 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 3:38 am Post subject: Amatuer Built Rules - was ...The Perfect Panel...how to deci |
 |
|
When I built my Pietenpol, I had a guy from the Greesnboro FSDO do the
inspection, not a DAR. I asked him just such a question. He said an
engine change, or a propeller change does NOT require re-inspection, but
it does require going back into "the box" for an addititional 25 to 40
hours (depending on whether a certified engine/prop combination was
being used) of flight testing before you can carry passengers or leave
the test area. I would assume if that is so for something as major as
an engine, that avionics changes would not require re-inspection either.
Jack Phillips
PP ASEL with Instrument Rating
Repairman's Certificate for Pietenpol NX899JP
RV-10 #40610 (tailcone)
--
| | - The Matronics RV10-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?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
wayne.e(at)grandecom.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 3:40 am Post subject: Amatuer Built Rules - was ...The Perfect Panel...how to deci |
|
|
Attached is a page from the Experimental Operating Limitations that I received from the DAR. Item 16 on the attachment explains this issue. The DAR told me that any major modification, such as a different engine or prop, would then cause rule 16 to kick in. He said the fly off time might not be as long depending on the modification. I think he said like a prop might be 5 hours.
Wayne Edgerton #40336
Time: 04:38:16 AM PST US
Subject: Amatuer Built Rules - was ...The Perfect Panel...how to
From: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal.com (Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal.com)>
When I built my Pietenpol, I had a guy from the Greesnboro FSDO do the
inspection, not a DAR. I asked him just such a question. He said an
engine change, or a propeller change does NOT require re-inspection, but
it does require going back into "the box" for an addititional 25 to 40
hours (depending on whether a certified engine/prop combination was
being used) of flight testing before you can carry passengers or leave
the test area. I would assume if that is so for something as major as
an engine, that avionics changes would not require re-inspection either.
| | - The Matronics RV10-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?RV10-List |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
238.99 KB |
| Viewed: |
210 Time(s) |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
james.k.hovis(at)gmail.co
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 4:24 am Post subject: Amatuer Built Rules - was ...The Perfect Panel...how to deci |
|
|
The key in this is the reference to FAR Part 21.93. 21.93 defines
"Major" and Minor" alterations to the type design of aircraft. A
"Minor" change is defined as: "one that has no appreciable effect on
the weight, balance, structural strength, reliability, operational
characteristics, or other characteristics affecting the airworthiness
of the product." All other changes are classified as "Major" Also,
21.93 lists acoustic changes as being either "Major" or "Minor".
Adding more avionics that significantly adds empty wieght would most
likely qualify as "Major" alteration that'll require a new fly-off
period. How much time for a fly-off would probably be up to the
individual Fed, if the weight increase is a relativly low amount, then
short fly-off period may be warranted. Installing a new engine
basically the same weight and HP as the original would be a "Minor"
change, but a heavier/ more HP engine would qualify as "Major".
Something like going from a Lyc to an auto conversion would also
qualify as "Major".
Hope it helps...
Keivn Hovis.
On 5/30/07, Wayne Edgerton <wayne.e(at)grandecom.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Attached is a page from the Experimental Operating Limitations that I
received from the DAR. Item 16 on the attachment explains this issue. The
DAR told me that any major modification, such as a different engine or prop,
would then cause rule 16 to kick in. He said the fly off time might not be
as long depending on the modification. I think he said like a prop might be
5 hours.
Wayne Edgerton #40336
Time: 04:38:16 AM PST US
Subject: Amatuer Built Rules - was ...The Perfect Panel...how to
From: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal.com>
When I built my Pietenpol, I had a guy from the Greesnboro FSDO do the
inspection, not a DAR. I asked him just such a question. He said an
engine change, or a propeller change does NOT require re-inspection,
but
it does require going back into "the box" for an addititional 25 to 40
hours (depending on whether a certified engine/prop combination was
being used) of flight testing before you can carry passengers or leave
the test area. I would assume if that is so for something as major as
an engine, that avionics changes would not require re-inspection
either.
|
| | - The Matronics RV10-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?RV10-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
