Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:18 AM - for a better new year (Richard Goode)
2. 06:26 AM - Re: Whatisit? (A. Dennis Savarese)
3. 07:02 AM - Re: INSTRUMENT LIGHTING (Brian Lloyd)
4. 07:06 AM - Re: Lead substitute for Autogas? (Brian Lloyd)
5. 07:47 AM - Re: Yak-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 12/23/04 (Lee Taylor)
6. 08:35 AM - Re: Yak-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 12/23/04 (Lee Taylor)
7. 08:49 AM - Re: Re: Yak-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 12/23/04 (A. Dennis Savarese)
8. 09:01 AM - Re: Re: Yak-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 12/23/04 (A. Dennis Savarese)
9. 09:12 AM - for a better new year (AEROSTAR) (Steve Dalton)
10. 04:11 PM - Re: Re: Yak-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 12/23/04 (John W. Cox)
11. 05:56 PM - Re: Re: Yak-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 12/23/04 (Jim Martyn)
12. 08:13 PM - **************** (cjpilot710@aol.com)
13. 08:16 PM - Re: Re: Yak-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 12/23/04 (A. Dennis Savarese)
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: | for a better new year |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Richard Goode" <richard.goode@russianaeros.com>
Looking at Royden Heays request to Aerostar, the Romanians will only be able to
provide those parts of a 55 that are common to a 52.
The 55 and 55M (and indeed the 50) were made at the Arsenyev factory in the Russian
extreme far-east. The factory have all the jigs - and of course used them
in the recent production run of SP-55M aircraft.
In theory they could make any parts that were wanted, but I know from bitter experience
it is a nightmare of organisation and huge time!
Richard Goode
Richard Goode Aerobatics
Rhodds Farm
Lyonshall
Herefordshire
HR5 3LW
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
www.russianaeros.com
dangerous content by the http://www.anti84787.com
MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
The Yak on Ebay is a Yak 55.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: <cpayne@joimail.com>
Subject: Yak-List: Whatisit?
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "cpayne@joimail.com" <cpayne@joimail.com>
>
> There is a single place "Yak" for sale on ebay. It is
> advertised as a "Yak" but has fixed conventional gear with a
> mfg'd date of 1987. Looks a lot like an I-3 to me but heh,
> I'm just a 'changer.
>
> BTW, there is also a Yak-12 carcass offered, don't we have a
> few flying in the US? Something like 110mph at 15GPH?
>
> Craig Payne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: INSTRUMENT LIGHTING |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Dec 23, 2004, at 11:17 AM, ART STAVRO wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: ART STAVRO <art79@cwnet.com>
>
> I once saw an instrument lighting system that appeared to be a strip
> of low
> intensity lights that could be placed around the perimiter of an
> instrument panel
> where they would shine down on the instrument faces. Does anyone know
> who the
> manufacturer is or if something similar is available for CJ'S? Most of
> my Chinese
> instruments are gone with no provision for night flight. Appreciate
> any help..
There are many lighting systems you can put in. The simplest would be
just flood lights from the sides of the cockpit, much like the standard
Chinese lighting. You can install internally lighted instruments
(expensive). You can add post lights next to each instrument. You can
add eyebrow lights (like post lights) to each instrument. You can get
lighting bezels that go between the instrument and the panel and make
the instrument appear to be internally lighted. You can get a
fiber-optic illumination system.
In my CJ I installed an electroluminescent strip under the brow of the
instrument panel. It was a blue-green flood that lit up the
non-florescent instruments the same color as the glow-in-the-dark
instruments. It would also run off its 9V transistor radio battery
should the electrical system fail. I think that this would probably do
what you want without going to a lot of expense and installation cost.
There are a lot of options for lighting your panel.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
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: Lead substitute for Autogas? |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Dec 23, 2004, at 1:38 PM, Ron Davis wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Ron Davis" <l39parts@hotmail.com>
>
>> Anyone have any experience/info on a product called CD-2 Lead
>> Substitute?
>
>
> CD-2 Super Concentrated Lead Substitute is about 25% sodium sulfonate,
> and
> 4% each of octane, nonane, and trimethylbenzene. Balance is naphtha.
> ...
>
> The above is fact, the following is opinion:
>
> This stuff is a waste of money.
Now consider that the Huosai engine was designed to run on 70 octane
'white' gas which is lead-free to start with and you have to consider
that maybe lead or lead substitute isn't needed in this engine. I don't
know if the same is true for the M14P or its derivatives.
> Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and annoy the
> pig.--
> Lazarus Long
Heinlein did have a way with common sense, didn't he?
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
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: Yak-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 12/23/04 |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Lee Taylor" <leetay@comcast.net>
================================================
EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
================================================
15. 09:46 AM - Re: Re: Doing work on US experimental airplanes (A.
Dennis Savarese)
Time: 09:46:41 AM PST US
From: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: RE: Doing work on US experimental airplanes
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
I beg to differ with you Lee. FAR 43 which covers maintenance of
aircraft is quite
clear with regards to experimental aircraft. Verbatim - please note
43.1
(b), which I have bolded and underlined the pertinent words. It clearly
states
this part does not apply to experimental aircraft. Part means FAR 43;
in
its entirety.
=A743.1 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this part
prescribes rules
governing the maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and
alteration
of any --
(1) Aircraft having a U.S. airworthiness certificate;
(2) Foreign-registered civil aircraft used in common carriage or
carriage of
mail under the provisions of Part 121 or 135 of this chapter;
and
(3) Airframe, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, and
component parts
of such aircraft.
(b) This part does not apply to any aircraft for which an experimental
airworthiness
certificate has been issued, unless a different kind of airworthiness
certificate
had previously been issued for that aircraft
An A&P does not have to sign off all the work you've done on your
airplane since
experimental aircraft are not covered under FAR 43. As you said, an A&P
does
have to sign off the annual condition inspection and the annual
condition inspection
has to be of the scope and detail of Part 43, Appendix D. IAW FAA Order
8130.2E, page 136, c. (4) which is also the basis of your Operating
Limitations.
It states:
c. Group III, Piston-Powered: Warbirds, Vintage, Replica, and Unique
Aircraft.
(4) Inspection Requirements. Aircraft under 800 horsepower must be
inspected
each year in accordance with an inspection plan that contains the scope
and detail
of appendix D to part 43. Aircraft of 800 horsepower and above must be
inspected
in accordance with appropriate military technical publications or
manufacturer=92s
instructions for the aircraft.
Bottom line; there is nothing illegal about you maintaining your
experimental aircraft
as long as an A&P does sign off on the annual condition inspection.
Dennis
Hope you never get called on this, Dennis, but I've been around
this business all my life as a professional, and have had extensive
casual conversations with the FAA along these lines.
Generally, the FAA has taken a back seat in dealing with this
issue, because frankly they don't want to deal with "experimentals", as
much as possible. Their attitude is that we will only kill ourselves,
or someone who has seen the "experimental" placard, and therefore
basically they have adopted a "hands-off" policy.
EVERYONE, ignores the "legal" requirements as to who does the
work on an experimental plane, but in reality, the only person LEGALLY
approved for doing actual technical work on an experimental is the
ORIGINAL BUILDER, granted an Airman's Repair Certificate, on that
particular plane, (he can't work on another one he hasn't built), or an
A&P. Anyone can do the work, but for it to be legal, it has to be at
least signed off by an A&P.
I didn't mean to get into a long deal with this, just to let
people know they MIGHT be letting themselves into a legal tangle
someday. My experience is that is the only time they might get called on
it, is by some insurance company attorney.
Lee Taylor
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: Yak-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 12/23/04 |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Lee Taylor" <leetay@comcast.net>
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Ron Davis" <l39parts@hotmail.com>
Lee,
I'm not disagreeing with you, but where is the part that says you can't
rent
the plane to a pilot to fly himself? I know where to find the
prohibition
on carrying passengers or cargo for hire (ops limits). I've haven't
come
across a statement about renting the plane out. I presume you aren't
willing to rent it out, but don't know what prohibits that if you did
want
to.
"Experimental aircraft shall not be used for commercial operations".
Rental IS a commercial operation, in the eyes of the Feds, regardless of
how we would want to interpret it. This isn't an exact quote from the
regs, but it is their intent, and-------
Frankly, we can do anything WE DARNED WELL WANT with a plane, AS
LONG AS WE DON'T GET CAUGHT!!! That applies to rental of our
experimentals, or working on them. The simple fact, tho, is that if we
ever run afoul of lawyers or an FAA inspector, if we do any of the
above, our necks are on the chopping block. That is all I am trying to
raise awareness of.
Horror story. Locally we have the most thoroughly experienced,
totally professional airline pilot/A&P mechanic/AI/FAA Pilot/Mechanic
Designee for EVERYTHING I have ever known. He signed off an annual last
month, "Aircraft determined to be airworthy & Approved for return to
service WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS-----" And listed three things to
be corrected. (not airworthiness items) He is being nailed for a 3-mo
suspension of his AI because he DIDN'T say "NOT approved".
If we try to interpret these #%#@#$% rules, we can get nastily
shot down. Bend them at your own risk. That's all the awareness I am
trying to promote.
Lee Taylor
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: RE: Yak-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 12/23/04 |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
I appreciate your professional experience Lee and of course your concern for
the group. However, I would also appreciate you directing me and the group
to the statement or statements in FAR's or FAA Orders which specify the
legality you refer to in your reply. IOW, where in the FAR's does it say an
A&P is the only person who can sign off repairs on an experimental airplane
that was not built by the person or manufacturer doing the repairs?
I believe what you are referring to is the experimental, amateur built
category airplane where the builder of the airplane is granted the Airman's
Repair Certificate for that specific airplane only. That repair certificate
does not apply to all of the same type aircraft; lets say an RV6.
Effectively the builder becomes the A&P for that specific airplane. Since
we do agree that an A&P must sign the annual condition inspection on an
experimental airplane, if the owner of an amateur built experimental
aircraft is also the builder, the owner/builder can obviously do the
maintenance and he/she can sign off the annual condition inspection. If the
owner is not the builder, then either the original builder or a licensed A&P
can sign off the inspection.
Since you have been involved in the business all your life, you know that
FAR 43 pretty much governs maintenance and repair of all aircraft. Am I
correct on this? If FAR 43 is effectively the "bible", then 43.1 (b) is
part of that bible which again, clearly states the Part does not apply to
experimental aircraft. That means all experimental aircraft. Not just
experimental-exhibition or experimental-amateur built. ALL experimental
aircraft. If you do a word search within FAR 43, the word "experimental"
appears only once, and that is in the paragraph I referred to. So if FAR 43
does not govern maintenance and repair of experimental aircraft, then what
FAA regulation, Order or other document(s) govern the maintenance and repair
of experimental aircraft? This is the where the real legality comes in.
Not what the local FAA inspector perceives to be true or what some attorney
perceives to be true.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Taylor" <leetay@comcast.net>
Subject: Yak-List: RE: Yak-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 12/23/04
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Lee Taylor" <leetay@comcast.net>
>
>
> ================================================
> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
> ================================================
>
>
> 15. 09:46 AM - Re: Re: Doing work on US experimental airplanes (A.
> Dennis Savarese)
>
> Time: 09:46:41 AM PST US
> From: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: RE: Doing work on US experimental airplanes
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
>
> I beg to differ with you Lee. FAR 43 which covers maintenance of
> aircraft is quite
> clear with regards to experimental aircraft. Verbatim - please note
> 43.1
> (b), which I have bolded and underlined the pertinent words. It clearly
> states
> this part does not apply to experimental aircraft. Part means FAR 43;
> in
> its entirety.
>
> =A743.1 Applicability.
>
> (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this part
> prescribes rules
> governing the maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and
> alteration
> of any --
>
>
> (1) Aircraft having a U.S. airworthiness certificate;
>
> (2) Foreign-registered civil aircraft used in common carriage or
> carriage of
> mail under the provisions of Part 121 or 135 of this chapter;
> and
>
> (3) Airframe, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, and
> component parts
> of such aircraft.
>
>
> (b) This part does not apply to any aircraft for which an experimental
> airworthiness
> certificate has been issued, unless a different kind of airworthiness
> certificate
> had previously been issued for that aircraft
>
> An A&P does not have to sign off all the work you've done on your
> airplane since
> experimental aircraft are not covered under FAR 43. As you said, an A&P
> does
> have to sign off the annual condition inspection and the annual
> condition inspection
> has to be of the scope and detail of Part 43, Appendix D. IAW FAA Order
> 8130.2E, page 136, c. (4) which is also the basis of your Operating
> Limitations.
> It states:
> c. Group III, Piston-Powered: Warbirds, Vintage, Replica, and Unique
> Aircraft.
>
> (4) Inspection Requirements. Aircraft under 800 horsepower must be
> inspected
> each year in accordance with an inspection plan that contains the scope
> and detail
> of appendix D to part 43. Aircraft of 800 horsepower and above must be
> inspected
> in accordance with appropriate military technical publications or
> manufacturer=92s
> instructions for the aircraft.
>
> Bottom line; there is nothing illegal about you maintaining your
> experimental aircraft
> as long as an A&P does sign off on the annual condition inspection.
> Dennis
>
> Hope you never get called on this, Dennis, but I've been around
> this business all my life as a professional, and have had extensive
> casual conversations with the FAA along these lines.
> Generally, the FAA has taken a back seat in dealing with this
> issue, because frankly they don't want to deal with "experimentals", as
> much as possible. Their attitude is that we will only kill ourselves,
> or someone who has seen the "experimental" placard, and therefore
> basically they have adopted a "hands-off" policy.
> EVERYONE, ignores the "legal" requirements as to who does the
> work on an experimental plane, but in reality, the only person LEGALLY
> approved for doing actual technical work on an experimental is the
> ORIGINAL BUILDER, granted an Airman's Repair Certificate, on that
> particular plane, (he can't work on another one he hasn't built), or an
> A&P. Anyone can do the work, but for it to be legal, it has to be at
> least signed off by an A&P.
> I didn't mean to get into a long deal with this, just to let
> people know they MIGHT be letting themselves into a legal tangle
> someday. My experience is that is the only time they might get called on
> it, is by some insurance company attorney.
>
> Lee Taylor
>
>
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: RE: Yak-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 12/23/04 |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
Lee,
It probably sounds like we're (or I'm) ganging up on you. But I'm not. It
just doesn't make sense to me how an IA can approve an airplane for return
to service (read airworthy) and then say with the following exceptions.
Either it's airworthy without exceptions or it isn't airworthy. If there
were items that he recommended be repaired that may eventually cause the
airplane to become unairworthy, then he should have never used the term
"exceptions" in the statement of airworthiness. These should have been
items he recommended be repaired or serviced.
I know this is playing on words, but the fact is the statements in the log
books are the only thing that can be interpreted. Not what he was thinking
or what he meant to say when he was signing off the airplane as airworthy.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Taylor" <leetay@comcast.net>
Subject: Yak-List: RE: Yak-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 12/23/04
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Lee Taylor" <leetay@comcast.net>
>
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Ron Davis" <l39parts@hotmail.com>
>
>
> Lee,
>
> I'm not disagreeing with you, but where is the part that says you can't
> rent
> the plane to a pilot to fly himself? I know where to find the
> prohibition
> on carrying passengers or cargo for hire (ops limits). I've haven't
> come
> across a statement about renting the plane out. I presume you aren't
> willing to rent it out, but don't know what prohibits that if you did
> want
> to.
>
>
> "Experimental aircraft shall not be used for commercial operations".
> Rental IS a commercial operation, in the eyes of the Feds, regardless of
> how we would want to interpret it. This isn't an exact quote from the
> regs, but it is their intent, and-------
> Frankly, we can do anything WE DARNED WELL WANT with a plane, AS
> LONG AS WE DON'T GET CAUGHT!!! That applies to rental of our
> experimentals, or working on them. The simple fact, tho, is that if we
> ever run afoul of lawyers or an FAA inspector, if we do any of the
> above, our necks are on the chopping block. That is all I am trying to
> raise awareness of.
