Stranded - need alternator help

Funny how we laugh at New Jersey where it's illegal to fuel your own car (but not your plane!) but find it normal to let some teenager put fuel in your airplane where the chance for damage or disaster is a lot higher.
 
Bell206 said:
True also. So which of the 5 requirements is an owner performing with a store bought part that makes it Part 21 approved?
Click to expand...

Are you implying "The owner produced the part from his pocket." won't get the job done?
 
kyleb said:
Are you implying "The owner produced the part from his pocket." won't get the job done?
Click to expand...
Pocket?? Dont quite follow. All my comments were about following owner production/prevent mx not whether a different part would " get the job"done".
 
AA5Bman, where's the plane? Is the issue resolved?
 
Bell206 said:
i think either follow the guidelines that were part of primary non-commercial proposal or follow the TCCA Owner Maintained program. In my opinion it would be difficult to go by general performance, capacity, etc as too many variables. However, people will need to understand the restrictions on this path similar to the TCCA program: no export, no ops outside US, reversal issues, etc.
Click to expand...

Why not gross weight, like the line between part 23/25? 4000 pounds would include most piston singles. 6000 would rope in light twins. You could exclude aircraft equipped with more complex systems like turbine engines or pressurized cabins.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Maybe you could quote me accurately. I said the battery would run the engine and fuel gauges, not the engine.

A maintenance shop that finds an airworthiness defect that the owner refuses to fix has to enter that defect in the logs to protect itself. That effectively makes the airplane unairworthy, and if the owner decides he knows better and flies it, he is responsible. If a owner that grounds his aircraft for an airworthiness issue and another pilot flies it anyway, that pilot is at fault and will pay for it. The PIC is not entitled to call it whatever he likes.
Click to expand...

NOPE. At no point should an MX ever have your logs, and there is nothing they can put in the logs to make it unairworthy UNLESS is it a required inspection. FBOs and MX simply do not have the power to magically make airplanes unairworthy. See FAR 91.3

>A maintenance shop that finds an airworthiness defect that the owner refuses to fix has to enter that defect in the logs to protect itself.

Sure, just show me the FAR that allows this. LPT: there isn't. MX have delusions of grandeur. At most you can refuse to sign off the 'return to service' (FAR 43.5) but even then, if you did not COMPLETE the work (FAR 43.9 'has been performed satisfactorily') you are not REQUIRED to make an entry in the maintenance records. There is a great scenario by Mike Busch: You are asked to change a tire on a 172. But the 172 has no wings. Can you make the airplane unairworthy? No. You cannot. There is nothing you can do about the wings and you were never asked to perform maintenance on them.

Also, only fools give MX's the actual logs because of shenanigans like this. I get that MXs like to write in log books, but again, the FAA has said that a sicker with the work/sign off for the owner/operator to affix to the logs is satisfactory.
 
Domenick said:
AA5Bman, where's the plane? Is the issue resolved?
Click to expand...

Yes and no. The local FBO is taking care of it. I have to be back that way next weekend, so I’m planning to pick it up then. New $2 bolt, $30 alternator belt (old one was fried) and $200 worth of labor :faceplam: Ahh aviation.
 
Gary Ward said:
I have 3 of these 3000hp hemi that I rotate using. For a while there I was overhauling one every 2-3 weeks for 9 years.
MVC-298S.jpg

A little billet eye candy.
Image018.jpg
Click to expand...

Now we're cookin'!
 
Bell206 said:
Pocket?? Dont quite follow. All my comments were about following owner production/prevent mx not whether a different part would " get the job"done".
Click to expand...

'Twas a play on words. Stories frequently contain a statement like "And when asked to produce proof of ID, the suspect reached into her pocket and retrieved a driver's license."
 
Ed Haywood said:
Well, when you have a charge cart parked next to your airplane, with jumper cables running into the cockpit, it's kind of hard to concoct a cover story when Mr FAA Man walks up, flashes his ID, and says "hi, whatcha doing?"
Click to expand...

I wonder what he would have said if you would have replied that if you leave the master switch on, after awhile, the battery will not have enough charge to start the engine. Not that I would ever recommend telling a lie since the man from the FAA was only there to help you.....
 
AA5Bman said:
Yes and no. The local FBO is taking care of it. I have to be back that way next weekend, so I’m planning to pick it up then. New $2 bolt, $30 alternator belt (old one was fried) and $200 worth of labor :faceplam: Ahh aviation.
Click to expand...

You got out of it OK. Chalk it up to experience. We've all been there.
 
AA5Bman said:
Yes and no. The local FBO is taking care of it. I have to be back that way next weekend, so I’m planning to pick it up then. New $2 bolt, $30 alternator belt (old one was fried) and $200 worth of labor :faceplam: Ahh aviation.
Click to expand...
Here's hoping for good weather. It could have been worse. You could have used a hardware store bolt/nut/washers and ended the world. :)
 
Lindberg said:
I have no idea. But you could have led with the five requirements. :D
Click to expand...
Okay....:D

1. The owner provided the manufacturer with design or performance data from which to manufacture the part. (This may occur, for instance, where a person provided a part to a manufacturer and asked that the part be duplicated.)
2. The owner provided the manufacturer with materials from which to manufacture the part.
3. The owner provided the manufacturer with fabrication processes or assembly methods to be used in the manufacture of the part.
4. The owner provided the manufacturer with quality control procedures to be used in the manufacture of the part.
5. The owner supervised the manufacturer of the part.
 
pfarber said:
A maintenance shop that finds an airworthiness defect that the owner refuses to fix has to enter that defect in the logs to protect itself.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
pfarber said:
At most you can refuse to sign off the 'return to service' (FAR 43.5) but even then, if you did not COMPLETE the work (FAR 43.9 'has been performed satisfactorily') you are not REQUIRED to make an entry in the maintenance records.
Click to expand...
Wrong again. Perhaps you should read and understand your FAR references before you post them. Per Part 43.9, if a mechanic, or anyone, performs work on an aircraft they are required to make an entry. Period. Notice below it states “each person”, not each mechanic or each owner. And if the intent is to walk away and NOT COMPLETE the work the entry is still required along with the name of the person performing the work per 43.9(a)(3). Part 43.9(a)(4) only comes into to play... "IF" the work was completed with (a)(3) providing an exemption so that if the same person who performs the work and approves it for RTS does not have to enter his name twice as required by the regulation.
§ 43.9
(a) Maintenance record entries. Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, each person who maintains, performs preventive maintenance, rebuilds, or alters an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part shall make an entry in the maintenance record of that equipment containing the following information:
(1) A description (or reference to data acceptable to the Administrator) of work performed.
(2) The date of completion of the work performed.
(3) The name of the person performing the work if other than the person specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
(4) If the work performed on the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part has been performed satisfactorily, the signature, certificate number, and kind of certificate held by the person approving the work. The signature constitutes the approval for return to service only for the work performed.
pfarber said:
Also, only fools.........
Click to expand...
.....continue to post information they do not understand or comprehend.:rolleyes:
 
pfarber said:
NOPE. At no point should an MX ever have your logs, and there is nothing they can put in the logs to make it unairworthy UNLESS is it a required inspection. FBOs and MX simply do not have the power to magically make airplanes unairworthy. See FAR 91.3

>A maintenance shop that finds an airworthiness defect that the owner refuses to fix has to enter that defect in the logs to protect itself.

Sure, just show me the FAR that allows this. LPT: there isn't. MX have delusions of grandeur. At most you can refuse to sign off the 'return to service' (FAR 43.5) but even then, if you did not COMPLETE the work (FAR 43.9 'has been performed satisfactorily') you are not REQUIRED to make an entry in the maintenance records. There is a great scenario by Mike Busch: You are asked to change a tire on a 172. But the 172 has no wings. Can you make the airplane unairworthy? No. You cannot. There is nothing you can do about the wings and you were never asked to perform maintenance on them.

Also, only fools give MX's the actual logs because of shenanigans like this. I get that MXs like to write in log books, but again, the FAA has said that a sicker with the work/sign off for the owner/operator to affix to the logs is satisfactory.
Click to expand...

OK. So what do we make of this, then?

§ 43.11 Content, form, and disposition of records for inspections conducted under parts 91 and 125 and §§ 135.411(a)(1) and 135.419 of this chapter.
(a) Maintenance record entries. The person approving or disapproving for return to service an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part after any inspection performed in accordance with part 91, 125, § 135.411(a)(1), or § 135.419 shall make an entry in the maintenance record of that equipment containing the following information:

(1) The type of inspection and a brief description of the extent of the inspection.

(2) The date of the inspection and aircraft total time in service.

(3) The signature, the certificate number, and kind of certificate held by the person approving or disapproving for return to service the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, component part, or portions thereof.

(4) Except for progressive inspections, if the aircraft is found to be airworthy and approved for return to service, the following or a similarly worded statement - “I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with (insert type) inspection and was determined to be in airworthy condition.”

(5) Except for progressive inspections, if the aircraft is not approved for return to service because of needed maintenance, noncompliance with applicable specifications, airworthiness directives, or other approved data, the following or a similarly worded statement - “I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with (insert type) inspection and a list of discrepancies and unairworthy items dated (date) has been provided for the aircraft owner or operator.”

(6) For progressive inspections, the following or a similarly worded statement - “I certify that in accordance with a progressive inspection program, a routine inspection of (identify whether aircraft or components) and a detailed inspection of (identify components) were performed and the (aircraft or components) are (approved or disapproved) for return to service.” If disapproved, the entry will further state “and a list of discrepancies and unairworthy items dated (date) has been provided to the aircraft owner or operator.”

(7) If an inspection is conducted under an inspection program provided for in part 91, 125, or § 135.411(a)(1), the entry must identify the inspection program, that part of the inspection program accomplished, and contain a statement that the inspection was performed in accordance with the inspections and procedures for that particular program.

(b) Listing of discrepancies and placards. If the person performing any inspection required by part 91 or 125 or § 135.411(a)(1) of this chapter finds that the aircraft is unairworthy or does not meet the applicable type certificate data, airworthiness directives, or other approved data upon which its airworthiness depends, that persons must give the owner or lessee a signed and dated list of those discrepancies. For those items permitted to be inoperative under § 91.213(d)(2) of this chapter, that person shall place a placard, that meets the aircraft's airworthiness certification regulations, on each inoperative instrument and the cockpit control of each item of inoperative equipment, marking it “Inoperative,” and shall add the items to the signed and dated list of discrepancies given to the owner or lessee.

Now, tell me how all of those entries are possible if the shop doesn't have the logs. And tell me how the airplane is still airworthy if the logs contain statements saying that there are unrepaired airworthiness defects in it.

Canadians have it a bit different. We have a Journey Log that all flights are recorded in, and it has to have, among other things, stuff like this entered in it by the pilot, mechanic or other relevant persons as applicable:

upload_2021-12-5_13-4-18.png

Note especially #9 and #10.

I'm still waiting to hear what your maintenance training and qualifications might be.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2021-12-5_13-4-18.png
    upload_2021-12-5_13-4-18.png
    50.8 KB · Views: 1
Last edited:
I learned something today

In the event of a zombie apocalypse most here would die in the first day lol
 
AA5Bman said:
OP here again, I assume everyone realizes we’re in the realm of hypothetical now - I drove home. It’s an interesting discussion of how you might be able to save such a flight, but I am now “out of the woods” so to speak.

It actually didn’t occur to me that it would be illegal to cut off the belt and fly home radio-less, given that so many planes fly without electrical systems at all. But now that I think about it, I can see the problem. It sounds a little silly, but it you wanted to stay as legal as possible, could you disable it, placard the master inop, logbook entry it, and fly home?

Finally,my handle notwithstanding, I am horrified that some of you have assumed my gender!
Click to expand...
You’re horrified and I’m amused. To think you believe anyone actually cares about your gender.

Glad you made it home safe.
 
AA5Bman said:
Finally,my handle notwithstanding, I am horrified that some of you have assumed my gender!
Click to expand...
Horrified? Surely you are joking.

I assume everyone here is an old white man until I receive information to the contrary. And I'm always pleased when I find out I was mistaken.

But now I have to ask, which of the multiple choice of genders these days do you choose to identify as?
 
Screws fall out all the time, the world's an imperfect place.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
You’re horrified and I’m amused. To think you believe anyone actually cares about your gender.
Click to expand...

JOhnH said:
Horrified? Surely you are joking.

I assume everyone here is an old white man until I receive information to the contrary. And I'm always pleased when I find out I was mistaken.

But now I have to ask, which of the multiple choice of genders these days do you choose to identify as?
Click to expand...
He’s already addressed that it was a joke in post #55, time to move on from it now! :)
 
JOhnH said:
Horrified? Surely you are joking.

I assume everyone here is an old white man until I receive information to the contrary. And I'm always pleased when I find out I was mistaken.

But now I have to ask, which of the multiple choice of genders these days do you choose to identify as?
Click to expand...

Hey, are you calling 63 old? I’m offended! Otherwise, yeah aviation is predominantly white male but that is gradually changing, and for the better in my opinion.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Hey, are you calling 63 old? I’m offended! Otherwise, yeah aviation is predominantly white male but that is gradually changing, and for the better in my opinion.
Click to expand...
No. I don't call 63 old. But when I go to pilots (Wings) meetings around here there are two types of people: young students from the multitude of flight schools here, and people that are older than my 69 yrs.
Anyone older than me is "old".
Speaking of the students, many of them are either women or non-white people to whom English is a second language. And they are generally more attentive and ask better question. Us old white guys seem to relish catching the speaker in a mistake.
 
Last edited:
Dan Thomas said:
OK. So what do we make of this, then?

§ 43.11 Content, form, and disposition of records for inspections conducted under parts 91 and 125 and §§ 135.411(a)(1) and 135.419 of this chapter.
(a) Maintenance record entries. The person approving or disapproving for return to service an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part after any inspection performed in accordance with part 91, 125, § 135.411(a)(1), or § 135.419 shall make an entry in the maintenance record of that equipment containing the following information:

(1) The type of inspection and a brief description of the extent of the inspection.

(2) The date of the inspection and aircraft total time in service.

(3) The signature, the certificate number, and kind of certificate held by the person approving or disapproving for return to service the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, component part, or portions thereof.

(4) Except for progressive inspections, if the aircraft is found to be airworthy and approved for return to service, the following or a similarly worded statement - “I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with (insert type) inspection and was determined to be in airworthy condition.”

(5) Except for progressive inspections, if the aircraft is not approved for return to service because of needed maintenance, noncompliance with applicable specifications, airworthiness directives, or other approved data, the following or a similarly worded statement - “I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with (insert type) inspection and a list of discrepancies and unairworthy items dated (date) has been provided for the aircraft owner or operator.”

(6) For progressive inspections, the following or a similarly worded statement - “I certify that in accordance with a progressive inspection program, a routine inspection of (identify whether aircraft or components) and a detailed inspection of (identify components) were performed and the (aircraft or components) are (approved or disapproved) for return to service.” If disapproved, the entry will further state “and a list of discrepancies and unairworthy items dated (date) has been provided to the aircraft owner or operator.”

(7) If an inspection is conducted under an inspection program provided for in part 91, 125, or § 135.411(a)(1), the entry must identify the inspection program, that part of the inspection program accomplished, and contain a statement that the inspection was performed in accordance with the inspections and procedures for that particular program.

(b) Listing of discrepancies and placards. If the person performing any inspection required by part 91 or 125 or § 135.411(a)(1) of this chapter finds that the aircraft is unairworthy or does not meet the applicable type certificate data, airworthiness directives, or other approved data upon which its airworthiness depends, that persons must give the owner or lessee a signed and dated list of those discrepancies. For those items permitted to be inoperative under § 91.213(d)(2) of this chapter, that person shall place a placard, that meets the aircraft's airworthiness certification regulations, on each inoperative instrument and the cockpit control of each item of inoperative equipment, marking it “Inoperative,” and shall add the items to the signed and dated list of discrepancies given to the owner or lessee.

Now, tell me how all of those entries are possible if the shop doesn't have the logs. And tell me how the airplane is still airworthy if the logs contain statements saying that there are unrepaired airworthiness defects in it.

Canadians have it a bit different. We have a Journey Log that all flights are recorded in, and it has to have, among other things, stuff like this entered in it by the pilot, mechanic or other relevant persons as applicable:

View attachment 102427

Note especially #9 and #10.

I'm still waiting to hear what your maintenance training and qualifications might be.
Click to expand...
This is for inspections, not maintenance.

Apples to oranges.

I specifically excluded required inspections. Plrease reread my post as you missed that part.
 
Bell206 said:
Per Part 43.9, if a mechanic, or anyone, performs work on an aircraft they are required to make an entry.
Click to expand...

Only if the work is performed satisfactorily as per FAR 43.9

(4) If the work performed on the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part has been performed satisfactorily,

If you are asked to change a part and the MM fails (say a part is out of spec) there is no far that requires and failure to be logged. And any smart owner is not giving you the logs
 
Dana said:
Funny how we laugh at New Jersey where it's illegal to fuel your own car (but not your plane!) but find it normal to let some teenager put fuel in your airplane where the chance for damage or disaster is a lot higher.
Click to expand...

That darn AFFW (American Federation of FBO Workers) is powerful!
 
pfarber said:
there is no far that requires and failure to be logged.
Click to expand...
Wrong for the 3rd time. I posted the specific FAR in post #137 above that states all work must be entered. So you either didn’t read it, don't want to read it, or can’t understand it. Perhaps if I simplify what it says you’ll be able to finally comprehend it?

43.9(a): each person who performs work on an aircraft shall make an entry in the aircraft record.

That entry will contain the following information:
43.9(a)(1): description of work.
43.9(a)(2): date the work was done.
43.9(a)(3): name of the person performing the work. Full stop.

43.9(a)(4) begins with and is only required IF the work is properly completed. Full stop again.

There is nothing in 43.9(a) that exempts you from making that maintenance entry. Period.

Lo entiendes amigo?:rolleyes:
 
And any smart owner is not giving you the logs[/QUOTE]

No problem.

The required entries must go in the Records ; not necessarily the Logbooks.

A sticker with “ Extract of Records for N12345” at the top with the rest

of the information in the body is one way.

Apply sticker in a prominent location and take a pic that is preferably witnessed.

I’ve resorted to this a few times with” Special People” that do crazy things.

How about modifying a propeller; with Bondo?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top