Runtoeat Posted September 4, 2012 Report Share Posted September 4, 2012 I've posted this before. This list is for Flight Design bulletins. Similar lists are kept for all bulletins that are directly or indirectly related to the components or systems on my CTSW. The lists consist of Flight Design, Rotax, Neuform propellor and general avionics. I am only attaching the FD sheet for example. N9922Z_FD SB status_120815.xls Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Meade Posted September 4, 2012 Report Share Posted September 4, 2012 I wouldn't buy an E-LSA that did not have at least notations for all the SDs and SBs corresponding to its S-LSA cousins. But it is legal to have none of them Kurt, I think this statement comes from where the industry is today. We're young and the E-LSA are newish. It's easy to have what you discuss. OTOH, some friends and I are looking into buying a 7AC Aeronca Champ. They were built post war. None of them we've seen have anything like a "list of all C-85 Continantal ADs". People didn't do that then. Most people don't do that now. I think that I'd do a full, independent, complete search on any aircraft I bought. If I buy an airplane and miss an AD, I'm responsible for it, not the guy who left it off a list. I mean any airplane of any age. The list might be a nice thing to look at - I'd for sure want to check them off, but since different "responsible" mechanics have different ideas of what "doing it right" is, there is no way I could trust that his list is complete. When I did my search on this 65 year old airplane, I'd use all tools at my disposal, and if one tool is engine serial number, I'd use that to the exclusion of other engines. So, I would not find the "AD on fuel pump applicable by reason of S/N" because my SN search wouldn't have showed it in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Meade Posted September 4, 2012 Report Share Posted September 4, 2012 Many things aren't really required I agree, but there is doing things right. You can be in the bottom 10% and just get by the law or requirement, then there is the 50%'ers that are better, then there are the 90%-100%'ers that go the extra mile to do things right, required or not. When you pick a doctor to do surgery which do you want, if you pick an accountant which do you want, a dentist and then your flight safety keep your butt safe mechanic. I want the people who graduated in the top 10% not the bottom 10% and or who I know will go the distance for me. If mechanics or people skimp by in one place where else do they skimp by? Roger, Here's how I see it. I look at an AD and see it does not apply and I do not log it. You look at an AD and see it does not apply and you log it. Your airplane is not safer, prettier or faster than my airplane. You have not done one thing to make your airplane any better. You are not my " keep your butt safe mechanic". You may have made it easier to remember that you already looked at that AD next time the question comes up. I may have to look it up if my memory falters. But our airplanes fly just as well and the FAA is just as happy. Making an unnecessary log book entry does not make you a better mechanic, it makes you a better paper pusher. My position on all of these discussions, and we've had many and will have many more, is that owners and mechanics should both know and obey the regulations. Each has the responsibility to help the other understand. I always want to start with "what's required" and go to "what's nice to do." You push the perspective that what's nice to do is what's required. I've seen too many traditional mechanics stuff "I think you ought to upgrade" down the owners throat rather than "here's the fact's, you decide". You've said on this forum you think some owners aren't competent to make mechanic decisions. I'm saying I see mechanics making owner's decisions. When my surgeon cuts, no matter how competent he is, he will do so with my expressed consent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Meade Posted September 4, 2012 Report Share Posted September 4, 2012 I've posted this before. This list is for Flight Design bulletins. Similar lists are kept for all bulletins that are directly or indirectly related to the components or systems on my CTSW. The lists consist of Flight Design, Rotax, Neuform propellor and general avionics. I am only attaching the FD sheet for example. N9922Z_FD SB status_120815.xls Nice list. I downloaded and saved it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Hereford Posted September 4, 2012 Report Share Posted September 4, 2012 As someone posted earlier, The regulation is clear on what is required........status of applicable AD/SD's only. As for where to draw the line on non-applicable stuff, with AD research, there are numerous systems out there to help an inspector with AD compliance. Most of these products search by broad categories like type of product (airframe, engine, propeller or appliance), model, or category of product (ie. tire). The product that I use is Avantext. When I am looking at an aircraft for the first time, I must perform a complete maintenance record audit, and input all of the relevant aircraft info. into Avantext AD compliance software. It then spits out a list of AD's that based on its parameters, may be applicable to my particular aircraft configuration. Sometimes this list can have over 100 AD's on it. I will never take the previous inspector's word for applicability of a given AD/SD regardless of whether a previous list exists, or is signed or unsigned. I personnaly read each AD and determine for myself the applicability. I don't sign entries for non-applicable AD's, however, I do note non-applicability, and reference the particular statement in the AD that makes it non-applicable (AD xyz N/A by S/N ref. para (.). As for this particular situation regarding the fuel pump/hose AD, to me it is like trying to associate a Piper AD with a Cessna. There would be no reason to note the non-applicability of this AD because it is not even remotely relevant to the uncertificated engines. If one did want to note it however, it could be stated as not applicable by model number. Doug Hereford Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
airhound Posted November 9, 2012 Report Share Posted November 9, 2012 Does anyone relie on the ROTAX Owner .com site for applicable Service/Airworthiness documents? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.