X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:08:53 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-m07.mx.aol.com ([64.12.138.209] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.14) with ESMTP id 3686412 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:27:11 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.138.209; envelope-from=VTAILJEFF@aol.com Received: from imo-ma03.mx.aol.com (imo-ma03.mx.aol.com [64.12.78.138]) by imr-m07.mx.aol.com (v107.10) with ESMTP id RELAYIN2-34a39a5c12ee; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:26:09 -0400 Received: from VTAILJEFF@aol.com by imo-ma03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v40_r1.5.) id q.bd0.55784fa2 (37127) for ; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:26:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtprly-db01.mx.aol.com (smtprly-db01.mx.aol.com [205.188.249.152]) by cia-ma02.mx.aol.com (v124.15) with ESMTP id MAILCIAMA021-5bc84a39a5be22e; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:26:15 -0400 Received: from Webmail-mg04 (webmail-mg04.sim.aol.com [64.12.142.152]) by smtprly-db01.mx.aol.com (v124.15) with ESMTP id MAILSMTPRLYDB017-5bc84a39a5be22e; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:26:06 -0400 References: X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [LML] Re: life time of components in experimentals X-Original-Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:26:06 -0400 X-AOL-IP: 64.12.78.138 In-Reply-To: X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: vtailjeff@aol.com X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CBBDD344F410D8_A80_2330_Webmail-mg04.sim.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 43524-STANDARD Received: from 66.220.104.170 by Webmail-mg04.sim.aol.com (64.12.142.152) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:26:06 -0400 X-Original-Message-Id: <8CBBDD344EA8764-A80-114F@Webmail-mg04.sim.aol.com> X-Spam-Flag:NO ----------MB_8CBBDD344F410D8_A80_2330_Webmail-mg04.sim.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Bill, Could you cite the regulation or Advisory Circular that says if you did no= t build it (an experimental aircraft) any subsequent work has to be approv= ed ( I presume an A&P signoff)?=C2=A0 Part 43 specifies who may maintain= an aircraft. 43.1 exempts experimental aircraft from the rest of the rqui= rements of Part 43 except for aircraft that have had other airworthiness= certificates previously issued (your Chipmunk). I am not aware of any requirement by the FAA that requires non builders of= experimental aircraft have an A&P do the work, supervise the work or sign= off the work. Best Regards, Jeff Edwards -----Original Message----- From: Bill Wade To: lml@lancaironline.net Sent: Wed, Jun 17, 2009 5:45 pm Subject: [LML] Re: life time of components in experimentals Hi Ralf- =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 When I first= bought my Chipmunk (which is Experimental/Exhibition), the local IA said= I could do the work on it as it was not Type Certificated. One day I emer= ged from the bowels to find a nice man asking what I was doing. He turned= out to be an FAA Inspector. He said that because DeHavilland was the buil= der, not me, any work other than preventive maintenance had to be approved= by a certificated mechanic. =C2=A0 =C2=A0From then on I worked under the IA. Because you bought the plane and= didn't build it originally, when your rebuilding is done you'll have to= get a Condition Inspection done by an A&P and subsequent work would also= h ave to be approved.=C2=A0As you're working on a plane that has flown I'm= assuming that you're doing the work in a hangar at your home base. If so= =C2=A0I'd suggest that you find a local mechanic that you trust and have= that person guide you. When the time comes the inspection will be easier. =C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0I may be wrong but my understanding is that=C2=A0aircraft=C2= =A0used in non-commercial operations don't have to follow manufacturer's= life limits although common sense dictates some exceptions.=C2=A0Certain= helicopter and turbine components come to mind. That goes double for Expe= rimentals- you could probably use garden hose if you thought it might work= and could convince your mechanic. Up here I've seen duct tape used and th= ere are stories about 2x4's. And those were Certificated...=C2=A0Ultimatel= y, it depends on what the mechanic is comfortable with. If he signs off on= something he could be=C2=A0putting his certificate and livelihood at risk= . Of course you are potentially putting your aircraft and your life at ris= k as well. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Specifically on the hoses- it depends. One of the first things I di= d on my planes was to replace all the hoses even though many were still us= able (flexible, no obvious defects). I generally=C2=A0used=C2=A0Teflon hos= es that don't have a finite life- they're replaced "on condition". Good in= formation can be found in the Aircraft Spruce catalog, AC 43.13, and the= Sacramento Sky Ranch website. =C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0Generally, lack of use can be harmful. There might not be much= mechanica l wear but corrosion, gasket shrinkage=C2=A0and dried lubricants become=C2= =A0potential issues.=C2=A0 -Bill Wade ----- Original Message ----- From: bronnenmeier@GROBSYSTEMS.COM To: lml@lancaironline.net Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 1:45 PM Subject: [LML] life time of components in experimentals Dear subscribers, =C2=A0 I learned from an aircraft mechanic at our airport that many components in= a certified airplane have a limited life time. =C2=A0 For examples hoses for hydraulics, brakes or fuel need to be replaced afte= r ten years. =C2=A0 When I wanted to put the fuel pump back in the plane on my 4P rebuild proj= ect I found on the back of the pump the note that the pump needs to be rep= laced or serviced after ten years. =C2=A0 I had a pre buy inspection done at Lancair. At this time most of the compo= nents were already 12 years old. Lancair didn=E2=80=99t mention anything= about expired components. =C2=A0 I am wondering if I should put all my old stuff back in the plane as long= as it looks half way decent or if should replace certain things. =C2=A0 What components do I need to replace =E2=80=93 the components of my 4P are= approx 13 years old but the plane has just 240 hrs. I would describe the= physical appearance of most of the components as old and messy. =C2=A0 Thanks for your help =C2=A0 Ralf Phone: (419) 369 12 33 Fax:=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 (419) 369 33 32 E-mail: bronnenmeier@grobsystems.com =C2=A0 ----------MB_8CBBDD344F410D8_A80_2330_Webmail-mg04.sim.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Bill,

Could you cite the regulation or Advisory Circular that says if you did no= t build it (an experimental aircraft) any subsequent work has to be approv= ed ( I presume an A&P signoff)?  Part 43 specifies who may mainta= in an aircraft. 43.1 exempts experimental aircraft from the rest of the rq= uirements of Part 43 except for aircraft that have had other airworthiness= certificates previously issued (your Chipmunk).

I am not aware of any requirement by the FAA that requires non builders of= experimental aircraft have an A&P do the work, supervise the work or= sign off the work.

Best Regards,

Jeff Edwards




-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Wade <super_chipmunk@roadrunner.com>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Sent: Wed, Jun 17, 2009 5:45 pm
Subject: [LML] Re: life time of components in experimentals

Hi Ralf-
       = ;    When I first bought my Chipmunk (which is Experimental= /Exhibition), the local IA said I could do the work on it as it was not Ty= pe Certificated. One day I emerged from the bowels to find a nice man aski= ng what I was doing. He turned out to be an FAA Inspector. He said that be= cause DeHavilland was the builder, not me, any work other than preventive= maintenance had to be approved by a certificated mechanic.
 
 From then on I worked under the IA.= Because you bought the plane and didn't build it originally, when your re= building is done you'll have to get a Condition Inspection done by an A&am= p;P and subsequent work would also have to be approved. As you're wor= king on a plane that has flown I'm assuming that you're doing the work in= a hangar at your home base. If so I'd suggest that you find a local mechanic that you trust and have that person= guide you. When the time comes the inspection will be easier.
 
  I may be wrong but my underst= anding is that aircraft used in non-commercial operations don't= have to follow manufacturer's life limits although common sense dictates= some exceptions. Certain helicopter and turbine components come to= mind. That goes double for Experimentals- you could probably use garden= hose if you thought it might work and could convince your mechanic. Up he= re I've seen duct tape used and there are stories about 2x4's. And those= were Certificated... Ultimately, it depends on what the mechanic is= comfortable with. If he signs off on something he could be putting= his certificate and livelihood at risk. Of course you are potentially put= ting your aircraft and your life at risk as well.
 
  Specifically on the hoses- it depe= nds. One of the first things I did on my planes was to replace all the hos= es even though many were still usable (flexible, no obvious defects). I ge= nerally used Teflon hoses that don't have a finite life- they're= replaced "on condition". Good information can be found in the Aircraft Sp= ruce catalog, AC 43.13, and the Sacramento Sky Ranch website.
 
  Generally, lack of use can= be harmful. There might not be much mechanical wear but corrosion, gasket= shrinkage and dried lubricants become potential issues. = -Bill Wade
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 1:45 PM=
Subject: [LML] life time of compone= nts in experimentals

Dear subscribers,
 
I learned from an aircraft mechanic at our ai= rport that many components in a certified airplane have a limited life tim= e.
 
0A
For examples hoses for hydraulics, brakes or= fuel need to be replaced after ten years.
 
When I wanted to put the fuel pump back in th= e plane on my 4P rebuild project I found on the back of the pump the note= that the pump needs to be replaced or serviced after ten years.
 
I had a pre buy inspection done at Lancair.= At this time most of the components were already 12 years old. Lancair di= dn=E2=80=99t mention anything about expired components.
 
I am wondering if I should put all my old stu= ff back in the plane as long as it looks half way decent or if should repl= ace certain things.
 
What components do I need to replace =E2=80= =93 the components of my 4P are approx 13 years old but the plane has just= 240 hrs. I would describe the physical appearance of most of the componen= ts as old and messy.
 
Thanks for your help
 
Ralf
Phone: (419) 369 12 33
Fax:     (419= ) 369 33 32
E-mail: bronnenmeier@grobsystems.com
 
----------MB_8CBBDD344F410D8_A80_2330_Webmail-mg04.sim.aol.com--