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 1, 2, 3 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

panamared5(at)brier.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 6:52 am Post subject: Do AD's really apply?

At 08:52 AM 3/25/08, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  I was one

of those that thought AD's don't apply to experimentals.  Wow.  I'm glad I

learned the truth of the matter.


	


I received an AD in the mail last night for my IO-360 in my RV.  This 

is in spite of the fact that the aircraft registration states my 

engine is unknown.  How does the FAA know??!!



The AD requires me to inspect and or replace parts as needed on a 

Bendix fuel servo.  Since I have an Airflow Performance servo, I 

figure this AD does not apply.  But on the other hand, technically 

there is no such thing as an IO-360 with an Airflow Performance 

servo, that would be an uncertified engine and we all know that the 

Lycoming IO-360 is a certified engine. The data plate on my engine 

says it is a Lycoming IO-360, therefore I must comply with the AD 

even though it is not possible.



Now maybe some A&P IA with a law degree can explain what type of 

Logbook entry I should make.  I would never want some A&P IA to ever 

think I was unsafe just because I fly an experimental and cut corners 

on an incorrect Logbook entry!



Of course all of these issues would go away if the FAA just made all 

experimental aircraft meet all certified aircraft standards!



Bob

RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"

n616tb(at)btsapps.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 7:18 am Post subject: Do AD's really apply?

This idea of AD's applying really puzzles me.  How can an experimental

actually be required to comply when the very nature of the word experimental

means we can experiment with what ever we choose?  If I want to build an

airplane with a modified I0-360 then that is my experiment.



If you want to keep your engine certified for later use on a certified

airplane, then maybe so.



I am not an A&P nor an AI nor FAA nor did I sleep in a Holiday Inn Express.

I built an experimental so I can do my own thing.  Where would one actually

draw the line between the experimental part and the requirements part

anyway.



Tim

Do Not Archive

Experimental 616TB



[quote] --

gyoung

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 211
Location: Republic of Texas

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 7:45 am Post subject: Do AD's really apply?

You only have to record what you do, not what you don't do. There are plenty

of ADs issued to certified planes that don't apply to a every tail number

they send it to. To make it easy to review ADs from year to year you can

keep an AD log and just show "N/A" and a brief reason why not such as

"component not installed". Not required but a real convenience.



Regards,

Greg Young

 



[quote] --

pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 7:47 am Post subject: Do AD's really apply?

Tim Bryan wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		      	  Quote: 	
		  --> RV-List message posted by: "Tim Bryan" <n616tb(at)btsapps.com> (n616tb(at)btsapps.com)



This idea of AD's applying really puzzles me.  How can an experimental

actually be required to comply when the very nature of the word experimental

means we can experiment with what ever we choose?  If I want to build an

airplane with a modified I0-360 then that is my experiment. 	
 	
 All true

  	  Quote: 	
		      	  Quote: 	
		  If you want to keep your engine certified for later use on a certified

airplane, then maybe so.



I am not an A&P nor an AI nor FAA nor did I sleep in a Holiday Inn Express. 	
 	
 Nor I, but I do have a point of view.

  	  Quote: 	
		      	  Quote: 	
		  I built an experimental so I can do my own thing. 	
 	
 I think we all fit in that category!   

  	  Quote: 	
		      	  Quote: 	
		    Where would one actually

draw the line between the experimental part and the requirements part

anyway. 	
 	
 Well, if you have the item in question ...... modified or not ...... then the AD still applies.  "Das Fed" covered that.

 However, if you don't have the item in question .... then the AD does not apply.  If you've modified the item in question so that the AD cannot be complied with .... then again, it does not apply.  Having said that, If the AD covers a part that is a reasonable copy (from Japan, China, or Russia to name a few) it is only wise to apply the AD, and list it in the logs.  Failure to apply the AD (if applicable) would probably make the airplane unairworthy in the eyes of the FAA and the legal and insurance systems and might come back to bite you ..... in more ways than I can cover here.

 

 Bear in mind that ADs are mostly issued to cover a safety-related problem, and not complying with an applicable AD just doesn't make sense to me.  I also don't see what the problem is.

 Linn

 [quote]   [quote]



Tim

Do Not Archive

Experimental 616TB



       [quote]--

n616tb(at)btsapps.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:11 am Post subject: Do AD's really apply?

Hi Linn,  

   

Well there isn’t really a problem, but a discussion.  My engine actually doesn’t have a data plate that says it is a Lycoming but rather an Aerosport Power engine.  Does this mean any AD’s that target a Lycoming 0-360 would not apply to me?  Every part on there as far as I know are Lycoming parts.  

   

Now, realize that if I received notice that said there was a problem with some part I have, I would feel compelled to correct it, but keeping a paperwork trail of AD’s is not something I really could care less about.  

   

And if I was of mind to disagree with something they wanted fixed, I would not feel compelled to do so since this is an experimental.  I was thinking it was simply just my choice.  I am not dumb enough to deliberately or stubbornly wish to ignore safety issues, but like I said, just discussion.  

   

Tim  

           

  

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

 Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 10:46 AM

 To: rv-list(at)matronics.com

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

  

   

Tim Bryan wrote:

 

    	  Quote: 	
		  --> RV-List message posted by: "Tim Bryan" <n616tb(at)btsapps.com> This idea of AD's applying really puzzles me.  How can an experimentalactually be required to comply when the very nature of the word experimentalmeans we can experiment with what ever we choose?  If I want to build anairplane with a modified I0-360 then that is my experiment. 	
  

All true

 

    	  Quote: 	
		  If you want to keep your engine certified for later use on a certifiedairplane, then maybe so. I am not an A&P nor an AI nor FAA nor did I sleep in a Holiday Inn Express. 	
  

Nor I, but I do have a point of view.

 

    	  Quote: 	
		   	
0  

I think we all fit in that category!  

 

    	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3  

Well, if you have the item in question ...... modified or not ...... then the AD still applies.  "Das Fed" covered that.

 However, if you don't have the item in question .... then the AD does not apply.  If you've modified the item in question so that the AD cannot be complied with .... then again, it does not apply.  Having said that, If the AD covers a part that is a reasonable copy (from Japan, China, or Russia to name a few) it is only wise to apply the AD, and list it in the logs.  Failure to apply the AD (if applicable) would probably make the airplane unairworthy in the eyes of the FAA and the legal and insurance systems and might come back to bite you ..... in more ways than I can cover here.

 

 Bear in mind that ADs are mostly issued to cover a safety-related problem, and not complying with an applicable AD just doesn't make sense to me.  I also don't see what the problem is.

 Linn

 

    	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7 	  Quote: 	
		   	
8 	  Quote: 	
		   	
9 	  Quote: 	
		  This idea of AD's applying really puzzles me.  How can an experimental 	
0  [quote][quote]--

n212pj(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:18 am Post subject: Do AD's really apply?

Ugh.  I can't resist.  Here goes.  Be forewarned.  It's ramble time.  I

think the delete key is just to the right of your pinky.  



Some feel that the FAA is there to punish when they can; others feel it is

there for the safety of the flying public and/or those who live beneath the

flying public.  Others feel they are there because it helps keep the

insurance companies solvent.  The sociologists amongst us problem know best

why they are there, but anyway....



Let's assume for one moment that they are a bureaucracy that grew up to help

keep planes from being built, maintained and flown in a manner that

continued to cause a whole bunch of deaths, something which was happening

when this flying activity really started to, uh, take off.  Everything was

truly experimental.  We all know it grew into a big elephant, but it still

does one thing pretty well (although not perfectly), it accumulates

information.  And, when it believes it has enough about a risk to said

flying public or the public beneath the flyers, it, at a minimum, gets the

word out.  You can argue all day long about if that word is justified or too

late or too early....but they do try to make decisions that, in their

judgment, given their facts, their analysis, and their mindset might just

help keep us flying and not crashing.  



The question, of course, is, do we need to heed that advice, given that

we've decided to go the experimental route (which, if we are flying a Van's

airframe behind a Lycoming derivative, equipped to be day, day/night, IFR

according to the regs makes me wonder just how experimental we really are.

I mean, how much experimenting did 90% of us do, really...)?  I think there

are at least two answers.  First, if you want to continue to have the luxury

to experiment and fly the way we've determined we'd like to, I would think

you'd want to play along and track those AD's and take care of them.  Big,

bad bureaucracies just love to wrap their arms around more of what they

believe they should control.  Second, it's you're arse, and perhaps the

arses of a few others, that reside in that experimental machine.  Those at

the FAA didn't put out the AD because they had nothing to do that day.  They

put it out because they had enough evidence to indicate there might be

enough of a trend in their data to indicate that a serious threat to your

arse existed.  



If the FAA declared unequivocally that us "experimental" types didn't even

have to read the AD's, let alone do anything about them, then would you

actually not do so?  I know that on some level this is a "rights" question.

And on another level it is a "good old hot-rod days" leave me alone and go

away I want to do my own thing question.  To be clear, I really care that

I'm able to build and work on my own plane.  That matters a lot to me.  It

is my passion.  I don't get to do it much, but I think about it all the

time.  It is an ability and luxury I would fight to preserve.  I also

believe that it is healthy to push back on big bureaucracies, else they

become even bigger and more intrusive than they are.  But stats are stats,

and I thank them for tracking what's happening, and I thank them for letting

me know so I can take action.  



Do the AD's apply?  Absolutely.  Are they mandatory?  Well, if they take

that data plate away, I would argue no.  But I still want to get that AD in

the mail, understand why it was issued, take a very hard look at my set up

and make the wise choice to act.  



Ok, I feel better, and, by the way, I'll also fight for the right to keep

such a public dialogue on a governmental body going, and to have the right

to publicly challenge that institution.  



Enough already.  Must have been something in my morning tea....   I think

I'll go experiment.  



John Jessen

  GlaStar flying

  RV-10 slow building



--

rgf(at)dcn.davis.ca.us
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:18 am Post subject: Do AD's really apply?

I received the same Emergency AD.  Naturally that worried me.  Had my life

been in danger?  Was I about to open a letter that would cost me thousands

of dollars in compliance?  As I read it, my concern turned to puzzlement.

Had somebody removed my carburated C-90 engine and bolted on a fuel-injected

IO-360 to my Aircoupe?  Why would the FAA send this Emergency AD otherwise?

Or, maybe they knew through a secret government black ops program that I

would put an IO-360 on the RV-9A I was building....sending the AD as kind of

a preemptive strike.



Or maybe they were just screwups.  NO!  Could not be!



Ralph Finch



--

n616tb(at)btsapps.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:43 am Post subject: Do AD's really apply?

John,



I am not questioning weather I should be notified or receive the AD's.  I

like most would certainly want to know about all the research that is going

on.  And frankly, I have every intent on changing anything that is deemed to

be a problem for me or my arse.  The only question I have is the tracking,

paperwork issue where my planes value is inhibited by if I complied with any

particular AD or not.  It is experimental!  It is my choice!  I appreciate

getting the information; I just want to keep my airplane experimental and

judged by its value and not by its paperwork trail.  That is for the

certified aircraft and why I no longer own one.  Just my opinion of course.



I have no opinion as to weather the FAA employees have nothing to do or are

trying to be devious.  Wasn't part of my point at all.

Tim



[quote] --

Terry Watson

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 290
Location: Seattle, WA USA

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 9:08 am Post subject: Do AD's really apply?

Tim,  

   

I think you have it a little reversed concerning your Aerosport Power engine and Lycoming parts. The only Lycoming part I have discovered to date on my Aerosport Power engine is the oil dipstick. There may be others but I haven’t found them yet. On the other hand, I think you can have a Lycoming engine that has had most of the Lycoming parts replaced with Superior parts and still be called a Lycoming. The Superior parts are the same that are used to build the Aerosport engine.  

   

I guess Bart can build an engine out of any parts that he wants to use and put his Aerosport Power brand on it. Or maybe it is just a matter of semantics. Superior builds parts for Lycoming engines. Are those parts Lycoming or Superior?   

   

Back to work.  

   

Terry  

   

   

         

  

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

 Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 9:07 AM

 To: rv-list(at)matronics.com

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

  

   

Hi Linn,  

   

Well there isn’t really a problem, but a discussion.  My engine actually doesn’t have a data plate that says it is a Lycoming but rather an Aerosport Power engine.  Does this mean any AD’s that target a Lycoming 0-360 would not apply to me?  Every part on there as far as I know are Lycoming parts.  

   

Now, realize that if I received notice that said there was a problem with some part I have, I would feel compelled to correct it, but keeping a paperwork trail of AD’s is not something I really could care less about.  

   

And if I was of mind to disagree with something they wanted fixed, I would not feel compelled to do so since this is an experimental.  I was thinking it was simply just my choice.  I am not dumb enough to deliberately or stubbornly wish to ignore safety issues, but like I said, just discussion.  

   

Tim  

   

       [quote][b]

n212pj(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 9:39 am Post subject: Do AD's really apply?

Tim,



I understand; I agree with you.  I don't think I said "devious."  



I do believe in paper trails sufficient for the information and safety of

someone who is buying one of our beloved experimental's.  I just bought one

myself, and I was very happy to know as much about that plane as I could.

It comforted me no end that the builder and intermediate owner, as well as

their A&P IA, were meticulous in their documentation, along with the Why's,

which were either documented or part of the pre-buy Q&A.  They, I believe,

held nothing back from me about the plane and its construction and

"problems."  The horrendous and, perhaps except for the commercial side of

flying, unnecessarily burdensome paper trail syndrome of the certified's was

an unfortunate necessity.  One that I, too, want nothing to do with.  



So, you and I don't really disagree.  I just needed to get my mind flushed.

I also wanted to make my own case for people to pay close attention to AD's,

especially those doing their own engine work.  And I think we would do all

of us a big favor if we were meticulous in our documentation.  It's an

experimental family out there.  Let's not hold back for fear that someone

might be looking over our shoulder, ready to pounce because we've said too

much.  If you don't want to write the "why" down in an official logbook,

fine.  As others have pointed out, it's not required.  



John 



Do not archive



--

AV8ORJWC

Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 1149
Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 9:48 am Post subject: Do AD's really apply?

Tim - Great question.  Answering with a second question, "What specific

mods may a builder of OBAM make, which requires a Second Phase One Fly

Off?"  (Flight characteristic changes, major airframe modifications

beyond the scope of the approved kit, power output changes, powerplant

changes, etc.)



And a third question.  "What responsible builder would use or install on

their OBAM aircraft a component now publically and officially known to

be found with a defect or likely failure which triggers an AD in the

first place?"



I think Vans article said it well in EAA Sport - "Kicking the Bear".

There are now purported to be over 29,000 non certificated experiments

placing John Q in continually risk of the sky falling. I am not sure I

want John Q. linking the two as one large group of builders.



Do your own thing at all of our peril.  Do it within the yet to be

amended rules - Good Deal, Good Luck with the answers and your response

to the NPRM.  Let us all know what you find to your question.



John Cox



--

n616tb(at)btsapps.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:53 am Post subject: Do AD's really apply?

Hi John,



Yes, I suspect we do agree.  A prudent person would keep track of what is

done to the plane for resale value as well as your own records.  I think my

primary objection is getting to where I am required certain documentation

that doesn't fit and means I am subject to non compliance when I am trying

to be experimental.  I might keep some records for my use or resale use, but

would not be available in the logs for an inspector or insurance company to

have at.  My safety and investment is one thing but mandatory gets real

messy with accidents and insurance.  I am flying an experimental to get away

from that crap.



Thanks for your response, I do appreciate the discussion.

Tim



[quote] --

n616tb(at)btsapps.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 11:21 am Post subject: Do AD's really apply?

John Cox,



I may very well be misinformed and certainly don't know all there is to know

about this subject.  I also realize things are changing every day regarding

experimental category aircraft.  I do think we tend make assumptions here

that don't fit the reality.



 	  Quote: 	
		   

 Tim - Great question.  Answering with a second question, "What specific

 mods may a builder of OBAM make, which requires a Second Phase One Fly

 Off?"  (Flight characteristic changes, major airframe modifications

 beyond the scope of the approved kit, power output changes, powerplant

 changes, etc.)

[Tim] 
	


Well, what exactly is approved kit?  I don't think you are suggesting that

because it is approved in some fashion (probably to meet the 51% rule) that

we can't experiment with it or it is automatically safe.  I can build and

have flown a one off experimental that was not an approved kit.  I am able

to take a vans kit and modify it all I want to.  It is experimental.



 	  Quote: 	
		   

 And a third question.  "What responsible builder would use or install on

 their OBAM aircraft a component now publically and officially known to

 be found with a defect or likely failure which triggers an AD in the

 first place?"

[Tim] 
	


That would obviously be a personal decision, but for me I like to be safe.

I just don't want to be mandated to document it in the logs unless I see fit

to do so.  I find it interesting that I can install for instance a non

aviation product that has no safety record without any AD responsibility.

But if I install an aviation product for the same purpose and an AD comes

out I have an obligation to do something about it or be condemned.  Maybe

the solution is to take the non AD compliant part out and replace it with a

non aviation component to correct the problem.  Do you see my point yet?

Please realize I am not suggesting I would do this, just that it makes no

sense to apply this to an experimental.



 	  Quote: 	
		   

 I think Vans article said it well in EAA Sport - "Kicking the Bear".

 There are now purported to be over 29,000 non certificated experiments

 placing John Q in continually risk of the sky falling. I am not sure I

 want John Q. linking the two as one large group of builders.

 

 Do your own thing at all of our peril.  Do it within the yet to be

 amended rules - Good Deal, Good Luck with the answers and your response

 to the NPRM.  Let us all know what you find to your question.

 

[Tim] 
	


I have seen a very scary RV-6A that I wouldn't ride in but had an A/W.  I

have also flown a one off design airplane that was perfectly safe.  You

cannot link an airplane to safety just because it had an A/W cert and you

can't assume just because it was a VANS (or other well known) kit that it is

safe to fly over your head.

JFLEISC(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:49 pm Post subject: Do AD's really apply?

In a message dated 3/26/2008 10:54:07 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  panamared5(at)brier.net writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  I    received an AD in the mail last night for my IO-360 in my RV.  This    

is in spite of the fact that the aircraft registration states my    

engine is unknown.  How does the FAA know??!!



The AD requires    me to inspect and or replace parts as needed on a 

Bendix fuel servo.     Since I have an Airflow Performance servo, I 

figure this AD does not    apply.  But on the other hand, technically 

there is no such thing as    an IO-360 with an Airflow Performance 

servo, that would be an uncertified    engine and we all know that the 

Lycoming IO-360 is a certified engine. The    data plate on my engine 

says it is a Lycoming IO-360, therefore I must    comply with the AD 

even though it is not possible.



Now maybe some    A&P IA with a law degree can explain what type of 

Logbook entry I    should make.  I would never want some A&P IA to ever 

think I was    unsafe just because I fly an experimental and cut corners 

on an incorrect    Logbook entry!

	


 

 My point exactly!

 I would like someone to " 'Splain Lucy" this one.

  

 Jim



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

  [quote][b]

JFLEISC(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 2:15 pm Post subject: Do AD's really apply?

In a message dated 3/26/2008 11:47:51 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  gyoung(at)cs-sol.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  To make    it easy to review ADs from year to year you can

keep an AD log and just    show "N/A" and a brief reason why not such as

"component not installed".    Not required but a real convenience.

	


 

 If you "don't" have something in the first place why address it at all  rather than writing it down before the fact. 'Kinda sounds like walking into a  store, not seeing what you like then getting a receipt on the way out for $0.00  to prove to anyone who asks that you didn't buy anything.

  

 Jim



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

  [quote][b]

rv7(at)b4.ca
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 2:39 pm Post subject: Do AD's really apply?

On 15:11 2008-03-26 JFLEISC(at)aol.com wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   If you "don't" have something in the first place why address it at

 all rather than writing it down before the fact. 'Kinda sounds like

 walking into a store, not seeing what you like then getting a receipt

 on the way out for $0.00 to prove to anyone who asks that you didn't

 buy anything.


	


I think that's a bad analogy.  A better way to think of it is, you're

making a list of AD's that are peripherally related (ie. they apply to an

extremely similar part, or they apply to what your engine was before you

started playing with the injection, intakes, whatever).  Keeping this list

shows to both Das Fed and any potential buyers that you have at least seen

the AD, and considered it's applicability.



Personally, i'd keep a list of AD's and what I did about them.  That list

may include a "does not apply", but I would add wording as to *why* I

thought it didn't apply.



-Rob

tcervin(at)embarqmail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 2:52 pm Post subject: Do AD's really apply?

Bob, I got one too and I have a 360-A1A Carb version!! On top of that for all the FAA knows I could be running Custom pistons and a cam!!!

   That is why it's EXPERIMENTAL!! AD's do not apply!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                        PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                                       Tom in Ohio 

---

Bruce(at)glasair.org
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 3:21 pm Post subject: Do AD's really apply?

Perhaps the FAA considered this AD so important it sent it to everyone on

the aircraft registry.



Bruce

www.Glasair.org

 

--

bo124rs(at)hotmail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 3:35 pm Post subject: Do AD's really apply?

Just a quick note here, my DAR stated that I had to "address" any AD that pertained to any part on my airplane prior to his inspection.  By "address" he stated I had to make an entry in the appropriate log book stating how I "addressed" the AD, ie., inspection ever 50 hours, I'll get to it, looks good I'll look again later.  Since I assembled my engine, I had a lot of AD pages to look through.  I actually didn't have any AD's which I had not "addressed" appropriately.  

YMMV



Dana Overall  

Richmond, KY i39 

RV-7 slider "Black Magic"  Flying

O 360 A1A, C/S C2YR-1BF/F7666A4 

http://rvflying.tripod.com/firstflight_010.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMi05-WU2D0#GU5U2spHI_4

http://rvflying.tripod.com 

do not archive 



 

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

khorton01(at)rogers.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 3:40 pm Post subject: Do AD's really apply?

On 26 Mar 2008, at 17:46, JFLEISC(at)aol.com (JFLEISC(at)aol.com) wrote: 	  Quote: 	
		     In a message dated 3/26/2008 10:54:07 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, panamared5(at)brier.net (panamared5(at)brier.net) writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  I   received an AD in the mail last night for my IO-360 in my RV.  This   

is in spite of the fact that the aircraft registration states my   

engine is unknown.  How does the FAA know??!!



The AD requires   me to inspect and or replace parts as needed on a 

Bendix fuel servo.    Since I have an Airflow Performance servo, I 

figure this AD does not   apply.  But on the other hand, technically 

there is no such thing as   an IO-360 with an Airflow Performance 

servo, that would be an uncertified   engine and we all know that the 

Lycoming IO-360 is a certified engine. The   data plate on my engine 

says it is a Lycoming IO-360, therefore I must   comply with the AD 

even though it is not possible.



Now maybe some   A&P IA with a law degree can explain what type of 

Logbook entry I   should make.  I would never want some A&P IA to ever 

think I was   unsafe just because I fly an experimental and cut corners 

on an incorrect   Logbook entry!

	


 

 My point exactly!

 I would like someone to " 'Splain Lucy" this one.

  

	




Before we start, I need to say that I believe it makes no sense at all for the regs to make ADs apply to experimental aircraft.   But, we have to work with the regs as they are actually worded, rather than pretend they were worded the way we think they should be.  If you read FAR 39.3, the wording quite clearly applies to all aircraft, including experimental aircraft.  FAR 39.3 says " FAA's airworthiness directives are legally enforceable rules that apply to the following products: aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances".  This wording would clearly apply to amateur-built aircraft.  The wording in FAR 39.3 has changed since the EAA got a legal opinion that ADs did not apply to experimental aircraft.  That opinion was perfectly valid with the old wording of FAR 39.3, but it was invalidated by the amendment to FAR 39.3 in 2002.

Several listers have asked what happens if the engine has been modified such that the AD cannot apply, e.g. by replacing the Bendix FI system with an AFP FI system.  In this case FAR 39.15,  39.17, and 39.19 apply (see the extract from FAR 39 below).

=========



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.

39.17   What must I do if a change in a product affects my ability to accomplish the actions required in an airworthiness directive?

If a change in a product affects your ability to accomplish the actions required by the airworthiness directive in any way, you must request FAA approval of an alternative method of compliance. Unless you can show the change eliminated the unsafe condition, your request should include the specific actions that you propose to address the unsafe condition. Submit your request in the manner described in §39.19.

39.19   May I address the unsafe condition in a way other than that set out in the airworthiness directive?

Yes, anyone may propose to FAA an alternative method of compliance or a change in the compliance time, if the proposal provides an acceptable level of safety. Unless FAA authorizes otherwise, send your proposal to your principal inspector. Include the specific actions you are proposing to address the unsafe condition. The principal inspector may add comments and will send your request to the manager of the office identified in the airworthiness directive (manager). You may send a copy to the manager at the same time you send it to the principal inspector. If you do not have a principal inspector send your proposal directly to the manager. You may use the alternative you propose only if the manager approves it.

=========

end of extract from FAR 39

=========

I am very glad that the situation in Canada is much better.  CAR 593 admittedly could be interpreted such that an AD on a type certificated engine would apply, even if the engine were installed in an amateur-built aircraft.  But, the notes in Standard 593 make it very clear that ADs in Canada are not intended to apply to amateur-built aircraft, even if an aeronautical product installed on that aircraft has an AD against it.



--

Kevin Horton

RV-8 (FInal Assembly)

Ottawa, Canada

http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8



 



 [quote][b]

Display posts from previous:

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