Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

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

LOG BOOKS
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

rocketbob(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 10:58 am Post subject: LOG BOOKS

Well, show me the FAR that exempts AD's from applying to experimentals.  I don't know what the EAA bases their position on, because there is no rule whatsoever that supports their argument.  I don't think their argument could hold up in a court of law.

 

Lets start by looking at FAR part 39.3, the regulation in question: "FAA's airworthiness directives are legally enforceable rules that apply to the following products: aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances." 



Almost all FAR's have an applicability section.  Notably absent from part 39 is an applicability section.  There's no wording anywhere in the FAR's, particularly part 39, that says AD's don't apply to experimentals.

  

 The key word in 39.3 is "products". It doesn't matter what type or category aircraft the "product" is installed in, its still a product and since its a product AD's do apply. Again to emphasize FAR 39 does not grant exemptions to the experimental category and thus as the regulation states AD's apply to all aircraft products.

 

 The language of FAR 39 can allow the FAA can issue AD's to experimental aircraft, experimental aircraft engines, experimental propellers, and experimental appliances, even toilet seats in aircraft with commodes but that hasn't happened (yet). 

 

 I had this pointed out to me by DAR #1 who has been a DAR for over 35 years and has issued CofA's to hundreds of aircraft, mostly transport category along with many experimentals and warbirds. He can recite FAR's verbatim. He knows his stuff. 

 

Regards,

Bob Japundza

RV-6 flying F1 under const.



On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 9:15 AM, Scott <acepilot(at)bloomer.net (acepilot(at)bloomer.net)> wrote:

[quote]            When did ADs start becoming applicable to experimental homebuilts?  This was asked of EAA and they said no.  Has anyone ever received an AD in the mail for their homebuilt?

 

 Scott



[b]

acepilot(at)bloomer.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:04 pm Post subject: LOG BOOKS

How about this required placard:

 Passenger Warning- THIS AIRCRAFT IS AMATEUR-BUILT AND DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE FEDERAL SAFETY REGULATIONS FOR STANDARD AIRCRAFT. This warning must be in full view of all passengers.

 

 ADs concern safety.  Experimentals do not comply with Federal safety regulations per placarding.  Therefore, by deduction, ADs do not apply to experimentals.

 

 How does the FAA know what equipment has been installed in my plane?  What if I built a replacement stainless steel needle in my carburetor and an AD comes out on the original factory seat in the type carburetor I have that calls for immediate replacement of the part.  Do I have to remove my part and put in the new factory part?  Don't think so.  Not sure, but I don't have an "equipment list" for mine (I bought it...didn't build it) that shows what is on there, so how do they know what carb I have?

 

 Again, I'm not saying it may not be wise to comply, but I don't think I can say I HAVE to comply.

 

 Scott

 do not archive and I hope not to start a fight!  

 

 

 

 Bob J. wrote:

 [quote]Well, show me the FAR that exempts AD's from applying to experimentals.  I don't know what the EAA bases their position on, because there is no rule whatsoever that supports their argument.  I don't think their argument could hold up in a court of law.

   

 Lets start by looking at FAR part 39.3, the regulation in question: "FAA's airworthiness directives are legally enforceable rules that apply to the following products: aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances." 

   

 Almost all FAR's have an applicability section.  Notably absent from part 39 is an applicability section.  There's no wording anywhere in the FAR's, particularly part 39, that says AD's don't apply to experimentals.

   

 The key word in 39.3 is "products". It doesn't matter what type or category aircraft the "product" is installed in, its still a product and since its a product AD's do apply. Again to emphasize FAR 39 does not grant exemptions to the experimental category and thus as the regulation states AD's apply to all aircraft products.

   

 The language of FAR 39 can allow the FAA can issue AD's to experimental aircraft, experimental aircraft engines, experimental propellers, and experimental appliances, even toilet seats in aircraft with commodes but that hasn't happened (yet). 

   

 I had this pointed out to me by DAR #1 who has been a DAR for over 35 years and has issued CofA's to hundreds of aircraft, mostly transport category along with many experimentals and warbirds. He can recite FAR's verbatim. He knows his stuff. 

   

 Regards,

 Bob Japundza

 RV-6 flying F1 under const.

