Originally Posted by
cub builder
That may or may not be true, but when your E-AB aircraft sporting a Lycoming engine on the nose is involved in an incident, the FAA inspector is going to go right to the engine log and look for A.D compliance. You may not agree with him gigging you and the A&P that signed your condition inspection (if you don't have a Repairman Certificate), but regardless of whether you agree or not, you and whoever signed the condition inspection will be on defense. I have seen it happen.
In this case, the non-certificated the wood prop failed where it had recently picked up a rock ding and threw some 6" off one tip. The pilot executed a forced landing, but was unable to get squared up on his intended landing site causing damage to the landing gear and some minor damage to the airframe. The FAA inspector Insisted on a review of the engine logs for AD compliance even though it wasn't relevant to the failure and the engine was undamaged. The owner conveniently lost to logs so as to not involve the A&P that had signed the logs (it was not up to date on it's A.D.s). The log book was found at a later date after the FAA had lost interest.
Lesson for me as an A&P (and it wasn't me that had signed the CI), if you have a certificated engine on the front of your plane and bring it to me for a CI, it's going to comply with the AD list for that engine. If you don't like it, then find an A&P that's willing to risk his license to save you a couple of $$.
We can discuss interpretation of regulations to our little hearts delight here in the blogosphere, but in the real world, someone's likely to be on the hook for non-compliance. You can be right, but it's still costly, time consuming and aggravating to prove the FAA inspector to be wrong. As an A&P, I find having conversations with the FAA and NTSB following accidents to be one of the less enjoyable parts of the job. And I sure don't want be on the defensive if I have to have one of those conversations.
-Cub Builder