an IA is not required) using
the same scope and detail as the items listed in FAR 43 Appendix D items
as a minimum."
**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
deal here.
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: A&P Standard |
Once again you left out part of the regs that say
"c) Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do not apply to--
[(1) An aircraft that carries a special flight permit, a current
experimental certificate, or a light-sport or provisional airworthiness
certificate;]"
Vinnfizz@aol.com wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 9/4/2008 6:36:16 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> rickpegser@yahoo.com writes:
>
>
> ed
> under part 91 we are not required to use the manufactures inspection.
> rick
>
>
> Rick,
>
> I don't agree with that statement!
>
>
> Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations is pretty specific here. Part 91
> Sec 91.409 says aircraft (read all aircraft under part 91) must have
> undergone an annual inspection in accordance with part 43 of this
> chapter within the preceding 12 calendar months. That means all of 43.
> That means specifically 43.16 is applicable. Therefore an inspection
> or other maintenance specified in an Airworthiness Limitations section
> of a manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued
> Airworthiness, IS Mandatory!
>
> Here are the sections quoted, underline, italics,bold, emphasis mine.
>
>
>
> Federal Aviation Regulation
>
>
> Hide details for Sec. 91.409Sec. 91.409
>
> Part 91 GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
> Subpart E--Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, and Alterations
>
>
> Sec. 91.409
>
> Inspections.
>
>
> (a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person
> may operate an aircraft unless, within the preceding 12 calendar
> months, it has had--
> (1) An annual inspection in accordance with part 43 of this
> chapter and has been approved for return to service by a person
> authorized by Sec. 43.7 of this chapter;
>
>
>
>
> Sec. 43.16
>
> Airworthiness Limitations.
>
> Each person performing an inspection or other maintenance
> specified in an Airworthiness Limitations section of a
> manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued
> Airworthiness shall perform the inspection or other maintenance in
> accordance with that section, or in accordance with operations
> specifications approved by the Administrator under part 121 or
> 135, or an inspection program approved under Sec. 91.409(e).
> (e) Large airplanes (to which part 125 is not applicable),
> turbojet multiengine airplanes, turbopropeller-powered multiengine
> airplanes, and turbine-powered rotorcraft.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal
> here <http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047>.
>
>
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: A&P Standard |
The standard for a condition inspection of an experimental, amateur
built aircraft is :
"I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with the
scope and detail of Part 43, appendix D and found to be in a condition
for safe flight."
If an A&P or better does the inspection, and is not comfortable with
non-aviation parts/hardware, and/or doesn't think that it is in a
condition for safe flight, he should provide the owner with a list of
discrepancies or withdraw from the process. If not willing to sign the
log, in my opinion, he shouldn't charge for the inspection.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: A&P Standard |
EXACTLY The Standard Ed Holyoke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In a message dated 9/5/2008 2:08:26 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
bicyclop@pacbell.net writes:
--> RV-List message posted by: Ed Holyoke <bicyclop@pacbell.net>
The standard for a condition inspection of an experimental, amateur
built aircraft is :
"I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with the
scope and detail of Part 43, appendix D and found to be in a condition
for safe flight."
If an A&P or better does the inspection, and is not comfortable with
non-aviation parts/hardware, and/or doesn't think that it is in a
condition for safe flight, he should provide the owner with a list of
discrepancies or withdraw from the process. If not willing to sign the
log, in my opinion, he shouldn't charge for the inspection.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
Do Not Archive
**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
deal here.
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
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! --
|