pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 12:06 pm Post subject: Amatuer Built Rules |
 |
|
This thread just struck my 'the FAA sure is stupid' chord. Kind of like
the rewritten GPS rules.
The original intent (if I remember right from my first homebuilt) of the
fly-off period was to check the engine and related systems reliability.
It also gave you a period to do the aerobatic maneuvers, if you so
desired. That was why the fly-off period changes due to certified or
experimental engines.
So , let's say we add video players to the front seat backs weighing 10
Lbs each. We do the math and our new weight & balance empty moment
changes by -.725 inches. Is this minor or major? WHO CARES??? We load
her to the max and go fly for an hour to make sure that we didn't miss
something. All is well, we don't notice any changes from before, but
since we talked to some bozo (I know, there are some that aren't) behind
a desk we still have to test for another 9 or more hours! Bunk.
I find that the less contact I have with my FSDO, the more enjoyable my
hobby is. YMMV, but I'll bet not by much!
Linn
do not archive
James K Hovis wrote:
| Quote: |
<james.k.hovis(at)gmail.com>
The key in this is the reference to FAR Part 21.93. 21.93 defines
"Major" and Minor" alterations to the type design of aircraft. A
"Minor" change is defined as: "one that has no appreciable effect on
the weight, balance, structural strength, reliability, operational
characteristics, or other characteristics affecting the airworthiness
of the product." All other changes are classified as "Major" Also,
21.93 lists acoustic changes as being either "Major" or "Minor".
Adding more avionics that significantly adds empty wieght would most
likely qualify as "Major" alteration that'll require a new fly-off
period. How much time for a fly-off would probably be up to the
individual Fed, if the weight increase is a relativly low amount, then
short fly-off period may be warranted. Installing a new engine
basically the same weight and HP as the original would be a "Minor"
change, but a heavier/ more HP engine would qualify as "Major".
Something like going from a Lyc to an auto conversion would also
qualify as "Major".
Hope it helps...
Keivn Hovis.
On 5/30/07, Wayne Edgerton <wayne.e(at)grandecom.net> wrote:
> Attached is a page from the Experimental Operating Limitations that I
> received from the DAR. Item 16 on the attachment explains this issue.
> The
> DAR told me that any major modification, such as a different engine
> or prop,
> would then cause rule 16 to kick in. He said the fly off time might
> not be
> as long depending on the modification. I think he said like a prop
> might be
> 5 hours.
> Wayne Edgerton #40336
>
> Time: 04:38:16 AM PST US
>
> Subject: Amatuer Built Rules - was ...The Perfect Panel...how to
> From: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal.com>
> When I built my Pietenpol, I had a guy from the Greesnboro FSDO
> do the
> inspection, not a DAR. I asked him just such a question. He
> said an
> engine change, or a propeller change does NOT require
> re-inspection,
> but
> it does require going back into "the box" for an addititional
> 25 to 40
> hours (depending on whether a certified engine/prop combination
> was
> being used) of flight testing before you can carry passengers
> or leave
> the test area. I would assume if that is so for something as
> major as
> an engine, that avionics changes would not require re-inspection
> either.
|
| | - 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 |
|
|
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
