Shimmy damper quick question

cbmontgo

cbmontgo

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
107
Location
Colorado
Display Name
Display name:
cbmontgo
Hey guys,

Will the regs allow the aircraft owner to install a nosewheel shimmy damper on a 172P or does this fall into the A&P category?

Thanks--
 
Which of the following pilot-performable "preventive maintenance" actions do you think it would fall under? If the answer is "none," then the answer to your question is "it falls into the A&P category."
(1) Removal, installation, and repair of landing gear tires.
(2) Replacing elastic shock absorber cords on landing gear.
(3) Servicing landing gear shock struts by adding oil, air, or both.
(4) Servicing landing gear wheel bearings, such as cleaning and greasing.
(5) Replacing defective safety wiring or cotter keys.
(6) Lubrication not requiring disassembly other than removal of nonstructural items such as cover plates, cowlings, and fairings.
(7) Making simple fabric patches not requiring rib stitching or the removal of structural parts or control surfaces. In the case of balloons, the making of small fabric repairs to envelopes (as defined in, and in accordance with, the balloon manufacturers' instructions) not requiring load tape repair or replacement.
(8) Replenishing hydraulic fluid in the hydraulic reservoir.
(9) Refinishing decorative coating of fuselage, balloon baskets, wings tail group surfaces (excluding balanced control surfaces), fairings, cowlings, landing gear, cabin, or cockpit interior when removal or disassembly of any primary structure or operating system is not required.
(10) Applying preservative or protective material to components where no disassembly of any primary structure or operating system is involved and where such coating is not prohibited or is not contrary to good practices.
(11) Repairing upholstery and decorative furnishings of the cabin, cockpit, or balloon basket interior when the repairing does not require disassembly of any primary structure or operating system or interfere with an operating system or affect the primary structure of the aircraft.
(12) Making small simple repairs to fairings, nonstructural cover plates, cowlings, and small patches and reinforcements not changing the contour so as to interfere with proper air flow.
(13) Replacing side windows where that work does not interfere with the structure or any operating system such as controls, electrical equipment, etc.
(14) Replacing safety belts.
(15) Replacing seats or seat parts with replacement parts approved for the aircraft, not involving disassembly of any primary structure or operating system.
(16) Trouble shooting and repairing broken circuits in landing light wiring circuits.
(17) Replacing bulbs, reflectors, and lenses of position and landing lights.
(18) Replacing wheels and skis where no weight and balance computation is involved.
(19) Replacing any cowling not requiring removal of the propeller or disconnection of flight controls.
(20) Replacing or cleaning spark plugs and setting of spark plug gap clearance.
(21) Replacing any hose connection except hydraulic connections.
(22) Replacing prefabricated fuel lines.
(23) Cleaning or replacing fuel and oil strainers or filter elements.
(24) Replacing and servicing batteries.
(25) Cleaning of balloon burner pilot and main nozzles in accordance with the balloon manufacturer's instructions.
(26) Replacement or adjustment of nonstructural standard fasteners incidental to operations.
(27) The interchange of balloon baskets and burners on envelopes when the basket or burner is designated as interchangeable in the balloon type certificate data and the baskets and burners are specifically designed for quick removal and installation.
(28) The installations of anti-misfueling devices to reduce the diameter of fuel tank filler openings provided the specific device has been made a part of the aircraft type certificate data by the aircraft manufacturer, the aircraft manufacturer has provided FAA-approved instructions for installation of the specific device, and installation does not involve the disassembly of the existing tank filler opening.
(29) Removing, checking, and replacing magnetic chip detectors.
(30) The inspection and maintenance tasks prescribed and specifically identified as preventive maintenance in a primary category aircraft type certificate or supplemental type certificate holder's approved special inspection and preventive maintenance program when accomplished on a primary category aircraft provided:
(i) They are performed by the holder of at least a private pilot certificate issued under part 61 who is the registered owner (including co-owners) of the affected aircraft and who holds a certificate of competency for the affected aircraft (1) issued by a school approved under Sec. 147.21(e) of this chapter; (2) issued by the holder of the production certificate for that primary category aircraft that has a special training program approved under Sec. 21.24 of this subchapter; or (3) issued by another entity that has a course approved by the Administrator; and
(ii) The inspections and maintenance tasks are performed in accordance with instructions contained by the special inspection and preventive maintenance program approved as part of the aircraft's type design or supplemental type design.
(31) Removing and replacing self-contained, front instrument panel-mounted navigation and communication devices that employ tray-mounted connectors that connect the unit when the unit is installed into the instrument panel, (excluding automatic flight control systems, transponders, and microwave frequency distance measuring equipment (DME)). The approved unit must be
designed to be readily and repeatedly removed and replaced, and pertinent instructions must be provided. Prior to the unit's intended use, and operational check must be performed in accordance with the applicable sections of part 91 of this chapter.
(32) Updating self-contained, front instrument panel-mounted Air Traffic Control (ATC) navigational software data bases (excluding those of automatic flight control systems, transponders, and microwave frequency distance measuring equipment (DME)) provided no disassembly of the unit is required and pertinent instructions are provided. Prior to the unit's intended use, an operational check must be performed in accordance with applicable sections of part 91 of this chapter.
Click to expand...
 
# 3 you must pull the dampener to service it.
 
Tom-D said:
# 3 you must pull the dampener to service it.
Click to expand...
So you're saying a shimmy damper is a "landing gear shock strut"? Well, I suppose you can try to make that case, but I wouldn't mind seeing something in writing from the FAA on that point.
 
Ron Levy said:
So you're saying a shimmy damper is a "landing gear shock strut"? Well, I suppose you can try to make that case, but I wouldn't mind seeing something in writing from the FAA on that point.
Click to expand...

You won't see anything in writing from the FAA on this. The FAA leaves it up to the person performing the maintenance to determine whether it falls under preventive maintenance or not.

As an A&P I can see this as a gray area and would agree with Tom as a shimmy damper's purpose is to dampen shock on the nose wheel.

YMMV.
 
Ron Levy said:
So you're saying a shimmy damper is a "landing gear shock strut"? Well, I suppose you can try to make that case, but I wouldn't mind seeing something in writing from the FAA on that point.
Click to expand...
I think he's saying that the shimmy dampener has to be removed to service landing gear shock struts by adding oil, air, or both.
 
Well, it sounds like this one is really up to interpretation. Thank you all for the input.
 
cbmontgo said:
Well, it sounds like this one is really up to interpretation. Thank you all for the input.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that Ron sees EVERYTHING as either Black or White. In his world there is no room for shades of gray.
 
cbmontgo said:
Well, it sounds like this one is really up to interpretation. Thank you all for the input.
Click to expand...

If it isn't logged, did it really happen?

Remember the FAA knows you are guilty, why write some thing that proves it.
 
Ron Levy said:
So you're saying a shimmy damper is a "landing gear shock strut"? Well, I suppose you can try to make that case, but I wouldn't mind seeing something in writing from the FAA on that point.
Click to expand...

Does the owner have the authority in the FARs to service?
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Keep in mind that Ron sees EVERYTHING as either Black or White. In his world there is no room for shades of gray.
Click to expand...
Well, if the question is whether it's legal or not, there really isn't any middle ground -- either it is or it isn't. I personally don't know the answer, but while R&W may say it's a gray area, remember that he's not an Airworthiness Inspector, and if you do ask an Airworthiness Inspector, you will get a yes/no answer.
 
Ron Levy said:
Well, if the question is whether it's legal or not, there really isn't any middle ground -- either it is or it isn't. I personally don't know the answer, but while R&W may say it's a gray area, remember that he's not an Airworthiness Inspector, and if you do ask an Airworthiness Inspector, you will get a yes/no answer.
Click to expand...

Unlike Ron, I do hold an A&P with Inspection Authorization. And again, unlike Ron, I have had training as both an A&P and also Inspection Authorization.

Ron Levy said:
and if you do ask an Airworthiness Inspector, you will get a yes/no answer.
Click to expand...

That's simply your opinion with no basis in fact.

However, if we read AC43.12A "Preventive Maintenance" it states:

b. Preventive Maintenance. Section 1.1, defines preventive maintenance as “simple or minor preservation operations and the replacement of small standard parts not involving complex assembly operations.”
(1) Part 43, appendix A, paragraph (c) contains the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) list of tasks that meet the requirements of the preventive maintenance definition. If a task or maintenance function does not appear in the list, it is not preventive maintenance. Also, because of differences in aircraft, a function may be preventive maintenance on one aircraft and not on another. To provide for this, paragraph (c) contains the limitation, “provided it does not involve complex assembly operations” on the aircraft involved. Owners and pilots must use good judgment when determining if a specific function should be classified as preventive maintenance.
 
Last edited:
Despite R&W's obfuscation and evasion, I say again -- if you ask an Airworthiness Inspector (which R&W is not, even if he has an A&P/IA), you will get an answer, one way or the other. Or you could just do the work, sign it, and then ask the local FSDO for a courtesy inspection of your aircraft logbook.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Despite R&W's obfuscation and evasion, I say again -- if you ask an Airworthiness Inspector (which R&W is not, even if he has an A&P/IA), you will get an answer, one way or the other. Or you could just do the work, sign it, and then ask the local FSDO for a courtesy inspection of your aircraft logbook.
Click to expand...

Ron I've been asking ASIs direct questions for a long time and have yet to get a straight answer..

Ask your self a simple question "are you allowed to service your aircraft"?
 
Ron Levy said:
Despite R&W's obfuscation and evasion, I say again -- if you ask an Airworthiness Inspector (which R&W is not, even if he has an A&P/IA), you will get an answer, one way or the other. Or you could just do the work, sign it, and then ask the local FSDO for a courtesy inspection of your aircraft logbook.
Click to expand...

Speaking of obfuscation, Ron has made it into a writing style.:rolleyes2:

The OP asked a question referencing if something could be done under Preventive Maintenance section of Part 43. I answered using prior working knowledge of the subject area as well as quoting directly from an FAA Advisory Circular (AC43.12A) Also, because of differences in aircraft, a function may be preventive maintenance on one aircraft and not on another. To provide for this, paragraph (c) contains the limitation, “provided it does not involve complex assembly operations” on the aircraft involved. Owners and pilots must use good judgment when determining if a specific function should be classified as preventive maintenance.

But since this disagrees with Ron's opinion of what it should be, then of course it's wrong. :rolleyes2:

Ron continually believes the FAA is structured like the Air Force, which it is clearly not. In the Air Force if it's not specifically written, then it can't be done. However the FAA uses a different methodology in which Ron refuses to believe actually exist, and Ron will try to have you also believe he knows what every ASI (regardless of discipline) is thinking. :dunno:
 
Ron Levy said:
Well, if the question is whether it's legal or not, there really isn't any middle ground -- either it is or it isn't.
Click to expand...

On paper, sure. In reality, not so much.
 
cbmontgo said:
Hey guys,

Will the regs allow the aircraft owner to install a nosewheel shimmy damper on a 172P or does this fall into the A&P category?

Thanks--
Click to expand...
The regs allow the aircraft owner (or the kid who cuts the aircraft owner's grass) do do anything from changing the oil to doing a major overhaul on the engine.

Some things, however, have to be supervised and signed off by an A&P.

In this particular case, I would ask the A&P.
 
denverpilot said:
I'll alert all Attorneys that there's no point in having trials anymore, then. ;)
Click to expand...
In criminal and civil law, the courts decide what is legal. In aviation administrative law, the FAA decides. If you want a reliable answer, you ask the FAA, not your local mechanic. If it's an airworthiness question, you ask an Airworthiness Inspector at your FSDO, not an Ops Inspector, even if that Ops Inspector holds an A&P/IA.
 
Ron Levy said:
If it's an airworthiness question, you ask an Airworthiness Inspector at your FSDO, not an Ops Inspector, even if that Ops Inspector holds an A&P/IA.
Click to expand...

So the occasions that the FAA has asked me to provide technical assistance to Airworthiness investigations because of my A&P/IA background can lend some expertise, you are alleging I can't do that?

BTW, please show us in Guidance where an Ops Inspector is forbidden to answer any Airworthiness questions as well as what specifically differentiates an Ops issue from an Airworthiness issue.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy;700985/ said:
If you want a reliable answer, you ask the FAA
Click to expand...

Reliable ....only in fantasy land in many cases. I have heard many differing opinions within the same FSDO...not to mention many of those were a complete joke. There are just some things better not asked to the FAA.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
In criminal and civil law, the courts decide what is legal. In aviation administrative law, the FAA decides. If you want a reliable answer, you ask the FAA, not your local mechanic. If it's an airworthiness question, you ask an Airworthiness Inspector at your FSDO, not an Ops Inspector, even if that Ops Inspector holds an A&P/IA.
Click to expand...

When the FAA walks into your hangar you'll find there's one each. airworthiness and ops.

and they have phones, which can contact home base, and computers that have all the data bases that OKC has on file.

and they love to play stump the dummy, it seems to be their entertainment for the day.

There favorite questions are "Where did you try to finds the answer" if you should ask any questions.

Ya gotta remember who deals with the FAA most often in this area.

I contact my PMI with questions pretty regularly, most is to ask what verbiage he wants to see on block 8 of the 337.

I'd never ask what is legal.
 
taters said:
Reliable ....only in fantasy land in many cases. I have heard many differing opinions within the same FSDO...not to mention many of those were a complete joke. There are just some things better not asked to the FAA.
Click to expand...
Sad, but very very true. You either get differing opinions on the same issue, or you get the guy who won't go out on a limb and give you an interpretation or opinion.

In all fairness to the FAA, the problem is not limited to them. The Coast Guard is just as bad.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Sad, but very very true. You either get differing opinions on the same issue, or you get the guy who won't go out on a limb and give you an interpretation or opinion.

In all fairness to the FAA, the problem is not limited to them. The Coast Guard is just as bad.
Click to expand...

To me the question is:

Would you rather the FAA write the FARs stating every thing that can and can not be done.

Or would you rather they leave it open to interpretation?
 
taters said:
Reliable ....only in fantasy land in many cases. I have heard many differing opinions within the same FSDO...not to mention many of those were a complete joke. There are just some things better not asked to the FAA.
Click to expand...
Nobody said FAA Inspectors are perfect, but if I get two different answers to the same question from two different Inspectors, I elevate the issue to an office which can resolve it. And it always does seem to get resolved when that happens.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
So the occasions that the FAA has asked me to provide technical assistance to Airworthiness investigations because of my A&P/IA background can lend some expertise, you are alleging I can't do that?

BTW, please show us in Guidance where an Ops Inspector is forbidden to answer any Airworthiness questions as well as what specifically differentiates an Ops issue from an Airworthiness issue.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry I lack R&W's hairy chest on which to beat, but once again, he is guilty of the same behavior of which he regularly accuses me, and I will not further respond to his distortions of my statements.
 
Last edited:
gismo said:
Yes but the odds are that if you ask multiple Airworthiness Inspectors, especially ones from different FSDOs, you're likely to get different answers (albeit black and white ones) from some.
Click to expand...
I agree that's possible, especially if R&W's professed attitudes are more prevalent than I think, but it's not supposed to happen, and if that result is elevated, I think there will be some repercussions.
 
Ron Levy said:
Nobody said FAA Inspectors are perfect, but if I get two different answers to the same question from two different Inspectors, I elevate the issue to an office which can resolve it. And it always does seem to get resolved when that happens.
Click to expand...

So, you get an answer that differs from an other ASI, and you like neither, so you take it to OKC, and get an answer, and find out the ASIs are center line with FAA policy, Now you are stuck with it because you have been informed.

I'd much rather do the research, talk with my ASI, and find a way around with out the big cheese getting involved.

You'd be surprised how helpful the ASI can be when you work with them rather that dictate to them.

Any A&P-IA that gets on his ASI's scat list will find out how miserable life can be, and the fastest method of getting there is have the OKC office call their ASI.
 
Last edited:
gismo said:
Seem like asking an inspector from the FSDO what's legal would be a lot like asking a farmer what the price of wheat should be.
Click to expand...

I'd be willing to bet that farmer knows what the market is on wheat, and the ASIs know what policy is too.

I once asked if I was required to use Poly Fiber products from start to finish to comply with the Ceconite procedure manual, when I started with a Poly Fiber primer.

the answer I got was "How would an inspector know what you finished with?"
 
Tom-D said:
I'd be willing to bet that farmer knows what the market is on wheat, and the ASIs know what policy is too.

I once asked if I was required to use Poly Fiber products from start to finish to comply with the Ceconite procedure manual, when I started with a Poly Fiber primer.

the answer I got was "How would an inspector know what you finished with?"
Click to expand...

I'd guess that post-crash in a high-stakes litigation a lab analysis could answer the question. :D
 
I call my FSDO as an A&P/IA all the time, and every time its a different answer. I just use e-mail now and print off and file the answers from the ASI. That way if there is an issue, I have paperwork from the FAA to fall back on. Its not a get outa jail free card, but its one way to pass blame when another ASI's opinion is that you did something illegal.

I can break 5 far's just putting air in a tire I'm sure. The legal side of aviation is FAR from black and white. Its some serious shades of grey with the federal/state employees list of exuses:

1. deny
2. deny
3. deny
4. counter acuse
5. pass blame.
 
Tom-D said:
When the FAA walks into your hangar you'll find there's one each. airworthiness and ops.

and they have phones, which can contact home base, and computers that have all the data bases that OKC has on file.

and they love to play stump the dummy, it seems to be their entertainment for the day.

There favorite questions are "Where did you try to finds the answer" if you should ask any questions.

Ya gotta remember who deals with the FAA most often in this area.

I contact my PMI with questions pretty regularly, most is to ask what verbiage he wants to see on block 8 of the 337.

I'd never ask what is legal.
Click to expand...

Probably not a good idea to remind them "the FAA PMI" that they work for us and loose the attitude.
 
Gmaper said:
I'd guess that post-crash in a high-stakes litigation a lab analysis could answer the question. :D
Click to expand...

Bruce, I'm sorry I missed this way back when, but a Lab will simply see the paint used not the can's label.

A two part ura- is a two part ura, is a two part ura.. the lab will never know who's label was on the can.

the exception to this is the first coat of primer "Poly Tack", Ecofill, and Airtech primer are all different colors.
 
Tom-D said:
Bruce, I'm sorry I missed this way back when, but a Lab will simply see the paint used not the can's label.

A two part ura- is a two part ura, is a two part ura.. the lab will never know who's label was on the can.
Click to expand...

Actually, they will know almost as a first result -- each company has a different formula.

A far more important factor is that unless something draws their attention, they won't bother to look.
 
You can do anything you want . . . as long as it gets signed off by an A&P - who cares.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top