What's new
Van's Air Force

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

The airworthiness paperwork challenge

LettersFromFlyoverCountry

Well Known Member
I sent the packet to the FAA MIDO office in Minneapolis yesterday and so today I heard that, despite my slavish adherence to the EAA aircraft registration/certification step-by-step guide, I got a call today that paperwork is missing.

They wanted a copy of the aircraft registration (no biggie), they wanted another notarized affadavit of ownership (8050-88), which I'd already sent with the aircraft registration packet several weeks ago.

And I guess they didn't like the EAA's version of the letter to accompany the package, because they sent me another one to fill out.

There were some additional yes/no items to fill out on their form. This one is the most troubling:

The powerplant installation has undergone at least one hour of ground operation at various speeds from idle to full power to determine and ensure that all systems are operating properly. This time has been recorded in the aircraft log book.


I don't know how to answer this because having a full hour of ground operation goes against the recommendations of the engine manufacturer and the logbook sent me doesn't have an indication of how long Mattituck ran it.

Help!
 
Even if Mattituck ran it for more than 1 hour on their test stand, the phrase "engine installation" sounds like it would only refer to time on the engine once installed in the aircraft.
 
Even if Mattituck ran it for more than 1 hour on their test stand, the phrase "engine installation" sounds like it would only refer to time on the engine once installed in the aircraft.

I was told by everyone to limit ground runs and certainly limit full power. I just don't like the idea of running it for an hour.
 
What happens if you check "No" for that item?

I haven't seen the form yet myself, but I'm wondering if it's like the form you fill out when you purchase a pistol where it has questions like "Have you recently been convicted of treason, murder, robbery, or crimes against humanity?" i.e. a "No" is an automatic disqualifier.

If that's the case, then you have to decide whether you wish to fly, damage your engine, or let the project sit.
 
Yeah, that's right. I'm wondering whether people who have recently submitted the yes/no form (by way of additional explanation, the EAA form combined two forms onto one-- the yes/no and the description of the flight test regimen) to Mpls MIDO can weigh in here. Or whether anyone knows if any other MIDO is using this form.

The VERY nice woman at the MIDO said it was a Minneapolis created form.

I'm going to try to get in touch with Tim Mahoney, the DAR, tonight to see what he says, and also consult Doug Weiler at the MN RV Builders Wing.
 
The powerplant installation has undergone at least one hour of ground operation at various speeds from idle to full power to determine and ensure that all systems are operating properly. This time has been recorded in the aircraft log book.

Email Mahlon and ask him for the record of the test cell run. It documents more than an hour, the power settings, temps, etc. Stick that in the logbook.

If you run it for an hour on the ground in its present condition, you can pretty much count on glazing the cylinders

Dan
 
Last edited:
Will do.

BTW, they also want another 8050-88 submitted (the affidavit of ownership). I sent that down to Oklahoma City a few weeks ago when I applied for the registration, which is necessary to begin this part of the certification process.

Guess what goes with the 8050-88? An original bill of sale from Van's.

Guess what -- technically -- is supposed to go with this latest 8050-88? An original bill of sale from Van's.

Oh, by the way, this mostly pertains to another thread on picking out an engine. In the time it took me to write this post, Mahlon Russell had sent me a pdf copy of the tell cell run.
 
Last edited:
If you run it for an hour on the ground in its present condition, you can pretty much count on glazing the cylinders
A bit of thread drift, but thought this might be helpful to others at this stage and it may or may not be helpful to Bob if he is unsuccessful in getting his MIDO requirements modified...

There are some great engine break-in/operation suggestions from Mahlon Russell under the Tech Advice tab of the Mattituck website. http://www.mattituck.com/ In particular, he argues against the traditional notion that ground running is bad. In short, and to very loosely paraphrase, you just need to make sure that ground runs don't last longer than 10 minutes or let CHT's get above 350F. Lots of other good reading too.

From the FAQ page under the Tech Advice Tab:
"Do I need extra test cell run time on my new TMX experimental engine to prevent cylinder glazing during my ground testing phase?

