Lisas7ECA wrote:Thanks Hotrod.

The silly anti-virus software blocks me when I quote your last post.

Nope, no such statement, so I'm good.

Just out of curiosity if there was such a statement, and that would open a can of worms I have no interest in. I wonder what the effect would be given that certain modifications that were required were clearly not performed.

Lisa

If the plane has Stromberg carburetor, most folks don't install a mixture control....frankly, it's kinda pointless anyway. If it has a Marvel carburetor, I would certainly install a mixture control....it really does work with a Marvel.

But, adding a mixture control is really quite simple, regardless of carburetor type.

Since the instruction calls for a C-85, the installed C-75 probably isn't going to make it an F in any case. And, I THOUGHT the 8Fs were all metal, no fabric wings.....??

MTV

When you try to sell something it helps to accurately describe that thing. I almost passed on this aircraft because it was described as an 8E. But checking the FAA database showed it was registered as an 8A. From reading the Univair Copy of the Luscombe factory letter and a TCM manual that includes TCDSs for "A"s and "C"s it appears that the A-65-8 engine of a 65 hp "8A" could be "upgraded" to the A-75-8 of a 75 hp "8C" or "8D" but would have to be replaced with a "C" case 85hp C-85 to become a "8E."

For my purposes an 8E is not usable because it (arguably**) exceeds the 1320 / 1430 pound Sport Pilot limitation. The current owner mistakenly believes that the aircraft was "converted" by factory letter to an "E." It was not. It may have been converted to a "C." Well, almost... No statement was made that the aircraft was "converted" in the log book. The steps to be taken are in the TCDS as "options" so I guess that means that if six of nine steps listed in my previous post were completed it would not render the aircraft non-airworthy.

Of the remaining items two may have been done but not documented, and the owner said one was not completed. But he was wrong about the model number... If we proceed I should research this, and proceeding is simply a matter of going through all of the "official documents" and then doing an annual if the paperwork checks out.

"Is this a potential minefield?" summarized my concerns. But double checking paper it appears that the owner simply trusted what the A&P did was right. And it probably was, it's just that the owner misheard or misremembered what the A&P said.

But that brings up an interesting, albeit theoretical question. I know that if Sam buys Dave's airplane and discovers something that makes the aircraft non-airworthy Sam has to fix the discrepancy, and have an A&P do the physical work and paperwork if necessary. But as an owner, not an A&P, I likely won't be able to tell if it's a #65 jet or a #75 jet. Or if the control movement is 25* or 27*.

If all the paperwork is in order, who can the future discovery of something being "almost, but not quite right..." I mean per the regulations, not "really wrong" come back on. The A&P who signed it, especially three years later; the old owner who admittedly didn't do the work; or as I suspect the new owner who "paids her money and took hers chances."

Thanks

Lisa

**An argument about which I have no interest in. But if the aircraft had a GW of 1260 pounds, and then was placed on floats for which the legal maximum takeoff weight is 1375 pounds and the aircraft was then converted to a model with a GW of 1450 pounds it still wouldn't have a maximum takeoff weight over 1430 pounds because being on the floats limits its takeoff weight to 1375 pounds. Which is under the limit. And the reg clearly says MTOW not GW. Since the aircraft was converted not manufactured as the later model its individual MTOW never exceeded the SP cap of 1430. You just couldn't EVER put it back on wheels.

First, the operative point in ANY purchase of an aircraft: “ Buyer beware.” IF you buy it and find issues, they’re YOURS to own. Now, a conscientious seller MIGHT offer to help with expenses to make it right……. And theoretically, you could take them to civil court to recover, based on misrepresentation, but I doubt you’d prevail, and your legal fees will likely exceed the value of the plane.

Get a GOOD, thorough pre buy done, by a mechanic who’s thoroughly familiar with the type and all it’s iterations.

Second, no offense, but you’ve thoroughly described your “conversation” with the FAA regarding the definition of “an aircraft eligible to be flown under light sport rules”. Now, you’re looking at putting yourself right back in that same situation?