> Horror story. Locally we have the most thoroughly experienced,
> totally professional airline pilot/A&P mechanic/AI/FAA Pilot/Mechanic
> Designee for EVERYTHING I have ever known. He signed off an annual last
> month, "Aircraft determined to be airworthy & Approved for return to
> service WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS-----" And listed three things to
> be corrected. (not airworthiness items) He is being nailed for a 3-mo
> suspension of his AI because he DIDN'T say "NOT approved".
>
> If we try to interpret these #%#@#$% rules, we can get nastily
> shot down. Bend them at your own risk. That's all the awareness I am
> trying to promote.
>
> Lee Taylor
>
>
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: | for a better new year (AEROSTAR) |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Steve Dalton" <sdalton@goeaston.net>
Cristian,
It was good to see you again at Oshkosh. I still believe the Yak-52TW
is the best buy in aviation. I enjoy every flight in it!
I'm sure there are many of us who are curious about your comment, "We
have in intention as soon is possible in 2005 to put under your analyzes
several proposals to improve and modify YAK 52 aircraft."
I'm looking forward to hearing your proposals. Merry Christmas and
Happy New Year to you.
Steve Dalton
No.1 Yak-52TW
N52SD
---- Original Message -----
From: Marketing AEROSTAR
Subject: for a better new year
Gentlemen ,
Being the final of the year , we wish to all of you all the best and a
Happy New
Year in 2005 !
We are hoping your Yak 52 aircraft make your life a little more
pleasant . And
maybe you will not blame us to much when some technical problems are
issued
to your planes ....
Our plan for 2005 is to continue the production for new aircraft .
Maybe not so
many like before but we still estimate to produce around 15 - 20 new
aircraft
. We also will continue to produce spare parts for your aircraft , a
reasonable
spare parts deposit being available here all the time . We also will
continue
to make repairs & overhauls and to cooperate for servicing and
inspections
.
We have in intention as soon is possible in 2005 to put under your
analyzes several
proposals to improve and modify YAK 52 aircraft , in order to extend the
aircraft resources and abilities . We thank you in advance if you will
want to
help us .
We all from Aerostar - Romania wish to you Merry Christmas and to have
all a better
year !
Sincerely ,
Cristian Dragoi
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: Yak-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 12/23/04 |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Dennis, it's a common misperception, but the IA designation is the
inspection hat the A&P wears while inspecting an aircraft for required
Airworthiness conformity. Those exceptions logged in the IAs entry,
disappear as soon as an A&P makes the observed discrepancies "disappear" by
appropriate and authorized actions.
The holder of a repairman certificate, working on an Experimental aircraft
to which he was the builder (manufacturer) can act just like that A&P
mentioned above on his experimental aircraft.
When the builder sells the experimental aircraft to owner #2 then either the
original builder(repairman) or an A&P corrects those exception found in the
logbooks.
The aircraft would not comply with airworthiness from the IAs logbook
endorsement until those exceptions have been met and appropriately logged
following the IAs entry by the servicing individual. Inspect first, then
document, then repair and finally log the "approval for return to service".
Until the repairs (exceptions) are made airworthy and properly documented,
the IAs inspection does not imply airworthiness. It's an "IF - THEN"
statement.
John Cox - A&P Merry Christmas
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of A. Dennis Savarese
Subject: Re: Yak-List: RE: Yak-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 12/23/04
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
Lee,
It probably sounds like we're (or I'm) ganging up on you. But I'm not.
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Yak-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 12/23/04 |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Jim Martyn" <vertigo@whidbey.net>
I can relate that my recent experience with a FSDO inquisition into the
maintenance history of an experimental aircraft whose restoration I managed
matches Dennis' understanding of the regs.
The FSDO rep finally admitted, rather begrudgingly, that my non-A&P
maintenance work was competely legal, but only after several hours of
persistently implying otherwise. The exemption of experimental aircraft from
Part 43 really seems to chafe some in the FAA. After all, they're here to
help...
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: RE: Yak-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 12/23/04
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
>
> I appreciate your professional experience Lee and of course your concern
> for
> the group. However, I would also appreciate you directing me and the
> group
> to the statement or statements in FAR's or FAA Orders which specify the
> legality you refer to in your reply. IOW, where in the FAR's does it say
> an
> A&P is the only person who can sign off repairs on an experimental
> airplane
> that was not built by the person or manufacturer doing the repairs?
>
> I believe what you are referring to is the experimental, amateur built
> category airplane where the builder of the airplane is granted the
> Airman's
> Repair Certificate for that specific airplane only. That repair
> certificate
> does not apply to all of the same type aircraft; lets say an RV6.
> Effectively the builder becomes the A&P for that specific airplane. Since
> we do agree that an A&P must sign the annual condition inspection on an
> experimental airplane, if the owner of an amateur built experimental
> aircraft is also the builder, the owner/builder can obviously do the
> maintenance and he/she can sign off the annual condition inspection. If
> the
> owner is not the builder, then either the original builder or a licensed
> A&P
> can sign off the inspection.
>
> Since you have been involved in the business all your life, you know that
> FAR 43 pretty much governs maintenance and repair of all aircraft. Am I
> correct on this? If FAR 43 is effectively the "bible", then 43.1 (b) is
> part of that bible which again, clearly states the Part does not apply to
> experimental aircraft. That means all experimental aircraft. Not just
> experimental-exhibition or experimental-amateur built. ALL experimental
> aircraft. If you do a word search within FAR 43, the word "experimental"
> appears only once, and that is in the paragraph I referred to. So if FAR
> 43
> does not govern maintenance and repair of experimental aircraft, then what
> FAA regulation, Order or other document(s) govern the maintenance and
> repair
> of experimental aircraft? This is the where the real legality comes in.
> Not what the local FAA inspector perceives to be true or what some
> attorney
> perceives to be true.
>
> Dennis
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lee Taylor" <leetay@comcast.net>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Yak-List: RE: Yak-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 12/23/04
>
>
>> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Lee Taylor" <leetay@comcast.net>
>>
>>
>> ================================================
>> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
>> ================================================
>>
>>
>> 15. 09:46 AM - Re: Re: Doing work on US experimental airplanes (A.
>> Dennis Savarese)
>>
>> Time: 09:46:41 AM PST US
>> From: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: RE: Doing work on US experimental airplanes
>>
>> --> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
>>
>> I beg to differ with you Lee. FAR 43 which covers maintenance of
>> aircraft is quite
>> clear with regards to experimental aircraft. Verbatim - please note
>> 43.1
>> (b), which I have bolded and underlined the pertinent words. It clearly
>> states
>> this part does not apply to experimental aircraft. Part means FAR 43;
>> in
>> its entirety.
>>
>> =A743.1 Applicability.
>>
>> (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this part
>> prescribes rules
>> governing the maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and
>> alteration
>> of any --
>>
>>
>> (1) Aircraft having a U.S. airworthiness certificate;
>>
>> (2) Foreign-registered civil aircraft used in common carriage or
>> carriage of
>> mail under the provisions of Part 121 or 135 of this chapter;
>> and
>>
>> (3) Airframe, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, and
>> component parts
>> of such aircraft.
>>
>>
>> (b) This part does not apply to any aircraft for which an experimental
>> airworthiness
>> certificate has been issued, unless a different kind of airworthiness
>> certificate
>> had previously been issued for that aircraft
>>
>> An A&P does not have to sign off all the work you've done on your
>> airplane since
>> experimental aircraft are not covered under FAR 43. As you said, an A&P
>> does
>> have to sign off the annual condition inspection and the annual
>> condition inspection
>> has to be of the scope and detail of Part 43, Appendix D. IAW FAA Order
>> 8130.2E, page 136, c. (4) which is also the basis of your Operating
>> Limitations.
>> It states:
>> c. Group III, Piston-Powered: Warbirds, Vintage, Replica, and Unique
>> Aircraft.
>>
>> (4) Inspection Requirements. Aircraft under 800 horsepower must be
>> inspected
>> each year in accordance with an inspection plan that contains the scope
>> and detail
>> of appendix D to part 43. Aircraft of 800 horsepower and above must be
>> inspected
>> in accordance with appropriate military technical publications or
>> manufacturer=92s
>> instructions for the aircraft.
>>
>> Bottom line; there is nothing illegal about you maintaining your
>> experimental aircraft
>> as long as an A&P does sign off on the annual condition inspection.
>> Dennis
>>
>> Hope you never get called on this, Dennis, but I've been around
>> this business all my life as a professional, and have had extensive
>> casual conversations with the FAA along these lines.
>> Generally, the FAA has taken a back seat in dealing with this
>> issue, because frankly they don't want to deal with "experimentals", as
>> much as possible. Their attitude is that we will only kill ourselves,
>> or someone who has seen the "experimental" placard, and therefore
>> basically they have adopted a "hands-off" policy.
>> EVERYONE, ignores the "legal" requirements as to who does the
>> work on an experimental plane, but in reality, the only person LEGALLY
>> approved for doing actual technical work on an experimental is the
>> ORIGINAL BUILDER, granted an Airman's Repair Certificate, on that
>> particular plane, (he can't work on another one he hasn't built), or an
>> A&P. Anyone can do the work, but for it to be legal, it has to be at
>> least signed off by an A&P.
>> I didn't mean to get into a long deal with this, just to let
>> people know they MIGHT be letting themselves into a legal tangle
>> someday. My experience is that is the only time they might get called on
>> it, is by some insurance company attorney.
>>
>> Lee Taylor
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: | **************** |
KROwen@charter.net, PaulSanden@aol.com, artziggy6@yahoo.com,
carriesuerowe@yahoo.com, paulbeth.mullen@worldnet.att.net,
wpairprt@tdstelme.net, garvey@attbi.com, bncdenham@peakonline.com,
jefflinebaugh@earthlink.net, AC6M@aol.com, Bigj10@msn.com,
keith.goolsby@eds.com, gaf127enl@msn.com, MDSHELLEY@aol.com,
yakjock@msn.com, walterfricke@yahoo.com, Rdorsey777@cs.com,
dabear@damned.org, TCalloway@hangar-d.com, mason.t@worldnet.att.net,
radialpower@cox.net, KILOUSMC@aol.com, FamilyGage@aol.com,
rvfltd@televar.com, cd001633@mindspring.com, ernest.martinez@oracle.com,
N23GD@yahoo.com, jtobul@tobul.com, tormentor34@netzero.net,
JandEFinley@comcast.net
--> Yak-List message posted by: cjpilot710@aol.com
Merry Christmas
Pappy
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: RE: Yak-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 12/23/04 |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
Thank you for the further clarification John.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Subject: RE: Yak-List: RE: Yak-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 12/23/04
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
>
> Dennis, it's a common misperception, but the IA designation is the
> inspection hat the A&P wears while inspecting an aircraft for required
> Airworthiness conformity. Those exceptions logged in the IAs entry,
> disappear as soon as an A&P makes the observed discrepancies "disappear"
by
> appropriate and authorized actions.
>
> The holder of a repairman certificate, working on an Experimental aircraft
> to which he was the builder (manufacturer) can act just like that A&P
> mentioned above on his experimental aircraft.
>
> When the builder sells the experimental aircraft to owner #2 then either
the
> original builder(repairman) or an A&P corrects those exception found in
the
> logbooks.
>
> The aircraft would not comply with airworthiness from the IAs logbook
> endorsement until those exceptions have been met and appropriately logged
> following the IAs entry by the servicing individual. Inspect first, then
> document, then repair and finally log the "approval for return to
service".
>
> Until the repairs (exceptions) are made airworthy and properly documented,
> the IAs inspection does not imply airworthiness. It's an "IF - THEN"
> statement.
>
>
> John Cox - A&P Merry Christmas
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of A. Dennis
Savarese
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: RE: Yak-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 12/23/04
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
>
> Lee,
> It probably sounds like we're (or I'm) ganging up on you. But I'm not.
>
>
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! --
|