Looking again

[stearman3]

Re: Looking again

I meant 91.417. By the way,whats all this LOGBOOK talk???????????

PART 121 requires LOGBOOKS. PART 91 only requires maintenance records. 91 'doesn't say a word about LOGbooks.

You could write your maint records on a roll of T.P., and retain only the most current info as required by 91.417, and you'd be as legal as the day is long!

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: Looking again

The problem is that if there is PAPER (ANY paper they have access to) that says you were out of configuration for use by a sport pilot at any time in the history of the plane, it can NEVER be used under sport pilot rules. I know, I don't agree with this interpretation either, but that seems to be what the FAA is saying. If there is NO PAPER recording that the plane has ever been out of configuration (ANY paper) for use by a Sport Pilot, then the changes NEVER HAPPENED according to the FAA. It is a shame there wasn't an ink spill on the Beech Roby entry rendering it illegible.

Hank

[jim cooper]

Re: Looking again

I meant 91.417. By the way,whats all this LOGBOOK talk???????????

PART 121 requires LOGBOOKS. PART 91 only requires maintenance records. 91 'doesn't say a word about LOGbooks.

You could write your maint records on a roll of T.P., and retain only the most current info as required by 91.417, and you'd be as legal as the day is long!

Ahhhhhh! Now yer talkin! Logbooks are lost, misplaced, spilled on, etc. so many things happen. If one has the original logs, they are full of omissions, lies, etc. we must press on! Best, JC ( maintence records I meant to say)

[RyanShort1]

Re: Looking again

The problem is that if there is PAPER (ANY paper they have access to) that says you were out of configuration for use by a sport pilot at any time in the history of the plane, it can NEVER be used under sport pilot rules. I know, I don't agree with this interpretation either, but that seems to be what the FAA is saying. If there is NO PAPER recording that the plane has ever been out of configuration (ANY paper) for use by a Sport Pilot, then the changes NEVER HAPPENED according to the FAA. It is a shame there wasn't an ink spill on the Beech Roby entry rendering it illegible.

Hank

In this case, an ink spill wouldn't cut it. I found the whole thing out mainly because I ordered the CD from the FAA of the aircraft records. It had the 337 (it wasn't with the aircraft logs) for the Beech Roby prop filed with the FAA... so yes, there is paper with the Feds on this.

Ryan

[Edwin Otha]

Re: Looking again

Correct about the term log book. Only records required to be in compliance.
My point is that at some time in history the Taylorcraft was not in compliance to be Sport Pilot eligible. So using FAR 1.1 definition, if you can't be certain it has maintained eligibility, due to lost records, is it eligible? Some of the changes wouldn't be considered major, so no FAA records would exist. So if we are going to consider airplanes with no RECORDED modifications why even have FAR 1.1 as a guidline. Just cut that page out and go fly.
EO

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: Looking again

That's right. If the FAA doesn't have any paper (The FAA digital database counts as paper here) showing the change, IT NEVER HAPPENED. If they get a piece of paper to get their teeth into, it is FOREVER. If they find the change on the plane with no paper, IT IS OUT OF CONFORMANCE and GROUNDED.

My 41 had LOTS of undocumented changes on her when I bought her. When I rebuilt her I went through the logs and aircraft and ANYTHING that wasn't on the CD or in the logs was taken out. On my plane, there were logs missing. Any changes I removed from the plane that weren't documented, may have been added in the lost logs (that the FAA doesn't have copies of either). Once those changes were taken off, they NEVER HAPPENED in the minds of the FAA. My IA thought I was being pretty anal about the little things I wanted the logs and airframe to match on. Now I am glad I did it that way. My plane can pass ANY conformance inspection.

