Quote:
Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002
I wasn't going to derail your thread by going off topic but since you are asking specific questions on the subject, here is a couple snips from a presentation I have given called A&P's and non-type certificated aircraft . The entire presentation is in the downloads section of the Van's website.
Do FAA issued AD?s (by regulation) apply to Experimental Aircraft?
? Technically, no.
? FAA has authority to issue an AD against any aircraft operating in U.S. airspace except under
Part 129. FAA?s ability to issue AD?s is limited by practical considerations. The FAR do not
support AD?s for non-TC?ed aircraft. If FAA issues an AD against a non-TC'ed? aircraft, it could
be challenged strongly in court for violating its own rules. AGC (FAA Legal Council) is adamant in
this. FAA refrains from AD's? for experimental amateur-builts and foreign manufactured nonTC'ed? aircraft.
(From an Aircraft Certification Management Team Report published in 1998)
So, the FAA legal department has gone on record saying AD's don't apply to experimentals.
But, in the next page of the presentation I say this.....
Should FAA issued AD?s be applied to
Experimental category aircraft?
? Yes
Remember that the certification statement for the completion of a condition inspection is ?I certify
that???. and was found to be in a condition for safe operation?
The potential issues being addressed by the issuance of an AD are (usually) going to be as relevant
on an experimental as they are on a Type Certificated aircraft. Because there is some latitude
from a regulatory standpoint, a mechanic can use their own judgement if they choose to.
So in a legal context they are not binding, but if an incident or accident ever occurred that appeared to be at all related to to something addressed with an AD, the person that signed off the last condition inspection as being in a condition for safe operation could be asked to explain why they did so when there was the potential for the existence of an unsafe condition.
|
i totally agree with you on ADs and experimental aircraft. the question however, is what about a engine,prop, or accessory that was produced under a TCDS and is now on a experimental aircraft. The FAA is, as alwas all over the chart on it.
Yes, I know AC's are not regulatory. but the FAA will sure throw them at you in an investigation. AC 39-7d says:
b.Non-TC?d Aircraft and Products Installed Thereon. Non-TC?d aircraft (e.g., amateur-built aircraft, experimental exhibition) are aircraft for which the FAA has not issued a TC under part 21. The AD applicability statement will identify if the AD applies to non-TC?d aircraft or engines, propellers, and appliances installed thereon. The following are examples of applicability statements for ADs related to non-TC?d aircraft: (1)?This AD applies to Honeywell International Inc. Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) models GTCP36-150(R) and GTCP36-150(RR). These APUs are installed on, but not limited to, Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0100 and F.28 Mark 0070 airplanes, and Mustang Aeronautics, Inc. Model Mustang II experimental airplanes. This AD applies to any aircraft with the listed APU models installed.? This statement makes the AD applicable to the listed auxiliary power unit (APU) models installed on TC?d aircraft, as well as non-TC?d aircraft. (2)?This AD applies to Lycoming Engines Models AEIO-360-A1A and IO-360-A1A. This AD applies to any aircraft with the listed engine models installed.? This statement makes the AD applicable to the listed engine models installed on TC?d and non-TC?d aircraft.
so I would argue that the final legal ruling may be that no it doesn't apply, since the lawyer department say that,but since a different part of the FAA says 'yes it does" i don't want to be the checkbook that has to pay to find out what a judge says it really means.
bob burns
RV-4 N82RB
Linear Mode
