What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Check AD's prior to DAR Inspection

J

jdiehl

Well Known Member
I'm getting very close to moving my 7A to the airport and having a DAR (not yet arranged) inspect the plane. I understand that its customary to perform an AD check shortly before the inspection. I have the link to the FAA AD site but don't really understand the mechanics of what to search, what to enter in the logbook, etc. Any help/direction would be appreciated.

Jim Diehl
N891DD
7A with Lycoming 0-360 fixed pitch
 
I am assuming you are talking about AD's on the engine. I would think you would go to Lycoming's website to get the AD's for your engine. It was never mentioned when I got my RV-9A inspected so I can't be of much help. Unless you are running a certified prop, engine combination to get the 25 hour flyoff hours I doubt it would apply anyway. Maybe Mel will give you a better answer.
 
Last edited:
For ADs, there's 2 issues in play -- compliance and safety. Compliance is debatable but EAA's stance is that mandatory compliance does not apply to E-AB aircraft and systems. However, before you throw the baby out with the bath water, that is not synonymous with an AD does not apply, from a safety perspective. For example, you may have an experimental Lycoming clone, but if Lycoming puts out an AD on the certified version of the same engine, is it wise to ignore it simply because you can? Choose wisely here...
 
AD's

AD's apply to aircraft (N/A in this case), engines, propellers and appliances. So you should check AD's on your :

1)Engine (includes magnetos or anything required for the engine to run)
2)Propeller
2)Appliances

(Appliance means any instrument, mechanism, equipment, part, apparatus, appurtenance, or accessory, including communications equipment, that is used or intended to be used in operating or controlling an aircraft in flight, is installed in or attached to the aircraft, and is not part of an airframe, engine, or propeller).

I guarantee if you ask anyone from the FAA if AD's apply to experimental aircraft their answer will be "YES".
 
AD's

My DAR brought up that there was an AD on the ignition switch that required it be checked and lubricated at 2000 hours. It is the standard Van's switch.
 
Walt said:
I guarantee if you ask anyone from the FAA if AD's apply to experimental aircraft their answer will be "YES".
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be so quick to guarantee things that are not correct. ADs do not apply to any category of experimental aircraft. This is the majority view of the operational folks at FAA, and it is only a few in their legal department who are preventing this from being the official FAA position on the subject.
 
I'm not trying to argue if AD's do or do not apply, some FAA folks may agree with you but I've never met one.

From AC 39-7C

8. APPLICABILITY OF AD's. Each AD contains an applicability statement specifying the product (aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance) to which it applies. Some aircraft owners and operators mistakenly assume that AD's do not apply to aircraft with other than standard airworthiness certificates, i.e., special airworthiness certificates in the restricted, limited, or experimental category. Unless specifically stated, AD's apply to the make and model set forth in the applicability statement regardless of the classification or category of the airworthiness certificate issued for the aircraft. Type certificate and airworthiness certification information are used to identify the product affected. Limitations may be placed on applicability by specifying the serial number or number series to which the AD is applicable. When there is no reference to serial numbers, all serial numbers are affected. The following are examples of AD applicability statements:

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/list/AC%2039-7C/$FILE/AC39-7C.pdf
 
Walt said:
I'm not trying to argue if AD's do or do not apply, some FAA folks may agree with you but I've never met one.
Click to expand...
Nor was I, I was simply pointing out that this is not the official FAA position and the many if not most at the FAA upper levels agree that they do not apply.

Last night at our local chapter meeting we had a very lively discussion on this very topic. We are fortunate to have the recently retired FAA Deputy Director of Aircraft Certification Services in our chapter, and he knows the FAA inside and out in this regard (and many others.) One of his last tasks before retiring was to prepare what was to become the official FAA position on the subject, which closely matches EAA's position, which is that ADs do not apply to any experimental nor anything bolted to an experimental. He retired with the draft of the report left for his successor, and for whatever reason it has never seen the light of day, mostly owing to a few folks in their legal department who take a different view.

My point is, the view is widely enough held at the upper levels at FAA that it was very close to becoming official, written policy in the recent past.
 
Last edited:
sprucemoose said:
Nor was I, I was simply pointing out that this is not the official FAA position and the many if not most at the FAA upper levels agree that they do not apply.

