 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bicyclop(at)pacbell.net
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 2:35 pm Post subject: FSDO horror shows |
 |
|
I went into the FSDO to get a new set of operating limitations for my RV as the old ones didn't have any provision for making a major alteration and I was in the process of installing a wing leveler. After educating them as to how to do their job and showing them the current issue boilerplate oplims (from the FAA's own website), I was informed that I couldn't operate my homebuilt out of my home airport or three others within their jurisdiction because of a memo that the former head of the local FSDO had written several years earlier forbidding operations of experimental aircraft in Phase 1 (flight test) or Phase 2 (normal operations). I told them that they didn't have the authority to arbitrarily ban a whole category of aircraft and sicced the national office of the EAA on them. They eventually relented and issued my new oplims. They did not, however, rescind the memo even after the FAA, Washington D.C. told them to. They haven't since tried to enforce it on experimental, amateur built aircraft, but apparently did make life hell for a local P51 owner for several months before they let up on him.
Old Bob is right. Asking if you can do something that is not expressly permitted (read not expressly prohibited) will always get you an answer you do not want to hear and bring you to their attention as a possible problem that they might need to solve. The FSDO is a real good place to avoid if you can. It is full of petty bureaucrats whose sole purpose in life is to slide papers from one side of the desk to the other without getting burned by them. Many, if not all of them, have an animus toward the non-certificated world. I have heard a FSDO inspector go on at length about how dangerous experimental aircraft are. He made it clear that he took it personally that these scofflaws are allowed to skate around the rules, as he sees it. If you do have business with them that you can't do any other way, have your ducks in a neat little row before you go in there and say absolutely nothing more than you have to in order to get your business transacted.
Ed Holyoke
On 12/17/2012 11:28 AM, Charlie England wrote: [quote] Well said, by both Bobs! 
Want to hear the story of the FSDO that forced a homebuilder to surrender the data plate off his Lycoming engine before they'd issue his a/w cert? And at a later date, when he used the same engine on another build, was told that he couldn't get an a/w without the data plate being on the engine.....
I'll bet that you can't find a factory built single engine a/c that has quarterwave antenna installations (other than xponder or gps freqs) that meets TSO for installation.
No one can ID the connector??
Thanks,
Charlie
On 12/17/2012 12:01 PM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com (BobsV35B(at)aol.com) wrote:
| Quote: | Good Morning All,
This discussion brings up a point with which I do not think all of our participants are aware.
It is very rarely advisable to go to any FSDO to ask a question. Each FSDO is a kingdom unto itself. You will commonly get different answers at different FSDOs .It is not unusual to get different answers from different inspectors at the same FSDO!
Best that we thoroughly research the regulations and, once we determine a consensus in our own mind, press on with the project.
What I generally do is decide what I will say at the hearing.
If I think I have a good case, I will press on.
If I feel my arguments are a bit weak, I back off.
It is kinda like when we tell our children not to do anything you don't want your mother to know about!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 12/17/2012 11:43:09 A.M. Central Standard Time, lm4(at)juno.com (lm4(at)juno.com) writes:
| Quote: | Richard, Thanks for the info.
Larry
On Dec 17, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Richard Girard wrote:
| Quote: | Larry, Sorry, I'm not an expert on such. I contacted the FSDO to see if I could legally repair an ELT antenna that the previous owner of the aircraft had modified and return it to service. The answer was no. Then I asked if I could make an antenna for it. Again, no. Could I use an antenna from another ELT of the same frequency? Nope. My understanding is that the ELT and its accessories are granted approval to the TSO as a unit. You cannot legally change anything, not even the mounting screws supplied by the mfr.
Rick
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Larry Mac Donald <lm4(at)juno.com (lm4(at)juno.com)> wrote:
| Quote: | --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Larry Mac Donald <lm4(at)juno.com (lm4(at)juno.com)>
I have a question about this statment.
It's my understanding that a part that must meet TSO
is a part that must be built to meet a Tech spec order.
The manufacturer might build it or an individual might
build it but it must be built to meet the specs of the order.
I take that to mean that I could take a homebuilt ant. to
an avionics shop and have them certify that it meets
the TSO. Where am I going wrong ?
Larry
On Dec 17, 2012, at 11:03 AM, Richard Girard wrote:
> Charlie, I had this conversation about antennae for ELT's with the Wichita FSDO last summer. The antenna is part of the TSO for the unit. You cannot use any other antenna other than that which the manufacturer supplied with it. Not legally, anyway.
>
> Rick Girard
>
|
|
|
|
[b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
henry(at)pericynthion.org
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 3:20 pm Post subject: FSDO horror shows |
|
|
Hi Ed, can you name and shame the FSDO?
Henry
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> wrote:
| Quote: | I went into the FSDO to get a new set of operating limitations for my RV as
the old ones didn't have any provision for making a major alteration and I
was in the process of installing a wing leveler. After educating them as to
how to do their job and showing them the current issue boilerplate oplims
(from the FAA's own website), I was informed that I couldn't operate my
homebuilt out of my home airport or three others within their jurisdiction
because of a memo that the former head of the local FSDO had written several
years earlier forbidding operations of experimental aircraft in Phase 1
(flight test) or Phase 2 (normal operations). I told them that they didn't
have the authority to arbitrarily ban a whole category of aircraft and
sicced the national office of the EAA on them. They eventually relented and
issued my new oplims. They did not, however, rescind the memo even after the
FAA, Washington D.C. told them to. They haven't since tried to enforce it on
experimental, amateur built aircraft, but apparently did make life hell for
a local P51 owner for several months before they let up on him.
Old Bob is right. Asking if you can do something that is not expressly
permitted (read not expressly prohibited) will always get you an answer you
do not want to hear and bring you to their attention as a possible problem
that they might need to solve. The FSDO is a real good place to avoid if you
can. It is full of petty bureaucrats whose sole purpose in life is to slide
papers from one side of the desk to the other without getting burned by
them. Many, if not all of them, have an animus toward the non-certificated
world. I have heard a FSDO inspector go on at length about how dangerous
experimental aircraft are. He made it clear that he took it personally that
these scofflaws are allowed to skate around the rules, as he sees it. If you
do have business with them that you can't do any other way, have your ducks
in a neat little row before you go in there and say absolutely nothing more
than you have to in order to get your business transacted.
Ed Holyoke
On 12/17/2012 11:28 AM, Charlie England wrote:
Well said, by both Bobs!
Want to hear the story of the FSDO that forced a homebuilder to surrender
the data plate off his Lycoming engine before they'd issue his a/w cert? And
at a later date, when he used the same engine on another build, was told
that he couldn't get an a/w without the data plate being on the engine.....
I'll bet that you can't find a factory built single engine a/c that has
quarterwave antenna installations (other than xponder or gps freqs) that
meets TSO for installation.
No one can ID the connector??
Thanks,
Charlie
On 12/17/2012 12:01 PM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
Good Morning All,
This discussion brings up a point with which I do not think all of our
participants are aware.
It is very rarely advisable to go to any FSDO to ask a question. Each FSDO
is a kingdom unto itself. You will commonly get different answers at
different FSDOs .It is not unusual to get different answers from different
inspectors at the same FSDO!
Best that we thoroughly research the regulations and, once we determine a
consensus in our own mind, press on with the project.
What I generally do is decide what I will say at the hearing.
If I think I have a good case, I will press on.
If I feel my arguments are a bit weak, I back off.
It is kinda like when we tell our children not to do anything you don't want
your mother to know about!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 12/17/2012 11:43:09 A.M. Central Standard Time,
lm4(at)juno.com writes:
Richard,
Thanks for the info.
Larry
On Dec 17, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Richard Girard wrote:
Larry, Sorry, I'm not an expert on such. I contacted the FSDO to see if I
could legally repair an ELT antenna that the previous owner of the aircraft
had modified and return it to service. The answer was no. Then I asked if I
could make an antenna for it. Again, no. Could I use an antenna from another
ELT of the same frequency? Nope.
My understanding is that the ELT and its accessories are granted approval to
the TSO as a unit. You cannot legally change anything, not even the mounting
screws supplied by the mfr.
Rick
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Larry Mac Donald <lm4(at)juno.com> wrote:
>
>
> I have a question about this statment.
> It's my understanding that a part that must meet TSO
> is a part that must be built to meet a Tech spec order.
> The manufacturer might build it or an individual might
> build it but it must be built to meet the specs of the order.
> I take that to mean that I could take a homebuilt ant. to
> an avionics shop and have them certify that it meets
> the TSO. Where am I going wrong ?
> Larry
> On Dec 17, 2012, at 11:03 AM, Richard Girard wrote:
>
> > Charlie, I had this conversation about antennae for ELT's with the
> > Wichita FSDO last summer. The antenna is part of the TSO for the unit. You
> > cannot use any other antenna other than that which the manufacturer supplied
> > with it. Not legally, anyway.
> >
> > Rick Girard
> >
|
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bicyclop(at)pacbell.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:19 pm Post subject: FSDO horror shows |
|
|
Van Nuys, SoCal. Affected airports: Whiteman, Burbank, Van Nuys, and
Santa Barbara. Reason given: densely populated areas, not suitable for
experimental aircraft. This despite the fact that every set of oplims
for exp. aircraft specify that the aircraft can only be operated over
densely populated areas for the purpose of takeoff and landing. They
want to prohibit that also.
Ed
On 12/17/2012 3:19 PM, Henry Hallam wrote:
| Quote: |
Hi Ed, can you name and shame the FSDO?
Henry
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Ed Holyoke<bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> wrote:
> I went into the FSDO to get a new set of operating limitations for my RV as
> the old ones didn't have any provision for making a major alteration and I
> was in the process of installing a wing leveler. After educating them as to
> how to do their job and showing them the current issue boilerplate oplims
> (from the FAA's own website), I was informed that I couldn't operate my
> homebuilt out of my home airport or three others within their jurisdiction
> because of a memo that the former head of the local FSDO had written several
> years earlier forbidding operations of experimental aircraft in Phase 1
> (flight test) or Phase 2 (normal operations). I told them that they didn't
> have the authority to arbitrarily ban a whole category of aircraft and
> sicced the national office of the EAA on them. They eventually relented and
> issued my new oplims. They did not, however, rescind the memo even after the
> FAA, Washington D.C. told them to. They haven't since tried to enforce it on
> experimental, amateur built aircraft, but apparently did make life hell for
> a local P51 owner for several months before they let up on him.
>
> Old Bob is right. Asking if you can do something that is not expressly
> permitted (read not expressly prohibited) will always get you an answer you
> do not want to hear and bring you to their attention as a possible problem
> that they might need to solve. The FSDO is a real good place to avoid if you
> can. It is full of petty bureaucrats whose sole purpose in life is to slide
> papers from one side of the desk to the other without getting burned by
> them. Many, if not all of them, have an animus toward the non-certificated
> world. I have heard a FSDO inspector go on at length about how dangerous
> experimental aircraft are. He made it clear that he took it personally that
> these scofflaws are allowed to skate around the rules, as he sees it. If you
> do have business with them that you can't do any other way, have your ducks
> in a neat little row before you go in there and say absolutely nothing more
> than you have to in order to get your business transacted.
>
> Ed Holyoke
>
> On 12/17/2012 11:28 AM, Charlie England wrote:
>
> Well said, by both Bobs!
>
> Want to hear the story of the FSDO that forced a homebuilder to surrender
> the data plate off his Lycoming engine before they'd issue his a/w cert? And
> at a later date, when he used the same engine on another build, was told
> that he couldn't get an a/w without the data plate being on the engine.....
>
> I'll bet that you can't find a factory built single engine a/c that has
> quarterwave antenna installations (other than xponder or gps freqs) that
> meets TSO for installation.
>
> No one can ID the connector??
> Thanks,
>
> Charlie
>
> On 12/17/2012 12:01 PM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Good Morning All,
>
> This discussion brings up a point with which I do not think all of our
> participants are aware.
>
> It is very rarely advisable to go to any FSDO to ask a question. Each FSDO
> is a kingdom unto itself. You will commonly get different answers at
> different FSDOs .It is not unusual to get different answers from different
> inspectors at the same FSDO!
>
> Best that we thoroughly research the regulations and, once we determine a
> consensus in our own mind, press on with the project.
>
> What I generally do is decide what I will say at the hearing.
>
> If I think I have a good case, I will press on.
>
> If I feel my arguments are a bit weak, I back off.
>
> It is kinda like when we tell our children not to do anything you don't want
> your mother to know about!
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
> In a message dated 12/17/2012 11:43:09 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> lm4(at)juno.com writes:
>
> Richard,
> Thanks for the info.
> Larry
> On Dec 17, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Richard Girard wrote:
>
> Larry, Sorry, I'm not an expert on such. I contacted the FSDO to see if I
> could legally repair an ELT antenna that the previous owner of the aircraft
> had modified and return it to service. The answer was no. Then I asked if I
> could make an antenna for it. Again, no. Could I use an antenna from another
> ELT of the same frequency? Nope.
> My understanding is that the ELT and its accessories are granted approval to
> the TSO as a unit. You cannot legally change anything, not even the mounting
> screws supplied by the mfr.
>
> Rick
>
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Larry Mac Donald<lm4(at)juno.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I have a question about this statment.
>> It's my understanding that a part that must meet TSO
>> is a part that must be built to meet a Tech spec order.
>> The manufacturer might build it or an individual might
>> build it but it must be built to meet the specs of the order.
>> I take that to mean that I could take a homebuilt ant. to
>> an avionics shop and have them certify that it meets
>> the TSO. Where am I going wrong ?
>> Larry
>> On Dec 17, 2012, at 11:03 AM, Richard Girard wrote:
>>
>>> Charlie, I had this conversation about antennae for ELT's with the
>>> Wichita FSDO last summer. The antenna is part of the TSO for the unit. You
>>> cannot use any other antenna other than that which the manufacturer supplied
>>> with it. Not legally, anyway.
>>>
>>> Rick Girard
>>>
|
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:32 pm Post subject: FSDO horror shows |
|
|
Good Evening All,
I really do not mean to bash the FEDs. The vast majority are good guys who like aviation and want to do a good job, but such is the nature of bureaucracy. They tend to say no because you rarely have to explain a no decision after an accident. If they say no to any operation they possibly can, they reduce their own exposure to censure.
Best to avoid asking the question!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 12/17/2012 7:21:09 P.M. Central Standard Time, bicyclop(at)pacbell.net writes:
| Quote: | --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net>
Van Nuys, SoCal. Affected airports: Whiteman, Burbank, Van Nuys, and
Santa Barbara. Reason given: densely populated areas, not suitable for
experimental aircraft. This despite the fact that every set of oplims
for exp. aircraft specify that the aircraft can only be operated over
densely populated areas for the purpose of takeoff and landing. They
want to prohibit that also.
Ed
|
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kellym
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1705
Location: Sun Lakes AZ
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 6:30 pm Post subject: FSDO horror shows |
|
|
Sometimes it helps to be on the inside. A couple years ago I was invited
to join the local FAAST volunteers group.
Being associated with them, helping out on what they want, they seem to
be more responsive to my requests.
Actually, also got assigned to a relatively new PMI who previously
worked on GA planes and has actually been helpful.
Small miracles do happen and while I expect that I will run into
uncooperative folks there, at the moment I'll
continue doing a few presentations a year for them and hope the
cooperation continues.
Kelly
On 12/17/2012 6:31 PM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
| Quote: | Good Evening All,
I really do not mean to bash the FEDs. The vast majority are good guys
who like aviation and want to do a good job, but such is the nature of
bureaucracy. They tend to say no because you rarely have to explain a
no decision after an accident. If they say no to any operation they
possibly can, they reduce their own exposure to censure.
Best to avoid asking the question!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 12/17/2012 7:21:09 P.M. Central Standard Time,
bicyclop(at)pacbell.net writes:
<bicyclop(at)pacbell.net>
Van Nuys, SoCal. Affected airports: Whiteman, Burbank, Van Nuys, and
Santa Barbara. Reason given: densely populated areas, not suitable
for
experimental aircraft. This despite the fact that every set of oplims
for exp. aircraft specify that the aircraft can only be operated over
densely populated areas for the purpose of takeoff and landing. They
want to prohibit that also.
Ed
*
*
|
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lists(at)stevet.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 7:14 am Post subject: FSDO horror shows |
|
|
Ed,
When did this happen? I had my own issues with that memorandum restricting experimental aircraft from those 4 airports 2 years ago. I built my Glasair in Santa Barbara. When I tried to get it certified, the FSDO guy refused to allow any take-offs from the Santa Barbara Airport due to that memo. I engaged the support of national EAA, who then contacted the D.C. office, who then contacted the Van Nuys office. That memo restricting experimental flights had been rescinded 6 months or so after it was issued, but no one at the Van Nuys office would initially admit the rescinded memo even existed. The call from D.C. fixed it, and I was allowed one take off from Santa Barbara and flew to Camarillo to complete my 40 hours.
The interesting thing is that the Santa Barbara airport runways 15 L & R depart over the ocean. There is nothing to crash into but the water. The original ban on experimentals at Santa Barbara was due to political issues, not safety. There are several approaches to the airport that do not involve populated areas.
For a while, during phase 2 operations, I was based in Santa Barbara. No one ever hassled me again. When I applied for my Repairman Certificate, the Van Nuys office was extremely helpful and cooperative.
But that memo restricting experimental flights from those 4 airports has been rescinded. You may need to make a first flight somewhere else to fly off your phase 1 time, but once that is done, you can go back any time you wish.
Steve Thomas
________________________________________________________________________
On Dec 17, 2012, at 5:20 PM, Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Van Nuys, SoCal. Affected airports: Whiteman, Burbank, Van Nuys, and Santa Barbara. Reason given: densely populated areas, not suitable for experimental aircraft. This despite the fact that every set of oplims for exp. aircraft specify that the aircraft can only be operated over densely populated areas for the purpose of takeoff and landing. They want to prohibit that also.
Ed
On 12/17/2012 3:19 PM, Henry Hallam wrote:
>
>
> Hi Ed, can you name and shame the FSDO?
>
> Henry
>
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Ed Holyoke<bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> wrote:
>> I went into the FSDO to get a new set of operating limitations for my RV as
>> the old ones didn't have any provision for making a major alteration and I
>> was in the process of installing a wing leveler. After educating them as to
>> how to do their job and showing them the current issue boilerplate oplims
>> (from the FAA's own website), I was informed that I couldn't operate my
>> homebuilt out of my home airport or three others within their jurisdiction
>> because of a memo that the former head of the local FSDO had written several
>> years earlier forbidding operations of experimental aircraft in Phase 1
>> (flight test) or Phase 2 (normal operations). I told them that they didn't
>> have the authority to arbitrarily ban a whole category of aircraft and
>> sicced the national office of the EAA on them. They eventually relented and
>> issued my new oplims. They did not, however, rescind the memo even after the
>> FAA, Washington D.C. told them to. They haven't since tried to enforce it on
>> experimental, amateur built aircraft, but apparently did make life hell for
>> a local P51 owner for several months before they let up on him.
>>
>> Old Bob is right. Asking if you can do something that is not expressly
>> permitted (read not expressly prohibited) will always get you an answer you
>> do not want to hear and bring you to their attention as a possible problem
>> that they might need to solve. The FSDO is a real good place to avoid if you
>> can. It is full of petty bureaucrats whose sole purpose in life is to slide
>> papers from one side of the desk to the other without getting burned by
>> them. Many, if not all of them, have an animus toward the non-certificated
>> world. I have heard a FSDO inspector go on at length about how dangerous
>> experimental aircraft are. He made it clear that he took it personally that
>> these scofflaws are allowed to skate around the rules, as he sees it. If you
>> do have business with them that you can't do any other way, have your ducks
>> in a neat little row before you go in there and say absolutely nothing more
>> than you have to in order to get your business transacted.
>>
>> Ed Holyoke
>>
>> On 12/17/2012 11:28 AM, Charlie England wrote:
>>
>> Well said, by both Bobs!
>>
>> Want to hear the story of the FSDO that forced a homebuilder to surrender
>> the data plate off his Lycoming engine before they'd issue his a/w cert? And
>> at a later date, when he used the same engine on another build, was told
>> that he couldn't get an a/w without the data plate being on the engine.....
>>
>> I'll bet that you can't find a factory built single engine a/c that has
>> quarterwave antenna installations (other than xponder or gps freqs) that
>> meets TSO for installation.
>>
>> No one can ID the connector??
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Charlie
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/17/2012 12:01 PM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>>
>> Good Morning All,
>>
>> This discussion brings up a point with which I do not think all of our
>> participants are aware.
>>
>> It is very rarely advisable to go to any FSDO to ask a question. Each FSDO
>> is a kingdom unto itself. You will commonly get different answers at
>> different FSDOs .It is not unusual to get different answers from different
>> inspectors at the same FSDO!
>>
>> Best that we thoroughly research the regulations and, once we determine a
>> consensus in our own mind, press on with the project.
>>
>> What I generally do is decide what I will say at the hearing.
>>
>> If I think I have a good case, I will press on.
>>
>> If I feel my arguments are a bit weak, I back off.
>>
>> It is kinda like when we tell our children not to do anything you don't want
>> your mother to know about!
>>
>> Happy Skies,
>>
>> Old Bob
>>
>> In a message dated 12/17/2012 11:43:09 A.M. Central Standard Time,
>> lm4(at)juno.com writes:
>>
>> Richard,
>> Thanks for the info.
>> Larry
>> On Dec 17, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Richard Girard wrote:
>>
>> Larry, Sorry, I'm not an expert on such. I contacted the FSDO to see if I
>> could legally repair an ELT antenna that the previous owner of the aircraft
>> had modified and return it to service. The answer was no. Then I asked if I
>> could make an antenna for it. Again, no. Could I use an antenna from another
>> ELT of the same frequency? Nope.
>> My understanding is that the ELT and its accessories are granted approval to
>> the TSO as a unit. You cannot legally change anything, not even the mounting
>> screws supplied by the mfr.
>>
>> Rick
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Larry Mac Donald<lm4(at)juno.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have a question about this statment.
>>> It's my understanding that a part that must meet TSO
>>> is a part that must be built to meet a Tech spec order.
>>> The manufacturer might build it or an individual might
>>> build it but it must be built to meet the specs of the order.
>>> I take that to mean that I could take a homebuilt ant. to
>>> an avionics shop and have them certify that it meets
>>> the TSO. Where am I going wrong ?
>>> Larry
>>> On Dec 17, 2012, at 11:03 AM, Richard Girard wrote:
>>>
>>>> Charlie, I had this conversation about antennae for ELT's with the
>>>> Wichita FSDO last summer. The antenna is part of the TSO for the unit. You
>>>> cannot use any other antenna other than that which the manufacturer supplied
>>>> with it. Not legally, anyway.
>>>>
>>>> Rick Girard
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
|
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
versoelectric(at)gmail.co
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:15 am Post subject: FSDO horror shows |
|
|
Steve,
I'm a bit confused. If the memo restricting E-AB ops at these airports was rescinded, why were you still restricted to a single takeoff from SBA (and forced to make a cross-country flight over some hostile terrain or water on your first flight!), and who issued that restriction?
Granted, the topography around CMA is a little better suited to Phase 1 and you were probably safer there, but if the E-AB restriction isn't legal, it isn't legal.
Eric
On Dec 18, 2012, at 8:13 AM, Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net> wrote:
| Quote: | That memo restricting experimental flights had been rescinded 6 months or so after it was issued, but no one at the Van Nuys office would initially admit the rescinded memo even existed. The call from D.C. fixed it, and I was allowed one take off from Santa Barbara and flew to Camarillo to complete my 40 hours.
[SNIP]
But that memo restricting experimental flights from those 4 airports has been rescinded. You may need to make a first flight somewhere else to fly off your phase 1 time, but once that is done, you can go back any time you wish.
Steve Thomas
|
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lists(at)stevet.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:56 am Post subject: FSDO horror shows |
|
|
I just didn't want to fight any more. The FSDO set that requirement. I had won one battle. I chose to not push my luck. I figured that I was persona non grata at that point and the FSDO can cause a lot of difficulty, even if it is not legal. I was allowed to set my own flight test area out of Camarillo, which was very large, so I was counting my blessings at that point. The process took 4 months to resolve to that point. I sure couldn't see another 4 to 6 month fight.
I was talking to another builder at the Camarillo airport who told me that one FAA inspector had told him that he was not allowed to use nylock nuts anywhere on his airplane. He was required to use castle nuts with cotter pins. The only way he was able to get around that was to call a DAR to finish the certification. There is nothing anywhere that says that you cannot use nylock nuts.
FSDO can be a real pain if they choose.
Steve Thomas
________________________________________________________________________
On Dec 18, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Verso Electronics <versoelectric(at)gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Steve,
I'm a bit confused. If the memo restricting E-AB ops at these airports was rescinded, why were you still restricted to a single takeoff from SBA (and forced to make a cross-country flight over some hostile terrain or water on your first flight!), and who issued that restriction?
Granted, the topography around CMA is a little better suited to Phase 1 and you were probably safer there, but if the E-AB restriction isn't legal, it isn't legal.
Eric
On Dec 18, 2012, at 8:13 AM, Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net> wrote:
> That memo restricting experimental flights had been rescinded 6 months or so after it was issued, but no one at the Van Nuys office would initially admit the rescinded memo even existed. The call from D.C. fixed it, and I was allowed one take off from Santa Barbara and flew to Camarillo to complete my 40 hours.
>
> [SNIP]
>
> But that memo restricting experimental flights from those 4 airports has been rescinded. You may need to make a first flight somewhere else to fly off your phase 1 time, but once that is done, you can go back any time you wish.
>
> Steve Thomas
|
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bicyclop(at)pacbell.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:37 pm Post subject: FSDO horror shows |
|
|
Howdy Steve,
I'd have to go to the airport to look at my AW certificate issue date.
The modifications to the aircraft were accomplished over the winter of
05 - 06. It seems likely that my confrontation at the FSDO was in late
05. The infamous memo is dated April 27, 2004 and the signature line
reads Robyn L. Miller. If the memo had been rescinded at the time of my
dealings with the FSDO, there was certainly no indication of that. The
existence of the memo only came to light on day four of the process
which should have taken about 40 minutes total to complete if the duty
inspector had known his job. When I called to confirm my appointment to
pick up the completed airworthiness certificate and operating
limitations, the inspector informed me that all experimental flights
were prohibited from the four airports previously listed. I was not amused.
It took about another week or ten days to get the AW and oplims out of
them and as soon as I had them in hand, I called the national EAA to
thank them for their help and to turn them loose on the FAA. They had
been waiting to really raise a ruckus until my paperwork was no longer
held hostage. There was to be some sort of conference between the FAA DC
office and various aviation groups at the Catskills or someplace and the
whole sordid affair was to be brought up at that time. As the result of
this, the FSDO was (and I'm only reporting what I heard from the EAA at
the time) directed to rescind the offending memo and cease bothering us
poor homebuilders. The agreement was that first flights and initial fly
off wouldn't be allowed but re-entering Phase 1 as it applies to already
flying aircraft and Phase 2 would. According to what I have heard, a new
memo was issued that pretty much said the same as the first one, but
there has been no effort to enforce it except for the first flight thing
and the aforementioned persecution of the P51 owner, as far as I know. I
don't have a copy of the new memo and I don't want to stir up another
s**t storm by walking in and demanding to see it. Let sleeping dogs lie.
Steve, do you have a copy of the memo that they cited?
I have had other dealings with the FSDO since and, Old Bob you're right
that by and large they do their job. If they are required by regulation
to issue paperwork, they will do so. Steve you must have talked to the
right guy. A friend of mine was quizzed severely before they would issue
his Repairman's Cert. The thrust was that he hadn't built the plane
himself and was fraudulently applying for the R.C. That enmity against
the homebuilding community exists within the VNY FSDO is very much still
true. They are waiting for an accident to occur so that they can claim
that they've been right about us all along. Be very careful in your
dealings with them and we should all be even more careful with our
maintenance and flying so that we don't all get screwed.
Ed Holyoke
On 12/18/2012 7:13 AM, Steve Thomas wrote:
| Quote: |
Ed,
When did this happen? I had my own issues with that memorandum restricting experimental aircraft from those 4 airports 2 years ago. I built my Glasair in Santa Barbara. When I tried to get it certified, the FSDO guy refused to allow any take-offs from the Santa Barbara Airport due to that memo. I engaged the support of national EAA, who then contacted the D.C. office, who then contacted the Van Nuys office. That memo restricting experimental flights had been rescinded 6 months or so after it was issued, but no one at the Van Nuys office would initially admit the rescinded memo even existed. The call from D.C. fixed it, and I was allowed one take off from Santa Barbara and flew to Camarillo to complete my 40 hours.
The interesting thing is that the Santa Barbara airport runways 15 L& R depart over the ocean. There is nothing to crash into but the water. The original ban on experimentals at Santa Barbara was due to political issues, not safety. There are several approaches to the airport that do not involve populated areas.
For a while, during phase 2 operations, I was based in Santa Barbara. No one ever hassled me again. When I applied for my Repairman Certificate, the Van Nuys office was extremely helpful and cooperative.
But that memo restricting experimental flights from those 4 airports has been rescinded. You may need to make a first flight somewhere else to fly off your phase 1 time, but once that is done, you can go back any time you wish.
Steve Thomas
________________________________________________________________________
On Dec 17, 2012, at 5:20 PM, Ed Holyoke<bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
> Van Nuys, SoCal. Affected airports: Whiteman, Burbank, Van Nuys, and Santa Barbara. Reason given: densely populated areas, not suitable for experimental aircraft. This despite the fact that every set of oplims for exp. aircraft specify that the aircraft can only be operated over densely populated areas for the purpose of takeoff and landing. They want to prohibit that also.
>
> Ed
>
> On 12/17/2012 3:19 PM, Henry Hallam wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi Ed, can you name and shame the FSDO?
>>
>> Henry
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Ed Holyoke<bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> I went into the FSDO to get a new set of operating limitations for my RV as
>>> the old ones didn't have any provision for making a major alteration and I
>>> was in the process of installing a wing leveler. After educating them as to
>>> how to do their job and showing them the current issue boilerplate oplims
>>> (from the FAA's own website), I was informed that I couldn't operate my
>>> homebuilt out of my home airport or three others within their jurisdiction
>>> because of a memo that the former head of the local FSDO had written several
>>> years earlier forbidding operations of experimental aircraft in Phase 1
>>> (flight test) or Phase 2 (normal operations). I told them that they didn't
>>> have the authority to arbitrarily ban a whole category of aircraft and
>>> sicced the national office of the EAA on them. They eventually relented and
>>> issued my new oplims. They did not, however, rescind the memo even after the
>>> FAA, Washington D.C. told them to. They haven't since tried to enforce it on
>>> experimental, amateur built aircraft, but apparently did make life hell for
>>> a local P51 owner for several months before they let up on him.
>>>
>>> Old Bob is right. Asking if you can do something that is not expressly
>>> permitted (read not expressly prohibited) will always get you an answer you
>>> do not want to hear and bring you to their attention as a possible problem
>>> that they might need to solve. The FSDO is a real good place to avoid if you
>>> can. It is full of petty bureaucrats whose sole purpose in life is to slide
>>> papers from one side of the desk to the other without getting burned by
>>> them. Many, if not all of them, have an animus toward the non-certificated
>>> world. I have heard a FSDO inspector go on at length about how dangerous
>>> experimental aircraft are. He made it clear that he took it personally that
>>> these scofflaws are allowed to skate around the rules, as he sees it. If you
>>> do have business with them that you can't do any other way, have your ducks
>>> in a neat little row before you go in there and say absolutely nothing more
>>> than you have to in order to get your business transacted.
