E/AB and AD's

Next question would be why is this AC thought of as regulatory ?
 
Next question would be why is this AC thought of as regulatory ?

It's guidance Tom.....on "how" to apply the regs. Read the AC Tom...:rolleyes:

1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular (AC) provides guidance and information to owners and operators of aircraft concerning their responsibility for complying with Airworthiness Directives (AD) and recording AD compliance in the appropriate maintenance records.
 
A repairman's certificate lets you perform the condition inspection and sign off that the aircraft has been inspected in accordance with appendix D and has been found to be airworthy (edit ) in a condition safe for operation.

I'm not aware of any other privilege that is granted with the certificate - am I missing something?

Nope, because that's all it ever needs.
 
No matter how many angels dance on the head of your pin he needs a ferry permit before he can fly it over the heads of the populace due to the presence of damage forcing a change in the major parts.
He needed that official permission before the 'first' flight. And given there are new blades on the engine that were not there when declared airworthy by the FAA, it is now 'untested' until the FAA decides whether to just agree with his sign off or whether to require some hours be flown off as proof..

Yeah, we get the initial sign off and then proceed to make major changes based on our own signature. That works until the day there is an accident/injury and the FAA decides that you pushed it too far and the aircraft was not legally permitted to fly and the brown stuff starts splattering all over the freshly painted white walls...

Now you can sneer and argue with me and quote parts of the FAR all you want (shrug) but I will be an interested spectator when you try that with the FAA attorney assigned to your case. I do like popcorn btw - buttered and lightly salted.
 
It's guidance Tom.....on "how" to apply the regs. Read the AC Tom...:rolleyes:

Then what you are telling me is, there is nothing written as a regulation that FAR 39 does not apply to the E/AB.

If not, why not.?
 
so...would replacing a part (i.e. same prop make and model) be considered a "major" change to the design? I bet not.....
 
Last edited:
Then what you are telling me is, there is nothing written as a regulation that FAR 39 does not apply to the E/AB.

If not, why not.?

That AC describes "how" to use, or apply, ADs for EA/B (non-TC'D) aircraft.
 
No matter how many angels dance on the head of your pin he needs a ferry permit before he can fly it over the heads of the populace due to the presence of damage forcing a change in the major parts.
He needed that official permission before the 'first' flight. And given there are new blades on the engine that were not there when declared airworthy by the FAA, it is now 'untested' until the FAA decides whether to just agree with his sign off or whether to require some hours be flown off as proof..

Yeah, we get the initial sign off and then proceed to make major changes based on our own signature. That works until the day there is an accident/injury and the FAA decides that you pushed it too far and the aircraft was not legally permitted to fly and the brown stuff starts splattering all over the freshly painted white walls...

Now you can sneer and argue with me and quote parts of the FAR all you want (shrug) but I will be an interested spectator when you try that with the FAA attorney assigned to your case. I do like popcorn btw - buttered and lightly salted.

I do not believe that replacing any part with a like replacement is a major change, that would trigger a new testing or ?
 
That AC describes "how" to use, or apply, ADs for EA/B (non-TC'D) aircraft.

Shall we go around this circle again? A/Cs are not regulatory in nature. They may be guidance but they do not protect the E/AB owner from not complying with ADs.
 
Back
Top