Post-Annual Flight

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 04:12:37 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:


Waiting until the annual inspection to fix niggling little problems (like a
non-functioning fuel gauge) saves significant money. These are the kinds of
choices that aircraft owners make every day.

Waiting until the annual to fix a problematic shoulder harness which
still passes inspection is different from waiting until annual to fix
something that by the letter of regulation makes the aircraft
unairworthy until fixed. Things that make the aircraft unairworthy
can't legally be pushed out to the annual, regardless of whether it
would be cheaper to wait, unless you don't want to fly until the next
annual is completed.

On Feb 23, 12:01*am, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
Couldn't you have done the same and saved some $? *I think the shoulder
harnesses were $125 each for the reweb and repairs.

Yep. *But the OEM reels are a bad design, with sharp gears that shred the
edges of the belt. *The new version supposedly doesn't do that.

The new design also has a more stout connection to the seat belts (which
come along with the deal). * Sadly, I just put all new seat belts in a
couple of years ago, so I'll have two nearly new front seat belts on Ebay
shortly...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I don't know why seatbelts (new replacements) for cars aren't accepted
by the FAA as acceptable replaements in small 2-4 seat aircrafts. One
would think that the DOT testing of thoses belts ar just as tough as
the FAA's. Lambourghinis and Ferraris could reach 175mph before they
were fitted with airbags.

Wil

Waiting until the annual to fix a problematic shoulder harness which
still passes inspection is different from waiting until annual to fix
something that by the letter of regulation makes the aircraft
unairworthy until fixed.

You're correct, of course -- but I'd argue that in the event of a crash,
those inertial reels are a helluva lot more important than having all four
gas gauges working.

Unless, of course, the crash was caused by running out of fuel due to a
non-working fuel gauge -- a scenario that only an imbecile could make
happen. Sadly, we see crazy stuff like that happen every day.

Which really brings us to the crux of the issue, no? Regulations must be
written to take into account the imbeciles. Thus, we end up with Catch-22
regulations that make our aircraft unairworthy when one (of four)
never-to-be-trusted-anyway fuel gauges fail, but we can legally fly when our
safety restraints wouldn't do diddly squat in a crash, but have technically
passed inspection.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Shouldn't pilots who believe that petition the FAA to eliminate the
working-fuel-gauge requirement (at least for all multi-tank planes
flying under Part 91), rather than resigning themselves to the
widespread use of planes that aren't legally airworthy?

Sure, just like I should petition the legislature to raise the speed limit
to 70 on the freeways because I know that I can handle the vehicle at that
speed. Chance? Snowball in hell.



He is probably aware that the FAA might make a point out of it if he
crashed.

Or if he got ramp-checked.


Horsefeathers. Ever been ramp-checked? I think not. It is a paperwork
chase and you do NOT (repeat NOT) have the obligation to let them inspect
the airplane. Having said that, if Jay did ANYthing wrong, it was to
placard the gauge. That was an admission of "guilt" that he probably
understands now that we've reamed him a new one for it. ("Why, it was
working just fine a minute ago.")

Even after the regs had been
quoted here, he still said he wasn't convinced that it's illegal.

Two things I'd like to do here. One is to recommend to you a short story by
Richard Bach called "School For Success". You can find it in a compendium
of his works in a book called "Gift Of Wings".

Two, I know most of these guys in here and can color my judgment of their
responses by their experiences. The only thing I know about you is that
you've never owned an airplane before. That's OK, Lindy never "owned" one
either, but I'd like to know a) how long you've been a rated pilot and b)
about how many hours with air between your butt and the ground?

Jim
CFI, A&P-IA

"RST Engineering" wrote in
:






That's OK, Lindy never
"owned" one either,


Sure he did. he had a Monocoupe 90A, for one, and a Chief after that.



bertie

On Feb 23, 10:54*am, "RST Engineering"
wrote:
Or if he got ramp-checked.

Horsefeathers. Ever been ramp-checked? *I think not. *It is a paperwork
chase and you do NOT (repeat NOT) have the obligation to let them inspect
the airplane. *

Not from the inside. But they're allowed to look through a window and
see the 'INOP' across the gauge.

Two, I know most of these guys in here and can color my judgment of their
responses by their experiences. The only thing I know about you is that
you've never owned an airplane before. *That's OK, Lindy never "owned" one
either, but I'd like to know a) how long you've been a rated pilot and b)
about how many hours with air between your butt and the ground?

SInce I'm posting anonymously, I try to restrict my claims to those I
can present verifiable evidence for so that my arguments stand on
their own merits, and I don't have to ask anyone to take my word for
anything. However, since you ask: several years, instrument rating
(which I use in IMC), several hundred hours. So, intermediate
experience.

As I said earlier, I've rented planes throughout the US, and I
consistently find that the fuel gauges work well enough to provide a
rough cross-check against my calculations (so that I'd notice a large
leak, for example). That is the gauges' ONLY usefulness--but that's
still important enough for them to be there and to be operable, as is
required for airworthiness.

Just a final shot from me, in agreement with Jim... more thread
morphing

DO not, repeat NOT, agree to a ramp check...
You don't have to - the inspector is not a LEO, he cannot give you
orders...

Say, "NO! I am not allowing that at this time. Send me a certified
letter and my attorney will negotiate a mutually agreeable time and
place." and then turn your back and walk away... Do not say anything
further to him never lie to the government, just shut your mouth,
don't let him sweet talk you into discussing it, ignore any threats of
law enforcement, or 'needing' to see your pilots certificate, or
needing your address, etc.. Lock your plane, keep walking, and leave
for a few hours...

denny

John Smith wrote in
:

In article V2Nvj.45695$9j6.39714@attbi_s22,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

Considering that many of us are now
flying bonafide antique aircraft (Atlas is now 34 years old), these
types of choices are necessary for people of ordinary means to keep
them in the air.

Its not an antique. its a classic.


It's a cherokee


Bertie

SInce I'm posting anonymously, I try to restrict my claims to those I
can present verifiable evidence for so that my arguments stand on
their own merits, and I don't have to ask anyone to take my word for
anything. However, since you ask: several years, instrument rating
(which I use in IMC), several hundred hours. So, intermediate
experience.

In this group, that's about one white chip's worth. Not even close to
intermediate.

And "verifiable evidence" would keep 99%+ of the aircraft in the country
grounded by a literal interpretation of the regs.

Most folks with their guts bag full post their real names. Or at least
some way of telling who they really are. I personally won't post anything
that I can't defend under my own name, not a pseudonym. Jay owns a hotel in
Iowa CIty, I own an avionics company in Grass Valley, dozens of others have
the intestinal fortitude to put a face with a name. I don't hold much
credence in anonymous posting.

Jim

On 2008-02-24, RST Engineering wrote:
Most folks with their guts bag full post their real names. Or at least
some way of telling who they really are. I personally won't post anything
that I can't defend under my own name, not a pseudonym. Jay owns a hotel in
Iowa CIty, I own an avionics company in Grass Valley, dozens of others have
the intestinal fortitude to put a face with a name. I don't hold much
credence in anonymous posting.

AOL

Especially given my fame/notoriety around the Internet, anything I post can
and will come back to haunt me at the most inconvenient of times. Even
without that factor, though, I have always stood behind what I've posted on
the net, and refuse to use anything but my own name. If I don't want to be
associated with it, I don't post it in the first place. This is not true of
my detractors. (Hi, Big John!)

FWIW, I'm somewhat disappointed that I won't be able to use any of Jim's
products on the new airplane. I do plan to visit Jay's establishment just as
soon as I can after taking delivery; he's a pleasant hour and a half flight
or so from Fairmont.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390