flaps

Al G wrote:
Remember, airworthy is a state of paperwork, nothing more, nothing less.

Interesting concept, what would Orville, Wilbur, or Dudley think? You
don't happen to have an "FAA" definition of airworthy do you?

I do.

A review of case law relating to airworthiness reveals two conditions that
must
be met for an aircraft to be considered "airworthy." 49 U.S.C. § 44704(c)
and 14 CFR § 21.183(a), (b),
and (c) state that the two conditions necessary for issuance of an
airworthiness certificate:

a. The aircraft must conform to its TC. Conformity to type design is
considered attained when the
aircraft configuration and the components installed are consistent with the
drawings, specifications,
and other data that are part of the TC, which includes any supplemental type
certificate (STC) and
field approved alterations incorporated into the aircraft.

b. The aircraft must be in a condition for safe operation. This refers to
the condition of the
aircraft relative to wear and deterioration, for example, skin corrosion,
window delamination/crazing,
fluid leaks, and tire wear.

NOTE: If one or both of these conditions are not met, the aircraft would be
considered unairworthy.

Hilton

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 17:38:09 +0000, Hilton wrote:

NOTE: If one or both of these conditions are not met, the aircraft would
be considered unairworthy.

What about an otherwise airworthy aircraft whose airworthiness certificate
was destroyed in the laundry? Is that airplane airworthy?

My understanding (not having researched this; just what I was told) is
that it is not. That despite being itself in fine shape absent a
paperwork problem.

Not quite the same, but still not really TC or "condition for safe
operation" issue: what about a perfectly fine airplane that's out of
annual. Let's take it further, and say that it received a 100 hour
inspection on Jan 31 and was out of annual on Feb 1.

The only difference is the lack of an IA's signature. Unairworthy?

- Andrew

Andrew,

Airworthy is not the same as flyable or safe for flight etc.

Hilton


"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 17:38:09 +0000, Hilton wrote:

NOTE: If one or both of these conditions are not met, the aircraft would
be considered unairworthy.

What about an otherwise airworthy aircraft whose airworthiness certificate
was destroyed in the laundry? Is that airplane airworthy?

My understanding (not having researched this; just what I was told) is
that it is not. That despite being itself in fine shape absent a
paperwork problem.

Not quite the same, but still not really TC or "condition for safe
operation" issue: what about a perfectly fine airplane that's out of
annual. Let's take it further, and say that it received a 100 hour
inspection on Jan 31 and was out of annual on Feb 1.

The only difference is the lack of an IA's signature. Unairworthy?

- Andrew

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 06:54:46 +0000, Hilton wrote:

Airworthy is not the same as flyable or safe for flight etc.

Yes, that is my point.

- Andrew