what does Experimental really mean....FAA problem

So I met with FAA today. The airworthiness inspection started off badly when he ask for the list of AD's for my engine and the entries showing compliance.

Overall, he liked most everything. BUT said I need to do the following

1. placard the static ports
2. didn't like the EXPERIMENTAL decal on the rollbar. said it needed to be visible at all times. but I talked him into allowing it's placement as it is visible to everybody entering the plane.
3. My oil cooler installation wasn't finished, so I need to finish fitting a cover over the standoff.

AND the BIGGIE which kept him from issuing my airworthiness cert.

I had not shown him compliance with the AD's for my engine. I said it's experimental. His response was your logbook shows all Factory parts were used so I must have compliance. I said it's a IO-360 B1X, no AD's apply. He said I have no authorization to change the dataplate to read B1X. AAaargh!

I tried to make my point that if I (non A&P) scooped up parts from a garage and built an engine it would not be able to have a factory data plate. It is experimental. He resisted this line of thought, saying my builder had listed all the parts and since they are Lycoming parts I have to have a Lycoming data plate. HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!! he'll get back to me on Monday.

I need a break.

I suspect there will be no way to educate the guy. Find a new inspector.

Well, It looks like you have a problem. There is nothing anywhere, that I know of, that says you cannot build an experimental engine with Lycoming parts.
I would ask to speak to the inspector's supervisor.

Mel said:

Well, It looks like you have a problem. There is nothing anywhere, that I know of, that says you cannot build an experimental engine with Lycoming parts.
I would ask to speak to the inspector's supervisor.

Click to expand...

Well, maybe save that as Step 2, tho Ol' Mel knows his business, obviously better then this other fella knows his. In your nicest voice, ask this person to cite the exact FAR that requires you to comply with the ADs on that particular experimental engine. Tell him if he shows it to you, you then understand the game at hand, and will GLADLY comply. If there is nothing for him to cite, then you obviously don't have to comply WITH HIS OPINION OF THE RULES. If he resists the logic of truth and facts, THEN go over his empty head.

Expect a 40 hour fly-off period.

Remember to never argue with the ignorant. They will drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience.

Let us all know how this particular dam job turns out!

Carry on!
Mark

Brian: First word of advice: Don't poke the bear. Your best bet is to get your local EAA chapter Tech Advisor in the mix. I had a similar but situation, only different. My FSDO guy wanted me to remove and destroy the data plate on my O-360-A4M (no certified engines on an experimental). The Tech Advisor showed him where removing the data plate indicated an engine no longer in service and required sending it back to Lycoming. He did not like the location of my Experimental placard either, sewn on the upholstery in the baggage compartment (-9A). Don't argue, just politely ask to see the documentation for his requests so that you can email the new FAA requirements to your thousands of brothers and sisters building RVs in all the FSDO Offices in the 50 states. Explain to your inspector you want to give them a heads up so if their FSDO/ABDAR misses these items, this is what you inspector (name) and FSDO Office (name) says the FAA requires to get an airworthiness certificate. Good luck, Dan

Mark has an excellent approach, and I would take it. The problem you now have is that the FAA fellow has stated his opinion, and at this point, he has no incentive whatsoever to change it. If he does change it, he will have to admit that he made a mistake, and unless he is very secure, he might not like to do that. I had a similar problem with the Houston FSDO years ago when I was applying some STC's to a certified aircraft, and I realized that I was just stuck - the FAA inspector had no incentive whatsoever to help me, and therefore, he didn't. I even went to his supervisors (and at the time, I knew the head of the whole shebang in D.C., having launched him in to space once or twice - but even that didn't help - political appointees are pretty powerless when dealing with the career guys...) and they refused to admit that the fellow had made a mistake, as it would have made them look bad.

All this is why I went with a DAR for my experimental work. Some FSDO's are far better than what I experienced here in Houston of course, but I refused to go in top the fire again, having been burned once.

Paul

EAA, but not only the local tech adviser, go straight to EAA national. You will probably not be the first to do so for this kind of issue, and they should already have the answers you need.

I am of course, making the assumption you are an EAA member.......

Congrats!!!!!!!!!!!!

By the way, even though there is a slight hiccup in there, congrats on the inspection

I'm sure things will get straightened out, but at the moment I'm a little nauseous. I was polite and told him I don't understand and would like to see where it says what I have to do. He said he needed to do some research and would get back to me next week.

And yes I'm an EAA member....isn't everyone? It should be mandatory for all builders.

hydroguy2 said:

And yes I'm an EAA member....isn't everyone? It should be mandatory for all builders.

Click to expand...

Definitely not! I want to be an EAA member because it's a great idea, not because someone told me I had to be!

I know that our local FSDO considers AD's as mandatory for experimental aircraft and I signed a document when applying for the airwothiness stating that I had complied with all applicable AD's. I also have a training document from the FAA that states very clearly that Experimentals are required to comply with AD's.

But besides the argument of are we legally required to comply or not, why would you not want to check and comply with engine AD's? Just because we are able to do lots of great stuff with our aircraft do we really want to ignore safety related items on our engines

I have no problem with checking and/or complying with AD's. My problem is he says my logbook shows I have certified(yellow tagged) parts, therefore he said, I must have a Lycoming factory dataplate or a letter from Lycoming saying I am authorized to put a different dataplate on it. He said my engine data plate showing IO-360 B1X is not correct=no airworthiness.

I told him I would take the data plate off and call it a Brian-360-XP, hiss response was "but your logbook shows otherwise".

Here is a link to the EAAs take on ADs.

http://starduster.aircraftspruce.com/wwwboard/messages/25960.html

Roberta

hydroguy2 said:

I have no problem with checking and/or complying with AD's. My problem is he says my logbook shows I have certified(yellow tagged) parts, therefore he said, I must have a Lycoming factory dataplate or a letter from Lycoming saying I am authorized to put a different dataplate on it. He said my engine data plate showing IO-360 B1X is not correct=no airworthiness.

I told him I would take the data plate off and call it a Brian-360-XP, hiss response was "but your logbook shows otherwise".

Click to expand...

Make a new logbook and indicate you have an experimental IO-360 B1X engine.

Hang in there

hydroguy2 said:

I have no problem with checking and/or complying with AD's. My problem is he says my logbook shows I have certified(yellow tagged) parts, therefore he said, I must have a Lycoming factory dataplate or a letter from Lycoming saying I am authorized to put a different dataplate on it. He said my engine data plate showing IO-360 B1X is not correct=no airworthiness.

I told him I would take the data plate off and call it a Brian-360-XP, hiss response was "but your logbook shows otherwise".

Click to expand...

This reminds me of the mattress tags that say "Do Not Remove Under Penalty of Law". The idea that its a Lycoming engine simply because its made from Lycoming parts seems ridiculous, unless your engine builder also happens to hold a Lycoming production certificate. Hopefully his willingness to get back to you later indicates a willingness to learn.

Sam Buchanan said:

Make a new logbook and indicate you have an experimental IO-360 B1X engine.

Click to expand...

that's what my logbook already says.

his interpretation is that the parts in my engine make it a factory Lycoming, not experimental

Can I assume that the FAA guy was free? Curious if free eventually costs more than a DAR?

Does that mean...

hydroguy2 said:

that's what my logbook already says.

his interpretation is that the parts in my engine make it a factory Lycoming, not experimental

Click to expand...

...he was willing to give you a 25 hour test period?

RE:Way to go

Brain

I am so excited for you. Your plane is drop dead gorgeous. This last hurdle will soon find its way into history!!!!! Plus it will add to your build story and certianly wil be a good lesson for all of us. So now I will look forward to that first flight account. Can't wait....kinda like the night before Christmas...will it ever get here. It will and the present is sooooooooo nice!!!!!

Congrats

Frank @ 1L8 ...RV7A... Tracken and Flying

hydroguy2 said:

I'm sure things will get straightened out, but at the moment I'm a little nauseous. I was polite and told him I don't understand and would like to see where it says what I have to do. He said he needed to do some research and would get back to me next week.

And yes I'm an EAA member....isn't everyone? It should be mandatory for all builders.

Click to expand...

hydroguy2 said:

that's what my logbook already says.

his interpretation is that the parts in my engine make it a factory Lycoming, not experimental

Click to expand...

Brian, sorry you have having problems with the inspector. This guy has a really flaky interpretation of the regs.

Hopefully Monday will be a better day after he has had time to reflect on how inconsistent his take on the situation really is.

You might go ahead and do the AD search, it might be that all you need is some paperwork brought up to date, and this will be sufficient for this public servant to justify his job.

For everyone reading this thread..........shop your DAR!! Be sure you select a DAR that has a good history with RV's and is reasonable to work with. Here is one list:

http://www.vansairforce.net/dar.htm

Poll local EAA chapters and RV builders to find an inspector that has his act together and won't put you through the wringer during what should be an exciting part of the project. The fee a reliable DAR charges can be a bargain!

Sam how do I find out what AD's apply? my engine is a hodgepodge of parts.

Change your data plate...

...to one the inspector likes -

Perhaps IO-360 B1X to IO-360B1B (or B1D, B1E, B1F)

...and then look up the Lycoming ADs and SBs that allow changes - such as magneto types...

Gil, I asked that, but he said I would need the STC paperwork to allow for the high comp pistons and STC for the cam modification. Also a B1B or such couldn't use that sump or FI unit. So in that regard the data plate will still be wrong. It seems I'm in a catch-22.

I am surprised he didn't ask to see your A&P license for working on the engine. Perhaps that's next.

If I were in your situation, I would just be patient and be very polite. I think this guy will get some peer advice and you will be fine. He definitely doesn't want you confusing him with any facts.

It will all work out. I am sure of that.

hydroguy2 said:

Gil, I asked that, but he said I would need the STC paperwork to allow for the high comp pistons and STC for the cam modification. Also a B1B or such couldn't use that sump or FI unit. So in that regard the data plate will still be wrong. It seems I'm in a catch-22.

Click to expand...

Now that is nuts! How can you get an STC when the engine does not even HAVE a type certificate to begin with? In your case, it's simply a collection of random Lycoming parts flying in tight formation - there is NO pedigree without an inspection and the certification that it is compliant with a TC.

The other problem is that AD's often apply to certain models of engines and not others, even for the same parts. So with the logic that Lycoming changes model numbers with ignition, induction, compression ratio, mount type, etc, how does ANYONE (including you) know what "model" your engine is for AD applicability unless it conforms exactly with a TC. You may have started with a -B1B, for example, but as soon as you bolt an electronic ignition to it, it's a "new" model... Which model? who knows? Does an AD apply to this "new" model? Who's to say?

WHAT!!??

"he said I would need the STC paperwork to allow for the high comp pistons and STC for the cam modification"

I would like to be standing there when he explains this one. Can you set up a video camera and post his reply on utube so we can all have a good laugh?

GEEZ this guy is 'out standing in his field'. I suspect you will get a better/more correct response on Monday. If he somehow sticks to his stories, Mel will know the process to get around this hiccup.

Carry on!
Mark

apkp777 said:

If I were in your situation, I would just be patient and be very polite. I think this guy will get some peer advice and you will be fine. He definitely doesn't want you confusing him with any facts.

It will all work out. I am sure of that.

Click to expand...

I totally agree with this, give him time to get back to the office, chat with his buds, and then reflect on his interpretation of the rules. Go ahead with the AD research on everything you can think of on the plane: engine, prop, mags and any other components that may have an AD on them (like avionics, instruments, etc) just to show your good faith and willingness to cooperate.

I worked with FAA inspectors for many years in my previous life, I will say that 99% are good folks, no different then you and I and will usually work with you to resolve issues.

I would just ditto Sam's advise for future builders and get a DAR that knows what he or she is doing. Mel, Vic Syracuse (my DAR) or others around here and top notch. Yeah it will cost you some dough, BUT...the plus is you have a very knowledgeable person looking at your airplane.

These FAA guys really couldn't care less about the safety of the airplane. They only make sure the proper paperwork is in order -- period! Get a DAR that will actually inspect the airplane and not just the paperwork and dataplates/decals.

apkp777 said:

I am surprised he didn't ask to see your A&P license for working on the engine. Perhaps that's next.

