X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 1 [X] Return-Path: Sender: To: lml Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 14:02:03 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-m21.mx.aol.com ([64.12.137.2] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.3) with ESMTP id 1704558 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 23 Dec 2006 13:47:57 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.137.2; envelope-from=Sky2high@aol.com Received: from Sky2high@aol.com by imo-m21.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r7.6.) id q.cbf.406abe8 (41812) for ; Sat, 23 Dec 2006 13:47:04 -0500 (EST) From: Sky2high@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 13:47:02 EST Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Overhauled Engine now labeled "Experimental Only " ?? X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1166899622" X-Mailer: 9.0 Security Edition for Windows sub 5358 X-Spam-Flag: NO -------------------------------1166899622 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/23/2006 10:54:10 A.M. Central Standard Time, VTAILJEFF@aol.com writes: What I am disagreeing with is Jim's statement that: 1) the engine becomes "experimental" -- not true-- it becomes "unairworthy" with regards to certificated installations and 2) the engine needs to be torn down-- again not true-- the engine needs an inspection by an IA to determine if it meets airworthiness standards (TCDS conformance). Jeff, OK, fine. I was concerned with the Cessna analogy. And I understand, in that I believe that things not fitting specifications only make the aircraft unairworthy. For example, the installation of a replacement device that is not new or yellow tagged can result in the aircraft losing its airworthy status. If I understand things correctly, any TSo device, avionic or Type-sheet engine that was once installed on an amateur-built experimental aircraft cannot be installed in (on) an STC (type-sheet) aircraft as a replacement for a type-sheet item without that item being certified as being up to its original standards - i.e. yellow tagged by a certificated repair station or, in the case of an unmodified engine, an AI with the appropriate P authority. Otherwise, the aircraft could lose its airworthy status. Scott -------------------------------1166899622 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message dated 12/23/2006 10:54:10 A.M. Central Standard Time,=20 VTAILJEFF@aol.com writes:

<= FONT=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size= =3D2>

What I am disagreeing with is Jim's statement that:

1) the engine becomes "experimental" -- not true-- it becomes=20 "unairworthy" with regards to certificated installations and

2) the engine needs to be torn down-- again not true-- the engine nee= ds=20 an inspection by an IA to determine if it meets airworthiness standards (T= CDS=20 conformance).

Jeff,

OK, fine. I was concerned with the Cessna analogy. And I=20 understand, in that I believe that things not fitting specifications=20 only make the aircraft unairworthy. For example, the=20 installation of a replacement device that is not new or yellow tagged can re= sult=20 in the aircraft losing its airworthy status.

If I understand things correctly, any TSo device, avionic or=20 Type-sheet engine that was once installed on an amateur-built experimen= tal=20 aircraft cannot be installed in (on) an STC (type-sheet) aircraft as a=20 replacement for a type-sheet item without that item being certifie= d as=20 being up to its original standards - i.e. yellow tagged by a certificated re= pair=20 station or, in the case of an unmodified engine, an AI with the appropriate=20= P=20 authority. Otherwise, the aircraft could lose its airworthy status.

Scott

-------------------------------1166899622--