---------------------------------------------------------- RV10-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sun 05/27/18: 7 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:40:09 AM PST US From: Vernon Franklin Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:51:53 AM PST US Subject: Re: RV10-List: First Condition Inspection From: Kelly McMullen 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:55:49 AM PST US From: David Saylor Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:16:31 PM PST US From: Kelly McMullen Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:48:38 PM PST US From: Jesse Saint Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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 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 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:29:33 PM PST US Subject: RV10-List: Re: First Conditional From: "Bob Turner" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:35:09 PM PST US From: David Saylor Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message rv10-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/RV10-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/rv10-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/rv10-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.