Altering/Fixing/Maintaining Your Aircraft

This thread illustrates why we need the owner maintained category in this country. No more cheating and lying required and those of us with the skills and tools can save money and enjoy our planes even more.

If we had a E/FB (Experimental/ Factory Built) category that mirrored the rules that the E/AB follow, I would transfer my certificate in a heartbeat. I may yet go experimental, they just haven't built the right kit plane to tempt me yet.
 
If you really want to work on your aircraft find an A&P that will supervise your work, keep them in the loop and protect their certificate.

If you're saying that undocumented work by an owner endangers the certificate of the A&P who signs off on the annual, for me, that in itself would be reason enough to do it the proper way.
 
What is interesting to me are the comments from some that seem to imply just because someone is A/P means they are trustworthy. Does that mean you'll trust anyone in your life with anything that is licensed? Just because they have a license means that you're going to trust your safety with them?

In a perfect world this may be the case, but a perfect world we are far from. Although I don't own a plane, I'm quite sure the reality is that there are good and bad A/P's just as there are good and bad licensed practitioners in other industries.

I don't think it's out of line to think that there exist out there some who, although are not certified A/P's, are more trustworthy and ethical about their business. I'm not saying to use them to wrench on one's plane, only pointing out that a certificate doesn't mean that my full trust goes out to them automatically.
 
Don't tell me you're one of those guys who doesn't drop a Quarter at the coffee mess because.....who's gonna know?

I thought I was pretty clear the previous times I said that this isn't about me, but I guess not.

So again, I don't own a plane, and this is not about me. It's a topic that I think is interesting because of the way I've heard it discussed in the past by various pilots. I brought it up to see what the POA feedback was and so far it looks pretty interesting.

And regarding your question, no, that's not something I'd do.
 
What is interesting to me are the comments from some that seem to imply just because someone is A/P means they are trustworthy. Does that mean you'll trust anyone in your life with anything that is licensed? Just because they have a license means that you're going to trust your safety with them?

In a perfect world this may be the case, but a perfect world we are far from. Although I don't own a plane, I'm quite sure the reality is that there are good and bad A/P's just as there are good and bad licensed practitioners in other industries.

I don't think it's out of line to think that there exist out there some who, although are not certified A/P's, are more trustworthy and ethical about their business. I'm not saying to use them to wrench on one's plane, only pointing out that a certificate doesn't mean that my full trust goes out to them automatically.

I think that if someone finds that their A&P is untrustworthy, it's time to find another A&P.

What do you think should be done?
 
I think that if someone finds that their A&P is untrustworthy, it's time to find another A&P.

What do you think should be done?

I would of course agree, but I would check up on their references before I hired them. It's not absolute or foolproof, but at least it's due diligence and lowers the chances.
 
Well, I do my best to work with my A&P on the work I do. It works out well. I think it's rather silly to do otherwise. If your A&P isn't interested in working with you on it, then find a different one.

Exactly. To the OP, just do what the vast majority of owners I know do: establish a good working relationship with a local A&P/AI, pay him for his expertise and time while you do whatever owner-assisted work he's comfortable having you do (which is often quite a bit.) Over time he will learn what you're capable of and cut you loose to do a lot of your own work with him reviewing things before you button it back up.

Mechanics understand the costs of aircraft ownership and usually like to help keep people flying. Just be fair and compensate him when he provides assistance or puts his name in your logs.
 
I made no claim of anyone being an idiot nor did I even remotely refer to such an idea. But I am going to call BS on your claim.

There are those who tinker and work on things their whole lives, and those that don't. Those that are mechanically and technically inclined, as well as detail oriented, and those that aren't. Call them amateurs because they are not licensed if you like, but I wouldn't agree.

You take a simple part swap. Straight up replacement, no modification...battery, brake pad, alternator, whatever, and explain to me how exactly you can tell if the dealer did it, or the owner in their garage, GIVEN that he used the right tools. You can't tell. I've done cleaner and nicer work on things than OEM reps have done (planes not included).

You're clearly not one of those.

Anyone who can't tell the difference between a 5 year old alternator and a 6 month old identical model has no business working with moving parts. That's both easy and obvious.

Recent electrical work is also obvious, as is replacement belts, hoses, fuel lines, etc. Brake pad/rotor wear inconsistent with age, and so on.

Don't assume mechanics are idiots. They will know right away what recent work has been done, and now you get to explain the missing log entries. Or more likely, the mechanic will tell you to get lost as he won't want to assume liability for your illegal work. That goes 50 times if you try to lie.
 
Last edited:
Then, of course (unless you are dealing with a one man shop) there is the fact that while the log book may be signed by an A&P, the actual work could have been done by someone who only hopes to be an A&P someday and is using your airplane to learn on while he/she accumulates the necessary experience.
 
Then, of course (unless you are dealing with a one man shop) there is the fact that while the log book may be signed by an A&P, the actual work could have been done by someone who only hopes to be an A&P someday and is using your airplane to learn on while he/she accumulates the necessary experience.

Which is no problem so long as you know about it and are ok with it. A lot of the work on the Aztec and 310 were done by A&Ps in training. Actually, I had fewer times I brought a plane back to them than I brought it back to other shops where bonafide A&Ps were the only ones turning wrenches.
 
You're clearly not one of those.

Anyone who can't tell the difference between a 5 year old alternator and a 6 month old identical model has no business working with moving parts. That's both easy and obvious.

Recent electrical work is also obvious, as is replacement belts, hoses, fuel lines, etc. Brake pad/rotor wear inconsistent with age, and so on.

Don't assume mechanics are idiots. They will know right away what recent work has been done, and now you get to explain the missing log entries. Or more likely, the mechanic will tell you to get lost as he won't want to assume liability for your illegal work. That goes 50 times if you try to lie.

Despite what this guy says, it's easy to lie and get away with it once, twice, maybe more, if you're good. If you're not, it will end poorly. The better option is to find a good IA that doesn't want to be troubled with changing your brakes, starter, alternator, oil, tires, bushings, strut seals, etc. That guy will teach you tons, save you money, and keep you legal.

A cert. does nothing to tell you if the guy cares about his work and can use his head. He should have the book knowledge, but never assume even that! Even if he's smart/good/been-at-it-a-long-time, take a peek before it's cowled/closed up. You'd be amazed what a fresh pair of eyes might find.

If the above was enlightening in any way, step away from the toolbox. You have some learning to do, young grasshopper.
 
Despite what this guy says, it's easy to lie and get away with it once, twice, maybe more, if you're good. If you're not, it will end poorly. The better option is to find a good IA that doesn't want to be troubled with changing your brakes, starter, alternator, oil, tires, bushings, strut seals, etc. That guy will teach you tons, save you money, and keep you legal.

A cert. does nothing to tell you if the guy cares about his work and can use his head. He should have the book knowledge, but never assume even that! Even if he's smart/good/been-at-it-a-long-time, take a peek before it's cowled/closed up. You'd be amazed what a fresh pair of eyes might find.

If the above was enlightening in any way, step away from the toolbox. You have some learning to do, young grasshopper.

Pretty good input, thanks.

Agree absolutely on the cert comment. I knew guys that made it through CG engineering courses that I wouldn't let change oil or a bike tire.
 
I have no interest in installing your airtex interior kit mr airplane owner, but since I do maintain your airplane, feel free to ask questions so it gets done correctly. First DON'T EVEN ****ing TOUCH a drill!

Second, your plane will probably need to be weighed after.

Third.....
 
This thread illustrates why we need the owner maintained category in this country. No more cheating and lying required and those of us with the skills and tools can save money and enjoy our planes even more.

If we had a E/FB (Experimental/ Factory Built) category that mirrored the rules that the E/AB follow, I would transfer my certificate in a heartbeat. I may yet go experimental, they just haven't built the right kit plane to tempt me yet.

WE really don't need a new category, all we need is a change to far 43 rules for return to service.

who cares who bends the wrench?
 
WE really don't need a new category, all we need is a change to far 43 rules for return to service.

who cares who bends the wrench?

So if you could initiate the change, what would you propose, exactly?
 
Traveller,

I heard somewhere that you guys got a Great Lakes ONLY license. That true?
 
So if you could initiate the change, what would you propose, exactly?

FAR 43.7

(i) owners may return to service minor maintenance including removal and replacement of Appliances of like items.

That would enable the owner to have anyone or them selves to replace appliances such as alternators, mags, radios, and other items such as engine cylinders.

That would satisfy 99% of the maintenance the owners have done by A&P, yet still require the inspections and type certificate to remain the same.
 
I went to a safety seminar at Air Salvage of Dallas a few years ago. The fellow showed three heaps of scrap that used to be airworthy aircraft. He went over the circumstances, and technical issues of each crash also talking about how many fatalities were involved. Two of them were directly caused by maintenance mistakes.

I would STRONGLY recommend such a seminar to the OP.
 
What is interesting to me are the comments from some that seem to imply just because someone is A/P means they are trustworthy. Does that mean you'll trust anyone in your life with anything that is licensed? Just because they have a license means that you're going to trust your safety with them?

In a perfect world this may be the case, but a perfect world we are far from. Although I don't own a plane, I'm quite sure the reality is that there are good and bad A/P's just as there are good and bad licensed practitioners in other industries.

But isn't that the whole purpose of a tight regulatory structure & licensing? To ensure a minimum level of qualification to keep you "safe"? :stirpot:
 
But isn't that the whole purpose of a tight regulatory structure & licensing? To ensure a minimum level of qualification to keep you "safe"? :stirpot:

A few days ago, I get a call from a owner of a tripacer. He has a very stiff trim wheel, and would like me to come see what's wrong. I tell him it is cold out side and I'd rather he get a can of cleaner and clean the jack screw that is the trim actuator, and call me back with the results of that.

I feel that should be with in the capability of any owner, to clean and service their aircraft and that is with in the scope of FAR 43- A.
If you can't remove a small panel, clean and lube a jack screw why own? I know that many A&Ps are starving, but I can't charge that owner enough to cover expenses for a job like that.
 
A few days ago, I get a call from a owner of a tripacer. He has a very stiff trim wheel, and would like me to come see what's wrong. I tell him it is cold out side and I'd rather he get a can of cleaner and clean the jack screw that is the trim actuator, and call me back with the results of that.

I feel that should be with in the capability of any owner, to clean and service their aircraft and that is with in the scope of FAR 43- A.
If you can't remove a small panel, clean and lube a jack screw why own? I know that many A&Ps are starving, but I can't charge that owner enough to cover expenses for a job like that.


You're being very general and thereby giving folks a false sense of security IMHO.

That jackscrew may have an AD against it or ICA and owners just don't have the mindset to look for those kinds of things.
<Grease is grease and cleaner is cleaner and this what I have handy so I'm gonna use it>

How many owners ask you what level of DOT brake fluid to buy?
 
The problem with common sense is that, sometimes, it ain't so common!

As alluded to above, if an aircraft owner has sound skills, he or she should be able to satisfy an agreeable A&P that will supervise and, if the work is done to the A&P's standard, certify the work.

I've known people who would sign off anything - and that is not the guy I want! I like to learn, and I like to do stuff with my hands, and sometimes that saves me some money, but it's almost always emotionally satisfying to do.
 
FAR 43.7 items such as engine cylinders.


I can see a rash of cylinder failures due to make-a-gasket spread all over the cylinder bases. Fine if it kills the moron who did it, tragic when it kills someone else.
 
I feel that should be with in the capability of any owner, to clean and service their aircraft and that is with in the scope of FAR 43- A.
If you can't remove a small panel, clean and lube a jack screw why own? I know that many A&Ps are starving, but I can't charge that owner enough to cover expenses for a job like that.
Maybe so, but like Brian says below, its not always so cut and dry as your example. Did they use the proper grease? Did they forget to grease it back and just clean it all off? Most likely most people should be able to accomplish these tasks. Just to use your example: Even jackscrew grease can have bad outcomes--remember?

You're being very general and thereby giving folks a false sense of security IMHO.

That jackscrew may have an AD against it or ICA and owners just don't have the mindset to look for those kinds of things.
<Grease is grease and cleaner is cleaner and this what I have handy so I'm gonna use it>

How many owners ask you what level of DOT brake fluid to buy?
Agreed.
 
OK, I've been an airplane owner(and expect to own again), and I've been a 'tinkerer' all my life. I have an EE degree, and mostly familiar with metals, metal working, electrical systems, engines, engine acc, hydro systems, and a lot of other gadgetry we find on vintage planes. I do much of my own work on my planes, and have never caused an accident(only one data point).

Having said that, I have an A&P whom I work with regularly in areas where I am not an expert. Because being an "expert" in terms of aviation is the minimum standard that I want to put my kids in to fly around. Being an expert, and a journeyman together is the best of all worlds and between the two of us, that's what we have.

A few years ago I put my first set of front seat shoulder harnesses in a vintage plane. I'd done very little aviation quality riveting, so I took an online class, and got the A&P, the cleekos, drills, countsink bore, deburr tool, buck bar, and pnuematic hammer, and we went at it. Boy, what an experience for someone who had only done Cherry-max blind riveting before. The more I saw, the more I realized it was an art, and not one that can be just figured out in 20 minutes. Once those rivets were driven, I trusted them with my life(literally) but it's not a job I would have taken on by myself.

Other parts of the plane that I work on regularly are the radios, and interior. I've done a complete interior from scratch on a plane, and yes - I have the burn certs that meet the FAA regs to prove it. Including the thread type used. Even with that, I had the A&P check my work on the frames, and installation. He didn't sign the logbook because he didn't need to for upholstery repair(no one knows how extensive it is until you start taking apart other systems). During this job, I dropped one 1/4" washer into the plane, and just my luck it went into the spar box cavity. The A&P made me fish it out, with a time consuming hunt using a high intensity light, and a pair of tweezers. Lots of busy things going on in the spar box of this plane, and nothing that doesn't belong there gets left behind.

Now, having said the above, let me tell you about a recent experience with an A&P, cause they are not all created equal. On a certain make and model of vintage plane there is a service bulletin about adding a doubler plate to the aileron hinge point where the hinge acts as the bell-crank for actuation. There is supposed to be a doubler on the top and bottom of the inner hinge. So, I'm looking at this plane for sale by an A&P, and I ask him about the doubler plate on the top of the inboard, and also on the top of the outboard hinge, but no doubler plate on the bottom of the inboard hinge where it belongs. He looked at me, and prolly felt like an idiot. He put the doubler plate on the outboard hinge which is free swiveling and forgot to put one on the bottom of the inboard hinge which is actuated. Next, I looked at the flap rigging, cause it's common(but wrong) to 'droop' a flap to correct a skidding plane. This is a poor man's crutch rather than rig it right like the book. Sure enough, the flaps were out of rig, by about 2 deg left to right. Lucky, I had done a rig job, knew what to measure and had the right tools. So, I grab the inboard gear door, and it's loose as a goose on the ground, so it's prolly the same in the air, or even worse. Rather than fix the gear door mechanism and gain back the speed, he just drooped a flap to center the ball, and left the dragging part alone.

Not all A&Ps are created equal. Not all pilots are mechanically inclined. Best of both worlds are a great A&P, and a savvy owner who can take a jug off in a bean field in OK, get it back to the shop and have them put in a new valve and springs, and then give it to the owner who can put the jug back on and fly out of the bean field. Worst case is to have a lackadaisical A&P, and a unskilled mechanical owner(or one who takes on what he doesn't know), and things go bad, and people wind up crashing.
 
Last edited:
You're being very general and thereby giving folks a false sense of security IMHO.

That jackscrew may have an AD against it or ICA and owners just don't have the mindset to look for those kinds of things.
<Grease is grease and cleaner is cleaner and this what I have handy so I'm gonna use it>

How many owners ask you what level of DOT brake fluid to buy?

I see that point very clearly, and to some extent I agree. But on the other side, I'm thinking that if this is a previous customer, the A/P likely knows him better than the guy who calls up asking about that brake fluid, otherwise the A/P probably wouldn't have made such a suggestion. Fair assumption?

Additionally the A/P could have just as easily been very specific and said "x cleaner, y grease, and call me back."

It's also very clear that not all A/P's are created equal, but given the one who made this posting and what he's posted in the past, personally I'd be inclined to trust him.
 
You're being very general and thereby giving folks a false sense of security IMHO.

That jackscrew may have an AD against it or ICA and owners just don't have the mindset to look for those kinds of things.

Remember I said the inspection requirement do not change?

<Grease is grease and cleaner is cleaner and this what I have handy so I'm gonna use it>

How many owners ask you what level of DOT brake fluid to buy?

Very few, my customer are smarter than that .
 
I asked the question about a year ago just exactly what can you do to your non-experimental plane yourself without an A/P, inspection, or approval? Someone was kind enough to send me a link to the actual rules and regs, but for me, they are far from clear, understandable, comprehensible reading.

My question is, who is really to know, except for you, if you were to do something to your plane? With your medical, you have a history that follows you, an be investigated, and probably would be under certain circumstances. But that's obviously not the same as replacing some bolts, gauges, or whatever on your plane. I'm not talking about yanking the engine and doing a complete overhaul here, but just as if you were tinkering with your car, who is to know if you've been tinkering with your plane?
Wow.

I follow the rules and I break rules but feel like some kind of integrity is maintained.

When I was racing (experimental) gliders I did significant maintenance and alterations on them. Control surface sealing being a major part of that along with gear door sealing and in one case, wing profiling. Inspections were all done by mechanics who specialized in gliders and who also raced them. These were relatively simple aircraft inspected by very knowledgeable people. While control surface sealing could result in all sorts of problems, any work beyond sealing would be done by an A&. I would do composite material repair to wing tips and gear doors but would have any structural repairs performed by an A&.

These aircraft didn't have an electrical system per se, but batteries were installed to run glide computers and radios. At one point, I did a sloppy install on a battery and managed to smoke a wire after replacing an inline fuse with a a screw for expediency (mea culpa, mea culpa). I can now say I've had an inflight 'fire', originating between my legs, in a glider, and will testify to the fact that it is one of the most terrifying things a pilot can experience.

When I moved on to owning a Maule, I desperately wanted to work on it. I set up my first 2 annuals as 'owner assisted' but was disabused of that approach after paying 2 outrageous bills. I was clearly considered a liability in the process. However, I had no intention of working on this airplane outside of the rules and I never did.

I came to appreciate the knowledge and skills of my mechanics and avoided applying any of my own 'skills' to anything beyond consulting with my shop. I did most oil changes and changed a few tires but otherwise relied on the certified skills of my shop. I wouldn't have it any other way.

There's no question I have the 'skills', interest and aptitude to work on my own plane. However that's a lie. I may think I have the skills but have always been surprised by what I thought I knew but didn't. The list is too long to cover here.

The next part of my training involved building an RV10. It was a quickbuild kit (which for an RV means that some repetitive work tasks are done for you, no more). I learned to do aluminum fabrication and assembly. I upgraded my electrical skills so I could do my own electrical system and avionics panel. By the end I even learned to paint. No doubt the most satisfying project I've ever completed.

As a result, I have the repairman's certificate for my airplane. I can legally do practically anything I want to it. But it's taken 5 years of training and work to get here along with an intimate knowledge of this particular airplane. I'm confident but cautious. I make up for my lack of experience with time and consultation. I have more respect for most mundane of maintenance tasks than I ever had before. For the grace.... etc

Anyway, I find that what is being poked at here in this thread a bit disturbing. We have a very good system of regulation in place for what we do. I respect it more and more as I learn more. I suggest that we all should respect it more than what the OP is suggesting, glass house and all not withstanding.

No aspersions cast on the OP here. Great topic and thread! Carry on.
 
OK, I've been an airplane owner(and expect to own again), and I've been a 'tinkerer' all my life. I have an EE degree, and mostly familiar with metals, metal working, electrical systems, engines, engine acc, hydro systems, and a lot of other gadgetry we find on vintage planes. I do much of my own work on my planes, and have never caused an accident(only one data point).

Having said that, I have an A&P whom I work with regularly in areas where I am not an expert. Because being an "expert" in terms of aviation is the minimum standard that I want to put my kids in to fly around. Being an expert, and a journeyman together is the best of all worlds and between the two of us, that's what we have.

A few years ago I put my first set of front seat shoulder harnesses in a vintage plane. I'd done very little aviation quality riveting, so I took an online class, and got the A&P, the cleekos, drills, countsink bore, deburr tool, buck bar, and pnuematic hammer, and we went at it. Boy, what an experience for someone who had only done Cherry-max blind riveting before. The more I saw, the more I realized it was an art, and not one that can be just figured out in 20 minutes. Once those rivets were driven, I trusted them with my life(literally) but it's not a job I would have taken on by myself.

Other parts of the plane that I work on regularly are the radios, and interior. I've done a complete interior from scratch on a plane, and yes - I have the burn certs that meet the FAA regs to prove it. Including the thread type used. Even with that, I had the A&P check my work on the frames, and installation. He didn't sign the logbook because he didn't need to for upholstery repair(no one knows how extensive it is until you start taking apart other systems). During this job, I dropped one 1/4" washer into the plane, and just my luck it went into the spar box cavity. The A&P made me fish it out, with a time consuming hunt using a high intensity light, and a pair of tweezers. Lots of busy things going on in the spar box of this plane, and nothing that doesn't belong there gets left behind.

Now, having said the above, let me tell you about a recent experience with an A&P, cause they are not all created equal. On a certain make and model of vintage plane there is a service bulletin about adding a doubler plate to the aileron hinge point where the hinge acts as the bell-crank for actuation. There is supposed to be a doubler on the top and bottom of the inner hinge. So, I'm looking at this plane for sale by an A&P, and I ask him about the doubler plate on the top of the inboard, and also on the top of the outboard hinge, but no doubler plane on the bottom of the inboard hinge where it belongs. He looked at me, and prolly felt like an idiot. He put the doubler plane on the outboard hinge which is free swiveling and forgot to put one on the bottom of the inboard hinge which is actuated. Next, I looked at the flap rigging, cause it's common(but wrong) to 'droop' a flap to correct a skidding plane. This is a poor man's crutch rather than rig it right like the book. Sure enough, the flaps were out of rig, by about 2 deg left to right. Lucky, I had done a rig job, knew what to measure and had the right tools. So, I grab the inboard gear door, and it's loose as a goose on the ground, so it's prolly the same in the air, or even worse. Rather than fix the gear door mechanism and gain back the speed, he just drooped a flap to center the ball, and left the dragging part alone.

Not all A&Ps are created equal. Not all pilots are mechanically inclined. Best of both worlds are a great A&P, and a savvy owner who can take a jug off in a bean field in OK, get it back to the shop and have them put in a new valve and springs, and then give it to the owner who can put the jug back on and fly out of the bean field. Worst case is to have a lackadaisical A&P, and a unskilled mechanical owner(or one who takes on what he doesn't know), and things go bad, and people wind up crashing.

And your point is ?
 
The next time you wonder what an A&P gets paid for try double wire a cable turn buckle, at arms length with one hand thru a 3" inspection panel.
or
change a rudder return spring on a C-170/172
or
replace rudder control cables in a C-180/185.
or
decipher the PA-28 type certificate.
 
And your point is ?

It's ok for someone with decent mech skills to work on their plane. It's not ok for someone with crappy skills to work on their own plane. Have an A&P that is good look at your work, and advise as necc.
 
It's ok for someone with decent mech skills to work on their plane. It's not ok for someone with crappy skills to work on their own plane. Have an A&P that is good look at your work, and advise as necc.
That is why we don't change the inspections requirement. the aircraft still must have its annual inspection. where it must meet the airworthy standards.

I see $20,000 annual bills for those who mess up the day to day maintenance.
 
That is why we don't change the inspections requirement. the aircraft still must have its annual inspection. where it must meet the airworthy standards.

I see $20,000 annual bills for those who mess up the day to day maintenance.

Fine with me. Be like Canada - eh?

I covered the $20k annual in my prev post. If an owner doesn't know what he's doing, stay out of it, and let an A&P handle it.
 
Fine with me. Be like Canada - eh?

Not really, Canada changes the type certificate, and it can never be made whole again.

By allowing the owner operator to replace appliances we remain with in design no certificate changes.

You could not install unapproved equipment.

The re-write of FAR 23 should make approval of appliances easier, to improve/update equipment.
 
What's wrong with changing the type cert? Once again; for people with the ability, and resources to maintain their own planes, make a pseudo-EX/AB category for previously certificated planes that are now operator/owner maintained.

But I agree the re-write of part 23 is long overdue.
 
Not really, Canada changes the type certificate, and it can never be made whole again.

By allowing the owner operator to replace appliances we remain with in design no certificate changes.



Really? So how does an airplane full of unapproved junk get imported into the United States and issued a C of A?


They removed all the junk and make it FAA type certificate compliant...
 
- Don't run out of fuel
- Avoid the terrain
- Don't pick up a package by its string

All engineering can be summed up in four rules:

Don't push on a rope
Don't spit into the wind
Don't mess around with Superman's cape
Don't let The Man get piffed off at you.

Jim
 
- Don't run out of fuel
- Avoid the terrain
- Don't pick up a package by its string

All engineering can be summed up in four rules:

Don't push on a rope
Don't spit into the wind
Don't mess around with Superman's cape
Don't let The Man get piffed off at you.

Jim

You missed the fundamental law of thermodynamics - ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
 
What's wrong with changing the type cert?

change it to what? do you really want the FAA lawyers F---ing a new type certificate, remember what we got for light sport?

Once again; for people with the ability, and resources to maintain their own planes, make a pseudo-EX/AB category for previously certificated planes that are now operator/owner maintained.

my fear that isn't what you would get

But I agree the re-write of part 23 is long overdue.

remember the more the FAA does the less we get. a simple addition of one small paragraph to 43, gets the job done.
 
Back
Top