What's new
Van's Air Force

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

ADs that Homebuilt Must Comply With

Ed_Wischmeyer

Well Known Member
When I was getting the new operating limitations for the RV-9A (constant speed prop = major modification = new operating limitations), one of the things I had to do was to check for AD compliance. What?

Chapter and verse is AC 39-7D, dated 3/2/12, Section 9 (b) (2) gives this example text: " ?This AD applies to Lycoming Engines Models AEIO-360-A1A and IO-360-A1A. This AD applies to any aircraft with the listed engine models installed.? This statement makes the AD applicable to the listed engine models installed on TC?d and non-TC?d aircraft. "

If an AD is issued, it's probably for good reason, and it makes sense to comply, even if not required. However, just because it's an experimental doesn't give you a free ride from all ADs. Some may apply.

Kudos to Mark Fayerman of the Atlanta FSDO for helping me through the process, and the friendly inspector who actually looked at the plane was Mike Denaro. The airplane inspection itself was the data plate, making sure I had the passenger warning installed, and a general walkaround.

The new Airworthiness and Operating Limitations are printed together on two sheets of very stiff paper, front and back.
 
All depends on who you are talking too.

There is letter that was published (after EAA pushed for an official response some years ago) by the FAA legal department stating specifically that AD's do not apply to an aircraft with an experimental airworthiness certificate.

If that has changed, it is not being universally followed.
 
Where is the letter?

Sure would be nice to see this letter. Anybody have a link to it?
 
Sure would be nice to see this letter. Anybody have a link to it?

I found this link that includes the text: http://starduster.aircraftspruce.com/wwwboard/messages/25960.html

However the links are dead and I cannot find anything on EAA's site.

From my 5 min of research, the FAA AC 39-7D appears to be the current interpretation of the situation, specifically this passage:

b. Non-TC?d Aircraft and Products Installed Thereon. Non-TC?d aircraft
(e.g., amateur-built aircraft, experimental exhibition) are aircraft for which the FAA has not issued a TC under part 21. The AD applicability statement will identify if the AD applies to non-TC?d aircraft or engines, propellers, and appliances installed thereon. The following are examples of applicability statements for ADs related to non-TC?d aircraft:

So, in the prior quoted example, if you have an "AEIO-360-A1A" from Lycoming you are required to comply with the AD.
 
From my 5 min of research, the FAA AC 39-7D appears to be the current interpretation of the situation, specifically this passage:



So, in the prior quoted example, if you have an "AEIO-360-A1A" from Lycoming you are required to comply with the AD.

So if I have a XIO-320-xxx it doesnt apply to me. Cant anybody rename there engine as a SOGO 22?
 
Good question. An AD applicable to an engine (say an O-360 A1A) if installed in an ?Experimental? would likely ring the bell of an A & P but if the builder is doing the CI?s does the AD need to be satisfied to follow the letter of the law?

Thanks
 
There is letter that was published (after EAA pushed for an official response some years ago) by the FAA legal department stating specifically that AD's do not apply to an aircraft with an experimental airworthiness certificate.
This statement is 100% correct, "AD's do not apply to an AIRCRAFT with an experimental airworthiness certificate." BUT if the AD is issued to a piece of equipment, not an aircraft, then the AD applies to the piece of equipment regardless of what aircraft it is installed in. Don't confuse aircraft AD's with equipment AD's they are apples and oranges.
Can't anybody rename there engine as a SOGO 22?
As long as the engine identification data plate indicates a "SOGO 22" then you are good to go. But if you keep it as a Lycoming O360-A1A then you must comply with any AD issued for the Lycoming O360-A1A no matter what airframe it is installed.

:cool:
 
Last edited:
This statement is 100% correct, "AD's do not apply to an AIRCRAFT with an experimental airworthiness certificate." BUT if the AD is issued to a piece of equipment, not an aircraft, then the AD applies to the piece of equipment regardless of what aircraft it is installed in. Don't confuse aircraft AD's with equipment AD's they are apples and oranges.

As long as the engine identification data plate indicates a "SOGO 22" then you are good to go. But if you keep it as a Lycoming O360-A1A then you must comply with any AD issued for the Lycoming O360-A1A no matter what airframe it is installed.

:cool:

Ok, I shouldn't have spoken in generalities (by saying aircraft).

The point is still valid. The wording in AC 39-7D covers it. They only apply if within the AD it specifically states that it is applicable to a non-TC'ed component. (BTW this is the verbiage that the EAA campaigned for for quite a while and finally made happen).
I don't remember ever seeing that specified in any AD issued against engines or components that we commonly use in RV's.

BTW, I am in no way advocating NOT complying with AD's on experimental aircraft (my position is that in most cases they should be).... just that there is no regulatory requirement to do so.
 
Last edited:
Just for fun, let me throw in a twist:
When I changed to a Lycoming engine in my RV-8, I got an IVO-360A1A from a Brantley Helicopter. I had to change it to a horizontal engine, so I altered the data to an XIVO-360A1A and kept the same logbook.
How to fit this into the discussion??? :confused:
 
Just for fun, let me throw in a twist:
When I changed to a Lycoming engine in my RV-8, I got an IVO-360A1A from a Brantley Helicopter. I had to change it to a horizontal engine, so I altered the data to an XIVO-360A1A and kept the same logbook.
How to fit this into the discussion??? :confused:
Logbook is irrelevant. What does the data plate say? If it says LYCOMING IVO-360A1A then AD's for the LYCOMING IVO-360A1A apply. If the data plate says XIVO-360A1A (or whatever) then it is no longer a LYCOMING IVO-360A1A and those AD's don't apply. FWIW I would make sure both the logbook and data plate reflect the new XIVO-360A1A designation.

If the FAA ever put out an AD for the XIVO-360A1A engine, you would have to comply with it. But the LYCOMING IVO-360A1A is a different engine so compliance not required since they are two different engines. BTW I have never heard anything like that happening but you never know.

:cool:
 
Last edited:
Been awhile since I researched that. My understanding is if you have a certified appliance (engine, prop, carb, mag) that has an AD you are obliged to comply (based on opinion not facts). The out is to take the data-tag off and make it "experimental". This is a can of worms.
 
Been awhile since I researched that. My understanding is if you have a certified appliance (engine, prop, carb, mag) that has an AD you are obliged to comply (based on opinion not facts). The out is to take the data-tag off and make it "experimental". This is a can of worms.

Agree, that?s exactly how I?ve been told.
 
The problem I see is that many of the engines in RV's, especially the older 4/6's, have engines that have Lyc data plates, but the history is 'questionable" and there is no easy way to determine what's inside or if any AD's were ever complied outside of a complete teardown.
 
This argument has been around for as long as Experimentals, with probably just as many opinions as there are airplanes and owners, and everyone can find some "data" somewhere to back up their opinion.

The reality is that someone has to sign off the Condition Inspection each year with a statement that it is in a condition for safe operation. I wouldn't want to be the person who signed it off knowing there was an AD, such as the oil pump AD, and then someone got hurt or killed as a result of that.

AD's are not issued against Experimentals, but some of the manufacturer's SB's come pretty close, especially when they say "prior to further flight."

While we might choose to ignore them or not comply, I bet if you asked your passengers they might have a different opinion.

Vic
 
Here is a real example: The Lycoming 2017-16-11 AD references MSB 632 B which includes experimental engines (Table 1) and parts that may have been installed in experimental engines (Table 2).

From the AD:

(c) Applicability
This AD applies to:
(1) All Lycoming Engines reciprocating engines listed in Table 1 of Lycoming Engines Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 632B, dated August 4, 2017, and
(2) all Lycoming Engines reciprocating engines that were overhauled or repaired using any replacement part listed in Table 2 of Lycoming Engines MSB No. 632B, dated August 4, 2017, which was shipped from Lycoming Engines during the dates listed in Table 2 of Lycoming Engines MSB No. 632B, dated August 4, 2017.

(g) Required Actions
(1) For all affected engines, within 10 operating hours after the effective date of this AD, inspect all affected connecting rods as specified in Lycoming Engines MSB No. 632B, dated August 4, 2017, except for the instruction to complete the online survey and the instruction to review your inventory.
(2) Replace all connecting rods that fail the inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD with parts eligible for installation.

So, in this case, if you have a listed engine (experimental or not) OR an engine that may have these parts (your "SOGO 22") you are still required to comply with the AD according to AC 39-7D. Correct? I guess you could argue about whether your "SOGO 22" is a "Lycoming Engines" engine or not..
 
Legally speaking, the SOGO 22 is not a Lycoming engine and not subject to the AD.

Reality and a good sense of your own mortality may convince you to pay attention to it anyway, but you are not required to. There are many, many things in the E-AB world that fall under "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should."
 
Ed, when I changed out my Lycoming O-290D2 for the ECi O-360 I did not have to get another inspection or new Operating Limitations, pernmy paperwork and the Charlotte FSDO; however, I did do that and put it back into phase 1.

My ECi engine is not subject to Lycoming AD's but you can be sure I check ECi's website!
 
Back
Top