C-150 problems

Cap'n Jack said:
I used to feel the same as you until I saw he has a tendency to post "beyond his knowledge". When someone attempts to correct him, he gets very defensive and goes further into wrong information. It is as if I posted some very incorrect biochem information (as an example, I attempt to claim proteins carry genetic information rather than DNA), you try to correct me, and I start pulling more "facts" from my butt. You would, properly, question the rest of my knowledge in areas in which you may not have expertise.
Click to expand...
I hope I usually try to find out where your incorrect information is coming from, especially because you could have uncovered something new to me. It was on this very site that I learned of polyploid vertebrates, something I would have previously thought impossible.
 
You could probably teach a monkey to fly. Nobody will ever teach a monkey to fix an airplane. It's complex. I'm not putting down pilots; I am one myself, was a flight instructor.[/QUOTE]
That's a good one Bell206, I had forgotten all about it, it was so long ago, the owner of the plane I was flying had one of his helicopter, used for firefighting, crash into a city water supply, I asked him if his rates are going up, he said no, the rates are so hi, I could have a monkey flying it and the cost would be the same, thanks for the memories
 
Bell206 said:
So when there is a discussion between mechanics, a single topic may generate multiple solutions each legal within the regulations. And by nature, each mechanic will defend their solution.

For example, take the 150 air box we have in this post. I can probably come up with 5 different legal repair options. So which one would be more correct than the other?
Click to expand...
Not really, In the case of the airbox shown there are only two ways to return the aircraft to service.
The airbox I showed was already brazed, which means I can't weld over it, And I can't re-spot weld it with out proper over lap of the two sheets. So I brazed it again.
or you could simply buy a new one.
 
idahoflier said:
Please share, I am curious.
Click to expand...
1) The previously mentioned braze method
2) Fabricate repair replacing cracked area with new metal using original mount flange
3) Fabricate repair between two separate damaged air boxes
4) Assist owner with owner fabricated air box
5) Fabric new air box from better materials using original mount flange and obtain field approval/PMA/STC.

Each method has its own pros and cons mainly cost. In reality, the OEM replacement cost is usually 2nd/3rd on the list after the repair in 1 or 2. However, if part is difficult to find or only from overseas methods 3 and 4 can come into play. It all depends.
 
Bell206 said:
There is basically one FAR (43.13) that guides a mechanic in maintaining an aircraft. Given this single regulation is broad and diverse, each mechanic must interpret the FAR in their own manner.
Click to expand...

Canada's equivalent is CAR 571. But it doesn't end there. One needs to reference CAR 605 and 625 to see what equipment the airplane must legally have installed and operating for flight. He can't just defer any old inoperative gauge or whatever. He needs to reference CAR 523 or FAR 23 to know what various parameters must be maintained. For the AMO (repair station) he needs to maintain conformity to CAR 573 and his staff must conform to CAR 566 and CAR 563. If he's making new installations they have to conform to CAR 551. These are large bodies of paperwork and they are one of the reasons why it takes so long to get a ticket here. And their size and complexity are one reason why we often find installations or repairs that are far outside legal limits. Conformity means study, which means unbillable time, which means a smaller overall margin, which tends to run small shops out of business.
 
Have you ever tried to gain FSDO authority to do an owner produced part, when the OEM is still making new ones?
 
Bell206 said:
1) The previously mentioned braze method
2) Fabricate repair replacing cracked area with new metal using original mount flange
3) Fabricate repair between two separate damaged air boxes
4) Assist owner with owner fabricated air box
5) Fabric new air box from better materials using original mount flange and obtain field approval/PMA/STC.

Each method has its own pros and cons mainly cost. In reality, the OEM replacement cost is usually 2nd/3rd on the list after the repair in 1 or 2. However, if part is difficult to find or only from overseas methods 3 and 4 can come into play. It all depends.
Click to expand...
at a $185 it just ain't worth it. I only charged my customer $25 for the repair.
To fabricate any kind of new top deck or re-inforsement you would be required to melt away the old braze, disassemble the neck, cut away the broken material manufacture a new top deck or repair, and braze it all back to gather again, to do all that isn't worth the cost of a new box.

And I'd probably screw that up, and have to buy him a new one anyway.
 
Bell206 said:
1) The previously mentioned braze method
2) Fabricate repair replacing cracked area with new metal using original mount flange
3) Fabricate repair between two separate damaged air boxes
4) Assist owner with owner fabricated air box
5) Fabric new air box from better materials using original mount flange and obtain field approval/PMA/STC.

Each method has its own pros and cons mainly cost. In reality, the OEM replacement cost is usually 2nd/3rd on the list after the repair in 1 or 2. However, if part is difficult to find or only from overseas methods 3 and 4 can come into play. It all depends.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply!

For options (2) and (3) would this be welded together or brazed?
 
Tom-D said:
Have you ever tried to gain FSDO authority to do an owner produced part, when the OEM is still making new ones?
Click to expand...
No separate authority needed. Covered under 21.9(5). But need to follow the existing guidance on owner/operator participation, part identification, maintenance record, etc. to complete the circle.
 
idahoflier said:
Thanks for the reply!

For options (2) and (3) would this be welded together or brazed?
Click to expand...
When you try to weld after brazing, the base material gets so hot the brass melts, that is if you can stay off the brass, If you get brass hot enough to weld, the brass simply fumes off and usually takes the base material with it. As the 43,13 makes clear, not to do it. but even when you re-braze you stand a pretty good chance of melting the previous brazing job.
and to make matter worse, the bigger the reinforcement/repair is the better the chance of getting the whole thing too hot and having the whole thing come apart.
 
Bell206 said:
Welded, brazed, riveted whatever the skill set of the repairer selects.
Click to expand...
The case in question, there is nothing left to rivet to, and it can't be welded over brass, So what's
left?
 
Bell206 said:
No separate authority needed. Covered under 21.9(5). But need to follow the existing guidance on owner/operator participation, part identification, maintenance record, etc. to complete the circle.
Click to expand...

The catch comes when FSDO says it is not conforming to 43-A
(a) Major alterations—(1) Airframe major alterations. Alterations of the following parts and alterations of the following types, when not listed in the aircraft specifications issued by the FAA, are airframe major alterations:
thus becomes an alteration requiring a 337 field approval.

IOW it must be an exact duplicate of the OEM part.
 
steingar said:
I hope I usually try to find out where your incorrect information is coming from, especially because you could have uncovered something new to me. It was on this very site that I learned of polyploid vertebrates, something I would have previously thought impossible.
Click to expand...
Yes, I saw that in the Fish thread- triploid fish. There are a number of people here with good knowledge.

Here's some of what I'm talking about with a particular person:
Calls ammonia an acid: https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/paint-stripping.101772/#post-2244913
Claims water isn't a solvent here: https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/corrosion-treatment.102604/
Came up with his own term of "jellied acetone" and claimed it was a paint stripper: https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/chemical-strippers.101866/#post-2249982

Closer to aircraft repair:
Friend running one of his 0-200 rebuilds
https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/is-it-time-to-quit.86554/
https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/an-a-p-iss-best-insurance.99197/
And the information from the NTSB:
See: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations...ev_id=20150928X72825&ntsbno=WPR15FA268&akey=1


That the items below were called out suggests that they aren't standard practices:

The original engine oil screen remained installed, despite the fact that the engine was equipped with an oil filter.
Click to expand...

It was noted that there was no torque seal on any of the cylinder attachment nuts. Each cylinder was removed, and visually inspected. With the exception of the number two cylinder, it was noted that there was a significant amount of black sealant type material covering the majority of the cylinder flange and skirt; the number two cylinder was void of a black sealant type material. It was also noted that one of the number two cylinder hold down nuts appeared to be a standard nut, in contrast to typical cylinder hold down nuts.
Click to expand...

It was noted that there was black sealant applied to the crankcase halves mating surfaces, and there was no silk thread noted on the crankcase halve mating surfaces. It was also noted that the black sealant material was found in several of the oil galleys.
Click to expand...
 
Tom-D said:
The catch comes when FSDO says it is not conforming to 43-A
Click to expand...
Part 43 does not come into play for Part 21.9(5) owner produced parts. It is strictly a part production method which the FSDO plays no role. Part 43 only governs the install of the that part.

Part 43 does comes into play for Part 21.9(6) "mechanic" fabricated parts for consumption in a repair or alteration.

Tom-D said:
IOW it must be an exact duplicate of the OEM part.
Click to expand...
Yes. But there are some acceptable variances.
 
Tom-D said:
at a $185 it just ain't worth it. I only charged my customer $25 for the repair.
Click to expand...

Aircraft owners need to get used to the idea that these are airplanes, not bicycles. They cost money to make, maintain and repair. And as they get older they can get even more expensive as parts get scarce. If an owner keeps cheaping out, pretty soon the majority of the airplane is made up of worn-out, patched-up junk, and some poor naive buyer is going to get stung with it. We often hear such tales of woe on this forum. A fresh coat of paint fools the majority of prospective buyers. Lipstick on a pig.

One can pay $50K for an airplane that, if it was still in production, would cost $400K. Think 172. Parts prices for $400K airplanes tend to reflect the value of that airplane, even if it's now old and sells for $50K. Labor rates are the same for an old airplane as for a new one. What else costs $400K? Some models of exotic cars. Would the owner of such a car expect his mechanic to patch up worn-out stuff for $25? He shouldn't. He should expect good work, or a new part, and pay appropriately for it.

Too often mechanics are scrimping to save their customers money. And then when one of those poorly-repaired parts fails and the airplane crashes, that oh-so-helpful mechanic gets sued. He was once the "reasonable" guy; now he's the "gyppo crook."

Fix things right. Aviation isn't cheap. Never was. Never will be. It's too unforgiving to be cheap.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Actually, there are plenty of pilot comments when there's a perception that some pilot doesn't know what he's doing or the risks he's taking. Just read the comments on some posted videos.

Aircraft maintenance is far more complex and diversified than piloting. Most pilots have no idea of the extensive regulations surrounding maintenance, modifications and repairs, the thick textbooks, the manufacturer's maintenance manuals, the huge Advisory Circulars. In Canada, like the US, a person with enough money and time and gumption can get a Commerical Pilot License in six months. A person with enough gumption and time and money will need 48 months to get the Aircraft Maintenance Engineer's license, and there are no shortcuts available. Unlike the US, formal mechanic's training is required here, not just apprenticeship. You can solo an aiplane at age 14 in Canada, be licensed at 17. An AME license cannot be had until you're 21.

So when a mechanic sees something that bothers him, something that another mechanic is defending, he's tempted to say something about it. Most of us have often found sketchy repairs falling apart and causing trouble and further expense. Besides the risk to safety, there is such a thing as false economy.

You could probably teach a monkey to fly. Nobody will ever teach a monkey to fix an airplane. It's complex. I'm not putting down pilots; I am one myself, was a flight instructor.
Click to expand...
You could teach a monkey to write FARs, but you could never teach one to understand them.
 
Bell206 said:
Part 43 does not come into play for Part 21.9(5) owner produced parts. It is strictly a part production method which the FSDO plays no role. Part 43 only governs the install of the that part.

Part 43 does comes into play for Part 21.9(6) "mechanic" fabricated parts for consumption in a repair or alteration.
Click to expand...
FAR 43-A does dictate what is a alteration, I agree 43 does dictate what or how stuff is built.
And 43 does tell us what our responsibilities are to maintaining aircraft. (43.13) if when you can't comply with owner produced parts, don't go there.

Now to be realistic, we must keep our customers best interest at heart. Having them build parts when it is not practical to do isn't (IMHO) being very fare to them. The intention of the FARs that control the owner produced parts were intended to serve as a method of keeping antique and rare aircraft in airworthy. not for the 172 owner to build their own seat tracks because they are too expensive to buy. (just an example)
 
Dan Thomas said:
Aircraft owners need to get used to the idea that these are airplanes, not bicycles. They cost money to make, maintain and repair. And as they get older they can get even more expensive as parts get scarce. If an owner keeps cheaping out, pretty soon the majority of the airplane is made up of worn-out, patched-up junk, and some poor naive buyer is going to get stung with it. We often hear such tales of woe on this forum. A fresh coat of paint fools the majority of prospective buyers. Lipstick on a pig.

One can pay $50K for an airplane that, if it was still in production, would cost $400K. Think 172. Parts prices for $400K airplanes tend to reflect the value of that airplane, even if it's now old and sells for $50K. Labor rates are the same for an old airplane as for a new one. What else costs $400K? Some models of exotic cars. Would the owner of such a car expect his mechanic to patch up worn-out stuff for $25? He shouldn't. He should expect good work, or a new part, and pay appropriately for it.

Too often mechanics are scrimping to save their customers money. And then when one of those poorly-repaired parts fails and the airplane crashes, that oh-so-helpful mechanic gets sued. He was once the "reasonable" guy; now he's the "gyppo crook."

Fix things right. Aviation isn't cheap. Never was. Never will be. It's too unforgiving to be cheap.
Click to expand...
I normally charge $50 per hour, it took 30 minutes, how much would you have charged?
 
Tom-D said:
I normally charge $50 per hour, it took 30 minutes, how much would you have charged?
Click to expand...
For a box that's $185 new? He'd get a new box. You can't run an AMO in Canada for $50 an hour. Not even close. Not with all the regulatory stuff and wages and benefits and insurance and overhead and all the other money-sucking aspects to it.
 
Some good comments above.

The $185 Aircraft Spruce Cessna 150 airbox is not a certified part.

FAR 43, appendix A specifies what a major alteration is and also what a major repair is. Depends on your POV of what you are doing. Do you intend to alter something or repair something?

Still waiting to hear what 19-3 is.
 
Tom-D said:
Now to be realistic, we must keep our customers best interest at heart.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Tom-D said:
Having them build parts when it is not practical to do isn't (IMHO) being very fare to them.
Click to expand...

Neither is accomplishing cheapo repairs when they deserve better.

I had no idea about "someone's" brush with the NTSB. That is one of my fears in this profession. There are so many gotchas and it could happen so easily. In one sense I can sympathize. Very lucky that more didn't come of that incident.
 
Tom-D said:
Now to be realistic, we must keep our customers best interest at heart. Having them build parts when it is not practical to do isn't (IMHO) being very fare to them.
Click to expand...
Agree. But as part of their "best interest" we should offer all the available options to the owner so he may make an informed decision on their aircraft. And that would include owner produced parts and other FAA guidance options when applicable to the task.

Tom-D said:
not for the 172 owner to build their own seat tracks because they are too expensive to buy.
Click to expand...
That is not for a mechanic to decide. Owner/operators produce their own parts daily and in some cases strictly due to cost. A very simple example, look at most decal P/Ns on a any large 135/121 operator aircraft. The OEM P/N is usually modified by a letter like D for Delta. Owner produced decals (parts) save $100Ks yearly for large operators. On the GA level, a shop was repairing belly damaged twin and needed a OEM stringer. Standard OEM lead time 1 year unless wanted to pay AOG premium. After discussion, owner contacted supplier direct and requested stringer mfg'd per OEM drawing and completed required owner produced process. Plane repair finished in 2 months. So it all depends.
 
Bell206 said:
A very simple example, look at most decal P/Ns on a any large 135/121 operator aircraft.
Click to expand...

That is funny, I did just that yesterday. Was missing a placard in the cabin. Took a picture of the required placard on another aircraft, sized it and printed it out and laminated and installed. Versus AOG'ing one from the manufacturer for mega bucks - same form, fit and function.
 
Dan Thomas said:
For a box that's $185 new? He'd get a new box. You can't run an AMO in Canada for $50 an hour. Not even close. Not with all the regulatory stuff and wages and benefits and insurance and overhead and all the other money-sucking aspects to it.
Click to expand...
Certainly glad we are not an AMO in Canada. Aren't there and mechanics that just fix stuff?
 
Last edited:
Bell206 said:
That is not for a mechanic to decide.
Click to expand...
It is up to the A&P to decide what they want to except as airworthy.
It is up to the A&P to decide what is the best method of repair.
And it is up to the mechanic how much to charge.
 
JAWS said:
That is funny, I did just that yesterday. Was missing a placard in the cabin. Took a picture of the required placard on another aircraft, sized it and printed it out and laminated and installed. Versus AOG'ing one from the manufacturer for mega bucks - same form, fit and function.
Click to expand...
I'll admit there are parts that the owner can and should do, But there are also parts that they should never attempt.
Duplicate a decal, sure, build a new crankshaft might be legal but you can find some one else to return it to service, I'll certainly not get in that liability loop.
 
[QUOTEstuff -D, post: 2484735, member: 88"]Certainly glad we are not an AMO in Canada. Aren't there and mechanics that just fix stuff?[/QUOTE]
I fix stuff all the time. It is also done to good industry practices and with maintenance certifications.

Just had to have an exhaust clamp hole repaired by a certified welder. Owner wanted a "buddy" to do it. Not with my signature in the book. It got done right and is safe and legal.
 
JAWS said:
[QUOTEstuff -D, post: 2484735, member: 88"]Certainly glad we are not an AMO in Canada. Aren't there and mechanics that just fix stuff?
Click to expand...
I fix stuff all the time. It is also done to good industry practices and with maintenance certifications.

Just had to have an exhaust clamp hole repaired by a certified welder. Owner wanted a "buddy" to do it. Not with my signature in the book. It got done right and is safe and legal.[/QUOTE]

In Canada, for the US folks here, welding is strictly controlled. Very few facilities are licensed for it, and the welder himself has to be certified, which means schooling and an apprenticeship. Rules like this arose out of accidents when welded things failed. As to brazing? I'm not going to push that. I just know that Transport Canada is firm on this stuff. The rule:

SCHEDULE II(Section 571.04)Specialized Maintenance

The following tasks constitute the specialized maintenance referred to in section 571.04 of these Regulations.

Welding
  • 7 The welding of the following parts is welding specialized maintenance:
    • (a) any part of the primary structure, including a wheel, an axle and a passenger restraint or cargo restraint system;

    • (b) any part of an aircraft system, including a fuel tank, an oil tank and a pneumatic or hydraulic container; and

    • (c) any structural or dynamic engine part.
 
Dan Thomas said:
In Canada, for the US folks here, welding is strictly controlled. Very few facilities are licensed for it, and the welder himself has to be certified, which means schooling and an apprenticeship. Rules like this arose out of accidents when welded things failed. As to brazing? I'm not going to push that. I just know that Transport Canada is firm on this stuff. The rule:

SCHEDULE II(Section 571.04)Specialized Maintenance

The following tasks constitute the specialized maintenance referred to in section 571.04 of these Regulations.

Welding
  • 7 The welding of the following parts is welding specialized maintenance:
    • (a) any part of the primary structure, including a wheel, an axle and a passenger restraint or cargo restraint system;

    • (b) any part of an aircraft system, including a fuel tank, an oil tank and a pneumatic or hydraulic container; and

    • (c) any structural or dynamic engine part.
Click to expand...
Down here it is taught in A&P school, well at least I hope it still is.
When I went thru "structures" class I had to do two tube joints, a fish mouth repairs, and two plates prior to passing.
 
Tom-D said:
well at least I hope it still is.
Click to expand...
Welding still taught but not as much torch type. More TIG. The days of carbonizing flames and an old acetylene generator in the shop corner are slowly drifting away.
 
Bell206 said:
Welding still taught but not as much torch type. More TIG. The days of carbonizing flames and an old acetylene generator in the shop corner are slowly drifting away.
Click to expand...
old acetylene generator?? I haven't seen one of those in any shop for many years. They caused more fires than any thing else in the fab/shops.
But there is no substitute for a Oxy/Ace torch when you need it.

OBTW, I still have the carbide crystal for them.
 
Welding in Canada, as I said, has become so regulated that sometimes one almost has to junk an airplane that needs extensive welding repairs. Tube-and-fabric stuff. (A new fabric job alone might mean scrapping the airplane due to the cost of it.)

So I can't weld a broken joint or replace a section of tube. But I can buy the plans for a homebuilt, weld up the whole thing including the engine mount and struts, fill it with people and go flying. Or I can register a busted-up old TriPacer in the Owner-Maintenance category and rebuilt that and fly it. Sigh. Common sense in law: where did it go?
 
Dan Thomas said:
Welding in Canada, as I said, has become so regulated that sometimes one almost has to junk an airplane that needs extensive welding repairs. Tube-and-fabric stuff. (A new fabric job alone might mean scrapping the airplane due to the cost of it.)

So I can't weld a broken joint or replace a section of tube. But I can buy the plans for a homebuilt, weld up the whole thing including the engine mount and struts, fill it with people and go flying. Or I can register a busted-up old TriPacer in the Owner-Maintenance category and rebuilt that and fly it. Sigh. Common sense in law: where did it go?
Click to expand...
Elect another liberal, see what happens./
 
Dan Thomas said:
Tube-and-fabric stuff. (A new fabric job alone might mean scrapping the airplane due to the cost of it.)
Click to expand...
Thank you very much, our shops are swamped with work. Just saw a Pa-18 super cub done for 12K in super flight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top