AC No:39-7D Subject: Airworthiness Directives

[Mike M]

anybody know of an existing thread on this, point me there, please.

otherwise - I have a bunch of questions about

"Big Win for Experimental Aircraft on AD Applicability"

http://www.eaa.org/news/2012/2012-03-15_win.asp

First, I don't get ADs from the FAA. Including emergency ADs. Because they have no record of what component appliances are installed on my experimental aircraft since there is no type certificate and thus no type certificate data sheet. Do I need to register each bit and piece with the FAA? How?

Second, now I'll need an AD search to sign off an annual condition inspection. Major problem. Without a TCDS, will have to search by each and every previously certificated part. Every year.

Third. Let's say I've rebuilt the framistan on my experimental and installed non-certified parts in it. Not hiding anything, i have a full list of what went into it in the airframe and engine logbooks. Each of those appliances still has the data plate on it. Now FAA issues AD on the appliance, by manufacturer. But the part affected isn't in my aircraft or has been altered such that the AD does not apply. Before, I could have "ignored" the ad by entering in the logbook that I've considered it but it doesn't affect the aircraft because the part's not installed or it's been altered or i just plain want to figure out what will happen if i ignore it, after all, it's in an experimental aircraft. Now, do I need to go to FAA to get approval for an AMOC to the AD to continue in service? Or just make the same type entry as in the past? with or without notification?

Fourth, since I don't get applicable emergency ADs, do I need an AD search before each flight to comply with CFR 14 91.103 which requires checking ALL available info for preflight planning? See item two above, but change "every year" to "every flight".

Fifth, when altering an appliance from its certificated state, I have not removed or altered the data plate because that's prohibited in CFR pt 45 without approval of the Administrator. So must I now go back and get Administrator approval for the larger filter on my vacuum pump and the high compression pistons and electronic ignition, etc? And then do I alter the data plates involved? Or do I ask approval to remove the data plate and install my own?

I asked HQ for clarification on these questions. "Most likely we will not have a resolution until AirVenture 2012 at the earliest."

glad that was an advisory circular and not a reg. "big win" my patootie.

[WLIU]

Well, A&P IA's have had to do AD searches for every 100hr and annual inspection since the beginning of time in FAA terms. So they think that you, as the maintainer of the airplane, are just having to do what a normal mechanic does.

What you can do, since you and I spend time on the internet, is go to the FAA web site and sign up for e-mail notice of AD's for the components in your aircraft. Its free. The bad news is that you will get AD's that you don't care about and spend time putting them in the trash bin. But just make a spreadsheet that lists AD's and note "Not Applicable - Part not installed" or something similar for the ones that you do not care about. Even if you have a normal certificated aircraft you legally really can ignore AD's that do not apply to your aircraft, but it might make you feel better to have a record that you know about the AD and intentionally ignored it.

If you modify a part and put it on an experimental airplane, you are no longer bound by the prohibition on preserving the data plate as you have made that part your own. So you can put a new data plate on it or stamp your data on the data plate. After all, you are the manufacturer of the airplane that you build and you make the data plate for that aircraft.

All of that said, some AD's are worth knowing about. Magnetos have a history of different kinds of failures for instance. There have been some AD's on components incorrectly repaired by commercial shops so as to bring down airplanes (bad crankshaft overhaul, etc). So getting AD's in your inbox can be a good thing.

Oh, and the FAA inspectors often treat advisory circulars as guidance to do their work these days. The start in their handbook section of the Flight Standards Information Management System (FSIMS) that is online, but then go in the AC's for stuff that is not completely covered by their internal work instruction. So its not really "just and Advisory Circular". Sorry. Go start reading the FSIMS 8900.1 stuff if you want to see where they start with parts and experimental aircraft.

Fly safe,

Wes
N78PS

[Mike M]

Well, A&P IA's have had to do AD searches for every 100hr and annual inspection since the beginning of time in FAA terms.

understood. with professional documentation of installed equipment, a manageable problem. and on the one airplane i own a year, still not unmanageable. but for the others? just pass the research time on to the customer? right.


sign up for e-mail notice of AD's for the components in your aircraft.

yep. again - on one airplane i own, it might work. it will be easier if you're right about the next item.


If you modify a part and put it on an experimental airplane, you are no longer bound by the prohibition on preserving the data plate as you have made that part your own. So you can put a new data plate on it or stamp your data on the data plate. After all, you are the manufacturer of the airplane that you build and you make the data plate for that aircraft.

now that would make it easier. pull every data plate before installation, thus no AD is ever applicable. and for the experimental airframe, ok. but for the appliances? i believe it's true, but i can't find the ref allowing pulling data plates off "appliances" without administrator approval. even if i mod them. and what if they aren't mod'ed? you have the ref?


...some AD's are worth knowing about...AD's in your inbox can be a good thing.

for MY aircraft, yes. which is why it's maybe not such a swift idea to toss every data plate.

[/QUOTE]FAA inspectors often treat advisory circulars as guidance[/QUOTE]

yep. which is why this isn't necessarily a big win to have this AC on the books.

i see an elephant of a problem coming down the line for subsequent owners of experimentals. not holders of repairman certs for their own bird, not A&Ps who own an experimental. Joe Public who can't find an inspector for the conditional because nobody using a certificate to make a living wants to count on finding all the appliance data plates (if they are still there) and serial numbers (if they are still there) and logbook entries about the mods to the items and then go search the AD database. the research time alone could drive the cost of the inspection out the roof, which means that aircraft will probably go on the block and the next owner will have the same problem.

the policy is nice, the goal is laudable, but the AC needed a lot more wrenches and hammers thought before publication.

[Richard Warner]

Better than signing up for AD's, just go to the FAA homepage and click on mechanics and then click on Airworthiness Directives and do a search for the appliances you are concerned about. I am an A&P with I.A. and to the best of my knowlege and according to the latest Advisory Circular Advisory Circular (AC 39-7D), AD's don't apply on experimental aircraft, however, in the interest of safety, its a good idea to keep up with them on your appliances and engine. You won't have to do an AD search to sign off your non certified amatuer built aircraft condition inspection.

[Racegunz]

I wish every A/P agreed with you Mr Warner I've found that the ones around me hold experimentals to evey AD they've ever heard about, because "you don't know where that strut/spar/prop/cable/pulley/ect. came from, it all has to come apart and be magnafluxed /dye checked /ect. ect. ":mad:......I just parted the plane out and started over.

[steveinindy]

"you don't know where that strut/spar/prop/cable/pulley/ect. came from, it all has to come apart and be magnafluxed /dye checked /ect. ect. "

That's simple enough (although not necessarily cheap) to avoid by keeping track of your sources and refraining from using non-aircraft parts. My fiancee jokes that I'll literally be able to track the rivets back to the batch number I bought them from because of how anal I am about record keeping. It's not quite THAT bad but there will be a spreadsheet with the origins of all the major components so that I (or someone else) can track it back if necessary or should they just be feeling particularly masochistic that week.


Well, A&P IA's have had to do AD searches for every 100hr and annual inspection since the beginning of time in FAA terms.

*shudders* I don't even want to think about what the AD search for a truly complex homebuilt would look like. It could take longer than the actual inspection!

[Richard Warner]

That's a "crock" Racegunz. Those guys may be doing that for liability reasons to cover their rear ends from some shyster lawyer if there is an accident or injury. Out FSDO here has enough to do with worrying about all the helicopters in the oil field business to care whether or not AD's are required. Contrary to what several people posted on this forum initially(Their posts have disappeared), an Advisory Circular advises everyone, mechanics, owners, and yes, FAA inspectors on how the regulations are to interpreted, however, since they are written by attorneys, they are hard sometimes to interpret. When I sold my homebuilt, I disasembled it and sold it for parts with no paperwork whatsoever to hopefully eliminate liability. When I built it, I had a Lycoming 0-320 in it and the FAA inspector didn't require any mention of AD Notes when I had the initial airworthiness inspection. Good luck with your start over.

[steveinindy]

Out FSDO here has enough to do with worrying about all the helicopters in the oil field business to care whether or not AD's are required.

Our FSDO here (the same one Racegunz deals with) tends to not be nearly that busy. That said, the guys based here are also nice, polite and seem to go out of their way to be helpful. I will get flamed for saying this but our state government could really take a lesson in customer service from the way the local FSDO is operated. Then again, just getting a new governor would fix most of those issues but I digress...

[martymayes]

I wish every A/P agreed with you Mr Warner I've found that the ones around me hold experimentals to evey AD they've ever heard about, because "you don't know where that strut/spar/prop/cable/pulley/ect. came from, it all has to come apart and be magnafluxed /dye checked /ect. ect. ":mad:......I just parted the plane out and started over.


That's one of the pitfalls of having an A&P work on your homebuilt that doesn't bother to become familiar with the applicable rules. Somewhat ironic that you can bolt automotive or boat parts on your homebuilt with zero airworthiness standards (no idea where they came from, the manufacturing process or anything else) but any component that originates in aviation will be held to continuing airworthiness standards? Really? I have to apply the Chewbacca defense here.

There's a lot of A&P's in this country. I think it would easier to find another A&P than to part out a plane and start over.

[martymayes]

I don't even want to think about what the AD search for a truly complex homebuilt would look like. It could take longer than the actual inspection!


Nah, here is a homebuilt AD list:

2046

No reason for it to be any more complicated than that.

[steveinindy]

Nah, here is a homebuilt AD list:

2046

No reason for it to be any more complicated than that.

Point taken and it works, right up until, you know, there's something important getting overlooked and it goes out and you're not aware of it. I like the idea of being a test pilot but not when my family is along for the ride. My fiancee is pretty understanding but I'm pretty sure we ditch the plane or put it down in a cornfield only to find out that I could have prevented it by paying attention to the ADs. Nothing like living through a crash only to have one of your passengers kill you. LOL

To each and to their own Marty. You want to be simplistic and keep the "guv'mint" out of your flying and I want to make sure I don't overlook something. Either way, hopefully both of us wind up where we're going and can poke fun at each other over a beer or lunch if we ever meet.

[Racegunz]

The problem has never been with the FSDO at Indy they have been great except for one guy's very condescending comments when I first got into the aviation quandry. The problem I had is I didn't build the plane and by the time I aquired it all builders logs were gone. I tried 3 a/p's none would even consider signing off on it without fairly extensive work and costs, even though all three had different items they wanted replaced or sent off for testing. I tried to argue that they were holding it to certified standards and in some cases higher,(alot of what they had a problem with was original construction not present condition)but they would not budge. I called another who said they weren't supposed to do what they were doing but it's their name on the logs so he understood why.
Actually I understand too now that time has passed, it's the same thing with a certified rig, if you buy one and take it away from the A/P I/A that has familiarized himself with it the new guy has to recheck everything to be sure it's been complied with, you know the drill "never trust the last guy he's probably an idiot and probably did it wrong.
Build your own and these problems go away for as long as you keep it, so that's what I'm doing. I can't see me ever owning a certified aircraft unless I get my CFI and use it for training or eventually get my A/P myself.