Did Silvaire say that? I missed it.This from the guy who says a private pilot can legally ferry an airplane.
When you remove a spark plug to clean it, the airplane becomes unairworthy until it is properly returned to service, i.e., the plug is replaced and that preventive maintenance action is written up and signed in the logbook. Since it is preventive maintenance, the owner/pilot is authorized by 43.3 to perform the work and by 43.5 to return it to service by signing the entry, and "The signature constitutes the approval for return to service..." Further, 43.9 requires the person doing that work and returning to service to make that documentation of that work and return to service.
Common purpose is only an issue when you are transporting someone who is sharing the expenses. It is not an issue otherwise.
That's not what the letter says. May I quote from the Hancock letter?
Nothing there about "common purpose" or it being a "commercial operation" if a PP ferries a plane while paying the direct cost of the flight. That sentence does suggest it would violate 61.113, but not that it is a "commercial operation", i.e., falling under Part 119.
You still don't get it -- "common purpose" has absolutely nothing to do with why the FAA said what they said in the Hancock letter. The only issue was acting as PIC for compensation, i.e., in a quid pro quo situation, to wit, that the pilot is receiving the value of the indirect cost of the flight in return for ferrying the plane for the owner. Since there is no regulatory requirement for the pilot to pay more than the direct cost of the flight, and since that question was neither asked nor specifically answered in the Hancock letter, I wouldn't say that's a closed matter. However, no matter what the final answer on that would be, it would have nothing to do with "common purpose" and it would not be a "commercial operation" (i.e., one falling under Part 119).
Where did you read that? It's certainly not in any regulation or Chief Counsel interpretation. The term "common purpose" specifically refers to the issue of the pilot and passengers having a common purpose for a flight (i.e., reason to go to that destination on that day) when the passengers are sharing the direct expenses of the flight. No passengers? Common purpose is not an issue. Pilot pays full direct cost of the flight? Common purpose is not an issue.
Not me! I am one lousy mechanic! I hardly ever read this forum for fear I'll be found out. I have the license and that's it. I twisted wrenches for four years in the USAF and another six months or so afterwards until I got a flying job. The experience, though, was priceless for helping understand aircraft systems and interfacing with the real mechanics working on my company's airplane. I've discussed thousands of discrepancies as part of that oversight and enjoyed the aircraft maintenance business from that vantage point. There are really some super smart people out there who won't accept anything less than perfection and it's a joy to work with them. That's why I have so little regard for the owner who, say, runs down to K-mart for pop rivets to fix the loose oil door on his cowling. (Disclaimer: Do not even think I'm trying to say anybody in this thread is like that! I am not!)
sort of, except that you have to take on airs and call yourself an "engineer"I wouldn't be so sure of that. It's an A&P equivalent, isn't it?
dtuuri
Come now my friend......you must be aware that if you take a volt meter and place the probes on the battery terminal, you must make a log book entry and a return to service. And besides, testing battery voltage is not listed in preventative maintenance so therefore it must be a maintenance action.
They didn't even use the word "purpose".
Hardly. It is at best intimated as a possible violation depending on factors not specified.
That made me giggle in Aus, every mechanic is called a freaking engineer.
I never bothered to try. Ditto for the pilot's license, I had 30-something type ratings in south africe up to 4-engine turboprops, but when I moved back to the USA i rented a C-150 for 40 hours and started over. That was at the end of apartheid and I couldn't validate a license from a country that didn't exist anymore. And that C-150 was the toughest thing i had ever flown, like to never got the hang of it. Heavier planes are much easier than lighter. I'd never been in the left seat of a single engine plane before.
Whatever, Ron. Seemed pretty clear to me and most everyone else in the last thread except you. Why don't you write the chief counsel and get an interpretation of the interpretation if your still unclear as to the intent.
actually each type is a proper checkride with an examiner. Our chief pilot was an examiner for most types we operated. The bigger rusaian types they sent us to georgia to get our type in a sim there, which was then recognized by SA.It probably needs to be explained here that those "type ratings" are not the same as type ratings in the US (or other western countries). Under ICAO many member states require a "type rating" for any aircraft one may want to operate (such as a C-150, C-172, PA-28, etc) A "type rating" is little more than what we consider in the US as a aircraft "check out".
South Africa has always been a part of ICAO and followed the various ICAO Annexes. Validation would have not been an issue.
But in previous postings you write about flying single engine planes in South Africa?
this was 1992-93. there was a lot of turmoil.I've done validations, honestly I can't see the "pushback" since SA is an ICAO state and the procedure is fairly simple from the FSDO standpoint.
