Cessna Rigging

[Dan Thomas]

That drain valve would be OK if the tank nipple wasn't sticking out so far. Either the nipple has been replaced (welded in) with a longer one, or the rubber support bumpers in the tank bay have all rotted away and dropped the tank. That is the most likely scenario, since most guys ignore Cessna's recommendation that the top covers over the tanks come off every 1000 hours or three years for inspection of those bumpers and the tank straps. I have often found the bumpers gone entirely and the aluminum hat sections under the tank eating into that thin aluminum, and the straps doing the same thing or broken altogether. And the correct valve is a flush valve:

Sometimes you have to adjust those wing spar eccentrics (the things you guys called cams) all the way opposite each other to get the thing to fly level. Few fuselages came out of the jigs in perfect alignment, and damage repair usually results in more misalignment. If a wing has ever been rebuilt without the proper holding fixture and great care taken in setting washout, it won't fly nicely.

But, first, the pilot needs to isolate the cause of wing heaviness. Make sure the turn coordinator or turn and bank instrument is level with the airplane's lateral axis. A ball that's half-off when the airplane is level is useless. There are slotted holes in the panel for adjustment and the thing can easily be installed cockeyed if the mechanic doesn't watch it. In flight, hold the airplane level with the ailerons, feet off the rudder pedals, and see if the ball is centered. If so, the wings are off. If the ball is off, the rudder is out of rig. Hold the airplane level with the rudder only and see if the ball is off to confirm wing heaviness.

When those eccentrics are adjusted, the aft spar moves up and down and also in and out. The in-and-out messes with the flap and aileron control cable tensions, so they need rerigging, too.

Rigging the rudder starts with rigging the nosewheel steering. Almost every Cessna 100-series I encounter for the first time has been misrigged because the mechanic didn't read the manual. Same with ailerons and flaps: read that manual and follow it. You cannot rig out wing heaviness with ailerons, either. It doesn't work. Rigging an aileron down just results in up-force on the aileron travelling though the system and pulling the other aileron down.

Ailerons that have been squeezed so that they have a concave skin will misbehave, too. They don't want to fly where they should. The concavity acts like a trim tab.

These are OLD airplanes. Like any unrestored old vehicle, you will find stuff way off. Worn stuff. Corroded stuff. Rotted stuff. Misadjusted stuff. Why are so many new owners so surprised when such stuff turns up in such old machines? And why are they so surprised that the previous owners were as cheap as they are?

 

[iflyvfr]

That drain valve would be OK if the tank nipple wasn't sticking out so far. Either the nipple has been replaced (welded in) with a longer one, or the rubber support bumpers in the tank bay have all rotted away and dropped the tank. That is the most likely scenario, since most guys ignore Cessna's recommendation that the top covers over the tanks come off every 1000 hours or three years for inspection of those bumpers and the tank straps. I have often found the bumpers gone entirely and the aluminum hat sections under the tank eating into that thin aluminum, and the straps doing the same thing or broken altogether. And the correct valve is a flush valve:

Sometimes you have to adjust those wing spar eccentrics (the things you guys called cams) all the way opposite each other to get the thing to fly level. Few fuselages came out of the jigs in perfect alignment, and damage repair usually results in more misalignment. If a wing has ever been rebuilt without the proper holding fixture and great care taken in setting washout, it won't fly nicely.

But, first, the pilot needs to isolate the cause of wing heaviness. Make sure the turn coordinator or turn and bank instrument is level with the airplane's lateral axis. A ball that's half-off when the airplane is level is useless. There are slotted holes in the panel for adjustment and the thing can easily be installed cockeyed if the mechanic doesn't watch it. In flight, hold the airplane level with the ailerons, feet off the rudder pedals, and see if the ball is centered. If so, the wings are off. If the ball is off, the rudder is out of rig. Hold the airplane level with the rudder only and see if the ball is off to confirm wing heaviness.

When those eccentrics are adjusted, the aft spar moves up and down and also in and out. The in-and-out messes with the flap and aileron control cable tensions, so they need rerigging, too.

Rigging the rudder starts with rigging the nosewheel steering. Almost every Cessna 100-series I encounter for the first time has been misrigged because the mechanic didn't read the manual. Same with ailerons and flaps: read that manual and follow it. You cannot rig out wing heaviness with ailerons, either. It doesn't work. Rigging an aileron down just results in up-force on the aileron travelling though the system and pulling the other aileron down.

Ailerons that have been squeezed so that they have a concave skin will misbehave, too. They don't want to fly where they should. The concavity acts like a trim tab.

These are OLD airplanes. Like any unrestored old vehicle, you will find stuff way off. Worn stuff. Corroded stuff. Rotted stuff. Misadjusted stuff. Why are so many new owners so surprised when such stuff turns up in such old machines? And why are they so surprised that the previous owners were as cheap as they are?

Dan you sound the PERFECT man to take a stab at rigging my bird to fly straight! When ya want to get started?? And that's the valve I have in mine - no clearance issues with the top of the door!

 

[alexl]

That drain valve would be OK if the tank nipple wasn't sticking out so far. Either the nipple has been replaced (welded in) with a longer one, or the rubber support bumpers in the tank bay have all rotted away and dropped the tank. That is the most likely scenario, since most guys ignore Cessna's recommendation that the top covers over the tanks come off every 1000 hours or three years for inspection of those bumpers and the tank straps. I have often found the bumpers gone entirely and the aluminum hat sections under the tank eating into that thin aluminum, and the straps doing the same thing or broken altogether. And the correct valve is a flush valve:

Sometimes you have to adjust those wing spar eccentrics (the things you guys called cams) all the way opposite each other to get the thing to fly level. Few fuselages came out of the jigs in perfect alignment, and damage repair usually results in more misalignment. If a wing has ever been rebuilt without the proper holding fixture and great care taken in setting washout, it won't fly nicely.

But, first, the pilot needs to isolate the cause of wing heaviness. Make sure the turn coordinator or turn and bank instrument is level with the airplane's lateral axis. A ball that's half-off when the airplane is level is useless. There are slotted holes in the panel for adjustment and the thing can easily be installed cockeyed if the mechanic doesn't watch it. In flight, hold the airplane level with the ailerons, feet off the rudder pedals, and see if the ball is centered. If so, the wings are off. If the ball is off, the rudder is out of rig. Hold the airplane level with the rudder only and see if the ball is off to confirm wing heaviness.

When those eccentrics are adjusted, the aft spar moves up and down and also in and out. The in-and-out messes with the flap and aileron control cable tensions, so they need rerigging, too.

Rigging the rudder starts with rigging the nosewheel steering. Almost every Cessna 100-series I encounter for the first time has been misrigged because the mechanic didn't read the manual. Same with ailerons and flaps: read that manual and follow it. You cannot rig out wing heaviness with ailerons, either. It doesn't work. Rigging an aileron down just results in up-force on the aileron travelling though the system and pulling the other aileron down.

Ailerons that have been squeezed so that they have a concave skin will misbehave, too. They don't want to fly where they should. The concavity acts like a trim tab.

These are OLD airplanes. Like any unrestored old vehicle, you will find stuff way off. Worn stuff. Corroded stuff. Rotted stuff. Misadjusted stuff. Why are so many new owners so surprised when such stuff turns up in such old machines? And why are they so surprised that the previous owners were as cheap as they are?

can you expand on these rubber bumpers or happen to have a part number? I have my parts catalog out and see the straps, neoprene covers for the straps, but nothing i would call a "bumper", i would like to go ahead and order these parts so they are available when we open up the tank panel.

 

[Tom-D]

\And the correct valve is a flush valve:

Sorry No, Dan. the flush valve didn't come about until later 172. the 175s had the spring loaded push valve.
The part number 052600-1-2 applies to 172 ..28001 thru 49544 and the 175.. 55001 thru 57119 .

Here is a picture
https://www.texasairsalvage.com/main_view.php?editid1=110408
It is the little one, not the one they have in there.

 

[alexl]

Sorry No, Dan. the flush valve didn't come about until later 172. the 175s had the spring loaded push valve.
The part number 052600-1-2 applies to 172 ..28001 thru 49544 and the 175.. 55001 thru 57119 .

Tom - Is there any reason a flush valve cannot be used in place of the push valve? It appears the o-ring seal and threads are the same.

 

[Tom-D]

Tom - Is there any reason a flush valve cannot be used in place of the push valve? It appears the o-ring seal and threads are the same.

No. I'm not aware if the threads are the same
It would be a minor alteration at best.

 

[Tom-D]

Tom - Is there any reason a flush valve cannot be used in place of the push valve? It appears the o-ring seal and threads are the same.

Now that your door is notched why would you mess with it?

 

[timwinters]

Now that your door is notched why would you mess with it?

I think he said his mechanic views it as unairworthy.

 

[alexl]

Now that your door is notched why would you mess with it?

I likely wont. Been spending several hours looking around. It would seam that for better or worse, many C-170s and early 172's have had this wonderfully technically advanced modification made to their door. While it is still frustrating, i feel somewhat better knowing i am not the only one! First order of business is figure out why the tank appears to have fallen low in the wing. After that, we will reset the rigging and get it all correct per the manual. I think i will sleep somewhat better tonight, now that i have a plan. My overactive brain went straight to "scrap metal" as i was overthinking all of this last night.

Saving grace.. as Tom alluded.. if it came to that, the engine parts are actually quite valuable! I also have 2 engine cores that came with the airplane.

 

[alexl]

I think he said his mechanic views it as unairworthy.

That is yet to be determined. I do not believe this to be an airworthiness issue. However, we all know that A&P's vary WILDLY in their interpretation. The trick is to find a good, trusted and competent mechanic that will make sure your airplane does not fall out of the sky, while at the same time understanding that the airplane is 60 years old, and not worth the cost of making it like new again. Not sure if that last sentiment captured my thoughts exactly.. i feel this thread proves that i want the airplane to be RIGHT, i just don't need it to be perfect.

 

[Tom-D]

I think he said his mechanic views it as unairworthy.

That would be one A&P-IA with a very narrow view of airworthiness.

 

[flyingron]

I blame the Russians.

 

[Tom-D]

I likely wont. Been spending several hours looking around. It would seam that for better or worse, many C-170s and early 172's have had this wonderfully technically advanced modification made to their door. While it is still frustrating, i feel somewhat better knowing i am not the only one! First order of business is figure out why the tank appears to have fallen low in the wing. After that, we will reset the rigging and get it all correct per the manual. I think i will sleep somewhat better tonight, now that i have a plan. My overactive brain went straight to "scrap metal" as i was overthinking all of this last night.

Saving grace.. as Tom alluded.. if it came to that, the engine parts are actually quite valuable! I also have 2 engine cores that came with the airplane.

There really isn't much that can go wrong with a 175, that would be vary difficult to repair.
I really would pull that tank's cover and see what is going on with that tank. If the bunks that it normally sets on are not right, I'd get them fixed, just so I wouldn't wear a hole in my good tank.
and when you replace. the tank cover put it back with a stainless screw kit, from AS&S
AS far as the rigging, get it airworthy/ annulled and take it flying and do some test flights with it and see what it is really doing.

 

[Tom-D]

I blame the Russians.

Yep,, they've been messing with it for years, now it is a problem.

 

[Omalley1537]

I blame the Russians.

 

[iflyvfr]

That is yet to be determined. I do not believe this to be an airworthiness issue. However, we all know that A&P's vary WILDLY in their interpretation. The trick is to find a good, trusted and competent mechanic that will make sure your airplane does not fall out of the sky, while at the same time understanding that the airplane is 60 years old, and not worth the cost of making it like new again. Not sure if that last sentiment captured my thoughts exactly.. i feel this thread proves that i want the airplane to be RIGHT, i just don't need it to be perfect.

Good luck and please feel free to report your findings and provide photos of work along the way. One of the things I like best is following along when people do mods and upgrades/refurbs.

 

[alexl]

One more question for the A&P's (or other knowledgeable parties). I do have a couple of cracks in my engine cowling. I have already stop-drilled them, but i have been reading AC 43-12, and have a question on the following..

"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"

My interpretation is i am allowed to repair these cracked areas with doublers on the backside (provided i follow the procedures and use the same grade and thickness material for the doubler as the original part is made, and use the correct number and location of rivets. Is this correct, or am i off my rocker?

Again, i will look up the proper procedure for this (if i am indeed allowed to make this repair), but can anyone tell me off the top of their head if this sort of repair can be completed with blind rivets, or if solid rivets must be used? Also, does anyone know what thickness aluminum is used on a cessna engine cowl?

 

[JAWS]

and when you replace. the tank cover put it back with a stainless screw kit, from AS&S

I try to steer people away from stainless screws. They are easy to damage going in (stainless hardware going into steel nutplates), easy to damage coming back out and are a royal pain to deal with when I am called to "help" with the inevitable. I deal with them lots at my work and get to fix them lots too.

Cadmium plated doesn't have the same "bling appeal", but I like to use the original.

My plane has no stainless, but to each their own. I have no problem charging for my time to fix stainless hardware issues.

 

[Bell206]

My interpretation is i am allowed to repair these cracked areas

Can be a gray area depending on who you talk to. The one person who may have a question would be the IA who signs your next annual. So maybe ask him for input. Look to your Cessna MM and AC43.13-1B for appropriate methods to repair. Solid rivets always when possible--approved blind rivets when not. But you seem to have the right attitude toward proper maintenance so you should prevail.

 

[Tom-D]

I try to steer people away from stainless screws. They are easy to damage going in (stainless hardware going into steel nutplates), easy to damage coming back out and are a royal pain to deal with when I am called to "help" with the inevitable. I deal with them lots at my work and get to fix them lots too.

That is what antiseze is for.. the SS kit is approved hardware, for all 1&200 Cessna's. It is not the AS&S common SS screws.

 

[Tom-D]

Look to your Cessna MM and AC43.13-1B for appropriate methods to repair.

Not ,no, cessna has a MM and when ya read the purpose para in the 43.13 it will tell you:

1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular (AC) contains methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator for the inspection and alteration on non-pressurized areas of civil aircraft of 12,500 lbs gross weight or less. This AC is for use by mechanics, repair stations, and other certificated entities. This data generally pertains to minor alterations; however, the alteration data herein may be used as approved data for major alterations when the AC chapter, page, and paragraph are listed in block 8 of FAA Form 337 when the user has determined that it is:

1. Appropriate to the product being altered,
   
   
2. Directly applicable to the alteration being made, and
   

Not contrary to manufacturer’s data.

 

[Tom-D]

One more question for the A&P's (or other knowledgeable parties). I do have a couple of cracks in my engine cowling. I have already stop-drilled them, but i have been reading AC 43-12, and have a question on the following..

"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"

My interpretation is i am allowed to repair these cracked areas with doublers on the backside (provided i follow the procedures and use the same grade and thickness material for the doubler as the original part is made, and use the correct number and location of rivets. Is this correct, or am i off my rocker?

Again, i will look up the proper procedure for this (if i am indeed allowed to make this repair), but can anyone tell me off the top of their head if this sort of repair can be completed with blind rivets, or if solid rivets must be used? Also, does anyone know what thickness aluminum is used on a cessna engine cowl?

Cessna thinks of their cowlings as structure, the repair of which is not an owner do, get your A&P to inspect and approve your work under their supervision.

To repair thin structure drilling a bunch of rivet holes seems to make matters worse. I do this, form a nice dubbler to fit the contour of the surface. Clean the area and the doubler with Alma-prep, rinse well and attach the doubler on the back side with one rivet in the stop drilled hole and a glue called Devron-compound. (its scotch weld on steroids) clean up with acetone prior to the devron setting.

 

[Dan Thomas]

can you expand on these rubber bumpers or happen to have a part number? I have my parts catalog out and see the straps, neoprene covers for the straps, but nothing i would call a "bumper", i would like to go ahead and order these parts so they are available when we open up the tank panel.

Those "neoprene covers for the straps" are what Cessna calls "bumpers." It's a bulk item now, IIRC. They are glued to the straps as well as the aluminum hat sections in the wing under the tank. The tank has to come out, so you will need whatever gaskets go in the filler neck as well as the short bits of hose to join the tank vent nipples to the vent crossover tube. Some of the older airplanes also used bits of connecting hose in the fuel line itself.

Getting the tank covers off will likely be a pain. The screws rust into the anchor nuts and get really stubborn. A mechanic has to be patient and take time to get them out without breaking them off in the anchor nuts. The nuts along the forward edge of the cover are in the front spar, underneath the leading edge skin, replacing them can be an expensive proposition, and damaging the spar must be avoided. If the Phillips head strips out, careful cutting of a slot in the head sometimes lets one back the screw out. Using some penetrating oil first is a good idea, too.

 

[nrpetersen]

Remove any paint from the head sockets of those phillips head screws before trying to get them out. Any paint is a wonderful antiseize and will make your driver prematurely cam out of the heads. Use a new quality driver, sandblasted if necessary, and degrease the head and especially the driver before attempting to crack them loose. Obviously replace the screws w new and use anti seize in the nut plate IDs, but be careful none gets on the driver or the head socket.

As a quick check to let you sleep at night, you might use a big long level on the lower surfaces of the left and right wing to compare them to see if they are identically twisted - or how far out they are.

 

[JAWS]

That is what antiseze is for.. the SS kit is approved hardware, for all 1&200 Cessna's. It is not the AS&S common SS screws.

And how many aircraft DIY'ers know that stainless hardware has different properties and needs compared to standard steel hardware? I know I learned the hard way.

I like this product for stainless hardware installation. https://www.acklandsgrainger.com/en/product/LUBRICANT-STICK-DOOR-EASE-STAINLESS/p/AGSDEC3

Good screwdriver tips, valve grinding compound, slow removal and install speed (by hand is best), and lube at install.
https://www.acklandsgrainger.com/en/product/LUBRICANT-STICK-DOOR-EASE-STAINLESS/p/AGSDEC3

 

[Tom-D]

And how many aircraft DIY'ers know that stainless hardware has different properties and needs compared to standard steel hardware? I know I learned the hard way.

That is why we are supposed to get supervision when we are not certain, and why we have parts replacement rules.

 

[Tom-D]

I like this product for stainless hardware installation. https://www.acklandsgrainger.com/en/product/LUBRICANT-STICK-DOOR-EASE-STAINLESS/p/AGSDEC3

Good screwdriver tips, valve grinding compound, slow removal and install speed (by hand is best), and lube at install.

The standard old nickel anti-seize you use on your spark plug works as good as any thing.

 

[JAWS]

Cessna thinks of their cowlings as structure, the repair of which is not an owner do, get your A&P to inspect and approve your work under their supervision.

To repair thin structure drilling a bunch of rivet holes seems to make matters worse. I do this, form a nice dubbler to fit the contour of the surface. Clean the area and the doubler with Alma-prep, rinse well and attach the doubler on the back side with one rivet in the stop drilled hole and a glue called Devron-compound. (its scotch weld on steroids) clean up with acetone prior to the devron setting.

Direct from Cessna 100 Series Service Manual, 1962 & prior:


Standard insert type patches seems right up AC43.13's alley. And I think any differences (if any) between this manual and AC43.13 would be minor.

PS Never heard of installing a rivet into a stop drill hole before.

 

[alexl]

And how many aircraft DIY'ers know that stainless hardware has different properties and needs compared to standard steel hardware? I know I learned the hard way.

I realize this is a generalization. However, in my particular case I think you can rest easy. My day job is that of a mechanical engineer, so these issues of materials do make perfect sense to me and this is the sort of decision I make daily. Ideally, we could back up the stainless hardware with silicon-brass nuts. Since that is not an option, anti-sieze is an acceptable method to prevent severe galling.

 

[alexl]

Those "neoprene covers for the straps" are what Cessna calls "bumpers." It's a bulk item now, IIRC. They are glued to the straps as well as the aluminum hat sections in the wing under the tank. The tank has to come out, so you will need whatever gaskets go in the filler neck as well as the short bits of hose to join the tank vent nipples to the vent crossover tube. Some of the older airplanes also used bits of connecting hose in the fuel line itself.

Looking for the "hat" section. AS&S has a hat section for a 1 inch strap. Others also have 3/4 and 1/2. Naturally the bulk item from spruce is quite a bit cheaper than the other suppliers. That does not matter if i need 3/4 or 1/2" material though. Any experience in the group if this product is correct?

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/antichafemolding.php

 

[Bell206]

Not ,no, cessna has a MM and when ya read the purpose para in the 43.13 it will tell you:

I thought this debate was put to rest years ago. That interpretation is not correct. Regulation always trumps Advisory Circular. There’s a statement in Part 43.13(a): “or other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator…” that permits the use of AC43.13-1B even with an existing OEM procedure.

when the user has determined that it is:... Not contrary to manufacturer’s data.

This statement was clarified by the FAA to mean the AC could not be used if the OEM documentation specifically stated not to use the AC method.

There are several FAA docs that detail this issue. If I recall the last one came out 10 years ago or so.

 

[Tom-D]

Looking for the "hat" section. AS&S has a hat section for a 1 inch strap. Others also have 3/4 and 1/2. Naturally the bulk item from spruce is quite a bit cheaper than the other suppliers. That does not matter if i need 3/4 or 1/2" material though. Any experience in the group if this product is correct?

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/antichafemolding.php

A Hat Section is an aluminum channel that is riveted to the bottom skin of the wing, that support the tank.
url
The rubber that you linked is the protection for the tank that is placed on the hold down straps on top of the tank.

the hat section usually simply have a felt strip glued to the hat section to prevent chafing. they sell the felt in most hardware stores as insolation.

 

[Tom-D]

This statement was clarified by the FAA to mean the AC could not be used if the OEM documentation specifically stated not to use the AC method.

The statement I quoted eliminates the requirement for that statement.
Cessna's Maintenance manuals such as their structural repair manual Always take precedence over any AC. and will cover the repairs authorized. any repairs that are not in the structural repair manual, will require field approval, that data can come from the AC, if it is not covered by Cessna instruction.
but to straight up use the AC as data to repair, when it is contradictory to the OEM data... no.
And I'd add, any minor repairs, do not need approved data, they only require a log book entry, with a description of the work done. (43.9)

 

[JAWS]

I thought this debate was put to rest years ago. That interpretation is not correct. Regulation always trumps Advisory Circular. There’s a statement in Part 43.13(a): “or other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator…” that permits the use of AC43.13-1B even with an existing OEM procedure.


This statement was clarified by the FAA to mean the AC could not be used if the OEM documentation specifically stated not to use the AC method.

There are several FAA docs that detail this issue. If I recall the last one came out 10 years ago or so.

Right you are. https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...ac 43-13-1b - (2010) legal interpretation.pdf

And the Cessna manual says:

 

[JAWS]

Cessna's Maintenance manuals such as their structural repair manual Always take precedence over any AC. and will cover the repairs authorized.

Nope. Cessna maintenance manuals are "acceptable data". AC43.13-1B is also "acceptable data". Just because a repair is not listed in the Cessna manual does not mean you can't perform it via AC43.13. That is what the FAA legal interpretation linked above means. Cessna would have to specifically state that AC43.13 (or the predecessor CAM 18) is not allowed, which they do not. Acceptable data is acceptable data - as long as it is relevant, it doesn't matter where it comes from.

I work on a lot of King Airs and Beech says the same thing.

 

[Tom-D]

Right you are. https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/data/interps/2010/inter ac 43-13-1b - (2010) legal interpretation.pdf

And the Cessna manual says:
View attachment 60461

IOWs they do direct you to gain factory approval of repairs not given in the SRM

 

[Tom-D]

IOWs they do direct you to gain factory approval of repairs not given in the SRM

Nope. Cessna maintenance manuals are "acceptable data". AC43.13-1B is also "acceptable data". Just because a repair is not listed in the Cessna manual does not mean you can't perform it via AC43.13. That is what the FAA legal interpretation linked above means. Cessna would have to specifically state that AC43.13 (or the predecessor CAM 18) is not allowed, which they do not. Acceptable data is acceptable data - as long as it is relevant, it doesn't matter where it comes from.

See my other post, they do state that you are to contact the factory when specific instruction in the SRM do not cover the repair.
Now keep in mind, MINOR repairs are accepted as stated in 43.9 as requiring only a discerption of the work. Thus the 43,13 is never legally required

 

[Tom-D]

You guys keep signing them of any way you like. I'll cover my ass with the correct info.

I'm gone, With this, Cessna says to contact the factory for methods to repair anything that is not in the SRM. That eliminates the use of the 43,13

 

[JAWS]

IOWs they do direct you to gain factory approval of repairs not given in the SRM

And Cessna would like you to buy engine oil and filters and screws and light bulbs from them too. What about the SIDS inspections that Cessna wants done? What about service bulletins?

The FAA makes the rules, not Cessna.

 

[JAWS]

You guys keep signing them of any way you like. I'll cover my ass with the correct info.

I'm gone, With this, Cessna says to contact the factory for methods to repair anything that is not in the SRM. That eliminates the use of the 43,13

To each their own.

Now keep in mind, MINOR repairs are accepted as stated in 43.9 as requiring only a discerption of the work. Thus the 43,13 is never legally required

FAR 43.9 is maintenance records. 43.13 is maintenance performance. Are you trying to say that FAR 43.13 is not required, even for a simple cowl patch?