 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
gmcjetpilot
Joined: 04 Nov 2006
Posts: 170
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 4:06 pm Post subject: Do AD's really apply? (whose side are you ON? Liberty?) |
 |
|
WHO DO YOU THINK WILL WIN IF THE GOV KILLS HOMEBUILT
KIT PLANES LIKE RV'S WITH MORE RULES? CESSNA, PIPER, LSA
MANUFACTURES FROM EUROPE? YEP
STOP HELPING THE BIG GUY, FIGHT FOR OUR RIGHTS!
WHAT DO YOU THINK CESSNA CEO THINKS WHEN HE HEARS
THERE ARE OVER 5,000 RV's FLYING? LOST SALES. THAN THINKS
HOW CAN WE GET RID OF THEM? MAY BE I AM WAY OFF BUT
THEY HAVE LOBBYIST. WE HAVE EAA AND WE SHOULD SUPPORT
THEIR (OUR) POSITION!
KEEP LIBERTY, DON'T FIGHT IT.
>George, it still seems that you haven't bothered to read FAR
| Quote: | part 39. AD's apply to PRODUCTS, not type certificated
aircraft.
|
Dear Bob:
Where does part 39 say it applies to experimetnals?
Part 39 does NOT apply to experimentals, period,
so your point with all due respect is moot.
The FAA (their rules & wording) specifically stated that,
FAR 39.1 Applicability, does not include experimental aircraft
because it requires that the AIRCRAFT, engine, propeller, appliances
referred to, must have a "type design." NO experimental amateur
built aircraft has a "type design" therefore no AD's can apply to
them. (type referrers to not only the part but the installation.)
Repeat, experimental amateur-built planes are non-TC'ed aircraft.
WHY DO YOU HATE homebuilt planes and RV's? (ha-ha)
Fight the government adding restrictions and more laws, don't
help them be more authoritarian!
We all agree you should look and consider all AD's that may
apply to the products you have on your RV. I registered
my RV engine (Lycoming) with Lycoming and thus avail myself
to any SB, SL, SI notices. AD's are handled by the FAA. Yes
I looked for my serial number regarding the crankshaft AD. My
engine was new in mid 1970's and thus made well before the
bad batch of crankshafts manuf in the late 90's. Of course I
looked. I also looked when I overhauled it and put in the
new oil pump and did all the special things to the crank and
rods per Lycs OH manual. I am not dumb. So my engine
meets all AD's, at this time. I'm not a rebel with out a clue.
However I explained my prop issue, it does not meet the
TC type certificate specification (by two thousand of an inch)
and therefore has no "yellow tag". Is good for a Mooney? No.
Is it good for a RV? Yes and it is safe.
If Part 39 applies, than FAR Part 43 Maintenance, Preventive
Maintenance, Rebuilding and Alteration does not apply, and
we all need AI's to do annual inspections and "compliance"
reviews. You are making a Pandora's box that does not exist
and making it hard on yourself and your fellow EAA'ers. Fight
the fight against the Gov not with them.
I make my living under the FAR's and respect them. I also respect
your opinion, safety and the life of my passengers and my own. I
would never do anything unsafe, including ignoring AD's on an
appliance installed in my RV, if I thought it compromised safety.
We are NOT talking judgment or goodness, just FAR's & Liberty!
We are discussing the law. If you read the EAA "legal brief"
position paper, which has been reviewed by the FAA, they
agree. Legal opinion does not become defacto carved in
stone until challenged in court and ruled on. Let's NOT go
down that road. Leave it be. Nuff said. SUPPORT THE EAA!
It is true some politicians heard "These home made aero plane
contraptions made in garages, are flying all over the place with
no rules or regulations!"
The politicians says "WE MUST STOP THIS!" (Kit planes)
It is happening and the 51% rule and fast builds are under
attack NOW! LETS NOT FIGHT EACH OTHER. Be happy we
have libraries and don't be an authoritarian. This is America
for gosh shakes. (WRITE YOUR REPS!)
If you want more Regs keep it up. I say leave it to individuals
to make the judgment. It's a fair topic, a good topic and one
we must be aware of, but keep liberty, don't fight it.
Last example, I buy an experimental XPYZ-360 that is not
from Lyc. I put on an experimental prop, which includes a
BA Hartzell or Sensenich, there are no AD's likely. One,
there are so few of them BUT the FAA could "issue" what
ever edict it feels like. It could ground all RV's tomorrow if
they felt like it! Would that be good?
Take a Lyc O-360-A1A out of a Mooney & put it into a
RV, the 360 Lyc becomes experimental. I can overhaul it,
modify it, (electronic ignition) and put my own data tag on it.
What is the FAA to say or do? Well they do have power;
they can misuse; let's not poke the Rottweiler with a
meat stick.
Let me be clear the Gov and FAA can change the rules and
even ground or restrict anything in the sky. Early RV-3's had a
wing issue. The FAA got involved, no AD's but they did or
where going to ground it or restrict acro! FAA and manufacture
(Van's Aircraft) went through the analysis. It was mostly
pilots overloading the wing, exceeding the flight limits or poor
& improper installation of the rear wing spar. A new design was
developed. No grounding or arco limitations or AD's. Yea!
The FAA is watching, but as long as we are not falling out of
the sky under suspect conditions related to engine/prop
AD's, we should be off the radar.
Why do you want to force this? I don't know, but its my business
if I comply with AD's at this time. I hope it does not change.
The FAA is watching, but if we police our self the need for more
whacked rules goes away. As RV's going into the second hand
hand markets, might be baulked at by some A&P's for non AD
compliance. If selling or buying a RV, the AD issue might be a
factor. It is like airframe insurance or renting planes. We might
have the rating but the insurance company says you don't have
the time. As the manufacture and repairman we have some power
and flexibility. LETS KEEP IT THAT WAY.
Lets not blow our foot off to see if the shotgun works. The
Gov is right now looking at the Pro built for hire issue, 51%
rule. They might do something like make AD's mandatory
and more . I hope your dream that Part 39 becomes mandatory
for RV's is never realized. Next step is no experimental
or alternative engines and props will be allowed. Is that
what you want?
Cessna, Piper and all the Eastern European LSA makers
would love to ban experimentals, to boost sales. I hate to
imply Machiavellian conspiracies but home built planes
are a thorn in their sales. I think the USA bent over far
enough allowing LSA's to come here that are not USA
made and by default banning US airframes and engines
from being LSA's with the low gross weight.
SUPPORT THE EAA's POSITION!
Cheers, freedom is worth fighting for.
| Quote: | From: "Bob J." <rocketbob(at)gmail.com (rocketbob(at)gmail.com)>
Subject: Re: Re: Do AD's really apply?
>George, it still seems that you haven't bothered to read FAR
|
| Quote: | part 39. AD's apply to PRODUCTS, not type certificated
aircraft.
|
">Get A Month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. W00t [quote][b]
| | - The Matronics RV-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?RV-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
rocketbob(at)gmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:02 pm Post subject: Do AD's really apply? (whose side are you ON? Liberty?) |
|
|
George:
Step 1: Read FAR 39 here:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=ed65d4b4a98534ea6be4c14af3cbcb47&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14cfr39_main_02.tpl
So now where is the applicability section? Hmmm. Maybe there isn't one!
Step 2: go back and see your doctor, your Ritalin prescription must have run out.
Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying F1 under const. <- man I must hate homebuilts, and liberty
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 7:01 PM, <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com (gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com)> wrote:
[quote] Part 39 does NOT apply to experimentals, period,
so your point with all due respect is moot.
The FAA (their rules & wording) specifically stated that,
FAR 39.1 Applicability, does not include experimental aircraft
because it requires that the AIRCRAFT, engine, propeller, appliances
referred to, must have a "type design." NO experimental amateur
built aircraft has a "type design" therefore no AD's can apply to
them. (type referrers to not only the part but the installation.)
and more . I hope your dream that Part 39 becomes mandatory
for RV's is never realized. Next step is no experimental
or alternative engines and props will be allowed. Is that
what you want?
[b]
| | - The Matronics RV-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?RV-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sreynard13(at)gmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 7:40 am Post subject: Do AD's really apply? (whose side are you ON? Liberty?) |
|
|
Hi all!
I realize it is a lot more fun to argue about this, and this probably
will not do any good, but the link gmcjetpilot was referring to is:
http://members.eaa.org/home/govt/issues/airworthy.asp
It is pretty clear and thorough. As a sample:
"What about FAR 91.403 requirement to comply with Part 39?
FAR 91.403(a)11 requires the owner or operator of an aircraft to be
responsible for compliance with FAR Part 39. As was explained earlier,
FAA's legal office has stated that FAR Part 39 is not applicable to
experimental amateur-built aircraft because they have no type design.
Since FAR 39 is not applicable to experimental amateur-built aircraft
- then the owner is always in compliance with the part 39 referred to
in FAR 91.403(a)."
It's funny, the EAA page starts with:
"The applicability of Airworthiness Directives (AD's) to experimental
amateur-built aircraft is an intensely contested subject. Regardless
of what position one takes on this subject, many will take a personal
affront to your position."
Oh, "EAA suggests that the owner of the aircraft make a logbook entry
indicating how any ADs that applies to components installed on his or
her aircraft have been addressed."
My personal opinion of all this is that a experimental aircraft is
airworthy because the owner says it is. A logbook entry is just a
good way of expressing this. If it falls out of the sky, it's a
pretty good indication that we were wrong. I think of it like this, a
TC'ed aircraft has to prove it is airworthy by every component being
tested to death and following a b*tt load of regulations.
Experimental aircraft prove airworthiness through experimentation
(i.e. we don't crash).
Steve
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Bob J. <rocketbob(at)gmail.com> wrote:
| | - The Matronics RV-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?RV-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
