True, but what standard are A&P's taught to expect when signing off an
annual for instance? Do they have a standard to follow for experimental
aircraft?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jerry Springer
> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 11:42 AM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Builder Available!
>
>
> Remember it is an "ADVISORY" circular not the bible and to say that an
> aircraft that does not
> meet AC43-13 should not be signed off is BS. There are many acceptable
> ways to accomplish
> tasks that may not be the way the gov does it but are still safe
> methods.
>
> do not archive
>
>
> Tim Bryan wrote:
>
> >
> >Linn,
> >
> >I am not an A&P but I think that was exactly Richards point. If an
> A&P is
> >required to inspect in "accordance with" AND experimental are "allowed
> to
> >experiment" then how do you as an A&P inspect an experimental and keep
> both
> >in perspective. I don't think he was saying experimental must meet
> AC43-13.
> >I do agree with your statement with regards to Bret's comments below
> and in
> >line with Richards comments.
> >Do Not Archive
> >
> >Tim Bryan
> >RV-6 Flying
> >N616TB over 100 hours now
> >
> >
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> >>server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of linn Walters
> >>Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 5:10 PM
> >>To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >>Subject: Re: Builder Available!
> >>
> <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
> >>
> >>Bret Smith wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>Bob,
> >>>I am assuming that Richard is referring to inspecting homebuilt or
> >>>OBAM aircraft that do not meet the standards of AC43-13. My feeling
> >>>is that any aircraft that do not meet the minimum standards should
> >>>
> >>>
> >>NOT
> >>
> >>
> >>>be signed-off, whether homebuilt or certificated.
> >>>
> >>>Bret Smith
> >>>RV-9A "Wiring & FWF"
> >>>Blue Ridge, GA
> >>>www.FlightInnovations.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Hmmm. I disagree .....a little. Since 43-13 was born, we've
> improved
> >>on a lot of the materials used for construction. Even invented new
> >>ones. I'd rather say that I would EXPECT construction to follow 43-
> 13
> >>..... but remember that these are EXPERIMENTAL aircraft ..... and who
> >>are we to frown on anyones experiment??? My Pitts is pretty much per
> >>plans, and so will be my -10 ...... but I won't take kindly to
> negative
> >>comments because something I may do won't meet 43-13. Where's the
> >>'experiment' in that??? Of course I'd welcome constructive criticism
> >>if
> >>I did something that could shorten my lifespan. My logic (outside of
> >>43-13) may not be perfect.
> >>Linn
> >>do not archive
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
