 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bicyclop(at)pacbell.net
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 7:46 pm Post subject: FSDO horror shows |
 |
|
Howdy Bob,
I don't have a copy of the old set that I can lay my hands on right now, but it seems as if it went something like this; "no person shall operate this aircraft except in VFR conditions." That isn't a permissive wording. I don't recall how the day/night thing was worded. I believe the prohibition against operation over densely populated areas had similar wording and didn't have the except for clause. If they had wanted to, they probably could have violated me for operating in and out of my home airport anytime they wanted based on my oplims.
I agree about not asking the fed, but I really didn't have much option if I wanted to do the mods and be legal.
Pax,
Ed
On 12/19/2012 10:37 AM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com (BobsV35B(at)aol.com) wrote: [quote] Good Afternoon Ed,
My interpretation of the language: "stated that VFR day and night were authorized." is just that. Day and Night VFR are authorized.
It does not say the IFR is NOT authorized.
Part 91 does spell out what we need to have to fly IFR so I would have gone ahead and flown IFR on your original AW certificate as soon as the airplane met Part 91 requirements.
An older FAA inspector told me many years ago that the FARs are not restrictive, but permissive. Anything that is not specifically prohibited, is permissible. Maybe some of the lawyers on this list will let us know if I have that all wrong!
Once again, much easier NOT to ask the FED.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 12/19/2012 11:35:53 A.M. Central Standard Time, bicyclop(at)pacbell.net (bicyclop(at)pacbell.net) writes:
| Quote: | Howdy Stein,
Less restrictive oplims, not more. The old set stated that VFR day and night were authorized. There was no mention of "unless properly equipped for IFR" like the new set. Didn't seem like a lot of wiggle room on that. The old set had no pathway for any major modifications. If I had made the mod under the old oplims, I would have been in violation and the only way to fix it up would have been an inspection and a brand new AW cert with new oplims. So, I just asked for that without the inspection. If I remember correctly, my old oplims didn't allow for flight over densely populated areas with no reference to for the purpose of take off or landing. Much more restrictive oplims than I have now.
I wanted to be in compliance, and I think that is a good idea in general. Think about the consequences of having bad paperwork after an incident - certificate actions, denial of insurance claim, possible lawsuits, etc. If I had known what the response to my simple request would be, I would probably still have had to move ahead or just shelve the mods and give up on the idea of IFR. I would have done a lot more research first, though. That's why I say to have every duck lined up before walking in their door. I thought that I had, but there were several ducks of which I was unaware. 
Pax,
Ed
On 12/19/2012 8:39 AM, Stein Bruch wrote: | Quote: |
Of course there is the statement in 43 that very clearly states:
"This part does not apply to any aircraft for which the FAA has issued an experimental
certificate, unless the FAA has previously issued a different kind of airworthiness certificate
for that aircraft."
I too was a bit curious why you voluntarily asked for more restrictive OpLims and invite the entire situation to begin with when it’s clearly not needed? I get the IFR thing (sorta–that’s not as cut and dried as you may may have thought either), but I’d be careful not to mix requirments from TC’d aircraft with our OBAM planes. I do get to deal with the rules quite often, becase we get inspected/audited regularly by the FAA to maintain our certification….but we’ve also been working on these experimentals for decades and have come to know the nuances quite well. Dealing with the FAA is it’s own dance, but once you learn the dance it’s not that difficult. Sometimes they need educated, sometimes we do.
No flames intended, just curiosity.
Cheers,
Stein
|
|
[b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:23 pm Post subject: FSDO horror shows |
|
|
Good Evening Ed,
No doubt that the wording has varied over the years and I have not been heavily involved in the home built field, but I do not recall having seen the language you tell us about. I have seen it written as you described earlier and our Granddaughter has a home built Legend Cub that has the language stating "VFR Day and Night" or very close to that. We are confident that she can fly her Cub IFR with the airworthiness certificate she was issued considering the equipment it now has installed.
As Always. It All Depends!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 12/19/2012 9:47:04 P.M. Central Standard Time, bicyclop(at)pacbell.net writes:
| Quote: | Howdy Bob,
I don't have a copy of the old set that I can lay my hands on right now, but it seems as if it went something like this; "no person shall operate this aircraft except in VFR conditions." That isn't a permissive wording. I don't recall how the day/night thing was worded. I believe the prohibition against operation over densely populated areas had similar wording and didn't have the except for clause. If they had wanted to, they probably could have violated me for operating in and out of my home airport anytime they wanted based on my oplims.
I agree about not asking the fed, but I really didn't have much option if I wanted to do the mods and be legal.
Pax,
Ed
On 12/19/2012 10:37 AM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com (BobsV35B(at)aol.com) wrote: | Quote: | Good Afternoon Ed,
My interpretation of the language: "stated that VFR day and night were authorized." is just that. Day and Night VFR are authorized.
It does not say the IFR is NOT authorized.
Part 91 does spell out what we need to have to fly IFR so I would have gone ahead and flown IFR on your original AW certificate as soon as the airplane met Part 91 requirements.
An older FAA inspector told me many years ago that the FARs are not restrictive, but permissive. Anything that is not specifically prohibited, is permissible. Maybe some of the lawyers on this list will let us know if I have that all wrong!
Once again, much easier NOT to ask the FED.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 12/19/2012 11:35:53 A.M. Central Standard Time, bicyclop(at)pacbell.net (bicyclop(at)pacbell.net) writes:
| Quote: | Howdy Stein,
Less restrictive oplims, not more. The old set stated that VFR day and night were authorized. There was no mention of "unless properly equipped for IFR" like the new set. Didn't seem like a lot of wiggle room on that. The old set had no pathway for any major modifications. If I had made the mod under the old oplims, I would have been in violation and the only way to fix it up would have been an inspection and a brand new AW cert with new oplims. So, I just asked for that without the inspection. If I remember correctly, my old oplims didn't allow for flight over densely populated areas with no reference to for the purpose of take off or landing. Much more restrictive oplims than I have now.
I wanted to be in compliance, and I think that is a good idea in general. Think about the consequences of having bad paperwork after an incident - certificate actions, denial of insurance claim, possible lawsuits, etc. If I had known what the response to my simple request would be, I would probably still have had to move ahead or just shelve the mods and give up on the idea of IFR. I would have done a lot more research first, though. That's why I say to have every duck lined up before walking in their door. I thought that I had, but there were several ducks of which I was unaware.
Pax,
Ed
|
|
|
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bakerocb
Joined: 15 Jan 2006
Posts: 727
Location: FAIRFAX VA
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:42 am Post subject: FSDO horror shows |
|
|
12/20/2012
Hello Ed Holyoke, You wrote:
“A friend of mine was quizzed severely before they would issue his Repairman's Cert. The thrust was that he hadn't built the plane himself and was fraudulently applying for the R.C”
Why would your friend expect to be issued a Repairman’s Certificate for an experimental amateur built aircraft if he had not built the plane himself? See here:
http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultralights/amateur_built/repairman_cert/
Thanks,
OC
'O C' Baker says "The best investment you can make is the effort to gather and understand information."
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dsvs(at)ca.rr.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 5:02 pm Post subject: FSDO horror shows |
|
|
Oc
Read Ed’s post again. He did not say that his friend did not build the aircraft. The FAA wanted more proof than is normally required. The repair cert is in my possession at this time.
dFrom: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Owen Baker
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:42 AM
To: "bicyclop(at)pacbell.net"(at)matronics.com; aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: FSDO horror shows
12/20/2012
Hello Ed Holyoke, You wrote:
“A friend of mine was quizzed severely before they would issue his Repairman's Cert. The thrust was that he hadn't built the plane himself and was fraudulently applying for the R.C”
Why would your friend expect to be issued a Repairman’s Certificate for an experimental amateur built aircraft if he had not built the plane himself? See here:
http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultralights/amateur_built/repairman_cert/
Thanks,
OC
'O C' Baker says "The best investment you can make is the effort to gather and understand information."
01234567890123456
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bicyclop(at)pacbell.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 5:47 pm Post subject: FSDO horror shows |
|
|
No, no, no. He wasn't fraudulently applying for the cert. He built the plane. They just didn't want to believe him. Said that pictures of him with tools in his hands and the aircraft under construction could have been faked. Asked him questions about mechanical stuff on certificated aircraft as if he was trying to sell himself as an A&P.
Ed
On 12/20/2012 10:42 AM, Owen Baker wrote: [quote] 12/20/2012
Hello Ed Holyoke, You wrote:
“A friend of mine was quizzed severely before they would issue his Repairman's Cert. The thrust was that he hadn't built the plane himself and was fraudulently applying for the R.C”
Why would your friend expect to be issued a Repairman’s Certificate for an experimental amateur built aircraft if he had not built the plane himself? See here:
http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultralights/amateur_built/repairman_cert/
Thanks,
OC
'O C' Baker says "The best investment you can make is the effort to gather and understand information."
[b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
