There are a few of us on another forum having this discussion. I posted a webinar the EAA put out on this and I am being told by these people that the EAA has it all wrong. If you listen to the first 4 mins of this webinar you will hear what they are telling me is wrong.
I told them the EAA would not put this out if the info was wrong.
http://eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=2608772875001
You're going to have to explain what the issue was. Other than absolutely horrid presentation technique, the only issue is that he kind of uses hyperbole talking about the operating limitations relationship to the condition inspection. There's only a couple of items in the specimen operating limitations that apply (which he actually enumerates).
The EAA is certainly no infallible. They've written completely inaccurate and unsafe things in Sport Aviation before (that magazine lost any semblance of editorship a long time ago).
ok, I listened to first 4 minutes.....did not hear anything incorrect. care to elaborate?
So what's the big deal Tony? An E-A/B is not airworthy. Not sure why anyone that is not authorized to sign off a condition inspection should get all pedantic over it.
I am being told experimental airplanes are airworthy. This is by a group of Homebuilders on another forum. Those members believe an experimental airplane is airworthy. I post this webinar and I was told by a few members the man doing this webinar don't know his..You get the idea.
So who believes an experimental airplane is airworthy? A couple of these people are members on this forum. I will not mention names.
Tony
My E-AB is airworthy, as per the English language definition of the word.
My E-AB is not airworthy, as per the FAA's regulatory definition of the word, because it has not been certified by the FAA to meet any of their type-certification standards.
Not an issue. Just follow the operating limitations' required wording when entering the annual condition inspection statement into the log book.
BJC
You will be surprised how many do not know or understand this. I bet not one of these people make a comment here who told me this is wrong. Again I will not mention names.Originally Posted by Byron J. Covey
I agree with this 100%. Per my OPLIMs my log entries state my E-AB aircraft is in a condition for safe operation, not that it's airworthy. However in lay terms that's what I equate it to even though technically it's not.
Todd “I drink and know things” Stovall
PP ASEL - IA
RV-10 N728TT - Flying
EAA Lifetime Member
WAR DAMN EAGLE!
What difference does it make? None of these folks will ever sign off a condition inspection so let them think what they want. You can't control what others think, do or say.
Arguing "airworthy" vs "safe for flight" is like quibbling over people who say "annual" with regard to the condition inspection. It makes ZERO safety difference, and very small amounts of regulatory difference. If you want to get right down to it, the FAA can always find something that isn't airworthy on any aircraft.
What you do need to know, and the lecturer in this video does cover well, is what the standards for the CONDITION inspection is. At least in the parts I endured wasn't wrong.
This is a far cry from the SA telling people to punch test their dacron or giving improper information on how to talk to ATC in class C airspace.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote