 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 7:57 pm Post subject: more on conditionals |
 |
|
Well, I don't think an A&P is going to judge a factory built during an
annual as you describe, but since you are on and I'm not, I'll give you
the benefit of the doubt. I don't think a conditional inspection is
supposed to be a design critique. My conditional inspection on my Pitts
certainly isn't. I'm not an aeronautical engineer, nor do I think of my
A&Ps that way either. I guess I'm glad that there are those out there
that will stick their necks out and allow thse that don't build to
experience some of the benefits of owning a homebuilt. The fears you
have apply to any airplane, certified or homebuilt. You're faced with
following behind someone elses work ..... some you can't see ...... yet
you still sign off on the airplane. I think that's going to be a
judgement call ..... if you see crummy workmanship I bet you look closer
than you may otherwise. Just my thoughts. I've seen a few examples of
homebuilts that I absolutely won't get in. In my lowly opinion they
shouldn't have airworthy certificates, but they do. An A&P, when asked
to do a conditional inspection, would probably just decline. While
we're on the subject, there are two distinct parts of this annual
(yearly) activity ..... the inspection, and the taking care of the
squawks. You know that, but a lot of owners do not. It all boils down
to that statement you put into the logbook ...... or not.
Linn
do not archive
Kelly McMullen wrote:
| Quote: |
I am in no way insulting their knowledge of aircraft. But there is no
way in hell they can understand what the design stresses are on a
one-off experimental aircraft, what the designer intended, and whether
it has been properly maintained. A&P's have no training to evaluate
your non-aviation grade hardware commonly found in many homebuilts,
other than to think bad things about it. What looks perfectly normal
and safe on a Cherokee can kill you on a Pitts. If you don't have the
plans or equally good manual to reference, you have no way of judging
whether something is good for -1.5Gs or -4.0 Gs. If you knew the level
of instruction at Part147 schools and the content of A&P tests like I
do, you wouldn't be so trusting. I didn't say what they are doing
isn't legal, just that they are sticking their necks out so far they
will need binoculars to see their shoulders. I doubt you will find
many non-A&Ps that will have a clue on the risks, how repairs that
missed 1 item or 1 step come back to bite you real hard.
linn Walters wrote:
>
> <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net>
>
> Sorry Kelly, but I respectfully disagree. If I was an A&P, I'd be
> rather put out with your characterization. An airplane is an
> airplane, and the training that an A&P has applies to systems and
> construction no matter if it's assembled by an amateur or an airplane
> company. I would expect that an A&P would apply the same basic
> inspection technique for a Piper 100 hr. or annual inspection to an
> experimental ...... which would check all the basic systems. It's
> what he's trained to do. It's what he's paid to do. There are a lot
> of experimentals at my airport that aren't owned by the builder, and
> the A&Ps that inspect my certificated aircraft, also inspect those
> experimentals. I don't think of them as ignorant, without a clue, or
> fools. I think of them as professionals that they are, and am open
> minded enouth to learn from them.
> Linn
> do not archive
>
> Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> What you say is a literal interpretation of the rules. While Part
>> 43.13 does not apply to amateur built experimental, any A&P that
>> doesn't abide by it is leaving themselves wide open in terms of risk
>> and liability. Do you really want a condition inspection done by an
>> A&P that knows nothing about your airplane? Especially a plane used
>> for aerobatics and inverted flight? An A&P used to inspecting flight
>> school Cherokees and 172's won't have a clue what to look for and
>> would be a fool to do an inspection on your aircraft. JMHO.
>>
>> linn Walters wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net>
>>>
>>> I'm no A&P. nor do I play one on TV ...... but I do my own
>>> conditional inspection on my Pitts since I am the builder. It's
>>> been my experience that the manufacturers manual and stuff applies
>>> only to certified aircraft that have a type certificate to inspect
>>> to. There is no such 'standard' to be applied to amateur built
>>> experimental aircraft, so none is required. Certified aircraft
>>> require signature by an AI for the annual inspection. An A&P,
>>> however, can sign off an experimental for it's conditional inspection.
>>> Hope this muddies the water a little more.
>>> Linn
>>> do not archive
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> http://wiki.matronics.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://wiki.matronics.com
|
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kellym
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1705
Location: Sun Lakes AZ
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 8:19 pm Post subject: more on conditionals |
|
|
There is the rub. On a certified aircraft you have an approved parts
manual and an approved maintenance manual and an equipment list. On
amateur built you have what you see, what the owner tells you and not
much else to go on. You don't know what the designer specified, vs what
the builder used, vs what current owner substituted, for each and every
part of the aircraft. The unknowns on a certified airplane mostly
pertain to how the pilots handle the aircraft and whether previous
mechanics have adhered to the TC and the STCs. You have a standard to
compare to..the type certificate. Plenty of expertise available from
thousands of inspections. On amateur built the unknowns are infinite, so
you have to deal with that in the condition inspection. Sure, you can
limit the inspection to wear, corrosion and signs of damage/stress. But
you won't know what is approaching its fatigue limit where there is no
database of reported difficulties, typical problems found, unlike
certified planes. You really are flying blind. So at best you get
opinion of A&P doing inspection and differing one from A&P correcting
the discrepancies, and neither one may be correct.
linn Walters wrote:
| Quote: |
Well, I don't think an A&P is going to judge a factory built during an
annual as you describe, but since you are on and I'm not, I'll give you
the benefit of the doubt. I don't think a conditional inspection is
supposed to be a design critique. My conditional inspection on my Pitts
certainly isn't.
|
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
