Condition inspection does not require IA...
Or the repair person for the N
That is such a clear statement of who else may do the inspection.
If you were given the 15 hour credit for using a certified engine/propeller, you may have to burn off 15 hours solo, and that engine is no longer TC'd.
It's clear to you and I, but not to one new to aviation and home-building. We do get some of those people visiting here. The statement was unclear to someone without the background knowledge to understand the context.
Glad we’ve got you ensuring everyone communicates clearly enough to satisfy your arbitrary standard. Be a real mess here without it.
In order for any engine to be installed in a TCd aircraft it must conform to its TC. That includes engines that sat stored in the corner of the hangar for years, bought used, or removed from an experimental. An A&P, IA, or DAR can all conform the engine which would require a logbook sign off stating that conformity or in the case of the installing mechanic his signature implies the work performed is in accordance with the FARS, i.e., the engine used was serviceable.
FYI: an IA is an authorization vs a certificate. An A&P can only apply for that authorization after working 3 years minimum as an A&P. In order to keep his IA current, he must also perform X number of specific works/training each quarter over a 2 year period and then renew his IA every other March. The last ratio I read showed 3 out of 10 A&Ps had their IA.
Technically the engine never loses its TC, it only loses its conformity to the TC. As to the AD issue with E/AB: only if the AD applicability statement indicates it applies to "all" or specifically requires E/AB compliance does the AD apply. There is various guidance on this from ACs to Orders. The determining factor is the airworthiness status (AWC) of the aircraft at time of AD review.
Always happy to help! Avoids many arguments if people try to communicate clearly.
I thought the same thing, that sufficiently large modifications to the engine allowed someone the "rebrand" or "rename" the engine. Maybe I'm thinking if someone built the engine from a bunch of parts? An engine block they bought from someone, crankshaft from another source, new cylinder heads, etc. I honestly don't know.
I've often wondered the same. The engine can be outfitted with several non-OEM parts, but still retain its Lycoming/Continental branding. Kind of interesting.
As stated above, never. You would have to clean sheet design an entire engine to brand it yours, but it would be interesting how that method would work with a DAR/ASI when it came time get an AWC and fly.
Yes.
No. Some AD applicability statements will state "applicable to Model XYZ regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired."
When you remove the data tag and certify the E/AB with having the new type engine, with a data tag that says it is your EXP engine
I now of a Fairchild owner that registered his aircraft as experimental, then removed the data tag from a Ranger 440 and registered the aircraft with his own brand engine so he could run tractor parts in his engine.
But that experimental certificate you refer to is different than a E/AB experimental certificate. With a E/AB he wouldn't need to "rebrand" his engine to run tractor parts as Part 43 is not applicable. With the Fairchild exp. certificate Part 43 is applicable. Also, if an AD came out applicable to all Ranger 440s he would more than than likely have to comply as as most ADs state "as modified, altered, repaired" which would be this owner's Ranger. You can pull the data tag and put whatever tag you want on an engine but it doesn't change things as there is no E/AB rules for engines only aircraft and its inclusive to everything installed on that aircraft.
I think you missed the point, with a new data tag that says it is Joe's exp engine. it is no longer a ranger.
Not quite. As someone usually says around here, got a reference or regulation for that? In the eyes of the FAA its a Ranger 440 modified/altered into a Joe's engine with tractor parts and no longer conforms to its TC. No different than a O-320 modified with Autozone parts. It's still a Lycoming with or without the data tag. TCd engines in E/AB do not follow the same path as Non-TCd engines. So if you don't want any ADs install a VW or a Briggs engine and name it what you want.
once the Ranger (manufacturer's) data tag is removed it is no longer a TCed engine.Not quite. As someone usually says around here, got a reference or regulation for that? In the eyes of the FAA its a Ranger 440 modified/altered into a Joe's engine with tractor parts and no longer conforms to its TC. No different than a O-320 modified with Autozone parts. It's still a Lycoming with or without the data tag. TCd engines in E/AB do not follow the same path as Non-TCd engines. So if you don't want any ADs install a VW or a Briggs engine and name it what you want.
When you build Antique Engines you get into these Pizzing contests with FSDO because many used off the shelf parts made by the standard auto parts manufacturers
The data tag does not determine whether the engine conforms to its TC, rather it's the airworthiness status of the aircraft its installed. Put that Ranger in a E/AB with its data tag and it's still doesn't conform or in your words "it is no longer Tced". But it was still manufactured under a TC/Type Design and was modified/altered into Joe's Super Engine.
Part 21.9? So are you saying the engine is an "owner produced" part?? That's the only way he can be a manufacturer. But I thought you said in an earlier posting that an owner can't manufacture a part that already existed like throttle cables??? But considering we're talking about E/AB aircraft Part 21.9 is not applicable like Part 43. Regardless, for Joe to claim 21.9 he would need to use an approved method and last I checked Ford tractor parts were not PMA'd, TSO'd, or STC'd. But if you're willing to sign off that install or annual on Joe's Fairchild so be it.
I think you are wrong. That data tag, is who built this engine. When the Engine is designated as E/AB it can be built from any parts, because it no longer must adhere to a Type certificate.
Not really, read 21.15 &16
