Jerry Cochran

Jerry Cochran

Well Known Member
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
 
Not smart but slept in a Holiday Express last night

Jerry Cochran said:
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
Click to expand...
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. :rolleyes: 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. :eek:

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.
 
Last edited:
gmcjetpilot said:
...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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Low n Slow said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
You still must have a dataplate

airguy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
plehrke said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Low Pass said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
plehrke said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Reason why I comply or don't comply with AD's

plehrke said:
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 Safety 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.
Click to expand...
No one is going to argue with you that if YOU want to comply with an AD (on what engine, accessory, prop, what else is there, Vans service letter....) its a good idea. I can see you think we are getting away with it, may be reckless by even broaching the topic of AD compliance or no compliance as the case may be. Well lets talk facts and cases in point, not general vague theory.

CASE #1
Take the new 100 hour eddy current inspection on the older hartzells. Remember this hub goes on aerobatic planes, crop dusters with 300 HP engines, as well as 'ramp queens" sitting out for decades near the salt air at sea shore airports. These props have been in service since the late 1960's and now in 2007 we need to do inspections? :rolleyes: The reason is "aging fleet". They can't control the worst with out a blanket catch all. Even low time time well cared for props that are pampered and work in a less severe environment get the AD.

My used older Hartzell was overhauled and is on my RV. I know it was a low time used hub and in perfect shape. So should I comply with the $250 per pop AD after the first 100 hours and every 100 hours there after, about every 9 months or so. You would say absolutly. I would say no. It's my judgement for several reasons. I talked to Hartzell to find out what prompted this AD. I talk to lots of experts that have been in the prop overhaul game for a long time. I was told they have never seen a crack there and suggested no inspections for my homebuilt, but may be a "chicken inspection" at 300-500 hours. If nothing is found, go to TBO or have another look see at 500 hours or 1000 hours. There is some thought about it, not just blatant disregard to safety. I probably will fly the plane the first few hundred hours and than consider an inspection. Than future inspections will be TBD.


CASE #2
I had aluminum governor tube and fittings, but they where perfect. An AD says replace it with stainless steel. The reason many of the aluminum tubes failed was because mechanics forgot to reinstall the support clamps and the tube or fittings would fatigue and crack. So the AD came out mid 1990's, after the design was out and flying since the late 1950's. So part again it was about controlling the OLD fleet. There is no life limit on aluminum gov tubes so they may fail at some point if not installed correctly. Since you don't know if the tube was not installed properly at some point in its unlimited life, just replace it. That makes sense. I decided to go with the stainless and steel fittings. First it cost was only about $150 and second the life on the tube and how well it was installed before was in question. Again my judgement.



AD's on homebuilts goes back to a mistake in an AC that was printed in the 1970's. It was wrong and rescinded. You will still hear old time FAA guys talk about that AC, even though that reference has been disregarded from the records and does not reflect the LAW.

Experimental always to me conjured visions of Bell X-1 or NA X-15. Now experimentals are a different alternative to certified planes, not really an experiment at all. Its possible regs will change in the future, but lets not wish for it or give up freedoms. Don't support those in power with their confused opinion when its wrong. We have plenty of regs to comply with. If we volunteer to make AD compliance status quo they will take us up on it.

If you want to comply DO, but don't condemn those that don't. The little plate on the panel that says DOES NOT COMPLY WITH FAR'S AND AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS........ Because if you say it enough you will put the idea into their head.

I have no problem telling a FED he or she is wrong. Once you give up and give up freedom you can't always get it back. I just say don't abuse the freedom and use common sense. I am not talking about using RED TAG parts.
 
Last edited:
I agree

I used the wrong word when stating "I follow all ADs" I meant that "I address all ADs". This is exactly what you have done in your two examples. You have addressed them and can make the judgement whether they apply to your situation. I never have advocated, nor will I ever, that an experimental should comply with ADs or that the FAA, component supplier, or any one else has the knowledge to make a blanket statement that applies to my experimental airplane.

One last point. I actually did not put the "THIS AIRCRAFT IS AMATEUR BUILT AND DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE FEDERAL SAFETY REGULATIONS FOR STANDARD ARCRAFT" placard in my experimental since that requirement is only written in an AC. I posted "THIS AIRCRAFT IS AMATEUR BUILT AND IS NOT REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE FEDERAL SAFETY REGULATIONS FOR STANDARD ARCRAFT"
 
Yes they do -- says FAA

I just read the June "Airworthiness Newsletter" published by the FAA. Here is a link if you'd like the full PDF.

https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2007/Jun/nuts_and_bolts.pdf

An article in the newsletter gives a definite "yes" to the question "Do Airworthiness Directives apply to engines and propellers installed on experimental amateur built aircraft?"

Below is the text of the article which I hope the FAA won't mind is reprinted for purely educational purposes. The author is not identified.

********************************

Do Airworthiness Directives apply to engines and propellers installed on experimental amateur built aircraft?

This question was submitted by an A&P / IA from the DFW Metroplex area that occasionally does condition inspections on Experimental aircraft. He asks, ?Do Airworthiness directives apply to engines or propellers installed on experimental amateur built aircraft??

ANSWER: Yes.

This has been a controversial subject for years. People assume that because part 43 does not apply to experimental aircraft that AD?s are not applicable. Wrong, it starts in 14 CFR part 91.403(a) which says in part, the owner or operator must maintain the aircraft in an airworthy condition including compliance with part 39. Then we go to , 14 CFR Part 39 where the whole subject of AD?s is covered, and there is no relief given in the rule for experimentally certificated aircraft. This is also covered in

AC 39-7C in paragraph 8. If they had intended to give relief to type certificated products installed on experimental aircraft it would have stated that in the regulation. The 14 CFR part 39 rule says in part, that when an unsafe condition exists in a product and is likely to exist in other similar products, an AD is issued. It?s all about safety to the flying public. If the FAA knows there is a safety issue with a product, it is their job by law to require people that use that product to do something to correct or mitigate the unsafe condition. Big brother has no control over where that product gets used. That?s why if that unsafe product has an applicable AD note, and it ends up on an experimental aircraft, in the interest of safety to the public the AD must be complied with.

If you read FAR part 39 again, with an open mind this time, you will notice that there are no words like ?except for products installed on aircraft that have been issued an experimental airworthiness certificate?, or any other language that gives relief from an applicable airworthiness directive. This is not an area that has received much attention from the FAA Inspector staff, but we expect it may make it to the front lines with the influx of light sport aircraft many of which have type certificated products installed.

I always say ?nothing happens until something happens?. Just think what might happen if an experimental aircraft augers in with your name in the logs for the last condition inspection, and the investigation reveals the engine quit due to non compliance with an applicable AD. That?s food for thought.

********************************
 
AC 39-7C in paragraph 8. If they had intended to give relief to type certificated products installed on experimental aircraft it would have stated that in the regulation.
Click to expand...

Chris,
Just for clarification, "type certificated" products is mentioned twice in the thread you posted. So it seems to me that the question isn't
Do Airworthiness Directives apply to engines and propellers installed on experimental amateur built aircraft?
Click to expand...
, but rather do "Do AD's apply to type certificated engines and props installed on experimental amateur built aircraft?"

My Lyc clone is an Aerosport power and is by definition an experimental engine and therefore by definition, not type certificated. Sound right or am I off here, anyone?
 
Last edited:
Nope, dead on. Experimental engines (non-certificated) are not legally bound by AD. Common sense is another matter entirely.
 
plehrke said:
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.
Click to expand...
Manufacturers (such as Lycoming) cannot issue ADs, only the FAA can issue an AD. Manufacturer's "Mandatory" Service Bulletins are not mandatory for Part 91.
 
Tobin -- I think you're right

tobinbasford said:
Chris,
Just for clarification, "type certificated" products is mentioned twice in the twice you posted. So it seems to me that the question isn't , but rather do "Do AD's apply to type certificated engines and props installed on experimental amateur built aircraft?"

My Lyc clone is an Aerosport power and is by definition an experimental engine and therefore by definition, not type certificated. Sound right or am I off here, anyone?
Click to expand...

Tobin:

I believe you are correct. Your engine -- an Aerosport -- is not certificated so the AD would not apply. The same would be true for any non-certificated engine even though it may be a clone of a certificated one. An AD is specific to an OEM and to the engine models named in the AD.

I think the original question in the first thread of this post was "If I have a certificated engine and I put it in an amateur built experimental airplane, would I still need to comply with the AD?" My take from the FAA article is that "yes" you would. It's not the application that gets the AD, it's the engine (in this case).

To me, another interesting element of the discussion is this: If you have a clone engine but you know that the specific part that is the subject of the AD is the same one on your "clone" engine as the one in "certificated" engine, do you need to comply with the AD? I would think legally, "no", but perhaps "morally" (can I use that thought here?) or at least for the sake of self-preservation you would want to.

I am not an expert and these thoughts are just my opinion/interpretation. Since I operate a certificated engine made by Lycoming, I would comply with an AD. If I had a clone, I would look at the AD and then check with the clone supplier to determine if the part(s) in question matched the ones in the AD. If so, I would be inclined to comply.

Chris
 
AD's and Engines

My Engine is being assembled using a basic Lycoming platform with many other manufactured parts and in no way would be approved by Lycoming specs or any other manufacture specs to fly in any certified plane. The data plate will be removed and the engine will be renamed. No AD's apply or will be complied with unless it's proven to be necessary for safety. :eek:
 
Wrong, it starts in 14 CFR part 91.403(a) which says in part, the owner or operator must maintain the aircraft in an airworthy condition...
Click to expand...
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but an Experimental aircraft like an RV-x isn't "airworthy" by the Fed's definition - you don't certify that the aircraft is "airworthy" when you do the conditional inspection, you certify that the aircraft is "safe for continued operation". Yes/No?
 
jarhead said:
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but an Experimental aircraft like an RV-x isn't "airworthy" by the Fed's definition - you don't certify that the aircraft is "airworthy" when you do the conditional inspection, you certify that the aircraft is "safe for continued operation". Yes/No?
Click to expand...

I believe that you are correct Ken....and, of course, since we are splitting language hairs here, it's a "Condition" inspection....it's not "Conditional" on anything (that I'm aware of....) :p
 
From my operating limitations, in case this helps:

"(22) Condition inspections must be recorded in the aircraft maintenance records showing the following, or a similarly worded, statement: "I certify that this aircraft has been inspected on [insert date] in accordance with the scope and detail of appendix D to part 43, and was found to be in a condition for safe operation." The entry will include the aircraft's total time-in-service, and the name, signature, certificate number, and type of certificate held by the person performing the inspection."
 
Data Plate Removal

While some folks are popping data plates off of their certified engines, they may want to review F.A.R. 45.13.

More food for thought.
 
I'm probably wrong, but

According to FAR 21.82, as I interpret it...the requirement contained in FAR 45.13 to placard engines does not apply to aircraft licensed as amateur built experimental. Furthermore, the FAR you cited seems to only apply to those engines produced under a type certificate...
 
It's not the placarding of the engine at point here.

It's the removing of the data plate from a certificated engine (one which was built by say Lycoming), that is installed on an experimental aircraft (such as builders have discussed below), being inclined to remove the data plate and be done. When in fact there is a requirement to obtain approval from the administrator (FAA) for the removal of the data plate from an engine which was manufacture under a type or production certificate.

Bigger picture- big brother keeps track of these things and wants to know what s/n's are still in the civilian fleet. For plenty of reasons, such as cost analysis when AD's are under consideration, SUPS investigations, etc...

Check out AC 45-3, AC 45-2B for some additional background.
 
...As far as the question of whether or not AD's apply to experimental aircraft see AC 39-7C.

Spells things out pretty clearly. Building/Operating experimental aircraft does not grant you relief from FAR 39.
 
DAR

I'm going with the DAR and his info. Remove the data plate as my engine will no longer be a serialed or part numbered Lycoming Engine. I will have a 40 hour fly off time, but the prop requires the same. I guess we could call it a Briggs & Stratton... :eek:
 
tomcanard said:
It's not the placarding of the engine at point here.

It's the removing of the data plate from a certificated engine (one which was built by say Lycoming), that is installed on an experimental aircraft (such as builders have discussed below), being inclined to remove the data plate and be done. When in fact there is a requirement to obtain approval from the administrator (FAA) for the removal of the data plate from an engine which was manufacture under a type or production certificate.

Bigger picture- big brother keeps track of these things and wants to know what s/n's are still in the civilian fleet. For plenty of reasons, such as cost analysis when AD's are under consideration, SUPS investigations, etc...

Check out AC 45-3, AC 45-2B for some additional background.
Click to expand...

No offense here, but I think you're trying to overcomplicate and over interpret this issue. Keep in mind, that once you attach a non certificated accessory to your "certified engine" (such as an Airflow Performance Injection, Van's Alternator, PMag/Lightspeed, any number of props, and a whole host of other accessories) your engine is no longer maintained to the original type certificate.... Once you go 12 months without an "annual" on that engine, it's no longer airworthy (from a type certificate standpoint). The list goes on and on.

It's that simple.

Others have pointed out the facts here and whether it feels "right" or not, they are correct. Maintain your engine to AD's if you want to, but do it for that reason....

Hope that helps. If you choose to follow the AD's, then good on ya' :)

Just my 2 cents as usual (after doing this for a good number of years and a number of airplanes/engines, etc.. both certified and not). Once again, no flames intended...just trying to keep the waters as clean as they should be. No need to muddy them up with all sorts of "slippery slope" arguments.

Cheers,
Stein.
 
yes they do apply

This was a subject that came up day before yesterday during my A&P practical exam.

Let me quote FAR 39.3:

"FAA's airworthiness directives are legally enforceable rules that apply to the following products: aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances."

The key word is "products". It doesn't matter what type or category aircraft the "product" is installed in, its still a product and since its a product AD's do apply. FAR 39 does not grant exemptions to the experimental category and thus it can be said they apply to all aircraft products.

The language of FAR 39 can allow the FAA can issue AD's to experimental aircraft, experimental aircraft engines, experimental propellers, and experimental appliances but that hasn't happened (yet). Whether or not they would bother to do such a thing is anyone's guess.

I had this pointed out to me by a DAR/DME who has been a DAR/DME for over 35 years and has issued CofA's to hundreds of aircraft, mostly transport category along with many experimentals. He can recite FAR's verbatim. He knows his stuff.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:1.0.1.3.19&idno=14

Nowhere in FAR 39 does it state that experimentals are exempt.

Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying F1 under const.
Indy
 
None taken, Just stimulating conversation which doesn't change the facts. Besides, it's not my interpretation, it's the FAA's.

In regard to the Engine data plate removal discussion:
Compliance with FAR 45.13(c) is a regulatory obligation, not an option, should a builder decide to remove the data plate from an engine which was manufacture under a type or production certificate.

In regard to the 'do AD's apply to Experimental aircraft' discussion, yes they do. Does anyone have a Garmin 430 installed in their experimental aircraft? Have you looked at AD2001-23-17? If you have one of the effected s/n units installed in your experimental aircraft are you regulatory obligated to comply with the AD? You betcha ya.

Your point that an engine ...has brand X accessory attached, ...has been more the 12 months since last annual,...is no longer airworthy...etc does not remove the regulatory obligation to comply with AD's.

All seems pretty black and white to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.