Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 80 of 121

Thread: Unapproved Parts Notification- Dan's Aircraft?

  1. #41
    wireweinie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    2,475
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by N86250 View Post
    Sec 45.13
    Identification data.
    (a) The identification required by § 45.11 (a) through (c) must include the following information:
    (1) Builder's name.
    (2) Model designation.
    (3) Builder's serial number.
    (4) Type certificate number, if any.
    (5) Production certificate number, if any.
    (6) For aircraft engines, the established rating.
    (7) On or after January 1, 1984, for aircraft engines specified in part 34 of this chapter, the date of manufacture as defined in § 34.1 of this chapter, and a designation, approved by the FAA, that indicates compliance with the applicable exhaust emission provisions of part 34 of this chapter and 40 CFR part 87. Approved designations include COMPLY, EXEMPT, and NON-US, as appropriate. After December 31, 2012, approved designations also include EXEMPT NEW, and EXCEPTED SPARE, as appropriate.
    (i) The designation COMPLY indicates that the engine is in compliance with all of the applicable exhaust emissions provisions of part 34. For any engine with a rated thrust in excess of 26.7 kilonewtons (6000 pounds) which is not used or intended for use in commercial operations and which is in compliance with the applicable provisions of part 34, but does not comply with the hydrocarbon emissions standard of § 34.21(d), the statement "May not be used as a commercial aircraft engine" must be noted in the permanent powerplant record that accompanies the engine at the time of manufacture of the engine.
    (ii) The designation EXEMPT indicates that the engine has been granted an exemption pursuant to the applicable provision of § 34.7 (a)(1), (a)(4), (b), (c), or (d), and an indication of the type of exemption and the reason for the grant must be noted in the permanent powerplant record that accompanies the engine from the time of manufacture of the engine.
    (iii) The designation NON-US indicates that the engine has been granted an exemption pursuant to § 34.7(a)(1), and the notation "This aircraft may not be operated within the United States", or an equivalent notation approved by the FAA, must be inserted in the aircraft logbook, or alternate equivalent document, at the time of installation of the engine.
    (iv) The designation EXEMPT NEW indicates that the engine has been granted an exemption pursuant to the applicable provision of § 34.7(h) of this chapter; the designation must be noted in the permanent powerplant record that accompanies the engine from the time of its manufacture.
    (v) The designation EXCEPTED SPARE indicates that the engine has been excepted pursuant to the applicable provision of § 34.9(b) of this chapter; the designation must be noted in the permanent powerplant record that accompanies the engine from the time of its manufacture.
    ( Any other information the FAA finds appropriate.
    (b) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, no person may remove, change, or place identification information required by paragraph (a) of this section, on any aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, propeller blade, or propeller hub, without the approval of the FAA.
    (c) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, no person may remove or install any identification plate required by § 45.11, without the approval of the FAA.
    (d) Persons performing work under the provisions of Part 43 of this chapter may, in accordance with methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the FAA—
    (1) Remove, change, or place the identification information required by paragraph (a) of this section on any aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, propeller blade, or propeller hub; or
    (2) Remove an identification plate required by § 45.11 when necessary during maintenance operations.
    (e) No person may install an identification plate removed in accordance with paragraph (d)(2) of this section on any aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, propeller blade, or propeller hub other than the one from which it was removed.
    -
    -
    I think (b), (c), and (e) pretty clear. Maybe it's how you interpret it. What I know is my ASI would expect to hear about a fuselage change whether new or used and he would want to know where I got the replacement and where was my original going. It has been a while ago but we discussed building an airplane from a dataplate and parts and it was not impossible if he knew about the project from the getgo but I was cautioned not to do that without contacting him. jrh
    (d)(1) and (d)(2) Specifically allow me to do the maintenance I am licensed to do as an A&P. As per part 43 this includes part replacement. You need a different fed.

    Web
    Last edited by wireweinie; 03-07-2016 at 01:24 PM.

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    100
    Post Thanks / Like
    I think he used Ceconite fabric with Polyfiber chemicals. I had this happen and the FAA guy said it was OK after the Stits guys said it was the same fabric.

  3. #43
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    18,646
    Post Thanks / Like
    The airplane that started this round with the FAA suffered an engine loss, landed in a field and flipped over. During the repairs it was discovered that there were no stamps on the fabric at all. It is also my understanding that some of the STCs were bootlegged. The airplane was rebuilt with proper documentation. The shop gave the owner the discrepancy list. Having paid big bucks for the rebuild by Dan's and having to redo things because it wasn't done correctly he contacted Dan. Evidently that did not pacify the owner so he got the FAA involved. I learned all this from the shop that repaired the airplane after the accident and the owner. I was initially contacted to make the repairs but couldn't do it in the owner's time frame.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers

  4. #44
    Hardtailjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Marion, MT
    Posts
    696
    Post Thanks / Like
    Wouldn't your 337 be enough "notification" to the FAA? If you're replacing the fuselage, you're darned sure going to be filing a 337. Like was said above..the data plate is on a floorboard, not only on a cub, but most of the older stuff....
    In light of Steve's post, it makes sense.... a disgruntled owner who wants his money back, probably a fed that would like to "shine"....and some stuff that wasn't quite paper legal...a recipe for disaster. Kind of like when a data plate was switched on a Super Cub that was going to be confiscated a few years ago....
    John

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,547
    Post Thanks / Like
    Did the owner think the unstamped fabric caused his engine failure? Sounds like posturing to get repairs made using somebody else's money.

  6. #46
    www.SkupTech.com mike mcs repair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chugiak AK
    Posts
    10,325
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by stewartb View Post
    ...Sounds like posturing to get repairs made using somebody else's money.
    karma....

  7. #47
    aktango58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    18AA
    Posts
    9,057
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Pierce View Post
    It is also my understanding that some of the STCs were bootlegged. ...and having to redo things because it wasn't done correctly...
    At some point the shop is responsible if they 'bootlegged' stcs. I did this round with another of the 'good ole boys' up there- given my experience where I paid for the full STC but was given bogus paperwork, so paid a mechanic AGAIN to solve the issue, I would say that bootlegging is an issue.
    I don't know where you've been me lad, but I see you won first Prize!

  8. #48
    aktango58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    18AA
    Posts
    9,057
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by mike mcs repair View Post
    karma....
    that is funny, but I know some of the things you do I bet
    I don't know where you've been me lad, but I see you won first Prize!

  9. #49
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    2,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by bob turner View Post
    ..............One thing that does sort of bother me is the idea that an STC lives forever. It is like an infinite patent. It should become available after a couple decades, for the same reason that patents enter the market after 17 years. Never happen, right?
    If you want to prevent a certain mod ever being done, get an STC for it then refuse to sell or otherwise let anyone use that STC (or just die). As I understand it, the feds don't like to approve something there's already an STC for unless you use that STC.
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!

  10. #50
    www.SkupTech.com mike mcs repair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chugiak AK
    Posts
    10,325
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hotrod180 View Post
    If you want to prevent a certain mod ever being done, get an STC for it then refuse to sell or otherwise let anyone use that STC (or just die). As I understand it, the feds don't like to approve something there's already an STC for unless you use that STC.
    you can get "orphaned" STC approved with a field approval

  11. #51
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    18,646
    Post Thanks / Like
    The insurance paid for the repairs. I think he was pissed off that he paid to have things done right and they were not. Pretty reputable shop did the work so I don't doubt their word.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers

  12. #52
    S2D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,053
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Hardtailjohn View Post
    Wouldn't your 337 be enough "notification" to the FAA? If you're replacing the fuselage, you're darned sure going to be filing a 337. Like was said above..the data plate is on a floorboard, not only on a cub, but most of the older stuff....

    John
    Why John? what part of the replacement was a major repair or alteration. a Bare Fuselage assy is just that, a part. Same as replacing a wing, an engine, or a tailfeather.
    I may be wrong but that probably won't stop me from arguing about it.

  13. #53
    www.SkupTech.com mike mcs repair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chugiak AK
    Posts
    10,325
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by S2D View Post
    Why John? what part of the replacement was a major repair or alteration. a Bare Fuselage assy is just that, a part. Same as replacing a wing, an engine, or a tailfeather.
    STC replacement fuselage = 337

  14. #54
    S2D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,053
    Post Thanks / Like
    OK
    thought we were talking about the Cessna. Or replacing with an original. My bad !!!!
    I may be wrong but that probably won't stop me from arguing about it.

  15. #55
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,279
    Post Thanks / Like
    I think that this transferring of a data plate from one airplane to another not being allowed came from an incident of which I learned second hand (from an FAA type) in the northeast corner of the country. It seems that a 185 was wrecked in the northeast. Somehow it was acquired and rebuilt by an individual who did not also acquire the title and paperwork. Then it seems that this same individual legally purchased the paperwork, title and data plate from a 185 which had crashed and burned out west somewhere. Then it seems that this individual transferred this legally acquired data plate to a questionably acquired rebuilt airplane after removing the rebuilt airplane's data plate. Presto a totally rebuilt "burned up" airplane with legal paperwork. I was also told that this individual spent some time after this "incident" at a grey bar motel.

    The above 170 fuselage replacement was accomplished long before this regulation came into existence and was legal at that time. I'm not making any suggestions relative to the 170.

    ps. Also it seems that Cessna paints the serial number on the firewall and that some alert person noticed the difference between this serial number and the serial number on the data plate.
    Last edited by skywagon8a; 03-08-2016 at 06:49 AM.
    N1PA

  16. #56
    Hardtailjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Marion, MT
    Posts
    696
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by S2D View Post
    Why John? what part of the replacement was a major repair or alteration. a Bare Fuselage assy is just that, a part. Same as replacing a wing, an engine, or a tailfeather.
    I was thinking of a person buying a fuselage from "Airframes" or someone like that... like Mike said, an STC'd fueslage.
    That being said, even a Cessna fuselage swap would fall under a major repair in my mind, per the FAR 1....
    Major repair means a repair:
    (1) That, if improperly done, might appreciably affect weight, balance, structural strength, performance, powerplant operation, flight characteristics, or other qualities affecting airworthiness; or
    (2) That is not done according to accepted practices or cannot be done by elementary operations.

    I'd say if it was done improperly, it could affect all the above....I could be wrong there, but I'd damned sure file a 337 myself... I did every time I replaced a wing...but I didn't when replacing an engine.....I dunno...
    John

  17. #57
    behindpropellers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    6,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Hardtailjohn View Post
    I was thinking of a person buying a fuselage from "Airframes" or someone like that... like Mike said, an STC'd fueslage.
    That being said, even a Cessna fuselage swap would fall under a major repair in my mind, per the FAR 1....
    Major repair means a repair:
    (1) That, if improperly done, might appreciably affect weight, balance, structural strength, performance, powerplant operation, flight characteristics, or other qualities affecting airworthiness; or
    (2) That is not done according to accepted practices or cannot be done by elementary operations.

    I'd say if it was done improperly, it could affect all the above....I could be wrong there, but I'd damned sure file a 337 myself... I did every time I replaced a wing...but I didn't when replacing an engine.....I dunno...
    John
    STC = 337
    PMA = Log entry.

    With your thinking, any part can be installed incorrectly which can affect any number of aircraft systems.

    My take away:

    1. Do things right.
    2. Ask your PMI before you start the project so you can get their "buy in".

  18. #58
    Hardtailjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Marion, MT
    Posts
    696
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by behindpropellers View Post

    With your thinking, any part can be installed incorrectly which can affect any number of aircraft systems.
    I agree....but they don't play by MY rules....I have to play by theirs.....
    I was told by my PMI once, that he never had seen anyone get violated FOR submitting a 337. I have to tend to agree with him.

    John

  19. #59
    wireweinie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    2,475
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Hardtailjohn View Post
    I agree....but they don't play by MY rules....I have to play by theirs.....
    I was told by my PMI once, that he never had seen anyone get violated FOR submitting a 337. I have to tend to agree with him.

    John
    'Their rules'. EXACTLY!! This is why I always say to make the fed show you, in writing, the rule that makes you follow a procedure. Make them play by their own rules. You don't submit a 337 'just to be sure'. Read the regs. Does part 43 say that a specific action constitutes a major repair or alteration? If so, follow the rules and submit your 337. If not, fill out your log book and move on. Never take a feds word without him backing it up with the specific regulation.

    And remember; a 'reg' that begins with AC, is not a reg. The AC stands for Advisory Circular.

    Web

  20. #60
    Hardtailjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Marion, MT
    Posts
    696
    Post Thanks / Like
    I get your point....but I have no problem with submitting a 337 for something if I think it's maybe in a grey area. I'm going to put my name in the logbook anyway.... if it's not something I'm comfortable with, I'm not going to do it in the first place. I agree with you about getting them to show me a reg that says I need to...but having done this for 30+ years, I've found that you need to pick your battles, and remember that their regs are written to cover their butts too. I"m not sure where the AC statement came in? In reality, all they'd have to do is go to the reg I quoted above and they've got "their" justification, right wrong or indifferent. If I can find something that says I'm going to be in the hot seat for submitting it, then I'm gonna battle.... just MY opinion. I'm not bashful around the FAA at all, but I do try to get along....you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. I am also quite accustomed to getting their opinion on a project before I get too far in...it's made it possible to get quite a few things approved for me that other mechanics had problems getting accomplished. I just bailed a friend out a few years ago on a deal like that, because the "mechanic" involved had no relationship with the FAA inspectors, and didn't want anything to do with having them out to do an oversight on what was going on.
    I'm sorry this derailed this thread. Sounds to me like a disgruntled customer that wants to make some money on someone else to me. Chances are, he was right there and thinking it was great if he saved a dollar.....but that still doesn't make it right. Didn't Dan's get their license yanked a few years ago, for switching a data plate on a plane that was going to get confiscated? I've seen some of their work and it sure always looked good to me, but that still doesn't elevate them above the law (or reg).
    John

  21. #61
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    2,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Hardtailjohn View Post
    ....but I have no problem with submitting a 337 for something if I think it's maybe in a grey area. I'm going to put my name in the logbook anyway.... if it's not something I'm comfortable with, I'm not going to do it in the first place. I agree with you about getting them to show me a reg that says I need to...but having done this for 30+ years, I've found that you need to pick your battles.......I'm not bashful around the FAA at all, but I do try to get along....you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. I am also quite accustomed to getting their opinion on a project before I get too far in...it's made it possible to get quite a few things approved for me that other mechanics had problems getting accomplished....
    The "major repair" definition in FAR 1.1 seems (purposely) pretty vague. My take on form 337 gray areas is "when in doubt, fill it out". Never heard of anyone getting in trouble for covering his butt that way. I agree with John about picking your battles, and catching more flies with honey-- having an adversarial relationship with your FAA inspector(s) is not condusive to trouble-free operations. I know an IA who got into it with an FAA DPE and the airplane owner when it came to logging annual inspections in the engine logbook. He said it wasn't required and flat-ass refused to do it, and managed to piss off the DPE, the airplane owner, and the student pilot trying to get his checkride done. Along with some other hard-headed choices he made, it eventually helped lead to him being kicked off the privately-owned airport where he was based.
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!

  22. #62
    Charlie Longley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Arlington, WA
    Posts
    525
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hotrod180 View Post
    The "major repair" definition in FAR 1.1 seems (purposely) pretty vague. My take on form 337 gray areas is "when in doubt, fill it out". Never heard of anyone getting in trouble for covering his butt that way. I agree with John about picking your battles, and catching more flies with honey-- having an adversarial relationship with your FAA inspector(s) is not condusive to trouble-free operations. I know an IA who got into it with an FAA DPE and the airplane owner when it came to logging annual inspections in the engine logbook. He said it wasn't required and flat-ass refused to do it, and managed to piss off the DPE, the airplane owner, and the student pilot trying to get his checkride done. Along with some other hard-headed choices he made, it eventually helped lead to him being kicked off the privately-owned airport where he was based.
    I always sign off the Annual in the engine and propeller log book because that's what everyone expects to see and it takes no time at all. But the hard-headed IA is absolutely correct. There's actually a history of the FAA trying to give an IA a violation over it. He didn't get the violation because it was determined when you sign off the airplane log book you're signing off the entire airplane.

  23. #63
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,279
    Post Thanks / Like
    The IAs in my district were told by the FAA at an annual IA meeting years ago that the annual only needed to be signed off in the Airframe log book. This for the exact reason which Charlie Longley mentioned. The only items which need to be signed in the engine log are those items which were done to the engine itself. Those who disagree are just uninformed. One of the arguments presented was that the engine log always stays with the engine and engines get changed thus the records go with them.

    The person who told us this may have been Bill O'Brien. Who's Bill you ask? The IAs knew him as the the top dog of IAs from FAA headquarters. Bill was the all time straight shooter good guy of the FAA mechanic department.

    Don't shoot the messenger here, I'm only repeating what I was told by the FAA.
    Last edited by skywagon8a; 03-17-2016 at 06:44 AM. Reason: wrong thread
    N1PA

  24. #64
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    18,646
    Post Thanks / Like
    Too many people in the FAA who have never done the job they are in charge of policing.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers

  25. #65
    wireweinie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    2,475
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Pierce View Post
    Too many people in the FAA who have never done the job they are in charge of policing.
    Never was a more profound statement uttered.

    Web

  26. #66
    flybynite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Eagan, Minnesota
    Posts
    332
    Post Thanks / Like
    So, back to the original point of uncertified fabric or processes. How many stamps have to be visible to determine the entire stc was followed? Doesn't the IA's signed statement that the aircraft was covered iaw the stc indicate that certified materials were used if required by the stc? Can't see the tapes stamps. They are buried. Rib stitch materials certified? . Trust but verify? When is good enough good enough?

    Wayne

  27. #67
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    2,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    The IAs in my district were told by the FAA at an annual IA meeting years ago that the annual only needed to be signed off in the Airframe log book. This for the exact reason which Charlie Longley mentioned. The only items which need to be signed in the engine log are those items which were done to the engine itself. Those who disagree are just uninformed. One of the arguments presented was that the engine log always stays with the engine and engines get changed thus the records go with them. ................
    I was schooled on this years ago, when I took an IA to task for signing off the annual in my engine logbook as a 100 hour inspection. He explained that there is no requirement to sign off an annual there, but there is a requirement to sign off a 100-hour. So he signs the airframe books as an annual and the engine book as a 100-hour.

    My take on the situation I cited is that the airplane owner was paying the IA for the inspection. It's his airplane, he's the customer & is paying the bill, if he wanted a sign-off in the engine book for the annual and that's not prohibited then just do it!

    Right or wrong, most people expect to see a signoff in both logbooks (including me). What started the whole thing was a student pilot went for his private checkride in the airplane, the DPE was examining all the aircraft records (ARROW, logbooks, etc) and noticed that the "required" (in his mind) entry wasn't in the engine logs. He therefore stopped the checkride process & sent the applicant home. So he's mad, the griped to the owner of the rented airplane so he was mad, then the IA got his back up and got mad too. So much easier on everybody to just bite your tongue and sign the darn logbbok!
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!

  28. #68
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,279
    Post Thanks / Like
    The DPE was wrong and uninformed in this case. I have seen a similar instance where a DPE refused to give a SES ride because there was no 337 showing the floats installation on a new 172XP. The approval is on the Type certificate so was a minor alteration (no 337 required). Another uninformed DPE. I feel sorry for the student, the airplane owner and the IA in your example.
    N1PA

  29. #69
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    18,646
    Post Thanks / Like
    Glad my customers trust me, my knowledge and experience.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers

  30. #70
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    2,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    ......... I feel sorry for the student, the airplane owner and the IA in your example.
    In my example, I feel sorry for everybody but the IA.
    He could have smoothed everyone's feathers and avoided a lot of aggravation for everyone including himself if he'd told them that no, the logbook entry wasn't required but that he would write it up anyway. Instead he got his back up and refused to do it because "the regs don't say I have to". Well, he showed them-- he lost any future business from the airplane owner. That guy just happened to be the airport manager, who after a few other incidents like this ended up kicking the IA off the private airport because of his attitude.
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!

