Misinformation!

[deene]

Years ago, I managed to get FAA sign offs to take the A&P tests. I used 20+ years of Ci's on my BD4 as a repairman, a number of days of certified aircraft work under AI supervision (with sign offs) and a recommendation letter for the required experience.

Because of the liability (and associates' expectations) I decided to not finish the tests to get the license.

[DonFromTX]

I got mine back in 1987 Deene, and I think they have tightened up the requirements since then. I did it out of frustration of other A&Ps taking advantage of me on my Cherokee 140. I have never had any interest in holding myself out as a "for hire" A&P, but I do a few Condition Inspections on friends EAB planes that I am familiar with, and of course it has been very worthwhile for playing with my own planes..

[GalinHdz]

Originally Posted by RV8JD

I'm confused. Engines do get Type Certificates. For example, here is a link to the Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS) for the IO-540 engine series (Type Certificate No. 1E4):

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu.../$FILE/1E4.pdf

In the Certified world, aircraft, engines, and propellers get Type Certificates.

WOW, since it is type certificated I can install this engine on a C-150 or any airframe I want to. Or is this just the certificated SHEET of the engine DATA which: "meet the minimum standards for use in certificated aircraft in accordance with pertinent aircraft data sheets and applicable portions of the CAR/FAA regulations provided they are installed operated and maintained as prescribed by the approved manufacturer's manuals and other approved instructions"?

[BobTurner]

Originally Posted by GalinHdz

WOW, since it is type certificated I can install this engine on a C-150 or any airframe I want to. Or is this just the certificated SHEET of the engine DATA which: "meet the minimum standards for use in certificated aircraft in accordance with pertinent aircraft data sheets and applicable portions of the CAR/FAA regulations provided they are installed operated and maintained as prescribed by the approved manufacturer's manuals and other approved instructions"?

As discussed earlier, if you ever install it on an EAB then the presumption is that it was not "...maintained by the approved...", e.g., someone other than an A&P laid his hands on it for something beyond oil changes, etc. You need to get an A&P to bless it as okay before installing it in a certified airframe.

[rmartingt]

Originally Posted by GalinHdz

WOW, since it is type certificated I can install this engine on a C-150 or any airframe I want to. Or is this just the certificated SHEET of the engine DATA which: "meet the minimum standards for use in certificated aircraft in accordance with pertinent aircraft data sheets and applicable portions of the CAR/FAA regulations provided they are installed operated and maintained as prescribed by the approved manufacturer's manuals and other approved instructions"?

No, engines themselves get type certificates, just as aircraft do. The pertinent regulations for engines are found in Part 33. Propellers also get type certificates (see Part 35).

The aircraft also gets a type certificate, and the approved design for the aircraft specifies the engine. The applicable aircraft regulations (Part 23 and Part 25 for fixed-wing) require that the engine have a type certificate.

Just because the engine has its own type certificate, doesn't mean that you can just slap any engine with a type certificate onto any aircraft. The design change would still have to be tested and approved via STC or amended TC.

Now, you can install any engine you want onto an E-AB airplane.

[RV7A Flyer]

Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002

I received a nice reply from the articles author.
He said the article was written 17 years ago and is apparently still floating around the internet.
He said the info he provide was confirmed by the St. Louis FSDO at that time.
I let him know that even 17 years ago, it was not correct, but since many FSDO people still believe it today, I am not surprised that he got that response them.

So the question still stands...did he understand that he was wrong, and is he going to correct his misinformation?

[rvbuilder2002]

Originally Posted by RV7A Flyer

So the question still stands...did he understand that he was wrong, and is he going to correct his misinformation?

He seemed to have an understanding that "things have changed" (though I did explain that rules were the same 17 years ago).
He also understands the challenge related to not all FAA offices even knowing what the rules really are (said he deals with that all the time).
But to answer you question.... no he isn't going to write a correction, because the web page that it was recently linked to in this thread is not his and he has no connection with it in any way.

[RV7A Flyer]

Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002

He seemed to have an understanding that "things have changed" (though I did explain that rules were the same 17 years ago).
He also understands the challenge related to not all FAA offices even knowing what the rules really are (said he deals with that all the time).
But to answer you question.... no he isn't going to write a correction, because the web page that it was recently linked to in this thread is not his and he has no connection with it in any way.

That's pretty irresponsible, I'd say. Write an article filled with erroneous information, then throw your hands up when someone publishes it and disavow your responsibility to correct the misinformation.

Perhaps someone here should contact the publishing site and submit a correction for them to post?

And he's posted the same misinformation in other places, like here in 2009:

https://blog.globalair.com/post/Owne...intenance.aspx