Hank

[3Dreaming]

Re: Looking again

Correct about the term log book. Only records required to be in compliance.
My point is that at some time in history the Taylorcraft was not in compliance to be Sport Pilot eligible. So using FAR 1.1 definition, if you can't be certain it has maintained eligibility, due to lost records, is it eligible? Some of the changes wouldn't be considered major, so no FAA records would exist. So if we are going to consider airplanes with no RECORDED modifications why even have FAR 1.1 as a guidline. Just cut that page out and go fly.
EO

If you look at the definition and look at the TCDS there is only one thing that could be a simple log entry that could be lost that would have made it not eligible. That is the installation of the Beech prop, because it is on the TCDS and should just be a entry to the aircraft records. All the other items would be would require that a 337 be filed with the FAA. If no changes are recorded anywhere in the records then the FAA has no way to prove that it is not eligible, and if thay can not prove that it is not then it must be eligible.

[NC36061]

Re: Looking again

anyway..... sure hope Ryan finds a good Taylorcraft he will be happy with soon....

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: Looking again

Check the CD on any plane you are considering, then check the logs, then inspect the plane. If the FAA records show it as meeting the Sport Pilot requirements, look at the logs. If anything is in the logs and not at the FAA you have a potential problem. If the mod can be removed from the record some how (not recommending altering an official document here, but a post-it stuck to the logs or paper clipped or stapled in should be thrown away). Lastly, if there is an undocumented mod on the plane, TAKE IT OFF. If it is undocumented (never done with paperwork), it isn't officially really there anyway. REMOVE IT or put paper in for it. We have too many undocumented mods on our planes and they are going to come back and bite us some day.

Hank

[stearman3]

Re: Looking again

Correct about the term log book. Only records required to be in compliance.
My point is that at some time in history the Taylorcraft was not in compliance to be Sport Pilot eligible. So using FAR 1.1 definition, if you can't be certain it has maintained eligibility, due to lost records, is it eligible? Some of the changes wouldn't be considered major, so no FAA records would exist. So if we are going to consider airplanes with no RECORDED modifications why even have FAR 1.1 as a guidline. Just cut that page out and go fly.
EO

Now you get it!

[RyanShort1]

Re: Looking again

Check the CD on any plane you are considering, then check the logs, then inspect the plane. If the FAA records show it as meeting the Sport Pilot requirements, look at the logs. If anything is in the logs and not at the FAA you have a potential problem. If the mod can be removed from the record some how (not recommending altering an official document here, but a post-it stuck to the logs or paper clipped or stapled in should be thrown away). Lastly, if there is an undocumented mod on the plane, TAKE IT OFF. If it is undocumented (never done with paperwork), it isn't officially really there anyway. REMOVE IT or put paper in for it. We have too many undocumented mods on our planes and they are going to come back and bite us some day.

Hank

And even if you do look at the CD (I did), you have to be educated in what you are looking at. Nothing at the time flagged my awareness as all I thought was that it was another type of propeller. I never, ever, would have guessed that it was an adjustable prop, and I don't think that the 337 told me that either.

Ryan

[stearman3]

Re: Looking again

And even if you do look at the CD (I did), you have to be educated in what you are looking at. Nothing at the time flagged my awareness as all I thought was that it was another type of propeller. I never, ever, would have guessed that it was an adjustable prop, and I don't think that the 337 told me that either.

Ryan

Ryan, did they do a 337 on a Beech Roby?

If so, I wonder why. 'Adjustable' prop is listed onthe 65 Lyc.Tcraft sheet. and it doesn't say 'ground'so it could be a Beech Roby
The Beech Roby is listed on the 65 Cont.Tcraft sheet.
Each of those installations would be a minor alteration and not require a 337,just a maint record entry.

[RyanShort1]

Re: Looking again

Ryan, did they do a 337 on a Beech Roby?

If so, I wonder why. 'Adjustable' prop is listed onthe 65 Lyc.Tcraft sheet. and it doesn't say 'ground'so it could be a Beech Roby
The Beech Roby is listed on the 65 Cont.Tcraft sheet.
Each of those installations would be a minor alteration and not require a 337,just a maint record entry.

I wish I knew... I wish I knew. Here's the offending piece.



I honestly didn't realize it was anything other than a different prop.

Ryan