WIX Archives

Re: I think a "survivor" is...

Posted by Christer on Tue Sep 24, 2002 07:03:51 PM

In reply top Re: I think a "survivor" is... posted by Mike Henniger on Tue Sep 24, 2002 03:58:51 PM

: : I totally agree with Mike on this one, especially the do
: cu
: : mentation of "history".
: : I actually think that this documentation is done since I
: b
: : elieve it?s a requirement from the authorities, I think
: th
: : ey call it tracability.
:
: But what if you take documentation for the authorities to
: the extreme where the only piece of the aircraft you can u
: se safely from your swamp recovery is the data plate? You
: "rebuild" the aircraft with parts to original (or updated
: when required) specs and call it restored. It looks, wal
: ks, and quacks like the duck so it is a duck, but the only
: thing to provide tracable history is the data plate and t
: he long and extensive list of "repairs" to the necessary s
: pecifications. I suppose the list of "repairs" becomes a
: part of the original aircraft traceable history including
: repair and replacement information. Is this how it actual
: ly works? Just curious.

There?s probably someone else more suited to answer this but, I think there are different authorizations for workshops. They range from the manufacture of single details, minor components, major components up to whole air frames. The documentation of airworthiness is held by the manufacturer and the customer gets his item, whatever that might be, with a "green tag" issued and a minimum of paper work.
If you order a new airframe from the guys at the Isle of Wight to fasten to your recovered data plate, you?ll get little more in terms of paper work than if you purchase a new Cessna 152. Anyway, it?s traceable and clearly shows that the only thing reuseable from the crash site was the data plate.

I think it gets more complicated if 1/3 is OK, 1/3 needs fixing and 1/3 needs new manufacture. That?s when the paper work pile up.

:
: : Another thought I?ve had;
: : if it walks like a duck but doesn?t quack like a duck, i
: s
: : it still a duck?
: : I mean those warbirds, with an impossible original engin
: e
: : situation, which have substituted a different engine to
: ge
: : t into the air at all.
:
: I'd still be willing to call it a duck. As an enthusiast
: I would want to document the engine change in the history.
: I am sure the authorities would want to know about it as
: well.

Of course, aren?t the Allison engined Yaks designated Yak 3A or something?

Follow Ups: