X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:28:55 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mis005.exch005intermedia.net ([64.78.17.176] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.14) with ESMTP id 3687129 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:00:58 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.78.17.176; envelope-from=johnwcox@pacificnw.com Received: from EXVBE005-2.exch005intermedia.net ([10.254.1.74]) by mis005.exch005intermedia.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 18 Jun 2009 11:00:23 -0700 Received: from 99.204.206.4 ([99.204.206.4]) by EXVBE005-2.exch005intermedia.net ([10.254.1.73]) via Exchange Front-End Server owa5.intermedia.net ([10.254.1.43]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:59:58 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CBBDD344F410D8_A80_2330_Webmail-mg04.sim.aol.com" Subject: RE: [LML] Re: life time of components in experimentals From: John Cox In-Reply-To: References: X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Thread-Topic: [LML] Re: life time of components in experimentals Thread-Index: AcnwPpeaxwZNZWE3TBC4n09tE+8eQg== X-Original-Message-ID: <40139F78-3E70-4FC4-BC44-D2910B1FDD73@mimectl> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Web Access 6.5.7651.60 X-MimeCtl: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7651.60 X-Original-Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:59:58 -0700 X-Original-Return-Path: johnwcox@pacificnw.com X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jun 2009 18:00:23.0431 (UTC) FILETIME=[A6D3D970:01C9F03E] ----------MB_8CBBDD344F410D8_A80_2330_Webmail-mg04.sim.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Jeff, this regulatory loophole and interpretation has created a lot of cons= ternation and confusion in our community. Anyone with a pilot's certificat= e can properly document the work they accomplish as driven by Part 43 - Pre= ventative Maintenance. Mike Robertson, FAA Airworthiness Inspector, Spokane FSDO stated that anyon= e can do the repair work, Major or Minor on Experimental Certificated Owner= Built and Maintained OR Experimental - Warbird Exhibition. A prudent indi= vidual would get that work supervised by an A&P or involve an A & P with I/= A authorization if it should involve the scope of an FAA form 337. =20 The rub comes on compliance with the annual "Conditional Inspection" which = can only be completed and documented by the actual Repairman who produced t= he certificated OBAM originally or they.. the second purchaser must get a s= ignoff from a current A & P (active within the last 3 years). The document= ation of those experiments can grow hair really fast. Often, owners seek any A & P willing to sign it off. Sometimes the second = owner erroneously signs the Conditional that they (the second owner) do not= have the authorization to perform. Golly, they were just following the Ch= ecklist provided by the Repairman. It was an F-86 Warbird that plowed into the Sacramento - Baskin & Robbins o= n a quiet Sunday morning back in the 70's that took out all those children = and led to the major FAA rewrite of 1973. For me as an airline mechanic, A&P with I/A and EAA Tech Advisor, I shudder= at some of the work, and inspection being done by "Good Ole Poor Boys" tha= t own warbirds - on the cheap. I know no one in the Lancair community woul= d do unauthorized repairs on experiments without approval and supervison. ** Life Limited parts are a unique feature of production certificated GA aircr= aft and I am not familiar with OBAM examples. That said, just maybe the L-= 39 landing gear or recycled PW turboprops from the Beech Starship used in t= he EPIC OBAM could be "Life Limited". At work, we keep extensive records o= f the hours in service. At the death of that part, execution of the mechan= ic who fails to remove and destroy it follows forthwith never to be heard f= rom again. =20 Bogus parts is another can of worms. Home Depot Aviation Department and AC= E Hardware Aviation Parts excluded of course. Think Safety, practice common sense and liability settlement costs to those= surviving family members . John Cox rom: vtailjeff@aol.com Sent: Thu 6/18/2009 6:08 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: life time of components in experimentals=20 Bill, Could you cite the regulation or Advisory Circular that says if you did not= build it (an experimental aircraft) any subsequent work has to be approved= ( I presume an A&P signoff)? Part 43 specifies who may maintain an aircra= ft. 43.1 exempts experimental aircraft from the rest of the rquirements of = Part 43 except for aircraft that have had other airworthiness certificates = previously issued (your Chipmunk).=20 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 o= ff 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=20 Hi Ralf- When I first bought my Chipmunk (which is Experimental/Exhibitio= n), the local IA said I could do the work on it as it was not Type Certific= ated. One day I emerged from the bowels to find a nice man asking what I wa= s doing. He turned out to be an FAA Inspector. He said that because DeHavil= land was the builder, not me, any work other than preventive maintenance ha= d 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 rebuilding is done you'll have to get a Co= ndition Inspection done by an A&P and subsequent work would also have to be= approved. As you're working on a plane that has flown I'm assuming that yo= u're doing the work in a hangar at your home base. If so I'd suggest that y= ou find a local mechanic that you trust and have that person guide you. Whe= n the time comes the inspection will be easier. I may be wrong but my understanding is that aircraft used in non-commerci= al operations don't have to follow manufacturer's life limits although comm= on sense dictates some exceptions. Certain helicopter and turbine component= s 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 here I've seen duct tape used and there are stories about 2x4's. And tho= se were Certificated... Ultimately, it depends on what the mechanic is comf= ortable with. If he signs off on something he could be putting his certific= ate and livelihood at risk. Of course you are potentially putting your airc= raft and your life at risk as well. Specifically on the hoses- it depends. One of the first things I did on m= y planes was to replace all the hoses even though many were still usable (f= lexible, no obvious defects). I generally used Teflon hoses that don't have= a finite life- they're replaced "on condition". Good information can be fo= und in the Aircraft Spruce catalog, AC 43.13, and the Sacramento Sky Ranch = website.=20 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 -----=20 From: bronnenmeier@GROBSYSTEMS.COM=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 1:45 PM Subject: [LML] life time of components in experimentals=20 Dear subscribers, I learned from an aircraft mechanic at our airport that many components in = a certified airplane have a limited life time. 0A=20 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 the plane on my 4P rebuild proje= ct I found on the back of the pump the note that the pump needs to be repla= ced or serviced after ten years. I had a pre buy inspection done at Lancair. At this time most of the compon= ents were already 12 years old. Lancair didn't mention anything about expir= ed components. I am wondering if I should put all my old stuff back in the plane as long a= s it looks half way decent or if should replace certain things. What components do I need to replace - the components of my 4P are approx 1= 3 years old but the plane has just 240 hrs. I would describe the physical a= ppearance of most of the components as old and messy. Thanks for your help Ralf=20 Phone: (419) 369 12 33 Fax: (419) 369 33 32 E-mail: bronnenmeier@grobsystems.com ----------MB_8CBBDD344F410D8_A80_2330_Webmail-mg04.sim.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Jeff, this regul= atory loophole and interpretation has created a lot of consternation and co= nfusion in our community.  Anyone with a pilot's certificate can prope= rly document the work they accomplish as driven by Part 43 - Preventative M= aintenance.
 
Mike Robertson, FAA Airworthiness Inspect= or, Spokane FSDO stated that anyone can do the repair work, Major or Minor = on Experimental Certificated Owner Built and Maintained OR Experimental - W= arbird Exhibition.  A prudent individual would get that work supervise= d by an A&P or involve an A & P with I/A authorization if it should= involve the scope of an FAA form 337. 
 
The rub comes on compliance with the annu= al "Conditional Inspection" which can only be completed and documented by t= he actual Repairman who produced the certificated OBAM originally or they..= the second purchaser must get a signoff from a current A & P (active w= ithin the last 3 years).  The documentation of those experiments can g= row hair really fast.
 
Often, owners seek any A & P willing = to sign it off.  Sometimes the second owner erroneously signs the Cond= itional that they (the second owner) do not have the authorization to perfo= rm.  Golly, they were just following the Checklist provided by the Rep= airman.
 
It was an F-86 Warbird that plowed into t= he Sacramento - Baskin & Robbins on a quiet Sunday morning back in the = 70's that took out all those children and led to the major FAA rewrite of 1= 973.
 
For me as an airline mechanic, A&P wi= th I/A and EAA Tech Advisor, I shudder at some of the work, and inspection = being done by "Good Ole Poor Boys" that own warbirds - on the cheap.  = I know no one in the Lancair community would do unauthorized repairs on exp= eriments without approval and supervison.
 
**
Life Limited parts are a unique feature o= f production certificated GA aircraft and I am not familiar with OBAM examp= les.  That said, just maybe the L-39 landing gear or recycled PW turbo= props from the Beech Starship used in the EPIC OBAM could be "Life Limited"= .  At work, we keep extensive records of the hours in service.  A= t the death of that part, execution of the mechanic who fails to remove and= destroy it follows forthwith never to be heard from again. 
 
Bogus parts is another can of worms. = ; Home Depot Aviation Department and ACE Hardware Aviation Parts excluded o= f course.
 
Think Safety, practice common sense and l= iability settlement costs to those surviving family members .
 
John Cox
 
 
rom: vtailjeff@aol.com
Sent:= Thu 6/18/2009 6:08 AM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subjec= t: [LML] Re: life time of components in experimentals

Bill,

Could you cite the regulation or Advisory Circular that s= ays if you did not build it (an experimental aircraft) any subsequent work = has to be approved ( I presume an A&P signoff)?  Part 43 specifies= who may maintain an aircraft. 43.1 exempts experimental aircraft from the = rest of the rquirements 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 exper= imental aircraft have an A&P do the work, supervise the work or sign of= f the work.

Best Regards,

Jeff Edwards




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

Hi Ralf-
       =     When I first bought my Chipmunk (which is Experimental/E= xhibition), the local IA said I could do the work on it as it was not Type = Certificated. One day I emerged from the bowels to find a nice man asking w= hat I was doing. He turned out to be an FAA Inspector. He said that because= DeHavilland was the builder, not me, any work other than preventive mainte= nance 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 rebu= ilding is done you'll have to get a Condition Inspection done by an A&P= and subsequent work would also have to be approved. As you're working= on a plane that has flown I'm assuming that you're doing the work in a han= gar at your home base. If so I'd suggest that you find a local mechani= c that you trust and have that person guide you. When the time comes the in= spection will be easier.
 
  I may be wrong but my understa= nding is that aircraft used in non-commercial operations don't ha= ve to follow manufacturer's life limits although common sense dictates some= exceptions. Certain helicopter and turbine components come to mind. T= hat goes double for Experimentals- you could probably use garden hose if yo= u thought it might work and could convince your mechanic. Up here I've seen= duct tape used and there are stories about 2x4's. And those were Certifica= ted... 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 putting your aircraft an= d your life at risk as well.
 
  Specifically on the hoses- it depen= ds. One of the first things I did on my planes was to replace all the hoses= even though many were still usable (flexible, no obvious defects). I gener= ally used Teflon hoses that don't have a finite life- they're rep= laced "on condition". Good information can be found in the Aircraft Spruce = 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 shri= nkage and dried lubricants become potential issues.  -Bill W= ade
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 1:45 PM<= /DIV>
Subject: [LML] life time of componen= ts in experimentals

Dear subscribers,
 
I learned from an aircraft mechanic at our airp= ort that many components in a certified airplane have a limited life time.<= /SPAN>
 
0A=20
For examples hoses for hydraulics, brakes or fu= el need to be replaced after ten years.
 
When I wanted to put the fuel pump back in the = plane on my 4P rebuild project I found on the back of the pump the note tha= t the pump needs to be replaced or serviced after ten years.<= /DIV>
 
I had a pre buy inspection done at Lancair. At = this time most of the components were already 12 years old. Lancair didn= 217;t mention anything about expired components.
 
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.
 
What components do I need to replace ̵= 1; the components of my 4P are approx 13 years old but the plane has just 2= 40 hrs. I would describe the physical appearance of most of the components = as old and messy.
 
Thanks for your help
 
Ralf
Phone: (419) 369 12 33
Fax:     (419) 36= 9 33 32
 
<= /DIV>
----------MB_8CBBDD344F410D8_A80_2330_Webmail-mg04.sim.aol.com--