Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Member |
You mean like these? Straight from the FAA.gov website you posted. A planes airworthiness certificate needs to be renewed after a crash. What is an airworthiness certificate? An airworthiness certificate is an FAA document which grants authorization to operate an aircraft in flight. Who is authorized to issue an FAA airworthiness certificate? Only FAA Aviation Safety Inspectors and authorized Representatives of the Administrator (i.e.Designees), as defined in 14 CFR Part 183, "Representatives of the Administrator", are authorized to issue an FAA airworthiness certificate. Can the FAA revoke an airworthiness certificate? Yes. The FAA can revoke an existing airworthiness certificate in any category (14 CFR section 21.181), if the aircraft no longer meets its approved design and/or is not in an airworthy condition. https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/a...ication/aw_overview/ What is a standard airworthiness certificate? A standard airworthiness certificate (FAA form 8100-2 displayed in the aircraft) is the FAA's official authorization allowing for the operation of type certificated aircraft in the following categories: Normal Utility Acrobatic Commuter Transport Manned free balloons Special classes A standard airworthiness certificate remains valid as long as the aircraft meets its approved type design, is in a condition for safe operation and maintenance, preventative maintenance, and alterations are performed in accordance with 14 CFR parts 21, 43, and 91. https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/a...fication/std_awcert/ Major repair means a repair: ( l) Where the damage to be repaired, or proposed repair, will significantly affect aircraft weight, balance, structural strength, performance, powerplant operation, flight characteristics, or other qualities affecting airworthiness; or (2) Where the complexity of the repair may significantly affect proper accomplishment and thereby adversely affect, weight, balance, structural strength, performance, powerplant operation, flight characteristics, or other qualities affecting airworthiness; or (3) That is not done according to accepted practices and cannot be done by elementary operations. (C) When a licensed aircraft or a major component thereof, such as the fuselage, tail surfaces, control system, wings, or landing gear, has been damaged to such an extent that it constitutes a major repair in the judgment ofthe Department of Commerce inspector, the airplane shall not be flown until the requirements of these regulations have been completely fulfilled and the repairs have been approved by a Department of Commerce inspector. 2. The repair or alteration must be inspected and approved for return to service (see § 91.407(a)(I)) by one of the following: (a) A certificated mechanic with inspection authorization (see§§ 43.7(b), 65.95(a)( I)). (b) A certificated and rated repair station (see§ 43.7(c) and the flush paragraph at the end of§ I45.5I). (c) An air carrier (see§§ 43.7(e), I21.379(b), 135.437(b)). (d) The manufacturer (see§ 43.7(d)).1 (e) Persons approved by Transport Canada Transport Group (see§ 43.17(c)). https://www.faa.gov/regulation...AMcmmT1-01051994.pdf That being said I will not post anymore on this incident. | |||
|
| Go ahead punk, make my day |
Last word on topics he know jack shieeet about.... LMFAO at da shrimp boat Capn’ | |||
|
| Just because you can, doesn't mean you should |
I kind of doubt that plane will be flying again, in any case. Maybe parts of it. ___________________________ Avoid buying ChiCom/CCP products whenever possible. | |||
|
| I believe in the principle of Due Process  |
Things don’t work the way you think they do, once again, Jimbo. I bought a PA-46 years ago. It had been in a hangar fire, not directly on fire but damaged by high heat, and fire retardants. The insurer took care of it. A refurbisher well known in the PA-46 community bought the remains, trucked it to its facility, and set about to restore it. Thankfully, the Airworthiness Certificate was not destroyed in the fire. The restorer made all the necessary repairs, new paint, new interior, upgraded avionics, replaced anything that had been affected. The restorer who was an A&P with Inspection Authorization, documented the work in the logs, signed off as Airworthy just like after every annual inspection, and everybody was happy. I happened to be looking for one, bought it, flew it very comfortably, and was happy as a clam over it. I sold it when I lost my own airworthiness cerificate (:>  ).I suspect, unless there are economic or parts availability impediments, that is what will happen to this Citation. It might happen to the 150, too, if they can find the A/C in the rubble. Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me. When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown | |||
|
אַרְיֵה |
Promise? You quoted regs that actually prove that your initial assertion was wrong. As in not correct. You initially said "FAA inspectors inspect the airframe/plane and determine if the airframe is fixable, FAA inspectors I think are the only ones that can determine that." Then, in a reply to my post, you quoted the regs: Note that NONE of these, a through e above, repeat NONE of these, is an "FAA Inspector." You see, Jimmy, an FAA Inspector is a civil service person who works for the FAA and draws a paycheck from the U.S. Government. None of the entities cited, NONE OF THEM, is an FAA Inspector. All of the cited authorized entities are private businesses that operate for profit. Even if an FAA Inspector had the authority -- and the very regs that you quoted clearly state that this is not the case -- but even if an FAA Inspector had the authority to return an aircraft to service after a major repair, I highly doubt that you would be able to find one who was willing to put his / her signature on the line for this. In general, none of them would want the liability risk. That's not an issue though, because as clearly stated in the reg that you were good enough to quote, an FAA Inspector is NOT one of the five types that are authorized to return an aircraft to service following a major repair. Please stop trying to impress us with your aeronautical knowledge. Stick to what you know. Oh yeah, getting back to the Airworthiness Certificate: That is a document that is issued when the aircraft is first manufactured. It is NOT a document that is issued or reissued as a result of major repairs. Once the Airworthiness Certificate has been issued it stays with the aircraft for life. It must be on board and visible for all flight operations. It is not updated, it retains the original date of issue. Ongoing airworthiness is attested, not by an airworthiness certificate, but by periodic inspections as required by the regs. Annual inspections are required. If the aircraft is operated for hire, inspections are required each 100 hours (assuming more than 100 hours of operation annually). Reading between the lines in your original, erroneous, post, it appears that you think that an Airworthiness Certificate is associated with the aircraft being returned to service after major repairs. If in fact you think that, you are wrong. The Airworthiness Certificate has nothing to do with repairs. Major repairs are documented in records specified by the FAA, but not documented by the Airworthiness Certificate. הרחפת שלי מלאה בצלופחים | |||
|
| Just because you can, doesn't mean you should |
It's all a matter of dollars and cents. The most valuable part of that plane is the engines. Just like with a car crash, if the price to fix is over a certain percent of the value and they can sell things like engines for enough, the insurance company will likely total the plane. Looking at the 150 that was a pretty big hit and the airframe damage wouldn't be showing in that distant photo. I'll bet that has structural fuselage damage at least up to the back of the wings if not beyond. ___________________________ Avoid buying ChiCom/CCP products whenever possible. | |||
|
Membership has its privileges |
Pucker factor is probably pretty high. WOW!!!!!! Niech Zyje P-220 Steve | |||
|
Member |
You said you weren’t but going to post again. | |||
|
| Peace through superior firepower  |
jimmy, partner, you are trying my patience. I am patient until I am patient no longer, and you are probing that boundary. | |||
|
| Member |
understood. | |||
|
| I believe in the principle of Due Process |
The 150 looks pretty much worthless, alright. There is a data plate riveted to the airframe, usually on one side near the tail. There is an airworthiness certificate inside, a piece of paper displayed on one wall of the interior. Both of those must be in the plane in operation. With those, though, all other parts are replaceable. When Cessna stopped building single engine airplanes in the mid-80s, those became pretty valuable. I have seen 172s in airworthy condition, built from parts of an unknown number of different airplanes. They buy wrecks, salvage parts, get a data plate and certificate, and rivet and bolt and wire enough parts together, a wing, a wing spar, cabin, instrument panel, tail surfaces, instruments, engine, etc., to get a working airplane that meets specs. Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me. When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown | |||
|
| Member |
Runway incursion has been a hot topic for the FAA for years. Like other classics that keep happening (controlled flight into terrain, fuel mismanagmeent/exhaustion, etc), collisions in the runway environment continue to happen, and should not. Tragic is a good word, here. At uncontrolled fields, see and avoid is always the rule. Radio calls should be made, and under certain circumstances, TCAS (traffic collision avoidance system) is useful...but seeing other traffic and avoiding it is still a pilot responsibility. It's evident in this case that pilots of each aircraft did not see the other aircraft. Like all investigations, there's conflicting information; the NTSB will sort through everything and take 12-18 months to arrive at a conclusion as to the contributing factors. Two of my big pet gripes are pilots to make the announcement before departure "any inbound traffic please advise," as if the radio can look for traffic for them, and pilots who respond to a traffic report with "got 'em on TCAS." Both are aids, but neither are a substitute for spotting other traffic. In this case, the Citation was the landing airplane, and had the right of way until clear of the runway. It's possible that from their respective positions, the other aircraft wasn't visible. Visibility was reduced to four miles, making spotting traffic more difficult. The largest loss of life of persons onboard in an aircraft crash occurred as a runway incursion at Tenerife (Canary Islands); these types of events are not new and keep happening. Even with advanced avoidance such as TCAS, it keeps happening. The citation had TCAS, which is partially inhibited during the approach and landing, and is limited by the capabilities of the other aircraft. Visibility an workload limits the eyes for spotting traffic, and radios can be turned down or on the wrong frequency, and of course, aircraft can come from unexpected places, which appears to be the case for both aircraft here. One of the biggest concerns of many professional pilots isn't an aircraft malfunction, but a mid-air with a weekend warrior in a light airplane. People are dead. The last thing I'd concern myself with at this point is "can it be fixed?" On that end, from the perspective of an aircraft mechanic, it's impossible to say without a first hand examination, and a discussion with the owner and insurance about the economic decisions. Almost anything *can* be repaired, but in many cases with aircraft, it's not economically viable. It's definitely not like fixing a car. | |||
|
Security Sage |
 RB Cancer fighter (Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma) since 2009, now fighting Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma. | |||
|
| Go ahead punk, make my day |
^^^^^ Plenty of cut material there. | |||
|
| Security Sage |
“Well-educated” guesses. RB Cancer fighter (Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma) since 2009, now fighting Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma. | |||
|
| Member |
its why I don't fly machines , some stuff just happens way too fast Safety, Situational Awareness and proficiency. Neck Ties, Hats and ammo brass, Never ,ever touch'em w/o asking first | |||
|
Member |
“He said he didn’t recall making a radio call on UNICOM” It is hard to understand how a pilot qualified to fly a turbine aircraft fails to perform a basic requirement of landing at a non-towered airport. The only control over non-towered operations is radio communication of position and “see and be seen”. | |||
|
| Just because you can, doesn't mean you should |
While I appreciate his honesty, that's why they tell you to only say the minimum in a self defense shooting too. That statement alone will likely be a problem for him. The other pilot isn't blameless either but he and his passenger paid with their lives. ___________________________ Avoid buying ChiCom/CCP products whenever possible. | |||
|
| I believe in the principle of Due Process |
Might save time and bandwidth to just start each post with “Once Upon A Time...” Or, as Chongo’s sig line goes.... “Knowing what one is talking about is widely admired but not strictly required here. Although sometimes distracting, there is often a certain entertainment value to this easy standard.” Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me. When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown | |||
|
| In the yahd, not too fah from the cah  |
Guys, Jimmy has dropped it. No need to keep ganging up on him. All that will wind up happening is another thread will get locked. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© SIGforum 2024