Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:06:24 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from m3.boston.juno.com ([64.136.24.66] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0b7) with SMTP id 1714008 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 09:12:53 -0400 Received: from cookie.juno.com by cookie.juno.com for <"7LRIubhLn1VLcKB8GrXnbRmJuVgqJzshR2rIzcU4b2t38HIxqNxd7eWr0MSknUeO"> Received: (from earl_schroeder@juno.com) by m3.boston.juno.com (jqueuemail) id HBDRALLH; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 09:11:52 EDT X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net X-Original-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 08:04:04 -0500 Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Aircraft Log X-Original-Message-ID: <20020829.080405.-16526969.13.Earl_Schroeder@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 5.0.27 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 10-11,14-15 From: earl_schroeder@juno.com My experience with the 'final' inspection was quite pleasant and done by a Indianapolis FSDO gentleman. I am sure requirements vary wildly from area to area as many have reported. The best advice I've heard is to contact your local EAA chapter and talk with someone who has recently had his aircraft inspected by the same FSDO responsible for inspecting your aircraft. I believe having a name of the possible inspector is also a 'good thing' when making the initial contacts with your FSDO. Then only provide the minimum information required. I think less is better than more if you are unlucky enough to draw a 'picky' inspector. (my two cents worth) My inspector was much more interested in the paperwork than pictures, logs etc. One item not mentioned to date and which concerned my inspector was to make absolutely sure the data plate on the aircraft is completed exactly like the application sent to the FSDO office. ie Name, Serial nr etc. Good luck! Earl LCN2 (now with 64 hrs and counting on N233EE)