---------------------------------------------------------- Yak-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sat 12/25/04: 2 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:36:49 AM PST US From: "Lee Taylor" Subject: Yak-List: RE:Legality of non-A&P work --> Yak-List message posted by: "Lee Taylor" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:08:12 AM PST US From: "Rick Basiliere" Subject: RE: Yak-List: RE:Legality of non-A&P work, ELTs now? --> Yak-List message posted by: "Rick Basiliere" 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" 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