Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 60

Thread: Repairs on an Experimental/AB

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    8

    Repairs on an Experimental/AB

    I've been in the EXP/AB arena for about 8 years. I've built 2 and owned one
    I didn't build. I thought I understood the requirements. Has there been
    some changes I'm not aware of?
    In this month's Kitplanes there's an article by Amy Laboda about insurance
    and accidents/incidents. In this article she states, in the context of an
    aircraft that's going to need repairs .. "someone who has purchased an Experimental
    but does not have an A&P certificate, will have to go either to an A&P or the
    original builder in order to have it repaired".

    Huh???? Unless there's a requirement in the Operating Limitations saying
    that all repairs must be done by an A&P or Repairman Cert holder, why
    would you need to have one repair it? Part 43 doesn't apply to Experimentals.

    RT
    Last edited by RogerT; 11-26-2013 at 02:48 PM.

  2. #2
    FlyingRon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    CJR / NC26
    Posts
    978
    She's wrong. You're right.
    Certainly the FAA believes it is that way.
    Never heard of an insurer thinking otherwise. In fact, unless botched maintenance is the proximal cause of the crash, I've never even heard of an insurer asking who did the maintenance.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    780
    You know its one thing for us on forums like this to get something wrong, but when something like this gets published in print in a magazine the average person would take this as gospel or the truth. I would have thought this magazine would want to get this correct. I wonder if they will print a retraction and correct this.
    But the worse part is this person is out spreading this around. She/he needs some education on this and maybe aviation in a hole, if they want to play in the pool they need to learn the rules. Someone needs to wright this person a letter and educate them. This is like a cancer and will spread faster then the truth.

    Tony
    Last edited by 1600vw; 11-27-2013 at 05:23 AM.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    780
    Example...IA is needed for a Condition Inspection on EAB....I have gone around and around and around with not only A&P's but others on this subject..

    For those whom do not know..You DO NOT need an IA for a Condition Inspection on a EAB.

    Spread the word....

    Tony

  5. #5
    FlyingRon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    CJR / NC26
    Posts
    978
    I've had severe issues with the editorial on Sport Aviation and the related mags for a few years now. There are continually inaccurate (sometimes to the point of dangerous) and otherwise just plain stupid articles present. It's not quite as bad as IFR Refresher got a few years ago, but it appears we may have "professional editors" involved, but they lack any sense of content area specialty. If you are going to go that way, you have to do what the technical journals (and book publishers do) and employ some pre-publication reviewers to keep things sane.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    FA40
    Posts
    436
    Quote Originally Posted by 1600vw View Post
    ... Someone needs to wright this person a letter and educate them....Tony
    perhaps editorial@kitplanes.com could forward your suggestion to ms. laboda.

    Luke 6:42

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Clarklake, MI
    Posts
    1,268
    when something like this gets published in print in a magazine the average person would take this as gospel or the truth. I would have thought this magazine would want to get this correct. I wonder if they will print a retraction and correct this.
    Not likely, incorrect information has been published in aviation periodicals for the +40 yrs I've been reading them. So they are not 100% accurate. Not many publications are. Have yet to come across anything I would classify as "dangerous"

    Example...IA is needed for a Condition Inspection on EAB....I have gone around and around and around with not only A&P's but others on this subject.
    Seems like that could be resolved in ~2 minutes by a review of the aircraft operating limitations vs. arguing over who is right.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    780
    Marty you are correct but whom has these operating limitations with them, when not in your airplane. I do not carry them in my back pocket. Every time I get in this discussion my airplane is not even in sight. An A&P should know this. I should not have to show them my Operating limitations on my Homebuilt for them to know this.

    Tony

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    780
    Quote Originally Posted by cdrmuetzel@juno.com View Post
    perhaps editorial@kitplanes.com could forward your suggestion to ms. laboda.

    Luke 6:42
    I did not read the article but commented on a posting. Someone whom read the article should respond to this, and don't post the article then expect me to respond. Seems you have the link and know what this is about, why tell me to do this?

    Tony

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Clarklake, MI
    Posts
    1,268
    Quote Originally Posted by 1600vw View Post
    An A&P should know this. I should not have to show them my Operating limitations on my Homebuilt for them to know this.
    Tony, I was both a student and instructor at an FAA Part 147 A&P school. I can assure you, inspecting homebuilt aircraft is not part of the curriculum. Not sure how an A&P is supposed to magically possess that information. They have to learn it, just like you did. Perhaps you can reference FAA Order 8130.2.
    Last edited by martymayes; 11-27-2013 at 08:50 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •