I'll still argue that. Part 65.85 (a) states that a mechanic may return an airframe, or any related part or appliance, to service, after he has performed maintenance or inspection.
FAR 1.1 defines 'Appliance' as 'any instrument, mechanism, equipment, part, apparatus, appurtenance, or accessory, including communications equipment, that is used or intended to be used in operating or controlling an aircraft in flight, is installed in or attached to the aircraft, and is not part of an airframe, engine, or propeller'.
As far as replacing transistors, it's a simple task. It's removal and replacing an item using standard shop practices not performing modifications or any operations that require testing beyond an operational check. I'll give you that it's not to the strictest adherence to the regs, but are you going to tell me that every single maintenance function you have performed on an aircraft has been with a book setting next to you? I.e., if you are going to perform a simple sheet metal repair, you don't go running for a structural manual.
As for the guy Mike referenced, I don't know the back story. The fed may have been having a excremental day and needed to work out some stress?
I've done a slug of compasses, logged them in, and intend on continuing. We're all big boys here, read the regs and make up your own mind.
Web
By the way 1.1 defines 'Instrument' as 'a device using an internal mechanism to show visually or aurally the attitude, altitude, or operation of an aircraft or aircraft part. It includes electronic devices for automatically controlling an aircraft in flight'.