   

   On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 9:15 AM, Scott <acepilot(at)bloomer.net (acepilot(at)bloomer.net)> wrote:

    	  Quote: 	
		       When did ADs start becoming applicable to experimental homebuilts?  This was asked of EAA and they said no.  Has anyone ever received an AD in the mail for their homebuilt?

     

 Scott

     

   

	
 -- 

Scott

http://corbenflyer.tripod.com

Flying Corben Junior Ace - Building RV-4

Gotta Fly or Gonna Die[b]

acepilot(at)bloomer.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:18 pm Post subject: LOG BOOKS

If you are an EAA member, go to http://members.eaa.org/home/govt/issues/airworthy.asp? and sign in an read EAA's argument of why they say ADs do not apply to homebuilts.

 

 Scott

 again, do not archive

 

 Bob J. wrote:

 [quote]Well, show me the FAR that exempts AD's from applying to experimentals.  I don't know what the EAA bases their position on, because there is no rule whatsoever that supports their argument.  I don't think their argument could hold up in a court of law.

   

 Lets start by looking at FAR part 39.3, the regulation in question: "FAA's airworthiness directives are legally enforceable rules that apply to the following products: aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances." 

   

 Almost all FAR's have an applicability section.  Notably absent from part 39 is an applicability section.  There's no wording anywhere in the FAR's, particularly part 39, that says AD's don't apply to experimentals.

   

 The key word in 39.3 is "products". It doesn't matter what type or category aircraft the "product" is installed in, its still a product and since its a product AD's do apply. Again to emphasize FAR 39 does not grant exemptions to the experimental category and thus as the regulation states AD's apply to all aircraft products.

   

 The language of FAR 39 can allow the FAA can issue AD's to experimental aircraft, experimental aircraft engines, experimental propellers, and experimental appliances, even toilet seats in aircraft with commodes but that hasn't happened (yet). 

   

 I had this pointed out to me by DAR #1 who has been a DAR for over 35 years and has issued CofA's to hundreds of aircraft, mostly transport category along with many experimentals and warbirds. He can recite FAR's verbatim. He knows his stuff. 

   

 Regards,

 Bob Japundza

 RV-6 flying F1 under const.

   

 [b]

JFLEISC(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:26 pm Post subject: LOG BOOKS

In a message dated 3/22/2008 3:00:49 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  rocketbob(at)gmail.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Lets    start by looking at FAR part 39.3, the regulation in question: "FAA's    airworthiness directives are legally enforceable rules that apply to the    following products: aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and    appliances." 

	


 

 So are you telling me that if General motors issues a recall for the Chevy  engine that happens to be the same in my experimental the FAA can require me to  have the dealer repair it? I don't buy it. Why then am I supposed to take the  data plate off my Lyc which is installed in my experimental? The same one I hot  rodded with custom "one of a kind" cam and intake. What about, for example, the  AD on Lycoming oil pumps? Suppose my "experimental" Lyc has a custom Ford V8 oil  pump that I machined to fit in my own machine shop, reasoning that since there  are 100 'bagillion Fords with comparatively few oil pump problems (I'm being  hypothetical here so don't go off on Fords) my engine  is now much  more reliable. I even flew off the 40 hrs to prove it. 

     As for litigation, an old and dear friend of mine  who worked as a defense attorney specializing in tort law told me its not about  what is legal or illegal, right or wrong, but what one can convince a jury of so  his client wins. 

  

 Jim

  

 do not archive

  



Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.

  [quote][b]

jsflyrv(at)verizon.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 3:28 pm Post subject: LOG BOOKS

Just for the record taking data plate off is myth also.

 

 

 

 JFLEISC(at)aol.com (JFLEISC(at)aol.com) wrote: [quote]               In a message dated 3/22/2008 3:00:49 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, rocketbob(at)gmail.com (rocketbob(at)gmail.com) writes:

    	  Quote: 	
		  Lets start by looking at FAR part 39.3, the regulation in question: "FAA's airworthiness directives are legally enforceable rules that apply to the following products: aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances." 

     	
   

   So are you telling me that if General motors issues a recall for the Chevy engine that happens to be the same in my experimental the FAA can require me to have the dealer repair it? I don't buy it. Why then am I supposed to take the data plate off my Lyc which is installed in my experimental? The same one I hot rodded with custom "one of a kind" cam and intake. What about, for example, the AD on Lycoming oil pumps? Suppose my "experimental" Lyc has a custom Ford V8 oil pump that I machined to fit in my own machine shop, reasoning that since there are 100 'bagillion Fords with comparatively few oil pump problems (I'm being hypothetical here so don't go off on Fords) my engine  is now much more reliable. I even flew off the 40 hrs to prove it. 

       As for litigation, an old and dear friend of mine who worked as a defense attorney specializing in tort law told me its not about what is legal or illegal, right or wrong, but what one can convince a jury of so his client wins. 

    

   Jim

    

   do not archive

    

   

   

   

      Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.

    	  Quote: 	
		  





  	
 [b]

rocketbob(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 4:16 pm Post subject: LOG BOOKS

Guys, just as much as I'd like for AD's to not apply to experimentals, they do.  The EAA can say what they want to, but the regs in Part 39 are very clear, intentionally written so that the FAA can write AD's for whatever they deem necessary. The statement on EAA's website that says "39.1 requires that the aircraft have a type design as defined in 21.31" is flat out wrong.  39.1 makes no reference to 21.31. Again, there is no language in part 39 that specifically states that part 39 only applies to type certificated aircraft, and not experimentals.  It clearly defines what part 39 applies to: an aircraft product.  They know damn well what the difference is between a product and a type certificated aircraft or type certificated aircraft parts and as such, wrote the reg the way it is so they have the power to issue an AD at will, on anything they want to.  You may not agree with this and dislike it, but it is what it is.  I don't like it either!

 

Jerry is also correct that removing a data plate is a myth also, because it can be easily argued that a part in question is a product regardless of it having a dataplate or not.  A duck is a duck and it can be easily proven in front of a judge. Part 39.15 clearly states:

 § 39.15   Does an airworthiness directive apply if the product has been changed?

 Yes, an airworthiness directive applies to each product identified in the airworthiness directive, even if an individual product has been changed by modifying, altering, or repairing it in the area addressed by the airworthiness directive.Regards,

Bob Japundza

RV-6 flying F1 under const.

  [quote][b]

ceengland(at)bellsouth.ne
Guest

Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 4:19 pm Post subject: LOG BOOKS

Please define 'myth'.



My neighbor built homebuilt 'A' & installed a Lyc O-320. FAA (the actual 

civil servants, not DAR) came out to do the inspection & forced him to 

surrender the data plate before they would issue his EAB paperwork on 

the plane.



He later took the plane out of service, built homebuilt 'B' & installed 

the same engine that had been on homebuilt 'A'. FAA from the same FSDO 

(again, actual Feds) came out to do the inspection. Demanded to see his 

dataplate for the Lyc; told him it shouldn't be removed. Answer: 'You 

should know where it is; you took it.'



The only reality is *your* reality (or mine, or his, or hers, or...), at 

any given moment.



The explanation I've heard about ADs is that while the FAA has the 

*power* to issue them on homebuilts, it has never happened. Even a 

certified engine, if it's installed on a non-certified airframe, is now 

in an environment for which it's never been officially tested & 

approved. So it's technically (and legally) no longer what the dataplate 

said it was before being installed on the homebuilt. As we all know & 

someone pointed out, it's perfectly legal to make any mod desired on 

anything hanging on an EAB a/c. What would be the point of issuing an AD 

on something that has no legal or technical existence? If I decide that 

a wooden carb float makes more sense to me than one of the half-dozen or 

so various AD-mandated floats that have been out there over the years, 

which AD would apply to my wood float?



Of course, my opinion is worth slightly less than what you paid, as the 

only letters after my name are B&S (Economics)  



Charlie



Jerry Springer wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Just for the record taking data plate off is myth also.



 JFLEISC(at)aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 3/22/2008 3:00:49 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 

> rocketbob(at)gmail.com writes:

>

>     Lets start by looking at FAR part 39.3, the regulation in

>     question: "FAA's airworthiness directives are legally enforceable

>     rules that apply to the following _products_: aircraft, aircraft

>     engines, propellers, and appliances."

>

> So are you telling me that if General motors issues a recall for the 

> Chevy engine that happens to be the same in my experimental the FAA 

> can require me to have the dealer repair it? I don't buy it. Why then 

> am I supposed to take the data plate off my Lyc which is installed in 

> my experimental? The same one I hot rodded with custom "one of a 

> kind" cam and intake. What about, for example, the AD on Lycoming oil 

> pumps? Suppose my "experimental" Lyc has a custom Ford V8 oil pump 

> that I machined to fit in my own machine shop, reasoning that since 

> there are 100 'bagillion Fords with comparatively few oil pump 

> problems (I'm being hypothetical here so don't go off on Fords) 

> my engine  is now much more reliable. I even flew off the 40 hrs to 

> prove it.

>     As for litigation, an old and dear friend of mine who worked as a 

> defense attorney specializing in tort law told me its not about what 

> is legal or illegal, right or wrong, but what one can convince a jury 

> of so his client wins.

>  

> Jim

>  

> do not archive

>

khorton01(at)rogers.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 5:59 pm Post subject: LOG BOOKS

The FAA opinion dates from 1998, and it makes sense given the way that FAR 39.1 was worded at that time.  But FAR 39.1 was amended in 2002, and the current wording no longer talks about "type design".  The way that the regs in FAR 39 are currently worded, ADs would apply to experimental aircraft, depending on how the applicability of the specific AD is worded. 



Kevin Horton



On 22 Mar 2008, at 20:12, Bob J. wrote:[quote]Guys, just as much as I'd like for AD's to not apply to experimentals, they do.  The EAA can say what they want to, but the regs in Part 39 are very clear, intentionally written so that the FAA can write AD's for whatever they deem necessary. The statement on EAA's website that says "39.1 requires that the aircraft have a type design as defined in 21.31" is flat out wrong.  39.1 makes no reference to 21.31. Again, there is no language in part 39 that specifically states that part 39 only applies to type certificated aircraft, and not experimentals.  It clearly defines what part 39 applies to: an aircraft product.  They know damn well what the difference is between a product and a type certificated aircraft or type certificated aircraft parts and as such, wrote the reg the way it is so they have the power to issue an AD at will, on anything they want to.  You may not agree with this and dislike it, but it is what it is.  I don't like it either!

 

Jerry is also correct that removing a data plate is a myth also, because it can be easily argued that a part in question is a product regardless of it having a dataplate or not.  A duck is a duck and it can be easily proven in front of a judge. Part 39.15 clearly states:

 § 39.15   Does an airworthiness directive apply if the product has been changed?

 Yes, an airworthiness directive applies to each product identified in the airworthiness directive, even if an individual product has been changed by modifying, altering, or repairing it in the area addressed by the airworthiness directive.Regards,

Bob Japundza

RV-6 flying F1 under const.

  	  Quote: 	
		  	
[b]

mrobert569(at)hotmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 6:12 pm Post subject: LOG BOOKS

FAR 91, Subpart J for aircraft maintenance requires ALL maintenance be entered in the aircraft records.  You do NOT need to put your SSN as long as you follow all the other parts of what constitutes a log entry per FAR 43.9.  This requirement for log entries is NOT one of the ones not required for experimental aircraft. 

 And because there is NO requirement for the kinds of material used, you can NEVER get in trouble for the entry you make, only for the entry you DON'T make.

  

 Mike Robertson

 Das Fed





 [quote]  From: Bruce(at)glasair.org

To: rv-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: RV-List: LOG BOOKS

Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 01:26:40 -0400



  My eldest son, who is an A&P/IA got his ticket 17 years ago. When I saw it, it had his SSN as his license number. I made him turn it back in and get one with a random number instead. I doubt if my neighbor will give me his SSN. I sure won't give mine out. 

  

  Call me stupid, but I don't see where the FAR's require any log entries for experimentals except the condition inspection. 



  

 Bruce

  

www.Glasair.org 

 

 [quote] 

 --

rickpegser(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 6:14 pm Post subject: LOG BOOKS

hi guys 

    I posted the original post as an informative only type of thing, but it looks like it kind of got out of hand. i have held my tickets for over 20 yrs over and there are probably several thousand aircraft with my ssn in their logs. When  an owner asks me to do a conditional/ prebuy insp of an aircraft i am always asked what do you think the value is. on an experimental aircraft the i will deduct up to fifty % of the market value based on the condition of the logs. You have to remember the simple fact that if you sign it, you fly it, you die in it, there is no one to come after. i sign for it , you die in it, your relatives and the faa will be beating down my door.

   

  i will not sign off any conditional inspections unless all mandatory service bulletins are complied with and the owner signs a letter of understanding that absolves me of any responsibility. 

   

  rick miller

    

   

   

  

 



   [quote][b]

mrobert569(at)hotmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 6:20 pm Post subject: LOG BOOKS

Per a ruling from HQ in 1998 ADs are applicable but because not everyone is guaranteed to get them we can't enforce the requirement.  Where you may still have problems, however, is with your insurance company.  Not all, but some, have gotten wise to the lack of a requirement for complying with ADs and have included a little statement that the aircraft must be kept in a condition for safe operation whenever the aircraft is operated.  I would suggest you talk with your insurance agent but as far as the FAA is concerned, you are safe if you don't want to comply with an AD.

  

 Mike Robertson

 Das Fed





  	  Quote: 	
		    Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 14:15:33 +0000

From: acepilot(at)bloomer.net

To: rv-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: LOG BOOKS



 When did ADs start becoming applicable to experimental homebuilts?  This was asked of EAA and they said no.  Has anyone ever received an AD in the mail for their homebuilt?



Scott



do not archive



Bob J. wrote:   	  Quote: 	
		  As an A&P I've run into these situations, in fact one last month.  Do you honestly think that every airplane you've worked on has the logs correct?  If not, what do you want them to say?  Its your job as an A&P/IA to make sure everything going fwd. from your signature on is mechanically correct and and all AD's complied with (yes they do apply to homebuilts).  Straighten it out and move on.  I can't see for the life of me what the FSDO will do for you, especially if its not in writing from them.



Regards,

Bob Japundza

RV-6 flying F1 under const 



 On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 11:05 PM, RICHARD MILLER <rickpegser(at)yahoo.com (rickpegser(at)yahoo.com)> wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		   GUYS AND GALS:

  

 I WAS ASKED YESTERDAY TO TO DO A CONDITIONAL INSPECTION ON A EXEC 90 HELICOPTER.  AFTER A REVIEW OF THE LOG BOOKS I WAS UNABLE TO CONFIRM THAT THE 100 HR INSPECTION WAS DONE. AND A HARD LANDING THAT RESULTED IN THE REPLACEMENT OF THE MAIN LANDING GEAR AND A REBUILD OF THE TAIL BOOM WAS NOT ENTERED. IN ADDITION TO THIS ALL, MAINTENANCE  ENTRIES FAILED TO HAVE A DATE OR SIGNATURE. THIS BECAME A PROBLEM SINCE THE CURRENT OWNER IS THE THIRD OWNER AND THE BUILDER IS PRESUMED DEAD. I AM AWAITING A DECISION FROM THE LOCAL FSDO RE-GUARDING THE LOGS AND WILL POST THE STORY AS IT PLAYS OUT. YOU MIGHT NOT BE AN A/P OR IA BUT YOU ARE STILL RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LOGS

  

 RICK A+P/IA





 

  Be a better friend, newshound, and  	  Quote: 	
		  

	


	
-- 

Scott

http://corbenflyer.tripod.com

Flying Corben Junior Ace - Building RV-4

Gotta Fly or Gonna Die



t=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List

p://forums.matronics.com

blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution



	
	
In a rush? Get real-time answers with Windows Live Messenger.  [quote][b]

Kellym

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1706
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 2:55 am Post subject: LOG BOOKS

Hmm,

That is an interesting position to take. Not even non-commercial Part 91 

type certificated aircraft have to comply with "mandatory" service 

bulletins. I could see conditioning approval on compliance with any 

applicable ADs.

How would you handle an aircraft with a Parker Hannifin Airborne vacuum 

pump, since the company says all are beyond service life and should be 

removed?



RICHARD MILLER wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   hi guys

   I posted the original post as an informative only type of thing, but 

 it looks like it kind of got out of hand. i have held my tickets for 

 over 20 yrs over and there are probably several thousand aircraft with 

 my ssn in their logs. When  an owner asks me to do a conditional/ 

 prebuy insp of an aircraft i am always asked what do you think the 

 value is. on an experimental aircraft the i will deduct up to fifty % 

 of the market value based on the condition of the logs. You have to 

 remember the simple fact that if you sign it, you fly it, you die in 

 it, there is no one to come after. i sign for it , you die in it, your 

 relatives and the faa will be beating down my door.

  

 i will not sign off any conditional inspections unless all mandatory 

 service bulletins are complied with and the owner signs a letter of 

 understanding that absolves me of any responsibility.

  

 rick miller

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD

JFLEISC(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 6:21 am Post subject: LOG BOOKS

In a message dated 3/22/2008 8:21:11 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  ceengland(at)bellsouth.net writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  My    neighbor built homebuilt 'A' & installed a Lyc O-320. FAA (the actual    

civil servants, not DAR) came out to do the inspection & forced him to    

surrender the data plate before they would issue his EAB paperwork on    

the plane.



He later took the plane out of service, built homebuilt    'B' & installed 

the same engine that had been on homebuilt 'A'. FAA    from the same FSDO 

(again, actual Feds) came out to do the inspection.    Demanded to see his 

dataplate for the Lyc; told him it shouldn't be    removed. Answer: 'You 

should know where it is; you took it.'



The    only reality is *your* reality (or mine, or his, or hers, or...), at 

any    given moment.

	


 

 Another point well taken and also my experience. Rule interpretation varies  FSDO to FSDO.

  

 Jim

  

 do not archive



Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.

JFLEISC(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 6:35 am Post subject: LOG BOOKS

In a message dated 3/22/2008 10:16:26 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  rickpegser(at)yahoo.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		     hi guys 

     I posted the original post as an informative only type of thing,    but it looks like it kind of got out of hand. i have held my tickets for over    20 yrs over and there are probably several thousand aircraft with my ssn in    their logs. When  an owner asks me to do a conditional/ prebuy insp of an    aircraft i am always asked what do you think the value is. on an    experimental aircraft the i will deduct up to fifty % of the market value    based on the condition of the logs. You have to remember the simple fact that    if you sign it, you fly it, you die in it, there is no one to come after. i    sign for it , you die in it, your relatives and the faa will be beating down    my door.

    

   i will not sign off any conditional inspections unless all mandatory    service bulletins are complied with and the owner signs a letter of    understanding that absolves me of any responsibility. 

    

   rick miller

	


 

 This is another issue my attorney friend finds laughable. He told me (once  when I signed a liability release) that a person can't sign away their rights.  Now at the risk of starting another argument, I don't know if that is true or  not, but as he said it is all about what a lawyer can convince a jury of.  Liability is a very subjective perception. I personally know someone, (very  skilled craftsman also) who chopped up his last experimental aircraft after he  was done with it rather than risk any post-sale liability. I would hate to see  that become a trend but the truth is that anyone can sue anyone else for  anything and depending on the lawyer's skill can win.

  

 Jim

  

 do not archive



Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.

JFLEISC(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 6:41 am Post subject: LOG BOOKS

In a message dated 3/22/2008 10:23:16 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  mrobert569(at)hotmail.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Per a    ruling from HQ in 1998 ADs are applicable but because not everyone is    guaranteed to get them we can't enforce the requirement.  Where you may    still have problems, however, is with your insurance company.  Not all,    but some, have gotten wise to the lack of a requirement for complying with ADs    and have included a little statement that the aircraft must be kept in a    condition for safe operation whenever the aircraft is operated.  I would    suggest you talk with your insurance agent but as far as the FAA is concerned,    you are safe if you don't want to comply with an AD.

 

Mike    Robertson

Das Fed

	


 

 Again; who decides what is applicable and what is safe and is not. Most  people I've met think flying small planes is dangerous and they think flying an  "experimental" aircraft is insane. Just by the arguments going back and forth  inside this group, imagine this being tossed around in a court room. Insurance  requirements such as that are no doubt standard caveat wording for them to find  a way not to pay IMHO.

  

 Jim

  

 do not archive



Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.

arno7452(at)bellsouth.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 7:23 am Post subject: LOG BOOKS

I have received 33 e-mails on this subject.  There  seems to be no bottom line.  Sure is giving my delete button a work  out.

  

 do not archive

  

  

  

 [quote]   ---

cjensen(at)dts9000.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:05 am Post subject: LOG BOOKS

My delete  button is getting a workout deleting the e-mails that think the emails should be  deleted.  Huh?

  

 

Chuck Jensen  [quote]   --

Bret Smith

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 178
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA

Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 3:40 pm Post subject: LOG BOOKS

Thanks Chuck.  

  

 Personally, I am NOT an A&P/IA with 35 years of  experience so I have found this thread to be very educational.  I wish  someone would just publish a booklet entitled " The Owner Built & Maintained  Guide to Proper Logbook Notation".

  

 Bret Smith

RV-9A "Canopy"

Blue Ridge, GA

www.FlightInnovations.com

 [quote]   ---

_________________
Bret Smith
RV-9A (Emp)

robertrv607(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 11:41 am Post subject: LOG BOOKS

PEOPLE DO FOOLISH THINGS WE KNOW...NO MATTER WHAT

THEY WANT TO PROVE THEY DO NOT HAVE TO LISTEN TO

ANY ONE,  I  AM A BIG SHOT, NO BODY IS GOINT TO TELL

ME WHAT TO DO...



NO WONDER WHY, GENERAL AVIATION, GONTINUES TO BE

AT THE BOTTOM, WHEN  IT COMES TO SAFETY..



FOR 30 YEARS OR SO, IT NEVER IMPROVES... IT IS A SHAME

I COULD  TELL STORIES, THAT CURL UP YOUR HAIR,..

HAVE YOU SEE ALSO THE WAY PILOTS 

 " THE BIG SHOTS' DRESS.   SOME LOOK LIKE THEY NEVER

TAKE  A BATH....I HAVE SEEN PILOTS, THE ONES  I AM

TALKING ABOUT THEY THINK THEY ARE 'TOPO GUNS',GETTING

IN TO THEIR PLANES, ONE WAS A CHEROKEE 140. most 

recent... with no shoes, no shirt... what a sight....



 DO NOT FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDED AD,, FROM THE MFG.

WHAT A HECK, THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING..



VAN's IS AN IDIOT, TELLING US WHAT TO DO.....



AND ON  AND ON...



THESE ARE THE POPLE, THAT PUT BLACK MARKS ON 

GENERAL AVIATION, AND THE REST OF US PAY FOR...



Bert



rv6a



do not archive

--- Scott <acepilot(at)bloomer.net> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   How about this required placard:

 Passenger Warning- THIS AIRCRAFT IS AMATEUR-BUILT

 AND DOES NOT COMPLY 

 WITH THE FEDERAL SAFETY REGULATIONS FOR STANDARD

 AIRCRAFT. This warning 

 must be in full view of all passengers.

 

 ADs concern safety.  Experimentals do not comply

 with Federal safety 

 regulations per placarding.  Therefore, by

 deduction, ADs do not apply 

 to experimentals.

 

 How does the FAA know what equipment has been

 installed in my plane?  

 What if I built a replacement stainless steel needle

 in my carburetor 

 and an AD comes out on the original factory seat in

 the type carburetor 

 I have that calls for immediate replacement of the

 part.  Do I have to 

 remove my part and put in the new factory part? 

 Don't think so.  Not 

 sure, but I don't have an "equipment list" for mine

 (I bought 

 it...didn't build it) that shows what is on there,

 so how do they know 

 what carb I have?

 

 Again, I'm not saying it may not be wise to comply,

 but I don't think I 

 can say I HAVE to comply.

 

 Scott

 do not archive and I hope not to start a fight!  

 

 

 

 Bob J. wrote:

 

 > Well, show me the FAR that exempts AD's from

 applying to 

 > experimentals.  I don't know what the EAA bases

 their position on, 

 > because there is no rule whatsoever that supports

 their argument.  I 

 > don't think their argument could hold up in a

 court of law.

 >

 > Lets start by looking at FAR part 39.3, the

 regulation in question: 

 > "FAA's airworthiness directives are legally

 enforceable rules that 

 > apply to the following products: aircraft,

 aircraft engines, 

 > propellers, and appliances."

 >

 > Almost all FAR's have an applicability section. 

 Notably absent from 

 > part 39 is an applicability section.  There's no

 wording anywhere in 

 > the FAR's, particularly part 39, that says AD's

 don't apply to 

 > experimentals.

 >

 > The key word in 39.3 is "products". It doesn't

 matter what type or 

 > category aircraft the "product" is installed in,

 its still a product 

 > and since its a product AD's do apply. Again to

 emphasize FAR 39 does 

 > not grant exemptions to the experimental category

 and thus as the 

 > regulation states AD's apply to all aircraft

 products.

 >

 > The language of FAR 39 can allow the FAA can issue

 AD's to 

 > experimental aircraft, experimental aircraft

 engines, experimental 

 > propellers, and experimental appliances, even

 toilet seats in aircraft 

 > with commodes but that hasn't happened (yet).

 >

 > I had this pointed out to me by DAR #1 who has

 been a DAR for over 35 

 > years and has issued CofA's to hundreds of

 aircraft, mostly transport 

 > category along with many experimentals and

 warbirds. He can recite 

 > FAR's verbatim. He knows his stuff.

 >

 > Regards,

 > Bob Japundza

 > RV-6 flying F1 under const.

 >

 > On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 9:15 AM, Scott

 <acepilot(at)bloomer.net 

 > <mailto:acepilot(at)bloomer.net>> wrote:

 >

 >     When did ADs start becoming applicable to

 experimental

 >     homebuilts?  This was asked of EAA and they

 said no.  Has anyone

 >     ever received an AD in the mail for their

 homebuilt?

 >

 >     Scott

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 

 -- 

 Scott

 http://corbenflyer.tripod.com

 Flying Corben Junior Ace - Building RV-4

 Gotta Fly or Gonna Die

 

 


	


You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.  

http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com

c.ennis(at)insightbb.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 6:08 pm Post subject: LOG BOOKS

Bert C

  6nbsp;Calm down C you can 7t reason with unreasonable people E E E EAs an A/P I can gurantee any condition inspection I perform on any homebuilt will include a check for applicable AD 7s on the installed engine and appliances C as well as 6nbsp;any recommended service bulletin 7s I can find from the kit manufacturer E The SB 7s would be open to discussion with the owner (re: Van 7s nose wheel fork SB)

  6nbsp;Any AD 7s  C if applicable C would prevent me from signing off the condition inspection until the conditions of the AD were met E If an AD wasn 7t applicable C (re: A stainless steel needle) an entry in the logs 6nbsp;noting the AD didn 7t apply would be made E That would make future inspections easier and less time consuming and give the owner some paper work 6nbsp;when he tries to sell the aircraft E 

  6nbsp;Granted C if you built the aircraft C you can ignore all of this C at your own risk and the risk of any  2victims 2 you might have with you when the engine locks up because you  2didn 7t have to comply 2 with the oil pump AD on your Lycoming E

  6nbsp;The statement C that AD 7s don 7t apply because of the warning plate C which we are mandated to install in our homebuilts C is disingenuous E 6nbsp;The warning 6nbsp;plate 6nbsp;is notes that  2STANDARD aircraft 2 must comply with federal safety regulations C while  2HOMEBUILT aircraft 2 do not E The FAR 7s don 7t make that distinction when addressing  2aircraft engines C 6nbsp;propellers and appliances 2 E 6nbsp;If a  2product 2 has been installed in a certified aircraft and it is found faulty in some way and the FAA decides it needs to be checked C 6nbsp;altered or removed from service C they will issue an AD to that effect E If that  2product 2 is installed in your homebuilt and is involved in an  2incident 2 the accident report will make note of the lack of AD compliance if that product was the cause of the  2incident 2 E By the way C the FAA recommends that owners subscribe to its AD subscription service just in case you aren 7t on there mailing list E

 6nbsp;To finish this long winded diatribe C check out AC39-C paragraph 8 E E Ebetter yet C read the whole thing E

 Charlie Ennis RV-6A 6nbsp; 6nbsp; 

  6nbsp;Do not archive

---

Display posts from previous:

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