frankh
Well Known Member
Presumably
You would not issue a denial letter if the fuel pumps were in the wingroots?
In that case it is (hydraulically speaking) perfectly acceptable to have a BOTH position on the selector..In fact with this system you don't even need (or want) a selector.
Just wondering if the "Both" position was a matter of your policy or do you take the system design into account?
Frank
As a DAR, I REFUSED to issue the Special Airworthiness Certificate to an RV-6A till the builder changed the fuel selector to one that did NOT have a both.
This was a couple of years ago. As a DAR, I am still NOT going to issue the Special Airworthiness Certificate to a LOW wing RV that has a both position.
Maybe you can get someone else to do it for you but all you will get from me is a DENIAL LETTER.
You would not issue a denial letter if the fuel pumps were in the wingroots?
In that case it is (hydraulically speaking) perfectly acceptable to have a BOTH position on the selector..In fact with this system you don't even need (or want) a selector.
Just wondering if the "Both" position was a matter of your policy or do you take the system design into account?
Frank