Shade tree mechanic strikes again

Checkout_my_Six said:
So....in 50 years we will see the equivalent difference?
Click to expand...
Dont know. But I think using a probable statistic like that might make your case for more owner maintenance privilages. Then again admitting to the approving authority a select group of people didnt follow the rules might not help. Regardless, you know as well as me its not the collective results but the underlying regulatory requirements that control this. Same reason non-builders cant sign off there E/AB condition. Figure a way to get past Block 6 on a standard AWC and you jump the biggest hurdle.
Half Fast said:
Because John Denver isn’t flying them anymore?
Click to expand...
Not really. More like the guy who installed and "fixed" the fuel valve on that aircraft didnt work on another aircraft??
 
Bell206 said:
Dont know. But I think using a probable statistic like that might make your case for more owner maintenance privilages. Then again admitting to the approving authority a select group of people didnt follow the rules might not help. Regardless, you know as well as me its not the collective results but the underlying regulatory requirements that control this. Same reason non-builders cant sign off there E/AB condition. Figure a way to get past Block 6 on a standard AWC and you jump the biggest hurdle.

Not really. More like the guy who installed and "fixed" the fuel valve on that aircraft didnt work on another aircraft??
Click to expand...
Oh well....maybe this will come up next year at the winter summit between the FAA and the EAA? The FAA won't be driving this.....;)
 
Bell206 said:
More like the guy who installed and "fixed" the fuel valve on that aircraft didnt work on another aircraft??
Click to expand...


And Denver decided to fly it anyway, and didn’t ensure he had adequate fuel. IIRC, he’d also lost his medical.

I agree the builder screwed up, but ultimately there was only one hand pushing the throttle forward.
 
Half Fast said:
I agree the builder screwed up, but ultimately there was only one hand pushing the throttle forward.
Click to expand...
Exactly. But the current topic is making the case to give owners more maintenance authority. Except you gave 2 perfect examples of why they shouldn't be given more authority. Make that 3 examples with the OPs pics.
Checkout_my_Six said:
The FAA won't be driving this..
Click to expand...
And they didn't drive Basic Med, or Primary Non-commercial either. Its not really in their wheelhouse. In my experience, the quickest way to change regulations is for the industry to make a concerted effort which unfortunately works both ways: good and bad. Just look at the MAX debacle and helicopter tours. But for those serious to make something happen, get a petition going and present it at the FAA/EAA meeting. You could start right here at PoA. Per the stats on the home page there are over 36,000 members. Get 2/3rds of them to sign off and you'll have something.
 
2-Bit Speed said:
I'm joking, don't take the below too seriously.

It's because the guys that would perform substandard mx never complete the plane enough to get it airborne.
Click to expand...
There were at least two in Alberta when we lived there. One was a homebuilt sailplane that had spar failure because the builder had cut away some of the center section to fit something into the airplane. Duh. The other was a Hummel Cruiser that had spar failure right after first takeoff because the builder used a weaker alloy. Again, duh.

In BC there were a couple of failures I noted, both of them Jodels whose wing spars failed in flight due to decay. Wood does that, especially in moist environments and if the airplane isn't well-sealed and checked regularly.

There are likely more, but I either can't recall them or I didn't hear about them. There are always the usual crashes due to pilot mishandling or other factors. Many homebuilts are small and a lot twitchier than a 172, and the typical PPL can be in trouble real quick if he flies carelessly. Some of these airplanes have high stall speeds and are also small, and I remember a Davis DA-2 crashing after it lost power. 19 foot wingspan, stall a bit over 60 MPH, so it has the glide of a manhole cover. Doesn't make for gentle forced landings.

I was a homebuilder. Several unfinished projects over many years, restored and flew and owned a Jodel for 27 years, had the plans for the Davis DA-2.
 
2-Bit Speed said:
It's because the guys that would perform substandard mx never complete the plane enough to get it airborne.
Click to expand...
I bought mine already flying.
Spent more than a few hours cleaning up some of the original builders mess.

Oh, and it was advertised as "A&P built".
 
“ Shade Tree Tech “ . Oh; that’s the other guy!

In order to recognize something as incorrect a person must have insight into

right and wrong techniques and materials.

How does one acquire this knowledge other than experience?

It’s easy to say if it’s not approved via Service Manual or 43.13 than it’s not acceptable.

We hear about zip ties and silicone misusage largely by word of mouth.

It would be nice if there was a sub- forum or YouTube that addressed this.

The FAA on- line courses could be another source .

Perhaps it already exists?

I’ve seen folks do what initially appears to be a really good installation but

“ further investigation “ reveals otherwise.

One of these is installing a Pressure Switch for a Hobbsmeter directly on the

engine. 50 years ago A&P’s knew this was not the way to go.

Would a Tech doing an Inspection today recognize the issue?

Can sources be found to show the owner why this is not good?

With things like Google it should be easier ; but is it?
 
Magman said:
How does one acquire this knowledge other than experience?
Click to expand...
Simple. One follows the appropriate manual or guidance. It was how I learned the trade from my mentors. The problems start when people make a conscious decision not to follow the manual or blindly follows another out of ignorance. For example, can you find a reference to use a cable tie to secure items in an engine compartment? Or a general reference where silicon is permitted as well? Where silicon is called for it usually has a specific P/N, not the AutoZone special variety. If one looks hard enough you'll find a reference on most maintenance items. Part 43.13 pretty much sums this part up.
 
Easy if you are the installing agency.

Not so much if some else did the install and you are looking years later.
 
Magman said:
Not so much if some else did the install and you are looking years later.
Click to expand...
How so? People review old work all the time. IAs during a 1st annual, mechanics during prebuys, and other situations like an engine change and so on. Maybe I'm missing something in your comments??
 
Magman said:
Easy if you are the installing agency.

Not so much if some else did the install and you are looking years later.
Click to expand...

I get that. Done that many a time. You find something installed and have to educate the owner why it is bad and why he has to spend $$ to get something that was considered acceptable to be more acceptable. Kind of like finding a tywrap on an engine mount and telling Mr Owner why it is bad and that he has to spend $5.00 on 2 adel clamps, a screw and locknut, to correct something that he may or may not understand or care about.

"It flew in, didn't it? It has been that way since I bought it. Why didn't the last annual or two or three catch that if it is so serious?". That is why I am very selective on whose aircraft I am willing to enter my signature and licence into.
 
Bell206 said:
For example, you decide to only perform the owner mx you are comfortable with and leave the rest to be performed by who? As it stands now a good number of A&Ps do not perform owner-assisted maintenance but why? A similar number do not perform condition checks on E/AB. Why again? Based on my experience, if you moved to an owner category and only performed the work you wanted to, you probably would have a problem finding someone to perform the rest as there is no incentive and increased liability. Just like owner-assist and E/AB.
Click to expand...


That could be, but it hasn't been my experience.

I suspect the willingness of an A&P to do owner-assist is pretty dependant upon the owner. For example, if the owner from the original post came to you, would you be inclined to work with him? He hasn't shown any motivation to do work properly, and who knows what he might do on his own after you sign off the work? Who knows what he might have already botched that you can't see? Would you trust him enough to enable him to do owner-assist, and put your signature to it?

I had no trouble whatsoever finding two good A&P-IAs who are willing to work with me. But they see me doing things properly, with well-organized hangar, tools, and aircraft records. I think that helps.

When my guy showed up to do an owner-assist annual, I had the plane opened up with all removed panels, etc., bagged and tagged along with the fasteners for each item. I had all the necessary goops and lubes on hand and labeled to match the lube chart in the manual. I'd already made a list of all ADs, documented where they were addressed in the logbooks, and notated the ones that were due along with printing out their relevant SBs. I had a copy of the maintenance manual and IPC on hand. (Bringing coffee and donuts helped a bit, too. ;) ). And so on, and so on....

I think that generates a little confidence. They've had no objections at all to letting me participate in maintaining my plane.
 
Last edited:
JAWS said:
"It flew in, didn't it? It has been that way since I bought it. Why didn't the last annual or two or three catch that if it is so serious?". That is why I am very selective on whose aircraft I am willing to enter my signature and licence into.
Click to expand...
Exactly. With guys like that it's better to let them fly it away without you touching it. It's the same attitude that says "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." That's why we see, constantly, stories on POA of alternator failures, starter failures, vacuum pump failures, magneto failures. It ain't broke so it doesn't get inspected as per manufacturer recommendations. It just gets flown until it fails, and it almost always fails at a bad time or in some inconvenient spot. It's almost like not filling the tanks until you run out of gas.
 
There are many items that are acceptable with some usage but not all.

Would an IA doing an Annual recognize that the wrong gasket is installed?


Magneto gaskets that are for the other brand are common. Why?
I can see this without any disassembly. My guess is other folks are not aware of the differences or the consequences. I’m sure there are many other examples.
Do we just rely that the correct parts were installed?

The wrong sealant on a removable fuel panel can be a major issue even if the material is fine in another location.

I’ve instructions to use Teflon tape in one part a system but not the other end.

A nice cushioned Adel is not a good substitute for the similar appearing Cessna
clamp for securing a Mixture Control.

It would be good to be able to see some of these “ horror stories”.

At one time I considered repackaging the Inspection Aids and Airworthiness Alerts
by a particular Make/ Model. I wonder if ALL the information from those sources transferred to the SDR system. Good to utilize the findings of others.
 
Last edited:
Half Fast said:
I suspect the willingness of an A&P to do owner-assist is pretty dependant upon the owner.
Click to expand...
I've found owner-assisted is very location specific. For example, there've been a number of posts here where people can't find APIAs willing to go that route. Florida is not one of those locations. As to the decision being owner-dependent, yes that does come into play. But you'll find in more cases than not, especially in the last 10 years or so, its been more where the APIAs are not open at all for a variety of reasons. Regardless, I know more APIAs who don't perform owner-assisted than do. The reason most give is 1st the added liability and 2nd it just doesn't fit into their work flow.
Half Fast said:
if the owner from the original post came to you, would you be inclined to work with him?
Click to expand...
I screened every owner whether owner-assist or ad hoc. But I had the ability to do that as mine was a side business. Some don't have that ability. However, if he would have given the me the same atitude then I would have declined as well.
Half Fast said:
And so on, and so on....
Click to expand...
Your examples are good, but they're out of context with owner-maintained. With owner-assisted, the aircraft still falls under the performance rules of Part 43 whether performed by the owner or the mechanic. With owner-maintained, Part 43 is no longer in effect and will resemble E/AB aircraft mx. Perhaps your current owner-assist mechanics will jump right in. Or perhaps not. Maybe ask them and see what they say. I started this dialogue when Primary-Non-commercial was being pushed. Even the A&Ps who did E/AB condition checks started to draw the line at owner-maintained TC aircraft and thought I was crazy to jump in. Another unknown is the insurance side with owner-maintained along with any potential liability issues. From what I've seen and heard, there still are a lot of details to work out but if it will work for you, all the power to you.
 
Bell206 said:
Your examples are good, but they're out of context with owner-maintained. With owner-assisted, the aircraft still falls under the performance rules of Part 43 whether performed by the owner or the mechanic.
Click to expand...

Yes, but at the moment owner-assist is the closest thing we have for comparison in the US where owner and A&P are both doing work on the plane.


Bell206 said:
With owner-maintained, Part 43 is no longer in effect and will resemble E/AB aircraft mx.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily.

That's one way to do it, but maybe not the only way. Why couldn't we leave Part 43 in effect? Owners today can do preventive maintenance on their own certificated aircraft under CFR 43.3(g) without taking it outside Part 43. Let's just expand what owners can do by enlarging 43.3(g).

Today, 43.3(b) reads, "The holder of a mechanic certificate may perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations as provided in Part 65 of this chapter."

Suppse we borrowed some of that language and made 43.3(g) read, "Except for holders of a sport pilot certificate, the holder of a pilot certificate issued under part 61 may perform may perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations as provided in Part 65 of this chapter on any aircraft owned or operated by that pilot which is not used under part 121, 129, or 135 of this chapter. The holder of a sport pilot certificate may perform may perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations as provided in Part 65 of this chapter on an aircraft owned or operated by that pilot and issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category."

Still part 43. Still subject to annual inspections by an IA. Still has all the same restrictions on parts and methods. All this does is expand who can do work to include pilots working on their own aircraft.
 
Half Fast said:
Why couldn't we leave Part 43 in effect?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, its not that simple as pilots cannot perform maintenance which is defined as inspection, overhaul, repair, preservation, and the replacement of parts, but specifically excludes preventive maintenance. This is why pilots have a separate list of preventive mx tasks. Its all in the terminology which is included in ICAO and other international regulatory systems. Its also the reason TCCA Owner Maintenance aircraft cannot leave Canada nor fly in the US as there is no provision for pilots to perform maintenance, i.e., Part 43. It is what it is.

However, as I mentioned in Post 155, there could be an option is to expand the Preventive Maintenance listing to remain under Part 43. I think this may be a possible alternative but the type of work will never be the same level as an A&P. The only way to include full maintenance privileges for pilot owners is through a TCCA formatted category or like the previous US Primary Non-commercial category which was similar but with a few differences like the repairman cert requirement and Phase 1 test flight for certain alterations. There is no other guidance that I'm aware of. Regardless, the maintenance vs preventive maintenance difference was the only way to remain within international guidelines and provide pilot owners as route to work on a TC'd aircraft.
 
What about a "new" experimental category?

Experimental - Amateur Maintained
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
What about a "new" experimental category?
Click to expand...
No need. If they follow the PN-C route you traded in your standard AWC for a special AWC under its own Owner Maintained category right next to the Experimental category. Believe you also added a "C" to the reg number to get NC.....
 
Bell206 said:
No need. If they follow the PN-C route you traded in your standard AWC for a special AWC under its own Owner Maintained category right next to the Experimental category. Believe you also added a "C" to the reg number to get NC.....
Click to expand...
Hmmm....they are allowing that?
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
Hmmm....they are allowing that?
Click to expand...
They would have had Primary Non-Commercial gone through. There was a detailed report sent to the FAA from the Part 23 rewrite rulemaking committee. It contained all the details of the PN-C recommendations. I think they even addressed changes to preventive maintenance but that maybe was a different document. The report was issued around 2013-2014 but since DRS went live most of my links no longer work. Perhaps you can find the report through your system....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top