|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

01-28-2015, 07:49 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 1,060
|
|
The key word in all of this is "Experimental"!
At least in this wonderful country, we are FREE to experiment with our aircraft or any other experimental aircraft. I for one have been modifying my aircraft continuously for the 6+ years it's been flying. If I had to "return to service" with the proper documentation every single time I tried something I would need dozens of logbooks and a secretary to keep up with the paperwork.
The Libertarian in me wishes to keep the camel out of the tent.
Excellent and methodical records may very well increase the value of your RV, but they are by no means REQUIRED.
__________________
Jon Thocker
Habitual Offender
RV4, RV4, RV6A, RV8, RV8, RV8,RV8, RV8, RV8, RV12
|

01-28-2015, 08:54 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Edinburg, TX
Posts: 617
|
|
Very true!!
"Excellent and methodical records may very well increase the value of your RV, but they are by no means REQUIRED."
To each their own. As a buyer of experimental aircraft, the lack of good well documented records is certainly one indicator I look for during a purchase inspection. If they are well documented and in order, then it is easy to correlate them to the work performed on the aircraft and helps simplify the visual inspection as well. If there is little or only mandatory documentation then it is always problematic in determining what work has actually been performed on the plane and who did it since the DAR signed it off. ie: when and how often was the oil changed? Was the filter changed at the same time? etc.
If you aren't concerned about your resale value, or you are a true experimenter and are always changing things and want to take the minimalist approach that is your prerogative. One helpful thing about a good set of records is that when future maintenance is required you will know the life of the component being replaced, part numbers etc. and even when the last time normal maintenance functions were performed. At my advanced age I tend to forget or loose track of when I actually performed various maintenance functions so a quick scan of the record from the comfort of the office is a heck of a lot easier then removing the cowling to look at the hobbs time or date written on the filter or the trend of cylinder leak down.
I am concerned that in the long run with the ever growing popularity of experimental aviation, especially where folks are having EAB planes built by others with the documents showing otherwise, the lacking or total disregard for good maintenance or the utilization of non-aviation parts in important areas, lacking documentation etc. that we may see this amazing privilege we have in experimental fade away by regulation.
Just my $.02.
__________________
RV-3 Rebuilding
RV-9 Flying and having fun, experimenting and having fun, did I mention flying and having fun?
RV-6A SOLD
Maule M5-235C SOLD
C-172G SOLD
Stinson L5 SOLD
Grumman AA1A SOLD
|

01-28-2015, 09:07 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 57AZ - NW Tucson area
Posts: 10,011
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Buchanan
Gil, I think the case can be made that because the EAB Op Lims specifically call out an inspection protocol unique to aircraft with experimental airworthiness certificates that FAR 91 is excluded by our operating limitations.
......
|
Sam,
That is stretching an opinion on how to void a specific FAR....
Since you make that case, what is the current wording about inspections in typical Operating Limitations.
And yes, the FAR does talk about records retention, but how can you retain them if you don't make them?
91.419 specifically has wording exempting EAB aircraft from the annual and 100 hr inspection requirements.... but that is all...
...
c) Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do not apply to--
[(1) An aircraft that carries a special flight permit, a current experimental certificate, or a light-sport or provisional airworthiness certificate;]
...
As far as I can tell, that is the only specific exception to this subsection of FARs on Maintenance...
I tried to get an official word from the EAA on this with reference to one of their web articles but never got a response, despite repeated attempts.
Sam, you said this to Walt...
Walt, I agree that the mindset you describe is unproductive and I hope you do not think that is what I have been advancing. I also agree that if I was purchasing an RV, a logbook with only one entry per year would indeed raise red flags. But it would be legal.
Is your definition of "legal" based on "the case can be made"?
__________________
Gil Alexander
EAA Technical Counselor, Airframe Mechanic
Half completed RV-10 QB purchased
RV-6A N61GX - finally flying
Grumman Tiger N12GA - flying
La Cholla Airpark (57AZ) Tucson AZ
Last edited by az_gila : 01-28-2015 at 09:10 AM.
|

01-28-2015, 09:17 AM
|
 |
been here awhile
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: North Alabama
Posts: 4,301
|
|
Gil, I have stated my position on these matters.
I'm not imposing my opinion on anyone. As far as I am concerned, each builder is free to handle this as they feel is appropriate.
|

01-28-2015, 09:42 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: US
Posts: 2,251
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jthocker
The key word in all of this is "Experimental"!
At least in this wonderful country, we are FREE to experiment with our aircraft or any other experimental aircraft. I for one have been modifying my aircraft continuously for the 6+ years it's been flying. If I had to "return to service" with the proper documentation every single time I tried something I would need dozens of logbooks and a secretary to keep up with the paperwork.
The Libertarian in me wishes to keep the camel out of the tent.
Excellent and methodical records may very well increase the value of your RV, but they are by no means REQUIRED.
|
Just to add another wrinkle to the discussion...I keep "records" of pretty much everything, but they're not in a logbook. For example, I do oil analysis at every oil change. The reports include time on the oil, Hobbs time, sample date, etc. It's a nice, comprehensive set of data for a routine maintenance item. A "record", if you will.
Now, given that I keep these electronically and in printed form in a 3-ring binder, I say that ought to be sufficient for that maintenance item.
Likewise, I keep receipts for all repaired/replaced parts; serial numbers and install dates for *every* serialized item on the plane (in a spreadsheet), etc. In fact, I have receipts for every item ever purchased for the airplane (I'm starting the 3rd 3" binder now  ).
But my *aircraft logbook* contains only the required entries, nothing more (same for propeller logbook...installation date, required lubrications).
Since I'm never, ever, ever selling my baby, this is good enough for me 
|

01-28-2015, 10:02 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 57AZ - NW Tucson area
Posts: 10,011
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Buchanan
Gil, I have stated my position on these matters.
I'm not imposing my opinion on anyone. As far as I am concerned, each builder is free to handle this as they feel is appropriate.
|
Sam, I'm not trying to pick on you...
But it would be nice to get some sort of official ruling or interpretation for such an important issue. I had hoped the EAA would do that.
__________________
Gil Alexander
EAA Technical Counselor, Airframe Mechanic
Half completed RV-10 QB purchased
RV-6A N61GX - finally flying
Grumman Tiger N12GA - flying
La Cholla Airpark (57AZ) Tucson AZ
|

01-28-2015, 11:44 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 1,060
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by az_gila
Sam, I'm not trying to pick on you...
But it would be nice to get some sort of official ruling or interpretation for such an important issue. I had hoped the EAA would do that.
|
OK, how about this. My long time FSDO inspector that has been certifying experimentals in the Cincinnati area for well over 30 years and is quite well versed in these particular regs. has always advised us that the only required logbook or Maintainance entry is the condition inspection. He advocates keeping and logging whatever else we want, but all that is required is the condition sign off. Period!
Just this fall at The Great Georgia Air Show I was "detained" by an FAA Maintainance inspector who cited the exact regs that Gil is quoting. I told him he was wrong (this really pissed him off), and he immediately called Ok City.
He wound up be severely chastised for infringing on my pre air show routine and also for not knowing the regs as they pertain to Experimentals.
So, if you choose to "over interpret" the regs be my guest
__________________
Jon Thocker
Habitual Offender
RV4, RV4, RV6A, RV8, RV8, RV8,RV8, RV8, RV8, RV12
|

01-28-2015, 11:52 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Secluded Lake,Alaska (AK49)
Posts: 359
|
|
probably off topic
Can I specify who and how maintenance is done in the Ops Specs? I could conceivably give any future owner the authority to do the maintenance, AND/OR require records be kept to a more restrictive level (for lack of better term) This could increase the value of my aircraft.
|

01-28-2015, 12:17 PM
|
 |
been here awhile
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: North Alabama
Posts: 4,301
|
|
Andrew, you are talking terms and concepts that don't apply to EAB.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew M
Can I specify who and how maintenance is done in the Ops Specs?
|
You can specify maintenance and/or records as narrowly as you wish.....but, No, it won't have any regulatory consequences or weight. EAB doesn't have a document called Ops Specs.
Quote:
|
I could conceivably give any future owner the authority to do the maintenance, AND/OR require records be kept to a more restrictive level (for lack of better term) This could increase the value of my aircraft.
|
ANYBODY already has the authority to perform ANY airframe and powerplant maintenance they want (this is a stunning concept at first glance, but the key to us being able to be experimental), but only a Repairman Certificate holder or A&P can endorse the records for the Condition Inspection.
And I believe we have already discussed the records. 
Last edited by Sam Buchanan : 01-28-2015 at 12:28 PM.
|

01-28-2015, 12:37 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 57AZ - NW Tucson area
Posts: 10,011
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jthocker
OK, how about this. My long time FSDO inspector that has been certifying experimentals in the Cincinnati area for well over 30 years and is quite well versed in these particular regs. has always advised us that the only required logbook or Maintainance entry is the condition inspection. He advocates keeping and logging whatever else we want, but all that is required is the condition sign off. Period!
Just this fall at The Great Georgia Air Show I was "detained" by an FAA Maintainance inspector who cited the exact regs that Gil is quoting. I told him he was wrong (this really pissed him off), and he immediately called Ok City.
He wound up be severely chastised for infringing on my pre air show routine and also for not knowing the regs as they pertain to Experimentals.
So, if you choose to "over interpret" the regs be my guest
|
I don't really want to over-interpret the regs...
I just wish it was more defined in writing somewhere - especially since it affects so many owners now the EAB group is getting larger year by year...
__________________
Gil Alexander
EAA Technical Counselor, Airframe Mechanic
Half completed RV-10 QB purchased
RV-6A N61GX - finally flying
Grumman Tiger N12GA - flying
La Cholla Airpark (57AZ) Tucson AZ
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:12 AM.
|