There is a God

The FAA has NEVER made something more simple. If there is a new reg it will be indecipherable and ruin your day.
 
bartmc said:
I'm not in tune with the experimental regs, but I believe you have to build it yourself before you can turn wrenches on it. Still can get out of the STC/TSO x 10 multiplier for parts and avionics mess but I don't think you can do your own maintenance unless you are the builder. I figure if you can get an Experimental together and the time flown off of it, your qualified to work on that plane.
Click to expand...

The builder is allowed to sign off the annual (condition inspection, technically).

ANY PERSON can work on an experimental, as opposed to an owner with a PPL for part91 preventative maintenance.
I can buy an experimental, pull the engine, take it to the car shop down the street, have them rebuild the engine, reinstall it, sign the logs, and go.

The annual condition inspection must be done by an A&P, or by the original builder (with the FAA repairmans cert for that specific aircraft).
 
bbchien said:
Jay, you can change the oil and filter see part 43 Appendix A.

As for the battery you can change it too- though it needs an approved Return to Service.....sigh.
Click to expand...

Not sure why you mentioned oil/filter, but that's good -- especially since I've been changing the oil/filter on my planes for over 13 years.

Re: The battery. Dunno why I brain farted on that, but I'm glad to re-remember that I can legally change one out -- since I just did... :D
 
steingar said:
I guarantee the engine on my bike is way more complicated than the engine on my aircraft, the bike engine was designed in 2001, not 1951. I do not need two years of anyone's stinking academy to take apart something that predates my first car.
Click to expand...

If that is true, tell me how you'd instal a mag on a P&W 985.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Not sure why you mentioned oil/filter, but that's good -- especially since I've been changing the oil/filter on my planes for over 13 years.

Re: The battery. Dunno why I brain farted on that, but I'm glad to re-remember that I can legally change one out -- since I just did... :D
Click to expand...


Really? can you comply with the battery manufacturer's ICAs ?
 
bartmc said:
I'm not in tune with the experimental regs, but I believe you have to build it yourself before you can turn wrenches on it. Still can get out of the STC/TSO x 10 multiplier for parts and avionics mess but I don't think you can do your own maintenance unless you are the builder.
Click to expand...

ANYONE can do ANY maintenance on an exp amateur built. Anyone including the clueless drunk under the bridge or a fifth grader with a plastic hammer.

What's required is an a&p or the holder of that planes repairman cert to endorse/perform the annual condition inspection (analogous to a certified plane's annual inspection by an IA)
 
Jay Honeck said:
Their International for Critical Animal Studies?

http://www.criticalanimalstudies.org/

Yep, I think I've got that covered. :rolleyes:

(I got 4.6 million hits when I Googled "ICA".)

WTF is "the battery manufacturer's ICAs"?
Click to expand...

Instructions for Continued* Airworthiness

*I'm not quite sure the "C" beng continued, continuous, or something else, but you get the idea.
 
It's interesting to see lighting hailed as an area suitable for relaxed regulatory oversight. I used to handle the aircraft lighting systems at one airline.

I consider those systems the spontaneous combustion systems. There are far more smoke and fire problems with aircraft lighting systems than there ought to be.

When you manufacture an aircraft product, you need the finished product to be VERY uniform in order to predict their behavior. That kind of manufacturing quality control costs a lot.

You also need to keep manufacuring records for a very long time. That way if a product develops a problem, you can identify the defective component, determine what S/N units have the problem and issue service bulletins and AD.

Also, owing to rapid obsolescence of of electronics parts, the manufacturer may have to actually have to purchase and store a lifetime supply of replacement components.

I know of one case where the estimated lifetime supply of replacement LCD glass (estimated at maybe 20 years) was a 2 day run for the glass manufacturer. After that run, the manufacturer will never produce that part again, they move on with technology.


Aviation electronics constitutes less than 1% of the electronics market. Nothing you bought 5 years ago is likely to be manufactured again new.

That's where many costs come from.
 
Last edited:
Bob Noel said:
Instructions for Continued* Airworthiness

*I'm not quite sure the "C" beng continued, continuous, or something else, but you get the idea.
Click to expand...

Mmmmmm. Let's see. When replacing a battery you:

1. Open top of battery box. (Two wing nuts)
2. Remove old battery. (Two 1/2" nuts)
3. Check to see if there's any corrosion in battery holder.
4. Place new battery in box. (Two 1/2" nuts)
5. Replace battery cover. (Two wing nuts)

This is the third battery I've installed in an aircraft. As usual, the hardest part of the whole operation was re-setting the damned Davtron digital clock in the panel.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Mmmmmm. Let's see. When replacing a battery you:

1. Open top of battery box. (Two wing nuts)
2. Remove old battery. (Two 1/2" nuts)
3. Check to see if there's any corrosion in battery holder.
4. Place new battery in box. (Two 1/2" nuts)
5. Replace battery cover. (Two wing nuts)

This is the third battery I've installed in an aircraft. As usual, the hardest part of the whole operation was re-setting the damned Davtron digital clock in the panel.
Click to expand...

When you opened the box the new battery came in, did you read the paperwork?
 
Jay, next time use a pair of 22g jumper cables to keep a little bit o'voltage on the system....

But mine has an IA signoff. we have a great relationship.
 
I've never had anyone present an argument (other than emotional) as to why an aircraft owner isn't allowed to maintain and modify a light airplane like my Cardinal, exactly as they might with their ground vehicles.

- Crash into someone's roof? Sure its possible. Should we impose maintenance and modification rules on vehicle owners to prevent cars from running into someone's house?

- Small planes share public airspace with other planes, some full of people. Well duh. Cars share public roads with other cars, and sometimes even buses filled with people.

- Airplanes are so much more complicated than cars. No, they aren't.

- You can't just throw any electronic gadget in it and expect it to continue to fly. Sure you can. And if you're really stupid and install a 300 pound radio behind the aft bulkhead, you'll probably die about as quick as the automobile driver that radically modifies his suspension and geometry and first time out, tries to hit 120 mph on the on ramp. If you try to regulate stupid, you'll stifle those that aren't, and stupid will still manage to get through.
 
Heres the ICAs for Concord
http://www.concordebattery.com/otherpdf/IFCA2.pdf

They are pretty easy to replace.

Gill maintenance manual (ICAs)

http://www.gillbatteries.com/pdfs/Flooded_Service_Manual.pdf

How do you believe these manuals relate to FAR 4313

43.13 Performance rules (general).

(a) Each person performing maintenance, alteration, or preventive maintenance on an aircraft, engine, propeller, or appliance shall use the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the current manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness prepared by its manufacturer, or other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator, except as noted in §43.16. He shall use the tools, equipment, and test apparatus necessary to assure completion of the work in accordance with accepted industry practices. If special equipment or test apparatus is recommended by the manufacturer involved, he must use that equipment or apparatus or its equivalent acceptable to the Administrator.

 
Bob Noel said:
When you opened the box the new battery came in, did you read the paperwork?
Click to expand...

Yes, and it was pathetic. In the box there was not one, but TWO booklets, each maybe 30 pages long, outlining every, single thing Concorde was required by the dumb-asses in our government to do to "certify" their battery for flight.

This for a BATTERY.

Allow me to quote just one dumb-ass paragraph for you:

*****************************************************
"Servicing"

D. Repairs: The cells and other internal components of most RG Series are not repairable. The battery assembly must be replaced when internal components fail or wear out. If external repairs are needed to the battery assembly (i.e.: missing labels, dents, scratches, etc.) send it to an authorized repair facility or contact Concorde for assistance.
*****************************************************

WTF? I REALLY wanted to pry open my old battery and buff the lead plates with the wire wheel in my grinder, just to see if I could bring it back to life. Thank GOD for this booklet -- it may have saved my life! :rolleyes:

I now know why this stupid battery cost over $210. What a crock of sh*t.
 
I like that you can't replace labels. What a load of weenie lawyer induced crap.
 
Tom-D said:
That lawyer works for the FAA
Click to expand...

Yep. But that begets more...

We knew that already...

There's a lot more than one lawyer involved in that level of stupidity.

A few lawyers at FAA to decide battery stickers can't be changed, at least ten bureaucrats to handle the paperwork just for the battery folks to talk to, the battery company has to have their own paperwork folks, and a lawyer or two...

