Hot off the press!!!!! http://www.eaa.org/news/2012/AC 39-7D.pdf
Wait......... nothing is ever final with the FAA!!
Wait......... nothing is ever final with the FAA!!
Last edited:
9. APPLICABILITY OF ADs. [...] Unless stated otherwise (see subparagraph 9b of this AC), ADs only apply to type-certificated (TC) aircraft, including ADs issued for an engine, propeller, and appliance.
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 [...]
Probably worth moving this out of test.
Hmmmm...
If I build a plane, say "Rick's Super Plane" and later sell it. Can I later, myself, (try to) issue an AD that the new owner must follow?
This AC is not worth the paper its written on. AC's are not regulatory. As long as FAR 39.3 is written the way it is, all AD's apply. I take that in the future they will be less ambiguous on the language used in writing new AD's as they apply to experimentals.
Why do you think AD's apply to experimentals no matter how they are written?
It was my understanding that AD's were only compulsory for 'type certificated' aircraft to maintain their airworthy status. If that's true then they were not compulsory for experimental aircraft. (My take, other will disagree )
.....
I agree. Also when I sign my conditional inspection I state that it is airworthy condition. How can you sign that if there is a documented airworthiness issue with a component unless you specifically look at the AD and determine it applicability to your aircraft and either dismiss it of fix it. Does not matter what the regs say, it is doing want makes sense and what is safe. I will take that extra step to give me that much more margin from being a statistic.AC = advisory
Far r=regulation
If you have a Lycoming, garmin, Hartzel or whatever component in your plane, and they issue an AD, you can be sure they did not do it for fun. They do not want to issue them if they can help it. So when they do it is a genuine reason for something serious.
I agree. Also when I sign my conditional inspection I state that it is airworthy condition. How can you sign that if there is a documented airworthiness issue with a component unless you specifically look at the AD and determine it applicability to your aircraft and either dismiss it of fix it.
While I think this AC is probably a step in the right direction, here's something to muddy the waters...
From page 19 of the 2012 AIM:
"Advisory Circulars - The FAA issues Advisory
Circulars (ACs) to inform the aviation public in a
systematic way of nonregulatory material. Unless
incorporated into a regulation by reference, the
contents of an advisory circular are not binding on the
public. Advisory Circulars are issued in a numbered
subject system corresponding to the subject areas of
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) (Title 14,
Chapter 1, FAA)."
(Accents by me)
Seems pretty clear... However, from the previous page:
"d. This publication, while not regulatory(...)"
So we have a non-regulatory publication stating that ACs are non-binding...
How we doin' now?
John
(Love bureaucracies!!)