Replacing fuel cut-off valve with non-a/c part???

If you don't want to follow the rules.... fine..... stick to
homebuilts. If you buy a certificated aircraft, you know from the
git-go that there is a specific set of rules you must, by law, follow.

I think that's a very reasonable position from someone who:
Never exceeds the speed limit for any reason
Always comes to a full stop at every stop sign (no rolling stops, ever)
Never parks in a no-parking zone, even for a minute
Never crosses against the light
Never cheats on his taxes
And in fact never breaks any government regulations, ever, for any
reason.

Otherwise it's total hypocrisy.

"in fact it's the number one thing that brings down homebuilts in
the Phase I period"
And that doesn't suggest something to you?!?!

It suggests that the system is indeed critical. AFAIK none of those
accidents are fuel valve failure. Just because a system is critical
does not mean every component is critical.

Michael

" jls" wrote:
Furthermore, homebuilts have an enviable safety record,

!?!

Enviable by whom - Evel Knievel?

Let's have real numbers when discussing these things;

Indeed.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

" jls" wrote:
Furthermore, homebuilts have an enviable safety record,

!?!

Enviable by whom - Evel Knievel?

Let's have real numbers when discussing these things;

Indeed.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM



Ron Wanttaja just gave you some relevant numbers, and you can go to the EAA
website for the irrelevant ones and get more. Being involved in
experimental aircraft now for almost 20 years, my experience with
experimentals is good. OTOH, there are some kooks who build ratplanes and
fail at trying to fly them.

If it's a Stuart Headwind, Cassutt, or Pou de Ciel, it's sometimes a little
suspect. If it's a Lancair, T-18, or RV-6 then it has a better history,
thus credibility.

Somewhere in one of these threads somebody said homebuilder "incidents"
don't tally correctly because homebuilders grab up their damaged planes,
carry them into the hangars under the cover of night, and hide them. Hey,
I know of instances in which certified aircraft were wrecked, stashed away,
repaired surreptitiously, and manage to escape the official record too.

Whenever you read of one for sale, it's known in the trade as a laughable
lie when the ad says "NDH."

It's not a lie. NO DAMAGE would be a lie. No Damage HISTORY is the truth.
There is no history if it's not recorded.

Jim



Whenever you read of one for sale, it's known in the trade as a laughable
lie when the ad says "NDH."

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...
It's not a lie. NO DAMAGE would be a lie. No Damage HISTORY is the truth.
There is no history if it's not recorded.

Jim



Whenever you read of one for sale, it's known in the trade as a
laughable
lie when the ad says "NDH."


Attaboy, Jim. You always come through.

I bet Penn and Teller would have some choice words to say about this.
chuckle

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...
It's not a lie. NO DAMAGE would be a lie. No Damage HISTORY is the truth.
There is no history if it's not recorded.

Jim

Whenever you read of one for sale, it's known in the trade as a laughable
lie when the ad says "NDH."

It really gets down to time and money namely a lot of yours not the
government's so you can educate the FAA government bureaucrat on
modern technology and he can cover his ass in a lot of expensive paper
work..
It could easily cost you more than $50,000 and two years to get that
$5 valve approved by the time you ran enough tests at a CERTIFIED Lab
with certified calibrated equipment using an APPROVED test plan
that will have to be written. The FAA guy will then dream up more
tests so you will have to jump through more hoops. Have you never
heard of the Bob Hoover medical problem? Same problem here.

I once had a certified helicopter that had a drilled head pivot bolt
in the tail rotor bell crank that held the bell crank in place. The
bolt's nut was a standard ordinary non fixed to the airframe all metal
self locking nut per the parts manual also. The parts manual showed
that both the drilled and un-drilled AN-6 parts were both approved in
this location. The FAA dick head insisted that if the drilled head
bolt was installed it had to be safety wired to something. What the
hell good is keeping the bolt from turning going to help if the nut is
free to rotate? The A&P /IA showed the FAA dick head the CURRENT
version parts manual, acceptable, approved data.
So the Faa dick head insisted on calling the helicopter MFG. After a
couple of hours on the phone the end result was the parts manual is
correct as it stands per the aircraft MFG. If we had the correct
length AN6 un-drilled bolt we would have changed it but to get one
would take a day or more of lost revenue.
After more than 4 hours the problem got resolved at 4:59 PM when the
FAA guy said I guess that drilled head bolt's OK and went home.
Total cost to me over $200. Did this improve anything? I think not.
The real problem is the FAA inspectors do not want to be held
accountable for ANY judgment calls without a load of expensive paper
to cover their ass and they also like to show the "troops" who is the
boss.
John

On 28 Dec 2004 13:21:19 -0800, "Michael"
wrote:

I plan on talking with the local FSDO

Then you will never be able to do it. Never. Once they know you had
plans to do it, you lose plausible deniability.

Look, here's the way it is. All alterations to the fuel system are
major. You have no approved data. You have an unapproved part. It
would take an STC or field approval to make it happen, and you won't
get one. You're stuck with either your obsolete, leaky, marginally
safe - but legal - valve, or you make the alteration yourself, by dark
of night, and don't tell anyone. And make sure you have the kind of IA
who doesn't notice such things.

Michael

Gene Kearns wrote:
Otherwise it's total hypocrisy.

No, it isn't. Your conclusion is just plain silly. We are talking
about WILLFULLY violating the law.

As I was about speeding and such.

Everybody probably inadvertently
speeds, doesn't come to a *complete* stop at a stop sign, parks in
no-parking zones, or crosses against the light.

Oh nuts. I'm sure everyone does it inadvertently at some point, but
most people also have been known to drive faster than the speed limit,
not come to a full stop at a light, and similar because they just
didn't feel it was IMPORTANT to comply with the law all the time.

Looking down at the speedometer and seeing 64 instead of 55 probably
means you are going to slow down.

Unless you slow down EVERY time, no dice. Hypocrisy.

So, your position is, what? Anarchy? Since we can't follow ALL of
the
laws we shouldn't follow ANY of the laws?

No, my position is very different. If you are willing to use you
judgment about which law to follow, it is tremendously hypocritical to
suggest that it's OK to speed for convenience or some perceived
personal need but not OK to install a safer, non-leaking fuel valve
because it's not approved. So if you've NEVER intentionall broken
traffic regulations, OK, you have what may be a valid argument.
Otherwise, it's sheer hypocrisy.

Michael

"Gene Kearns" wrote:
No, it isn't. Your conclusion is just plain silly. We are talking
about WILLFULLY violating the law. Everybody probably inadvertently
speeds, doesn't come to a *complete* stop at a stop sign, parks in
no-parking zones, or crosses against the light.

Everyone I know--EVERYONE--deliberately breaks the speed limit most of the
time.

Looking down at the speedometer and seeing 64 instead of 55 probably
means you are going to slow down.

Not the folks I ride with, nor most of the folks I drive alongside on the
highway.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

Geez y'all, with all the arguing, somebody could have found an approved part
from a certificated aircraft, gotten the conformity data, submitted a 337 with
details, drawings and instructions for continued airworthiness and most likely
have gotten a fuel cutoff valve that doesn't leak.


--
Dr. Nuketopia
Sorry, no e-Mail.
Spam forgeries have resulted in thousands of faked bounces to my address.