Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:36 AM - Re:Legality of non-A&P work (Lee Taylor)
2. 08:08 AM - Re: Re:Legality of non-A&P work, ELTs now? (Rick Basiliere)
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:Legality of non-A&P work |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Lee Taylor" <leetay@comcast.net>
In our discussions of the legality of non-A&P work on our planes, you
quote the FAR reference that says Experimentals are exempt from the
requirements of the section requiring an A&P. Therefore, since it does
not SPECIFICALLY say that an A&P (signoff, at least) is required, you
are allowed to do anything you wish.
While the Harvard types can AND DO get into protracted
discussions like this, and they may even win occasionally, what I am
talking about, and just trying to give a little insight to, is the
experience that I have had in dealing with and talking to FAA inspectors
and insurance agents for a lifetime. Their attitude is basically
hands-off the experimental crowd, UNLESS there is a problem
That's where the "interpretations" rear their ugly heads.
When it comes down to legal interpretations, if something is not
SPECIFICALLY spelled out in exact terms, e.g., the regulations
specifically say that "you", as a non-A&P, ARE authorized to do some
mechanical work, then they refer back to the sections that say that "an
A&P IS REQUIRED for this type of work." And we can argue the point ad
nauseum, but the arguments at that point are carried out by lawyers, and
that will bankrupt us. Just look back at our most famous example, Bob
Hoover's debacle.
We,as experimental owners, have historically done just about
anything we wanted to our planes, A&P or not, and the FAA has generally
looked the other way. I doubt that anyone COMPETENT will ever have to
worry much about doing this.
I just wanted everyone to know that there is a certain risk, and
to understand more fully their own situation.
(by the way, anyone checked the annual inspection requirements
for your infamous ELT lately? I know very few people who are doing this
"correctly"!!) :>)
Lee Taylor
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:Legality of non-A&P work, ELTs now? |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Rick Basiliere" <discrab@earthlink.net>
Lets stop this elt thing before it gets started... 14 CFR Sec. 91.207
Emergency Locater Transmitters, (a)Except as provided in paragraphs (e) and
(f)...
(f)(8) Aircraft while used for...EXHIBITION (emphasis added)
(f)(9) Aircraft not equipped to carry more than one person;
No ELTs required in Experimental/EXHIBITION or in Single seat e.g.
Yak-50/55, SU-26/31
No ELTs=No required maintenance
This concludes the sermon: 91.207, leave in peace
Respectfully, Ricky B
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Lee Taylor
Subject: Yak-List: RE:Legality of non-A&P work
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Lee Taylor" <leetay@comcast.net>
In our discussions of the legality of non-A&P work on our planes, you
quote the FAR reference that says Experimentals are exempt from the
requirements of the section requiring an A&P. Therefore, since it does
not SPECIFICALLY say that an A&P (signoff, at least) is required, you
are allowed to do anything you wish.
While the Harvard types can AND DO get into protracted
discussions like this, and they may even win occasionally, what I am
talking about, and just trying to give a little insight to, is the
experience that I have had in dealing with and talking to FAA inspectors
and insurance agents for a lifetime. Their attitude is basically
hands-off the experimental crowd, UNLESS there is a problem
That's where the "interpretations" rear their ugly heads.
When it comes down to legal interpretations, if something is not
SPECIFICALLY spelled out in exact terms, e.g., the regulations
specifically say that "you", as a non-A&P, ARE authorized to do some
mechanical work, then they refer back to the sections that say that "an
A&P IS REQUIRED for this type of work." And we can argue the point ad
nauseum, but the arguments at that point are carried out by lawyers, and
that will bankrupt us. Just look back at our most famous example, Bob
Hoover's debacle.
We,as experimental owners, have historically done just about
anything we wanted to our planes, A&P or not, and the FAA has generally
looked the other way. I doubt that anyone COMPETENT will ever have to
worry much about doing this.
I just wanted everyone to know that there is a certain risk, and
to understand more fully their own situation.
(by the way, anyone checked the annual inspection requirements
for your infamous ELT lately? I know very few people who are doing this
"correctly"!!) :>)
Lee Taylor
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! --
|