Bend the rules or not

Tom-D said:
Nope not Not when the paper is right. It is either a authorized part or it is not.
Click to expand...

So authorized exhaust system.

But I ceramic coat it.
 
James331 said:
So authorized exhaust system.

But I ceramic coat it.
Click to expand...
Show me the authorization, who determined that this can be done in the field?
Authorization of usage can be done in many ways, either it is or it ain't
 
Norman said:
I'll count that as your first personal attack on me. You are clueless about my knowledge of the regs.
Click to expand...
That's because you hide behind your little monicker and think it's cute
 
Tom-D said:
Show me the authorization, who determined that this can be done in the field?
Authorization of usage can be done in many ways, either it is or it ain't
Click to expand...

But I can paint a engine mount or something
 
James331 said:
No, just don't see the difference.
Click to expand...
Your lack of understanding of the difference should be discussed with your IA. Ask them "can owners do "Preventive maintenance" because there is a difference between modifying a part and preserving it. (painting is a preservative method) adding a coating where there was never one before is a modification. Now all you must do is find out if that modification is a major one or not.
 
Tom-D said:
Your lack of understanding of the difference should be discussed with your IA. Ask them "can owners do "Preventive maintenance" because there is a difference between modifying a part and preserving it. (painting is a preservative method) adding a coating where there was never one before is a modification. Now all you must do is find out if that modification is a major one or not.
Click to expand...

Oh I have had the talk with him, and everyone's different, ceramic coating preserves for sure, I agreed

Do you view that as a major or minor?
 
James331 said:
Oh I have had the talk with him, and everyone's different, ceramic coating preserves for sure, I agreed

Do you view that as a major or minor?
Click to expand...

But is it an authorized coating? The FAA considers chroming a major change so ??? who knows what they will say.

I would ask my PMI, because he will be the one who busts my ticket when I'm wrong.
 
OBTW Jim331, nice hijack of the thread.
 
Tom-D said:
There is new guidance on up grading to LEDs When I have need to know I'll do my home work.
Click to expand...

Aren't light bulbs "standard parts". My normal position light bulbs don't have any PMAs or things.
 
image.jpg
 
brien23 said:
The term Bent the rules does not mean break the rules the term gray area does not mean over the line, it's a judgement call.
Click to expand...

Yep, which is why this thread is sort of like debating angels on the head of a pin. Judgement call means there will be differences in how one mechanic (human being) deals with some issues/snags compared with another. Some.

Most of us gravitate to mechanics whose judgement we come to trust. A meticulous owner with deep pockets and obsessive-compulsive inclinations is probably going to find a mechanic who exercises judgement commensurate with that expectation. The rest of us mere worker bee mortals are spread out along the spectrum just like our all too human mechanics.

50 shades of grey, indeed. :cool:
 
mtuomi said:
Aren't light bulbs "standard parts". My normal position light bulbs don't have any PMAs or things.
Click to expand...
Your aircraft came from the factory with filament bulbs, as per the production certificate. The FAA has recently changed the rule to change to a LED type bulb is a minor alteration and can be returned to service with a log entry.
Now to answer your question in post 42, when the paper is correct, sure I'd not use that issue as a reason to not sign it off as airworthy.
 
Tom-D said:
Your aircraft came from the factory with filament bulbs, as per the production certificate. The FAA has recently changed the rule to change to a LED type bulb is a minor alteration and can be returned to service with a log entry.
Now to answer your question in post 42, when the paper is correct, sure I'd not use that issue as a reason to not sign it off as airworthy.
Click to expand...

Have you got a link for that rule? I've only seen one that referred to replacing landing lights with non-approved LED lights (which was OK for FAA).
 
mtuomi said:
Have you got a link for that rule? I've only seen one that referred to replacing landing lights with non-approved LED lights (which was OK for FAA).
Click to expand...
No I don't, call your FSDO.
 
Some issues depend upon the shop. Two repair stations would not sign off my 172 annual unless the wind screen attachment rivets were replaced with screws. One in my area one shop does not see it as an issue. One shop with my annual on the bonanza would not pass the annual without replacing the plywood floor boards with marine grade floor boards. Another shop would not annual an aircraft 100 hours beyond TBO even though compression and oil consumption/analysis did not indicate any issues. You as the pilot are the responsible individual. Another shop wanted 17K just to replace the rudder and both ailerons and I took it to another shop that repaired those items rather than replace for 5K. It does pay to check out different shops. Last point, after a gear failure (manually put down), the gear were rerigged. Several months later at an ABS service clinic, there were more than 20 deficiencies with the landing gear not found earlier.
 
Some will view green and yellow, and say it's blue, others will nit pick it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top