RAF down 2 dead

[hillberg]

If you look into the operating limitations of Experimental aircraft you will see it say something to the effect of that on a condition inspection the sign off is done using AC43 app D or if available a kit manufacturers maintenance checklist. If time life items are identified in there an A&P would have to follow those to sign it off.

On second thought if you mean to reference life limited helicopter rotors being used on an experimental AB machine after their life limit expires. I honestly don't know the answer to that. My guess is if a DAR knew he would not issue you the airworthiness cert in the first place. On an annual unless the builder has a maintenance manual that identifies a life limit the annual would be signed off by an A&P. My best guess.

A DAR does not determine airworthiness, that comes with your paper work you provide, A three view drawing, Affidavit of construction, Application of airworthiness registration that weight and balance -the logbooks with the first sign off that it is in flyable condition and the engine was run up, His inspection deals with the presentation of your paperwork that's suppose to match what is shown sitting what is sitting in your hangar/garage, You are supposed to have it in a flyable condition He's just looking at his legal requirements for the paper trail and markings per his FARs-

You can have a flying box of jello with blades made of noodles as long as the required paper work is good you can get a certificate...per FAA legal.

 

[Abid]

call Riverside FSDO you are wrong as usual each AD had a preamble applicability, a body along with an impact statement.

each one has it's bite,

Riverside FSDO does not make national policy. It is supposed to follow national policy. The national policy from AIR 300 is in the FAA AC I cited.
It clearly states that the applicability of the AD is listed within the AD. If it has broad applicability it will be listed as such. You don't have to go outside the AD to find its applicability.

 

[Abid]

A DAR does not determine airworthiness, that comes with your paper work you provide, A three view drawing, Affidavit of construction, Application of airworthiness registration that weight and balance -the logbooks with the first sign off that it is in flyable condition and the engine was run up, His inspection deals with the presentation of your paperwork that's suppose to match what is shown sitting what is sitting in your hangar/garage, You are supposed to have it in a flyable condition He's just looking at his legal requirements for the paper trail and markings per his FARs-

You can have a flying box of jello with blades made of noodles as long as the required paper work is good you can get a certificate...per FAA legal.

True and I that is why I said, I don't know. My answer was a guess but what I do know and has been taken to task is what I answered about AD's applicability. Your FSDO's stance if counter to that would be against established precedence and FAA's own AC and would be overridden if taken to task.

 

[hillberg]

Riverside FSDO does not make national policy. It is supposed to follow national policy. The national policy from AIR 300 is in the FAA AC I cited.
It clearly states that the applicability of the AD is listed within the AD. If it has broad applicability it will be listed as such. You don't have to go outside the AD to find its applicability.

wrong again Fara, Each FSDO is 'individually owned and operated' like a McDonalds franchise , from national to regional to districts / local jurisdictions.

all FSDOs interpret the FAR differently and until the legal dept. gets into it you can FSDO shop for what you need. Advisory circular as said before are NOT
the rulings or regulation.

(add some 8100 numbers if you want some real bites)

PS ADs are part of congress register .and as you said the body of the AD will state applicability if it says all certified aircraft you're hit if the states an airframe they're hit as listed.

 

[JEFF TIPTON]

AC 39-7D - Airworthiness Directives

AC 39-7D - Airworthiness Directives

Short reading on AD's.

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%2039-7D.pdf

 

[Abid]

Short reading on AD's.

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%2039-7D.pdf

That's the same Advisory Circular I cited Jeff. Its clear what it says and the FSDO's can't go making their own interpretations. They do but when it gets taken up they have to go with what lawyers in the center say and that is usually the national policy. FSDO are not state they are federal employees.

 

[hillberg]

Short reading on AD's.

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%2039-7D.pdf

try again this AC is for OWNERS AND OPERATORS of aircraft & AD compliance.

Thank you for playing,

try "General Orders" 8901 and follow the trail of numbers down down down into the darkness of the FAAs abyss.

If you ever want an alternant form compliance of an AD the FSDO is where you go.

If you get hammered with an LOI you go to region

If you want helicopter stuff you go to Fort Worth Texas

If you want fixed wing you go to Oklahoma City Oklahoma

If you want power plant stuff? New York? or Conneticut???? eh where ever.....

If you want coffee ? beats me I don't drink the stuff.

 

[Abid]

Hillberg, sir you are confusing this issue.

Please again read EAA's article from a long time ago that I had already posted (attached). See FAA findings report on AD applicability on Experimental aircraft within it.

Then in 2012 AIR 300 finally clarified their national policy via their lawyers interpretation in the AC.

The interpretation is clear and without doubt and applies to AD applicability not to persons.

 

[hillberg]

I deal with AD applicability and compliance and have a great relationship with my FSDOs.
I have no confusion, my CFRs and other documentation is current approved.

Advisory Circulars carry no rulemaking or regulatory weight.

they are guidelines only, EAA? try FAA. (2012? a little out of currency isn't it?)

 

[Abid]

I deal with AD applicability and compliance and have a great relationship with my FSDOs.
I have no confusion, my CFRs and other documentation is current approved.

Advisory Circulars carry no rulemaking or regulatory weight.

they are guidelines only, EAA? try FAA. (2012? a little out of currency isn't it?)

AC's are clarification on policy and interpretations of regulations.

2012 is not out of date. This AC replaced one from 1995 on the same subject and is the most current on the subject. Your FSDO should definitely read it and understand it because other interpretations will not be supported by national if someone took them to task.

 

[gyroplanes]

I hate jumping in here, but I think I can, hopefully, add to the understanding.

Fara, you have often referred to the AC43 checklist when the checklist is not from an Advisory Circular. The checklist is appendix D to FAR (CFR) 43. The checklist is not advisory, it is mandatory........ used in scope and detail.

The FAA states you can use the checklist, or any approved checklist for the condition inspection. Cessna, Piper, Bell, OR YOU, the EAB manufacturer, can approve a checklist, as long as it meets the scope & detail of FAR 43 Appendix d.

The EAB folks at FAA are adamant (in the interest of safety) that ADs apply to EAB aircraft components and appliances IF the item has a data plate. Without a data plate, a Bendix magneto is no longer a Bendix magneto.
To discourage removal of data plates, there is an FAR that states something like only the administrator can remove data plates.

Manuals for airframes, engines, and accessories (with instructions for continued airworthiness) are not required for EAB aircraft.......... except, recently, for turbine powered EABs.

I, personally, believe the above ruling is very wrong. Unless someone challenges this ruling, it stands. (and has lead to some FAA induced nightmares. I have seen them. (locally, 1 year to get a manual approved for an EAB aircraft).

The interpretation of regulations not only varies from FSDO to FSDO, but also within the FSDOs. Varying interpretations can also be found in "OKC" and D.C..
Virtually every recurrent training class I have ever attended has has seen disagreements among the FAA presenters. I am responsible for starting at least one of them at every class. I save it until the end because I know it will not be resolved. My question regards the no person may be carried aboard during phase one statement in the Operating Limitations issued for each EAB aircraft. The FAA presenters are always at odds over this limitation.

Bottom line is, who ever catches you doing something they don't like, will probably initiate an action against you. Then it becomes your job to fight or flight up the FAA chain of command.

 

[hillberg]

ACs carry no weight , Rules and Orders do. Get your certification and hit some refresher courses.

FSDO policy and orders control their function
ACs are for owner operators and are advisory in function they are not Regulatory.
ADs, Orders FARs carry the weight of law, and are updated regularly.
guide lines and policy take a back seat to FAA-IR-M-8040-1 MANUAL.

 

[hillberg]

I hate jumping in here, but I think I can, hopefully, add to the understanding.

Fara, you have often referred to the AC43 checklist when the checklist is not from an Advisory Circular. The checklist is appendix D to FAR (CFR) 43. The checklist is not advisory, it is mandatory........ used in scope and detail.

The FAA states you can use the checklist, or any approved checklist for the condition inspection. Cessna, Piper, Bell, OR YOU, the EAB manufacturer, can approve a checklist, as long as it meets the scope & detail of FAR 43 Appendix d.

The EAB folks at FAA are adamant (in the interest of safety) that ADs apply to EAB aircraft components and appliances IF the item has a data plate. Without a data plate, a Bendix magneto is no longer a Bendix magneto.
To discourage removal of data plates, there is an FAR that states something like only the administrator can remove data plates.

Manuals for airframes, engines, and accessories (with instructions for continued airworthiness) are not required for EAB aircraft.......... except, recently, for turbine powered EABs.

I, personally, believe this ruling is very wrong. Unless someone challenges this ruling, it stands for now. (and it has lead to some nightmares. I have seen them. (locally, 1 year to get a manual approved for an aircraft).

The interpretation of regulations not only varies from FSDO to FSDO, but also within the FSDOs. Varying interpretations can also be found in "OKC" and D.C.. Virtually every recurrency training class I have ever attended has has seen disagreements among the FAA presenters. I am responsible for at least one of them at every class and I save it until the end because I know it will not be resolved. My question regards the no person may be carried aboard during phase one statement in the Operating Limitations issued for each EAB aircraft.

you can remove a data plate and surrender it to the manufacture or Administrator/FAA to be remove from applicability listings and it takes approval and an act of got to legally attach one, replacement not so bad. and A-men on the FSDOs Van Nuys guys want a manual on everything, LA & Riverside are more lax

our last refresher was almost a riot as the subject came up about who pays for losses when an LOI is found out to be baseless and the mechanic is found innocent. the lost wages and $$$ as the FAA hashes things out as the mechs business goes south as the rumor mill grinds along -As time is $$$ FAA legal was caught with it's skirt down....or up?

 

[Abid]

I hate jumping in here, but I think I can, hopefully, add to the understanding.

Fara, you have often referred to the AC43 checklist when the checklist is not from an Advisory Circular. The checklist is appendix D to FAR (CFR) 43. The checklist is not advisory, it is mandatory........ used in scope and detail.

The FAA states you can use the checklist, or any approved checklist for the condition inspection. Cessna, Piper, Bell, OR YOU, the EAB manufacturer, can approve a checklist, as long as it meets the scope & detail of FAR 43 Appendix d.

The EAB folks at FAA are adamant (in the interest of safety) that ADs apply to EAB aircraft components and appliances IF the item has a data plate. Without a data plate, a Bendix magneto is no longer a Bendix magneto.
To discourage removal of data plates, there is an FAR that states something like only the administrator can remove data plates.

Manuals for airframes, engines, and accessories (with instructions for continued airworthiness) are not required for EAB aircraft.......... except, recently, for turbine powered EABs.

I, personally, believe the above ruling is very wrong. Unless someone challenges this ruling, it stands. (and has lead to some FAA induced nightmares. I have seen them. (locally, 1 year to get a manual approved for an EAB aircraft).

The interpretation of regulations not only varies from FSDO to FSDO, but also within the FSDOs. Varying interpretations can also be found in "OKC" and D.C..
Virtually every recurrent training class I have ever attended has has seen disagreements among the FAA presenters. I am responsible for starting at least one of them at every class. I save it until the end because I know it will not be resolved. My question regards the no person may be carried aboard during phase one statement in the Operating Limitations issued for each EAB aircraft. The FAA presenters are always at odds over this limitation.

Bottom line is, who ever catches you doing something they don't like, will probably initiate an action against you. Then it becomes your job to fight or flight up the FAA chain of command.

