Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:40 AM - Re: First Condition (Vernon Franklin)
2. 06:51 AM - Re: First Condition Inspection (Kelly McMullen)
3. 09:55 AM - Re: Re: First Conditional (David Saylor)
4. 05:16 PM - Re: Re: First Conditional (Kelly McMullen)
5. 05:48 PM - Re: Re: First Conditional (Jesse Saint)
6. 06:29 PM - Re: First Conditional (Bob Turner)
7. 10:35 PM - Re: Re: First Conditional (David Saylor)
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: First Condition |
All very good information, thanks guys. It sounds like the log entry I
added before first flight. It should just be repeated at each year's
condition.
> "I certify this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with scope and
detail of Appendix D to Part 43 and has been found to be in a condition for
safe operation."
Yes, the Repairman's Certificate was the first thing I went out and got
after completion. I would be surprised to hear of any builder who didn't.
Thanks everyone!
Vernon
On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 9:05 PM Kelly McMullen <apilot2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 1. It is a condition inspection, not conditional.
> 2. Your operating limitations will tell you exactly what to do and what
> language to use on the sign off.
> 3. You can use whatever checklist pleases you as long as it contains at
> least the scope and detail of 14 CFR 43 Appendix D.
> 4. Your sign off will contain the these or similar words " I find this
> aircraft to be in a *condition* for safe operation." That is why it is a
> condition inspection.
> I ass-ume you have obtained from your local FSDO a repairman's certificate
> for your aircraft that permits you to sign off this inspection.
> You must maintain "records" of maintenance and inspections. Whether those
> take the form of logbook(s) or a three ring binder or a file folder does
> not matter.
> As Bob mentioned, there is no such thing as "airworthy" for an aircraft
> that does not have an approved type certificate and type certificate data
> sheet. Only aircraft that have a Standard Airworthiness Certificate on a
> white piece of paper will meet that requirement. The fact that you have a
> Special Airworthiness Certificate in the Experimental category with
> operating limitations is your clue that it will never be "airworthy".
>
> Kelly
> A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor
>
> Sent from my IBM-360 main frame
>
>
> On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 3:07 PM, Vernon Franklin <
> vernon.franklin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> My first year has flown by :) I am starting my conditional this week.
>>
>> I found this RV conditional check list online that looks pretty thorough,
>> I thought I would share:
>>
>> -
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B31MKmXjYxYqeWZhcHRlakZzNlE/view?usp=sharing
>>
>>
>> My main question for the group is in regards to logs. What is the
>> wording that I should use for the log entries when complete? Specifically,
>> for the Engine, Propeller and Aircraft logs.
>>
>> Is it similar to an annual? For example: "I certify this XXX has been
>> inspected in accordance with a conditional inspection, and was determined
>> to be in an airworthy condition."
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> --
>> Vernon Franklin
>>
>
>
--
Vernon Franklin
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: First Condition Inspection |
The point is to use the exact words that are contained in your operating
limitations. Don't freelance on the wording. For the last 10 years or
so, all operating limitations should have same wording, but you never
know. Also a good time to verify that you have copy of operating
limitations, weight and balance and registration all in the plane as
required. (you would be surprised how many don't carry their operating
limitations).
On 5/27/2018 5:37 AM, Vernon Franklin wrote:
> All very good information, thanks guys. It sounds like the log entry I
> added before first flight. It should just be repeated at each year's
> condition.
>
> > "I certify this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with scope
> and detail of Appendix D to Part 43 and has been found to be in a
> condition for safe operation."
>
>
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: First Conditional |
Maintained correctly, our airplanes are airworthy. They have airworthiness
certificates. They fit the FAA's definition, which acknowledges that they
needn't conform to a type design. 91.7 says we're not allowed to take off
unless the plane is airworthy.
If you want to substitute "airworthy" for "in a condition for safe
operation" in your signoff, go ahead. That's about as similarly worded as
you can get!
8130.2J
Appendix I
Definitions:
Airworthy. An aircraft with a type certificate (TC) is airworthy when it
conforms to its U.S. TC and is in a condition for safe operation. For the
purpose of this order, a non-type-certificated aircraft is airworthy when
it is in a condition for safe operation.
--Dave
On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 3:50 PM Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu> wrote:
>
> I think you will find suggested wording in your operating limitations
> document. These days the faa recommends you do not use the word
> =9Cairworthy=9D, as that specifically means =9CIs in co
nformance with its type
> certificate=9D. Of course EAB aircraft don=99t have a type ce
rtificate.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480425#480425
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
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: First Conditional |
You are debating with the FAA themselves. The definition says it has to
have a type certificate. They then insert circular wording to say condition
for safe operation means airworthy, which it does not. Experimental
aircraft have a "special airworthiness certificate" because they don't meet
the requirements for a "Standard" airworthiness certificate. Look at the
required passenger warning on your instrument panel that states the
aircraft does not meet all FA A airworthiness requirements. Your operating
limitations state the very specific language to be used for sign-off of a
condition inspection. Use other language at your own peril. The language is
there to protect you more than anything else. Type certificated aircraft
have very specific language for sign off of their annual inspection, and
any inspector that values his certificates will use that language.
Sent from my IBM-360 main frame
On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 9:53 AM, David Saylor <saylor.dave@gmail.com> wrote
:
> Maintained correctly, our airplanes are airworthy. They have
> airworthiness certificates. They fit the FAA's definition, which
> acknowledges that they needn't conform to a type design. 91.7 says we're
> not allowed to take off unless the plane is airworthy.
>
> If you want to substitute "airworthy" for "in a condition for safe
> operation" in your signoff, go ahead. That's about as similarly worded a
s
> you can get!
>
> 8130.2J
> Appendix I
> Definitions:
> Airworthy. An aircraft with a type certificate (TC) is airworthy when it
> conforms to its U.S. TC and is in a condition for safe operation. For the
> purpose of this order, a non-type-certificated aircraft is airworthy when
> it is in a condition for safe operation.
>
> --Dave
>
> On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 3:50 PM Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu> wrote
:
>
>>
>> I think you will find suggested wording in your operating limitations
>> document. These days the faa recommends you do not use the word
>> =9Cairworthy=9D, as that specifically means =9CIs in c
onformance with its type
>> certificate=9D. Of course EAB aircraft don=99t have a type c
ertificate.
>>
>> --------
>> Bob Turner
>> RV-10 QB
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480425#480425
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> -List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.
>> matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> ==========
>> FORUMS -
>> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> WIKI -
>> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> b Site -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on
>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
>>
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: First Conditional |
The operating limitations, iirc, give the wording then say =9Cor simil
arly worded statement=9D. The passenger warning says it does not meet t
he federal safety regulations for standard aircraft, but does not say anythi
ng about airworthiness. The special airworthiness certificate is still and a
irworthiness certificate. All that aside, the easiest way to handle it is to
use the wording in the operating limitations. I see many experimentals that
have past sign offs with the certified plane wording.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
352-427-0285
jesse@saintaviation.com
Sent from my iPad
> On May 27, 2018, at 8:14 PM, Kelly McMullen <apilot2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You are debating with the FAA themselves. The definition says it has to ha
ve a type certificate. They then insert circular wording to say condition fo
r safe operation means airworthy, which it does not. Experimental aircraft h
ave a "special airworthiness certificate" because they don't meet the requir
ements for a "Standard" airworthiness certificate. Look at the required pass
enger warning on your instrument panel that states the aircraft does not mee
t all FA A airworthiness requirements. Your operating limitations state the
very specific language to be used for sign-off of a condition inspection. U
se other language at your own peril. The language is there to protect you mo
re than anything else. Type certificated aircraft have very specific languag
e for sign off of their annual inspection, and any inspector that values his
certificates will use that language.
>
> Sent from my IBM-360 main frame
>
>> On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 9:53 AM, David Saylor <saylor.dave@gmail.com> wro
te:
>> Maintained correctly, our airplanes are airworthy. They have airworthine
ss certificates. They fit the FAA's definition, which acknowledges that they
needn't conform to a type design. 91.7 says we're not allowed to take off u
nless the plane is airworthy.
>>
>> If you want to substitute "airworthy" for "in a condition for safe operat
ion" in your signoff, go ahead. That's about as similarly worded as you can
get!
>>
>> 8130.2J
>> Appendix I
>> Definitions:
>> Airworthy. An aircraft with a type certificate (TC) is airworthy when it c
onforms to its U.S. TC and is in a condition for safe operation. For the pur
pose of this order, a non-type-certificated aircraft is airworthy when it is
in a condition for safe operation.
>>
>> --Dave
>>
>>> On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 3:50 PM Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu> wrot
e:
>>>
>>> I think you will find suggested wording in your operating limitations do
cument. These days the faa recommends you do not use the word =9Cairwo
rthy=9D, as that specifically means =9CIs in conformance with it
s type certificate=9D. Of course EAB aircraft don=99t have a typ
e certificate.
>>>
>>> --------
>>> Bob Turner
>>> RV-10 QB
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480425#480425
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ==========
>>> -List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Nav
igator?RV10-List
>>> ==========
>>> FORUMS -
>>> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>>> ==========
>>> WIKI -
>>> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
>>> ==========
>>> b Site -
>>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on
>>> ==========
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
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: First Conditional |
Dave, thanks for your post. I got my info out of the mouth of the FSDO guy, who
only quoted me the first half of the definition you posted. If I had read the
whole thing, I would have argued with him about it. (My wife says Im a contrarian
by nature -:) ).
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480465#480465
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: First Conditional |
My pleasure, Bob. I figured as much. Some of those guys read a lot into a
little, and it gets under my skin when they start making up their own rules
.
--Dave
On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 6:33 PM Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu> wrote:
>
> Dave, thanks for your post. I got my info out of the mouth of the FSDO
> guy, who only quoted me the first half of the definition you posted. If I
> had read the whole thing, I would have argued with him about it. (My wife
> says I=99m a contrarian by nature -:) ).
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480465#480465
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
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! --
|