If I were in your situation, I would just be patient and be very polite. I think this guy will get some peer advice and you will be fine. He definitely doesn't want you confusing him with any facts.

It will all work out. I am sure of that.

Click to expand...

the A&P item was mentioned when he said I didn't have authorization to install my own data plate. At that point I was a little frazzled and merely told him, "I guess I'm confused and don't understand what he is saying. My understanding is that as an experimental I was able to make changes and do whatever I wanted to the engine". That's when he said he will go back and do some research and get back to me next week.

After they left and I cried (ok not really), then turned the lights off and left the hangar. Decided I need to take a break for a day or two. I've talked with my tech counselor and next I'll be talking with Mr. Norris at the EAA.

But in the mean time I need to shoot something so am going hunting tomorrow.

Do your research on picking the DAR as well. I know of a Cozy builder close by who had a problem with his DAR over his navigation lights and wouldn't sign off for night time flying. The builder eventually got it resolved but not with the original DAR. I know who in my area to go to. I just hope he stays healthy enough to inspect my plane. He has previously built RV's himself.

hydroguy2 said:

But in the mean time I need to shoot something so am going hunting tomorrow.

Click to expand...

Keep it aimed at the 4 legged creatures!...

When I did my inspection with the FAA, the first question he asked me, was, with a smile "since you have an A&P, what do you think about the regs on experimentals?".. Admittedly, I was completely clueless when it came to the world of the non-type certificate. From his expression, he was too.

My guess, your guy is really in the same situation. Most FAA inspectors have very little experience with homebuilts. Their whole job description is ensuring aircraft are conformed to their type certificate, then we come along with our homebuilts and do everything under the sun that puts us miles from conformity. Their heads start spinning and their neck flies back and start uttering over and over "uh,,this does not compute, this does not compute...". But once the smoke clears from his eyes, he'll hit the FAR's and figure it out. EAA is there to help. You'll do well to solicit Joe Norris's help.

This is very interesting since.....

Fearless said:

I know of a Cozy builder close by who had a problem with his DAR over his navigation lights and wouldn't sign off for night time flying. The builder eventually got it resolved but not with the original DAR. I know who in my area to go to. I just hope he stays healthy enough to inspect my plane. He has previously built RV's himself.

Click to expand...

The DAR does not "sign off" for night flying. That's covered in the operating limitations. If the aircraft is properly equipped for night and/or IFR operations IAW 91.205, you are good to go.

faa

Brian,

I would not use the FAA for an inspection. I had a FAA man on my first RV6 1996. He wanted ADs on a new Lycoming from Vans, He was quick to say this was not his job. He had no small plane experience. A pain to work with.
You wood be better served to fly Mel up there and get a inspection.

I hear you Jay, and everyone else who recommends a DAR route. I was trying to save some Avgas money. This FAA guy was highly praised for some recent inspection, seemed like a decent chap on the phone. He is also building a Avid with a VW engine. My tech counselor is friends with him and was shocked by his actions.
Monday I'll either have an airworthiness from the FAA or I'll have an appointment with the local DAR.

I may have stated it wrong but he had an issue about the lights. Here is one of the emails he sent to the Canard world concerning the issue. He ended up going outside the region to get it resolved.

Obviously this has stuck with me. The email is from 2005. I x'd out the names involved.

All I'm saying is do your homework.


Guys: This may affect you.

Do you remember my string of emails about my certification issue with my Kentucky DAR. He would not authorize me to fly VFR at night or IFR after Phase I because my position and strobe lights were not TSOed. I contacted several EAA and FAA people for their opinion and did a little research in the FARs myself and sent a query with reference to the FARs to my DAR and his boss. My DAR's boss in the FSDO office in Louisville, KY, replied to my DAR with a carbon copy to me this morning and here it is below for you to read. Any comments would be appreciated.

"Xxx Xxxxxxxx

For Experimental Amateur-built aircraft the "Operating Limitations" which are part of the Experimental Certificate make the owner /operator responsible for compliance with CFR 91.205. In reference to Xxxxxxx Xxxxx Cozy 3 "approved " position lights FAR 1.1 states the definition of "approved" as used in the FAR's as meaning "approved by the administrator".

Obviously the easy way to accomplish this is to use parts/equipment that are FAA/PMA approved or TSO'd. The response to Mr. Bunch from Les Sargent"s e-mail states that" parts/equipment meeting the applicable airworthiness standards are approved" is a little misleading. The key is that the burden of proof in showing compliance with airworthiness standards is on the builder. This cannot be interpreted that the builder can just magically consecrate this part as approved.

If the builder can show that part/equipment meet the appropriate airworthiness standards they may be approved by the FAA. "Approved" means approved by the Administrator. The Administrator may delegate the authority to approve data to certain FAA employees or to a designated representative.
The approving authority determines that the part can perform its intended function after installation and that its operation does not adversely affect the operation of that aircraft and its installed equipment. "This would be accomplished through FAA engineering. It cannot be done by a DAR or an Aviation Safety Inspector (ASI). That part/equipment would then require documentation showing the approval.

For IFR flight the instruments and equipment required by FAR 91.205
(b),(c) and (d) are required by the operating limitations for Experimental
Amateur- built aircraft.. FAR 91.411 makes reference to FAR 43 Appendix E and F. and is a requirement to operate an airplane in controlled airspace under IFR.
FAR 91.411(b)(1) states that the manufacturer of the airplane can perform the altimeter certification. If the experimental amateur builder meets the same criteria and airworthiness standards, that manufacturers for the issue of type crrtificated product would meet, they could perform that certification.
If the builder/manufacturer would choose this approach to certification they would need to pursue the approvals from ACO or engineering and obtain this approval from engineering before submitting the aircraft for certification.

I have requested a legal interpretation and have also forwarded these questions on to Xxx X'Xxxxx, AFS 820 the one responsible for the operation limitations that sets the equipment requires for night flight.

Regards,
Xxxxx X Xxxxx

Jamie said:

These FAA guys really couldn't care less about the safety of the airplane. They only make sure the proper paperwork is in order -- period! Get a DAR that will actually inspect the airplane and not just the paperwork and dataplates/decals.

Click to expand...

I understand where this is coming from, but it doesn't match my experience. I had an FAA inspector (Mike Batson of the Milwaukee FSDO) who spent more time on the aircraft than the paperwork, and seemed genuinely concerned about safety. He seemed to have an excellent understanding of experimental aircraft, and made no unreasonable demands. He has continued to be helpful and reasonable when I've made modifications since.

It does appear to be true though that there is lot of variation out there, I suspect among both FAA employees and designees.

What about payment if A/C is not signed off?

If you have a beef with your DAR or FAA inspector during the inspection (such as described here), and they refuse to sign you off, where does that leave you regarding payment? Do DARs demand payment up front? What about an FAA inspector?

Noah said:

If you have a beef with your DAR or FAA inspector during the inspection (such as described here), and they refuse to sign you off, where does that leave you regarding payment? Do DARs demand payment up front? What about an FAA inspector?

Click to expand...

FAA inspects for free-------your tax dollars at work

I have a close friend in TX who specializes in "problematic" DAR inspections and comes into the picture often when someone is having a difficult time getting a CofA from the FAA, and has literally done this hundreds of times with transport category, experimentals, warbirds, you name it...travels all over the world to do this stuff. About a month ago he was here in Indy to get CofA for a rebuilt S-2B Pitts that the FAA wouldn't sign off because it had the latest factory leading edge mods from Aviat, and the FAA inspector thought they were not approved modifications. Often times cause for these sorts of issues is local FSDO office politics. Inspector X can't sign off airplane Y because his boss believes Z to be a problem.

If you continue to have problems I can give you his number and he can tell you exactly what to do...he knows how to work the system.

dumb question

Are DARs regulated by local FSDO's, or by something else? In other words, could a DAR from another region inspect a plane that isnt 'local"?
Tom

Yes. We are allowed to request a Geographical extension and it usually works.

Vic

vic syracuse said:

Yes. We are allowed to request a Geographical extension and it usually works.

Vic

Click to expand...

But not always. In my case, they wouldn't let Mel travel a couple hundred miles to central Texas to look at my airplane. I hear that particular instance has been resolved now .

Scott, that's why I said "usually."

Other options.

Brian,

Not sure if Mike Robertson is still at the Spokane FSDO but he is a multiple offender RV builder, also. He used to do Airworthiness inspections in the western Oregon area and a member of our local EAA 105 where Van hangs his hat. He def knows RV's and does a fine and fair inspection.

Another RV builder/DAR is Gary Brown based in Independence, OR but also works in Spokane last I heard.

Since you are in Townsend, MT, those might be options for you if your current deal doesn't work.

Good luck,

UPDATE:

Talked with my engine builder (who is also a Certified repair station). His response was:
"Sure I will supply you with AD list for that engine/parts and what we checked. But this is the first time I've ever had too. the mods we did automatically void the TC and they won't apply. Also the data plate is made out EXACTLY as the FAA mandates. I'll send you all the info. " "oh and give him my phone number I will be happy to discuss the issues with him & don't worry all will be well"


I also called the FSDO guy and told him what I found. He seemed like he was backing down a bit and I got the impression that if I would have had an AD list for the parts, we wouldn't be at this point........Right or Wrong, he's in charge right now.

But, looks like it'll be resolved. If not there is a local DAR who understands E-AB....I was just being cheap trying to save $500.

The whole AD compliance for homebuilts subject is a very visible with the FAA right now. At my last DAR Seminar in OK City there were only two of us DARs and the rest of the room was filled with FAA inspectors. The topic got discussed openly and at length.

Basically it boils down to the fact that the FAA's primary role is safety and if there's a known unsafe condition in a product or person (light sport pilot for example) then they can't allow the product or person to fly.

With that being said, an amateur builder is the aircraft manufacturer and is free to put any engine they choose in their experiment. The only real difference is about 15 hours of extra flying in Phase 1 (40 hrs vs 25 hours) and you can only get the 25 if your engine and propeller combination was previously certified in an existing plane.

If you choose to put a certified engine in your plane and register it that way then it's up to you to declare that you are in compliance with all applicable ADs. I don't know of any inspector or DAR that will make you tear your engine apart to prove compliance unless they have strong reason to believe you're being dishonest with your statements. To me that seems extremely unlikely.

FSDO & ADs

The FSDO that looked over my plane a month or so ago, spent alot of time going over my engine documents including ADs.

luckily, my used certified Lyc came with all the logs and AD compliance stuff.

BTW, he said the engine is still certified even though it was hanging on the nose of a -9A.

Since my prop was experimental, I got the 40 hrs

Anyway, I was glad to save the $500...

Dave
-9A

Daver said:

BTW, he said the engine is still certified even though it was hanging on the nose of a -9A.

Click to expand...

I can see that if someone wants to keep their engine certificated for later resale value or something, but what if they didn't care about that?

How does one "decertificate" an engine so that all this AD stuff becomes a question for the builder to decide, not the FAA or DAR?

I'm just askin'...I have a stock YIO-360-M1B, so not an issue here...it's already designated "Experimental". But what if I bought a regular IO-360, factory new? How would I make it "Experimental"?

FAA powerpoint about experimental AD compliance

This is a powerpoint that the ORL FSDO apparently put together to train their inspectors about experimental aircraft:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/field_offices/fsdo/orl/local_more/media/ppt/exper-ia.ppt

If you click thru up to slide 22, you'll see where they state that ADs apply to experimentals. They cite the (lycoming) oil pump AD as an example.

Jamie said:

These FAA guys really couldn't care less about the safety of the airplane. They only make sure the proper paperwork is in order -- period! Get a DAR that will actually inspect the airplane and not just the paperwork and dataplates/decals.

Click to expand...

YMMV. The guy sent out to look at my plane by the FAA was very through on actually looking at the plane and was very responsive. His manager even called me a couple of months later to see if I had any feedback on his work. I asked if it was just for this guy, he said - nope, I do these 'customer satisfaction' checks with all my reports.