Hi Tom:
I know FSDOs and MIDOs all disagree. Actually each person or ASI has different ideas but the bottomline is EAA members have brought this down to lawyers at the center and that is how AIR 300 under threat of lawsuit basically came up with essentially what they released in that AC.
The FSDOs can tell you what they want but in the end if you did not like to do what they said, it will end up with lawyers at the center and they are the only ones who will again clarify.

Again this is academic because AD's are important and should be paid attention to by anyone who is using an engine oe something else they apply to in the interest of safety.

The thing about Phase I and a second pilot ... I have had personal experience with that and in the end FAA had to agree with our position in that instance.

 

[PW_Plack]

On second thought if you mean to reference life limited helicopter rotors being used on an experimental AB machine after their life limit expires...My guess is if a DAR knew he would not issue you the airworthiness cert in the first place.

If the machine is flown as an ultralight and not registered, it's not an issue.

If the blades are put on after an airworthiness inspection, it would be a major alteration and trigger a new Phase I for at least five hours.

If the machine is a newly-built experimental, and the builder, who is the manufacturer, has determined the run-out Hughes blades are still adequate for the lighter loads put on them by a gyro, I don't know what basis there would be for refusing a certificate.

Then again, we have a local DAR who insists every experimental gyro he inspects have a magnetic compass to pass, which is not supported by anything in the FAR. So I guess there's some leeway to include personal preferences.

 

[hillberg]

It's part of minimum required flight instraments to fly in air spaces above class G

the ultra light bunch here has cool pods for this issue at a towered field.

 

[PW_Plack]

It's part of minimum required flight instraments to fly in air spaces above class G...

Don, got a reference for that one?

 

[hillberg]

It deals with type of operations in Pt 91 I'll go look it's been a while.

I know it's altitude, heading, and oil pressure and a tach. I'll be right back. . . .91.319-d,2 operation vfr. rather vague....

 

[Kolibri]

the components of fraud

the components of fraud

"In my opinion, Brupbacher's "certification" was knowingly and willfully fraudulent"

It's highly unlikely that this CFI would ever see this or act on it but I'd be very careful making this kind of accusation.

TJMay, have a look at this:

Fraud is an act of deliberate deception with a design to secure something, which is otherwise not due. The expression “fraud” involves two elements, deceit and injury to the person deceived. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false.

I continue to maintain that Brupbacher's "certification" was at minimum made "recklessly, careless whether it be true or false".
As gyroplanes wrote (my emphasis in bold):

The checklist is not advisory, it is mandatory........ used in scope and detail.

The FAA states you can use the checklist, or any approved checklist for the condition inspection. Cessna, Piper, Bell, OR YOU, the EAB manufacturer, can approve a checklist, as long as it meets the scope & detail of FAR 43 Appendix d.

Below is that checklist.
Does anyone here actually believe that such was adhered to in May 2014 for N5002E by Fritts and Brupbacher?

I believe there is a clear case to be made for fraud.
"Rubber stamp" is too kind for what happened.

Kolibri

FAR 43 - Appendix D
Scope and Detail of Items to be Included in Annual and 100 Hour Inspections

(a) Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall, before that inspection, remove or open all necessary inspection plates, access doors, fairing, and cowling. He shall thoroughly clean the aircraft and aircraft engine.

(b) Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall inspect (where applicable) the following components of the fuselage and hull group:

(1) Fabric and skin—for deterioration, distortion, other evidence of failure, and defective or insecure attachment of fittings.
(2) Systems and components—for improper installation, apparent defects, and unsatisfactory operation.
(3) Envelope, gas bags, ballast tanks, and related parts—for poor condition.​

(c) Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall inspect (where applicable) the following components of the cabin and cockpit group:

(1) Generally—for uncleanliness and loose equipment that might foul the controls.
(2) Seats and safety belts—for poor condition and apparent defects.
(3) Windows and windshields—for deterioration and breakage.
(4) Instruments—for poor condition, mounting, marking, and (where practicable) improper operation.
(5) Flight and engine controls—for improper installation and improper operation.
(6) Batteries—for improper installation and improper charge.
(7) All systems—for improper installation, poor general condition, apparent and obvious defects, and insecurity of attachment.​

