What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Letter of Denial by DAR - yikes!

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rick RV-4

Well Known Member
:(:(A good lesson learned here for others to follow . . . beware Amigo!

I started working with a DAR a few months ago to set up a date to have my "super slow-build" RV-4 inspected. Since I'm getting close, he asked me to submit my paperwork to him so he could "look it (the paperwork) over" and "point me in the right direction" - in his words, it would help speed up the process so we wouldn't have to deal with errors the day of the inspection. Seemed like a good idea at the time. I sent him a copy of my registration, an incomplete Form 8130-6 and a complete 8130-12.

As we got further into the process, it seemed to me as if he was being unreasonable on a few items (such as AD compliance with my Experimental Lycoming engine). He was very quick to say "if we have to do an engine tear down" to prove ADs, I'd have to do that and this was even before we addressed any particular AD.

I also asked about my ELT installation and he said I'd have to do a stress pull test to prove compliance with the regs (and I installed the ELT in the baggage compartment attached to the longerons - a very common place for an RV). Again, I though this seemed a little extreem.

When I talked with other APs, IAs and RV builders, they all agreed his demands were unreasonable - to the point they recommended I use another DAR.

Long story short, the further I talked with him, the less I liked what I was hearing. I very politely told him I wanted to end my inspection process with him and proceed with another DAR in the area and I offered to compensate him a reasonable amount for his time spent. He never looked at my airplane, my builder's log or anything else other than the forms I discussed.

As soon as I mentioned that I was going to stop working with him he quickly told me he would HAVE to submit a "letter of denial" to the FAA. Needless to say, I was shocked because I felt as if I was being extorted or strong-armed into finishing the process with him.

After doing some research on this subject, it does sound as if he's correct - if you have appplied for a certificate and don't follow through, he can write the "letter of denial" as you can't simply pull an application you've applied for. Personnally, I don't feel like I formally applied by sending him copies of my three forms listed (especially with one of them being incomplete) but that is his opinion.

So, word to the wise - you may want to think twice about sending your paperwork early to your DAR unless you really know him or her well.

Hope this doesn't happen to you . . . .

Rick
Just added another 90% to the other 90%!
 
You don't list any location information in your profile Rick, so we don't know what FSDO you might be dealing with - but if you feel like you're being extorted, a call to the local FSDO that has this guy in their district might be appropriate.

We have a number of DAR's here that can probably steer you a lot better through the process.

Paul
 
I'd agree with you.. you did not aply for certificate unless ALL your paperwork is in order...
 
Very sorry to hear you are having an unpleasant DAR experience. Most DAR's we deal with are very reasonable and knowledgeable, sounds like you found one with limited (no?) experience with issuing experimental airworthiness certificates.

For builders reading this sad tale.........please check the list of DAR's on Doug's front page. If none of those gentlemen are available in your area, by all means check with the local EAA chapter or other builders in order to receive a good DAR recommendation.

Hopefully a call to your FSDO will go a long ways toward getting this saga straightened out.

Best wishes!
 
As others have said - Call the FSDO and/or call the MIDO asap! I wouldn't have any additional communication with him until I talked to the FAA folks. He's wrong about AD's, which means he's probably wrong about other things as well.

Yet another reason to do your due diligence before selecting a DAR. It's worth paying more to get a better DAR - this is one of those cases where it's not always going to be the cheapest or most local guy who is the best choice.

Get on the phone with the FAA and get them involved in the conversation.

Cheers,
Stein
 
From the FAA, the new AC on EABs:

b. How to Submit Your Application. Submit an application under ? 47.33, Aircraft not previously registered anywhere, to the FAA Aircraft Registration Branch, AFS-750 (see Appendix 7 to this AC for the address). Include the following in the package:
(1) Documentation that you own the aircraft. You may use AC Form 8050-88, Affidavit of Ownership for Amateur-Built Aircraft (see Appendix 9 to this AC), or its equivalent. The affidavit needs to state that you built the aircraft from parts or a kit and that the person signing the affidavit is the owner.
(2) A signed bill of sale from the manufacturer of the kit, if the aircraft was built from a kit. You may use AC Form 8050-2, Aircraft Bill of Sale, but strike out the word ?aircraft? and insert the word ?kit? (see Appendix 10 to this AC). If you cannot provide a bill of sale for the kit, explain why. If you are not the original purchaser of an uncompleted kit, provide AFS-750 traceability from the kit manufacturer through the previous builder(s) to yourself.
(3) A completed AC Form 8050-1 (see Appendix 5 to this AC). Keep the pink copy for your records until you get your Certificate of Aircraft Registration (AC Form 8050-3). The pink copy and FAA Form 8130-6 are not authorization to operate your aircraft.
(4) A check or money order payable to the FAA for the registration fee. The registration fee is $5. If you are requesting a special registration number, it is an extra $10. Therefore, if you submit your registration and request for a special registration number at the same time, the total fee is $15.
(5) A special request letter as described in paragraph 9c, if you want a specific registration number.
Click to expand...

Incomplete forms, given to someone for "review", should not be considered a formal application.

Call FSDO *today*. Time will not be your friend, as the denial he wants to file works its way into the system.
 
Thanks!

Thanks for all of the replies. I too feel as if I have not formally "applied" with him - but I know it will be his word against mine. I feel even more frustrated that this was presented to me for sole reason of speeding up the paperwork process. I even told him I wasn't done with some of the paperwork he requested but he asked for it anyway. As my wife said, he's probably been down this path before!

I already tried to call the FSDO (per the EAA's advice) but they must be closed today (federal holiday). That is FIRST on my "to do" list tomorrow, though.

Uggghhh . . . this is not the way I was hoping to close out this 16 year project!

Rick
 
It won't be entirely your word against his. He has no complete paperwork to back up any claim that you made an application. And, for others, you should not be afraid to allow a DAR to preview your paperwork. I did not sign my application until we agreed on the final version, at the time of the inspection. Nor did I sign my program letter. My DAR sent my preview paperwork back to me with corrections to be made and, on the day of the inspection, I brought the corrected packet and he brought the Airworthiness Certificate and Limitations. He proceeded to inspect and then I signed my paperwork and finally he went through the limitations with me before signing and turning it over to me. I didn't sign before not because I didn't trust my DAR but because we both wanted the paperwork exactly correct before submitting it to the FAA. But the practical side of that is that he didn't have a signed copy of any application until the day of the inspection; hence no application to deny if it had come to that. I think this DAR is going to fall flat on his ... er, face if he tries to give you any trouble, especially if you contact the FSDO as soon as you can. Your new (and hopefully more trustworthy) DAR may also be able to help.
 
Flying Scotsman said:
From the FAA, the new AC on EABs:



Incomplete forms, given to someone for "review", should not be considered a formal application.

Call FSDO *today*. Time will not be your friend, as the denial he wants to file works its way into the system.
Click to expand...

I agree with the previous advice...call the FSDO.

Another point to consider (and maybe Mel can chime in with confirmation)
About all he could issue you a denial for at this point is incomplete paperwork.
Also, a denial does not mean you can not get an airworthiness certificate, it just means you need to correct the reason the original denial was issued. When any inspector is going through the inspection process he is supposed to check and see if a denial has be previously issued against a specific aircraft for any reason. If you can correct the issue (incomplete paperwork) to the inspectors satisfaction, they should have no difficulty issuing a C of A.
 
Phone call to that DAR this evening.

Hi DAR, this is the RV guy you want to issue a denial letter to because I don't want to use your services.

I think that there is a misunderstanding that would lead you to issue that letter to the FAA. I have not yet applied for a registration.

Now unless we come to agreement that my view is correct and you fax me a signed letter stating that, I will have to protect my interests by calling the FSDO first thing Tuesday morning.

Would you like a few minutes to think about it?


Note: This provides both parties the chance to not cause any problems.
 
Last edited:
rvbuilder2002 said:
I agree with the previous advice...call the FSDO.

Another point to consider (and maybe Mel can chime in with confirmation)
About all he could issue you a denial for at this point is incomplete paperwork.
Also, a denial does not mean you can not get an airworthiness certificate, it just means you need to correct the reason the original denial was issued. When any inspector is going through the inspection process he is supposed to check and see if a denial has be previously issued against a specific aircraft for any reason. If you can correct the issue (incomplete paperwork) to the inspectors satisfaction, they should have no difficulty issuing a C of A.
Click to expand...
Scott is exactly right on all points..
 
This is a rather important issue.

I think it is time for you to share the name of the DAR and what FSDO you are under.
 
Maybe later

As much as I'd like to, I'd prefer not to comment on any names until this issue is put to rest (to protect him and me). The thing that angers me the most was the tone used when he informed me he would "have to" submit a letter of denial. It had a punitive tone as compared to a "I'm only doing this because I have to tone" if that makes sense.

My goal here is not to disparage anyone, but just to provide a lesson learned (and maybe vent a little bit as well . . . ).

Thanks,

Rick
 
Rick RV-4 said:
:(:(A good lesson learned here for others to follow . . . beware Amigo!
Click to expand...

I guess I'm in the minority here. I worked with the Indianapolis FSDO directly and can't praise them enough. Within two weeks of my first call, two very knowledgeable and experienced inspectors drove down to Evansville (three hour drive) and inspected my project. Actually a very thorough but fair inspection with many very good suggestions. I had screwed up several things in my paperwork submission and they worked with me on that as well. Since they were from the FSDO they were able to issue my Repairman's Certificate, at the same time, along with my pink slip. Total cost $0.00.

Check around, at least the Indianapolis, Indiana FSDO office is friendly to Experimentals.
 
newtech said:
I guess I'm in the minority here. I worked with the Indianapolis FSDO directly and can't praise them enough. Within two weeks of my first call, two very knowledgeable and experienced inspectors drove down to Evansville (three hour drive) and inspected my project. Actually a very thorough but fair inspection with many very good suggestions. I had screwed up several things in my paperwork submission and they worked with me on that as well. Since they were from the FSDO they were able to issue my Repairman's Certificate, at the same time, along with my pink slip. Total cost $0.00.
Click to expand...

Yep - that pretty much describes my excellent experience with the Oakland FSDO. So if you don't want to go with a DAR, you might want to investigate the local FSDO by asking the local builders for a review.
 
Thanks!

Thanks again fellas . . .

I appreciate the suggestion to use the FSDO here. I'm certainly not against the idea. I also have to agree with Stein . . . do your homework on your DAR (or FSDO). I guess that's really the biggest lesson I learned here when it comes right down to it. I've already been in contact with another DAR here who has been recommended by several others so I'm hoping to stay on schedule.

On a sidenote, I have worked with the local FSDO here for other things and they have been good to work with. I look forward to talking with them tomorrow!:)

Thanks again,

Rick
 
Well, if you can be sure of anything, it is that you did the right thing by firing this DAR when you did.

Now, the real question is whether your 16 year build is the established record for long build. Sheez, what's the rush?

Are you going to join the Vintage Aircraft Association?
 
Rick, everything that you need to follow is written in the FARS. Just have this DAR point them out to you.

This has worked for me in the past when BUILDING INSPECTORS started to play little gods.............
 
Follow up . . .

:) Just a follow up on my saga here . . . I jumped out of my sim this morning and got on the phone with the FSDO. The DAR's supervisor wasn't there, so I got the supervisor of the supervisors, so to speak.:)

Long story short, they said this "letter of denial" is BS, especially since he's never seen the plane or the logs. He said to press on and also mentioned they'd "talk" to the DAR (and I had a feeling it would be a one way conversation). It was a good conversation, and it seemed as if he couldn't believe what this DAR was doing. I found the San Antonio FSDO very good to work with on this matter (and have been treated well by them in the past).

Back to the hangar to get this bird in the air!

Thanks for the support guys.

Rick
 
Rick RV-4 said:
:) Long story short, they said this "letter of denial" is BS, especially since he's never seen the plane or the logs. He said to press on and also mentioned they'd "talk" to the DAR (and I had a feeling it would be a one way conversation). It was a good conversation, and it seemed as if he couldn't believe what this DAR was doing. I found the San Antonio FSDO very good to work with on this matter (and have been treated well by them in the past). Rick
Click to expand...

Rick, glad it worked out for you. Building a plane is hard enough without having something like this to worry about.
 
Letter of Denial follow up

Just an update . . . :confused:

I finally received my "letter of denial" from the DAR I was working with. It states he is denying the Certificate of Airworthiness for "failure to show compliance with ADs on his Lycoming O-360 C2A engine serial # ..... ".

To say the least, I am once again shocked by this as he has not seen the engine, the plane, or the logs. We've never even met! I once again called the SAT FSDO and was told not to worry about it. But the gentleman at the FSDO did say this letter would remain in my file at OKC. I did find out that this DAR called the FSDO about 15 minutes after I did, and told the supervisor I "did not want to comply with ADs", something I never said. I did ask (at first) if I had to comply the ADs, but did not object to complying with them.

To rehash, when we started this process, I simply asked him if I had to comply with the ADs since it's an experimental engine on an exp. plane. His quick response was a lecture and then an aggressive approach to wanting to take the engine apart. I told him I did not have a problem with complying with the ADs, but simply wanted to start with the logs and receipts from the overhaul, not pulling valve covers, the prop, etc., which is what he wanted to do.

Hope this never happens to you. I have written a response to his letter (for the FSDO/FAA) and will request it stay in my file on this aircraft.

Rick
 
So Do I understand this correctly:
You have a letter in your file, for something you didn't have to compile with, from a person who didn't inspect anything.

Sounds like an abuse of power and harassment to me. Maybe you could send a letter to his file.

I personally don't take kindly to falsified documents being placed in my file.

edit: ditto to Ron's comment.......release the hounds
 
This guy is a joke. Please post his name so others can avoid this guy! I would be posting his name on every homebuilt forum I could find.

The FSDO needs to put a chain on him and give it a strong jerk!

I think you need to get the EAA or AOPA involved with this one....There is no way I would let this go on without a fight.
 
Last edited:
I agree

I will post his name with reservation. It's something I hate to do but at this point I feel it's necessary so as to protect others. I was not going to do this, even if I got a letter of denial for "incomplete paperwork" or "not completing the certification process".

But to me, this crosses the line. His name is Robert D. Bilbrey, part of the San Antonio FSDO.

To his defense, he is saying the same thing I am hearing from a lot of other DARs and even some at the EAA - that all ADs must be complied with, even with an "Experimental" engine. While this was a surprise to me, I really don't have an issue with this. What I did (and still do) have an issue with is his approach to proving compliance. Starting the process by wanting to meet to pull valve covers and my prop just did not seem like the most sane way to begin. His attitude seemed to be I was "guilty until proven innocent".

I offered to meet him at his house (or in his town over breakfast) with my logs and receipts for the engine with the hopes of clearing some of the 22 ADs he sent to me. He wanted to meet at the hangar and start pulling parts. That's when I pulled the plug, so to speak. BTW, I only came up with 11 ADs that needed to be looked into, so I'm not sure why the large difference.

Sincerely,

Rick Stoffel
 
Rick, if Robert is proud of, and willing to defend what he did, then he won't have a problem with you posting his name.
 
Rick, I am not a DAR, not even a builder, but I THINK I have heard that ADs do not necessarily apply to experimental engines. Ignoring them may not be wise.

Verify applicability.

PS, if not already mentioned, an "article" that goes to local EAA chapters may be information worth sharing.
 
Last edited:
AD compliance

Ron,

This seems to be a hotly debated topic. Most DARs I've talked to say they do, most A&Ps/IAs I talk to say they don't. My FSDO says they do. I think it is somewhat up to the DAR and more importantly the builder/flyer as to how he or she intends to comply. I plan to comply with the intent of the ADs.

This DAR did also say that with a certificated engine, it must have all AD compliant and "certificated parts" to comply with the spirit of the AD. In other words, no "yellow tag", no compliance. Again, I'm not going to fly with a crank ground down outside of limits. But this made me wonder if my E-Mag/P-Mag combo would even pass this criteria as he viewed it - yet another reason I decided to go with another DAR.

Thanks,

Rick
 
Ron Lee said:
Rick, I am not a DAR, not even a builder, but I THINK I have heard that ADs do not necessarily apply to experimental engines. Ignoring them may not be wise.
Click to expand...

The ADs apply to a Lycoming engine in a particular installation. If you do not comply with them then you need to remove the Lycoming data plate and put an experimental engine dataplate on it.

I think it is a good idea to comply with the ADs but as the manufactor of the aircraft I have the authority to indicate that AD does not apply to my plane and note it on the compliance sheet. I question the DAR has the authority to inspect and require visual proof of every AD compliance.
 
There is absolutely not one phrase in the FAR's that exempts experimentals from AD compliance. Not wanting to start a debate about it, and I don't agree with the inspector in how he handled this, but he is correct. I deal with this in certified aircraft logbooks occasionally, if you can't prove AD compliance, you have to physically check. So if you have a Bendix mag for example, and can't verify thru logbook entries that an AD was specifically complied with, the mag comes off and it has to be verified for compliance. If I put that same mag on an RV, the AD doesn't automagically go away. It is still an "appliance" as defined in FAR 39.3, and any AD's have to be complied with.
 
rocketbob said:
There is absolutely not one phrase in the FAR's that exempts experimentals from AD compliance.
Click to expand...
Dumb question because I don't know: If a certified engine, installed in an experimental airplane, must have all ADs complied with, can anyone perform the required inspections / work to comply with the AD? If an A&P must do the work, this would seem like an obvious reason to avoid certified engines.

TODR
 
From the EAA:

February 12, 2009 — Do airworthiness directives (ADs) apply to experimental amateur-built aircraft and experimental light-sport aircraft? That question has been the subject of some concern, as the answer sometimes depends on whom in the FAA you’re asking. There have been some conflicting internal FAA interpretations, but the historical paper trail has several examples plainly stating that ADs are issued only for type-certificated (TC) aircraft. Because of this EAA’s position has always been amateur-built aircraft and experimental light-sport aircraft do not have TCs, they are therefore not subject to ADs.
The conflicts have become apparent due to differences of opinion between FSDO/MIDO inspectors, FAA regional guidance, and the regulatory guidance issued by FAA headquarters. EAA is working to help clear up the confusion to provide its members and the rest of the flying public with a clear understanding of actual FAA policy guidance.
“The issue of AD compliance has been around many years and we will continue engaging the FAA until the common understanding is reached,” said Joe Norris, EAA homebuilders community manager. “EAA is working in partnership with the FAA to develop educational opportunities for FAA personnel, designated airworthiness representatives (DARs), and aircraft builders, owners and operators to make sure we’re all on the same page regarding ADs.” These could include FAA Orders, Advisory Circulars, other FAA publications, EAA builders’ information documents, and informational letters to DARs and FAA inspectors.
In comments submitted on January 14 to the FAA’s draft to revise the Airworthiness Directives Manual (FAA-IR-M-8040.1C), EAA points out an excellent opportunity to address and resolve the experimental aircraft AD interpretation conflicts once and for all that are affecting aircraft owners and builders today. An in-depth review, Airworthiness Directives & Amateur Built Aircraft, is available to EAA members on the members’ government website.

Note: that last link takes you to the page that contains the info that Brian has placed in the following post.
 
Last edited:
Straight from the EAA:

  • Airworthiness Directives & Amateur Built Aircraft

    The applicability of Airworthiness Directives (AD’s) to experimental amateur-built aircraft is an intensely contested subject. Regardless of what position one takes on this subject, many will take a personal affront to your position. It would be difficult to sum this topic up in a sentence. That said EAA does take the general position that:
    Airworthiness Directives do not apply to experimental amateur-built aircraft or to any previously type certificated parts being operated on an experimental amateur-built aircraft.
    That statement made, there are several things that need to be added. EAA is not saying AD’s that directly relate to any component on your aircraft, need not be addressed. The owner of an experimental amateur-built aircraft should comply with, to the best of his or her ability, any AD that relates to a component installed on his or her aircraft. EAA is saying; there is no legal basis to apply an AD to an aircraft or component that is not required to be operated in compliance with a Type Certificate, or Type Design. There are some references in older outdated FAA guidance materials (e.g. Advisory Circulars) that indicate that AD’s apply to experimental aircraft, and the FAA has held the position that AD’s on type certificated parts, installed on experimental aircraft, should be complied with. However, despite what certain FAA field personnel have indicated in the past, the FAA Certification Office (AIR) has never produced a written position that states AD’s are applicable to non-type certificated products. Further, there is no Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) requirement for AD’s on experimental amateur-built aircraft.
    Because of the lack of written policy from FAA headquarters, EAA formally asked for the certification offices written position on AD’s, as they relate to experimental amateur-built aircraft. After much debate within the FAA, a written position is still not available at this time. However, in 1998 a FAA headquarters Aircraft Certification Management Team1 studying the issue of AD’s, stated the following in a written report of their findings:
    "1. FAA has authority to issue an AD against any aircraft operating in U.S. airspace except under Part 129. FAA’s ability to issue AD’s is limited by practical considerations. The FAR do not support AD’s for non-TC’ed aircraft. If FAA issues an AD against a non-TC'ed aircraft, it could be challenged strongly in court for violating its own rules. AGC (FAA Legal Council) is adamant in this. FAA refrains from AD's for experimental amateur-builts and foreign manufactured non-TC'ed aircraft."
    Further, the FAA specifically stated that, FAR 39.1 Applicability, does not include experimental aircraft because it requires that the aircraft, engine, propeller or appliances referred to, must have a "type design." No experimental amateur-built aircraft has a "type design" therefore no AD’s can apply to them. The FAA said, "the wording of the rules shows clearly, that in writing the rules, FAA had no intention of issuing AD’s for non-TC’ed aircraft. 39.1 requires that the aircraft have a type design as defined in 21.312." Experimental amateur-built aircraft do not have a TC.
    The problem with applying an AD to an experimental amateur-built aircraft is:
    1. The aircraft has no type design, nor do any of the design standards in the FAR’s apply (e.g. Part 23)
    2. FAR Part 43 Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, Rebuilding and Alteration does not apply.3
    3. FAR 39 Airworthiness Directives, does not apply.4
    4. The airworthiness standard for experimental aircraft is "safe to fly" not "Conformity to a type design5."

The rest can be read here:

http://members.eaa.org/home/govt/issues/airworthy.asp?
 
Last edited:
the_other_dougreeves said:
Dumb question because I don't know: If a certified engine, installed in an experimental airplane, must have all ADs complied with, can anyone perform the required inspections / work to comply with the AD? If an A&P must do the work, this would seem like an obvious reason to avoid certified engines.

TODR
Click to expand...

Yep, you can sign it off. Ultimately its the person holding the repairman's certificate or the A&P signing off the condition inspection who is responsible for compliance. If something happened, that's who the FAA would drop the hammer on.

FAR 39 is vaguely worded so they can put an AD on a coffeemaker if they wanted to.

I just never get why people think that experimentals are exempt. FAR 39.1 is very clear on this. 39.1 doesn't say anything about what's NOT included, unlike other FAR's.
 
rocketbob said:
FAR 39 is vaguely worded so they can put an AD on a coffeemaker if they wanted to.

I just never get why people think that experimentals are exempt. FAR 39.1 is very clear on this. 39.1 doesn't say anything about what's NOT included, unlike other FAR's.
Click to expand...


Not according to the EAA due to the requirement for a "Type Design" which no Experimental has....
 
Brantel said:
Straight from the EAA:

[FAR 39.1 Applicability, does not include experimental aircraft because it requires that the aircraft, engine, propeller or appliances referred to, must have a "type design."
Click to expand...

FAR 39.1 was changed several years ago and the applicability section is no longer there. So EAA's argument is invalid and out-of-date. I'll go so far as to say that didn't happen on accident.

Read the regs, not what's on the EAA's site! The EAA won't save you if a FSDO inspector has something he can hang you on in an accident. At the moment, there is absolutely nothing in the FAR's that supports the EAA's position.
 
Last edited:
39.1 was changed but the exact same verbage is in 39.5 so I would bet it was changed because it was redundant......

To date, the only written position that I know of on this from the FAA is the documents that the EAA are using for their interpretation of the rules.

An experimental engine could be made up from parts from 25 different engines, ten different manufacturers, parts from 15 different "type" certified aircraft and also include a few homemade parts and parts from Home Depo... How is one to apply AD's to such an engine?
 
rocketbob said:
The EAA won't save you if a FSDO inspector has something he can hang you on in an accident. At the moment, there is absolutely nothing in the FAR's that supports the EAA's position.
Click to expand...

If a FSDO inspector wants to hang you, he is going to do it no matter what... Nothing can stop them from finding something to nail you with certified or not.

The best we can do is do our best to ensure airworthiness and have a ball doing it!
 
AD' apply to a part number-

Any accesory part number such as a coil in a magnito-
AD's: From one FSDO source they would "really encourage" but not force the "manufaturer of the aircraft"- That would be the builder holding the repaiman's cert.- to comply with all AD's of the certified catagory to each accessory part number that the AD is written against.

The never ending debate since this is truly a source of debate from FSDO to FSDO and worth repeating every month or so- :D If you have the repairmans certificate for that (RV 4 for example)- you can do any and all maintenance for the engine/airframe and sign off the "conditional inspection". Any certified engine also becomes experimental as far as "re-use" since it is installed in an experimental aircraft- But the data plate can be maintained on the RV and maybe at some point can be re- installed in a certified aircraft after going through a re- certification process(complete teardown and blueprint to yellowtag:eek:). But let say it is a 150 HP E2D with 160 hp pistons, for example. It becomes an experimental engine as far as data plate and phase 1 fly-off time since the E2D never had 160HP pistons in it's STC portfolio. (Unlike the E2A)

Then lastly the big one- can the owner/operator do any and all maintenance with the exception of the conditional inspection:
Just checked and it is still there!!: :D
FAR 43.1b Applicability
"b) 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.
 
Brantel said:
39.1 was changed but the exact same verbage is in 39.5 so I would bet it was changed because it was redundant......

To date, the only written position that I know of on this from the FAA is the documents that the EAA are using for their interpretation of the rules.

An experimental engine could be made up from parts from 25 different engines, ten different manufacturers, parts from 15 different "type" certified aircraft and also include a few homemade parts and parts from Home Depo... How is one to apply AD's to such an engine?
Click to expand...

Simple, you don't put a Lycoming data plate on it. Then it is nolonger a Lycoming. Just like any of the Lycoming clones (Superior or ECI), Lycoming AD's and SB's don't apply unless Superior and ECI say they do.
 
Brantel said:
An experimental engine could be made up from parts from 25 different engines, ten different manufacturers, parts from 15 different "type" certified aircraft and also include a few homemade parts and parts from Home Depo... How is one to apply AD's to such an engine?
Click to expand...

AD's apply to parts, not the engines. So, if one used a set of old oil pump gears in the engine, engine quits, they can go after the repairman or A&P who signed off the last condition inspection. And if someone gets hurt, then you will also become fodder for the insurance company. The AD's specifically state how to identify the old oil pump gears. So if the DAR is not provided with a paper trail that the builder did verify compliance, then the FSDO can go after him for not requiring them. But for argument's sake lets say you made your own oil pump gears out of aluminum, as long as you can prove you made them, then you're in the clear. This sort of scenario would be hard to litigate obviously, but its just a matter of who an administrative court judge believes, you or the FAA. They tend to believe the FAA far more often.

Don't shoot the messenger! Bottom line, make sure you I's are dotted and T's are crossed.
 
N941WR said:
Simple, you don't put a Lycoming data plate on it. Then it is nolonger a Lycoming. Just like any of the Lycoming clones (Superior or ECI), Lycoming AD's and SB's don't apply unless Superior and ECI say they do.
Click to expand...

In a superficial sense it becomes something other than a Lycoming, but unless its missing stampings, casting numbers, etc. the FAA can still easily provide enough evidence in an enforcement action to say it is a Lycoming. You would have to prove otherwise. If it quacks like a duck, it is a duck.
 
AZtailwind said:
Any certified engine also becomes experimental as far as "re-use" since it is installed in an experimental aircraft- But the data plate can be maintained on the RV and maybe at some point can be re- installed in a certified aircraft after going through a re- certification process(complete teardown and blueprint to yellowtag:eek:).
Click to expand...

Where are you getting that info from?

Cheers,
Stein
 
I like this nugget from one of the aforementioned EAA docs:

The applicability of Airworthiness Directives (AD’s) to experimental amateur-built aircraft is an intensely contested subject. Regardless of what position one takes on this subject, many will take a personal affront to your position.
Click to expand...
(my emphasis)

I've lost track of how many times this topic has been debated over the years on RV forums and it seems it is no closer to being resolved than it was ten years ago.

Once this thread winds down me thinks it will be retitled and moved to the "Never Ending Debates" forum. ;)
 
Rick RV-4 said:
I finally received my "letter of denial" from the DAR I was working with. It states he is denying the Certificate of Airworthiness for "failure to show compliance with ADs on his Lycoming O-360 C2A engine serial # ..... ".

To say the least, I am once again shocked by this as he has not seen the engine, the plane, or the logs. We've never even met!
Click to expand...

Rick,

In short, you're getting hosed! There's no way a letter of denial can be issued until the entire inspection process can be issued. And there's no way the letter can be forwarded to OKC until the entire application package is complete and the inspection has been completed. This guy is definitely not following proper policy.

I suggest you call EAA and talk to Randy Hansen in the Government Relations department. You can tell him you've talked to me - Joe Norris - and I can fill him in on all the details. If the FSDO inspector insists that the denial letter is going to be forwarded to OKC in the absence of a completed inspection process, he's not doing his job and needs to be "educated".

Randy's direct number is 920-426-6103, or use the toll-free number published in your Sport Aviation magazine and ask for Randy at extension 6103.

I can't believe this guy....

Joe
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top