Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Do AD's really apply?

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Do AD's really apply?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

ronlee(at)pcisys.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 4:04 pm Post subject: Do AD's really apply?

Regardless of who is right, it only makes sense to determine

 if an AD is relevant to the safe operation of your aircraft. I

 complied with the Vans -A Service Bulletin BEFORE it was

 announced.  I am of the opinion that if you stay on asphalt

 or contract then you may determine that the SB is not relevant 

 to safe operation of your aircraft.

  

 Ron Lee

    [quote][b]

ronlee(at)pcisys.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 4:26 pm Post subject: Do AD's really apply?

"contract" should be "concrete"

  

 Sigh

 [quote]   ---

rocketbob(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 4:28 pm Post subject: Do AD's really apply?

George, it still seems that you haven't bothered to read FAR part 39.  AD's apply to PRODUCTS, not type certificated aircraft.  If your experimental aircraft has a PRODUCT installed that is covered by an AD, sure as the sky is blue and the night is black that you are required to comply with the AD.

I have a good friend who happens to be DAR #1, who's ratings and endorsements span across five pilot certificates.  He has testified in 27 court cases or administrative law hearings on behalf of the FAA or against the FAA.  He is 27-0 as an expert witness, and travels the world issuing CofA's for transport-category, warbirds, and expermentals.  I would have to say he knows his stuff.  I asked him if he knew of any enforcement actions related to non-compliance of AD's on experimental aircraft.  His response: "Yes, it is quite frequent."  More of his response:

 "Read FAR 39.  ADs are issued against "products" and not airworthiness

 certificates.  If an "aeronautical product" has been found to be a

 hazard and

 FAA issues an AD against it you must comply with the AD.  It matters

 not what type of Certificate of Airworthiness the aircraft has."

Regards,

Bob Japundza

RV-6 flying F1 under const.

On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 5:58 PM,  <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com (gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com)> wrote:

 [quote] Bob:

If you are a EAA member. Log In and use the search 

for two  letters AD. The first item will be, "Airworthiness 

Directives & Amateur Built Aircraft." Click on that and 

  read. If you are not a member I'll send it to you.

  Bob there is an air of prove it, I dare you; I don't 

believe you? I don't like your tone. I am trying to 

  teach you, but if you are not listening, OK fine have 

a nice day. I don't care to fight or convince you.

  First its not hypothetical it's a FACT. The EAA 

works with the FAA lawyers and are going to 

  Oklahoma and DC all the time. If you don't believe 

them fine. I have not put up any "opinion", it is legal 

fact that some how has blown your fuse. I am 

OK if you disagree, but you have no facts to support 

  your opinion or refute.

  The prove it part? To  prove a negative is like saying 

prove dogs can't talk. The only regulation you need to 

meet is in the front of your experimental aircraft's log 

book and there are no comments about AD's or any 

  other part of the FAR's except the ones noted.

  Bob, prove AD's must be complied with. You can't. I have 

read all the regs and talked to the lawyers on this matter, 

have you?

  Second there is no legal precedence, no lawsuits or 

rulings from a judge. If you are foreseeing lawsuits 

and violations you better comply with all your AD's 

to be conservative. 

  QUOTE:

  THIS AIRCRAFT IS AMATEUR BUILT AND

DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE FEDERAL

SAFETY REGULATIONS FOR STANDARD 

AIRCRAFT

  Questions?

  Your protest or challenge is prima facie ridiculous. No 

  proof is needed. Prove it to yourself. Part 23, 39, 43  

and so on don't APPLY! Next you will tell me I 

  need a A&P to work on my RV.

  I gave you the references and you should do your own 

research and evaluation. I can't do it for you. You will 

  never believe me. I did the leg work and called the 

EAA and read the Regs.  If nothing I said makes sense 

to you or rings a cord of truth, I'm not going to 

convince you. No hard feelings. Fly safe.

  The idea of less or no government nanny state hand 

holding, especially aviation, blows people away and 

they can't deal with it.

  There is no mechanism to MAKE amateur built 

  experimental planes comply with AD's, except urban 

legend and a few FAA/DAR's CYA'ing because it 

can't hurt and gives them the feeling of job security. 

  To be fair, I have been in that position and have not 

  want to sign something off,  certification documents, 

analysis or a part 121 flight plan.

  Now you tell me how AD's work? You can't. There is 

no link to experimental. The Gov is busy trying to 

change that, as if other things where not more 

  important.

  Individual news letters from individual FSDO's don't 

mean squat; often they are wrong and become a 

source of controversy. One FSDO in the middle of no 

where wrote a news letter and said AD's apply many 

  many yrs ago and it floats around. It is wrong. This is 

where the EAA lawyers talking to the FAA lawyers 

come in. This is not a debate or controversy, its a fact.  

Believe what you want, I am OK with that.

  I'm not saying you should disregard any or all AD's 

out of hand. However if the Ref EAA article is not 

  good enough for you (I assume you are a member) 

  and talk to legal  they will tell you all the references 

  and reasons. You apparently don't have trust in my 

  comments. That is OK, you should research it. Make 

  yourself happy, all the best.

  George

      >From: "Bob J." <rocketbob(at)gmail.com (rocketbob(at)gmail.com)> 

      >Subject: Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? 

  >Cite the FAR that says AD's only apply to type

 	  Quote: 	
		  certificated aircraft. No references to EAA's site, no 

personal opinion, just show us where it says 

experimentals are exempt from AD's. Lets see how 

  >well your argument hypothetically would hold up in 

 	  Quote: 	
		  court. 

 	  Quote: 	
		  Regards, 

Bob Japundza 

RV-6 flying F1 under const.

  ">Blockbuster Total Access for one month at no cost.   	  Quote: 	

[b]

hooverra(at)verizon.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:18 pm Post subject: Do AD's really apply?

FAA Form 8130-6, Application for U.S. Airworthiness Certificate Includes the following certification in section III B Certification Basis. In the EAA’s guidance for this form they recommend that the current “AD revision number” be included as well as the compliance block checked. This adds further evidence that AD’s need to complied with (not that any more was required) just another data point.  

AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES (Check if   all applicable AD's are compiled with and give the number of the last AD   SUPPLEMENT available in the biweekly series as of the date of application)         

Ralph & Laura Hoover  

RV7A  N527LR (reserved and registration application filed)   

Ready for transport to the airport for final assembly.  

From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob J.

 Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 7:25 PM

 To: rv-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Re: Do AD's really apply?  

George, it still seems that you haven't bothered to read FAR part 39.  AD's apply to PRODUCTS, not type certificated aircraft.  If your experimental aircraft has a PRODUCT installed that is covered by an AD, sure as the sky is blue and the night is black that you are required to comply with the AD.

 I have a good friend who happens to be DAR #1, who's ratings and endorsements span across five pilot certificates.  He has testified in 27 court cases or administrative law hearings on behalf of the FAA or against the FAA.  He is 27-0 as an expert witness, and travels the world issuing CofA's for transport-category, warbirds, and expermentals.  I would have to say he knows his stuff.  I asked him if he knew of any enforcement actions related to non-compliance of AD's on experimental aircraft.  His response: "Yes, it is quite frequent."  More of his response:

 "Read FAR 39.  ADs are issued against "products" and not airworthiness

 certificates.  If an "aeronautical product" has been found to be a

 hazard and

 FAA issues an AD against it you must comply with the AD.  It matters

 not what type of Certificate of Airworthiness the aircraft has."

 Regards,

 Bob Japundza

 RV-6 flying F1 under const.

On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 5:58 PM, <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com (gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com)> wrote:    

Bob:

 If you are a EAA member. Log In and use the search 

 for two  letters AD. The first item will be, "Airworthiness 

 Directives & Amateur Built Aircraft." Click on that and 

 read. If you are not a member I'll send it to you.  

Bob there is an air of prove it, I dare you; I don't 

 believe you? I don't like your tone. I am trying to 

 teach you, but if you are not listening, OK fine have 

 a nice day. I don't care to fight or convince you.  

First its not hypothetical it's a FACT. The EAA 

 works with the FAA lawyers and are going to 

 Oklahoma and DC all the time. If you don't believe 

 them fine. I have not put up any "opinion", it is legal 

 fact that some how has blown your fuse. I am 

 OK if you disagree, but you have no facts to support 

 your opinion or refute.  

The prove it part? To prove a negative is like saying 

 prove dogs can't talk. The only regulation you need to 

 meet is in the front of your experimental aircraft's log 

 book and there are no comments about AD's or any 

 other part of the FAR's except the ones noted.  

Bob, prove AD's must be complied with. You can't. I have 

 read all the regs and talked to the lawyers on this matter, 

 have you?  

Second there is no legal precedence, no lawsuits or 

 rulings from a judge. If you are foreseeing lawsuits 

 and violations you better comply with all your AD's 

 to be conservative.   

QUOTE:  

THIS AIRCRAFT IS AMATEUR BUILT AND

 DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE FEDERAL

 SAFETY REGULATIONS FOR STANDARD 

 AIRCRAFT  

Questions?  

Your protest or challenge is prima facie ridiculous. No 

 proof is needed. Prove it to yourself. Part 23, 39, 43 

 and so on don't APPLY! Next you will tell me I   

need a A&P to work on my RV.  

I gave you the references and you should do your own 

 research and evaluation. I can't do it for you. You will 

 never believe me. I did the leg work and called the 

 EAA and read the Regs.  If nothing I said makes sense 

 to you or rings a cord of truth, I'm not going to 

 convince you. No hard feelings. Fly safe.  

The idea of less or no government nanny state hand 

 holding, especially aviation, blows people away and 

 they can't deal with it.  

There is no mechanism to MAKE amateur built 

 experimental planes comply with AD's, except urban 

 legend and a few FAA/DAR's CYA'ing because it 

 can't hurt and gives them the feeling of job security.   

To be fair, I have been in that position and have not 

 want to sign something off, certification documents, 

 analysis or a part 121 flight plan.  

Now you tell me how AD's work? You can't. There is 

 no link to experimental. The Gov is busy trying to 

 change that, as if other things where not more 

 important.  

Individual news letters from individual FSDO's don't 

 mean squat; often they are wrong and become a 

 source of controversy. One FSDO in the middle of no 

 where wrote a news letter and said AD's apply many 

 many yrs ago and it floats around. It is wrong. This is 

 where the EAA lawyers talking to the FAA lawyers 

 come in. This is not a debate or controversy, its a fact.  

 Believe what you want, I am OK with that.  

I'm not saying you should disregard any or all AD's 

 out of hand. However if the Ref EAA article is not   

good enough for you (I assume you are a member)   

and talk to legal they will tell you all the references   

and reasons. You apparently don't have trust in my   

comments. That is OK, you should research it. Make   

yourself happy, all the best.

 George

       >From: "Bob J." <rocketbob(at)gmail.com (rocketbob(at)gmail.com)> 

       >Subject: Re: Re: Do AD's really apply?   

 >Cite the FAR that says AD's only apply to type

 >certificated aircraft. No references to EAA's site, no 

 >personal opinion, just show us where it says 

 >experimentals are exempt from AD's. Lets see how 

 >well your argument hypothetically would hold up in 

 >court. 

 >Regards, 

 >Bob Japundza 

 >RV-6 flying F1 under const.  

">Blockbuster Total Access for one month at no cost.    	  Quote: 	

    	  Quote: 	

0 	  Quote: 	

1 	  Quote: 	

2 	  Quote: 	

3 	  Quote: 	

4 	  Quote: 	

5 	  Quote: 	

6 	  Quote: 	

7 	  Quote: 	

8 	  Quote: 	

9 	  Quote: 	

0 	  Quote: 	

1 	  Quote: 	

2

       [quote][b]

cjensen(at)dts9000.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 12:18 am Post subject: Do AD's really apply?

Would  somebody please give gmcjet his meds..

 

Chuck 

 

 Do Not Archive

  

  --

Dale Ensing

Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 571
Location: Aero Plantation Weddington NC

Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 4:07 am Post subject: Do AD's really apply?

Question to the DO advocates

  

 Have been monitoring this discussion and I think  I'm becoming a believer. However, I have an AB experimental plane that I built  20 years ago. The only "aeronautical product" in it. that I can think of,  is the airspeed indicator and the altimeter. How does compliance to ADs  apply to this airplane or make it safer?

  

 I do want to know if there is a flaw in a product.  But, isn't it up to me, and my responsibility, to decide if I want the product  in my airplane, with or without the flaw,  just like it was when I put the  product in the airplane when I originally built it? I have high  compression pistons in the O-360 (Lycoming rebuilt by AeroSport Power) in my  RV-6A. I don't think Lycoming approves of that. Is there an AD that says I can't  have the high compression pistons? Isn't that why I got a 40 hour Phase I when  the data plate says it is a Lycoming O-360?

  

 Is the engine the 'product' or are the pistons the  'product'?

  

 Trying to understand this AD thing.

  

 Dale Ensing

 RV-6A N118DE 

  

 [quote]"Read    FAR 39.  ADs are issued against "products" and not    airworthiness

certificates.  If an "aeronautical product" has been    found to be a

hazard and FAA issues an AD against it you must comply with    the AD.  It matters

not what type of Certificate of Airworthiness the    aircraft has."



Regards,

Bob Japundza

RV-6 flying F1 under    const.

[b]

_________________
Dale Ensing
RV-6A
Aero Plantation
Weddington NC

khorton01(at)rogers.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:10 am Post subject: Do AD's really apply?

You need to read the applicability statement of each AD to see exactly  

what it applies to.  An AD could, in theory, be written against  

specific part number high compression pistons, produced in a certain  

range of dates, because it was discovered that an error was make  

during manufacturing that could lead to piston failure.



Kevin Horton



On 30-Mar-08, at 08:03 , Dale Ensing wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Question to the DO advocates



 Have been monitoring this discussion and I think I'm becoming a  

 believer. However, I have an AB experimental plane that I built 20  

 years ago. The only "aeronautical product" in it. that I can think  

 of, is the airspeed indicator and the altimeter. How does compliance  

 to ADs apply to this airplane or make it safer?



 I do want to know if there is a flaw in a product. But, isn't it up  

 to me, and my responsibility, to decide if I want the product in my  

 airplane, with or without the flaw,  just like it was when I put the  

 product in the airplane when I originally built it? I have high  

 compression pistons in the O-360 (Lycoming rebuilt by AeroSport  

 Power) in my RV-6A. I don't think Lycoming approves of that. Is  

 there an AD that says I can't have the high compression pistons?  

 Isn't that why I got a 40 hour Phase I when the data plate says it  

 is a Lycoming O-360?



 Is the engine the 'product' or are the pistons the 'product'?



 Trying to understand this AD thing.



 Dale Ensing

 RV-6A N118DE



 "Read FAR 39.  ADs are issued against "products" and not airworthiness

 certificates.  If an "aeronautical product" has been found to be a

 hazard and FAA issues an AD against it you must comply with the AD.   

 It matters

 not what type of Certificate of Airworthiness the aircraft has."



 Regards,

 Bob Japundza

 RV-6 flying F1 under const.

robertrv607(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:29 am Post subject: Do AD's really apply?

--- RALPH HOOVER <hooverra(at)verizon.net> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		    I HAVE SEEN THIS FOR A LONG TIME,  PEOOPLE ASK A

QUESTION, ONLY BECAUSE THEY WANT TO ARGUE WITH YOU,
	


THEY REALLY DO NOT WANT AN ANSWER....

PEOPOLE DO WHA THEY WANT TO DO.... NOT WHAT THEY

SHOULD DO....



EVERY TIME VAN'S PUBLISH, A ADVISORY,? A.D?

YOU SEE THESE PEOPLE, START THE ARGUMENT...

LETS IGNORE THEM....I WILL COMPLY WITH EVERY ONE,

PERIOD.

BERT

 	  Quote: 	
		    

 

 FAA Form 8130-6, Application for U.S. Airworthiness

 Certificate Includes the

 following certification in section III B

 Certification Basis. In the EAA's

 guidance for this form they recommend that the

 current "AD revision number"

 be included as well as the compliance block checked.

 This adds further

 evidence that AD's need to complied with (not that

 any more was required)

 just another data point.

 

  

 

  

 

 

 AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES (Check if all applicable

 AD's are compiled with and

 give the number of the last AD SUPPLEMENT available

 in the biweekly series

 as of the date of application) 

 

  

 

 Ralph & Laura Hoover

 

 RV7A  N527LR (reserved and registration application

 filed) 

 

 Ready for transport to the airport for final

 assembly.

 

  

 

   _____  

 

 From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com

 [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On

 Behalf Of Bob J.

 Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 7:25 PM

 To: rv-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Re: Do AD's really apply?

 

  

 

 George, it still seems that you haven't bothered to

 read FAR part 39.  AD's

 apply to PRODUCTS, not type certificated aircraft. 

 If your experimental

 aircraft has a PRODUCT installed that is covered by

 an AD, sure as the sky

 is blue and the night is black that you are required

 to comply with the AD.

 

 I have a good friend who happens to be DAR #1, who's

 ratings and

 endorsements span across five pilot certificates. 

 He has testified in 27

 court cases or administrative law hearings on behalf

 of the FAA or against

 the FAA.  He is 27-0 as an expert witness, and

 travels the world issuing

 CofA's for transport-category, warbirds, and

 expermentals.  I would have to

 say he knows his stuff.  I asked him if he knew of

 any enforcement actions

 related to non-compliance of AD's on experimental

 aircraft.  His response:

 "Yes, it is quite frequent."  More of his response:

 

 "Read FAR 39.  ADs are issued against "products" and

 not airworthiness

 certificates.  If an "aeronautical product" has been

 found to be a

 hazard and

 FAA issues an AD against it you must comply with the

 AD.  It matters

 not what type of Certificate of Airworthiness the

 aircraft has."

 

 Regards,

 Bob Japundza

 RV-6 flying F1 under const.

 

 

 

 On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 5:58 PM,

 <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> wrote:

 

 Bob:

 If you are a EAA member. Log In and use the search 

 for two  letters AD. The first item will be,

 "Airworthiness 

 Directives & Amateur Built Aircraft." Click on that

 and 

 read. If you are not a member I'll send it to you.

 

  

 

  

 

 Bob there is an air of prove it, I dare you; I don't

 

 believe you? I don't like your tone. I am trying to 

 teach you, but if you are not listening, OK fine

 have 

 a nice day. I don't care to fight or convince you.

 

  

 

 First its not hypothetical it's a FACT. The EAA 

 works with the FAA lawyers and are going to 

 Oklahoma and DC all the time. If you don't believe 

 them fine. I have not put up any "opinion", it is

 legal 

 fact that some how has blown your fuse. I am 

 OK if you disagree, but you have no facts to support

 

 your opinion or refute.

 

  

 

 The prove it part? To prove a negative is like

 saying 

 prove dogs can't talk. The only regulation you need

 to 

 meet is in the front of your experimental aircraft's

 log 

 book and there are no comments about AD's or any 

 other part of the FAR's except the ones noted.

 

  

 

 Bob, prove AD's must be complied with. You can't. I

 have 

 read all the regs and talked to the lawyers on this

 matter, 

 have you?

 

  

 

 Second there is no legal precedence, no lawsuits or 

 rulings from a judge. If you are foreseeing lawsuits

 

 and violations you better comply with all your AD's 

 to be conservative. 

 

  

 

 QUOTE:

 

 THIS AIRCRAFT IS AMATEUR BUILT AND

 DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE FEDERAL

 SAFETY REGULATIONS FOR STANDARD 

 AIRCRAFT

 

  

 

 Questions?

 

 Your protest or challenge is prima facie ridiculous.

 No 

 proof is needed. Prove it to yourself. Part 23, 39,

 43 

 and so on don't APPLY! Next you will tell me I 

 

 need a A&P to work on my RV.

 

  

 

 I gave you the references and you should do your own

 

 research and evaluation. I can't do it for you. You

 will 

 never believe me. I did the leg work and called the 

 EAA and read the Regs.  If nothing I said makes

 sense 

 to you or rings a cord of truth, I'm not going to 

 convince you. No hard feelings. Fly safe.

 

  

 

 The idea of less or no government nanny state hand 

 holding, especially aviation, blows people away and 

 they can't deal with it.

 

  

 

 There is no mechanism to MAKE amateur built 

 experimental planes comply with AD's, except urban 

 legend and a few FAA/DAR's CYA'ing because it 

 can't hurt and gives them the feeling of job

 security. 

 

 To be fair, I have been in that position and have

 not 

 

=== message truncated ===
	




Like movies? Here's a limited-time offer: Blockbuster Total Access for one month at no cost. 

http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text4.com

jsflyrv(at)verizon.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 7:59 am Post subject: Do AD's really apply?

Here is a link that covers this all very well and explains why an AD 

does or does not apply to experimental aircraft.

It is a bit lengthy but read it all through for explanations.



http://starduster.aircraftspruce.com/wwwboard/messages/25960.html

Jerry

bert murillo wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  

--- RALPH HOOVER <hooverra(at)verizon.net> wrote:



  



> I HAVE SEEN THIS FOR A LONG TIME,  PEOOPLE ASK A

>    

>

QUESTION, ONLY BECAUSE THEY WANT TO ARGUE WITH YOU,

THEY REALLY DO NOT WANT AN ANSWER....

PEOPOLE DO WHA THEY WANT TO DO.... NOT WHAT THEY

SHOULD DO....



EVERY TIME VAN'S PUBLISH, A ADVISORY,? A.D?

YOU SEE THESE PEOPLE, START THE ARGUMENT...

LETS IGNORE THEM....I WILL COMPLY WITH EVERY ONE,

PERIOD.

BERT

  



> 

>

>FAA Form 8130-6, Application for U.S. Airworthiness

>Certificate Includes the

>following certification in section III B

>Certification Basis. In the EAA's

>guidance for this form they recommend that the

>current "AD revision number"

>be included as well as the compliance block checked.

>This adds further

>evidence that AD's need to complied with (not that

>any more was required)

>just another data point.

>

> 

>

> 

>AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES (Check if all applicable

>AD's are compiled with and

>give the number of the last AD SUPPLEMENT available

>in the biweekly series

>as of the date of application) 

>

> 

>

>Ralph & Laura Hoover

>

>RV7A  N527LR (reserved and registration application

>filed) 

>

>Ready for transport to the airport for final

>assembly.

>

> 

>

>  _____  

>

>From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com

>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On

>Behalf Of Bob J.

>Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 7:25 PM

>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com

>Subject: Re: Re: Do AD's really apply?

>

> 

>

>George, it still seems that you haven't bothered to

>read FAR part 39.  AD's

>apply to PRODUCTS, not type certificated aircraft. 

>If your experimental

>aircraft has a PRODUCT installed that is covered by

>an AD, sure as the sky

>is blue and the night is black that you are required

>to comply with the AD.

>

>I have a good friend who happens to be DAR #1, who's

>ratings and

>endorsements span across five pilot certificates. 

>He has testified in 27

>court cases or administrative law hearings on behalf

>of the FAA or against

>the FAA.  He is 27-0 as an expert witness, and

>travels the world issuing

>CofA's for transport-category, warbirds, and

>expermentals.  I would have to

>say he knows his stuff.  I asked him if he knew of

>any enforcement actions

>related to non-compliance of AD's on experimental

>aircraft.  His response:

>"Yes, it is quite frequent."  More of his response:

>

>"Read FAR 39.  ADs are issued against "products" and

>not airworthiness

>certificates.  If an "aeronautical product" has been

>found to be a

>hazard and

>FAA issues an AD against it you must comply with the

>AD.  It matters

>not what type of Certificate of Airworthiness the

>aircraft has."

>

>Regards,

>Bob Japundza

>RV-6 flying F1 under const.

>

>On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 5:58 PM,

><gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>Bob:

>If you are a EAA member. Log In and use the search 

>for two  letters AD. The first item will be,

>"Airworthiness 

>Directives & Amateur Built Aircraft." Click on that

>and 

>read. If you are not a member I'll send it to you.

>

> 

>

> 

>

>Bob there is an air of prove it, I dare you; I don't

>

>believe you? I don't like your tone. I am trying to 

>teach you, but if you are not listening, OK fine

>have 

>a nice day. I don't care to fight or convince you.

>

> 

>

>First its not hypothetical it's a FACT. The EAA 

>works with the FAA lawyers and are going to 

>Oklahoma and DC all the time. If you don't believe 

>them fine. I have not put up any "opinion", it is

>legal 

>fact that some how has blown your fuse. I am 

>OK if you disagree, but you have no facts to support

>

>your opinion or refute.

>

> 

>

>The prove it part? To prove a negative is like

>saying 

>prove dogs can't talk. The only regulation you need

>to 

>meet is in the front of your experimental aircraft's

>log 

>book and there are no comments about AD's or any 

>other part of the FAR's except the ones noted.

>

> 

>

>Bob, prove AD's must be complied with. You can't. I

>have 

>read all the regs and talked to the lawyers on this

>matter, 

>have you?

>

> 

>

>Second there is no legal precedence, no lawsuits or 

>rulings from a judge. If you are foreseeing lawsuits

>

>and violations you better comply with all your AD's 

>to be conservative. 

>

> 

>

>QUOTE:

>

>THIS AIRCRAFT IS AMATEUR BUILT AND

>DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE FEDERAL

>SAFETY REGULATIONS FOR STANDARD 

>AIRCRAFT

>

> 

>

>Questions?

>

>Your protest or challenge is prima facie ridiculous.

>No 

>proof is needed. Prove it to yourself. Part 23, 39,

>43 

>and so on don't APPLY! Next you will tell me I 

>

>need a A&P to work on my RV.

>

> 

>

>I gave you the references and you should do your own

>

>research and evaluation. I can't do it for you. You

>will 

>never believe me. I did the leg work and called the 

>EAA and read the Regs.  If nothing I said makes

>sense 

>to you or rings a cord of truth, I'm not going to 

>convince you. No hard feelings. Fly safe.

>

> 

>

>The idea of less or no government nanny state hand 

>holding, especially aviation, blows people away and 

>they can't deal with it.

>

> 

>

>There is no mechanism to MAKE amateur built 

>experimental planes comply with AD's, except urban 

>legend and a few FAA/DAR's CYA'ing because it 

>can't hurt and gives them the feeling of job

>security. 

>

>To be fair, I have been in that position and have

>not 

>

>    

>

=== message truncated ===



Like movies? Here's a limited-time offer: Blockbuster Total Access for one month at no cost. 

http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text4.com

n616tb(at)btsapps.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 9:22 am Post subject: Do AD's really apply?

What a great article!  Thanks Jerry!

Tim

Do Not Archive



[quote] --

khorton01(at)rogers.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 11:10 am Post subject: Do AD's really apply?

On 30-Mar-08, at 11:54 , Jerry Springer wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  

 Here is a link that covers this all very well and explains why an AD  

 does or does not apply to experimental aircraft.

 It is a bit lengthy but read it all through for explanations.



 http://starduster.aircraftspruce.com/wwwboard/messages/25960.html


	


The 1998 legal opinion that is described in that article relies  

heavily on the words "type design" that were present in FAR 39.1 back  

when that opinion was written.  Unfortunately, the FAA amended FAR  

39.1 in 2002, removing the words "type design", so the whole basis of  

that legal opinion became invalid.



Kevin Horton

rickpegser(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 9:37 pm Post subject: Do AD's really apply?

Guys:

   

     leave it up to me to stir up a hornets nest.  I had hoped to inform others in the field what we are seeing with log books from the experimental side of the industry. but for some reason this has expanded into a pissing match. 

   

  as per "das fed" Ad's do apply to all experimental aircraft but the failure to comply with an ad is not enforceable due to the fact that the repairman are not required to have an up to date ad list .

   

  this does not apply to a+p's or i/a that are doing conditional inspections as we are required to have an up to date ad information. and are  supposed to have been trained in ad research.

   

  airframe:

   

  now why is there no vans rv-9 ad's, because vans has never built a aircraft, they are all joe smith model vans rv-9, and since there is only one aircraft out there and  since the ad probably means that that one is now only good for beer cans, it would make no sense to issue an ad for a "type"  joe smith rv-9. so this solves the problem with airframe ad's. but vans has the service bulletins with respect to the parts that you used to assemble your aircraft. If the guy that built the part for your airplane tells you that it is screwed and you don't replace it shame on you.

   

  engine:

   

  most rv are flying with some kind of type certified based engine. while these engine might still be certified or not, they are most probably built using mostly certified parts. when these parts have problem ad's are issued for them and they apply to your engine if you have them installed.

   

  appliance's:

   

  this the one that gets more i/a's in trouble then anyother type of ad. Let say you decide to use a lighting rheostat out of a piper, that  lighting rheostat has a problem and likes to catch fire. but there is an ad for the piper and the ad lists all other installations then this ad applies to you as well, even if it does not you would be a fool not to change it.. Radios and stc's make it tough for the i/a to find all the ad's applicable to the aircraft. so understand when you first go to a new i/a with a highly modified aircraft, it will cost you for us to confirm the status of your ad complience. And there is a chance that we will miss one. We are human too.

   

  rick m

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   



     ">No Cost - Get a month of Blockbuster Total Access now. Sweet deal for Yahoo! users and friends. [quote][b]

aerokinetic(at)sbcglobal.
Guest

Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 7:21 am Post subject: Do AD's really apply?

Like I said in another post:

   

  http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/ea051001b2ce246e862569b500508099/$FILE/AC39-7C.pdf

   

  Read paragraph 8.

   

  Straight from the feds in writing.

   

  Scott

  RV-4 C-140

 [quote][b]

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum