From: Sky2high@aol.com
Message-ID: <3f.a6d5c90.26f856be@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 01:42:22 EDT
Subject: Re: Conversation with FSDO re: airworthiness
To: lancair.list@olsusa.com
Reply-To: lancair.list@olsusa.com
Mime-Version: 1.0

          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
          <<  Lancair Builders' Mail List  >>
          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>
Aaarrgh!

Everybody gets a different answer from da FAA.  Certified in 1996, I used the 
Small Airplane Directorate, Manufacturing Inspection Satellite Office here in 
the Chicago area.  

I asked for a test flight area that covered eastern Iowa, southern Wisconsin 
and northern Illinois -- The inspector requested that I stay east of the 
Mississippi so that he didn't have to contact another region -- So it was 
written, so it was done.  My friend Arnie (Lancair 360), located SW 
Wisconsin, had to go thru the Minneapolis Office and used a DAR from Iowa 
(another region), thus was limited to a 25 mile radius around his airport.  
He got tired of doing steep turns. 

During my inspection, the rep said that the purpose of the "no unnecessary 
crew member" rule was to make sure I didn't endanger my wife, girl friend, or 
both.  He also said that if I ran into trouble, make sure the "necessary" 
crew member had a clipboard strapped to their leg.  He then commanded "stay 
out of the O'Hare airspace."  So it was written, so it was done.

I have 4 inch numbers on my plane, allowed to Experimental - Amateur Built 
aircraft if your maximum cruise is less than 180 Kts.  I always carry the 
dictionary definition of "cruise" with me, since the FAA has failed to define 
it.  To "...drive, sail or fly at a constant speed to optimize efficiency..." 
means about 55% power to me.  Alas, I've never been challenged.

Recently, I had a Garmin 430 installed which, in our Chicago region requires 
the FSDO to sign a 337 form, experimental aircraft or not, if you want to be 
IFR legal.  They would not allow my Rocky Mountain Instrument's encoder to 
provide pressure altitude to the 430 since it only met TSO specs, but was not 
TSO'd ("If it ain't certified, it ain't TSO'd").  They even questioned 
whether my recent Altimeter/Transponder test was valid and "how could the 
avionics shop sign it off?" using the RMI encoder.  Of course, I reasoned 
with them using impeccable logic -- Nowhere in the sign-off language is the 
encoder addressed (check yours), it only requires the altimeter be accurate 
and the transponder track the altimeter!  Hah!
Well, I now have a new TSO'd encoder feeding my 430 and transponder and I 
have the signed 337 form.  So it was written, so it was done.

What does all this mean?  Be not afraid to confront the FAA, be sane and 
logical, raise not the roof nor scream unto the heavens, but prepare thyself 
to grovel in the mud.  Remember thy goal -- The Signature.  So it was 
written, so it was done.

Scott Krueger
N92EX
PS
Occam's razor cuts both ways.  Einstein said "Everything should be made as 
simple as possible, but not simpler."


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LML website:   http://www.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/maillist.html
LML Builders' Bookstore:   http://www.buildersbooks.com/lancair

Please send your photos and drawings to marvkaye@olsusa.com.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>