All well-meaning, but useless people. ;)
 
Jay Honeck said:
Mmmmmm. Let's see. When replacing a battery you:

1. Open top of battery box. (Two wing nuts)
2. Remove old battery. (Two 1/2" nuts)
3. Check to see if there's any corrosion in battery holder.
4. Place new battery in box. (Two 1/2" nuts)
5. Replace battery cover. (Two wing nuts)

This is the third battery I've installed in an aircraft. As usual, the hardest part of the whole operation was re-setting the damned Davtron digital clock in the panel.
Click to expand...


Here's the deal with A&P school.

Yes you are taught good shop practices and how systems work etc, etc, etc.


You also spend many hours going over FARs your privilages, limitations and the like. An A&P isn't just a guy who can turn a wrench, he's a guy who knows what you CAN'T spin a wrench on.

My biggest gripe is the parts monopolys, $15 from NAPA or $350 from Diamond, same VDO pressure transducer:mad2:
 
Skylane81E said:
Here's the deal with A&P school.

Yes you are taught good shop practices and how systems work etc, etc, etc.


You also spend many hours going over FARs your privilages, limitations and the like. An A&P isn't just a guy who can turn a wrench, he's a guy who knows what you CAN'T spin a wrench on.

My biggest gripe is the parts monopolys, $15 from NAPA or $350 from Diamond, same VDO pressure transducer:mad2:
Click to expand...

It's not knowing how to change the part, it is knowing which parts to change, and keep your owner legal, with all the log entries, and other paper work.

How many owners really know what requires a field approval or how to get one?
 
Last edited:
kontiki said:
It's interesting to see lighting hailed as an area suitable for relaxed regulatory oversight. I used to handle the aircraft lighting systems at one airline.

I consider those systems the spontaneous combustion systems. There are far more smoke and fire problems with aircraft lighting systems than there ought to be.

When you manufacture an aircraft product, you need the finished product to be VERY uniform in order to predict their behavior. That kind of manufacturing quality control costs a lot.

You also need to keep manufacuring records for a very long time. That way if a product develops a problem, you can identify the defective component, determine what S/N units have the problem and issue service bulletins and AD.

Also, owing to rapid obsolescence of of electronics parts, the manufacturer may have to actually have to purchase and store a lifetime supply of replacement components.

I know of one case where the estimated lifetime supply of replacement LCD glass (estimated at maybe 20 years) was a 2 day run for the glass manufacturer. After that run, the manufacturer will never produce that part again, they move on with technology.


Aviation electronics constitutes less than 1% of the electronics market. Nothing you bought 5 years ago is likely to be manufactured again new.

That's where many costs come from.
Click to expand...


BT,

There is a whole software niche industry that started about 15 years ago, that makes it relatively inexpensive to develop software systems to maintain detailed data on serialized items. Tracking whatever details you desire such as testing data, raw material batches, on and on and on..... In today's manufacturing world such concerns as those you describe are much more easily dealt with.

Doc
 
kontiki said:
Aviation electronics constitutes less than 1% of the electronics market. Nothing you bought 5 years ago is likely to be manufactured again new. That's where many costs come from.
Click to expand...
And that is why I wonder how Garmin will continue to support all those G1000s that are on the TCDSs of so many aircraft, after some IC widget is no longer manufactured.....:yikes:
 
bbchien said:
And that is why I wonder how Garmin will continue to support all those G1000s that are on the TCDSs of so many aircraft, after some IC widget is no longer manufactured.....:yikes:
Click to expand...
In the non-aviation industry there are several methods of keeping an old product alive. One of the most common is what's called a "last time buy". That's where the system manufacturer stockpiles what they believe to be a sufficient quantity of about to become obsolete parts to meet future support requirements. Another is to pick parts for the original design which have a defined "pin compatible" upgrade path from the part manufacturer. The last resort is to alter the existing circuitry to allow substitution of newer parts for the obsolete ones. Of course that would likely require some recertification efforts with the FAA, adding to the expense.

What's surprising to me is that it doesn't look like any of the current glass panel vendors (Garmin, Aspen, EI, Ultra FEI, JPI, etc) provide anything in the way of a guaranteed support lifetime. Given the cost of upgrading to glass, I suspect that most owners would be rather miffed if their entire flight or engine instrument package became unsupported in 10 or even 20 years.
 
bartmc said:
...head to wal-mart, look around, do you want those people owning a $7,000 early 60's Cherokee that they have been wrenching on and "getting airworthy" for the past 6 months with no training or supervisions?
Click to expand...

Vs. letting them work on their own land vehicles that they then drive where your kids play?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top