Unauthorized repairs

Ron Levy said:
If it's brand new and shiny and all the other switches are old and grimy? Pretty easy to spot. But as I said, there's plenty that can be hidden from most inspections if you pick the right task and do the work neatly. But at the end of the day, it's back to that old "i-word" again, and as I was told in the Air Force, integrity is like virginity -- either you have it or you don't, and once it's gone, it's gone.
Click to expand...

What you'd really spot would be the new switch. I find it difficult to believe that most A&Ps would then go to the trouble of trying to find the part number on that switch, which is likely on the side and not going to be readable without removal anyway.

While I agree with your integrity point, I'm providing a reality check for those that assume that everything would get caught on annual or pre-buy. Simply not true, and not realistic to assume as such. Furthermore, it can be legal anyway - see AC 23-27.
 
Integrity is about doing the Right Thing. Blind, unthinking obedience to authority is not the same as doing the right thing, sometimes it's the opposite even.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
What you'd really spot would be the new switch. I find it difficult to believe that most A&Ps would then go to the trouble of trying to find the part number on that switch, which is likely on the side and not going to be readable without removal anyway.

While I agree with your integrity point, I'm providing a reality check for those that assume that everything would get caught on annual or pre-buy. Simply not true, and not realistic to assume as such. Furthermore, it can be legal anyway - see AC 23-27.
Click to expand...

+1 what Ted says. An airplane has a lot of parts. It's absolutely insane to think that an IA is going to notice one looks slightly different and then dig through the logs trying to prove it (which they still can't prove) because they WANT to get you in trouble? Start pulling that **** as an IA and you'll be out of customers in no time.

It's not much different as a CFI. I don't go OUT of my way to prove that someone was operating against the regulations. Instead I train them to do things right and help them get back into a legal state. If I started turning everyone into the FSDO that I think flew IFR without current instrument currency I would be ran off the airport in no time.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Let's see, the patch is aluminum, the rivets are aluminum and the skin is aluminum. :dunno:
Click to expand...

2024, 6061, 3003, how many aluminums can you name? all will generate dissimilar metal corrosion when not separated from each other.
 
jesse said:
+1 what Ted says. An airplane has a lot of parts. It's absolutely insane to think that an IA is going to notice one looks slightly different and then dig through the logs trying to prove it
Click to expand...

The twist is that many times the little parts that were replaced as part of a larger repair, or alteration will not be named individually.

" removed radio stack and replaced with a Garmin XXXX using new associated hardware yada yada ect."

Many repair shops and A&Ps will use ambiguous sign offs to CYA latter. So that little switch that Ron use as his example, just maybe covered in an associated entry.
 
Tom-D said:
In reality, how could any one prove one way or any other that the owner replaced a part that is not serialized, not logged, and is not looking like it is a substitute?



it is the right part, it is installed correctly, and has been working as it should,



who in the hell cares?



IMHO there isn't 1 inspector in 10,000 that could catch it.
Click to expand...

This reminds me of some of the 170 parts that can be found at Tractor Supply Co.
 
Richard said:
Ok, smarty. I meant several cracks which radiated from elongated drilled holes. Those holes were not factory compliant/as designed.
Click to expand...
The way I read your original description I thought maybe a hole was drilled to "pull out" a dent. Couldn't figure out what you wanted done to fix it. Not being "smart", just curious. I don't think any repairs to spinners are authorized, but I don't doubt many exist in the field.

Richard said:
The rear backing plate exhibited the same with the addition that nut plates had been placed to bridge several cracks. Those several nut plates didn't do anything except bridge the cracks.
Click to expand...
It's been a long time, but I believe that's an acceptable repair for cracks. I don't know if a back plate is allowed to be fixed that way though (probably not, since it's part of the spinner assembly). The crack should also be stop drilled in a repair like that for sure.

Richard said:
The 6 prop bolts were replaced when I replace with new the spinner and backing plate. The existing prop bolts were an incorrect length.

And it looked marvelous to the casual observer.
Click to expand...
I once bought a Cessna 140 that was really beautiful. New paint, Jetstream wheel pants, metalized wings. But I wondered why, if I happened to push on both rudder pedals at the same time--the nose would go down. :confused: I found out at the next annual. One rudder cable was looped over the elevator cable! :eek: Until then, though, it was a really convenient feature on long cross countries. :)

dtuuri
 
Clark1961 said:
I've never done rivet design work so I don't know what a pop rivet does to a local stress field.
Click to expand...
If it's an authentic "Pop" rivet, it shouldn't fill the hole when pulled, which would spread the crack, but I wouldn't bet on it. If it was an aircraft quality CherryLock rivet, it would definitely do that. If it's a crack in metal not plastic, it should have a patch too, in addition to the stop drilled hole.

dtuuri
 
Last edited:
Ted DuPuis said:
What you'd really spot would be the new switch. I find it difficult to believe that most A&Ps would then go to the trouble of trying to find the part number on that switch, which is likely on the side and not going to be readable without removal anyway.
Click to expand...
But someone might at least look in the maintenance records for the entry covering the replacement.
While I agree with your integrity point, I'm providing a reality check for those that assume that everything would get caught on annual or pre-buy. Simply not true, and not realistic to assume as such. Furthermore, it can be legal anyway - see AC 23-27.
Click to expand...
Not if it isn't documented in the aircraft maintenance records, and that's what I thought we were talking about here.
 
dtuuri said:
If it's an authentic "Pop" rivet, it shouldn't fill the hole when pulled, which would spread the crack, but I wouldn't bet on it. If it was an aircraft quality CherryLock rivet, it would definitely do that. If it's a crack in metal not plastic, it should have a patch too, in addition to the stop drilled hole.

dtuuri
Click to expand...

I don't know, a "Pop Rivet" brand blind rivet uses a ball in the pull chamber. I would think the pull would also put the hole in tension.
 
Unregistered said:
Just curious how you guys deal with making your own repairs that are not authorized to be performed by a non A&P. If you are perfect and have never made a repair yourself that was not authorized and you want to lecture, save your time.

Let me give an example. My plane was dead the other day and I traced it down to a bad master contactor. If my A&P was on my field, I would have had him replace it. He is not, so I got one from him and replaced it. I have a couple of options. I can have him look over and check the installation and make the appropriate entries, or I can pretend it never happened. The new contactor does not so shiny and new looking that it would be obvious that is was recently replaced. As long as it does not fall off and short out causing a fire, no one would ever know if was replaced.

Generally in life I believe in ask for forgiveness, not permission. When it comes to flying I prefer to follow the rules, but it seems a little silly to take the plane to the shop so they can look at the installation and say it looks good.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Well, I've scanned this thread, tried to read through the arguing but just kept rolling my eyes, so I'll give you the first thing I thought of:

Pragmatically you can probably easily "get away" with this one repair as you say and no one will notice. A year later you do it again on something else, and then several months later you do it again. Pretty soon you've got 10 undocumented repairs.

Now, what are the odds a good mechanic notices one?

Since your shop participated in the process, it shouldn't cost much to keep you legal. Once legal, it's gone forever as a problem.

How much silly risk do you need? We've got real risks out there to deal with that we can't "get rid of". Why hold on to this one for a few bucks? It makes no sense to me.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
Tom....if you sign off the annual....it doesn't matter. You just signed off everything with that entry.
Click to expand...

At that moment in time. Now if a part was replaced and no log entry made how can it be proven that the part was replaced before the annual sign off or five minutes after it? :dunno:
 
Silvaire said:
At that moment in time. Now if a part was replaced and no log entry made how can it be proven that the part was replaced before the annual sign off or five minutes after it? :dunno:
Click to expand...

The FAA doesn't prove anything. In their eyes, you are guilty till proven innocent.
 
Norman said:
The FAA doesn't prove anything. In their eyes, you are guilty till proven innocent.
Click to expand...

Right, but the party they are calling to the carpet as the responsible party is the operator, not the mechanic. The operator is responsible for the airworthiness of the aircraft to include the required record keeping.
 
Norman said:
The FAA doesn't prove anything. In their eyes, you are guilty till proven innocent.
Click to expand...

In such a case there is no "guilt" to begin with because if there is no documentation of any sort then it is completely impossible to determine when the part was installed. The FAA cannot and will not arbitrarily fabricate or assign a date to the incident without any supporting data.
 
Silvaire said:
In such a case there is no "guilt" to begin with because if there is no documentation of any sort then it is completely impossible to determine when the part was installed. The FAA cannot and will not arbitrarily fabricate or assign a date to the incident without any supporting data.
Click to expand...

True, they will just make sure that the owner has the paperwork squared away before further flight, that is all folks, nobody is going to jail over this.
 
Norman said:
The FAA doesn't prove anything. In their eyes, you are guilty till proven innocent.
Click to expand...

It's not the FSDO we worry about. They do know what they can prove and what they can't.

One must not babble, and allow them to get the proof they need.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top