Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:
D Hillberg
Well-Known Member
Having a power plant slaved to a single source of power = credible failure mode.
Doesn’t mean the guy made a good decision to fly it in that mechanical condition. I hope TXFlyGuy sues the pilot and forces him to pay for the entire rebuild. If it bankrupts the moronic pilot, then so be it. I also hope TXFlyGuy sues the FAA for their ineptitude of the Cleveland FSDO. Justice demands responsibility be accepted.
Watch this:
Guy says the FSDO messed up. My comment is that 213D is N/A E/AB because you have to qualify all 3 parts.
Part 1, yes.
Part 2, no:
(2) The inoperative instruments and equipment are not -
(i) Part of the VFR-day type certification instruments and equipment prescribed in the applicable airworthiness regulations under which the aircraft was type certificated;
THE T-51D IS NOT CERTIFICATED.
(ii) Indicated as required on the aircraft's equipment list, or on the Kinds of Operations Equipment List for the kind of flight operation being conducted;
N/A E/AB
(iii) Required by § 91.205 or any other rule of this part for the specific kind of flight operation being conducted; or
ALL GAUGES FOR 205 WERE INSTALLED AND OPERATING CORRECTLY.
(iv) Required to be operational by an airworthiness directive; and
Part 3 no, none of the instruments were defective.
Where there known mechanical issues? Sure. But the FSDO cannot apply certificated rules to experimental AC. Maybe the design was meant to operate the way the pilot flew the AC.
So while the dummy at the controls did stupid things, I don't see a 213D violation or a reason for the FSDO to get involved as the guy in the video claims.
If I am not reading this correctly, please let me know where I went off the rails.
Guy says the FSDO messed up. My comment is that 213D is N/A E/AB because you have to qualify all 3 parts.
Part 1, yes.
Part 2, no:
(2) The inoperative instruments and equipment are not -
(i) Part of the VFR-day type certification instruments and equipment prescribed in the applicable airworthiness regulations under which the aircraft was type certificated;
THE T-51D IS NOT CERTIFICATED.
(ii) Indicated as required on the aircraft's equipment list, or on the Kinds of Operations Equipment List for the kind of flight operation being conducted;
N/A E/AB
(iii) Required by § 91.205 or any other rule of this part for the specific kind of flight operation being conducted; or
ALL GAUGES FOR 205 WERE INSTALLED AND OPERATING CORRECTLY.
(iv) Required to be operational by an airworthiness directive; and
Part 3 no, none of the instruments were defective.
Where there known mechanical issues? Sure. But the FSDO cannot apply certificated rules to experimental AC. Maybe the design was meant to operate the way the pilot flew the AC.
So while the dummy at the controls did stupid things, I don't see a 213D violation or a reason for the FSDO to get involved as the guy in the video claims.
If I am not reading this correctly, please let me know where I went off the rails.
Twmaster
Active Member
Aren't there 2 or 3 of this same thread around already? Including one by the owner of the T51?
with minor exception 91,205 applies only to "Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S. airworthiness certificate"
And 91.213(d) doesn't apply either. Dan is making a false assumption.
And 91.213(d) doesn't apply either. Dan is making a false assumption.
Last edited:
Yes. The owner of the crashed airplane has posted that video to multiple boards, including this one.
Yes, there are, most notably in "Probable Cause"
However, pfarber (the OP here) did not comment in the other thread, so perhaps he didn’t know about it.
TFF
Well-Known Member
There are multiple threads that the owner has discussed what happened before it came out. Video is almost a year late from discussions here.
Moved posts to this thread for continuity...
