|
|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools |
Rating: 
|
Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Roger, this is precisely the reference we needed. It's required reading for all Part 91 users curious about SIDs. This won't happen, but this discussion on SID applicability to Part 91 operators could end right here.
Ernie Last edited by Ernie Martin : 01-24-10 at 10:07 AM. 
|
|
#2
01-24-10, 08:39 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
14CFR43.13 is still applicable in that para (b) specifically addresses structural strength and deterioration. You don't have to convince me, you have to convince the guy making the release for service entry in your maintenance records. If for some un God reason that you happen to crash a month after I perform an inspection on your airplane, and do not comply with the SIDS, and a wing or boom is not attached to the wreckage, your heirs attorney is going to have a field day explaining to the jury that I did not comply with the manufacturers recommendations on keeping up with airworthiness standards on an airplane that they designed and built.
|
|
#3
01-24-10, 09:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#4
01-24-10, 10:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I am an IA, before I would release the aircraft, I would need to comply with the new standards. I have a very good attorney, but he is not that good with grieving widow, along with clear instructions on continued airworthiness staring at him. In my humble opinion I would comply.
|
|
#5
01-25-10, 12:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi Mark,
I ask this question with a smile. I certainly believe that any IA has the right to decide what he/she puts their signature on and I respect that. I am wondering however if you have ever signed off an annual on an aircraft that had an engine that was beyond the manufacturer's calendar or hour time limit for overhaul? You may not have but I know many people have. (My airplane being one example. My engines were remanufactured in 1988 and currently have 1150 hours.) I guess what I am trying to wrap my head around is, what is the difference between this example and the SID? Isn't a SID simply a recommendation just like a TBO? Thanks, Ed Asmus
|
|
#6
01-25-10, 10:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Keeping it short
I am told to keep replies to just a few lines, But in this case I will expand. I have a T337B that at this time is disassembled. Being renovated, Before I reassemble this craft I will comply with all current information. As stated in previous thread If someone were to bring a similar airframe to my hanger for annual inspection, before we started, this would be explained. Now, I don’t agree with all the inspections listed. But I can complete them with little financial impact. I think this will be to the Sky master community very very expensive. And to some more than the airframe is worth. I am in no way defending the new changes, only covering my certification to work. And to answer your question, my answers is as stated in my last line of my last comment. My attorney is good but not that good!
Also sent with a smile. Mark
|
|
#8
01-26-10, 12:42 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
No ill intent to any hard working A&P but the evidence here would clearly indicate that this is not even close to being a requirement. That being said, it is understandable that some mechanics may push for this inspection for a variety of reasons. Likewise we as operators can easily find other mechanics.
All this Arm-Chair lawyering about liability and what constitutes "current" after reading the actual document from the FAA/NTSB brings to mind the quote by Will Rogers: "It ain't what people don't know that hurts them. It's what they do know that ain't true."
|
Hybrid Mode