There is an article on "Engine Break In" on our website that explains, in laymen's terms, what is actually happening during this phase of the engine's life. It is located at http://www.mattituck.com under the Tech Advice link on the left and is entitled "Engine Break In". It would be best to read that article before proceeding with reading the rest of this, but if that isn't possible, the article, in a nutshell, explains that engine break in, is all about seating the piston rings to the cylinder walls and that the main deterrent, to this process, is heat build up at the ring to cylinder wall interface.

Knowing this crucial information allows us to make practical decisions regarding ground runs and flight profiles from the new or newly overhauled engine point of view.

To put it simply, if we get the ring to cylinder interface too hot from too hard of running, lack of cooling or another reason we will glaze the cylinder walls and prevent actual break in from occurring. Because, we are dealing with multiple independent cylinders on the engine, these conditions can happen to one cylinder, all cylinders or anything in between on the same engine. So our job above all other aspect of engine operation during the break in phase, is to keep the cylinder's as cool as possible. If we do this we will not have any problems or issues with the engine as far as break in goes. During any and all ground runs we should limit the duration and actual temps we encounter to prevent glazing from happening. We tell our customers to keep all ground runs less than 10 minutes. Don't run the engine above 2000 RPM unless you are doing a momentary full power check, high speed taxi tests or actual take off runs.

If the CHT goes above 350*F or the oil temp goes above 180*F at any point during the 10 minute max duration ground run, or at the expiration of the ten minute time limit, that run should be terminated. Then, park the aircraft faced into the wind and allow the engine to cool, until you can place your hand on the cylinder heads and barrels for 5 seconds without hurting or burning you hand and the cylinders feel relatively cool to the touch. After the engine has cooled, continue with the last run where you left off. Obviously, from what we have learned about temperature, running the engine more conservatively will not cause any problems and may even help the break in process but operating within these restrictions, on the ground, should prevent any glazing issues. These limitations apply to an engine that has had a test cell run before any ground runs are attempted. If your engine hasn't had any test cell time, then I can supply you with a ground run schedule, to replace the test cell run, which can be performed on the aircraft. If you want or need that information, just email me privately and I would be happy to send it along.

When it comes time to fly the aircraft, once again we want to observe the ground run rules, for taxi and warm up. Once we are ready to fly, we want to use full power for take off and initial climb and then we want to reduce power to climb power(normally around 85%) until we reach a safe altitude above the airport. Keep the climbs, as flat as possible, to maintain as much cooling as possible. Remember that heat is our major enemy and we can control that with climb speed. After establishing an appropriate altitude, reduce power to 65% to 75% (preferably 75 % if speed restrictions will allow it). If we see temps, exceeding 15% of our ground run limitations, in initial flights, we should reduce power to control those temps and land the aircraft. Then, double check all cooling associated equipment, repair as necessary if you find a defect, let the engine cool off and fly it again, taking up from where you left off, observing the same restrictions. The first flight shouldn't be any longer than 10 or 15 minutes maximum, even with good cooling that would allow a longer flight. The first flight is a "test flight" and after landing you should do a through visual inspection of the engine and its installation, for leaks and any other operational issues like interference fits that showed up under power, chafing of lines etc. After the first flight issues are checked, we are ready for further flights under the same ground run and flight restriction's we have been observing. The key issue once again is heat. If we control the heat by power setting, airspeed, step climbing or any other means at our disposal we will not glaze the cylinders and we will successfully break the engine in. If we operate the engine at too low of a power setting, to seat the rings, we will not harm the engine or the eventual break in process, unless we develop enough heat to glaze the cylinders. In another words, operation at a low power setting, isn't a deterrent for break in unless we have the heat. The amount of physical time we spend, at too low of a power setting to accomplish ring seating, does increase the available amount of engine operational time, that we could glaze the cylinders from excessive heat but it will not directly cause that heat unless there is something wrong or we screw up. The low power operation, without the heat, doesn't hurt anything; it is just wasted operational time, as far as, break in goes. To put it simply, if we ran the engine for 10 hours at 50% power it is unlikely that we would break the rings in, due to the low BMEP, but it is also unlikely that we would glaze the cylinders if we didn't get the engine and cylinders too hot.

If we then operated the engine at 75% power for ten hours we would have the same chance of breaking the engine in successfully as we had before the ten hours at 50% power. But we have to understand, that ten hours at 50 % power is ten hours of, extra, wasted from a break in stand point, operational time where we could do something to cause the excessive heat, that causes glazing, if we weren't paying attention. That is the only risk of low power operation as far as break in is concerned.

If you look at this scenario, you can understand how anyone is able to run an engine, in a test cell for extended periods, when we have new rings. It is because, in a test cell, we can control the cooling and if for some reason we can't, we terminate the runs in the cell to prevent glazing just like you should in the aircraft. If you control the cooling by limiting run duration or max temps encountered, with the engine installed on the aircraft, you are able to run the same as if the engine were in a test cell. Thus, extra cell time, on a new engine, isn't really necessary to prevent glazing.
 
The risk of glazing -- even if it's the ONLY risk -- is enough to discourage me from driving around on the taxiways just to say I did it for the one hour. I think he makes a proper point when he notes that this is WASTED time. Yeah, you could do it, but what is the point other than to say you did it? From a flight testing point of view, I don't see where it tells you anything about your plane's ability to fly and your engine to stay lit once you firewall it.
 
Yeah, you could do it, but what is the point other than to say you did it?
I agree with you, Bob, inasmuch as preventing cylinder glazing in of utmost priority.

At the same, while I originally was also paranoid about having any more than a couple minutes of ground time, I have been swayed by the arguments of people like Paul Dye who have argued for more ground run. In my case, I've found that a very quick run did not give me time to do things like check the accuracy of all engine instrumentation, be sure that I didn't have any leaks, be sure I had conditioned my brake pads, do a bit of taxi testing, make sure my engine would run off both tanks, adjust my comm radio to ensure it was clear (when the engine was running, not just when engine was off), etc. All of these things, and more, are central to the success and safety of the eventual first flight, so I don't see it as "wasted" time. Some pilots may be able to handle all of this in the couple minutes it takes to taxi from the hangar to the runup area for first flight. I'm not ashamed to say that I am not. I was surprised how consumed I was during the first engine run or two. Concerned as I was about the health of the engine, I felt as taxed as as I've ever been in flight. So, again, I don't see a little bit of extra ground time as necessarily wasted time. True, Mahlon noted that it might be wasted from the perspective of engine break-in, but I read his comments in a more positive light: that of him giving permission to do all of these little checks if we feel they are helpful in making that first flight safely.

Again, whether you need a full hour of it, or time at full-power settings, I agree might be either counterproductive or at least wasted, so it is worth challenging the MIDO request in that regard. Also again, I apologize if I've contributed to any thread drift, but I do think it is relevant, even if only a product of my relatively uninformed opinion.
 
Last edited:
The Paperwork

I used the Greensboro NC FSDO for my registration/application. Was a piece of cake, and the only form not available via "online" is the registration form,which I had to physically get from them. I aquired my kit 15 years ago, so I had to get an original "bill of sale" from VANS,which took less than a week, but there is no substitute, including the fact I had every reciept for all components. My inspection went smooth as silk, and the only entry I had to make was that the aircraft was consistent with a condition inspection completed at the time of build completion/FAA inspection. I had entries for powerplant operational check (I built the engine) and the inspector had no additional requirements or items I had to sign for. I was issued my pink slip and given my phase one /phase two documents and was cleared to fly at my call after closing the aircraft back up...Only thing he asked is that I give a him a call after the first flight was made. I hope you get your issues worked out quickly ! Paperwork seems to be painful for way too many builders, and requirements seem to vary in different regions.
 
Does it have to be all at once?

Maybe a dumb question, but do they want a consecutive hour of ground time? Maybe if you logged you ran it for 5 or 10 minutes at a time on various days, totaling an hours time?
 
Awfully difficult choice

No one wants to advocate launching before you have a comfort level with the motor. And, no one wants to pull jugs to re-hone and re-ring them.

I think with an motor that has been run on a test stand, you have a bit better of a chance to prevent glazing - the initial ring seating should have happened on the test stand within the first few minutes. That's not to say you can't get glazing from there - you can. But it is a significantly better proposition than the jugs installed on an motor that has never run.

Everyone who has faced this has a slightly different take on it. For me, my hard & fast rule is to limit the runs to just a few - each of them to no more than 2 minutes or 300 CHT whichever comes first (CHT doesn't tell you the cylinder wall temperature). I actually tow the aircraft to the runway - the motor can really heat up taxiing. For the motor, I want to know 1) no leaks, 2) I can get enough power to get airborne, and 3) when the aircraft is in a pitch up attitude the engine will run (not conk out due to fuel flow issues). For the airplane I want to know airspeeds 1) when full aft stick will lift the nose, 2) when the rudder becomes effective, 3) with full left or right stick from a standing start, when does the aircraft begin to want to turn (it's nice if the left / right speeds are the same). Combining cuts down on the runs. My own point of view is once you're done with that testing together with transition training, the first flight will turn out to be a non event.

There are undoubtedly many counter views - YMMV.

Dan
 
In the time it took me to write this post, Mahlon Russell had sent me a pdf copy of the tell cell run.

Sounds like that issue is closed then. Write it up in the logbook as having been ground run at various speeds and settings to verify operation of all systems. Just leave out that it wasn't on your plane at the time. It meets the spirit of the requirement, they want to know that your engine wasn't just taken out of the box and bolted on, that it was given a check first. Sounds to me like it was.
 
Ouch... FSDO wouldn't sign me off today.

After 7+ years of construction, today was the day for my inspection. The paperwork was a breeze. The FSDO sent me the packet, I filled everything out, got the one form notorized, did the AD Biweekly last eve,.......
Three fellows showed up and performed a very thorough inspection. They even provided several suggestions on how to make improvements that were outside the inspection. But in the end, they said that they'd have to come back another day to sign it off. In order of priority, this is what they were concerned about:
1. The elev. trim tab had about a 1/4" of slack (RV-7A with manual vans trim per plans). Somewhere between the screw knob on the fuel selector box and the trim tab, it's picking up some slack. This will be my biggest challenge to solve. Any suggestions?
2. With the rudder cables not being under tension, they were concerned that the cables could end up going over the top of the rudder stops and create problems. I may drill out the rivets holding the stops in place and raise them up as much as is feasible.
3. Although I primarily used Adel clamps on the engine mount, I did have a few zipties holding wires in place. They have to go and be replaced with adel's.
4. Put rubber boots over the terminals on the back of the ignition switch.

What do you all think about 1 and 2? They're the two that caused me not to get signed off today.

Jim Diehl
RV-7A
Piper Memorial Airport
 
Bob, I had Bolduc run my engine for nearly three hours in their test stand, but the Minneapolis MIDO and Tim Mahoney confirmed that it must be run for a minimum of one hour INSTALLED on the airplane (Minneapolis MIDO rule). Tim looked me in the eye, and said, very carefully, make sure the logbook shows one hour of ground run in the airplane. I looked back at Tim and said, "OK, I will have one hour of ground run, in the airplane, in the logbook", and I did.;) End of story.
 
oh good lord

After 7+ years of construction, today was the day for my inspection. The paperwork was a breeze. The FSDO sent me the packet, I filled everything out, got the one form notorized, did the AD Biweekly last eve,.......
Three fellows showed up and performed a very thorough inspection. They even provided several suggestions on how to make improvements that were outside the inspection. But in the end, they said that they'd have to come back another day to sign it off. In order of priority, this is what they were concerned about:
1. The elev. trim tab had about a 1/4" of slack (RV-7A with manual vans trim per plans). Somewhere between the screw knob on the fuel selector box and the trim tab, it's picking up some slack. This will be my biggest challenge to solve. Any suggestions?
2. With the rudder cables not being under tension, they were concerned that the cables could end up going over the top of the rudder stops and create problems. I may drill out the rivets holding the stops in place and raise them up as much as is feasible.
3. Although I primarily used Adel clamps on the engine mount, I did have a few zipties holding wires in place. They have to go and be replaced with adel's.
4. Put rubber boots over the terminals on the back of the ignition switch.

What do you all think about 1 and 2? They're the two that caused me not to get signed off today.

Jim Diehl
RV-7A
Piper Memorial Airport

all the manual trims are this way. Its perfect and the air loads take it out

There are 7600 RV's like this. Its fine.

Zip ties will not saw your mount in half. Its fine

Okay, put a boot on. It wont hurt.

Tell the FAA to quit helping when obviously dont know what they are doing. Personally I dont think they have the authority to tell you how to construct anything on an experimental. I'm sure others may think that they do.
 
Bob,

I just marked that I did not run it for an hour on the ground. During the inspection I told the FSDO inspector that it is a new engine and he okay it. It worked for my 9A and later 10.
 
Correct. They want an hour total of ground run time.

OK, this begs the obvious question...why? Why 1 (one) hour? Why not, 55 minutes? Or 1:10? Or 37 minutes 30 seconds?

What is magical about 1 hour?

I could accept something like "has been run while installed on the aircraft sufficient to demonstrate full control blah blah blah"...but I'm bothered by "magic" numbers.

Are you supposed to learn something in 1 hour that you can't in 10 or 20 minutes?

This is reminiscent, to me, of the "over-squared" discussions...just basically a figure thrown out without any regard to WHY or the underlying physics, etc.
 
Kind of late to the conversation here, but I have two Mattituck-built engines on two different airplanes, and they both accumulated an hour of run-time each on their airframes before flight. It was no big deal - I observed Mahlon's temperature limits, and never ran them more than 5-10 minutes at a time. Why? Well, two reasons. First, My DAR wanted to see an hour of run time (why not 55 minutes or an hour and five minutes? Hey, they have a number in the guidance somewhere, it's arbitrary....). Second, I want to make dang sure that I don't have leaks, rubs, control issues, etc.

Remember that engine failures on take-off during Phase 1 are a significant cause of damaged airplanes. Yet almost NONE of those are due to a failure in the engine - they are almost all caused by INTEGRATION problems - fuel and oil lines, wiring, etc. I have chased minor oil leaks, fittings that weren't quite right, and controls that weren't rigged just right in almost every new installation I have done. In every case, the airplane could have flown on the first engine start - and we'd have had a surprise when we opened the cowling afterwards. BUT it is a whole lot nicer to find these things BEFORE you go fly. We've all had experiences in our build of things that didn't work right the first time we turned them on - why think that an engine installation will be perfect before you test it?

Once you understand that you can make short runs to accumulate the "magic hour", the question then becomes "why would you NOT want to test and check everything while you are still safely on the ground?" Yes, it is a pain to find out about "requirements" at the last minutes, and a pain to have to wait a little longer for that certificate - frustrating, obviously. But there are significant safety benefits to knowing that you aren't going to suddenly have a windshield full of oil on the first flight of your new bird.
 
Last edited:
I'm certainly *not* saying that one wouldn't want to do all sorts of ground tests/runs to identify and fix problems like leaks, chafing, rigging issues, fittings improperly installed, etc. But it seems like a checklist-oriented approach would be better. One could run an engine for 10 separate 6-minute periods, doing the same cycling of controls, etc., and learn nothing new, while still meeting the "requirement". Or one could work through a planned, well-thought-out, *systems* approach to verifying the various subsystems and validating the overall installation. Better guidance (and a better set of requirements) could be made to exist.

We have these sorts of minimum times on pieces of equipment at work (X hundred hours of powered-on time for each box during integration and test), but there's a rationale behind each requirement based on a wealth of previous data. If such a rationale for "1 hour" exists, I believe it would be better if it were explicated, along with a comprehensive set of items to "certify".

Off the top of my head:
Fuel system - min flow, max flow, min pressure, max pressure, leak checks, climb attitude, normal attitude, shutdown via leaning...
Oil system - pressure, temperature, temperature control (if installed), leak checks, consumption checks...
Ignition system - plug fouling check, timing correct, RPM sensors operational and correct...
Prop - coarse pitch, fine pitch...
Mixture - control check, fuel flow...
Throttle - control check, max RPM, idle check...
Electrical system - Amps, voltage...
and on and on

In fact, if anyone *has* a good plan for conducting ground runs which covers these (and more) in a systematic way, I'll be the first to ask for a copy for my own use.

I just chafe at seemingly random "rules" with no explanation of "why". It doesn't help anyone, and may in fact cause some harm or damage if someone is "pushing" to get to that magic hour for no other reason (after doing all they should do) than just to reach it.

But these are good discussions to have...along with the thinking about how to do it correctly and not damage anything.
 
Last edited:
Once you understand that you can make short runs to accumulate the "magic hour", the question then becomes "why would you NOT want to test and check everything while you are still safely on the ground?" Yes, it is a pain to find out about "requirements" at the last minutes, and a pain to have to wait a little longer for that certificate - frustrating, obviously. But there are significant safety benefits to knowing that you aren't going to suddenly have a windshield full of oil on the first flight of your new bird.

I guess that's really the question. It's not that there's a "don't check the engine" vs. the "check the engine" crowd. I've run the engine in three different 3-5 minute durations. No leaks. I did have some probe problems that have been fixed. Temps look good. Pressure good. Electronics good. Blah blah blah.

So the question is, if I don't have any of these problems after, say, 12 minutes of ground runs, by how much has the possibility been reduced that I will have them on takeoff? If you don't have a problem in a short (5 minute) ground run, what are the odds you won't have one in the 6th minute. If you run it 9 minutes, by how much have you reduced the possibility of problems in the 10th. And how do those two scenarios compare? I think the question is what does an hour give you toward that 61st minute that, say, 12 minutes TT doesn't? For every minute of a well-planned ground run test, by what percentage have you actually reduced the possibility of a problem on takeoff?

It seems to me the key here is being sure you don't have the problems on the ground, but at some point, don't you have to be satisfied that, well,you don't?

I don't think anyone is arguing that you shouldn't be sure.

Of course, I've been building for 11 years, the engine has been on for two, and I've had a LOT of time to REALLY check, double check, triple check, and check again in that time. I've made up fuel lines and fittings and then tossed them all to upgrade to better equipment before a drop of fuel ever passed through the firewall. I've pretty much guaranteed the Acme Adel Clamp company has a profitable year in securing wires, I caught the poor quality of Van's-provided starter and other electrical cables in that time and replaced them on with well-made ones, I've checked fuel flow in several configurations, redesigned and separated wiring runs and made sure the engine monitoring equipment works. And I've had fuel in it since September, providing it plenty of time to show me where it's figured out how to escape illegally.

Does this eliminate the possibility of a surprise? I doubt it. Did I give myself a reasonable opportunity to detect problems on the ground. I think so.

Should I spend more time "being sure?" Well, heck, I've been ASTOUNDED at how much it costs to transfer from builder to flight status so maybe I'll have no choice. :*)

My guess is the net effect of the "rule" is to teach builders how to gin up some engine log entries. :*)
 
Last edited:
This probably goes without saying but I'll say it anyway. Make SURE you upgrade your builders insurance policy to full flight status before you go taxiing. And if you haven't gotten your required transition training, make sure you don't do any high speed taxiing on a runway.
 
This probably goes without saying but I'll say it anyway. Make SURE you upgrade your builders insurance policy to full flight status before you go taxiing. And if you haven't gotten your required transition training, make sure you don't do any high speed taxiing on a runway.

Very good advice. I would like to suggest that you do not run the engine till you have full flight status insurance.

I know of one guy that ran into a hangar during his first engine run. Fortunately no one was hurt but his wing was dented.

Another guy did taxi test without insurance and hit a car with his prop. Destroyed and damaged wing.

I am sure that others can add more examples of "Murphy's Law" kicking in on first engine start. (Yes I have seen the video of the Lansair IV where the gear collapsed on an engine run without the wings on.)
 
So the question is, if I don't have any of these problems after, say, 12 minutes of ground runs, by how much has the possibility been reduced that I will have them on takeoff? If you don't have a problem in a short (5 minute) ground run, what are the odds you won't have one in the 6th minute. If you run it 9 minutes, by how much have you reduced the possibility of problems in the 10th. And how do those two scenarios compare? I think the question is what does an hour give you toward that 61st minute that, say, 12 minutes TT doesn't? For every minute of a well-planned ground run test, by what percentage have you actually reduced the possibility of a problem on takeoff?

I know you are into blogging and reporting (yes I know you are a reporter for a living...) but wouldn't the time you've spent following this thread almost equaled 3 or more of the 6 min ground runs ? You could have been half way done for the requirement by now... :) Is it more time efficient to do ten x 6 minute ground runs or write a thread about it, follow the thread and post updates, and try to argue with the FSDO guys about a requirement that you could just follow and get it done. Paul Dye has posted in this thread, and I'm sure he would have liked to have caught the little* problem that caused an off airport landing on his second? flight... Maybe if he'd have checked his plane over ten times after ten ground runs it would have been caught.
 
Interesting that almost nobody is saying that the *correct* amount of time is what is specified by the engine manufacturer (in my case, Lycoming, in SI1427C, I believe).

So here's a hypothetical...what if the instruction from the manufacturer *specified* some maximum ground run time on a new engine, and FSDO *mandates* a much longer time? What would you do then?

Risk ruining your engine to meet FSDO's arbitrary number?

Just askin'... :)
 
I know you are into blogging and reporting (yes I know you are a reporter for a living...) but wouldn't the time you've spent following this thread almost equaled 3 or more of the 6 min ground runs ? You could have been half way done for the requirement by now... :) Is it more time efficient to do ten x 6 minute ground runs or write a thread about it, follow the thread and post updates, and try to argue with the FSDO guys about a requirement that you could just follow and get it done. Paul Dye has posted in this thread, and I'm sure he would have liked to have caught the little* problem that caused an off airport landing on his second? flight... Maybe if he'd have checked his plane over ten times after ten ground runs it would have been caught.

Yes, I could be flying by now if I didn't have to spend 8 hours a day in a cubicle, from which most of my discussions on VAF come. There. I said it. I goof off at work.

To now, this has been a good and respectful discussion on the issue. I see no reason to see it disrupted.

Besides I never apologize to anyone for the way I've built my airplane or justify the 3,000 hours of work I've put into it. Ever. Others might be quicker at it; Others might be more skilled at it. I yield to no one at being conscientious at it.
 
Last edited:
Easy

..........So here's a hypothetical...what if the instruction from the manufacturer *specified* some maximum ground run time on a new engine, and FSDO *mandates* a much longer time? What would you do then?

Risk ruining your engine to meet FSDO's arbitrary number?

Just askin'... :)

Two can play that game! Run it to manufacturers specs and write in the logbook what the FAA wants:)..no, I'm not kidding.

Best,
 
Sorry, can't do that. I'm a stickler for following the rules, which is why I want rules that make sense and matter.

Nonsensical rules or unenforceable ones or outright dangerous ones only breed contempt for *all* rules and regulations. Not a good thing.

Others can lie in their logbooks if they want to...but not me. Just my personal credo.
 
Appreciate the integrity on VAF

Steve, Bob:

I very much appreciate your integrity, gentlemen. It's a great example.

I'm just getting started ; I've heard & read quite a bit about the quality of folks in the RV community, and I'm seeing that it's true.

thanks!
 
Steve, Bob:

I very much appreciate your integrity, gentlemen. It's a great example.

I'm just getting started ; I've heard & read quite a bit about the quality of folks in the RV community, and I'm seeing that it's true.

thanks!


Where in SoCal are you located?
 
Make SURE you upgrade your builders insurance policy to full flight status before you go taxiing.

You can get ground coverage which will cover taxi accidents. Prior to first flight, you then upgrade to full coverage. For me, I started with builder's risk, now have the ground converage, and will get the full coverage the day before I expect to fly.
 
I may be able to get an hour in yet. Tested today to see what she could give me and sbe couldn't get give more than 1900. Shut her down after 3 minutes because the CHT were creeping past 300 and I remain decidedly chicken on this. :*)
 
Back
Top