What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Final word on AD's from the FAA

Probably worth moving this out of test. :)

Saw this in an EAA email today, as well...

Basically, seems to say, they don't apply to Experimentals, unless specifically called out that they do.

9. APPLICABILITY OF ADs. [...] Unless stated otherwise (see subparagraph 9b of this AC), ADs only apply to type-certificated (TC) aircraft, including ADs issued for an engine, propeller, and appliance.


b. Non-TC’d Aircraft and Products Installed Thereon. Non-TC’d aircraft (e.g., amateur-built aircraft, experimental exhibition) are aircraft for which the FAA has not issued a TC under part 21. The AD applicability statement will identify if the AD applies to non-TC’d aircraft or engines, propellers, and appliances installed thereon [...]

Seems to make sense to me.
 
Last edited:
ECi Cylinder AD

So will the FAA now come out and revise past AD's to specify whether or not they apply to experimentals. I'm wondering because I have 4 ECi Group B cylinders that I will need to replace in 50 hours using the warranty application process. Would ECi then reject it saying that this AD doesnt apply to experimental aircraft and if I want new cylinders, I can expect to pay full price?
 
Interesting and timely. This debate has raged for some time on this and other forums, and it is nice to finally have some official guidance. I'm afraid, however, that it will not quiet all debate on the subject. For example, as I read it, not a single AD issued from the dawn of time until today could be applied against an RV, as none of them (to my knowledge) were written with inclusive language of 9(b). Anybody else agree with my interpretation?
 
This AC is not worth the paper its written on. AC's are not regulatory. As long as FAR 39.3 is written the way it is, all AD's apply. I take that in the future they will be less ambiguous on the language used in writing new AD's as they apply to experimentals.
 
I agree with what others are saying here. Additionally, I don't necessarily agree with EAAs interpretation of the AC as being a big win for experimentals. The application of ADs to experimentals can be helpful when it is used as a hammer to get the manfacturer to replace / repair their defective product at no cost or reduced cost to the aircraft owner. When they do not specifically state that they apply to experimentals, it can conversely be used by the manufacturer as a means of avoiding responsibility. The ECI cylinder AD is a case in point. The AD is written to indicate it applies to Lycoming engines with ECI Titan cylinders. So, what about an engine built by Aerosport Power instead of Lycoming, but still using ECI Titan cylinders? Somehow those are outside of the AD? I don't think this new AC clears things up at all.

Erich
 
Hmmmm...

If I build a plane, say "Rick's Super Plane" and later sell it. Can I later, myself, (try to) issue an AD that the new owner must follow?
 
Hmmmm...

If I build a plane, say "Rick's Super Plane" and later sell it. Can I later, myself, (try to) issue an AD that the new owner must follow?

The manufaturer doesn't issue the AD, so the answer is no. However, you could request that an a safety issue be reviewed and an AD be issued. By doing so, you would make yourself liable for an future design/manufactuing defect in the plane. By requesting the AD you are basically accepting responsibility for the safety of the aircraft.
 
This AC is not worth the paper its written on. AC's are not regulatory. As long as FAR 39.3 is written the way it is, all AD's apply. I take that in the future they will be less ambiguous on the language used in writing new AD's as they apply to experimentals.

I agree with Bob and would not want to argue the point in front of a judge.

I suspect the standard boiler plate verbology will change to include experimentals in future AD's. Time will tell.
 
9.b. Non-TC?d Aircraft and Products Installed Thereon. Non-TC?d aircraft (e.g., amateur-built aircraft, experimental exhibition) are aircraft for which the FAA has not issued a TC under part 21. The AD applicability statement will identify if the AD applies to non-TC?d aircraft or engines, propellers, and appliances installed thereon. The following are examples of applicability statements for ADs related to non-TC?d aircraft:
(1) ?This AD applies to Honeywell International Inc. Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) models GTCP36-150(R) and GTCP36-150(RR). These APUs are installed on, but not limited to, Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0100 and F.28 Mark 0070 airplanes, and Mustang Aeronautics, Inc. Model Mustang II experimental airplanes. This AD applies to any aircraft with the listed APU models installed.? This statement makes the AD applicable to the listed auxiliary power unit (APU) models installed on TC?d aircraft, as well as non-TC?d aircraft.
(2) ?This AD applies to Lycoming Engines Models AEIO-360-A1A and IO-360-A1A. This AD applies to any aircraft with the listed engine models installed.? This statement makes the AD applicable to the listed engine models installed on TC?d and non-TC?d aircraft.


