Talk:Maintenance: General - Revision history

Az gila at 14:54, 21 June 2006

2006-06-21T14:54:48Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:54, 21 June 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
			Bob... that makes sense.. It would be nice if they updated their AC's to agree with what they say...:^) gil A

	Gil,		Gil,
	That is what we have been instructed to do by the FAA at safety seminars. They says its not a local issue, that it comes from DC, and that the distinction is whether or not the appliance has a Type Certificate. Been doing it for close to 10 years now. Looking over the AC43.9C, I find that its easy to see where they are getting the "suggestion" to maintain separate records. 5(c) about 91.417(a)(1) refers to Airframe, Engine and Prop or Rotor system and wants records for each. It goes on to say they need not be separate records, but when an engine is sent off as an exchange for OH or a replacement prop is bought, its clear that there needs to be a way to send the records FOR THAT APPLIANCE with it. Separate logs is just a simple, inexpensive way to comply. 91.417(a)(2)(i) would also apply, in that the need to track total time in service for each appliance is simplified if they each have their own records.		That is what we have been instructed to do by the FAA at safety seminars. They says its not a local issue, that it comes from DC, and that the distinction is whether or not the appliance has a Type Certificate. Been doing it for close to 10 years now. Looking over the AC43.9C, I find that its easy to see where they are getting the "suggestion" to maintain separate records. 5(c) about 91.417(a)(1) refers to Airframe, Engine and Prop or Rotor system and wants records for each. It goes on to say they need not be separate records, but when an engine is sent off as an exchange for OH or a replacement prop is bought, its clear that there needs to be a way to send the records FOR THAT APPLIANCE with it. Separate logs is just a simple, inexpensive way to comply. 91.417(a)(2)(i) would also apply, in that the need to track total time in service for each appliance is simplified if they each have their own records.

Bob Steward at 01:21, 20 June 2006

2006-06-20T01:21:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:21, 20 June 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Gil,		Gil,
	That is what we have been instructed to do by the FAA at safety seminars. They says its not a local issue, that it comes from DC, and that the distinction is whether or not the appliance has a Type Certificate. Been doing it for close to 10 years now.		That is what we have been instructed to do by the FAA at safety seminars. They says its not a local issue, that it comes from DC, and that the distinction is whether or not the appliance has a Type Certificate. Been doing it for close to 10 years now. Looking over the AC43.9C, I find that its easy to see where they are getting the "suggestion" to maintain separate records. 5(c) about 91.417(a)(1) refers to Airframe, Engine and Prop or Rotor system and wants records for each. It goes on to say they need not be separate records, but when an engine is sent off as an exchange for OH or a replacement prop is bought, its clear that there needs to be a way to send the records FOR THAT APPLIANCE with it. Separate logs is just a simple, inexpensive way to comply. 91.417(a)(2)(i) would also apply, in that the need to track total time in service for each appliance is simplified if they each have their own records.

	Bob... what document says this? ''"The FAA wants a log book for each "Class 1 Appliance"."''		Bob... what document says this? ''"The FAA wants a log book for each "Class 1 Appliance"."''
	Is the AC 43-9C obsolete, because it actually says it is not required? It is still listed as "current" on the FAA web site...		Is the AC 43-9C obsolete, because it actually says it is not required? It is still listed as "current" on the FAA web site...

Bob Steward at 01:09, 20 June 2006

2006-06-20T01:09:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:09, 20 June 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
			Gil,
			That is what we have been instructed to do by the FAA at safety seminars. They says its not a local issue, that it comes from DC, and that the distinction is whether or not the appliance has a Type Certificate. Been doing it for close to 10 years now.

	Bob... what document says this? ''"The FAA wants a log book for each "Class 1 Appliance"."''		Bob... what document says this? ''"The FAA wants a log book for each "Class 1 Appliance"."''
	Is the AC 43-9C obsolete, because it actually says it is not required? It is still listed as "current" on the FAA web site...		Is the AC 43-9C obsolete, because it actually says it is not required? It is still listed as "current" on the FAA web site...

Az gila at 05:40, 19 June 2006

2006-06-19T05:40:54Z

New page

Bob... what document says this? ''"The FAA wants a log book for each "Class 1 Appliance"."''
Is the AC 43-9C obsolete, because it actually says it is not required? It is still listed as "current" on the FAA web site...