AN EXPERIMENTAL ACFT WAS FLOWN TO A MAINT FACILITY BY A PLT OWNER AND MAY HAVE BEEN FLOWN IN NON COMPLIANCE OF AN AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE.

Narrative

PLT/OWNER CHOSE TO REPOS EXPERIMENTAL ACFT FROM ZZZ TO ZZZ1. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT; DEPENDING ON ULTIMATE FINDING AS TO NEED TO COMPLY WITH ALL LYCOMING ENG AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES; THE ACFT MAY HAVE BEEN TECHNICALLY OUT OF COMPLIANCE. FOLLOWING LNDG; PLT/OWNER INVESTIGATED ISSUE ON-LINE AND FOUND EVIDENCE THAT REQUIREMENT TO COMPLY WITH AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES (EVEN ON EXPERIMENTAL ACFT) MAY APPLY. PLT/OWNER HAS NOW GNDED ACFT PENDING RESOLUTION OF AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE ISSUE. THE ACFT WAS FLOWN BECAUSE OWNER/PLT FAILED TO ACCEPT POSSIBILITY THAT 18 YRS OF PREVIOUS ANNUALS MAY BE IN ERROR AND THAT AS A RESULT THE ACFT MIGHT BE UNAIRWORTHY. TELEPHONE CALLS (PRE SUBJECT FLT) BTWN MY MECH; FAA; AND AN ACFT ASSOCIATION INDICATED CONSIDERABLE DISAGREEMENT OVER THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES. IT APPEARED AT THE TIME THAT WE WERE DEALING WITH KNOWLEDGEABLE PEOPLE AND 1 RATHER DIFFICULT FAA PERSON (IN ZZZ1). I DECIDED TO ACCEPT THE ACFT ASSOCIATION'S POS (AND THAT OF ALL THE MECHS WHO FOUND MY PLANE AIRWORTHY OVER 18 YRS AND FLEW THE PLANE FOR 10 MINS BACK TO ZZZ1.