X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 09:17:02 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-d04.mx.aol.com ([205.188.157.36] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0c2) with ESMTP id 727616 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 08:33:21 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.157.36; envelope-from=MikeEasley@aol.com Received: from MikeEasley@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r5.5.) id q.82.30c81d96 (3850) for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 08:32:28 -0400 (EDT) From: MikeEasley@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: <82.30c81d96.30615b5c@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 08:32:28 EDT Subject: Re: [LML] EAA clarifies status of FAA policy on aircraft kit eligibility X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1127219548" X-Mailer: 9.0 Security Edition for Windows sub 5200 X-Spam-Flag: NO -------------------------------1127219548 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rick mentioned in an earlier e-mail that Dr. Caldwell had a filled out 8000-38 at his inspection. I'm assuming he had enough checkmarks to justify his 51% and my guess is he had some significant documentation to support the checkmarks. Granted, those are assumptions, but with the money at risk, my guess is he had his ducks in a row. Rick's e-mail said: The MIDO defined "major portion" as time not task and said to Carl and I that the 8000-38 form is simplistic and they were not going to use task. The FAA never required a kit to be approved and made the provision to use 8000-38 as a way to make the determination on non-approved kits. So it looks like Dr. Caldwell followed procedure and the FAA is changing the way it evaluates "major portion" without any due process or notice. Having your kit on the approved list is safer, no doubt. But Dr. Caldwell should have been treated according to the FAA rules and procedures, not singled out because he has a different airplane than the next guy. Rick, can you clarify how you and Dr. Caldwell documented the building? Did you keep a running 8000-38? Mike -------------------------------1127219548 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Rick mentioned in an earlier e-mail that Dr. Caldwell had a filled out=20 8000-38 at his inspection. I'm assuming he had enough checkmarks to=20 justify his 51% and my guess is he had some significant documentation to sup= port=20 the checkmarks. Granted, those are assumptions, but with the money at=20 risk, my guess is he had his ducks in a row.

Rick's e-mail said:

The MIDO defined "major portion" as time not task and said to Carl an= d I=20 that the 8000-38 form is simplistic and they were not going to use=20 task.

The FAA never required a kit to be approved and made the prov= ision=20 to use 8000-38 as a way to make the determination on non-approved kits. = ; So=20 it looks like Dr. Caldwell followed procedure and the FAA is changing the wa= y it=20 evaluates "major portion" without any due process or notice.

Having your kit on the approved list is safer, no doubt. = ; But=20 Dr. Caldwell should have been treated according to the FAA rules and procedu= res,=20 not singled out because he has a different airplane than the next guy.

Rick, can you clarify how you and Dr. Caldwell documented the= =20 building? Did you keep a running 8000-38?

Mike

-------------------------------1127219548--