RAF down 2 dead

[hillberg]

What the freaking hell.
Why are you blaming me. Blame the FAA. Those are their "REQUIREMENTS FOR EXPERIMENTALS", not mine.
I just know the rules and requirements for different types of aircraft better than you.

In the past I make compliant aircraft (SLSA and Type Certificated). In that world, the A&P better follow the checklist I wrote in the manual or they will be toast.

That is not the case for Experimental AB and that is NOT because of me. I am just the messenger. You should call up FAA and let them know what you think of their regulations for Experimentals.

No I am not an A&P. I have an IA working for me though and have managed and supervised more than a dozen A&P's on a production floor and trained them on how to make a certain aircraft on a certain production line.

Now how can I blame you? It was that BS signoff example posted by kolibri

But now you opened your mouth what do you have to hide? :noidea:
PS. I co-wrote the FAA book on the guide lines for experimental rotorcraft inspection criteria for use by DARs through the rotorcraft directorate texas.:lol:

 

[Vance]

My opinions on maintenance of experimental aircraft.

My opinions on maintenance of experimental aircraft.

I hesitate to step into this because I don’t want to get into a debate.

I am not trying to diminish anyone or make anyone wrong.

It seems like an important enough subject to take the egos out of it.

I have found value in documenting the work on The Predator and I have made an effort to learn the aviation way. Mark Givans is the factory and I don’t have a recommended maintenance schedule.

I try to be black and white; either it is airworthy or it isn’t. This is not always easy.

When the FAA inspects my log books at an air show they like to see all the entries.

When I have my annual condition inspection done at Costal Valley Aviation they invariably come up with a list of sqwacks that must be resolved before they will sign her off as airworthy. This becomes a part of my maintenance records.

As the pilot in command it is ultimately my responsibility to determine

Because our Lycoming IO-320 was a certified I have proof the Airworthiness Directives (ADs) have been complied with.

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.

In my opinion this forms a nice basis for inspecting and repairing experimental aircraft.

In my opinion even if the “manufacturer” doesn’t require something I should still inspect it.

In the case of experimentals it may be advisory rather than regulatory as long as the experimental aircraft is not used for compensation. There are people on both sides of that debate that I respect.

If I am going to fly in someone’s experimental gyroplane I want to see the log books and if they are not done in the aviation way I will have an A&P mechanic inspect it to part 43 appendix D before I will fly in it. The more experience I get the more important I feel this decision is.

I don’t have my log books in front of me so I may have quoted something incorrectly.

I am not suggesting that people who don’t do it this way are wrong. This is only how I feel about maintenance and log books.

 

[hillberg]

I hesitate to step into this because I don’t want to get into a debate.

I am not trying to diminish anyone or make anyone wrong.

It seems like an important enough subject to take the egos out of it.

I have found value in documenting the work on The Predator and I have made an effort to learn the aviation way. Mark Givans is the factory and I don’t have a recommended maintenance schedule.

I try to be black and white; either it is airworthy or it isn’t. This is not always easy.

When the FAA inspects my log books at an air show they like to see all the entries.

When I have my annual condition inspection done at Costal Valley Aviation they invariably come up with a list of sqwacks that must be resolved before they will sign her off as airworthy. This becomes a part of my maintenance records.

As the pilot in command it is ultimately my responsibility to determine

Because our Lycoming IO-320 was a certified I have proof the Airworthiness Directives (ADs) have been complied with.

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.

In my opinion this forms a nice basis for inspecting and repairing experimental aircraft.

In my opinion even if the “manufacturer” doesn’t require something I should still inspect it.

In the case of experimentals it may be advisory rather than regulatory as long as the experimental aircraft is not used for compensation. There are people on both sides of that debate that I respect.

If I am going to fly in someone’s experimental gyroplane I want to see the log books and if they are not done in the aviation way I will have an A&P mechanic inspect it to part 43 appendix D before I will fly in it. The more experience I get the more important I feel this decision is.

I don’t have my log books in front of me so I may have quoted something incorrectly.

I am not suggesting that people who don’t do it this way are wrong. This is only how I feel about maintenance and log books.

right or wrong have nothing to do with it- You do it well , It's what is required .

I've seen some poor examples even in standard category machines, the FAA sees the smoking hole and the paperwork and so do the lawyers, If your paper trail is well documented your ride is smooth a vague trail you will be eaten alive.

pozer can an A/P sign off a gear reduced certified power plant in an experimental's conditional inspection?

 

[Vance]

pozer can an A/P sign off a gear reduced certified power plant in an experimental's conditional inspection?

In my opinion a certified power plant should have compliance with all the ADs to be airworthy; even in an experimental aircraft.

I don't know the answer to your question Don.

 

[Abid]

This has nothing about Part 23/27 or even Part 43 . A certified mechanic responsibilities are listed in parts 63/65 and a load of other parts in the FARs and record keeping too.

34-13 is the very last list at his disposal and it doesn't supersede a manual if one is published even Rotax engines have manuals, The owner is responsible for the safe operation and maintenance of his machine, The mechanic is only authorized to sign for the work accomplished and DOES NOT RETURN THE AIRCRAFT TO SERVICE
Only a pilot is the authority to test and return signed aircraft to service.(also a separate signature)

If the rotors have a manual, engine has a manual, appliances with a manual(brakes carbs, etc,,,) they all are to be used before the 43-13 list, Now when you do an airworthiness inspection for 1st time registration the FSDO here reviews your manuals for continued airworthiness both airframe and power plant- that came out 5 years ago.

So the 43-13 route is a no go if the FSDO peeks into the process. And all sign offs have to reference to how the inspection was accomplished'

I too have a fancy stamp with those same words but the details can make or break you.

Note: when you buy a flying machine what one would you buy, one with a rich and detailed history or put your money down on a maintenance mystery machine?

You are right but when the manufacturer of the aircraft which in Experimental AB machine is the builder does not provide any manuals to the A&P then what.

The engine in the RAF is a Subaru. Which manual serves that engine for aircraft. None.
All I am saying is in this case that notation meets minimum legal requirement. Kilobiri seems to be very upset over someone named Dofin and RAF but when you buy a used Experimental aircraft the onus is on you to buy and verify maintenance.
And you are right if I bought an Experimental aircraft I would ask for and check all the filled out annual checklists filled out for that aircraft and if it was maintained by an A&P I may even want to talk to him/her for a few minutes.

 

[Abid]

right or wrong have nothing to do with it- You do it well , It's what is required .

I've seen some poor examples even in standard category machines, the FAA sees the smoking hole and the paperwork and so do the lawyers, If your paper trail is well documented your ride is smooth a vague trail you will be eaten alive.

pozer can an A/P sign off a gear reduced certified power plant in an experimental's conditional inspection?

In an Experimental AB a certified power plant that is modified with gear reduction not subject to mandatory AD. It's an Experimental and AD's are advisory but it would be foolish if any A&P to sign off an annual if he is aware of a mandatory AD against a power plant.

 

[Vance]

No correct answer.

No correct answer.

In an Experimental AB a certified power plant is not subject to mandatory AD. It's an Experimental and AD's are advisory but it would be foolish if any A&P to sign off an annual if he is aware of a mandatory AD against a power plant.

I went down this path at some length.

The engine in The Predator is a Lycoming IO-320 B1A. It was built to test some machining techniques and two of the cylinders are not certified. In other words it is an experimental engine too.

There are several ADs out on this engine and we felt it would be a good idea to comply with them all for safety.

I called the Van Nuys FSDO and they felt it was mandatory.

I called the FAA in Oklahoma and they felt it was mandatory.

I called the EAA and their expert felt it was not.

Someone suggested removing the data plate because that is what made the engine certified.

In the end I felt it was better to comply and all the information is in my maintenance records.

I don’t know if there has been an interpretation from FAA legal and without that I feel there is no correct answer.

 

[Abid]

Legal or not complying with ADs on your engine is a good idea but I can assure you on an Experimental engine like yours or the Subaru conversion etc. no AD is mandatory. Now if the engine had a Part 21 TC and was not changed in any way and not geared down etc. an AD will specify if it applies to all engines on TCed or non TC aircraft. If it says it applies to all engines within a serial number range regardless if it's on a TC or Non TCed aircraft then and only then the AD is mandatory on an experimental using that unchanged engine that is still TCed. RAF certainly doesn't come within 300 miles of anything or any component that is TCed. It's very important to note that unless the ADvspecificalky notes that it applies to non TCed aircraft, it is not mandatory for Experimental aircraft to comply with it.

 

[Vance]

Legal or not complying with ADs on your engine is a good idea but I can assure you on an Experimental engine like yours or the Subaru conversion etc. no AD is mandatory. Now if the engine had a Part 21 TC and was not changed in any way and not geared down etc. an AD will specify if it applies to all engines on TCed or non TC aircraft. If it says it applies to all engines within a serial number range regardless if it's on a TC or Non TCed aircraft then and only then the AD is mandatory on an experimental using that unchanged engine that is still TCed. RAF certainly doesn't come within 300 miles of anything or any component that is TCed.

It is my hope that most of the people on the Rotary Wing Forum will not try to win a dispute with the FAA based on your assurances Abid.

None of the ADs I have seen for our Lycoming IO-320 B1A make a distinction between certified and non certified engines.

I have described what I have learned and how.

It is probably best if people learn it for themselves.

In my opinion type certificates (TCs) have nothing to do with anything in the discussion.

 

[hillberg]

Legal or not complying with ADs on your engine is a good idea but I can assure you on an Experimental engine like yours or the Subaru conversion etc. no AD is mandatory. Now if the engine had a Part 21 TC and was not changed in any way and not geared down etc. an AD will specify if it applies to all engines on TCed or non TC aircraft. If it says it applies to all engines within a serial number range regardless if it's on a TC or Non TCed aircraft then and only then the AD is mandatory on an experimental using that unchanged engine that is still TCed. RAF certainly doesn't come within 300 miles of anything or any component that is TCed. It's very important to note that unless the ADvspecificalky notes that it applies to non TCed aircraft, it is not mandatory for Experimental aircraft to comply with it.

Subaru engines do have a manual even if it's not certified as an aircraft engine but as a mechanic it's data would be used for a basis for a sub powered machine just as International Harvester is used on Solar power plants as required for the turbine conversion for the Rotorway.

WRONG AGAIN, if an appliance, propeller power plant has a manufactures
data plate compliance with ADs are mandatory! crabs. brakes radios etc,

Vances engine is good to go even with the cylinders as they are documented
and ADs are complied with.

Read the body of the AD for the "Installed on all certificated aircraft" If that data plate is on the engine even if it's installed on an experimental it still applies.

Pozer answer NO an A/P mechanic is NOT authorized to sign off gear reduced power plants on any aircraft--That requires an IA.

 

[500e]

Don, you seem to be saying there are requirements for the A&P to keep such records, and that may be true. Otherwise you seem to be applying Part 23/27 assumptions to EAB, and I cannot find any support in the FAR for the notion they apply here.

As for ACs being advisory and not regulatory, if they're cited in a FAR as the checklist to use, the process they describe has become regulatory.

Your concerns are not without merit, but there's a reason every experimental with two or more seats is required to have a placard for passengers making clear they don't meet FAA regs for safety. And I suspect there are at least as many certificated aircraft flying with shoddy nod/wink inspections and rubber stamps as there are experimental's, or flying without inspections being current, because everything is more expensive to fix in the certificated world.

The story in this thread demonstrates that some amateurs are more careful than some A&Ps.

( My Bold)
There we go it has got to the state that no one quite knows without a legal eagle.
We don't work on non certified equipment but I agree with PW P regarding some AP IAs lack of diligence I can also see where others are coming from with experimental, but here I agree with Vance & his list, we use a list like that but it has a place for examining AP to initial every separate item this is kept with machine till it rolls out for flight check, then it is filed with copy to owner.

 

[WaspAir]

In my opinion a certified power plant should have compliance with all the ADs to be airworthy; even in an experimental aircraft.

I have wondered about this every time I hear the stories about people using run-out helicopter blades on their gyroplanes, and pondered whether a part that is known to have been red-tagged on a certified aircraft for exceeding a mandatory life limit could possibly pass condition inspection on an EAB.

 

[Abid]

Read

http://smittysrv.com/docs/airworthinessdirectivesandamateurbuildaircraft.doc

Read specially section 9 of this AC which states unless stated otherwise the AD applies to TCed aircraft only. This includes ADs for engine, propeller and appliance. This is FAA AIR-300 clarification for ADs applicability realeased in 2012.

http://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/advisory_circular/ac 39-7d.pdf

Beyond this the argument is academic. If there is an AD you should do something about it on your aircraft. Experimental or not. But regulations wise unless the AD specifically asks for compliance on Experimental aircraft the AD does not apply.

Wondering over. This is tested settled policy.

 

[WaspAir]

Except that an AD is not a life limit, so I'm still wondering.

 

[Kolibri]

let's not miss the real point . . .

let's not miss the real point . . .

Thanks for everyone's replies; interesting discussion.

_________
RAF has 25/50/100/200/500 hour inspection sheets.
The RAF Construction Manual has a full chapter with the Subaru EJ2.2 service manual.

It was "IAW" (in accordance with) those documents that Fritts allegedly serviced N5002E.

_________

thats right Fara, the work done was the inspection there wasn't any parts replaced or fixed,just the inspection,and it was entered as done. End of story.

eddie, it's difficult to believe that after sitting in a New Orleans area hangar unflown for 5 years, no parts needed to be replaced? C'mon.

No inspection of anything near the detail of 14 CFR Part 43, Appendix D to Part 43 was ever performed in May 2014 on N5002E. I've personally had a look at it, and no A&P or conscientious E-AB owner would have signed off on that lump of neglect.

I certify that this aircraft has been
inspected in accordance with the scope
and detail of App. D of part 43 and
found to be in condition for safe operation.

Bullsh*t.
In my opinion, Brupbacher's "certification" was knowingly and willfully fraudulent.

Clearly, what happened was that Mahler made the sale pending N5002E being serviced and returned to airworthiness. For that mere technicality, an ink pen in the hands of two unscrupulous and greedy people was the "magic wand". One of them is still a gyro CFI and official agent for RAFSA. I find that outrageous. If such a disgraceful man can hide behind E-AB's skirt, then his ilk will ruin it for the rest of us.

Regards, Kolibri

 

[eddie]

I never said that parts needed to be replaced or not,all I said was that it was logged as

an inspection,If that was one of the parts inspected then it looks like there is a problem

with the inspection/inspector,if he missed that piece.I really wouldn't run that on my

lawn mower.




Best regards,

 

[TJMay]

"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.

 

[Abid]

Except that an AD is not a life limit, so I'm still wondering.

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.

 

[hillberg]

Read

http://smittysrv.com/docs/airworthinessdirectivesandamateurbuildaircraft.doc

Read specially section 9 of this AC which states unless stated otherwise the AD applies to TCed aircraft only. This includes ADs for engine, propeller and appliance. This is FAA AIR-300 clarification for ADs applicability realeased in 2012.

http://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/advisory_circular/ac 39-7d.pdf

Beyond this the argument is academic. If there is an AD you should do something about it on your aircraft. Experimental or not. But regulations wise unless the AD specifically asks for compliance on Experimental aircraft the AD does not apply.

Wondering over. This is tested settled policy.

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,

 

[hillberg]

Except that an AD is not a life limit, so I'm still wondering.

It can be, seen the time life of parts reduced (Bell TT straps for one)
reading all the content of the AD is necessary and some are just a pain in the wrench.