You can parse words all you like, but in the end, the FAA and a court are probably going to conclude the Maximum Takeoff Weight and Gross Weight are in effect the same. Terminology changes over the years…..

As discussed before, if a particular serial number aircraft has EVER been certificated at a weight which exceeds the LS rules, that aircraft can NEVER be flown by a light sport pilot, or as a light sport aircraft.

MTV

MTV I don't disagree with anything you said.

"**An argument about which I have no interest in..."

Just pointing out its a "one-way-street."

If a precise reading benefits 'em, they choose that reading, if vague generalities benefit them, they choose that reading sometimes leading to internal conflict in the same document.

It's an esoteric argument about which I have no interest in other than making a point.

Lisa

"U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION National Policy ORDER 8110.121 Effective Date: 10/15/2015 SUBJ: Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS) Notes 1. Purpose. This order clarifies the purpose and authority of the notes used in a TCDS and provides additional guidance and instruction for Aircraft Certification Offices (ACOs), directorate staffs, and oversight offices in the preparation of TCDS notes. It also explains the importance of a TCDS and its notes, and provides detailed instructions to assist directorates and ACOs in the preparation of correctly written TCDS notes. Responsible offices can also use the instructions in this order to correct existing errors in a TCDS...

"Inconsistency has led FAA personnel to incorrectly assume that the notes section is not regulatory in nature. This order clarifies that the entire TCDS, including the notes section, is regulatory.

"14 CFR 21.41 does not separate a TCDS into a main section and a notes section."

The upshot being a ruling in my favor that where notes authorize a thing it is authorized. And where notes authorize one thing and the plain wording of the TCDS is clearly in error, or that following the clear wording of the TCDS violates an FAR, one MUST follow the notes.

In the previous post it was said: "As discussed before, if a particular serial number aircraft has EVER been certificated at a weight" maximum takeoff weight as defined by FAR "which exceeds the LS rules, that aircraft can NEVER be flown by a light sport pilot, or as a light sport aircraft."

This is ONLY true for the particular c/n. Not for any other aircraft, even if on the same TC.

I guess the system works... If you push hard, have a good attorney, and plenty of patience.

Lisas7ECA wrote:"U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION National Policy ORDER 8110.121 Effective Date: 10/15/2015 SUBJ: Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS) Notes 1. Purpose. This order clarifies the purpose and authority of the notes used in a TCDS and provides additional guidance and instruction for Aircraft Certification Offices (ACOs), directorate staffs, and oversight offices in the preparation of TCDS notes. It also explains the importance of a TCDS and its notes, and provides detailed instructions to assist directorates and ACOs in the preparation of correctly written TCDS notes. Responsible offices can also use the instructions in this order to correct existing errors in a TCDS...

"Inconsistency has led FAA personnel to incorrectly assume that the notes section is not regulatory in nature. This order clarifies that the entire TCDS, including the notes section, is regulatory.

"14 CFR 21.41 does not separate a TCDS into a main section and a notes section."

The upshot being a ruling in my favor that where notes authorize a thing it is authorized. And where notes authorize one thing and the plain wording of the TCDS is clearly in error, or that following the clear wording of the TCDS violates an FAR, one MUST follow the notes.

In the previous post it was said: "As discussed before, if a particular serial number aircraft has EVER been certificated at a weight" maximum takeoff weight as defined by FAR "which exceeds the LS rules, that aircraft can NEVER be flown by a light sport pilot, or as a light sport aircraft."

This is ONLY true for the particular c/n. Not for any other aircraft, even if on the same TC.

I guess the system works... If you push hard, have a good attorney, and plenty of patience.

So, does this mean you’re off the hook?

MTV

mtv wrote:
So, does this mean you’re off the hook?

MTV

Yes, they agreed that the regs "could" read the way they do.

Lisas7ECA wrote:

mtv wrote:
So, does this mean you’re off the hook?

MTV

Yes, they agreed that the regs "could" read the way they do.

Outstanding! Congratulations, and commendations for sticking to your guns and “educating” a Fed!

MTV