Unused circuit breakers

Why not remove them and plug the hole(s)?
 
DaleB said:
Why not remove them and plug the hole(s)?
Click to expand...

The plane (a light sport) came from the manufacturer with breakers installed and marked for uninstalled equipment. Technically, I'd need a letter of authorization and an inspection to remove them.
 
I have an unused toggle switch. It's functions are labeled as:

Switch Down - Magic
Switch Up - More Magic

I always leave it set to More Magic.
 
Label one 'Landing' and assign it to your passenger to hit as you're landing. If you screw up the landing you can blame them.... :D
 
I had a friend with an extra red light on the panel that was unmarked. It lit up if you did the push to test thing but otherwise it appeared not to be connected to anything.
I suggested "wing in transit" as a label.
 
I used to fly with a guy that had a spare breaker, he made a placard for it that said (in big red font) PANIC
 
Old Geek said:
The plane (a light sport) came from the manufacturer with breakers installed and marked for uninstalled equipment. Technically, I'd need a letter of authorization and an inspection to remove them.
Click to expand...

Is it just me? Or, do other people find stuff like this to be beyond stupid?

I can't imagine having to own a "certificated" airplane...
 
Is it just me? Or, do other people find stuff like this to be beyond stupid?

I can't imagine having to own a "certificated" airplane...
Click to expand...

I don't find it stupid at all. One can't alter or reconfigure the airplane without doing everything necessary, and that includes properly ammending the paperwork and doing the necessary logbook entries.

Want something really silly? We have two landing flap positions: Flaps 25, and flaps 30. The airplane is a "stage III" airplane, which is a noise issue. It's also a certification issue. At our maximum landing weight, we're restricted to flaps 25: it has nothing to do with structure, but everything to do with noise, and it's a certification issue. In times past, if one was going somewhere that didn't need stage III noise capability, one could simply change a placard above the flight engineer panel (pull it out of the holder and turn it around to show the other side), then make a quick entry on the current log page. Wallah; it was now a stage II airplane, and could use full flaps.

Full flaps make a big difference not only in landing distance, but in brake energy (the wheels get really hot on landing, which affects the turn-around time, stopping distance and ability, etc).

What does it take to use full flaps? Just move the flap lever about two more inches. That's it. It means the ability to use minimum autobrakes rather than medium in many cases, and it means a much lower chance of causing thermal deflation of tires, and so on. We don't have the ability to make that change any more, so if we're at max landing weight, even though it's safe, even though it causes no structural harm, even though it's convenient, and even though we may be operating into a location in the middle of nowhere that has no noise issues whatsoever, we are restricted from using Flaps 30 for landing. It almost becomes one of those tree-in-the-woods, things.

For me, it was the difference recently between being stuck for several days in a hostile area after seven tires melted, vs. waiting a few hours for brake cooling and departing again. I was stuck with seven tires down, only four spares, and needed to have more parts, tools, and equipment flown in so that I could leave.

I don't know about beyond stupid, but certainly frustrating.

If one wishes to remove unused circuit breakers, it's a simple paperwork exercise; not a big deal at all. Unless they're particularly offensive or the space is needed for something else, however, there's little point in removing them.
 
Yeah but I can mod my certificated plane with out needing to ask Cessna for permission
 
Permission from Cessna isn't the issue, but ensuring that your work and your paperwork is in order, is.
 
DouglasBader said:
Permission from Cessna isn't the issue, but ensuring that your work and your paperwork is in order, is.
Click to expand...

In regards to the OP it is an issue as the OP is in an LSA. The point I think he was making was a difference in the rules there. With a certificated FAA plane, your modification permission comes from the FAA, no manufacturer approval required. With an LSA only the manufacturer can authorize a modification.
 
slacktide said:
I have an unused toggle switch. It's functions are labeled as:

Switch Down - Magic
Switch Up - More Magic

I always leave it set to More Magic.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of a Hardinge CNC lathe. It had a 2 position switch marked "Precision" and "Super Precision". In "Precision" mode, it would take a cut in either direction. In "Super Precision" it would only take the cut in one direction. Or so I was told.
 
Henning said:
In regards to the OP it is an issue as the OP is in an LSA. The point I think he was making was a difference in the rules there. With a certificated FAA plane, your modification permission comes from the FAA, no manufacturer approval required. With an LSA only the manufacturer can authorize a modification.
Click to expand...

Correct
 
Henning said:
In regards to the OP it is an issue as the OP is in an LSA. The point I think he was making was a difference in the rules there. With a certificated FAA plane, your modification permission comes from the FAA, no manufacturer approval required. With an LSA only the manufacturer can authorize a modification.
Click to expand...


LSA is a FAA "certificated" airplane.
 
kgruber said:
LSA is a FAA "certificated" airplane.
Click to expand...

Certificated, certified, a semantical difference here. Regardless they (FAA) do nothing except accept the manufacturers word that it meets some standard I can't find without spending a few grand. The FAA makes no claims regarding the quality of an LSA aircraft, nor how you may service it. Everything you do to an S/LSA aircraft has to be done to manufacturers spec, no changes allowed without manufacturer permission (kinda wondering how that's gonna work on orphaned planes), there is no "or other methods acceptable to the Administrator" wording there. There is no process to STC, there is no process for a field authorization, there are no methods spelled out in an AC that one can use.
 
Henning said:
Certificated, certified, a semantical difference here. Regardless they (FAA) do nothing except accept the manufacturers word that it meets some standard I can't find without spending a few grand. The FAA makes no claims regarding the quality of an LSA aircraft, nor how you may service it. Everything you do to an S/LSA aircraft has to be done to manufacturers spec, no changes allowed without manufacturer permission (kinda wondering how that's gonna work on orphaned planes), there is no "or other methods acceptable to the Administrator" wording there. There is no process to STC, there is no process for a field authorization, there are no methods spelled out in an AC that one can use.
Click to expand...

You're a little bit out of your territory here...

S/LSA aircraft have to conform to at least eleven ASTM standards covering everything from the airplane itself to the structure of the maintenance manual. The FAA absolutely audits manufacturers for ASTM compliance. The process to STC an aircraft is a bit more time consuming than a 337, but still not that hard. You fill out a form supplied by the manufacturer, send it back, they approve it and send back a stamped copy, you get the work done and inspected. I've personally done this three times with my airplane, Twice for major avionics changes and once for a set of landing lights I designed myself.

As to orphaned planes, you can always take it to E/LSA and do whatever you want.
 
That's good to know that you can take them to E/LSA, can you do that even if they aren't orphaned?

I know there ARE standards, now can you tell me what they are? I can't look them up because they aren't published on public documents. The one that concerns me is the Sport Cruiser that has hollow core rivets on a stressed skin structure, that scares the crap out of me cost wise when they all get worked.

Old Geek said:
You're a little bit out of your territory here...

S/LSA aircraft have to conform to at least eleven ASTM standards covering everything from the airplane itself to the structure of the maintenance manual. The FAA absolutely audits manufacturers for ASTM compliance. The process to STC an aircraft is a bit more time consuming than a 337, but still not that hard. You fill out a form supplied by the manufacturer, send it back, they approve it and send back a stamped copy, you get the work done and inspected. I've personally done this three times with my airplane, Twice for major avionics changes and once for a set of landing lights I designed myself.

As to orphaned planes, you can always take it to E/LSA and do whatever you want.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
That's good to know that you can take them to E/LSA, can you do that even if they aren't orphaned?

I know there ARE standards, now can you tell me what they are? I can't look them up because they aren't published on public documents. The one that concerns me is the Sport Cruiser that has hollow core rivets on a stressed skin structure, that scares the crap out of me cost wise when they all get worked.
Click to expand...

Sometimes you can get them in public libraries. The only place I know 100% you can find them, because I have, is the library at ERAU in Daytona Beach.

Yes, you can take non-orphaned SLSA's into the ELSA category. There is a gentlemen who did it with a SkyArrow 600 and I believe a few people have done it with Flight Design CTSW/CTLS.
 
Henning said:
That's good to know that you can take them to E/LSA, can you do that even if they aren't orphaned?
Click to expand...


Absolutely. I've considered several times. There's a DAR near me that can do the paper work in an hour and sign you off to do your own annuals after a weekend class.

Henning said:
I know there ARE standards, now can you tell me what they are? I can't look them up because they aren't published on public documents.
Click to expand...

Just like the National Electrical Code, you have to buy them, which I see as a major suckage point. You can buy a CD-ROM from ASTM with them all on it for about $130 or you can join the ASTM for a year for $75 and download them. I did the later. I'd email them to you except it's illegal. When I downloaded my .pdf's they cleverly added my first and last name to the bottom of each page of each document...
 
Henning said:
That's good to know that you can take them to E/LSA, can you do that even if they aren't orphaned?
Click to expand...

Yep, don't believe you can change them back, though. Which means you'd take the hit on resale value.

Henning said:
I know there ARE standards, now can you tell me what they are? I can't look them up because they aren't published on public documents.
Click to expand...

True, they aren't free, but after all, ASTM is a private company. If you're developing an LSA, the cost for the standards is a trivial amount.

I bought a book that contained 15 of the standards when LSA first came out, but it looks like they only sell the standards separately now. The design standards are in ASTM F2245 - 11, "Standard Specification for Design and Performance of a Light Sport Airplane."

Henning said:
The one that concerns me is the Sport Cruiser that has hollow core rivets on a stressed skin structure, that scares the crap out of me cost wise when they all get worked.
Click to expand...

True hollow-core, or captured-mandrel rivets like Avex pulled rivets?

Ron Wanttaja
 
Last edited:
wanttaja said:
Yep, don't believe you can change them back, though. Which means you'd take the hit on resale value.
Click to expand...

That's the $64,000 question. I'm really not sure. Personally, I'd prefer to have an airplane that I could modify and that I could do my own annual on. My insurance company says there wouldn't be any premium difference if I convert it to E/LSA. I just think it would depend on who was buying the airplane.
 
wanttaja said:
True hollow-core, or captured-mandrel rivets like Avex pulled rivets?

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

Hollow, like look down the hole in the middle that reaches further than the thickness of the metal being bound.
 
Henning said:
Hollow, like look down the hole in the middle that reaches further than the thickness of the metal being bound.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Found a Sport Cruiser document online, and it says, "Construction is of 6061-T6 aluminum sheet metal riveted to aluminum angles with Avex rivets." Avex rivets aren't hollow, they leave part of the mandrel in the hole. A lot of successful homebuilts use Avex rivets. Are they using hollow rivets in non-structural applications?

A lot of the ASTM standards are cobbed directly from 14 CFR. If you can point me to the FARs that seem to prohibit the types of rivets the Sport Cruiser uses, I can look for similar language in my copy of the ASTM standard.

However, if the manufacturer can show that the aircraft meets the required load factors with any given type of rivets, I would expect both the ASTM standards *and* the FARs permit their use.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Henning said:
Looking down the hole, pushing in a pine needle to gauge depth, does it for me.
Click to expand...
I know next to nothing about sheet metal and rivets. If I'm looking at the outside of an airplane, let' say the wing, all I see are rivet heads. How can I tell if the rivets are hollow or solid?
 
vintage cessna said:
I know next to nothing about sheet metal and rivets. If I'm looking at the outside of an airplane, let' say the wing, all I see are rivet heads. How can I tell if the rivets are hollow or solid?
Click to expand...

Look straight down at the middle of the rivet, you will see one of three things, a solid piece of metal (driven solid rivet), a solid piece of metal with a ring near the metal (a pulled rivet that leaves the mandrel behind to create a solid against shear, I'm ok with these), or you will see a hollow ring on a hollow tube theft pulls multiple sheets together yet has no cor to serve against long term shear and deformation. In my life's experience building structures, hollow core rivets in a shear stress envirionment are a life limited component. YMMV
 
Last edited:
The reason for paperwork isn't always obvious. Sometimes, there is something that really needs to be approved.

Sometimes it's a simple matter of documenting the configuration, so that if something really bad happens, somebody knows what configuration the plane was in to perform an analysis and issue an AD if needed.

Less obvious in GA, but aviation is all about the evolutionary deployment of complex systems. When you handle things that way, it causes a lot of paperwork to really not do much more than document configuration. That helps with forensic investigations, if needed.

I guess Experimental isn't tracked (I haven't been involved with it at all). But, I'm guessing it's less likely for an AD to be issued against an Experimental airplane, because nobody knows what's in them.

One of my buddies was an EAA technical advisor. He told me that one area that concerned him, was that you never knew what standards a builder will use for small electrical piece parts like relays and switches.

It makes me curious how bad things are, but I don't really have time to go see for myself. Most finished EAA airplanes I've seen really looked good too. Some of the unfinished projects really give me pause though.

I guess, it a good idea to be naturally suspicious of an unfinished first time project airplane.
 
kontiki said:
The reason for paperwork isn't always obvious. Sometimes, there is something that really needs to be approved.

Sometimes it's a simple matter of documenting the configuration, so that if something really bad happens, somebody knows what configuration the plane was in to perform an analysis and issue an AD if needed.

Less obvious in GA, but aviation is all about the evolutionary deployment of complex systems. When you handle things that way, it causes a lot of paperwork to really not do much more than document configuration. That helps with forensic investigations, if needed.

I guess Experimental isn't tracked (I haven't been involved with it at all). But, I'm guessing it's less likely for an AD to be issued against an Experimental airplane, because nobody knows what's in them.

One of my buddies was an EAA technical advisor. He told me that one area that concerned him, was that you never knew what standards a builder will use for small electrical piece parts like relays and switches.

It makes me curious how bad things are, but I don't really have time to go see for myself. Most finished EAA airplanes I've seen really looked good too. Some of the unfinished projects really give me pause though.

I guess, it a good idea to be naturally suspicious of an unfinished first time project airplane.
Click to expand...

If there is one area where home-builders tend to come up short - it's the systems. You usually hear people worry "What if they left a bolt out of the wing..." but if you look at the statistics, it's fuel / electrical system failures that tend to be more problematic.

The guy (A&P) who build my ride didn't do that good a job on the electrical and I've replaced a significant part of it. But I can use current (no pun intended) parts for breakers and switches and am not constrained to try and find some part that has been out of production for 30 years. And I don't need a letter from the manufacturer to remove one.

It's all documented in the logs.

Now, one could do the work and "forget" to log it, but there is a lot less incentive to do that kind of coverup than there is with what is commonly referred to as a "certificated" aircraft.
 
FWIW I'm swapping radios in a beech ATM.

Going to end up with an unused breaker and switch...


Thinking either missiles arm or guns arm...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top