>>>
>>> Ed Holyoke
>>>
>>> On 12/17/2012 11:28 AM, Charlie England wrote:
>>>
>>> Well said, by both Bobs!
>>>
>>> Want to hear the story of the FSDO that forced a homebuilder to surrender
>>> the data plate off his Lycoming engine before they'd issue his a/w cert? And
>>> at a later date, when he used the same engine on another build, was told
>>> that he couldn't get an a/w without the data plate being on the engine.....
>>>
>>> I'll bet that you can't find a factory built single engine a/c that has
>>> quarterwave antenna installations (other than xponder or gps freqs) that
>>> meets TSO for installation.
>>>
>>> No one can ID the connector??
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Charlie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/17/2012 12:01 PM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Good Morning All,
>>>
>>> This discussion brings up a point with which I do not think all of our
>>> participants are aware.
>>>
>>> It is very rarely advisable to go to any FSDO to ask a question. Each FSDO
>>> is a kingdom unto itself. You will commonly get different answers at
>>> different FSDOs .It is not unusual to get different answers from different
>>> inspectors at the same FSDO!
>>>
>>> Best that we thoroughly research the regulations and, once we determine a
>>> consensus in our own mind, press on with the project.
>>>
>>> What I generally do is decide what I will say at the hearing.
>>>
>>> If I think I have a good case, I will press on.
>>>
>>> If I feel my arguments are a bit weak, I back off.
>>>
>>> It is kinda like when we tell our children not to do anything you don't want
>>> your mother to know about!
>>>
>>> Happy Skies,
>>>
>>> Old Bob
>>>
>>> In a message dated 12/17/2012 11:43:09 A.M. Central Standard Time,
>>> lm4(at)juno.com writes:
>>>
>>> Richard,
>>> Thanks for the info.
>>> Larry
>>> On Dec 17, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Richard Girard wrote:
>>>
>>> Larry, Sorry, I'm not an expert on such. I contacted the FSDO to see if I
>>> could legally repair an ELT antenna that the previous owner of the aircraft
>>> had modified and return it to service. The answer was no. Then I asked if I
>>> could make an antenna for it. Again, no. Could I use an antenna from another
>>> ELT of the same frequency? Nope.
>>> My understanding is that the ELT and its accessories are granted approval to
>>> the TSO as a unit. You cannot legally change anything, not even the mounting
>>> screws supplied by the mfr.
>>>
>>> Rick
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Larry Mac Donald<lm4(at)juno.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have a question about this statment.
>>>> It's my understanding that a part that must meet TSO
>>>> is a part that must be built to meet a Tech spec order.
>>>> The manufacturer might build it or an individual might
>>>> build it but it must be built to meet the specs of the order.
>>>> I take that to mean that I could take a homebuilt ant. to
>>>> an avionics shop and have them certify that it meets
>>>> the TSO. Where am I going wrong ?
>>>> Larry
>>>> On Dec 17, 2012, at 11:03 AM, Richard Girard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Charlie, I had this conversation about antennae for ELT's with the
>>>>> Wichita FSDO last summer. The antenna is part of the TSO for the unit. You
>>>>> cannot use any other antenna other than that which the manufacturer supplied
>>>>> with it. Not legally, anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rick Girard
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
|
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lists(at)stevet.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:50 pm Post subject: FSDO horror shows |
|
|
Sorry, but my memory is not all that good any more. The memo rescinding the restriction was issued in 2006. Maybe it was issued over your case? Here is the copy I received. Even though it refers to Experimental Exhibition aircraft, they clearly think it applies to E-AB as well. I hope that the Matronics list doesn't strip attachments.
Best Regards,
Steve Thomas
____________________________________________________________________
On Dec 18, 2012, at 12:36 PM, Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net (bicyclop(at)pacbell.net)> wrote:
| Quote: | | I don't have a copy of the new memo and I don't want to stir up another s**t storm by walking in and demanding to see it. Let sleeping dogs lie. Steve, do you have a copy of the memo that they cited? |
Steve Thomas
________________________________________________________________________
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
| Description: |
|
Download |
| Filename: |
~6285741.pdf |
| Filesize: |
616.22 KB |
| Downloaded: |
299 Time(s) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bicyclop(at)pacbell.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 3:44 pm Post subject: FSDO horror shows |
|
|
Thanks, Steve.
This memo is probably the result of the fight that the P51 owner I mentioned had with the FSDO which resulted from the swarm of hornets I had stirred up. This memo does not apply to EAB (experimental. amateur built). I believe that there was a similar memo prior to this covering experimental, amateur built, though I haven't seen it. Notice that this memo is from the manager of the flight standards division or the FSDOs' boss. This is not, repeat not from the VNY FSDO. They have a mind of their own and, to the best of my knowledge, never did rescind their 4/27/04 memo, but only gave up on trying to enforce it.
As I understand it, the infamous 4/27/04 memo from VNY was in response to another memo from the home office, probably dated about June of 03 and covering EAB. This memo seems to have applied to the issuance of authorization for ex aircraft, or in other words the issuance of Airworthiness Certificates. The VNY FSDO took it upon themselves to issue new restrictions based upon their reading of the home office's memo(s) but going much further in that they called for no flight operations of experimental aircraft at all over densely populated areas, not even for the purpose of take offs and landings. It's a good guess that the reason that they never tried to enforce it until I walked in their door was that I was the first to try and get a new AW cert while based at one of the four airports covered by their prohibition. As long as I operated under my old AW and oplims, they didn't feel that they had the ammo to come after me and all the others like me. Once I exposed myself to their mercies and the fight was joined, they attempted to enforce it on others until the division manager was forced to rein them in.
Pax,
Ed
On 12/18/2012 1:48 PM, Steve Thomas wrote: [quote] Sorry, but my memory is not all that good any more. The memo rescinding the restriction was issued in 2006. Maybe it was issued over your case? Here is the copy I received. Even though it refers to Experimental Exhibition aircraft, they clearly think it applies to E-AB as well. I hope that the Matronics list doesn't strip attachments.
Best Regards,
Steve Thomas
____________________________________________________________________
On Dec 18, 2012, at 12:36 PM, Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net (bicyclop(at)pacbell.net)> wrote:
| Quote: | | I don't have a copy of the new memo and I don't want to stir up another s**t storm by walking in and demanding to see it. Let sleeping dogs lie. Steve, do you have a copy of the memo that they cited? |
Steve Thomas
________________________________________________________________________
[b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chasb(at)satx.rr.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 7:03 am Post subject: FSDO horror shows |
|
|
My question is, why would you consider installing a wing leveler as a major alteration?
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Quote: | | Quote: | I went into the FSDO to get a new set of operating limitations for my RV as
|
|
|
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Quote: | the old ones didn't have any provision for making a major alteration and I
|
|
|
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Quote: | | was in the process of installing a wing leveler. |
|
|
|
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kellym
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1705
Location: Sun Lakes AZ
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 7:12 am Post subject: FSDO horror shows |
|
|
It is per part 43, Appendix A, because it is attached to and affects the
flight controls. Whether that means another abbreviated Phase I depends
on your FSDO and your judgement.
On 12/19/2012 8:02 AM, Charles Brame wrote:
| Quote: | My question is, why would you consider installing a wing leveler as a
major alteration?
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
>>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Ed Holyoke<bicyclop(at)pacbell.net
>>> <mailto:bicyclop(at)pacbell.net>> wrote:
>>>> I went into the FSDO to get a new set of operating limitations for
>>>> my RV as
>>>> the old ones didn't have any provision for making a major
>>>> alteration and I
>>>> was in the process of installing a wing leveler.
*
*
|
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bicyclop(at)pacbell.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:02 am Post subject: FSDO horror shows |
|
|
Howdy Charlie,
It's an alteration to the flight controls. Look at appendix A to Part 43 for the definitions of major/minor. My new oplims (and all the recent ones) have wording in them that require notification to the FSDO of intent to re-enter Phase 1 and to get their concurrence with your intended flight test area. Another issue was that my old oplims read day/night VFR. There was no provision in the oplims to be legal for IFR, so I had two reasons to want to update my operating limitations.
It's a good idea to re-read your oplims every now and then as they are binding and not just ballast.  The oplims on a certificated aircraft are contained in the POH and of course we are subject to Part 91.
Ed
On 12/19/2012 7:02 AM, Charles Brame wrote: [quote] My question is, why would you consider installing a wing leveler as a major alteration?
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Quote: | | Quote: | I went into the FSDO to get a new set of operating limitations for my RV as
|
|
|
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Quote: | the old ones didn't have any provision for making a major alteration and I
|
|
|
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Quote: | | was in the process of installing a wing leveler. |
|
|
|
[b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:12 am Post subject: FSDO horror shows |
|
|
At 09:12 AM 12/19/2012, you wrote:
| Quote: |
It is per part 43, Appendix A, because it is attached to and affects
the flight controls. Whether that means another abbreviated Phase I
depends on your FSDO and your judgement.
|
How did Part 43 become attached to an OBAM
aircraft project?
Bob . . .
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stein(at)steinair.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:39 am Post subject: FSDO horror shows |
|
|
Of course there is the statement in 43 that very clearly states:
"This part does not apply to any aircraft for which the FAA has issued an experimental
certificate, unless the FAA has previously issued a different kind of airworthiness certificate
for that aircraft."
I too was a bit curious why you voluntarily asked for more restrictive OpLims and invite the entire situation to begin with when it’s clearly not needed? I get the IFR thing (sorta–that’s not as cut and dried as you may may have thought either), but I’d be careful not to mix requirments from TC’d aircraft with our OBAM planes. I do get to deal with the rules quite often, becase we get inspected/audited regularly by the FAA to maintain our certification….but we’ve also been working on these experimentals for decades and have come to know the nuances quite well. Dealing with the FAA is it’s own dance, but once you learn the dance it’s not that difficult. Sometimes they need educated, sometimes we do.
No flames intended, just curiosity.
Cheers,
Stein
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ed Holyoke
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 10:02 AM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: FSDO horror shows
Howdy Charlie,
It's an alteration to the flight controls. Look at appendix A to Part 43 for the definitions of major/minor. My new oplims (and all the recent ones) have wording in them that require notification to the FSDO of intent to re-enter Phase 1 and to get their concurrence with your intended flight test area. Another issue was that my old oplims read day/night VFR. There was no provision in the oplims to be legal for IFR, so I had two reasons to want to update my operating limitations.
It's a good idea to re-read your oplims every now and then as they are binding and not just ballast. The oplims on a certificated aircraft are contained in the POH and of course we are subject to Part 91.
Ed
On 12/19/2012 7:02 AM, Charles Brame wrote:
My question is, why would you consider installing a wing leveler as a major alteration?
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
[quote] | Quote: | | Quote: | | Quote: |
I went into the FSDO to get a new set of operating limitations for my RV as |
|
|
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Quote: |
the old ones didn't have any provision for making a major alteration and I |
|
|
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Quote: |
was in the process of installing a wing leveler. |
|
|
<-= -- Please Support Your Lists This Month nbsp; (And Get Some AWESOME FREE November is the Annual List Fund Raiser. Click below to find out more Free Incentive Gifts AeroElectric www.aeroelectric.com<www.buildersbooks.comwww.homebuilthelp.comhttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List[/url]=====[/b] [b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bicyclop(at)pacbell.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:12 am Post subject: FSDO horror shows |
|
|
Howdy Bob,
There is a reference to appx. A and D to 43 contained in the operating
limitations. A for definition of major alterations, D for a reference of
what must be inspected.
Pax,
Ed
On 12/19/2012 8:11 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
| Quote: |
<nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
At 09:12 AM 12/19/2012, you wrote:
>
> <kellym(at)aviating.com>
>
> It is per part 43, Appendix A, because it is attached to and affects
> the flight controls. Whether that means another abbreviated Phase I
> depends on your FSDO and your judgement.
How did Part 43 become attached to an OBAM
aircraft project?
Bob . . .
|
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bicyclop(at)pacbell.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:34 am Post subject: FSDO horror shows |
|
|
Howdy Stein,
Less restrictive oplims, not more. The old set stated that VFR day and night were authorized. There was no mention of "unless properly equipped for IFR" like the new set. Didn't seem like a lot of wiggle room on that. The old set had no pathway for any major modifications. If I had made the mod under the old oplims, I would have been in violation and the only way to fix it up would have been an inspection and a brand new AW cert with new oplims. So, I just asked for that without the inspection. If I remember correctly, my old oplims didn't allow for flight over densely populated areas with no reference to for the purpose of take off or landing. Much more restrictive oplims than I have now.
I wanted to be in compliance, and I think that is a good idea in general. Think about the consequences of having bad paperwork after an incident - certificate actions, denial of insurance claim, possible lawsuits, etc. If I had known what the response to my simple request would be, I would probably still have had to move ahead or just shelve the mods and give up on the idea of IFR. I would have done a lot more research first, though. That's why I say to have every duck lined up before walking in their door. I thought that I had, but there were several ducks of which I was unaware.
Pax,
Ed
On 12/19/2012 8:39 AM, Stein Bruch wrote: [quote] <![endif]--> <![endif]-->
Of course there is the statement in 43 that very clearly states:
"This part does not apply to any aircraft for which the FAA has issued an experimental
certificate, unless the FAA has previously issued a different kind of airworthiness certificate
for that aircraft."
I too was a bit curious why you voluntarily asked for more restrictive OpLims and invite the entire situation to begin with when it’s clearly not needed? I get the IFR thing (sorta–that’s not as cut and dried as you may may have thought either), but I’d be careful not to mix requirments from TC’d aircraft with our OBAM planes. I do get to deal with the rules quite often, becase we get inspected/audited regularly by the FAA to maintain our certification….but we’ve also been working on these experimentals for decades and have come to know the nuances quite well. Dealing with the FAA is it’s own dance, but once you learn the dance it’s not that difficult. Sometimes they need educated, sometimes we do.
No flames intended, just curiosity.
Cheers,
Stein
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com) [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com)] On Behalf Of Ed Holyoke
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 10:02 AM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com (aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com)
Subject: Re: FSDO horror shows
Howdy Charlie,
It's an alteration to the flight controls. Look at appendix A to Part 43 for the definitions of major/minor. My new oplims (and all the recent ones) have wording in them that require notification to the FSDO of intent to re-enter Phase 1 and to get their concurrence with your intended flight test area. Another issue was that my old oplims read day/night VFR. There was no provision in the oplims to be legal for IFR, so I had two reasons to want to update my operating limitations.
It's a good idea to re-read your oplims every now and then as they are binding and not just ballast. The oplims on a certificated aircraft are contained in the POH and of course we are subject to Part 91.
Ed
On 12/19/2012 7:02 AM, Charles Brame wrote:
My question is, why would you consider installing a wing leveler as a major alteration?
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Quote: | | Quote: |
I went into the FSDO to get a new set of operating limitations for my RV as |
|
|
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Quote: |
the old ones didn't have any provision for making a major alteration and I |
|
|
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Quote: |
was in the process of installing a wing leveler. |
|
|
<-= -- Please Support Your Lists This Month nbsp; (And Get Some AWESOME FREE November is the Annual List Fund Raiser. Click below to find out more Free Incentive Gifts AeroElectric www.aeroelectric.com<www.buildersbooks.comwww.homebuilthelp.comhttp://www.matronics.com/c= -Matt Dralle, List - The AeroElectric-List Email List utilities such as List
Photoshare, and much much --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-Listhttp://forums.matronics.com=====
|
[b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:39 am Post subject: FSDO horror shows |
|
|
Good Afternoon Ed,
My interpretation of the language: "stated that VFR day and night were authorized." is just that. Day and Night VFR are authorized.
It does not say the IFR is NOT authorized.
Part 91 does spell out what we need to have to fly IFR so I would have gone ahead and flown IFR on your original AW certificate as soon as the airplane met Part 91 requirements.
An older FAA inspector told me many years ago that the FARs are not restrictive, but permissive. Anything that is not specifically prohibited, is permissible. Maybe some of the lawyers on this list will let us know if I have that all wrong!
Once again, much easier NOT to ask the FED.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 12/19/2012 11:35:53 A.M. Central Standard Time, bicyclop(at)pacbell.net writes:
| Quote: | Howdy Stein,
Less restrictive oplims, not more. The old set stated that VFR day and night were authorized. There was no mention of "unless properly equipped for IFR" like the new set. Didn't seem like a lot of wiggle room on that. The old set had no pathway for any major modifications. If I had made the mod under the old oplims, I would have been in violation and the only way to fix it up would have been an inspection and a brand new AW cert with new oplims. So, I just asked for that without the inspection. If I remember correctly, my old oplims didn't allow for flight over densely populated areas with no reference to for the purpose of take off or landing. Much more restrictive oplims than I have now.
I wanted to be in compliance, and I think that is a good idea in general. Think about the consequences of having bad paperwork after an incident - certificate actions, denial of insurance claim, possible lawsuits, etc. If I had known what the response to my simple request would be, I would probably still have had to move ahead or just shelve the mods and give up on the idea of IFR. I would have done a lot more research first, though. That's why I say to have every duck lined up before walking in their door. I thought that I had, but there were several ducks of which I was unaware.
Pax,
Ed
On 12/19/2012 8:39 AM, Stein Bruch wrote: | Quote: |
Of course there is the statement in 43 that very clearly states:
"This part does not apply to any aircraft for which the FAA has issued an experimental
certificate, unless the FAA has previously issued a different kind of airworthiness certificate
for that aircraft."
I too was a bit curious why you voluntarily asked for more restrictive OpLims and invite the entire situation to begin with when it’s clearly not needed? I get the IFR thing (sorta–that’s not as cut and dried as you may may have thought either), but I’d be careful not to mix requirments from TC’d aircraft with our OBAM planes. I do get to deal with the rules quite often, becase we get inspected/audited regularly by the FAA to maintain our certification….but we’ve also been working on these experimentals for decades and have come to know the nuances quite well. Dealing with the FAA is it’s own dance, but once you learn the dance it’s not that difficult. Sometimes they need educated, sometimes we do.
No flames intended, just curiosity.
Cheers,
Stein
|
|
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kellym
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1705
Location: Sun Lakes AZ
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:52 pm Post subject: FSDO horror shows |
|
|
There are sections of Part 43 that apply to OBAM aircraft by reference
from the oplims. Part 43 Appendix A and D specifically.
While we have a lot of freedom, it isn't absolute freedom.
On 12/19/2012 9:11 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
| Quote: |
<nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
At 09:12 AM 12/19/2012, you wrote:
>
> <kellym(at)aviating.com>
>
> It is per part 43, Appendix A, because it is attached to and affects
> the flight controls. Whether that means another abbreviated Phase I
> depends on your FSDO and your judgement.
How did Part 43 become attached to an OBAM
aircraft project?
Bob . . .
|
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD |
|
| 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
