Clearly no one could give a flying fuck at a rolling
donut about Airworthiness Directives, but ...
When you get one in the mail, and after some
investigation you discover that for some reason
it is [b]not [/b]applicable, could you please write that
in the aircraft logs, along with the detail as to
[i]why [/i]the AD is not applicable (date of manufacture,
p/n, etc).
The reason why is that decades later, when some
poor schmuck likes me tries to do an AD search
through the logs, if there is no entry for an AD I
don't know if
1) the AD is not applicable (and why?), or
2) the AD is applicable, and was physically complied
with, but no logbook entries were made, or
3) the AD was applicable, but it went into the circular
filing cabinet and the work was never done on the airplane.
If there is no record of AD compliance in the logs
I have to assume the worst case (3) above - it's
applicable, and it was never complied with (unless
I can forensically prove otherwise).
Remember, I'm just a stupid fucking pilot and if I
can deal with this crap, so can you.
[img]http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0797/9 ... grande.png[/img]
Sadly, I doubt anyone will catch that reference.
http://www.avclub.com/article/15-things ... ne-el-1858
Airworthiness Directives
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
Small note: I'm not as smart as a TC Inspector,
but there are two kinds of AD's:
1) AD's that require a single inspection
2) AD's that require repetitive inspections
John laughs at these, but commercial operators track
the calendar and flight time repetitive inspection
requirements with computers. It can get pretty
complex.
Pop Quiz for SEL owners: do your magnetos have
any AD's? If so, when are they next due?
Note that if you are not tracking and complying
with your repetitive AD's, you might as well mail
your C of A back to TC.
but there are two kinds of AD's:
1) AD's that require a single inspection
2) AD's that require repetitive inspections
John laughs at these, but commercial operators track
the calendar and flight time repetitive inspection
requirements with computers. It can get pretty
complex.
Pop Quiz for SEL owners: do your magnetos have
any AD's? If so, when are they next due?
Note that if you are not tracking and complying
with your repetitive AD's, you might as well mail
your C of A back to TC.
-
John Swallow
- Posts: 319
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 1:58 pm
"John laughs at these..."
Andrew:
Would you please identify where in any of the past messages that have gone back and forth where I implied that?
BTW:
I don't know whether you've contacted your insurance agents yet, but I have.
As stated in a previous message, for your insurance to be in force, both you and your aircraft have to be airworthy. You fly with an unapproved propeller, non-compliance with a required inspection or AD, lapsed medical, or whatever, and you are SOL.
Again, would you identify where I indicated that non-compliance with an AD is OK?
Andrew:
Would you please identify where in any of the past messages that have gone back and forth where I implied that?
BTW:
I don't know whether you've contacted your insurance agents yet, but I have.
As stated in a previous message, for your insurance to be in force, both you and your aircraft have to be airworthy. You fly with an unapproved propeller, non-compliance with a required inspection or AD, lapsed medical, or whatever, and you are SOL.
Again, would you identify where I indicated that non-compliance with an AD is OK?
-
ScudRunner-d95
- Posts: 1349
- Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 5:08 pm
The log book im going over on a pre buy is amazing the pilot has a date stamp for his entries, like the tellers use at banks. (or so I think, haven't been to one in almost as long as a church). The latest AD while it was under his and the planes AMO written up meticulously, the previous owners logs holy fuck worse than those letters and numbers you have to input so websites know your a human and not a computer.
[img]http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmi7yxW42o1qctkcl.jpg[/img]
[img]http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmi7yxW42o1qctkcl.jpg[/img]
-
David MacRay
- Posts: 1259
- Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 3:00 pm
dΩs(rB
What's the issue? You a bot or sumpin?
What's the issue? You a bot or sumpin?
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
[quote]would you identify where I indicated that non-compliance with an AD is OK?[/quote]
From another recent thread, where you said that it
was critically important to have a valid C of A for the
insurance to be valid:
[quote]However, this discussion has nothing to do with whether or not aircraft owners know anything about Airworthiness Directives on their magnetos, their carbs, their filters, or their alternators.
This is not about how many aircraft owners have spread sheets with calendar and flight times tracking their AD required inspections.
This is not about the micturition contest between you and Transport Canada. [/quote]
Feel free to ridicule TC's continued attacks on me and my
family, and also feel free to ridicule the need for private
aircraft owners to comply with repetitive AD's using a
new-fangled "computer" thing.
But without AD compliance, the C of A is not in force, and
you maintain the insurance isn't valid, which as I showed
in the other thread, isn't actually true.
Private aircraft owners don't have a clue about AD's. It's
an extremely complex subject even for a simple 172 as I
showed in the other discussion. When dealing with complex
data sometimes this thing called "software" can help. You
can read about it on the interwebs.
Not sure why I'm bothering to post. You didn't read it in
the other thread, I'm not sure why you'd read it here.
Oh yeah, then you went on about Fox Harbour, which you
used as an example of an invalid C of A, but in fact it had
a perfect C of A (what was it, 3 days old?)
Feel free to rant about the need for a valid C of A, but
insurance companies don't seem to care, despite what
your broker might tell you.
