Originally Posted by Craig-RV8a
Just because we’re experimental, and don’t meet design/certification regulations, doesn’t mean that we don’t have to comply with regulations. ..........If Part 39 doesn’t apply to experimental’s, why does Part 91
? How are you determining which regulation is for CERIFIED aircraft and which aren’t. Experimental, is not a blank check to do anything you want........... Asking FSDO’s until you finally get an answer you want to hear, may not be the answer either. Yes, compliance with AD’s, (certainly after the initial airworthiness inspection) is not being mandated on us now, and we can decide whether that’s a good thing or not.
Good questions. EAA explains it very well, look it up (you have to be a member to access.) Its all written down, legally researched and backed up by the FAA’s own legal office, its the LAW. You need to research it.
When I say blank check
I mean freedom from the "Type Certificate" and Maintenance FAR's. That's a blank check. We do have OP limits and other FAR's that apply. How do you know which ones? I suggest you research it, ask the FSDO, FAA lawyers of call or write the EAA's legal dept. I'm not going to argue with you.
The controversy, debate, is AD compliance of certified parts required if installed on the an experimental aircraft. YOU ABSOLUTELY DO NOT HAVE TO COMPLY WITH AD's.
There is no legal basis, but you should try. There is no official written policy from FAA headquarters.
I found this on the Google: http://www.rollanet.org/~mopilots/st...jan2005nws.htm
This St. Ann, Missouri FAA news letter starts with: "Thought for the month.....Falstaff Beer slogan - "Same as it ever was". Its wrong. How reliable is something which starts with BEER slogans?
The premise is wrong, Part 21 and Part 39 don't apply per FAA's legal dept, period. He references outdated AC's from the 1970's, which is one source of confusion.
Not only does Part 39 not apply, the following don't either (partial list there are more):
Part 21 - Certification procedures for products and parts
Part 23 - Airworthiness standards
: Normal, utility, acrobatic, and commuter category airplanes
Part 33 - Airworthiness standards: Aircraft engines
Part 35 - Airworthiness standards: Propellers
Part 39 - Airworthiness directives
Part 43 - Maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, alteration
Part 43 is a big one. We can rebuild, alter and maintain basically as we like, aka blank check
. No A&P/AI needed. We MUST have an annual "condition inspection", done by the "repairman" or A&P. It says the plane is safe and airworthy; for an experimental airworthy does NOT mean FAR type certificate airworthiness standards. Nothing about AD's. EAA suggests prudent actions in handling AD's.
When an engine is installed in an Exp. plane, NO type certificate installation, its no longer a certified engine. When they say its experimental and "does not comply with the Federal Aviation Airworthiness Regulations", they mean it.
What makes me mad is he suggests or implies its a good idea DAR's add the following op limits:
"I have seen operating limitations for amateur-built airplanes
carry the limitation to comply with applicable airworthiness directives for the
engine or propeller installed on amateur-built aircraft. The inspector or
designee who added this limitation to an amateur-built aircraft's operating
limitations has not only helped in assuring a safe aircraft but also helped
the owner to stay compliant with operating regulations."
This makes me mad
The "authoritarian" Fed is going to help me? My point, if the FAR's require experimentals with certified "products" comply with AD's, than WHY add it to the operating limitations? I think he knows his case is weak. Regardless forget his "policy", they must follow the LAW. Adding extra limits is their choice, not LAW. If they do add it to your op limits, it is law. Be careful what DAR you call.
We do have to comply with OP LIMITS. That's really our defining limits. When a DAR's/INSP THROWS EXTRA STUFF IN TO "HELP", exerting authority beyond the regulations, in the name of "policy", they are over stepping. Typical Fed, I'm here to help you.
People equate AD compliance with safety. Fair enough, good policy but not law? An experimental aircraft is the whole plane, engine & prop, its all experimental.
We should comply but not be forced. When I see a new FAR or letter from FAA Administrator Marion C. Blakey, fine. Policy based on faults assumptions and 1970's AC (aviation circular) is not law. If AD's must be complied with, unwittingly they open a box full of legal ramifications, which basically would cost the FAA, government, tax payers millions in additional oversight to regulate AD compliance on experimentals.
High compression pistons, electronic ignition and other mods on a certified engine, are they safe? Some DAR may say NO, I'LL NOT SIGN IT OFF, IT'S MODIFIED. It's not their call. We need to pull these DAR crusaders back.
I understand you take exception to the term "Blank Check
" or Carte Blanche. However YOU or any one could draw-up a plane up on the kitchen table, no formal training in aircraft design needed, build anything you want (within reason) with any propulsion system, build it and go fly it. Really that's a blank check
[b]Does this mean you can ignore AD’s? No! There are standards for experimental amateur-built aircraft: "The aircraft must be in a condition for safe operation." Safety and prudent operation of any aircraft is the overriding FAR’s 91.13(a) and 91.319(b)
. If you build, maintain or fly a plane knowingly unsafe (experimental or not), you're in deep dodo or dead. This should reconcile your problem with the AD issue. If you carsh because the AD'ed part failed, you may have sum-splaning to do.
The experimental builder, repairman and airman flying determine what is safe, including AD's. If a DAR or A&P signing off the initial inspection or annual condition inspection, don't want to sign it off so be it. Don't blame them.
My engine is stock Lyc with a CERTIFIED prop combo. Of course some DAR's might tell me I have to take the data tag OFF because its in an experimental?
What if I add an electronic ignition? Experimental. Embrace, "Does not meet federal aviation regulations" part of experimental, it gets easy to understand the spirit of the reg's. If my magneto has an AD? I'll replace it with an EI, problem solved, its experimental.
The argument to force AD compliance on experimentals is a good one for safety but not practical, and it's only one more small step to forbid certified parts (prop, engine) from being modified
. If you mount a certified engine or prop on an experimental, not in a type certificated installation, it's no longer "certified". If you modify a Lyc, its no longer certified. Do AD's still apply to experimental engines/props? I'm getting a headache. It's just not that hard.
Arguments for AD compliance on experimental aircraft have wide ramifications. The above articles mentions incorrect outdated references and legal reasoning, memorandums, guidance and policy, but its not the law (FAR's)
. Other wise we can argue about it forever. I am happy to let sleeping dogs lay.
Hold onto freedom. Question authoritarian government demanding compliance, don't just accept it. Be careful what DAR you call. The article made a vague "threat" A&P's must not sign off an experimental with out checking AD's is not based on law. If you buy a second hand experimental, you'll be subject to the discretion of the A&P, fair enough. More incentive to build it your self.