Is it legal, revisited

Tom-D

Tom-D

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
34,740
Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
Today I attended the Northwest aviation trade show. While there I asked the FAA representative the question is it legal to use a red tagged part after it has been condemned by a CRS.

Their consensus was, any one doing that would be in violation of.

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.
 
no....if the parts were really bad...they'be non-conforming parts. That's the real issue. The installer is on the hook for "using" or "installing" non-conforming parts.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
no....if the parts were really bad...they'be non-conforming parts. That's the real issue. The installer is on the hook for "using" or "installing" non-conforming parts.
Click to expand...
Got a reference for that?
 
Deliberate use of out off spec (i.e. red tagged) parts would not be "in accordance with accepted industry practices," nor in accordance with the "current manufacturer's maintenance manual," so either way, not legal.
 
Why would anyone be stupid enough to use a red tagged part. Why does that need a regulation to make it illegal.

Is there an emoji in here for slapping my forehead at the patent stupidity.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Why would anyone be stupid enough to use a red tagged part. Why does that need a regulation to make it illegal.
Click to expand...
The question was a legal one, is it, or is it not legal to use a red tagged part, when it was red tagged for some thing the manufacturer does not require.

The two ASIs that Italked to today believe an approved CRS repair procedure is a industry standard.

To me it's pretty simple violation of 43.13
 
Dana said:
Deliberate use of out off spec (i.e. red tagged) parts would not be "in accordance with accepted industry practices," nor in accordance with the "current manufacturer's maintenance manual," so either way, not legal.
Click to expand...
The fact is it may not be out of factory spec. but it maybe out of industry standard.
 
Tom-D said:
Got a reference for that?
Click to expand...

43.13 (b) ... shall do that work in such a manner and use materials of such a quality, that the condition of the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance worked on will be at least equal to its original or properly altered condition ....

So you have to use materials that are of sufficient quality that the airplane is back to it's original condition. If you were to say, have a crankshaft with excessive rust on it, that part may not longer meet the definition of quality material and so has been red-tagged and once tagged becomes marked as non-conforming. Now, if you had a way to test that part and show that it conformed to all the specifications for a like new part, then you could recertify that part. Otherwise, it's non-conforming.

BTW, this does not apply to experimentals.

We are all aware, or should be aware, that many of the parts used in airplanes are just off the shelf parts that have been measured and tested to conform to an engineered specification. That's why airplane parts are expensive.
 
bflynn said:
43.13 (b) ... shall do that work in such a manner and use materials of such a quality, that the condition of the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance worked on will be at least equal to its original or properly altered condition ....

So you have to use materials that are of sufficient quality that the airplane is back to it's original condition. If you were to say, have a crankshaft with excessive rust on it, that part may not longer meet the definition of quality material and so has been red-tagged. Now, if you had a way to test that part and show that it conformed to all the specifications for a like new part, then you could recertify that part. Otherwise, it's non-conforming.
Click to expand...
But when you have no specific limits given by the manufacturer, where does that leave you? It drops to industry standards, made up by the CRS, and approved by the FAA.
 
Tom-D said:
But when you have no specific limits given by the manufacturer, where does that leave you? It drops to industry standards, made up by the CRS, and approved by the FAA.
Click to expand...

Are you claiming there are no engineering specs for a crankshaft? Or are you saying that you do not have them?
 
bflynn said:
Are you claiming there are no engineering specs for a crankshaft? Or are you saying that you do not have them?
Click to expand...
the information given in the overhaul manual is the guidance we get to inspect, that's not engineering spec. but that is the guidance we get.
when the CRS says we can mill off .020" from the crank flange and if the pits are still there we condemn the crank. That becomes the industry standard, approved by the FAA. and they hold you to those standards in 43.13
 
bflynn said:
Are you claiming there are no engineering specs for a crankshaft?
Click to expand...
No that is not what I am saying, I'm positive that when any crank that left the factory met all its specifications.
now many years later the manual says inspect for mild corrosion, and the CRS says .020" is beyond allowed limits. and that becomes "industry standard"
 
So how do you know if someone else already milled .020" off the flange?

As I recall from your other thread, the overhaul manual said that if there was rust, not to reuse the part. So, someone red tagged the part because it became non-conforming. The red tag is indicative of a part that IS non-conforming in that inspector's opinion.

In your opinion, it can be refurbished, but it has to be recertified before it can be called a quality part. Once it's been identified as no longer conforming to the standard, then you can recertify it, but that's a different process than just milling of a little rust.

Because someone decertified it, it is no longer eligible for the industry standard treatment.
 
Last edited:
Interesting discussion,
Thanks
You know where I am, so I'm gone.
 
bflynn said:
So how do you know if someone else already milled .020" off the flange?

As I recall from your other thread, the overhaul manual said that if there was rust, not to reuse the part. So, someone red tagged the part because it became non-conforming. The red tag is indicative of a part that IS non-conforming in that inspector's opinion.

In your opinion, it can be refurbished, but it has to be recertified before it can be called a quality part. Once it's been identified as no longer conforming to the standard, then you can recertify it, but that's a different process than just milling of a little rust.

Because someone decertified it, it is no longer eligible for the industry standard treatment.
Click to expand...

I don't know who has done anything, but I'll be the CRS does.
The overhaul does not say if it has rust not to use it. It says "inspect" for mild corrosion, leaving it open as to what mild corrosion is.

"Because someone decertified it, it is no longer eligible for the industry standard treatment".
Exactly
 
Bottom line - you are not able to certify it as a part in spec and therefore someone else's condemnation must stand. Well, you could certify it, but because you don't have the testing parameters, it would probably be criminal negligence if it were caught, not mere liability. Is it worth it? Would you be happy if your name was in the news story attached to this?
 
bflynn said:
Bottom line - you are not able to certify it as a part in spec and therefore someone else's condemnation must stand. Well, you could certify it, but because you don't have the testing parameters, it would probably be criminal negligence if it were caught, not mere liability. Is it worth it? Would you be happy if your name was in the news story attached to this?
Click to expand...

It never has been an issue if I'd use it, I wouldn't. but that is a liability issue not a legal one.

the thing that is real, I can remove a crank for an engine from an engine with a couple million hours on it, magna flux it for cracks, measure it for size, and if it measures service limits, put it right back in.
 
Tom-D said:
The question was a legal one, is it, or is it not legal to use a red tagged part, when it was red tagged for some thing the manufacturer does not require.

The two ASIs that Italked to today believe an approved CRS repair procedure is a industry standard.

To me it's pretty simple violation of 43.13
Click to expand...

Have you ever had someone try to use red tagged parts?
 
Tom-D said:
That has to do with production certificates , not repairs.

The FAA can't bust you for non-compliance with a AC, they can bust you for a violation of a far 43.13
Click to expand...
Tom....I said "non-conformance"....look that one up. It's different than what you said.

In order to use an aircraft it must be "airworthy"....that requires two things a.) it needs to be safe for operation and b.) it must "conform" to the type certificate.

a "non-conforming" part does not comply with the TC.....it's out of spec and makes the unit un-airworthy.
 
Doug Reid said:
Ok guys...cool off for a second. When I was in A&P school, our campus was next to a large maintenance facility. We would occasionally get items donated from that shop for us to use or inspect. I recall a red tagged alternator that had a description stating it was defective. It looked brand new. After closer inspection, I discovered that the only thing wrong was that the shaft coupler was sheared. So..it depends on the actual condition of the part. Someone with no knowledge of this device red tagged it and I am sure the owner paid a hefty price for replacement..it was removed from a Cirrus. Before I would discard a red tagged item, I would definitely have it tested or inspected if it appears to be usable...people make mistakes.
Click to expand...
A generator, alternator, carb, if you can save the data tag they are repairable, by replacement of parts.
but when you have a one piece item such as a cam, crank, articulating rod that no longer meets its blue print requirements as per size, it isn't repairable unless there is a CRS with authorization to do the process.
 
but...those parts are still usable. Just not airworthy....so, they have value.
 
Tom-D said:
the thing that is real, I can remove a crank for an engine from an engine with a couple million hours on it, magna flux it for cracks, measure it for size, and if it measures service limits, put it right back in.
Click to expand...

And how much do you want for that O-200 again? :rolleyes:
 
Tom-D said:
The two ASIs that Italked to today believe an approved CRS repair procedure is a industry standard.
Click to expand...

That is true. But, there is more than one CRS out there. I have seen combustion liners that at one moment in time were tagged as unservicable by one company. Then a year or two later, another company had developed an approved repair that allowed them to fix the original problem and certify the liner.
 
Doug Reid said:
Ok guys...cool off for a second. When I was in A&P school, our campus was next to a large maintenance facility. We would occasionally get items donated from that shop for us to use or inspect. I recall a red tagged alternator that had a description stating it was defective. It looked brand new. After closer inspection, I discovered that the only thing wrong was that the shaft coupler was sheared. So..it depends on the actual condition of the part. Someone with no knowledge of this device red tagged it and I am sure the owner paid a hefty price for replacement..it was removed from a Cirrus. Before I would discard a red tagged item, I would definitely have it tested or inspected if it appears to be usable...people make mistakes.
Click to expand...

I would say someone was cleaning out stuff without knowing what was what. "One person's trash is the next person's treasure". :)
 
This is what TCM has to say about crankshaft corrosion.

http://www.tcmlink.com/pdf2/SB09-14.pdf

Yes, it is "only" a SB, but it is "approved". I wonder if this is what the CRS could be using to base their red tag determination on? :)
 
Tom-D said:
no
Click to expand...
That’s good. I was going to recommend a stupid stick in the event anyone ever asked you to... A stupid stick is the official tool for correcting stupid.

I have one in my flight kit and make it available to the FO so we can prevent stupid in the cockpit. I’ve found them useful in the shop as well.
 
I guess the question regarding legality is, "If an A&P evaluates a red tagged part and determines that the tagging was in error and the part is in fact airworthy, may he throw away the red tag and legally install it?" If the answer is yes, he'd still better be prepared to justify his actions.
 
Tom-D said:
do you see a depth limit ?
Click to expand...


From TCM SB 09-14:

"At any time evidence of corrosion and/or (rust) pitting is noted in the crankshaft area visible between the propeller flange and the front crankshaft seal or oil slinger, the crankshaft must be inspected. Visual inspection is necessary to determine if the corrosion (rust) is a surface indication or if the crankshaft exhibits pitting in the surface.".

Also:

"TCM has NO factory approved field repair procedure for crankshafts exhibiting corrosion (rust) pitting while in service. Any crankshaft exhibiting pitting from corrosion (rust), must be repaired or replaced".

And:

"FAA approved repair facilities may have their own approved repair procedures to correct corrosion (rust) pitting in these areas.".

My interpretation? Surface corrosion that can be dressed out easily, is acceptable. Corrosion that can't be easily removed or that leaves pits behind is cause for rejection. One pit at 0.020 or 5 pits at 0.001, the crank is U/S at this point in time.

But, as quoted above "FAA approved repair facilities may have their own approved repair procedures to correct corrosion (rust) pitting in these areas.".
 
JAWS said:
From TCM SB 09-14:

"At any time evidence of corrosion and/or (rust) pitting is noted in the crankshaft area visible between the propeller flange and the front crankshaft seal or oil slinger, the crankshaft must be inspected. Visual inspection is necessary to determine if the corrosion (rust) is a surface indication or if the crankshaft exhibits pitting in the surface.".

Also:

"TCM has NO factory approved field repair procedure for crankshafts exhibiting corrosion (rust) pitting while in service. Any crankshaft exhibiting pitting from corrosion (rust), must be repaired or replaced".

And:

"FAA approved repair facilities may have their own approved repair procedures to correct corrosion (rust) pitting in these areas.".

My interpretation? Surface corrosion that can be dressed out easily, is acceptable. Corrosion that can't be easily removed or that leaves pits behind is cause for rejection. One pit at 0.020 or 5 pits at 0.001, the crank is U/S at this point in time.

But, as quoted above "FAA approved repair facilities may have their own approved repair procedures to correct corrosion (rust) pitting in these areas.".
Click to expand...
Read the thread, we've been all over that.
 
Anything I repair or recondition and install is better than original regardless of some jackwad and his red tag.
 
Dr. O said:
Anything I repair or recondition and install is better than original regardless of some jackwad and his red tag.
Click to expand...
Want to do a crankshaft for me. :)
 
Tom-D said:
A generator, alternator, carb, if you can save the data tag they are repairable, by replacement of parts.
but when you have a one piece item such as a cam, crank, articulating rod that no longer meets its blue print requirements as per size, it isn't repairable unless there is a CRS with authorization to do the process.
Click to expand...

Is the reason for CRS rejected parts nonconformance listed on the tag? In the case of the crankshaft, what made it unacceptable?
 
Tom-D said:
Read the thread, we've been all over that.
Click to expand...

Then why bring all this up again? You don't like my .02, fine. You don't seem to like anyone's so far either.

I wish you luck.
 
Interesting. I can take my plane to shop and the IA declares it to be not airworthy and needs A,B,C repairs. I balk, get a ferry permit then fly it off for a second opinion. But if an IA or whoever, red tags a part its gospel?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top