You don't even need to have a licensed or insured pilot
for the insurance to be valid, as I showed with the Kingston
hand-propping Cherokee. I was there when it happened,
John. I watched that pilotless aircraft plow into Ken Read's
hangar and hit his Cardinal.
And the insurance company paid.
In addition to [b]not having any pilot[/b] at all, [b]all sorts of regs
were broken[/b], and in fact [b]the C of A was not valid[/b] - the
battery was dead, which was the reason for hand-propping.
And the insurance company paid.
From another recent thread, where you said that it
was critically important to have a valid C of A for the
insurance to be valid:
[quote]However, this discussion has nothing to do with whether or not aircraft owners know anything about Airworthiness Directives on their magnetos, their carbs, their filters, or their alternators.
This is not about how many aircraft owners have spread sheets with calendar and flight times tracking their AD required inspections.
This is not about the micturition contest between you and Transport Canada. [/quote]
Feel free to ridicule TC's continued attacks on me and my
family, and also feel free to ridicule the need for private
aircraft owners to comply with repetitive AD's using a
new-fangled "computer" thing.
But without AD compliance, the C of A is not in force, and
you maintain the insurance isn't valid, which as I showed
in the other thread, isn't actually true.
Private aircraft owners don't have a clue about AD's. It's
an extremely complex subject even for a simple 172 as I
showed in the other discussion. When dealing with complex
data sometimes this thing called "software" can help. You
can read about it on the interwebs.
Not sure why I'm bothering to post. You didn't read it in
the other thread, I'm not sure why you'd read it here.
Oh yeah, then you went on about Fox Harbour, which you
used as an example of an invalid C of A, but in fact it had
a perfect C of A (what was it, 3 days old?)
Feel free to rant about the need for a valid C of A, but
insurance companies don't seem to care, despite what
your broker might tell you.
You don't even need to have a licensed or insured pilot
for the insurance to be valid, as I showed with the Kingston
hand-propping Cherokee. I was there when it happened,
John. I watched that pilotless aircraft plow into Ken Read's
hangar and hit his Cardinal.
And the insurance company paid.
In addition to [b]not having any pilot[/b] at all, [b]all sorts of regs
were broken[/b], and in fact [b]the C of A was not valid[/b] - the
battery was dead, which was the reason for hand-propping.
And the insurance company paid.
-
John Swallow
- Posts: 319
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 1:58 pm
"Oh yeah, then you went on about Fox Harbour, which you used as an example of an invalid C of A, but in fact it had a perfect C of A (what was it, 3 days old?)"
Sweet Jeezuz; you've misquoted me again; I did NOT say that the C of A was invalid; I said that they had not lived up to the dictates of their insurance policy which was that they had to have XX hours in the aircraft before going into Fox Harbour.
Trying to have a discussion with you is like herding cats. Or playing Whack a Mole.
Obfuscation. Profanity. Misdirection. Profanity. Deflection. Profanity. Deafness. Profanity. Character assassination. Profanity. Misquotation. Profanity. Verbal bullying. Profanity.
You are obviously extremely knowledgeable; however, there is sometimes a blurring of the line between being known as "The Go-To Guy" and what we euphemistically refer to out here as "A Sexual Sage".
I've nowhere near your level of experience, but I have been in aviation for sixty years, been a member of four aircraft accident investigations (three fatal), was a safety auditor for five years, and have a passing knowledge of the workings of Transport Canada. My present aircraft is my fourth. I do try.
As this bickering is getting us nowhere, the stage is yours...
Sweet Jeezuz; you've misquoted me again; I did NOT say that the C of A was invalid; I said that they had not lived up to the dictates of their insurance policy which was that they had to have XX hours in the aircraft before going into Fox Harbour.
Trying to have a discussion with you is like herding cats. Or playing Whack a Mole.
Obfuscation. Profanity. Misdirection. Profanity. Deflection. Profanity. Deafness. Profanity. Character assassination. Profanity. Misquotation. Profanity. Verbal bullying. Profanity.
You are obviously extremely knowledgeable; however, there is sometimes a blurring of the line between being known as "The Go-To Guy" and what we euphemistically refer to out here as "A Sexual Sage".
I've nowhere near your level of experience, but I have been in aviation for sixty years, been a member of four aircraft accident investigations (three fatal), was a safety auditor for five years, and have a passing knowledge of the workings of Transport Canada. My present aircraft is my fourth. I do try.
As this bickering is getting us nowhere, the stage is yours...
-
DeflectionShot
[img alt=Popcorn And Drink emoticon (Drinking smileys)]http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/drink ... oticon.gif[/img]
-
ScudRunner-d95
- Posts: 1349
- Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 5:08 pm
[quote author=David MacRay link=topic=5634.msg14831#msg14831 date=1487138940]
dΩs(rB
What's the issue? You a bot or sumpin?
[/quote]
What is this sorcery you type!?
dΩs(rB
What's the issue? You a bot or sumpin?
[/quote]
What is this sorcery you type!?
-
David MacRay
- Posts: 1259
- Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 3:00 pm
Just kidding, I cheated to get the omega symbol.