On Nov 18, 1:19*pm, wrote:

I completely agree that we are not talking about some black art, much
as the FAA would like us to believe it is...

I fully agree with you, and I agree especially with this point in
particular.

The FAA policy verbiage regarding experimental aircraft in specific,
and general aviation aircraft in general is in some respects at odds
with the actual language in 14CFR. And individual FSDOs are often at
odds with each other about how both the policies and the rules in
14CFR are interpreted and enforced.

My favorite example of this is the language in 14CFR21 that allows
owners of type-certificated aircraft to manufacture replacement parts
for their own aircraft under certain fairly reasonable circumstances.
I've talked with a couple of DERs and DARs who swear up and down that
that cannot possibly be true, and that any part not anointed and
blessed by FAA, TSO, PMA and STC and other TLAs too numerous to
mention is bogus, counterfeit and illegal. And yet there it is in
black and white in 14CFR21.303. Here are my two favorite articles on
this topic:

http://www.faa.gov/news/aviation_new...ulyAug2001.pdf

http://www.faa.gov/news/aviation_new...ulyAug2002.pdf

I like to encourage people to understand exactly what the FAA and the
regulations in 14CFR actually do and do not require when it comes to
the maintenance, repair, and modification of experimental aircraft.
And to further understand the authority under which those requirements
are based.

My somewhat paranoid fear is that if we let ourselves believe that an
officially-blessed signoff is required for every little thing, then
some day the FAA may come to believe it as well. And when they find
out it's not true, they will just go ahead and make it true in the
next round of NPRMs.

Thanks again, and best regards to all

Bob K.
www.hpaircraft.com