Thorp Air Command - T18.net

Trying to decipher the language regarding the American-King A/D, how does this effect us experimental guys does it even apply to us? Any clarification would be helpful.
Thanks....Ira

My misguided son . Go to CFR 91.207 with regard to ELTs and/or go to the EAA web site for more specific info pertaining to ELTs . Deleting the 243.0 Mhz and replacing it with the 406 Mhz freq .

RB

I'm pretty sure it does apply to us, Ira. You've got to have a legal ELT, and the FAA determined that that one broke the law.

_________________
John Evens
Arvada, Colorado
T-18 N71JE (sold)
Kitfox 7 SS N27JE (building)

My take on generic ADs. ...My FSDO emphatically states they DO NOT apply to experimentals. However, you insurance company may disagree. So if you disregard an AD and your insurance company will not pay, was it worth it?
Cubes

Thanks for the input guys

I think this is a little different situation. Unlike ADs for many parts you might use on an Experimental airplane, ELTs are a piece of mandated equipment, that has to meet certain requirements and has to be approved by the FAA. You can't just go out, build and use your own ELT without it being tested and approved to meet this particular standard, and you can't legally use one that doesn't meet the standards under which it was approved. Just like the FAA can tell you which ADS-B units you can legally use on an Experimental or any other airplane (certain NavWorx units now disallowed), the same goes for ELTs. As usual, I could be wrong.

_________________
John Evens
Arvada, Colorado
T-18 N71JE (sold)
Kitfox 7 SS N27JE (building)

I found this on the FAA website a while back: (http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/de ... sguide.doc)
"Experimental aircraft:

ADs are not applicable to non-TC’d amateur built aircraft (unless addressing a safety condition involving a TC’d engine or propeller)."

As pointed out earlier, ELTs are a special case because they are specifically mandated. I haven’t read that reg in a while. I need to replace an ELT on one of the projects this winter but I have no intention of going 406 unless required.

_________________
"The joke in aviation is, 'If you want to make a million, you'd better start with £10m.' " -Bruce Dickinson

I understand that no one want's to be dictated to by the FAA. I currently have a 406 in my Twin, and I plan on installing a 406 in the Thorp. Not because the FAA sez so, but if there is a issue and the A/C and I end up off airport, the 406 gets searches within a mile or so without being connected to a GPS. If it was receiving a GPS position before being activated it will provide a position within a hundred yards. The 121.5 system is no longer monitored, and IF the signal is heard they start with a 20 mile search area. The cost of the 406 unit starts at about $500.00, the batteries last five years, but cost at least five times as much ($100.00 - $150.00). The question is what is your and your passengers butt worth? I would gladly pay $500.00 extra not to spend a night wondering if anybody could find me after a off airport landing.

Phil
118BC

Phil,
That's why I installed a 406 MHz unit when my 121.5 unit crapped out. I got mine from Pacific Coast Avionics.

_________________
Bruce Finney
N18JF T-18C #262
Auburn, WA USA

My case is a little different. I normally fly over 200 hours a year in aircraft that are exempt from needing an ELT. This is the first year in a long time where I flew an aircraft requiring an ELT more than 5 hours so I guess it might be fair to say I have a bad attitude on the subject. Additionally, the ELT I need to replace is for a C-150 project that I am already $10,000 upside down on. The buyer can upgrade if desired but me spending the money will not increase the value of the aircraft.

_________________
"The joke in aviation is, 'If you want to make a million, you'd better start with £10m.' " -Bruce Dickinson

Bruce,
I also buy most of my avionics from Pacific Coast, Randy there will work to come up with the best deal he can plus no sales tax in Oregon.

Phil
118BC

I reread my post after John's reply. I guess I was rather unclear. I maintain my aircraft in accordance with all ADs. The FAA may not require it, but I do. I would not want to put my wife in a position of arguing with an insurance company over the airworthiness of my bird.
I have not upgraded to 406 in the Tigress yet, but I intend to someday.
Cubes
BTW, I'm sitting in the back of a 737 on my way back from a funeral. Great American. 57 years old, wife, three great kids. Take care of your families.

I was really starting to think I had an ACK sitting in the shop for 218TH - turns out it's an Ameri-King 450 and has now become wall art. It'll go in the basket with the chafe packets I found in the attic. Might make for an interesting 'drop' in the gulf someday! Both the chafe and the elt....

I didn't think you were unclear and if I implied it with my post I apologize. I made my post because many AD's do not apply to amateur built aircraft in the eyes of the FAA but many do. I have seen way too many people ignore AD's that are required because they "thought" no AD's apply to amateur built aircraft. While it may be true of the airframe itself, some of the aircraft components can easily be affected and make the entire aircraft illegal. A popular one is the Hartzell propellers affected by the expensive recurring hub inspection AD. If people want to confirm it for themselves there is the link and quote I posted above plus there are FAA legal interpretations and the EAA's own position on the topic posted on the internet as well. It doesn't have to make sense, it's the government.

I agree, it is always a good idea to comply with an AD whether or not it is required.

_________________
"The joke in aviation is, 'If you want to make a million, you'd better start with £10m.' " -Bruce Dickinson

If you ever decide to sell the AC , having ALL the AD's complied with is a big plus . Ask me how I know .

RB