Requirement for fuel tank label - source?

[RV6_flyer]

Originally Posted by Mel

A DAR/FAA Inspector can deny an airworthiness certificate for anything he considers unsafe regardless of FARs. If you disagree with his "findings", you are free to find another inspector. But be aware, the new inspector will be familiar with the reason for your denial as it is immediately broadcast to all inspectors.

Example: There is no FAR that says you must use AN bolts. But I don't know of any inspector that will sign off an airplane put together with aluminum screws.

Personally I consider unmarked fuel tank fillers to be an unsafe condition.
If you disagree with this, I suggest that you talk with your inspector before submitting your 8130-6.

Before I retired, I also required the fuel tank filler labels. I also thought without them was an unsafe condition. Too many accidents for aircraft getting fueled with the incorrect fuel.

Old OpLims required:
This aircraft must contain the placards, markings, etc., as required by 14 CFR ? 91.9. In addition, the placards and markings must be inspected for legibility and clarity, and the associated systems inspected for easy access and operation, to ensure they function as intended by the amateur builder/owner during each condition inspection. (13)

91.9 Civil aircraft flight manual, marking, and placard requirements.
91.9 (a) ...no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved... ...markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry.

[rvbuilder2002]

Originally Posted by RV7A Flyer

Pray tell, how does such a system prevent such arbitrariness and, frankly, ridiculous, practices by DARs while still allowing them the freedom to help builders ensure their aircraft are safe?

The same way it does in any other free market... Word will spread fast ( in forums such as this, etc.) and in a very short time that DAR would no longer have much work to do.

[David-aviator]

Originally Posted by esco

David:

As noted in my original post, I'm about to re-label my tanks.

I did not ask for opinions on whether I should or not (see my "highly advisable" response); instead, I'm looking for the requirement, which has not turned up on this forum.

I apologize. The tone of the original post (as I read it) was, if it is not required, why do it? Why else pose the question?

Perhaps the word "requirement" should be defined in context with building, certifying and flying an experimental airplane.

In reality, requirement here means you will comply or you won't be flying an experimental airplane.

Comply with what?

AC 20-27G as a starter.

An Advisory Circular does not have the teeth of regulation, it can not be enforced but if one does not comply with this particular AC concerning what we do, the experimental airplane will not be certified. Hence, compliance with AC 20-27G is a requirement, not a legal one, but it is a requirement.

I believe the FAA does this deliberately to regulate what they want to regulate without going through the tedious process of writing the intent of an AC into regulation. And it is all done under the mantra of flight safety. I do not disagree with this. Its just a back door way to get the job done.

My first airplane, a Long EZ, was certified long before there was "guidance" in the form of an AC concerning this matter. Things were not as tight as today and the accident rate reflected it. The effort bringing us to where we are today, while contentious to some, has made experimental flying safer. I do not believe the FAA is intent on getting rid of what we do, but they do wish to control it and the accident rate. EAA has been complaisant in this effort.

The question as to whether a particular action is legally "required" is moot. One can argue a point all day and be correct, but in the end you will not win.

[RV7A Flyer]

Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002

The same way it does in any other free market... Word will spread fast ( in forums such as this, etc.) and in a very short time that DAR would no longer have much work to do.

Except it's not much of a free market in many places (shortage of DARs, maybe none, leaving only FSDO inspectors to draw upon), and how many times have we seen weird "requirements" from inspectors and DARs which people comply with (usually to undo later, of course).

And in all of the discussions of outrageous requirements being ginned up out of thin air on these forums, how many times have you seen said inspector's name published? I can't recall a single instance.

I'm all for inspectors bringing to bear their expertise to help builders create safer aircraft, but the open-ended "anything they want to insist on" is not a good approach.

Examples:
Paint your fuel caps red
Don't do what Hartzell says on safety wiring the prop, do what I want done
Your legal "Experimental" placard isn't enough...put more on in other places
Change all the nylocks that Lycoming installed on your new engine, because I don't like nylocks...use steel lock nuts instead
I know the rule says "magnetic direction indicator", but I say you have to *also* have a wet compass
ETA a few more that a quick search turns up:
Run your new engine on the ground for at least an hour
Put labels on your static ports
etc.

or I won't give you your airworthiness certificate. Why? Because I said so, and I can make you do anything I want if you want to get it.

I would prefer a system where compliance with regulations is verified, construction iaw best practices is evaluated, and anything else is a *recommendation*, not a requirement for issuance.

[rvbuilder2002]

Originally Posted by RV7A Flyer

And in all of the discussions of outrageous requirements being ginned up out of thin air on these forums, how many times have you seen said inspector's name published?

True, but word does spread in the local area where said DAR works... I have seen it happen.

[esco]

Originally Posted by esco

Perry, Bob, David, Dan:

Appreciate the input, confirming what I thought: highly advisable, but no discernible requirement found... so far.

And equally sincere thanks to Gary, Scott, and Mel and anyone else that weighed in.

My intent was not to rekindle an old argument, start a new one, or poke any bears; rather, I wanted to know the source of the requirement. As of now, the answer appears to be Custom, based on hard-won experience, and not Regulation. I consider my question answered.

I'll start shopping for Part-23 compliant labels. Vince Frazier, you out there?

[kamikaze]

"I'm all for inspectors bringing to bear their expertise to help builders create safer aircraft, but the open-ended "anything they want to insist on" is not a good approach."

Indeed. DARs do not have regulatory powers I presume (I'm Canadian), so they certainly cannot make stuff up as they go along.

The regs they do follow may however give them great latitude (such as "make sure the airplane is built in compliance with accepted aerospace techniques", etc.). Maybe too much latitude?

Here in Canada the inspectors are "delegated" by Transport Canada. They follow the regs (or at least should), because they have no regulatory powers. They should be able at any point to say "I'm making you do this because of reg X.Y.Z". May the reg they point to is really broad, but if it at least "fits" ...

The concern is when there is a specific rule written about something, and they decide to go above and beyond it ...

[RV7A Flyer]

DARs do not have regulatory powers I presume (I'm Canadian), so they certainly cannot make stuff up as they go along.

I just gave you a list of things that *have* been made up by inspectors! Those are all from reports/posts on this forum!

[Billvt]

Engraved caps look great and last a lifetime?

Check out http://www.upnorthaviation.com/fuel-cap-engraving.html

for examples of text layouts !!

[Mel]

If you are having your fuel caps engraved I wouldn't put "LL" on them. Only the qty and minimum grade is needed. Minimum grade being octane!. You can put "100 Octane", "92 Octane", or whatever. Lead content is not needed. Someday 100LL will go away. Then what will you use?