(d) Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall inspect (where applicable) components of the engine and nacelle group as follows:

(1) Engine section—for visual evidence of excessive oil, fuel, or hydraulic leaks, and sources of such leaks.
(2) Studs and nuts—for improper torquing and obvious defects.
(3) Internal engine—for cylinder compression and for metal particles or foreign matter on screens and sump drain plugs. If there is weak cylinder compression, for improper internal condition and improper internal tolerances.
(4) Engine mount—for cracks, looseness of mounting, and looseness of engine to mount.
(5) Flexible vibration dampeners—for poor condition and deterioration.
(6) Engine controls—for defects, improper travel, and improper safetying.
(7) Lines, hoses, and clamps—for leaks, improper condition and looseness.
(8) Exhaust stacks—for cracks, defects, and improper attachment.
(9) Accessories—for apparent defects in security of mounting.
(10) All systems—for improper installation, poor general condition, defects, and insecure attachment.
(11) Cowling—for cracks, and defects.​

(e) Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall inspect (where applicable) the following components of the landing gear group:

(1) All units—for poor condition and insecurity of attachment.
(2) Shock absorbing devices—for improper oleo fluid level.
(3) Linkages, trusses, and members—for undue or excessive wear fatigue, and distortion.
(4) Retracting and locking mechanism—for improper operation.
(5) Hydraulic lines—for leakage.
(6) Electrical system—for chafing and improper operation of switches.
(7) Wheels—for cracks, defects, and condition of bearings.
(8) Tires—for wear and cuts.
(9) Brakes—for improper adjustment.
(10) Floats and skis—for insecure attachment and obvious or apparent defects.​

(f) Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall inspect (where applicable) all components of the wing and center section assembly for poor general condition, fabric or skin deterioration, distortion, evidence of failure, and insecurity of attachment.

(g) Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall inspect (where applicable) all components and systems that make up the complete empennage assembly for poor general condition, fabric or skin deterioration, distortion, evidence of failure, insecure attachment, improper component installation, and improper component operation.

(h) Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall inspect (where applicable) the following components of the propeller group:

(1) Propeller assembly—for cracks, nicks, binds, and oil leakage.
(2) Bolts—for improper torquing and lack of safetying.
(3) Anti-icing devices—for improper operations and obvious defects.
(4) Control mechanisms—for improper operation, insecure mounting, and restricted travel.​

(i) Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall inspect (where applicable) the following components of the radio group:

(1) Radio and electronic equipment—for improper installation and insecure mounting.
(2) Wiring and conduits—for improper routing, insecure mounting, and obvious defects.
(3) Bonding and shielding—for improper installation and poor condition.
(4) Antenna including trailing antenna—for poor condition, insecure mounting, and improper operation.​

(j) Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall inspect (where applicable) each installed miscellaneous item that is not otherwise covered by this listing for improper installation and improper operation.

 

[Kolibri]

answers for Eben Mocke, Jnr.

answers for Eben Mocke, Jnr.

Very Sad News.

Lets hope that the facts will bring some light to this situation.

I will try and make contact with Dofin to see if he provided training to the client and how much was done. I will also find out what this history of this RAF was and how it was maintained.

I will revert if we have any factual information.

Condolences to the Families involved.

Regards
Eben Mocke Jnr

So, Eben, have I shone enough "light to this situation"?
Do you now understand the "history of this RAF was and how it was maintained"?

Two people are dead, because of Fritts and Brupbacher.
Lousy/nonexistent RAF maintenance down at Brewton, AL seems pretty typical.


For example, here's the mast "bushing" Fritts had installed in my gyro:

Here is the condition of my hub bar upon 2014 delivery by Dofin Fritts:

So, Eben, do you feel that Fritts should continue to be an RAFSA "Authorized Person" and recommended CFI/agent?

Kolibri