WSplit Cowl

[waltermrich]

Re: WSplit Cowl

I would add to my first post I would never fly without knowing my aircraft was airworthy.

[N96337]

Re: WSplit Cowl

It's time for you that wrap your lives around regulations and semantics to chill...instead of maintaining your aircraft and loosing sleep have it done by someone else. Let your concerns be theirs. And...as a pilot if the plane is safe to you then go fly unless you'd rather concern yourselves with endless documentation.

Gary

You might want to brush up on your FAR's..... 91.7 comes to mind.... you're gonna get in trouble if it's not in an airworthy condition too, not just the person doing the maintenance. Not to mention that if it's not in airworthy condition, any insurance is pretty much just a donation to the insurance company, just for starters......
John

[Guest]

Re: WSplit Cowl

Just a thought , When the Wright Brothers had a question about air worthiness, what Regulating authority did they go too ?

What does that mean?

[Guest]

Re: WSplit Cowl

I would add to my first post I would never fly without knowing my aircraft was airworthy.

Airworthy? Defined by what? Regulations?

Sounds like you support the use of regulations, or perhaps I am reading too much into your statement.

[PA1195]

Re: WSplit Cowl

You might want to brush up on your FAR's..... 91.7 comes to mind.... you're gonna get in trouble if it's not in an airworthy condition too, not just the person doing the maintenance. Not to mention that if it's not in airworthy condition, any insurance is pretty much just a donation to the insurance company, just for starters......
John

I'm well aware of the FAR's, and my various aircraft over the years have been either airworthy or have not been flown until they were so in my opinion. My point here is not to debate the FAR's, or those that seek their interpretation and true intent or meaning, but rather point out the fact that the final say as to airworthiness rests solely with the PIC per 91.403 and 91.7.

I have owned aircraft that were maintained by experienced professionals and passed annual inspections, yet were both physically un-airworthy and lacked the documentation required by the FAR's. That's life and perfection is rare.

This document describes the process of ownership and maintenance very well:

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/media/faa-h-8083-19a.pdf

Gary

[M Towsley]

Re: WSplit Cowl

Personally, I enjoy the comments made by Tim and David, they are way more informed than I will ever be. If one doesn't like what one is reading, go to another forum or thread.

And, back to the original question at-hand, has anyone noticed that Don, the original poster, hasn't posted since the question was asked. I am curious as to if he found his answer in this discussion.

[3Dreaming]

Re: WSplit Cowl

It's time for you that wrap your lives around regulations and semantics to chill...instead of maintaining your aircraft and loosing sleep have it done by someone else. Let your concerns be theirs. And...as a pilot if the plane is safe to you then go fly unless you'd rather concern yourselves with endless documentation.

Gary

Some of us who "wrap out lives around the regulations" are working on airplanes for a living. If we were to "chill" and ignore the regulations it could effect our ability to earn a living and support our families.

For you as a person flying the airplane in a non-commercial application a violation of the CFR's could be costly, but it doesn't take away your livelihood.

[PA1195]

Re: WSplit Cowl

Some of us who "wrap out lives around the regulations" are working on airplanes for a living. If we were to "chill" and ignore the regulations it could effect our ability to earn a living and support our families.

For you as a person flying the airplane in a non-commercial application a violation of the CFR's could be costly, but it doesn't take away your livelihood.

I understand what you say and appreciate my maintenance tech's challenge in their work. In my experience as an owner/operator that challenge or related questions frequently have been resolved via an interchange between them and their PMI. Perhaps we in Alaska are more fortunate than other locations in resolving ambiguities in FAR's, but so far my direct and indirect interaction with various Maintenance Inspectors has been nothing but positive.

My job is to keep records and determine airworthiness prior to flight. The rest I leave up to experienced professionals, but I do pay attention to details regarding their work.

Gary

[Edwin Otha]

Re: WSplit Cowl

I would say the Mod would be a Minor Alteration. Nose cowl isn't a structural piece and you're not altering the cooling system. Just log it that way and you're golden.
It's the Owner/Operators responsibility to determine it aircraft's airworthyness........ not the Pilot.
EO

[3Dreaming]

Re: WSplit Cowl

An other very popular airplane with a one piece nose bowl is the early Piper Cherokee series of airplanes. For those airplanes there is a STC for splitting the nose bowl. This tells me at least at some point in time someone within the FAA thought that was a major alteration, otherwise there were had have been no need to develop the STC. I would suggest if you want to split the nose bowl have your mechanic talk to their PMI and work out a solution. Between the two of them they can work out whether it needs a field approval or just a logbook entry. For the Taylorcraft since there is no STC that I am aware of I think I would ask for a field approval. If the PMI says you don't need one, ask for a letter supporting his opinion and place it in the aircraft records for future reference.

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: WSplit Cowl

I LIKE the idea of having someone in actual authority providing a letter (PMI, IA or DER etc). I would think that would settle it. The letter should also be good for ALL of our closed cowl planes (from what I have seen on the open cowl plane this is a non-issue). If someone can provide one, how about posting it?

Hank

[N96337]

Re: WSplit Cowl

Some of us who "wrap out lives around the regulations" are working on airplanes for a living. If we were to "chill" and ignore the regulations it could effect our ability to earn a living and support our families.

For you as a person flying the airplane in a non-commercial application a violation of the CFR's could be costly, but it doesn't take away your livelihood.

Amen!! I think PA1195 enjoys stirring the shit pot.

[PA1195]

Re: WSplit Cowl

Amen!! I think PA1195 enjoys stirring the shit pot.

That's not the case. This Forum like many others we both follow is a format for discussion and exchange of ideas and opinions. We can learn from that discussion, or at least I try to. We may disagree, I may be wrong, but that's what roundtable talk is all about at the cafe over coffee.

For example read the most recent Posts #55 and 56...that seems like a reasonable approach to settling the split-cowl question for owners and mechanics.

I suspect there's a world of perspective between Owner/Operator/ Pilots and Owner/Operator/Pilot/Mechanics as observed here at times. I appreciate the difference. And that difference for me is that others maintain my aircraft so I don't have to worry about airworthiness most of the time. If questions arise the mechanics and their PMI have in the past discussed the best approach, as I mentioned above. That's my perspective of alterations.

Gary

[Guest]

Re: WSplit Cowl

An other very popular airplane with a one piece nose bowl is the early Piper Cherokee series of airplanes. For those airplanes there is a STC for splitting the nose bowl. This tells me at least at some point in time someone within the FAA thought that was a major alteration, otherwise there were had have been no need to develop the STC. I would suggest if you want to split the nose bowl have your mechanic talk to their PMI and work out a solution. Between the two of them they can work out whether it needs a field approval or just a logbook entry. For the Taylorcraft since there is no STC that I am aware of I think I would ask for a field approval. If the PMI says you don't need one, ask for a letter supporting his opinion and place it in the aircraft records for future reference.

Hi Tom,

It could have an STC merely for profit incentive. I only mention that because I have recently involved in such an endeavor.

In my case the changes could be made by other means but by doing the STC it becomes saleable might even prove profitable if convenient enough that people may actually buy it rather than circumvent it. It has a good chance of being that convenient.

It is a possibility that was the thinking in the case of the split nose STC that's all that I am not saying and I am not disputing any of your recommendations.

Dave

[astjp2]

Re: WSplit Cowl

Its amazing how much discussion this has brought about...Tim