Lycoming AD's: Legally binding?

[Jerry Cochran]

Folks,

As just said, selling my RV-6a share and a prospective buyer insists that an engine once certified even though installed in an RV thence becoming "Experimental", is still legally subject to every AD to come along, making every owner and inspector down the line liable for FAA fines, lawsuits, and the same nasty stuff the certified world deals with.

I told him I had never heard of such a thing, and though prudent to comply with AD's in the interest of our own lives, experimental aircraft are not subject to these problems.

I know there are some smart, qualified people on this forum who can answer this. Who is right?

Thanks all,
Jerry Cochran

[gmcjetpilot]

Originally Posted by Jerry Cochran

Folks,

As just said, selling my RV-6a share and a prospective buyer insists that an engine once certified even though installed in an RV thence becoming "Experimental", is still legally subject to every AD to come along, making every owner and inspector down the line liable for FAA fines, lawsuits, and the same nasty stuff the certified world deals with.

I told him I had never heard of such a thing, and though prudent to comply with AD's in the interest of our own lives, experimental aircraft are not subject to these problems.

I know there are some smart, qualified people on this forum who can answer this. Who is right?

Thanks all,
Jerry Cochran

I can say with out a bit of doubt AD's don't apply to experimental aircraft, their prop or engine, even if they came out of a certified plane.

You are right and he is wrong. He's working on hearsay and ignorance. I don't mean that as an insult. Some in the FAA think this. However if you go by the rule of LAW, than you are correct, AD's don't apply. If you are an EAA member you can access the "legal brief" why it is so.

As you point out its recommend, good idea, CYA, lawsuit, cheap insurance (or not so cheap insurance) by complying.

When it comes to individuals such as a designate inspector, A&P and AI, than it's up to their judgment (or ignorance) to sign it off, but the threat of the boogie man and severe penalties by the FAA are false reasons. Precived liability or comfort, yea, but not a leagle reason. Based only on strict law, part 39 (AD's) or part 43 (maintenance) to name a few key FAR's don't apply at all to your RV-6, end of story.


It is kind of like selling a flying kit plane and your liability. There are horror stories or much worry, based on what if's, myths and legends. There is no case where someone was successfully sued. Van was sued over the RV-8 for structural deficiency, but they where successful in defending them self. John Denver flew into the ocean with a newly purchased used Longez; His estate sued who? Not the builder but Spruce Aircraft and the manufacture of the dumb fuel valve. Why? Because they have money. Never mind the late Mr. Denver had no pilot's certificate (revoked for too many DUI's) and was flying at wave top height and probably flew into the water trying to change tanks after he ran out of gas.

There is the one catch all which always hangs over any one's head all the time, "reckless and careless operation" or equivalent for mechanics. I am not aware of anyone ever being fined or sued over non AD compliance on a home built kit plane/experimental. However if there was a legal case or court precedence. It's possible some judge or jury may find or rule not changing an oil pump or inspecting a prop per an AD was careless, IF it was a cause of an accident? However there is no precedence.

If the guy want's AD compliance than have him pay for it.

[az_gila]

The EAA has a good paper/position on this...

http://members.eaa.org/home/govt/issues/airworthy.asp

EAA membership need to log into the link....

gil in Tucson

[Jerry Cochran]

Originally Posted by az_gila

The EAA has a good paper/position on this...

http://members.eaa.org/home/govt/issues/airworthy.asp

EAA membership need to log into the link....

gil in Tucson

George and Gil,

Thanks for the responses, and that EAA doc is very helpful, basically says it all. Not sure even that will convince the guys from the "Certified" world. They just can't imagine the freedom we have.

Jerry

[Low n Slow]

Originally Posted by gmcjetpilot

...However if you go by the rule of LAW, than you are correct, AD's don't apply. If you are an EAA member you can access the "legal brief" why it is so.

Jerry, I?m new to experimentals having grownup in the certified world (we just bought our first flying RV4), but from what I?ve been able to determine, it seems to me that the applicability of AD?s is in a grey area and might not be so clear cut as many in the experimental world believe.

For example, I?m told by someone with direct personal experience, that if an engine or engine component (a mag for instance) has an original data plate, our local FSDO considers all AD?s applicable, even if they?re mounted on an experimental. And their decision might vary depending on which particular FAA person you have to deal with, or his or her mood at the time.

Eaa?s logic makes perfect sense to me too, but keep in mind, decisions about government policies require neither logic nor facts (e.g. the government claims the war in Iraq has something to do with the war on terror).

Tom

[airguy]

Originally Posted by Low n Slow

Jerry, I?m new to experimentals having grownup in the certified world (we just bought our first flying RV4), but from what I?ve been able to determine, it seems to me that the applicability of AD?s is in a grey area and might not be so clear cut as many in the experimental world believe.

For example, I?m told by someone with direct personal experience, that if an engine or engine component (a mag for instance) has an original data plate, our local FSDO considers all AD?s applicable, even if they?re mounted on an experimental. And their decision might vary depending on which particular FAA person you have to deal with, or his or her mood at the time.

Eaa?s logic makes perfect sense to me too, but keep in mind, decisions about government policies require neither logic nor facts (e.g. the government claims the war in Iraq has something to do with the war on terror).

Tom

I've heard this from other people as well - and my response would be to tell the FSDO guy to stand back and count to ten, and see if I've finished popping that dataplate off by the time you finish counting. No dataplate, no AD's - back to pure experimental. That shiny new commercially-made magneto just became an "experimental ignition device". It ultimately falls upon the experimental builder/pilot to ensure the aircraft is AIRWORTHY, not that it happens to have the correct dataplate on any particular part.

[plehrke]

Originally Posted by airguy

tell the FSDO guy to stand back and count to ten, and see if I've finished popping that dataplate off by the time you finish counting. No dataplate, no AD's - back to pure experimental.

The engine must still have a dataplate even if it is an experimental. My engine is from AeroSport Power and has a AeroSport Power dataplate, designation, and serial number. I must maintain all directives and procedures from AeroSport Power.

I also maintain all Lycoming ADs as well as there is a reason for an AD and they "should" be followed whether it is experimental or not. I just read the posting "getting away with it" by Ironflight in the Safty forum about cheating the odds on flying in Texas thunderstorms over the past weekend. If you want to play with the odds then you legally do not need to conform to the Lycoming ADs. I chose to follow the ADs.

[Low Pass]

Originally Posted by plehrke

The engine must still have a dataplate even if it is an experimental. My engine is from AeroSport Power and has a AeroSport Power dataplate, designation, and serial number. I must maintain all directives and procedures from AeroSport Power.

I also maintain all Lycoming ADs as well as there is a reason for an AD and they "should" be followed whether it is experimental or not. I just read the posting "getting away with it" by Ironflight in the Safty forum about cheating the odds on flying in Texas thunderstorms over the past weekend. If you want to play with the odds then you legally do not need to conform to the Lycoming ADs. I chose to follow the ADs.

Nothing except the transponder, ELT and the airframe (hope I didn't miss one!) on an experimental needs a nameplate. And to technically be correct, a non-conforming engine - Lycoming or Briggs & Straton - should have the name plate removed to be proper.

As for Experimentals being required to comply with ADs, please apply that to your own equipment. The entire successful, safe and cost effective world of experimental aircraft has done quite well without this overbearing requirement. As a matter of fact, experimentals would be non-existent with this process. Please, go back to production aircraft with this broad suggestion. Let's leave AD conformance to the individual - as it is currently.

[plehrke]

Originally Posted by Low Pass

As for Experimentals being required to comply with ADs, please apply that to your own equipment. The entire successful, safe and cost effective world of experimental aircraft has done quite well without this overbearing requirement. As a matter of fact, experimentals would be non-existent with this process. Please, go back to production aircraft with this broad suggestion. Let's leave AD conformance to the individual - as it is currently.

The link posted by az gila stating EAA's position makes sense to me.

Indivivdually, I address all ADs on equipment in my plane. Everybody has their own way of assuring their experimental in safe to fly.

[Rotary10-RV]

Originally Posted by plehrke

The link posted by az gila stating EAA's position makes sense to me.

Indivivdually, I address all ADs on equipment in my plane. Everybody has their own way of assuring their experimental in safe to fly.

Somebody should also mention if you buy a Lyc NEW from Vans that the factory has liability for defective parts and a warranty position to be maintained. They will probably provide parts, but not labor for AD'ed cranks etc... Since you can do your own rebuild you still save loads doing it yourself. I'm always totally PO'ed that they don't have to do a recall like any Automaker would be required to do!
The position on engine mods has always been that you can remove a data plate, but you can't legally put one back on. That engine, mag or carb is now an experimental item for ever. No one would buy your non-data-plate engine for a certified aircraft even if it was a truly certified engine when you removed the data plate. Should this be a possibility you would want to maintain a data log just like a certified aircraft, and self-comply with AD's. You could still sign off on any work done yourself, and should do a legitimate flyoff too to be legit, even if the engine isn't going back to a certified aircraft. Many will poo-poo this concern, but a lot of RVs get re-engined by their owners durring their lifetime, usually up rating from a 160 to a 180 HP engine for example. FWIW

Bill Jepson