Yellow Tag for Experimentals

[Andrew M]

The 8130 shows who is responsible for what work. The repair person or shop can't determine if the part is suitable for a particular installation and the installer needs to know what was done to the part. An examle is a hollow crank that gets a particular inspection for pitting, but no AD sign off because the shop does'nt know if the crank is going for a constant speed or not. The S.B. that the AD requires is on the work order, and the A&P signs of the AD as previosly complied with on Work Order #xx, but only if its required for that installation. Talk of yellow tags only confuses the issue for me in that I can not find any legal definition.
Andrew

[apkp777]

Originally Posted by awm

Experimentals are certified aircraft
Andrew

I think here is where some of us (myself included) confuse the issue. Experiments are "certified" (experimental) but not "certificated". That is, there is no Type Certificate. All maintenance, repairs and alterations must conform to the manufacturer's type certificate when the aircraft has a Type Certificate. Because an experimental has no type certificate, there is no requirement for such conformity. We can (and should) demand the same quality and quantity of work if we are paying the same price. Looks to me like there is no maintenance requirement at all for an experimental with the exception of transponder and condition inspections.

This is all new to me and I am trying to educate myself as much as I can. All my A&P experience in the past is on Type Certificated aircraft. I am "all ears" to any corrections to my understanding.

[Ironflight]

Maybe I'm just waking up slow Tony, but I thought it was the other way around.

"Certificated" means that the aircraft has an airworthiness certificate, of any kind (including "Experimental"). "Certified" means that it meets some set of standards such as a Type Certificate. I think I saw that discussion in the past few weeks - very subtle language difference.

Paul

[Andrew M]

Tried to find definitions for ceritfied and certificated in Part 1, no joy. Those word are used in the definition catagory and class. My experiance with the regulations would suggest there is a way from here (I want my experimental stuff signed off) to there (a difinitive yes or no per whatever). I'm having a hard time finding it. Any Feds, ex Feds or other regulatory types out there?
Andew

[apkp777]

Originally Posted by Ironflight

Maybe I'm just waking up slow Tony, but I thought it was the other way around.

"Certificated" means that the aircraft has an airworthiness certificate, of any kind (including "Experimental"). "Certified" means that it meets some set of standards such as a Type Certificate. I think I saw that discussion in the past few weeks - very subtle language difference.

Paul

You might be right. You might be wrong, that's why it's so hard to wrap your head around this. I think its how we use the terms.

I may be wrong on this for sure. I am just now getting ready to fly my plane and starting to think about experimental airworthiness.

It's always been my understanding the an Experimental Airworthiness Certificate is FAA authorization to fly an aircraft that does not have a Type Certificate as opposed to a Standard Airworthiness Certificate for aircraft that do have a Type Certificate.

I really want to get this straight, forgive me if I have added to any confusion.

[Mel]

At least that's how I understand it from our DAR seminars.

CERTIFICATEd means it has been issued a certificate.
Certified means it meets a known standard.

Van Stumpner (AFS 640) can correct me if I'm wrong.

[apkp777]

Originally Posted by Mel

At least that's how I understand it from our DAR seminars.

CERTIFICATEd means it has been issued a certificate.
Certified means it meets a known standard.

Van Stumpner (AFS 640) can correct me if I'm wrong.

I'll buy that. I stand corrected.

[apkp777]

Originally Posted by sahrens

Here is a lnik to a NTSB review of an FAA action against an A&P who installed a "yellow tagged" part that was not serviceable and the work order said so. The short version is it was mis-tagged.

https://ntsb.gov/alj/o_n_o/docs/AVIATION/4810.PDF

Whether the part is tagged, or not, only the work order provides a complete view of the part.

That's VERY interesting. They indicate in the document that the "yellow tag" has come to signify in the
industry a serviceable part, when the work order sent with it
clearly indicated the contrary.

They chose not to sanction the A&P. Now I can see why the use of the "yellow tag" is going away. It sure was necessary at UAL where I spent all my time.

This is all been very educational.

[flyguy6a]

Originally Posted by flyguy6a

Just have had kind of a daunting experience. I had an FAA certified shop check some parts on a LYCO O-360. They agreed up front to issue the "yellow tag" aka FAA form 8130-3 if the crank, cam, and rods passed Magnaflux and Zyglo inspections.

Went to pick up the parts, and there was no yellow tag even though the invoice said it had passed.

Explanation: "We don't issue a tag for experimental engines."

Can anyone tell me if this is true, that shops don't have to do this for experimentals? ... and why wouldn't they?

Before I call the FAA on this, maybe some of the smart folks on this forum can help me???

Shop relented, yellow tag 8130 in hand, thanks to use of arguments from this forum. Upshot was that makes no diff if the intent is to put in an experimental anyway. They passed the part, told me it was airworthy so could have then sold it to anyone to put in production aircraft, or anything.

BTW, they never saw the dataplate that said experimental, just what I (foolishly it turned out) told them.

Reason prevailed. Lessons learned...

Thanks all,

Jack

[Ironflight]

And rememebr - when you need to buy a replacement Nippondenso alternator at Autozone...it's for a Dune buggy.....