what does Experimental really mean....FAA problem

[Jeff Vaughan]

I emailed 3 FAA folks from the Philly FSDO list and received no response from any. I then contacted a DAR. My DAR really did not inspect the airplane to any degree, he did make sure the paperwork was in order. Although I had inspected the plane myself and signed off the paperwork stating it was ready to go, had a DAR inspection and passed, I still felt like I needed to reinspect my plane since the DAR did not look at much.

Glad I did this, as I had not installed the cotter pins on the castle nuts on the rudder cable pedal connection. I almost threw up when I found my oversight. Twice I had reached around the pedal and felt the nut thinking they were nylok stop nuts and moved on with my inspection.

 

[dhall_polo]

useful documentation for your plane

Even if not needed for inspection, it's a great idea to document model and serial numbers for everything on your airplane, noting how you handled any ad's or sb's that you can find.

Before even showing up for the inspection, my DAR made me gather such a list and research AD/SB info on all. It took some effort to gather up all the SN's, and quite a bit longer to hunt down AD/SB info. Coincidentally, I found ~70 parts with serial numbers on a data plate or sticker that I could research. My Aerosport engine was delivered with all this well-documented in the engine log for the engine and supplied accessories, but I still had to go see what I could find on stuff like prop, servos, panel stuff, etc. Even Vans' has a fair amount of SB's that might have been issue since we received our kits.

My list-o-serial-numbers has come in super handy time and time again. I now consider it one of the most valuable references on my plane, and it will be useful when I sell the plane. Maybe all this was not legally required. Still, don't you want to know about the AD's and SB's that might be important?

(And Brian - can't wait to see the first flight report!)

 

[hydroguy2]

I agree AD compliance is a very good idea. I also knew my builder had checked everything and we used only yellowtagged or new parts. My engine log had what looked like a very thorough entry detailing the engine parts used. I didn't know I needed a AD list showing compliance for every part. So when FSDO ask for the list I could not produce it. this is where things went awry. I didn't think it was mandatory and told him I thought as an experimental I didn't need it. Next he is telling yes it is mandatory and I also need the STC paperwork to show authorization for the piston change and data plate change. I was floored and asked to see where that is written. He didn't know, so he's researching it.

 

[nucleus]

DAR

I used the local DAR, he is retired FAA and he really didn't inspect the plane very thoroughly. He was much more concerned with the paperwork. He made me sign a paper saying that I had complied with all the AD's (?). My engine is 100% experimental (Superior). As I recall it was closer to $700 than $500.

Sounds like you are close Brian, need a chase plane?

Hans

 

[MauiLvrs]

We checked for any ADs and didn't fine any. When we filled out the application for the air cert, we checked the box that said all AD were complete and were not even asked about it during the inspection.

 

[hydroguy2]

I used the local DAR, .......... As I recall it was closer to $700 than $500.

Sounds like you are close Brian, need a chase plane?

Hans

Leo? that's the same guy. he said he'd wave his travel mileage fee since I'm close and he has done quite a few inspections for my hangar mate.

Might need a chase plane, but not even sure when things will happen at this point. for some reason I thought you moved south, glad to hear your still around. Brian

 

[Sid Lambert]

I haven't read this during the thread but his beliefs on AD's with experimental engines ring true with much of the competitive aerobatic community.

They believe if the part is TSO'd, no matter what it's application, then all AD's apply. If the part is experimental then no AD's apply.

 

[David-aviator]

I agree AD compliance is a very good idea. I also knew my builder had checked everything and we used only yellowtagged or new parts. My engine log had what looked like a very thorough entry detailing the engine parts used. I didn't know I needed a AD list showing compliance for every part. So when FSDO ask for the list I could not produce it. this is where things went awry. I didn't think it was mandatory and told him I thought as an experimental I didn't need it. Next he is telling yes it is mandatory and I also need the STC paperwork to show authorization for the piston change and data plate change. I was floored and asked to see where that is written. He didn't know, so he's researching it.

My original DAR wanted the AD compliance documentation with a Subaru engine. I did the search and came up with zero applicable AD's, signed a piece of paper to that affect and he was satisfied.

Do likewise specifying the model number of the experimental engine in the search, sign a piece of paper indicating the search was done and no applicable AD's were found. All AD's apply to specific engines. If your engine is not on the list, so be it. If it is a 0360A4M and has that data plate, you must comply to maintain that data plate.

The whole process is a paper work exercise and CYA....same issue with the Vans altimeter. He wanted documentation that it was tested by someone even though it is not certified. The data sheet that came with it filled that square although I had a tough time locating it.

(The CYA story on that issue had to do with some local yahoo wandering into Class B airspace with an altimeter way off and the DAR who approved the machine was called on the carpet for doing so without proper altimeter documentation.)

The feds don't want to do a rug dance in front of a superior anymore than anyone else. Sometimes they go about their business with a sledge hammer, but that's what's behind most of this stuff.

 

[nucleus]

Leo? that's the same guy. he said he'd wave his travel mileage fee since I'm close and he has done quite a few inspections for my hangar mate.

Might need a chase plane, but not even sure when things will happen at this point. for some reason I thought you moved south, glad to hear your still around. Brian

Yeah, Leo, that was him. You know that Noel tried to be the DAR and we didn't have one around here for a few years until Leo retired. I think they denied Noel so Leo could have it. Yes, I almost moved back to Puerto Rico this summer.

Hans

 

[jnorris]

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

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?

The person who said the engine is "still certified" is incorrect. Any engine operated on an airframe under the authority of an experimental airworthiness certificate is an experimental engine regardless of what the data plate says. While there is no specific document that states this in plain English it is not hard to understand. Here's the reasoning behind it.

Aircraft maintenance (including maintenance of all installed components) is covered by 14 CFR Part 43, which starts out with 43.1, Applicability. Section (b)(1) of this regulation is pertinent to this discussion. It says;

(b) This part does not apply to?

(1) 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;

Since our amateur-built aircraft have never held any type of airworthiness certificate other than experimental, this section tells us the the whole of Part 43 does not apply. This means that, except as called out in the operating limitations issued to the individual aircraft by the FAA (in this case, the condition inspection requirements) anyone can perform maintenance, repair or alterations on these aircraft, regardless of that persons certification (or lack of same) by the FAA. You do not need to be an A&P mechanic, you do not need to be the builder, you do not need to hold an FAA certificate of any kind.

Further, the requirements called out in Part 43 regarding logging of maintenance do not apply either, so (again other than as required by the operating limitations) no maintenance is required to be logged. (Best practices suggest proper maintenance records, but the regulations do not require same.)

So, if you have an engine that can be maintained and repaired by people who are not required to hold an FAA certificate, and that maintenance or repair is not required to be recorded in the aircraft records, how can the engine possibly maintain its "certified" status? Even if the logs appear to show that all maintenance was carried out in accordance with part 43 there's no way to prove that it has. So even if you WANT to keep the engine "certified" you can't do it. Part 43 doesn't apply, so any guarantees provided by part 43 don't apply either. The engine is experimental no matter what.

With all this in mind, how can it be unacceptable to change the data plate? Or to make modifications as desired? How can an STC apply to a component that is not in compliance with a type certificate to begin with???

The bottom line; These inspectors are all wet. The engine is experimental and that's that.

 

[az_gila]

But, but....

The person who said the engine is "still certified" is incorrect. Any engine operated on an airframe under the authority of an experimental airworthiness certificate is an experimental engine regardless of what the data plate says. While there is no specific document that states this in plain English it is not hard to understand. Here's the reasoning behind it.

Aircraft maintenance (including maintenance of all installed components) is covered by 14 CFR Part 43, which starts out with 43.1, Applicability. Section (b)(1) of this regulation is pertinent to this discussion. It says;

(b) This part does not apply to—

(1) 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;

Since our amateur-built aircraft have never held any type of airworthiness certificate other than experimental, this section tells us the the whole of Part 43 does not apply. This means that, except as called out in the operating limitations issued to the individual aircraft by the FAA (in this case, the condition inspection requirements) anyone can perform maintenance, repair or alterations on these aircraft, regardless of that persons certification (or lack of same) by the FAA. You do not need to be an A&P mechanic, you do not need to be the builder, you do not need to hold an FAA certificate of any kind.

Further, the requirements called out in Part 43 regarding logging of maintenance do not apply either, so (again other than as required by the operating limitations) no maintenance is required to be logged. (Best practices suggest proper maintenance records, but the regulations do not require same.)

So, if you have an engine that can be maintained and repaired by people who are not required to hold an FAA certificate, and that maintenance or repair is not required to be recorded in the aircraft records, how can the engine possibly maintain its "certified" status? Even if the logs appear to show that all maintenance was carried out in accordance with part 43 there's no way to prove that it has. So even if you WANT to keep the engine "certified" you can't do it. Part 43 doesn't apply, so any guarantees provided by part 43 don't apply either. The engine is experimental no matter what.

With all this in mind, how can it be unacceptable to change the data plate? Or to make modifications as desired? How can an STC apply to a component that is not in compliance with a type certificate to begin with???

The bottom line; These inspectors are all wet. The engine is experimental and that's that.

It is possible for the FAA to issue an AD on an Experimental aircraft. The applicability section of the AD will state what is covered.

My Mini-Nimbus sailplane (Experimental - Exhibition and Racing) had this AD issued in 1999

99-03-01 SCHEMPP-HIRTH K.G.: Amendment 39-11013; Docket No. 98-CE-52-AD.
Applicability: The following sailplane models and serial numbers, certificated in any category:

So, perhaps an AD search may be applicable, even for parts/equipment installed on Experimental aircraft.

It depends on what the AD says - and what the FAA puts in the Applicability section of future ADs - even if the engine/equipment is now considered Experimental.

 

[Daver]

who to believe...?

The bottom line; These inspectors are all wet. The engine is experimental and that's that.

Well then that settles it! Who am I gonna believe?

An official from the FAA (FSDO) who issued my airworthyness certificate...

OR

something posted on the internet...

Dave
-9A flying

 

[Sam Buchanan]

The bottom line; These inspectors are all wet. The engine is experimental and that's that.

Well then that settles it! Who am I gonna believe?

An official from the FAA (FSDO) who issued my airworthyness certificate...

OR

something posted on the internet...

Dave
-9A flying

Dave, a healthy dose of skepticism is definitely in order when reading stuff "on the internet".

You may not be aware that Joe Norris is the EAA's Homebuilt Community Manager:

http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/articles/2009-01_about_joe.asp

Me thinks Joe has a pretty good handle on most things related to our little experimental planes.

 

[Toobuilder]

something posted on the internet...:rolleyes:

Dave
-9A flying[/QUOTE]

If it came from Joe, that is plenty credible for me.  Check who you're :rolleyes: next time!

 

[Cleco 97]

AD lists can be found on the FAA.gov website. Search AD's then search the regulatory library for appliances and then search Textron Lycoming, select your model ie. I0-360 B1B, then you will see all applicable AD's for that model. Obviously I'm confused as others why he had problems with it. To my understanding, even if it was certified at one time and you say it is now experimental you do not have to c/w AD's, however, I think it would still be a good idea. One wonders that if you would have "lost' the yellow tags if the engine would now be experimental.

 

[Toobuilder]

...and then search Textron Lycoming, select your model ie. I0-360 B1B, then you will see all applicable AD's for that model...

See, that's part of the problem! What model is his engine? Lycoming changes models based upon almost anything. He has different pistons, cam, sump and FI unit. Each one of those would drive a new model if it was a factory Lyc - so what model does he have? no one can say, not even the Feds.

 

[Daver]

sorry...

Sorry if I offended anyone.

I'm sure Joe, like alot of others here know tons more about this stuff than I do.

But Joe was not the guy from the FAA in my hangar inspecting my plane, writing my op lims or advising me on all things experimental.

There's an unbelievable amount of knowledge out there but some of the stuff turned out to be not so correct (in my case anyway).

So, I'll continue to read and learn all I can from whatever source but have a healthy skepticism for all of it.

After 4 years of building sometimes I'm amazed at how much i've learned and how little I know

Dave
-9A flying

 

[David Paule]

See, that's part of the problem! What model is his engine? Lycoming changes models based upon almost anything. He has different pistons, cam, sump and FI unit. Each one of those would drive a new model if it was a factory Lyc - so what model does he have? no one can say, not even the Feds.

If he's mixed and matched it to the point that there is no certified Lycoming engine that is the exact same configuration, it's not a certified engine and the plate ought to reflect the actual manufacturer and model.

But there might be ADs that apply to some of the parts used since they were Lycoming parts.

 

[andyrv]

This is a one time inspection

Do you think he would accept it if you print off the list of ADs for the engine as described on the data plate and show compliance?

 

[az_gila]

And some of those ADs even make sense...

Do you think he would accept it if you print off the list of ADs for the engine as described on the data plate and show compliance?

...for an Experimental engine, such as --

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulator...9c1f8dbd862574820055a36d/$FILE/2008-14-07.pdf

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulator...67298E50DC131AB38625684D006344E0?OpenDocument

 

[Flying Scotsman]

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.

Just picking up the thread again...and my curiousity is piqued.

What happened with these two items?

Is there a requirement for *either* in the FARs?

The "EXPERIMENTAL" placard has to be "near each entrance to the cabin, cockpit, or pilot station", not "visible at all times". And I'm not sure, but I don't recall a placard on any static ports I've ever seen on light aircraft.

 

[Toobuilder]

And some of those ADs even make sense...for an Experimental engine...

Be careful that we don't cloud the issue. This is a mater of legality, not practicality. I don't think anyone is going to "hide" behind the experimental issue and fly with bad parts, but we do have reel in the feds when they step out of bounds, as in this case.

 

[hydroguy2]

current status is:

I'm supposed to meet with FSDO later today. I have a AD list for my engine and show how they were addressed. I also have some paperwork from Joe N, EAA homebuilder guru, which shows the applicable FAR's and FAA interpretations of them.

On the "Experimental" placard, the inspector has already allowed it's placement on the rollbar. He just doesn't like it.

The engine data plate is staying the way it is. I have the paperwork now to prove my case.

The "Static port" labeling, we will be discussing today, but I figure the easiest thing to do is put a simple sticker label on it and move on. If during the phase 1 testing said label happens to peel off from the high speed tests, oh well.

And to sum it up, I never intended to not address any AD's. When my engine was built, I specifically asked about New vs old parts, AD's, yellow tags, etc. In addition to my engine builder supplying a great product with correct documentation, I had an A&P look over my engine installation and the engine logbook. I was completely satisfied that I was ready for inspection from a paperwork and assembly standpoint. While the inspector may have found something that needed attention, I never expected it would be a paperwork item that caused my plane to be unairworthy.

Special thanks to Joe Norris from EAA for all the ammo...I mean information for my meeting later today. Also, John at Stendec Systems for the grreat engine and paperwork help.

 

[az_gila]

A builder might do....

Be careful that we don't cloud the issue. This is a mater of legality, not practicality. I don't think anyone is going to "hide" behind the experimental issue and fly with bad parts, but we do have reel in the feds when they step out of bounds, as in this case.

...just that if they don't check the ADs....

 

[Flying Scotsman]

Just picking up the thread again...and my curiousity is piqued.

What happened with these two items?

Is there a requirement for *either* in the FARs?

The "EXPERIMENTAL" placard has to be "near each entrance to the cabin, cockpit, or pilot station", not "visible at all times". And I'm not sure, but I don't recall a placard on any static ports I've ever seen on light aircraft.

No answer to the question yet?

I'm asking to poke a bit at why we see things like inspectors requiring things that clearly aren't in the regulations (red paint on fuel caps? placards that aren't required?).

I don't mind someone requiring a fix that is a flight safety issue, obviously. I do mind people making up new rules on the fly (pun intended).

 

[yakdriver]

My engine is built out of Lycoming and ECI parts. It has a data plate that says C1B but almost everything is different. Forward M sump, counterweight crank, ECI cylinders and pistons etc. My DAR just passed it as an experimental engine and gave me my 40hr fly off. I can have my FISDO do the inspection on my Backcountry Super Cub but I'm going to opt to pay a DAR. I have a friend that is going through a nightmare on his N3N. The feds won't give it an airworthiness because he doesn't have the exact paperwork for a few mods that are done routinely on Ns and they absolutely won't do any field approvals even though the Fed inspector has no problem with what has been done. This has been going on for over a year. Don

 

[erich weaver]

I have a copy of a 2003 FAA Regional Council memorandum stating their position on the applicability of ADs to amateur built aircraft. I would like to post it here for information purposes, as their stated position is very different from the interpretation of the regs provided by many in this thread.

I have the memo in the form of three jpg files - one per page. It is difficult for me to post these here from my work computer due to internet restrictions. If someone could help me out and do it for me, I will email the files to them for posting. It will be interesting to see the reaction to the memo.

erich

 

[mahlon_r]

Recently brought to my attention is this advisory circular from the FAA on AD notes:

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/ea051001b2ce246e862569b500508099/$FILE/AC39-7C.pdf

See paragraph 8

Good Luck,
Mahlon

 

[Toobuilder]

I have a copy of a 2003 FAA Regional Council memorandum stating their position on the applicability of ADs to amateur built aircraft...

We've all seen that one Eric, and while it seems explicit, there are other, later documents from the very same FAA that contradict this guidance. The bottom line is that the Feds are talking out of both sides of their mouth and enforcing action at their whim. The main fight here has nothing to do with airworthiness - it has to do with legality. Period. And that is why the EAA keeps asking questions the feds can't answer.

Without answers, there can be no "rule".

 

[Danny7]

current status is:

I'm supposed to meet with FSDO later today.
...I mean information for my meeting later today.

eagerly waiting to hear how it goes, hope everything gets resolved

 

[hydroguy2]

Recently brought to my attention is this advisory circular from the FAA on AD notes:.......See paragraph 8.....

Here is chapter 8 from AC 39
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.

Below is some info that may help explain things on why the above doesn't apply .
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. Tthe 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.?

Also got this info from EAA:
Does this mean you can ignore AD?s?
No! There is an airworthiness standard for experimental amateur-built aircraft: ?The aircraft must be in a condition for safe operation.?
It is reasonable to make the judgment, if the owner of an experimental aircraft did not address an AD issued against a component installed on his aircraft, it could be considered unairworthy. A pilot who operated such an aircraft could be considered in violation of FAR?s 91.13(a)7 and 91.319(b)8. Notice that the term ?address? was used, not ?complied with? when referring to an AD on a component used on an experimental amateur-built aircraft. As was stated previously, there is no type design to comply with on an experimental amateur-built aircraft, therefore one can not ?comply? with the type design.

SO I have presented a AD list for parts used in my engine and how I addressed them. Just got off the phone with FSDO, but he is satisfied with everything I've done. No need for a meeting today and will have my Cert of Airworthiness ready for me to pick up on Wednesday.

Fingers crossed.

 

[Danny7]

SO I have presented a AD list for parts used in my engine and how I addressed them. Just got off the phone with FSDO, but he is satisfied with everything I've done. No need for a meeting today and will have my Cert of Airworthiness ready for me to pick up on Wednesday.

Fingers crossed.

Sweet! thats great news, just a couple more days and you'll be legal for the first flight

 

[jnorris]

I have a copy of a 2003 FAA Regional Council memorandum stating their position on the applicability of ADs to amateur built aircraft.

Erich,

That memorandum was issued by a regional legal council out of the northeast. It is NOT national policy (although some FAA inspectors treat it as if it were). Do not assume that that memorandum speaks for FAA legal at the national level.

 

[Mel]

Congratulations Brian. You handled the situation very well.

This can be a real problem at many FSDOs.

 

[jnorris]

Just got off the phone with FSDO, he is satisfied with everything I've done. No need for a meeting today and will have my Cert of Airworthiness ready for me to pick up on Wednesday.

Great news! Glad to hear that you've finally made it over the hurdle. Good luck with your test flight program. Enjoy your new plane SAFELY!!

 

[hydroguy2]

Joe, again thank you for the help. I didn't really do anything different now, than before the inspection. But with your memo I was able to understand the rules and satisfy the FSDO, even though he was using the wrong interpretation.

The hard line he took on the AD's spilled over and clouded his judgement on other items. Which he has since backed down from.

I'm still learning.
Thanks again Joe and everyone else.

ps...still keeping my fingers crossed for wednesday

 

[Toobuilder]

Great news Brian!

...and thank you for your part in "educating" the FAA.

 

[hydroguy2]

It ain't over.

Apparently I spoke too soon. FSDO guy is coming out again tomorrow, says I need to redo my application. Also he wants to check the static port labeling and engine dataplate and ???whatever else he can think of.

 

[yakdriver]

Static port labeling?

 

[hydroguy2]

Static port labeling?

that's exactly what I said, but anytime I question something, it gets ugly. Tomorrow I'm asking for, in writing, what all I need to do to meet his requirements. I hate trying to hit a moving target.

 

[Sam Buchanan]

that's exactly what I said, but anytime I question something, it gets ugly. Tomorrow I'm asking for, in writing, what all I need to do to meet his requirements. I hate trying to hit a moving target.

Yep, sounds like this has gotten personal now.

Mel or Joe, what are our options for "firing" an inspector once the process has begun?

 

[Flying Scotsman]

that's exactly what I said, but anytime I question something, it gets ugly. Tomorrow I'm asking for, in writing, what all I need to do to meet his requirements. I hate trying to hit a moving target.

I got to thinking about this...perhaps if you have static ports that are the Van's recommended pop rivets, this might make sense, because they wouldn't necessarily *appear* to be static ports, and hence might get waxed. Thus, the rationale for a label "Static Port - Do Not Wax" might make sense.

Is that the case?

 

[boom3]

Sounds like you are very close. I'd just label the static ports and whatever else he asks for. (Within reason)

Even thought this Airworthiness thing is a PITA it's nothing compared to the fuel tanks, canopy, or baffling. You'll be flying before you know it.

 

[yakdriver]

I got to thinking about this...perhaps if you have static ports that are the Van's recommended pop rivets, this might make sense, because they wouldn't necessarily *appear* to be static ports, and hence might get waxed. Thus, the rationale for a label "Static Port - Do Not Wax" might make sense.

Is that the case?

Tell me. How many GA airplanes have the static ports labeled. Not very many.
This guy is just another Fed who knows he can do anything he wants and all you can do is take it. Brian, after you get you AW I would write a letter to the district manager and the head of the FAA. Don

 

[DanH]

This guy is just another Fed who knows he can do anything he wants and all you can do is take it.

Same guy inspected this one:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/shanair/4288246965/

 

[krwalsh]

Static Port Labels

So, he'd like it to say "Static Port" over the top of it?

What about underneath? Would something like:

"This port sucks more than the FAA Inspector"
or
"FAA male appendage go/no-go gauge"

be appropriate?

 

[apkp777]

So, he'd like it to say "Static Port" over the top of it?

What about underneath? Would something like:

"This port sucks more than the FAA Inspector"
or
"FAA male appendage go/no-go gauge"

be appropriate?

LOL!!! Now that's funny

 

[Mel]

Mel or Joe, what are our options for "firing" an inspector once the process has begun?

Once you have given the inspector a signed application (8130-6) he must either issue or deny the certificate. If this is a DAR, you are required to pay the fee either way. If the certificate is denied, you are free to find another inspector, but he will be aware of the reason for denial. You will either have to convince him that the problem is invalid or has been taken care of.

 

[hydroguy2]

Thanks Mel.

I am getting everything in writing tomorrow. I'll either have a AW or a written reason why not.

Also I looked at my engine dataplate. Across the top it says: EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT ENGINE

but it also lists,
manufacturer: Textron Lycoming
model: IO-360-B1X

So I'm anticipating that he will have a problem with that. How are other people labeling their engines when mods have been made?

 

[hydroguy2]

Once you have given the inspector a signed application (8130-6) he must either issue or deny the certificate. ........

Mel, he told me today my application needs to be redone. So would this be a good time to ask for all my paperwork back....ie: no application=no denial. I would be free to move about the country.