Experimental Aircraft vs the AD

Geico266 said:
So you are okay with more regulations as long as it saves one child. Got it. :mad2:
Click to expand...

You know how these folks think - if the sound of it makes you all warm and fuzzy - it must be done!
Doesn't matter how obsurd, expensive or ineffective - just do it. Hence the dismal results in our overly expensive education system, the horrendous damage caused by the EPA in the name of goodie goodie theories and now the FAA in costing a lot of people a lot of money, uselessly. Don't listen to the industry experts, don't listen to the people that know better- just do it.
Thanks to this thinking we are growing the numbers of those that can make all this stupid stuff required and depleting the finances of those that have to pay for it. Unfortunately some of them learned to fly and vote.....:yikes:
 
N801BH said:
You must have gone to the same A&P /IA school ol Tom did...

Alot of us built our experimentals and hold the "repairmens certificate" for that airframe.....

For those who didn't build and just bought an existing experimental. where in your FAA rules for A&P's /IA's does it say an owner CANNOT maintain their plane.......:dunno:...

Hint.......................NO WHERE..............
Click to expand...
I think you miss read Brien's message. Major changes to the Exp. Aircraft must be documented.
 
DaleB said:
I remember seeing that letter. Now, my question still stands... has anyone actually heard of a plane being completed or sold with the soft "rivits" [sic] installed?
Click to expand...

How would anyone know? Lets say there's this rebellious, anti authoritarian RV builder that doesn't like being told what to do and thinks he's brilliant engineer. He built his plane with the faulty soft rivets and he gets the SB, but in his estimation he thinks the SB is a dumb CYA move by Vans lawyers. He skips doing the SB. Later he decides to sell his plane, still believing the soft rivet thing is a bunch of bull, but realizing potential buyers might be asking, he signs his logbook as the SB being complied with.

How would the buyer know? How would someone doing a PPI know? Is there a way?
 
N801BH said:
They ARE documented.... and you have to go back to Phase one testing.....
Click to expand...

You say that like you know the condition of every EXP aircraft out there.

His point was, not all are. there are those out there that believe once the n number is on they can do any thing they like to the aircraft and the FAA doesn't care.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
You say that like you know the condition of every EXP aircraft out there.

His point was, not all are. there are those out there that believe once the n number is on they can do any thing they like to the aircraft and the FAA doesn't care.
Click to expand...


His GUESS was.....
 
DaleB said:
I remember seeing that letter. Now, my question still stands... has anyone actually heard of a plane being completed or sold with the soft "rivits" [sic] installed?
Click to expand...

After paint, how would you know?

Do you actually believe that an owner who just completed the tailfeathers using soft rivits prior to the SB, is going to order a new tailfeather kit, or dissasemble his existing kit, in order to replace all the rivits with ones that have dimples?
 
bluerooster said:
Kinda like Vans SB concerning bags of soft rivits that were sent out with the kits.
Guy gets the SB after he's finished construction, and decides rather than replace rivits, he just sell th' little thing, and not worry about it. After all, gallons of slick paint will fill the dimples anyway, and no one will know the difference.
Click to expand...

You don't think this happens in certified planes also? :dunno:
 
Geico266 said:
You don't think this happens in certified planes also? :dunno:
Click to expand...

we weren't talking production aircraft. And we have a process in place that is supposed to find these rouge owners.

the EXP aircraft owner produced and maintained aircraft do not.
 
Dav8or said:
How would anyone know? Lets say there's this rebellious, anti authoritarian RV builder that doesn't like being told what to do and thinks he's brilliant engineer. He built his plane with the faulty soft rivets and he gets the SB, but in his estimation he thinks the SB is a dumb CYA move by Vans lawyers. He skips doing the SB. Later he decides to sell his plane, still believing the soft rivet thing is a bunch of bull, but realizing potential buyers might be asking, he signs his logbook as the SB being complied with.

How would the buyer know? How would someone doing a PPI know? Is there a way?
Click to expand...

Well, the educated could look at the rivet heads. No dimple of raised dot, you've found soft rivets.
 
Norman said:
Well, the educated could look at the rivet heads. No dimple of raised dot, you've found soft rivets.
Click to expand...

Problem is that the seller is not going to allow you to scrape the umpteen coats of shiney paint off the rivit heads, to see if there are dimples or not.
 
I'm currently working on an RV-6 that has so much paint that the phillips head screws look like rivits.
 
bluerooster said:
it's a very real possibility.
Click to expand...
So is Sasquatch, but apparently no one has a specific instance proving either one is real.

Listen, I'm sure there are incompetent and neglectful E/AB builders. Most never finish a plane; there are countless half-built (and half-baked) experimentals littering hangars, garages and Barnstormers ads. If you lack the skills and discipline to do things right, you probably also lack the persistence to complete such a major job. Still, there are some -- a very small fraction of the total -- that are completed and flying that I wouldn't sit in on the ground, let alone fly in.

Of course the same can be said for certified aircraft. You won't have to look very far to find examples that are properly documented and absolutely unsafe. There are more that are flying without annuals, without maintenance, and with maintenance and inspection records that are little more than a sad joke. We recently had one sold to a local group with the infamous "fresh annual", which somehow didn't keep a wheel from departing the aircraft on landing two months later. But hey, a by-Gawd certificated A&P/IA signed off on it.
 
bluerooster said:
Problem is that the seller is not going to allow you to scrape the umpteen coats of shiney paint off the rivit heads, to see if there are dimples or not.
Click to expand...

The 4-5 rivets are not holding the skins on. ;)

The "soft" rivets are easily found when you squeezed them. Soft ones got mixed up at the factory.
 
Last edited:
bluerooster said:
Of course it does. But SBs, IIRC, are not mandatory, and apparently ADs don't affect experimentals.
Click to expand...

Neither does shoddy workmanship. I have seen brand new Cessna 172 where the wrong rivets were used and not caught until the plane was in the repair shop because it was flaking off after a couple months. Silver Hawk Aviation is a Cessna repair facility, the list of manufacturing mistakes needing repairs is long and quite funny. :yes:

Pretty sure mistakes happen with ALL manufacturers. ;)
 
Last edited:
DaleB said:
...Of course the same can be said for certified aircraft. You won't have to look very far to find examples that are properly documented and absolutely unsafe...
Click to expand...

While that is true what is also true is that there is a pervasive attitude among the experimental community that they can do pretty much whatever they want. A recent example was a guy who owned what was maybe a Challenger or something like that, can't remember exactly what it was. Anyway, he didn't care for the looks of the exhaust pipes so he cut about a foot and a half off of them and went flying. Well it didn't take very long for the newly modified exhaust pipes to cut the composite propeller blades in half, he went down in the pattern and got himself killed.

Now I have nothing against experimental aircraft but let's admit that they aren't for everyone. A guy with a family who maybe isn't particularly gifted at turning wrenches is just plain going to be better off in a 172 or a Bonanza.
 
Silvaire said:
While that is true what is also true is that there is a pervasive attitude among the experimental community that they can do pretty much whatever they want. A recent example was a guy who owned what was maybe a Challenger or something like that, can't remember exactly what it was. Anyway, he didn't care for the looks of the exhaust pipes so he cut about a foot and a half off of them and went flying. Well it didn't take very long for the newly modified exhaust pipes to cut the composite propeller blades in half, he went down in the pattern and got himself killed.

Now I have nothing against experimental aircraft but let's admit that they aren't for everyone. A guy with a family who maybe isn't particularly gifted at turning wrenches is just plain going to be better off in a 172 or a Bonanza.
Click to expand...


Agreed 100 %........
 
Silvaire said:
Now I have nothing against experimental aircraft but let's admit that they aren't for everyone. A guy with a family who maybe isn't particularly gifted at turning wrenches is just plain going to be better off in a 172 or a Bonanza.
Click to expand...

100% :yes:

I'm going flying in my home built, true 4 passenger, RV-10 and I will cruise at 185MPH burning 10.5 GPH of car gas.
 
Silvaire said:
Now I have nothing against experimental aircraft but let's admit that they aren't for everyone. A guy with a family who maybe isn't particularly gifted at turning wrenches is just plain going to be better off in a 172 or a Bonanza.
Click to expand...
Hence the term, "Experimental".

On the other hand, the absolutely lunatic iron grip around the certified owner's throat is what (IMHO) drives some people to the E/AB side who maybe shouldn't be there.
 
Dav8or said:
A few years back, didn't they ground all the CH 601s out there because the wing spars were failing and folding up? Wasn't that an AD, or was it something else? Did it only apply to the factory built LSAs?
Click to expand...

Yeah, but I don't think the grounding was by AD/SB...I think the FAA stepped in and grounded them to force Zenith to admit there was a problem, which Zenith/AMD denied for years. The Europeans grounded them before we did.
 
Silvaire said:
Now I have nothing against experimental aircraft but let's admit that they aren't for everyone. A guy with a family who maybe isn't particularly gifted at turning wrenches is just plain going to be better off in a 172 or a Bonanza.
Click to expand...

There are three RV's in my hangar and we cover a full spectrum, first Guy, built, flies, and maintains his aircraft. I bought mine, I maintain it along with making changes myself constantly, and have to have a A&P do a condition inspection once a year. The third, he bought his, flyers it, and lets a A&P do 100% of the work on the aircraft.

I know a least half a dozen guys at the field that own a certified aircraft, all of them do 100% of the maintenance themselves and have a A&P sign off on the work.

Any time a aircraft is sold the buyer will do a pre-buy inspection, the A&P has just as much to look out for in a certified aircraft as he does the experimental. Typically the parts in the experimental are going to be newer, I don't see the advantage of the certified aircraft?
 
Silvaire said:
While that is true what is also true is that there is a pervasive attitude among the experimental community that they can do pretty much whatever they want. A recent example was a guy who owned what was maybe a Challenger or something like that, can't remember exactly what it was. Anyway, he didn't care for the looks of the exhaust pipes so he cut about a foot and a half off of them and went flying. Well it didn't take very long for the newly modified exhaust pipes to cut the composite propeller blades in half, he went down in the pattern and got himself killed.

Now I have nothing against experimental aircraft but let's admit that they aren't for everyone. A guy with a family who maybe isn't particularly gifted at turning wrenches is just plain going to be better off in a 172 or a Bonanza.
Click to expand...

:yes::yes::yes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top