It certainly appears that this AC is referring only to future AD's, and that the FAA might be expected to make frequent use the language in part (2) above.
 
The other thing that REALLY bothers me is the EAA's statement:

"The circular formally set FAA policy that ADs are not applicable on non-type certificated aircraft, except when specifically noted."

This is simply NOT TRUE! There is no FAR to support this statement! Unless FAR 39 is amended or rewritten, this is nothing but pure BS. The FAR's set policy, not AC's.

So lets say that sometime in the future an AD is issued on a propeller governor that are used on certified aircraft and happens to be popular on experimentals, and whoever wrote the AD forgets to put in verbage to specifically apply the AD to experimentals. Guess what...the AD still applies. So this AC is meaningless.
 
Last edited:
Why do you think AD's apply to experimentals no matter how they are written?

ARe we not free to "experiment" with all our components? Governors, landing gear, props, etc...

My FSDO specifically told me I am exempt....
 
(2) ?This AD applies to Lycoming Engines Models AEIO-360-A1A and IO-360-A1A. This AD applies to any aircraft with the listed engine models installed.? This statement makes the AD applicable to the listed engine models installed on TC?d and non-TC?d aircraft.

This one could get interesting for the next cylinder AD...

Look to see if they identify specific Lycomig models, or just say any aircraft engine the cylinder is installed on - to include the AeroSport and like clones...
 
Changing the GA makeup

It was my understanding that AD's were only compulsory for 'type certificated' aircraft to maintain their airworthy status. If that's true then they were not compulsory for experimental aircraft. (My take, other will disagree )

Regardless of the past interpretation or intent the current documents suggest that the FAA is concerned about their directives not being voluntarily implemented and have chosen to do something about it. If I heard correctly more RV aircraft were registered last year than Cessna and Piper combined and with the growing 'used' market I can't say I'm surprised.
 
AC = advisory

Far r=regulation

If you have a Lycoming, garmin, Hartzel or whatever component in your plane, and they issue an AD, you can be sure they did not do it for fun. They do not want to issue them if they can help it. So when they do it is a genuine reason for something serious.

An SB may or may not be so critical but any AD on anything in your plane, regardless of what this AC says needs attention.

Just recently the big topic was EAB accidents and safety stats. Wanna add a few for numbers to the stats, start ignoring AD's and it will eventually add a few more.

Dumb move in my opinion.
 
AC = advisory

Far r=regulation

If you have a Lycoming, garmin, Hartzel or whatever component in your plane, and they issue an AD, you can be sure they did not do it for fun. They do not want to issue them if they can help it. So when they do it is a genuine reason for something serious.
I agree. Also when I sign my conditional inspection I state that it is airworthy condition. How can you sign that if there is a documented airworthiness issue with a component unless you specifically look at the AD and determine it applicability to your aircraft and either dismiss it of fix it. Does not matter what the regs say, it is doing want makes sense and what is safe. I will take that extra step to give me that much more margin from being a statistic.
 
Predictably, this thread has gone off into the weeds again. Whether or not AD compliance is a good idea or adds to safety is a completely separate topic. The issue at hand, and the one that started this thread, is whether such compliance is legally required. This is the issue that the AC attempted to clarify (clearly without much success!)

Mods- sounds like another thread for the never ending debate section.
 
Well, does the AC point DIRECTLY TO a regulation showing why, or an exemption to?

If not, the REGULATIONS STILL STAND.

The rest is waffle. Hey, I live in Casa land, and while some improvement exists, we are far more attuned to this BS than most.

You can write AC's till the cows come home, but unless the regs say one thing or exempt you from it, it sticks.

Of course common sense SHOULD apply anyway.

I think this is a recipe for trouble, rather than a good resolution.
 
I agree. Also when I sign my conditional inspection I state that it is airworthy condition. How can you sign that if there is a documented airworthiness issue with a component unless you specifically look at the AD and determine it applicability to your aircraft and either dismiss it of fix it.

Technically I think "airworthiness" is determined at the time you get your special airworthiness certificate; for the condition inspection you're supposed to sign off that the airplane is "in a condition for safe operation". Same logic applies though.

It seems clear that regulations, not AC's, are what count. However, its less clear that the regulations are actually consistent with each other. In particular I'm curious what the experts on this subject make of FAA Order 8130.2G, which details the rules for homebuilt operations (starting on page 4-64):

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/8130.2G.pdf

Is this document considered regulatory? I don't see anything here that requires AD compliance for the aircraft to be airworthy. Is it possible for an airplane to be considered airworthy even though one of its components may not be? :confused:

In general it seems highly unlikely that the FAA is going to specifically tell us that its OK not to adhere to ADs, because this would appear to authorize unsafe operations.
 
While I think this AC is probably a step in the right direction, here's something to muddy the waters...

From page 19 of the 2012 AIM:

"Advisory Circulars - The FAA issues Advisory
Circulars (ACs) to inform the aviation public in a
systematic way of nonregulatory material. Unless
incorporated into a regulation by reference, the
contents of an advisory circular are not binding on the
public
. Advisory Circulars are issued in a numbered
subject system corresponding to the subject areas of
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) (Title 14,
Chapter 1, FAA)."

(Accents by me)

Seems pretty clear... However, from the previous page:

"d. This publication, while not regulatory(...)"

So we have a non-regulatory publication stating that ACs are non-binding...

How we doin' now? :D

John
(Love bureaucracies!!)
 
While I think this AC is probably a step in the right direction, here's something to muddy the waters...

From page 19 of the 2012 AIM:

"Advisory Circulars - The FAA issues Advisory
Circulars (ACs) to inform the aviation public in a
systematic way of nonregulatory material. Unless
incorporated into a regulation by reference, the
contents of an advisory circular are not binding on the
public
. Advisory Circulars are issued in a numbered
subject system corresponding to the subject areas of
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) (Title 14,
Chapter 1, FAA)."

(Accents by me)

Seems pretty clear... However, from the previous page:

"d. This publication, while not regulatory(...)"

So we have a non-regulatory publication stating that ACs are non-binding...

How we doin' now? :D

John
(Love bureaucracies!!)

IMO, AC's are put out just as much to help educate their own inspectors as the public. They attempt to clarify the often various interpretaions (or mis-interpretations) and gray areas of the regs.
 
Guys, there's one thing to keep in mind here. If you wind up in legal proceedings, the court will give the FAA (or any other federal agency) something called "agency deference". This is basically where the court says that the agency is best able to interpret their own regulations. In other words, the courts are hesitant to second-guess the agency interpretations. They could be totally wrong, but because of agency deference, they get away with it, most of the time, anyway.

Its a bit of circular logic, isn't it? The agency writes the rule, which, hypothetically, says that you can't fly an aircraft in an unsafe condition. They ramp check you and find you have a tire that has plenty of tread, but is four years old. The begin enforcement against you because one of your tires is four years old, and in the inspector's mind, that is unsafe (in their mind anyway). The court would be likely to grant the FAA agency deference and rule against you, not on the merits (or lack in thereof) of whether four year old tires with good tread are safe, but because of the policy of agency deference.

So if you are trying to challenge the way the FAA interprets its own rules in court, your chances are probably slim. Same goes for EPA. How do I know? Occupational hazard.... :)

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. Do not construe this as legal advice. All your base are belong to us.

TODR
 
How does "agency deference" work if you can show that the agency is inconsistent, which in my opinion means that they do not know what is right in some cases?
 
Back
Top