My point is, the view is widely enough held at the upper levels at FAA that it was very close to becoming official, written policy in the recent past.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately most of us deal with the LOWER level folks at the FSDO and unless it's in writing, they don't give a hoot what the UPPER level says in all their meetings!

When you're trying to get your pink slip, that is not the time to debate this issue, it's just easier to check them and be done with it.
 
IF you want 25-hour phase I with your Certificated Engine and Prop, I expect all ADs complied with. As a DAR, I expect you to check for ADs and enter the Biweekly AD Summary in the AD blank on your Application for Airworthiness (8130-6).

You should not find any ADs for you RV kit but could for things bolted to it. ie: KT-76A, GX-60, SL-30, ... (all 3 in my aircraft have had one time ADs against them and have been complied with)

You only need to enter the Biweekly Summary number on the 8130-6.

If you do not want to comply with ADs, do NOT contact me for your Airworthiness Inspection. Safety is important. Is your airplane in a condition for safe operation if AD(s) is (are) not complied with? Before you can get a Special Airworthiness Certificate (8130-7), you (or someone) must make an entry in the aircraft records that states the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation.
 
AD's

Thanks for all of the comments. My FSDO clearly instructed me to check all AD's (engine, prop, brakes, radios,...) the night before the DAR inspection. To minimize any hassle between them and the DAR, I'll comply. Sounds as though there's some various opinions on this subject!

Jim
RV-7A
N891DD
about ready to haul to airport
 
sprucemoose said:
. . . which is that ADs to do apply to any experimental nor anything bolted to an experimental. . .
Click to expand...
Jeff, could you please clarify what you are saying here? I am sure this is a typo but it is directly at the heart of what your point was. Because of that I am having a difficult time understanding what you were saying. Thank you in advance for any clarification you can provide.
 
Sorry for the confusion, I managed to fat-finger the keyboard again. Obviously what I meant to say was that ADs do not apply.
 
Last edited:
I have to agree with Walt and Gary on this one. Lets say for example Joe shmo has decided the AD on his lycoming 0320 oil pump does not apply to him because his airplane is in the experimental category. He has signed off his log book for his condition inspection stating that its in a "condition for safe operation". Now lets say Joe has an engine failure due to the aluminum impeller splitting in half and he is forced down in a school yard. The Faa's case will be clear. The aircraft was not in a condition for safe operation. Will the EAA be there to help bail Joe out? Not likely. I for one am pretty carefull about making sure my engine and prop AD's are taken care of. Do you have to comply with AD's ? In my book its a little gray on both sides of the fence but if it involves saftey of flight its something we should all want taken care of anyway.
Ryan
 
I always use a quote from my "Tax Lady". When I ask her if I can deduct a certain item, she states, "A good guideline is, How would you feel explaining it to a Judge?"
The same works with ADs. If something happens, would you be comfortable explaining to a judge or insurance company why you felt that the airplane was in a condition for safe operation knowing there were outstanding ADs?
 
This discussion has taken the turn towards "what is a good idea" vs "what is legally required." I agree that complying with some or many (certainly not all) ADs and service bulletins might be a good idea, put you on a more legally defensible stance and make you sleep better at night. That is a separate issue from whether they can be legally enforced against an experimental, which they cannot. Certainly there is much disagreement out in the real FAA world, which makes it even more disappointing that the FAA punted on the issue rather than publish the clear, once and for all answer that they were poised to do a few years ago.
 
A revision is out to AC 39-7(d) now,,,It's pretty clear about the applicability of AD's to non type certificated aircraft or non certificated engines or propellers,,if it says on the ad that it is applicable to experimental catagory, then it is,,,if it doesn't state that,,,it is not,,,in a nutshell,,should be clear to anyone reading it.
 
Seems to me that the OP's concern was never addressed in the replies.

I have the link to the FAA AD site but don't really understand the mechanics of what to search, what to enter in the logbook, etc. Any help/direction would be appreciated.
Click to expand...

Instead the thread evolved into a discussion about whether or not ADs apply to experimental aircraft.

I'm getting to the point where this matters to me as well. I'm not interested in the debate- I agree completely with Walt's, Mel's and the other's views in advising to check them, and so I want to be prepared. How does one go about tracking down possible ADs? Are they found on the FAA website or does one have to check with the manufacturers of the various pieces of equipment, or...??
 
Even the FAA is not consistent on this.

This is in the preamble to AD 97-08-06 - my highlight -

Note 1: This AD applies to the L'Hotellier ball and swivel joint quick connectors. This AD only applies to U.S.type-certificated gliders and sailplanes that have the affected connectors installed. If the L'Hotellier connectors are not installed on a glider or sailplane, no action is required by the owner/operator. This AD does not apply to gliders and sailplanes that do not have a U.S. type certificate (i.e., experimental category); however, the FAA strongly recommends compliance with the intent of this AD for airplanes involved in U.S. operation where a U.S. type certificate is not necessary.
 
170 driver said:
A revision is out to AC 39-7(d) now,,,It's pretty clear about the applicability of AD's to non type certificated aircraft or non certificated engines or propellers,,if it says on the ad that it is applicable to experimental catagory, then it is,,,if it doesn't state that,,,it is not,,,in a nutshell,,should be clear to anyone reading it.
Click to expand...

OK... update to my previous post ... a 2006 AD...

Applicability
(c) This AD applies to Models Mini-Nimbus B and Mini-Nimbus HS-7 sailplanes, all serial numbers, that are certificated in any U.S. category.

I see they did change their wording... thanks for the update 170 driver...
 
Thread redirect #3

Lars said:
Seems to me that the OP's concern was never addressed in the replies.

Instead the thread evolved into a discussion about whether or not ADs apply to experimental aircraft.

I'm getting to the point where this matters to me as well. I'm not interested in the debate- I agree completely with Walt's, Mel's and the other's views in advising to check them, and so I want to be prepared. How does one go about tracking down possible ADs? Are they found on the FAA website or does one have to check with the manufacturers of the various pieces of equipment, or...??
Click to expand...

Back to the question asked in the initial post and rearticulated by Lars... how and where does one go to check for AD's? For example, do I have to identify every single component part used on my Aerosport engine and then go to each individual component manufacturer's website to check to see if there is an AD on that part, or what? Or, is there a simpler way?
 
Write down engine model and S/N, prop M/N, S/N, and any TSO equipment you can think of. Mag M/N, S/N, starter M/N, S/N, alternator?, ELT, ignition switch, etc. Find your engine by name or product. You'll have to look under both Lycoming and Textron. Scroll the AD's and note any that COULD apply to your engine. Then pop them open to check applicability and compliance time/method (if applicable). Do the same for prop if certified. For appliances its trickier. Try using manufacturer name, but be aware things like mags, carbs, and starters have changed owner names. You actually should check each name, ie. Slick/Unison, Marvel/Precision/Facet, Bendix/TCM, ACS/Gerdes. Big thing is engine and prop. You'll probably miss a few zingers like AD84-26-02, but I've yet to see a DAR pull that one out.
A log entry should be made for each AD that mentions your product. Entries need to contain the 5 items; date, ACtime (specify), description, signature, signers number. Examples:
1) 1/1/12, Total Time = 0.0. C/W AD84-26-02 (paper filters) by installation of new filter, P/Nxxx. Filter replacement due at 500.0 Total Time. Joe Blow xxxxxxxxx Builder.
2) 1/1/12, Total Time = 27.5 AD2-16-2012 (NOx injection) Not Applicable by S/N. Joe Blow xxxxxxxxxx (rep cert #).
3) 3/1/12 Tach Time = 420.0 C/W AD93-05-06 (ignition switches), par. a), and b) I/A/W ACS SB92-01. Next due at 920.0 Tach Time. Joe Blow xxxxxxx A&P.

You can also make or steal a list template and list your AD's in groups (Powerplant, Propeller, Appliance Repetitive) as long as it carries all 5 items.
 
aerhed said:
Write down engine model and S/N, prop M/N, S/N, and any TSO equipment you can think of. Mag M/N, S/N, starter M/N, S/N, alternator?, ELT, ignition switch, etc. Find your engine by name or product. You'll have to look under both Lycoming and Textron. Scroll the AD's and note any that COULD apply to your engine. Then pop them open to check applicability and compliance time/method (if applicable). Do the same for prop if certified. For appliances its trickier. Try using manufacturer name, but be aware things like mags, carbs, and starters have changed owner names. You actually should check each name, ie. Slick/Unison, Marvel/Precision/Facet, Bendix/TCM, ACS/Gerdes. Big thing is engine and prop. You'll probably miss a few zingers like AD84-26-02, but I've yet to see a DAR pull that one out.
A log entry should be made for each AD that mentions your product. Entries need to contain the 5 items; date, ACtime (specify), description, signature, signers number. Examples:
1) 1/1/12, Total Time = 0.0. C/W AD84-26-02 (paper filters) by installation of new filter, P/Nxxx. Filter replacement due at 500.0 Total Time. Joe Blow xxxxxxxxx Builder.
2) 1/1/12, Total Time = 27.5 AD2-16-2012 (NOx injection) Not Applicable by S/N. Joe Blow xxxxxxxxxx (rep cert #).
3) 3/1/12 Tach Time = 420.0 C/W AD93-05-06 (ignition switches), par. a), and b) I/A/W ACS SB92-01. Next due at 920.0 Tach Time. Joe Blow xxxxxxx A&P.

You can also make or steal a list template and list your AD's in groups (Powerplant, Propeller, Appliance Repetitive) as long as it carries all 5 items.
Click to expand...

Hm. Didn't realize there was an AD on NOx injection; good to know...

Seriously, thanks for the description. So does one find all ADs on the FAA site, or do we have to contact manufacturers? I'm guessing the former, but I don't want to miss anything, having never done this before.
 
OK, I went to the FAA AD search site.

Gary Sobek mentioned ADs against the Garmin SL-30. Found two, by searching for SL30. I have an SL30 bought new within the last two years. The ADs, dated June and July 2001, had to do with a software issue, that presumably was addressed long before I bought my unit. Do I still need to show compliance with the ADs?
 
az_gila said:
OK... update to my previous post ... a 2006 AD...

Applicability
(c) This AD applies to Models Mini-Nimbus B and Mini-Nimbus HS-7 sailplanes, all serial numbers, that are certificated in any U.S. category.

I see they did change their wording... thanks for the update 170 driver...
Click to expand...


Gil,
I had a similar type of thing on my LS4 years ago.

These sailplanes had experimental (not amateur built) certificates, but were actually factory built, German certified gliders.

It makes a little more sense (at least to me) to include them in an AD. I don't think it makes much sense for an amateur built however.

I love this topic. Truly a never ending debate.
 
There are folks out there that do not have Lycoming, ECI, Superior etc... dataplates on their engine, they are real true experimental data plates on real true experimental engines. So, what would they look up AD's under? :)
 
Lars said:
OK, I went to the FAA AD search site.

Gary Sobek mentioned ADs against the Garmin SL-30. Found two, by searching for SL30. I have an SL30 bought new within the last two years. The ADs, dated June and July 2001, had to do with a software issue, that presumably was addressed long before I bought my unit. Do I still need to show compliance with the ADs?
Click to expand...

This is my question, too...I have a new Lycoming and Hartzell prop and all new avionics (all acquired within the last 2 years).

Can I safely assume that ADs prior to the manufacture of the part don't need to be checked?

In a similar vein, I've been downloading and checking (and building a spreadsheet list w/ applicability) for Lycoming's SBs, SLs, etc. Can I shorten this moderately onerous task by assuming that any with a date prior to the manufacture of the engine don't need to be checked (that the manufacturer would have incorporated the SB in any engines built after that date)?
 
dedgemon said:
I love this topic. Truly a never ending debate.
Click to expand...

Apparently, so do many others. Nothing wrong with that. I wish the debate part could be split off in a separate thread, though.

I really don't care what the FAA thinks at headquarters level, or how the rules can be interpreted. All I care about is what the inspector/DAR that shows up in my hangar later this year wants. If I don't have my ducks in a row, I may not get my airworthiness certificate. And I'm certainly not going to debate said DAR/inspector, since that will likely guarantee no pink slip.
 
Ah don't worry about that, just don't pay him if he won't give you an AW :D

Lars said:
Apparently, so do many others. Nothing wrong with that. I wish the debate part could be split off in a separate thread, though.

I really don't care what the FAA thinks at headquarters level, or how the rules can be interpreted. All I care about is what the inspector/DAR that shows up in my hangar later this year wants. If I don't have my ducks in a row, I may not get my airworthiness certificate. And I'm certainly not going to debate said DAR/inspector, since that will likely guarantee no pink slip.
Click to expand...
 
AD check before DAR Inspection

Lars is spot on in his question. We're just trying to get some specific direction on how to move forward with this AD business. Aerhed shed some good light on what to do. Thank you. Perhaps a few recent examples of AD checks prior to the DAR inspection would help.

Thanks.

Jim Diehl N891DD
RV-7A Lycoming 0-360 Sensenich fixed pitch
Garmin SL-40/ Garmin 327
Standard Vans analog engine gauges
 
Flying Scotsman said:
...
Can I safely assume that ADs prior to the manufacture of the part don't need to be checked?

In a similar vein, I've been downloading and checking (and building a spreadsheet list w/ applicability) for Lycoming's SBs, SLs, etc. Can I shorten this moderately onerous task by assuming that any with a date prior to the manufacture of the engine don't need to be checked (that the manufacturer would have incorporated the SB in any engines built after that date)?
Click to expand...

Maybe not.

The AD might be a repetitive inspection that is applicable to items made before and after the AD date.

A quick look at the title should hone in on any applicable ones though...
 
az_gila said:
Maybe not.

The AD might be a repetitive inspection that is applicable to items made before and after the AD date.

A quick look at the title should hone in on any applicable ones though...
Click to expand...

True, and I've looked for those. I'm probably thinkinf more of SBs than ADs, I guess (looking at the looooong list at the Lycoming website as I've been going through each one to ascertain its applicability).

I'll dot all my i's and cross al my t's wrt these, but was just curious...is there a way to simplify the search/analysis? Or is there a stopping point somewhere where one could say they've researched as much as necessary the ADs and SBs on all the pieces and parts and components and assemblies, without having to go back to the 1950's? :)

ETA: I guess what I had *hoped* was that there would be a database that one could use, and do a query based on model/serial number/date of manufacture to get all applicable ADs, SBs, SIs, SLs, ABCs, what have you, for the item in question...
 
I ended up getting a AD list from my engine builder. Most everything was NA, others he just checked as complied with.

BUT the kicker is I got this list AFTER my FSDO guy(who, btw, suffers from cranial rectal immersion). When he showed up the first thing he asked was let's see your engine log and data plate. He said my data plate that said EXPERIMENTAL IO-360 A1X was illegal unless I had a letter from Lycoming saying I could replace or alter the data plate. Then since I didn't have the AD's complied with listed in my log book the engine was unairworthy. :eek::eek::eek:I tried to reason with him about it being an experimental engine and could have been built out of Briggs & Stratton parts, so AD's were not mandatory. No luck If I wanted a AW I would show him a list of compliance. My problem was I had listed Lycoming part numbers in the logbook when the engine was built.

My A/W as denied due to the above also I hadn't labeled my static port and he didn't like my 2"Experimental decal(since he couldn't see it from outside the plane when the canopy was closed). Once you have a denial, you are stuck working with them. After some phone calls and emails with EAA's Joe Norris and sending some paperwork about AD's and experimentals, the FAA and I got things worked out. In the end, He allowed the Data plate and accepted(but didn't like) the Experimental decal. I gathered up a AD list showing checked off compliance and I put some tiny decals on the static port <-funny they must have had lousy glue as the fell off before he got out of the parking lot.

2 lessons learned

1. FSDO holds the cards and you gotta play their game.
2. Never use FSDO again or even allow them in your hangar. Budget the money for a good DAR!
 
hydroguy2 said:
I ended up getting a AD list from my engine builder. Most everything was NA, others he just checked as complied with.

BUT the kicker is I got this list AFTER my FSDO guy(who, btw, suffers from cranial rectal immersion). When he showed up the first thing he asked was let's see your engine log and data plate. He said my data plate that said EXPERIMENTAL IO-360 A1X was illegal unless I had a letter from Lycoming saying I could replace or alter the data plate. Then since I didn't have the AD's complied with listed in my log book the engine was unairworthy. :eek::eek::eek:I tried to reason with him about it being an experimental engine and could have been built out of Briggs & Stratton parts, so AD's were not mandatory. No luck If I wanted a AW I would show him a list of compliance. My problem was I had listed Lycoming part numbers in the logbook when the engine was built.

My A/W as denied due to the above also I hadn't labeled my static port and he didn't like my 2"Experimental decal(since he couldn't see it from outside the plane when the canopy was closed). Once you have a denial, you are stuck working with them. After some phone calls and emails with EAA's Joe Norris and sending some paperwork about AD's and experimentals, the FAA and I got things worked out. In the end, He allowed the Data plate and accepted(but didn't like) the Experimental decal. I gathered up a AD list showing checked off compliance and I put some tiny decals on the static port <-funny they must have had lousy glue as the fell off before he got out of the parking lot.

2 lessons learned

1. FSDO holds the cards and you gotta play their game.
2. Never use FSDO again or even allow them in your hangar. Budget the money for a good DAR!
Click to expand...

I think I would have walked him over to the nearest Cessna and asked him to show me the label on the static port.
 
I think I would have walked him over to the nearest Cessna and asked him to show me the label on the static port.
Click to expand...

Initially my response was "why? seems obvious what they are" and "I don't recall seeing static placards any any other aircraft" He said new planes require them.

After talking with Joe, I found I could make him show me the regs. But after the hassle that lasted several weeks it was easier to just bend over and take it.
 
hydroguy2 said:
Initially my response was "why? seems obvious what they are" and "I don't recall seeing static placards any any other aircraft" He said new planes require them.

After talking with Joe, I found I could make him show me the regs. But after the hassle that lasted several weeks it was easier to just bend over and take it.
Click to expand...

Remind me to have a copy of the regulations sitting next to all the paperwork when I get my plane inspected :).

So that brings up a follow-up question...since all my previous experience has been with Cessnas and Pipers ranging from the 1960s to the 1990s, is there a "common knowledge" on this forum of minor gotchas like this (assuming it's true, which it may not be) that I should be aware of? I've generally been assuming (I know, a bad thing to do) that placards, labels, etc., other than the Experimental-specific ones would generally be the same ones on certificated planes...and I've never seen static port labels or red fuel caps or what have you that we've heard about here, which some inspectors claim are required now?

I don't want to run into an issue come inspection time because the wording on the fuel cap is wrong or some other equally silly thing...

TIA...
 
shop your DAR

The wise builder spends as much effort deciding which DAR to use as he does deciding which EFIS goes in the plane. ;)

As with avionics, use a DAR with a proven track record in your area. Check around, do the homework, avoid nasty surprises when you should be enjoying the completion of your project. Those who have had bad experiences would now gladly spend $400 to have a pleasant DAR encounter and get their $70K airplane through inspection smoothly.
 
This is great advice. I'd add that if you are having questions about who to pursue as a DAR, ask someone who's attitude you respect who they used. I did that and ended up with a guy named Mel. He pointed out some things that he'd like to see addressed on my plane, (composite, not an RV) discussed the safety reasons why and had me feeling better about flying the thing after. All of the issues were minor, and addressed real time, and I left the meeting smarter than I went in. When I finish the current project in the garage, I'll do what I can to get Mel to come visit our fair city again. (Mel, we have a brand new runway at 60R!)
KB
 
AD's

So- I have an engine that looks somewhat like a Lyc but has a generic data plate that says X0----, has Superior rocker covers, a non certified pistons, carb, ignition etc. Exactly what is the difference between my engine and a VW, Chevvy etc derived engine. The answer is NONE and the people that are making a big deal about AD's are living in la la land, be they FAA or DARS. At least some and maybe all of the custom engine builders are using their own data plates. If the data plate says XO--- there CANNOT be an AD against this engine.
 
Not so sure

The ECi cylinder AD clearly applies only to Lycoming engines. So, it does not apply to experimental clones. Hypothetically, had the AD applied to the ECi cylinder installed on any engine, then I think the AD would have applied to the clones.

As an aside, if you're running a clone of a Lycoming O-360-A and something like that AD comes out - I'm in the camp that says you might stop and think about doing the AD even if you can prove positively the AD doesn't technically apply.

I'm not sure that's even worth $.02.

Dan
 
Dan,

That is well "kinda" true. Folks that are experimental, with highly modified cylinders of any make or model would not apply... as they are no longer a PMA product...
 
jrs14855 said:
So- I have an engine that looks somewhat like a Lyc but has a generic data plate that says X0----, has Superior rocker covers, a non certified pistons, carb, ignition etc. Exactly what is the difference between my engine and a VW, Chevvy etc derived engine. The answer is NONE and the people that are making a big deal about AD's are living in la la land, be they FAA or DARS. At least some and maybe all of the custom engine builders are using their own data plates. If the data plate says XO--- there CANNOT be an AD against this engine.
Click to expand...

100 % True.... Safety is our best concern and builders should know that. But... we are EXPERIMENTAL.
 
Sam Buchanan said:
The wise builder spends as much effort deciding which DAR to use as he does deciding which EFIS goes in the plane. ;)

As with avionics, use a DAR with a proven track record in your area. Check around, do the homework, avoid nasty surprises when you should be enjoying the completion of your project. Those who have had bad experiences would now gladly spend $400 to have a pleasant DAR encounter and get their $70K airplane through inspection smoothly.
Click to expand...

Sam, that sounds great. I would love to have Mel inspect my airplane, but that would be somewhat expensive. Unfortunately there are very few DARs in my part of the world. One of them, the closest at well over an hour from here by ground transportation unit (not sure if he even flies) happens to be a retired FSDO supervisor. My understanding is he wants to see ADs as well as a POH (yet another endless do we need it or not debate).

I'm a results-oriented guy. It would take more time (a LOT more) to find a DAR and presumably interview him/her (do I do that over the phone or do I travel around the state to meet them in person?) than to simply suck it up and do the AD and POH thing. The problem is, I am a rank newbie and still don't quite understand the process. It probably seems trivial to the experienced A&P, but I'm not one of those, either.

And I never did see a response to my question about the Garmin SL-30. Gary Sobek posted that his older SL-30 had the AD complied with and that compliance was logged, presumably using the notation described by Aerhed. So, do I have to make a log entry about this when my much newer SL-30 probably (likely) wasn't shipped with the flawed software in the first place?

Oh yeah. As I understand it, $400 DAR inspections are a thing of the past around here. If that's all the semi-local ones charged, I might be interested. More like $600 plus $90 per hour each way for travel expenses.
 
Lars said:
......Oh yeah. As I understand it, $400 DAR inspections are a thing of the past around here. If that's all the semi-local ones charged, I might be interested. More like $600 ....
Click to expand...

Yep here too. $600(+travel if over 1 hr away), but I'd pay it in a heartbeat before I do another FSDO. I figure it cost me a 4-6weeks of stress and missed some excellent phase 1 weather Oct 2010. Never again
 
Lars said:
....
And I never did see a response to my question about the Garmin SL-30. Gary Sobek posted that his older SL-30 had the AD complied with and that compliance was logged, presumably using the notation described by Aerhed. So, do I have to make a log entry about this when my much newer SL-30 probably (likely) wasn't shipped with the flawed software in the first place?
.....
Click to expand...

You probably should. The AD is still current and is applicable to all aircraft -

Applicability: All General Aviation aircraft equipped with a UPS Aviation Technologies, Inc., Model Apollo SL30 very-high-frequency navigation/communication (VHF NAV/COMM) radio having part number 430-6040-300 or 430-6040-301; certificated in any category.

However, your newer unit will probably (should..:)...) not meet this paragraph -

b) If the radio is using DSP Software Version Number 1.00, before further flight, do the actions in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this AD.

So you could just log the AD as Not Applicable by inspection of SW version number.

The AD tells you how to find the SW version number.

HOWEVER

It looks like the later SL-30 units have this Part #: 013-00105-00

If you have the later part number then the entire AD is not applicable and I would say ignore it - based on the AD applicablity.
 
Last edited:
az_gila said:
You probably should. The AD is still current and is applicable to all aircraft -

Applicability: All General Aviation aircraft equipped with a UPS Aviation Technologies, Inc., Model Apollo SL30 very-high-frequency navigation/communication (VHF NAV/COMM) radio having part number 430-6040-300 or 430-6040-301; certificated in any category.

However, your newer unit will probably (should..:)...) not meet this paragraph -

b) If the radio is using DSP Software Version Number 1.00, before further flight, do the actions in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this AD.

So you could just log the AD as Not Applicable by inspection of SW version number.

The AD tells you how to find the SW version number.

HOWEVER

It looks like the later SL-30 units have this Part #: 013-00105-00

If you have the later part number then the entire AD is not applicable and I would say ignore it - based on the AD applicablity.
Click to expand...

Thanks very much for the detailed explanation, Gil. Most helpful!
 
This has helped me

I have found this discussion very interesting an valuable. I started to look over these Instruction and and Bulletins and now have something to correct.

EDIT: I thought I had something to correct, looking more closely I don't think SI-1438A applies to my engine (TMX-IO-360), but I will confirm this with Mattituck. This has shown me that some of these things take a few readings and some questions to determine if they apply.

Thanks for this, it has shown me that before I do anything on the engine no matter how simple, I need to check these items for new information.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top