AD's on Experimental A/C

Maybe this topic has been brought up here before, But do
homebuilt/experimental aircraft have to comply with Airworthiness Directives
set forth by the FAA? specifically, I have a lycoming O-290G model engine in
my airplane and since that engine was not designed for aircraft use, I
wonder If I have to comply with AD's on it. Also, other accessories and/or
avionics in my plane are not TSO'd so therefore I guess there would not be
any AD's on those either.

Its all a little confusing to me. Maybe someone can provide a quick answer
that makes it clear.

Thanks.

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 23:36:21 -0500, "moby" wrote:

Maybe this topic has been brought up here before, But do
homebuilt/experimental aircraft have to comply with Airworthiness Directives
set forth by the FAA? specifically, I have a lycoming O-290G model engine in
my airplane and since that engine was not designed for aircraft use, I
wonder If I have to comply with AD's on it. Also, other accessories and/or
avionics in my plane are not TSO'd so therefore I guess there would not be
any AD's on those either.

Its all a little confusing to me. Maybe someone can provide a quick answer
that makes it clear.

No certification, no ADs. Short and clear enough?

Ron Wanttaja

The one caveat I can think of is if you use a certified engine to get the 25
hour fly off time vice 40 hour time I think you'd probably be held to the
AD.
John


Ron Wanttaja wrote:

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 23:36:21 -0500, "moby" wrote:

Maybe this topic has been brought up here before, But do
homebuilt/experimental aircraft have to comply with Airworthiness
Directives set forth by the FAA? specifically, I have a lycoming O-290G
model engine in my airplane and since that engine was not designed for
aircraft use, I wonder If I have to comply with AD's on it. Also, other
accessories and/or avionics in my plane are not TSO'd so therefore I guess
there would not be any AD's on those either.

Its all a little confusing to me. Maybe someone can provide a quick answer
that makes it clear.

No certification, no ADs. Short and clear enough?

Ron Wanttaja

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 07:44:33 +0000, jp wrote:

:The one caveat I can think of is if you use a certified engine to get the 25
:hour fly off time vice 40 hour time I think you'd probably be held to the
:AD.
:John

I've heard the same thing (though the version I've heard was certified
engine *and prop*)

But I've gotten a 25 hour fly off with a non-certified, modified
Lycoming and non-certified composite/wood prop. It looks like it's
whatever your DAR is comfortable with.

I comply with all the engine AD's I can, or at least take them as
serious warnings. Not because they're required, just because they
might be good ideas.

Ron Wanttaja wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 23:36:21 -0500, "moby" wrote:

Maybe this topic has been brought up here before, But do
homebuilt/experimental aircraft have to comply with Airworthiness Directives
set forth by the FAA? specifically, I have a lycoming O-290G model engine in
my airplane and since that engine was not designed for aircraft use, I
wonder If I have to comply with AD's on it. Also, other accessories and/or
avionics in my plane are not TSO'd so therefore I guess there would not be
any AD's on those either.

Its all a little confusing to me. Maybe someone can provide a quick answer
that makes it clear.

No certification, no ADs. Short and clear enough?

Ron Wanttaja

I would think that ADs against transceivers would apply, especially
if the defect would put the transmission parameters outside legal
limits. Ditto for ELTs.
In Canada, there's an AD that forces ALL aircraft owners to
pressure-check the exhaust system yearly or every 150 hours, whichever
comes first, if the system is used for cabin heat. No exceptions.

Dan

Richard Riley wrote:

I've heard the same thing (though the version I've heard was certified
engine *and prop*)

Like you say, it's *supposed* to be 25 hours for a certified
engine *and* *prop*, but there seem to be a lot of cases
where a certified engine alone gets you 25 hours. I also
know of at least one case where a non-certified engine got
25 hours. Like everything else, it depends on the inspector.
Personaly, I can't imagine feeling done after 25 hours. I've
got at least 50 hours planned, and that would apply regardless
of what engine and prop I used...but I can see the utility of
being able to leave the flight test area with less. I've got
a certified engine (an O320-D2C, apparently THE O320-D2C)
and experimental prop (Aymar-Demuth). I'm also slow as
molasses and only have about 5 hours on the airplane so far.

I comply with all the engine AD's I can, or at least take them as
serious warnings. Not because they're required, just because they
might be good ideas.

Same here on all counts.

Dave 'creeper' Hyde
RV-4 Builder, EAA Tech counselor

Maybe this topic has been brought up here before, But do
homebuilt/experimental aircraft have to comply with Airworthiness Directives
set forth by the FAA?

snip

No certification, no ADs. Short and clear enough?

True for an airframe or experimental engine. But if the aircraft uses any
component such as an appliance or propeller or engine etc. then the AD's
against that comoponent would apply even if the aircraft it experimental.
Appliance ADs most often use a phrase such as "..is applicable on any aircraft
certificated in any category... That would cover the experimental category.

John Dupre'

(JDupre5762) wrote in
:

Maybe this topic has been brought up here before, But do
homebuilt/experimental aircraft have to comply with Airworthiness
Directives set forth by the FAA?

snip

No certification, no ADs. Short and clear enough?

True for an airframe or experimental engine. But if the aircraft uses
any component such as an appliance or propeller or engine etc. then
the AD's against that comoponent would apply even if the aircraft it
experimental. Appliance ADs most often use a phrase such as "..is
applicable on any aircraft certificated in any category... That would
cover the experimental category.

John Dupre'



ah....., no


--
ET


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

No certification, no ADs. Short and clear enough?

Ron Wanttaja


Short enough. Clear enough. But WRONG - at least according to my local FSDO.

Background:

Last year I ground looped my experimental (looks like a piper pacer, but
it's an experimental). Attracting the attention of the local FSDO. Bad move.

They went over my paperwork, and cited me for not complying with the AD's on
my Slick Mag and lift struts.

I pointed out the little passage in part 43 that says - er...what you just
said...

Their reply was that even experimentals are required to be "Airworthy".
Since an "AD" is an "Airworthieness Directive", it is declaring the affected
part "non-airworthy". Therefore I gotta fix it!

You see their logic. I even agree with it. (I have replaced the struts). But
it still ****es me off!
Is there an appeals process?

"Ron Webb" wrote in
:


No certification, no ADs. Short and clear enough?

Ron Wanttaja


Short enough. Clear enough. But WRONG - at least according to my local
FSDO.

Background:

Last year I ground looped my experimental (looks like a piper pacer,
but it's an experimental). Attracting the attention of the local FSDO.
Bad move.

They went over my paperwork, and cited me for not complying with the
AD's on my Slick Mag and lift struts.

I pointed out the little passage in part 43 that says - er...what you
just said...

Their reply was that even experimentals are required to be
"Airworthy". Since an "AD" is an "Airworthieness Directive", it is
declaring the affected part "non-airworthy". Therefore I gotta fix it!

You see their logic. I even agree with it. (I have replaced the
struts). But it still ****es me off!
Is there an appeals process?







Very ridiculous, since if you had used struts off a 69 ford fairlane, you
would have had no problem.... If this indeed ends up to be true, I will
endevour to use ZERO certified parts on my experimental.

--
ET


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams