I am the OP. My IA was in the midst of an annual on my plane, so installing the stickers would have disabled him from signing off on airworthiness. So, I’ll wait until he’s finished with annual, signed off on it, then install the stickers anyway.
Thanks for the clarification, although I confess I still don't see how the stickers would have disabled him from signing off. He misrepresented the product and application to the FSDO, and is operating under incorrect assumptions. However, your reply did clear up my incorrect thinking that he had just butted his head in .. somehow I missed the fact that he was in the midst of doing an annual on your plane. My apologies for that... to you and to him.
As an IA I would have had no problem with 3m graphics in lettering, wrap, or strips. So not sure of the confusion on an STC but Im sure theres someone on here that would love to argue for the sake of argument. STC or a supplemental Type certificate is a letter authorizing a product for use on an aircraft. A guarantee that its not going to become dislodged while in flight and wrap itself in a rudder ailerons or where ever. Every product involved in aviation comes with something to approve it for aircraft use or is pretty easy to find some type of approval from a manufacture. Personally Ive seen some pretty stupid stuff owners do with aircraft but lucky for me I dont have to recertify those ships. Its now between the owner and the FAA. To answer your question to try and obtain an engineering feild approval you have modify your aircraft in such a way that it no longer conforms to manufactures specification.
Very true and well written. As an IA when I signe off an annual I am stating the aircraft conforms to a) manufactures recomendations 2) has not been modified or altered to an unsafe condition and that all parts and equipment conform to some type of FAA approved standard. This is actually the first time Ive heard of any debate about 3m graphics decals for steipping and lettering. There has been some debate about full wraps as far as being able to inspect the exterior of the aircraft for loose or working rivits and corrosion. I dont work on larger transport aircraft but do know they are stripped down every so often and inspected or x-rayed and full wraps dont make much of a differance.
ifferance.No it means I have an Inspection Authorization endorsemnet that can be taken away by the FAA along with my A&P if I knowingly or inadvertantly sign off an aircraft that is unsafe.So the guy who signs my logbooks is known as an Inspection Authorization?
I would say he’s an A&P who has an IA. He could also be called an AI, but calling him an IA would be grammatically incorrect.
FYI: 10 years or so ago there was a lot discussion about this topic and all "3M" decals got grouped together. Enough so the Feds came out with the pg 67 memo in the link referenced in Post 19. Afterwards it was clear to most but there were/are still some outliers on both sides. However, in this particular thread I think there's a bit more to the whole story.
If you're going to nit pick like that then calling him an A&P is grammatically incorrect.So the guy who signs my logbooks is known as an Inspection Authorization?
I would say he’s an A&P who has an IA. He could also be called an AI, but calling him an IA would be grammatically incorrect.
Duct tape.
That's what I always thought, the person is an Authorized Inspector, he/she holds an Inspection Authorization.
I guess that I'm reading this differently than almost everyone else. I'm reading this as the IA has been doing the maintenance and annuals of this airplane. I'm guessing that there's an agreement or history that when the owner does maintenance, the IA will signoff said work after inspecting it (I had this arrangement with my old IA).
The IA sees what's going on but has no idea about the rules of this and figures it would be best to find out before the owner has spent time and money on the work. Finds out that it's not okay (whether it's accurate or not) and lets the owner know so they can stop before putting any more time into a project that the IA will not sign off.
Now the way I did with my old IA is BEFORE doing anything, I would talk to him about it. He would then advise me on any common pitfalls of the task, offer a special tool if one was necessary, and tell me to let him know when I was done so he could inspect and sign off the logbooks. One time I wanted to do something and he told me that I couldn't. Actually, he said I could, but he wouldn't signoff on it because it wasn't approved or legal.
But without hearing from the IA in this case, we'll never know for sure about the events or motivation. But that never stopped POA speculation, right?
Only to those who can see unicorns.
For someone who is so anti-TC aircraft why do you torture yourself every day and not move into E/AB? Even if the FAA develops an "Owner-Maintained" category you'll still have to follow all those nasty regulations. Difference being your name will be in the log vs one those "gratuitous" mechanics. Perhaps cut your losses now and go experimental before you start to see unicorns everywhere.
Only to those who can see unicorns.
.
That may be your story but it ain't mine.
So the guy who signs my logbooks is known as an Inspection Authorization?
I would say he’s an A&P who has an IA. He could also be called an AI, but calling him an IA would be grammatically incorrect.
FYI: Technically we have a Mechanics Certificate with Airframe and Powerplant ratings and an Inspection Authorization. The term "license" went out years ago. But I firmly believe we are still mechanics in name vs aircraft maintenance technicians as most of us don't where white lab coats.
FWIW: The funny part to the mechanic, technician, engineer titles goes back to when they were looking to split out maintenance from Part 65 to a new Part 66 with new certificates, type ratings, etc. Since most international aviation mechanics are called engineers they originally pushed for that classification. But if I recall correctly certain US professional engineer associations got involved and things didn't work out as planned so the powers to be thought "technician" was be more dignified than mechanic and pushed the AMT concept. That's where the "white lab coat" thing came out. Well in the end Part 66 was dropped for various reasons however you'll still see the AMT references used. Since most original aviation terms came from nautical terms, rumor was that the reason the US stuck to "mechanic" was that Charles Taylor (1st aviation mechanic) stated he didn't fix boats and the nautical "engineer" title didn't carry through. It was all quite comical at the time as some people really took this issue to the extreme.
FYI: Technically we have a Mechanics Certificate with Airframe and Powerplant ratings and an Inspection Authorization. The term "license" went out years ago. But I firmly believe we are still mechanics in name vs aircraft maintenance technicians as most of us don't where white lab coats.
FYI: Technically we have a Mechanics Certificate with Airframe and Powerplant ratings and an Inspection Authorization. The term "license" went out years ago. But I firmly believe we are still mechanics in name vs aircraft maintenance technicians as most of us don't where white lab coats.
yes.....at my age, all hairs matter.Then you're not gonna like POA. It's all these self-important yahoos do all day
Ha. Neither do I. But I guess you missed the smiley face at the end.....
If I could be sure (and ONLY if I could be sure) that I could find an IA who would be willing to form this kind of relationship with me, I would immediately begin the search for a decent certified 4-cylinder retract and live happily ever after. I'd still want to build something because the experience of doing a build is a goal. But if could be sure I could find an IA like that, I'd be in the market and searching for a good plane to buy tomorrow.