  31. #71
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,279
    Post Thanks / Like
    I agree with you. A lot of mechanics are not very good in the diplomacy department. Honey works better than Hot Sauce.
    N1PA

  32. #72
    www.SkupTech.com mike mcs repair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chugiak AK
    Posts
    10,325
    Post Thanks / Like
    i would have told him he's an idiot and go f*&k himself.... only required in airframe log...

  33. #73

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Southern NH
    Posts
    466
    Post Thanks / Like
    I think it depends... You have to be diplomatic, but you should also guard against the requirement to do more than the regs require in some cases. Had a POI once who told us we must provide him with all of the RVSM training certificates for EVERY technician employed by an FAA Repair Station to show only properly trained techs were working on our aircraft when it was in for service...... In that case, no, I would not comply just to grease the wheels.

  34. #74
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    18,646
    Post Thanks / Like
    I have been questioned about this subject of 100 hr in engine and prop logbooks more times than I can count. I explain it and the customer/owner understands. If he wants to argue about it I figure he can go down the road, if he will argue about this he will argue about other things and I don't need customers like that. There has to be a trust between the mechanic and the owner. If the owner doesn't trust me there are a lot more A&P/IAs in the world. I have learned a lot about airplane owners over the past 20 something years, one of them is how to avoid an owner as a customer. Makes my life so much easier.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers

  35. #75
    wireweinie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    2,475
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by mike mcs repair View Post
    i would have told him he's an idiot and go f*&k himself.... only required in airframe log...
    I'll buy you an beer any time.

    Web

  36. #76
    aktango58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    18AA
    Posts
    9,057
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Pierce View Post
    I have been questioned about this subject of 100 hr in engine and prop logbooks more times than I can count. I explain it and the customer/owner understands. If he wants to argue about it I figure he can go down the road, if he will argue about this he will argue about other things and I don't need customers like that. There has to be a trust between the mechanic and the owner. If the owner doesn't trust me there are a lot more A&P/IAs in the world. I have learned a lot about airplane owners over the past 20 something years, one of them is how to avoid an owner as a customer. Makes my life so much easier.
    Yet you still have tom Ford's plane in your shop

    It is good to have trust between owner/mechanic. The whole sign off stuff becomes problematic when a FAA inspector is confused but thinks they are right.

    In the story about the student pilot checkride, why were there logs in the aircraft at all???? Not required. Only upon request with a reasonable time to present.
    I don't know where you've been me lad, but I see you won first Prize!

  37. #77

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    aviation
    Posts
    28
    Post Thanks / Like
    I don't usually comment on these kinds of threads but Steve hit the nail on the head in regard to dealing with the argumentative types. Just let them go find another shop. I forced myself to do this about five years ago and it really smoothed my operation. I also had a lot of flying "friends" and when I told them all they needed to be my friend or my client all but one disappeared. Surprise!

    I think there is also this my shop is better then your shop BS that goes on in the dysfunctional world of aviation we live in and there is a lot of foot shooting going on in the process. Just yesterday I was called into a 135 operation to do something the DOM and his mechanics had no skill to do and had to listen to him bad mouth me about a repair I did almost 20 years ago... I'm thinking to myself WTF is wrong with this guy, I'm here to help him out? Anyway, we can be part of the problem or part of the solution. We are our own worst enemy...




    As for arguing with your Fed or PMI, good luck. You probably argue with the cop over the speeding ticket, and your ex wife. Look where that got you

    This is one of my solutions:


    On logbook entries I print out three entries with all the engine prop and airframe line items and use the phrase I CERTIFY THAT THIS AIRFRAME, ENGINE, AND PROP… and place one in each logbook. I don't have to do it this way but after almost 20 years of maintaining aircraft it sure has made my life easier and my 135 PMI have all loved it.


    I did have the NPS/OAS and a few others over the years want me to sign off their mid summer 100 hour inspections as an annual inspection and I refused.


    Here is an part of an example from a 100 hour inspection but I just insert the word ANNUAL as required note it has items that would go in all three logbooks:


    -REMOVED, INSPECTED, REPLACED OIL SCREEN AND SUMP PLUGS AND SAFTIED AS REQUIRED.
    -DRAINED OIL AND FILLED WITH 6 GAL AEROSHELL 100 50 WT OIL.
    -REMOVED PROPELLER FOR OVERHAUL AND REINSTALLED TORQUED, AND SAFTIED IAW HPC MM. P/N: HC-B3R30-4B S/N: EMA1269 NWP W/O: 25292 DATED 04.29.13.
    -REMOVED PROPELLOR GOVERNOR FOR OVERHAUL AND REINSTALLED, LEAK CHECKED AND OPS CHECKED OK. WWG W/O: WW12902 DATED 03.21.13.
    -REPLACED WORKING RIVETS AND CRACKS IN ENGINE BAFFLING AS REQUIRED.
    -C/W R&L AILERON AD 64-09-03 ARMS DYE PEN INSPECTED-OK.
    -REPLACED FLAP AND AILERON HINGE BEARINGS AS REQUIRED.
    -CW AD 2008-11-11 H STAB SPAR INSPECTION. SEE AIX W/O: 4428G DATED 12.04.12
    -C/W AD 81-13-01 ELEVATOR BUT RIB INSPECTION.
    -REPLACED ALL FLOAT CONTROL AND RETRACT CABLES WITH NEW.
    -REPLACED FLOAT WALK WIRE WITH NEW.


    -ELT BATTERY GROUND TESTED-OK. RE-INSPECT ELT BATTERIES JUNE 2014.


    -ALL ADS LISTED AND COMPLIED WITH.


    -I CERTIFY THAT THIS AIRFRAME, ENGINE, AND PROP HAS BEEN INSPECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH A 100 HOUR INSPECTION AND WAS DETERMINED TO BE IN AIR WORTHY CONDITION.


    I really enjoy reading everyones perspective here regardless if i agree or not, I really enjoy a good chuckle, and hope I can add a little perspective to the dialog as well.


    Rocket

  38. #78
    www.SkupTech.com mike mcs repair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chugiak AK
    Posts
    10,325
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by mam90 View Post
    .. You have to be diplomatic, ..
    sorry, I was born with out a diplomatic thingy... or a filter thingy... or a put up with whiny people thingy... or a tell me how to do something like someone else did it thingy...

    but i got a zillion time "FOCUS on the issue at hand" thingy...

  39. #79
    T.J.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    3,211
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yep. I've got a sign on the hangar door that says... "This ain't Burger King. You don't get it your way. It's either my way or the hiway." I learned a long time ago, that some customers are more trouble than their worth. If you think about it, It isn't an attitude thing, its a business decision. If I can't make a living working on good folks planes, I'll go to work at Burger King.

  40. #80

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Southern NH
    Posts
    466
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by mike mcs repair View Post
    sorry, I was born with out a diplomatic thingy... or a filter thingy... or a put up with whiny people thingy... or a tell me how to do something like someone else did it thingy...

    but i got a zillion time "FOCUS on the issue at hand" thingy...
    I agree, Mike. Every once in a while focusing on the issue at hand for me has meant "get this done" and I have given the FAA something that there was no basis in the regs for. More often I will ask them to show me the reference in the regs or the 8900 for what they're asking me to provide or do. If they can't show me, the request usually goes away. If I worked for myself, my filter would look more like yours......

Similar Threads

  1. Northland PA-18 Aircraft Parts
    By Bushwhacker Air in forum Experimental Cubs
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-03-2005, 12:35 PM
  2. Northland Aircraft Parts
    By Bushwhacker Air in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-20-2005, 07:01 AM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •