 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
aerobubba(at)earthlink.ne
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:56 am Post subject: AD compliance / applicability |
 |
|
Hi All-
Well, believe it or not, and with the help of EAA's regulatory liaison,
I've gotten to the bottom of the whole AD / Amateur Built Experimental
issue. Really.
But first: The FAA can't agree internally on the subject. Elements within
the FAA say they do apply, others say they don't, and yet a third faction
says they don't apply but should. And, get this, AC 39-7c is (legally
speaking) incorrect. Go figure. One reason the relevant documents have
not been cleaned up and clarified is that the FAA seems to want us to
believe that AD's do apply in order to increase the likelihood of our
taking corrective action when they are issued.
The highest horsepower document on the subject comes to us from the Federal
Register. The fact that this document is in the register is what causes it
to trump all the other documents and opinions on the subject. The document
itself is all about LSA's, and it contains a table entitled Light-Sport
Aircraft Maintenance and Certification Requirements located within section
IV, Comparative Tables. This particular table compares the maintenance
and certification requirements of six different categories of aircraft,
including amateur built. It can be accessed at:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFinalRule.nsf/c03aa95a6
d5f3d57852564720071b601/1d47971728e12ba286256edf004385aa!OpenDocument
Now, should one choose to look up the comparative data in this document, at
the cross reference of Amateur built and Airworthiness Directives, one
would find the wording leaves some room for ambiguity. However, if one
were to look at the adjacent entries for the various other certification
categories, the intent becomes quite clear. AD's are not issued against
our planes, nor anything installed in them.
The foregoing does not relieve us of our requirements to address AD's. We
do not have to comply with an AD, but we do have to address an AD. For
example, the recent RSA AD calls for an A&P to do the work to be in
compliance. If I do the work myself, I will have addressed the AD without
being in compliance, as I am not an A&P. If we fail to address an AD,
either as owner / operator doing the work or as repairman / A&P performing
the condition inspection, we are liable for violation under the careless
and reckless provisions of part 91 of the FAR's, but not under part 39.
Now, don't ask me to rationalize all the conflicting info available to us,
what one guy said, or the hard time one of us got from a particular fed.
At this point in time, the above represents the official position of the
folks at the top of the food chain.
Bon appetit!
glen matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
| | - 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 |
|
 |
pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:25 pm Post subject: AD compliance / applicability |
|
|
I'm amazed at the way we try and beat a dead horse. Glen takes a piece
of documentation that's clearly for LSA (as he so kindly pointed out)
and wants to apply it to ALL experimental aircraft to justify the stupid
... yeah, I said stupid .... position that you don't have to heed the
ADs. For what purpose??? Who needs a specific directive on whether ADs
apply to experimental aircraft???? Doesn't common sense suffice as a
reason??? The FAA doesn't appear to want to enforce the ADs .... which
makes it a moot point if you ignore the AD that makes your butt history
amongst the living. However, if you take someone with you, I'm sure
your survivors will not talk kindly of you when the lawyer starts
talking about your total lack of comprehension when you certified that
your airplane is airworthy when you take off. I've said before .... if
you want to impress someone with your knowledge of all things aviation
.... then you need not worry about the ADs ..... and explain how your
superior knowledge makes an AD not apply. The FAA isn't a proactive
organization. It's reactive. (Thank God!) and there's bound to be loss
of life (or a high potential for it) for them to issue the AD. So, just
go out there and ignore all the ADs. You'll be the reason that ADs are
mandated for experimentals too.
I don't know Glen personally ..... or if he's playing devils advocate
here .... but the bottom line is that ADs are there to protect your butt
..... and mine too, and to try and lower the accident rate which we pay
dearly for.
I really don't care if Glen (or any anti AD person) doesn't want to take
the ADs as a heads up ..... but I do take offense at them trying to lead
others down that path with the 'ADs don't apply' mantra.
Sorry for the rant, but I think ignoring the ADs is a stupid pilot trick.
Linn ..... working through the fuselage.
glen matejcek wrote:
| Quote: |
Hi All-
Well, believe it or not, and with the help of EAA's regulatory liaison,
I've gotten to the bottom of the whole AD / Amateur Built Experimental
issue. Really.
But first: The FAA can't agree internally on the subject. Elements within
the FAA say they do apply, others say they don't, and yet a third faction
says they don't apply but should. And, get this, AC 39-7c is (legally
speaking) incorrect. Go figure. One reason the relevant documents have
not been cleaned up and clarified is that the FAA seems to want us to
believe that AD's do apply in order to increase the likelihood of our
taking corrective action when they are issued.
The highest horsepower document on the subject comes to us from the Federal
Register. The fact that this document is in the register is what causes it
to trump all the other documents and opinions on the subject. The document
itself is all about LSA's, and it contains a table entitled Light-Sport
Aircraft Maintenance and Certification Requirements located within section
IV, Comparative Tables. This particular table compares the maintenance
and certification requirements of six different categories of aircraft,
including amateur built. It can be accessed at:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFinalRule.nsf/c03aa95a6
d5f3d57852564720071b601/1d47971728e12ba286256edf004385aa!OpenDocument
Now, should one choose to look up the comparative data in this document, at
the cross reference of Amateur built and Airworthiness Directives, one
would find the wording leaves some room for ambiguity. However, if one
were to look at the adjacent entries for the various other certification
categories, the intent becomes quite clear. AD's are not issued against
our planes, nor anything installed in them.
The foregoing does not relieve us of our requirements to address AD's. We
do not have to comply with an AD, but we do have to address an AD. For
example, the recent RSA AD calls for an A&P to do the work to be in
compliance. If I do the work myself, I will have addressed the AD without
being in compliance, as I am not an A&P. If we fail to address an AD,
either as owner / operator doing the work or as repairman / A&P performing
the condition inspection, we are liable for violation under the careless
and reckless provisions of part 91 of the FAR's, but not under part 39.
Now, don't ask me to rationalize all the conflicting info available to us,
what one guy said, or the hard time one of us got from a particular fed.
At this point in time, the above represents the official position of the
folks at the top of the food chain.
Bon appetit!
glen matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
|
| | - 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 |
|
|
Vanremog(at)aol.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:59 pm Post subject: AD compliance / applicability |
|
|
In a message dated 4/14/2008 6:28:03 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net writes:
| Quote: | I really don't care if Glen (or any anti AD person) doesn't want to take
the ADs as a heads up ..... but I do take offense at them trying to lead
others down that path with the 'ADs don't apply' mantra.
Sorry for the rant, but I think ignoring the ADs is a stupid pilot trick.
Linn ..... working through the fuselage.
|
============================================
On another subject, how about that new Marilyn Monroe film?
Do not archive.
N1GV (RV-6A, Flying 887hrs, O-360-A1A, C/S, Silicon Valley)
It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance.
[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 |
|
|
aerobubba(at)earthlink.ne
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 1:34 pm Post subject: AD compliance / applicability |
|
|
Having a bad day, Linn?
Clearly, you misunderstood my post. Let me recap it in small sound bites:
1-AD's don't apply to experimentals, per FAA legal in DC as well as EAA HQ.
2-AD's MUST be addressed. To understand the difference between these two statements, read the original post.
3-I have never said anything remotely like ".... position that you don't have to heed the ADs." What I said was "The foregoing does not relieve us of our requirements to address AD's. We do not have to comply with an AD, but we do have to address an AD."
4-With regard to: "I really don't care if Glen (or any anti AD person) doesn't want to take the ADs as a heads up ..... but I do take offense at them trying to lead others down that path with the 'ADs don't apply' mantra." Actually, I care. A lot. That's why I tried to not only point out that this needs to be done, but whys and wherefores of it, and all the time knowing full well in advance that there is always the possibility of being on the recieving end of someone's tirade.
On a more personal note, I subscribe to the AD's appropriate to my equipment. As one of our best contemporary philosophers put it: "Stupid is as stupid does"
Or should I say RTFP?
| Quote: |
Time: 06:25:54 PM PST US
From: linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: RE: AD compliance / applicability
I'm amazed at the way we try and beat a dead horse. Glen takes a piece
of documentation that's clearly for LSA (as he so kindly pointed out)
and wants to apply it to ALL experimental aircraft to justify the stupid
.... yeah, I said stupid .... position that you don't have to heed the
ADs. For what purpose??? Who needs a specific directive on whether ADs
apply to experimental aircraft???? Doesn't common sense suffice as a
reason??? The FAA doesn't appear to want to enforce the ADs .... which
makes it a moot point if you ignore the AD that makes your butt history
amongst the living. However, if you take someone with you, I'm sure
your survivors will not talk kindly of you when the lawyer starts
talking about your total lack of comprehension when you certified that
your airplane is airworthy when you take off. I've said before .... if
you want to impress someone with your knowledge of all things aviation
..... then you need not worry about the ADs ..... and explain how your
superior knowledge makes an AD not apply. The FAA isn't a proactive
organization. It's reactive. (Thank God!) and there's bound to be loss
of life (or a high potential for it) for them to issue the AD. So, just
go out there and ignore all the ADs. You'll be the reason that ADs are
mandated for experimentals too.
I don't know Glen personally ..... or if he's playing devils advocate
here .... but the bottom line is that ADs are there to protect your butt
...... and mine too, and to try and lower the accident rate which we pay
dearly for.
I really don't care if Glen (or any anti AD person) doesn't want to take
the ADs as a heads up ..... but I do take offense at them trying to lead
others down that path with the 'ADs don't apply' mantra.
Sorry for the rant, but I think ignoring the ADs is a stupid pilot trick.
Linn ..... working through the fuselage.
glen matejcek wrote:
>
>Hi All-
>
>Well, believe it or not, and with the help of EAA's regulatory liaison,
>I've gotten to the bottom of the whole AD / Amateur Built Experimental
>issue. Really.
>
>But first: The FAA can't agree internally on the subject. Elements within
>the FAA say they do apply, others say they don't, and yet a third faction
>says they don't apply but should. And, get this, AC 39-7c is (legally
>speaking) incorrect. Go figure. One reason the relevant documents have
>not been cleaned up and clarified is that the FAA seems to want us to
>believe that AD's do apply in order to increase the likelihood of our
>taking corrective action when they are issued.
>
>The highest horsepower document on the subject comes to us from the Federal
>Register. The fact that this document is in the register is what causes it
>to trump all the other documents and opinions on the subject. The document
>itself is all about LSA's, and it contains a table entitled Light-Sport
>Aircraft Maintenance and Certification Requirements located within section
>IV, Comparative Tables. This particular table compares the maintenance
>and certification requirements of six different categories of aircraft,
>including amateur built. It can be accessed at:
>
>http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFinalRule.nsf/c03aa95a6
>d5f3d57852564720071b601/1d47971728e12ba286256edf004385aa!OpenDocument
>
>Now, should one choose to look up the comparative data in this document, at
>the cross reference of Amateur built and Airworthiness Directives, one
>would find the wording leaves some room for ambiguity. However, if one
>were to look at the adjacent entries for the various other certification
>categories, the intent becomes quite clear. AD's are not issued against
>our planes, nor anything installed in them.
>
>The foregoing does not relieve us of our requirements to address AD's. We
>do not have to comply with an AD, but we do have to address an AD. For
>example, the recent RSA AD calls for an A&P to do the work to be in
>compliance. If I do the work myself, I will have addressed the AD without
>being in compliance, as I am not an A&P. If we fail to address an AD,
>either as owner / operator doing the work or as repairman / A&P performing
>the condition inspection, we are liable for violation under the careless
>and reckless provisions of part 91 of the FAR's, but not under part 39.
>
>Now, don't ask me to rationalize all the conflicting info available to us,
>what one guy said, or the hard time one of us got from a particular fed.
>At this point in time, the above represents the official position of the
>folks at the top of the food chain.
>
>Bon appetit!
>
>glen matejcek
>aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
|
Glen Matejcek
| | - 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
