Oil change results in me messing up.

Ultimately it’s your IA that’s the gatekeeper from a practical standpoint. FAA isn’t going to inspect your oil temperature sensor wire connector.
Also this requires a realistic understanding of your own capabilities. I’d replace that connector and log it without a lot of angst. I have friends who are good pilots who shouldn’t even think about doing it.
 
unsafervguy said:
the question that comes to my mind is, is that the proper part number for the sender. i have never seen one on aircraft that uses a slide on connector.every one i have ever seen is a stud and nut. but I have not seen every lycoming installation there is.
Click to expand...

Yes it is correct. Mitchell TSO and PMA analog OT gauges come with a female spade terminal in the install kit.
 
AV8R_87 said:
The fact that pilots are explicitly allowed to repack wheel bearings (and service oleo struts) but this is questionable says a lot about how backwards things are.
Click to expand...

Well, it also says something about how reluctant (or afraid?) pilots are to take full advantage of their PM privileges.
 
Half Fast said:
I disagree. In my oft-ignored but never humble opinion, this fits perfectly within the realm of preventive maintenance that can be performed by the owner. Let's dig into things a bit.

FAA legal (the Coleal interpreation, https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/Data/interps/2009/Coleal-Bombardier Learjet_2009_Legal_Interpretation.pdf ) has stated:

And, preventive maintenance is defined to​
mean "simp le or minor preservation operations and the replacement of small standard​
parts not involving complex assembly operations." Id. Preventive maintenance, in​
general, includes tasks that are less complex than those deemed to be maintenance, and​
requires less sophistication in terms of the knowledge, skill, and tools required.​
Many preventive maintenance tasks are listed in 14 C.F.R. part 43, appendix A,​
paragraph (c ). The paragraph sets forth in 32 numbered subparagraphs items the FAA​
has determined to be preventive maintenance. Even though the introductory text of​
subparagraph ( c) states that "[p ]reventive maintenance is limited to the following work​
2​
... ." (emphasis added), in view of the broader definition of preventive maintenance in​
section l. l , we believe that such limitation is not controlling. Similarly, for the same​
reason, we also believe that the following sentence in Advisory Circular 43-l2A,​
Preventive Maintenance (which was referenced in Mr . Hernandez' s letter), is overly​
restrictive. That sentence, found in Paragraph 3(b)(l), states: " If a task or maintenance​
functi on does not appear in the list, it is not preventive maintenance." As with the other​
paragraphs of Appendix A (i.e. , on major repairs and major alterations), the lists are​
better viewed as examples of the tasks in each category-they cannot be considered all-​
inclusive. There are, no doubt, many "simple or minor preservation operations [tasks]"​
and many "replacement of small standard parts not involving complex assembly​

operations" performed daily, especially on small general aviation aircraft, that the agency​
would consider to be preventive maintenance, though they are not included in the 32​
listed items. ​

So, according to the FAA legal department, the list of tasks in Appendix A, paragraph (c) is no more a complete list than are the lists of things considered major repairs or major alterations. Rather, it is the definition given in 14 CFR 1.1 that tells us what preventive maintenance really is, and the list in Appendix A is illustrative rather than binding.

Now then, 14 CFR 1.1 specifically says that preventive maintenance "means simple or minor preservation operations and the replacement of small standard parts not involving complex assembly operations." The crimp-on connector shown is certainly a "small standard part" and crimping on a new one is about as simple an operation as I can imagine; certainly it does not involve a complex assembly operation.

If we look to the Appendix A paragraph (c) list of examples to better inform our decision, we see that item 16 gives an example of repairs to wiring: "Trouble shooting and repairing broken circuits in landing light wiring circuits." Clearly, this example tells us that simple wiring repair jobs fit the PM definition.

I don't see any problem at all with the OP doing this repair himself as owner preventive maintenance and logging it as such.
Click to expand...
I have worked on engines all my life. Aircraft engines are 1940 technology and assembly and disassembly is not a complex to me and I am able to use standard aviation parts and follow the repair manual.

But, if I were asking a question about replacing a connector on what believed it was an oil pressure sender, which was really a temperature probe, that might mean the maintenance is too complex.
 
Last edited:
Ed Haywood said:
Also says a little about how obtuse the guidance is, and how uninterested the FAA is in clarifying that in ways that encourage more owner involvement.
Click to expand...
Not really. The same prevent mx guidance has been around for decades, but the numbers of owners performing that mx has dropped considerably in my experience. One of the reasons I dropped my owner-assist service before I retired was didn't have enough owners who wanted to participate. I think from an owner mx standpoint, the next benchmark to watch will be how many E/AB owners take advantage of the MOSAIC changes.
 
I do wish the FAA would adopt a "criticality" test of some variety. Like, "how bad is it if you F this up?" and route the preventative mx stuff around that idea.

wiring fix: simple procedure, low risk (dead OilT gauge reading, noticeable by turning on the master switch)

probe replacement: simple procedure, medium risk (somehow installed badly or cross-threaded or god knows what) (oil leak, not testable without starting motor, unnoticed long enough = skoosh)

OP: just fix it. Apply the "outcome never in doubt" test and if you're not 100% certain you can fix the wire and have it read as expected, then, well, don't and consult professional help. :) Read up on how to properly log the fix in your mx logs if you're so inclined.
 
I’m an A&P/pilot. What ever happened to ‘simple disassembly and reassembly’? I know an I/A who signed off behind an automotive mechanic/owner/pilot who overhauled his own engine.

Crimping on a new connector ain’t rocket science.
 
rockyfatcat said:
Crimping on a new connector ain’t rocket science.
Click to expand...
It isn't, unless you don't know what you are doing. Crimping is a great example of something that seems easy, but is also easy to do wrong. A big part of doing your own PM is a realistic understanding of what you can and should do vs what you can't or shouldn't do.
I'd fix that connector without hesitation even though it's not on the explicit list of PM items (but comfortable that it meets the Coleal standard). Servicing struts is on the explicit list, but I'm not doing it as I don't have jacks and I'm not comfortable with my skills to do the work.
BTW @rockyfatcat , I'm not arguing with you, just pointing out that what's simple for some is not for others.
 
rockyfatcat said:
Crimping on a new connector ain’t rocket science.
Click to expand...
I dont think its ever been an issue of performing the task as there are a lot of owners who have the skills to OH engines, etc. Its more about who can sign the approval for RTS and remain within the confines of our ICAO and other agreements.

schmookeeg said:
Like, "how bad is it if you F this up?" and route the preventative mx stuff around that idea.
Click to expand...
I would hope the person performing the prevent mx already knows this before they attempt the task. And I would apply the same to a mechanic as well.
 
Bell206 said:
The same prevent mx guidance has been around for decades, but the numbers of owners performing that mx has dropped considerably in my experience. One of the reasons I dropped my owner-assist service before I retired was didn't have enough owners who wanted to participate.
Click to expand...
Far fewer people nowadays can or are willing to fix a leaky faucet or change the oil in their cars, too. There's a lot more owner maintenance (of cars, planes, houses, whatever) at the lower budget end, and always had been. A Cirrus owner is unlikely to get his hands dirty, but the owner of a Cub (or the OP's 140) will. Similarly, you don't see many people fixing their own planes at busy class D airports, but there's a lot of it (and a lot of hangar fairies) at smaller uncontrolled fields, and especially grass strips.
 
Llewtrah381 said:
Yeah - replacing a bald but working tire is the same as replacing a flat one but one is still technically a preventative action and the other is, debatably, more in the repair category.
Click to expand...
Replacing a bald tire may "prevent" a flat. Replacing a flat tire may "prevent" something far worse. Is changing dirty oil preventative maintenance even though the oil is already dirty?
 
Very first item on the PM list in 43 Appendix A:

"Removal, installation, and repair of landing gear tires."

Pretty clear the FAA does not exclude repairs from PM.
 
Last edited:
Can someone explain Item 30 to me? What is the "certificate of competency" mentioned in this context?
 
Hang 4 said:
It isn't, unless you don't know what you are doing. Crimping is a great example of something that seems easy, but is also easy to do wrong.
Click to expand...

Understanding consequences are a part of the decision process, and a reason why the FAA limits owner/operator PM to pilots.

To use this example, if this repair were done incorrectly, there are two reasonably possible results. First, the electrical connection might be faulty. Second, the mechanical connection might be inadequate, such that it vibrates loose, pulls loose, or corrodes over time.

Either way, the pilot would catch the lack of OT indication during normal runup and takeoff checklists, or worst case in flight. The likely consequence would be a cancelled departure or early landing, not a safety issue.
 
IMO the existence of part 43 Appendix A should be a question on the PPL written.

I had been a pilot for 30 years and an owner for 2 years when I learned about it. For another 2 years, I believed the list was exhaustive.

I would wager many owner/operator pilots are unaware of it, and of those who are, many think it is exhaustive.

The FAA also needs to resolve the discrepancy between the Coleal LOI, Part 43 Appendix A, and AC 43-12A.
 
Ed Haywood said:
IMO the existence of part 43 Appendix A should be a question on the PPL written.
Click to expand...
Problem with that is many people consider learning the material for a written to be bad form.

On the other hand, it is in the ACS.
PA.I.B.K2 Pilot-performed preventive maintenance.
 
That's going to take an A&P under an hour to get right. Just get it right.
 
Ed Haywood said:
To use this example, if this repair were done incorrectly, there are two reasonably possible results. First, the electrical connection might be faulty. Second, the mechanical connection might be inadequate, such that it vibrates loose, pulls loose, or corrodes over time.

Either way, the pilot would catch the lack of OT indication during normal runup and takeoff checklists, or worst case in flight. The likely consequence would be a cancelled departure or early landing, not a safety issue.
Click to expand...
That assumes that the pilot/owner knows its the temp sensor. There are other connections like that where if they come loose, it's a genuine safety of flight issue. This is why the appeal for clarity in the regs is problematic. What might be a nothing burger in one case, could be a potential cluster F in another. To quote the OP, "I believe this is the temp sensor".
I'd wager most pilots that post about maintenance issues on this board are smarter than the average bear, across all who read these posts, maybe some not so great.
I'm philosophically aligned with the concept that there are more things owner/pilots can do than outlined in the example list, but I do worry about folks not knowing their personal limitations.
 
Dana said:
Similarly, you don't see many people fixing their own planes at busy class D airports, but there's a lot of it (and a lot of hangar fairies) at smaller uncontrolled fields, and especially grass strips.
Click to expand...
True, but the owner mx percentages are still down even from 20 years ago for various reasons. As to hangar fairies, and having been caught up in their BS, I have no use for them. If you don't want to follow the rules, then switch to E/AB or LSA. Simple. Thankfully, the majority of owners still prefer to stick to the rules.

Ed Haywood said:
Can someone explain Item 30 to me? What is the "certificate of competency" mentioned in this context?
Click to expand...
Item 30 applies only to Primary Category aircraft which allowed some TC'd aircraft to be converted to Primary Cat. Part of that conversion allowed the expansion of preventive mx tasks beyond the list in 43 Appdx A(c). In order for a primary cat owner to be able to perform those added prevent mx tasks, they were required to attend an approved training program which issued those certificates of competency.
 
AV8R_87 said:
In the grand scheme of things, my exhaust muffler is a small standard part. There's nothing complex (in my opinion) about replacing it. Can I do it under preventive maintenance?
Click to expand...
The "grand scheme of things" is no defence against enforcement.

The FARs website is down, so I looked up the Canadian CARs definition of Small Standard Parts. It will be about the same as the FAA's definition:

standard part, in respect of an aircraft, means a part manufactured in conformity with a specification that

  • (a) is established, published and maintained by an organization setting consensus standards or by a government agency, and
  • (b) includes design, manufacturing, test and acceptance criteria and identification requirements; (pièce standard)
Your muffler will have no SAE, AN, NAS or MS standard applied to it. The metal itself might have a standard, but the assembly won't. It will have OEM certification, that's all.

Small standard parts are the "aircraft" hardware found on most any light airplane.
 
Like the [lack of a] definition of "congested area", I suspect the FAA is vague about the preventive maintenance definition, so they can interpret it on a case by case basis.
 
Dana said:
Like the [lack of a] definition of "congested area", I suspect the FAA is vague about the preventive maintenance definition, so they can interpret it on a case by case basis.
Click to expand...

They tried to get very specific with Appendix A, but their own lawyers observed this was ridiculous.
 
Bell206 said:
Item 30 applies only to Primary Category aircraft which allowed some TC'd aircraft to be converted to Primary Cat. Part of that conversion allowed the expansion of preventive mx tasks beyond the list in 43 Appdx A(c). In order for a primary cat owner to be able to perform those added prevent mx tasks, they were required to attend an approved training program which issued those certificates of competency.
Click to expand...

I was today years old when I learned that Primary Category exists and has since 1992, the year that I became a pilot. It sounds a lot like what many of us have wished for, but I cannot find any aircraft certified under that category. Wonder why it never took off? Also sounds a lot like the final result of MOSAIC.
 
Ed Haywood said:
It sounds a lot like what many of us have wished for, but I cannot find any aircraft certified under that category. Wonder why it never took off? Also sounds a lot like the final result of MOSAIC.
Click to expand...
The first two links are for the only primary category TCs I can find on the DRS and the 3rd link is the only Primary Cat STC that I'm aware of. However, there were other examples of both groups at one time but not many. It mainly failed due to its timing during a push to revitalize recreational GA and the lack of support from its targeted market: private owners. Once Cessna restarted production again a couple years later and other offerings appeared on the market, the primary category never gained a foot hold. And you're correct it sounds a lot like the LSA and MOSAIC since both initial efforts referenced the primary category as foundational in those efforts.

TCDS Number : A00034LA
TCDS Number : TA1CH

STC Number : SA09643SC
 
Bell206 said:
The first two links are for the only primary category TCs I can find on the DRS and the 3rd link is the only Primary Cat STC that I'm aware of. However, there were other examples of both groups at one time but not many. It mainly failed due to its timing during a push to revitalize recreational GA and the lack of support from its targeted market: private owners. Once Cessna restarted production again a couple years later and other offerings appeared on the market, the primary category never gained a foot hold. And you're correct it sounds a lot like the LSA and MOSAIC since both initial efforts referenced the primary category as foundational in those efforts.

TCDS Number : A00034LA
TCDS Number : TA1CH

STC Number : SA09643SC
Click to expand...

Interesting that the Icon A5 is one of those, and the certification action is relatively recent. From this press release, sounds like LSA gave them what they needed in the US, but the primary certification opened doors to international operation.

www.iconaircraft.com

ICON Aircraft Receives Type Certification for the ICON A5 In Primary Category | ICON Aircraft

Vacaville, Calif., December 26, 2023 – ICON Aircraft announced today that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has granted Type Certification for the
www.iconaircraft.com www.iconaircraft.com
 
Ed Haywood said:
I was today years old when I learned that Primary Category exists and has since 1992, the year that I became a pilot. It sounds a lot like what many of us have wished for, but I cannot find any aircraft certified under that category. Wonder why it never took off? Also sounds a lot like the final result of MOSAIC.
Click to expand...
The big appeal of primary category was owner maintenance, but only if the owner took a class specific to the make/model... and nobody stepped up to offer such classes. It's possible to convert a standard certification to primary, but without the class there's no point.
 
Dana said:
The big appeal of primary category was owner maintenance, but only if the owner took a class specific to the make/model... and nobody stepped up to offer such classes. It's possible to convert a standard certification to primary, but without the class there's no point.
Click to expand...

Too bad. Imagine the enthusiasm if someone offered a 2 week inspection/maintenance course on the Cessna 172 or Piper 28 family, and you had the option of TC'ing those in primary.
 
Dana said:
and nobody stepped up to offer such classes.
Click to expand...
Can't speak to the others, but the TOPCAT 150s linked above did offer a class as part of their STC, which has the mx tasks are detailed on page 3 of the STC. They just couldn't get enough 150 owners to buy into it.
 
Bell206 said:
Can't speak to the others, but the TOPCAT 150s linked above did offer a class as part of their STC, which has the mx tasks are detailed on page 3 of the STC. They just couldn't get enough 150 owners to buy into it.
Click to expand...

Well dang. Seems like a great idea, and I love the name. Maybe the price was out of line.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Well dang. Seems like a great idea, and I love the name. Maybe the price was out of line.
Click to expand...
Don't recall. But I believe it had more to do with the cost to reverse the STC if one wanted, plus a majority owners dont really care to perform the mx, which was evident in the long standing numbers of owners who dont perform prevent mx. While I believe location does influence those numbers, I've noted a decline in places that had a good owner mx group at one time. I still think the changes from MOSAIC will be an indicator in what direction recreational aviation goes, especially from the mx side.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Also says a little about how obtuse the guidance is, and how uninterested the FAA is in clarifying that in ways that encourage more owner involvement.
Click to expand...

Yes, the FAA could make things clearer, but as a general rule of thumb, if the maintenance action will require a TIG welder, a bucking bar, or an engine hoist, in most cases it’s not considered PM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top