DVA

Supporter
  • Content count

    174
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

135 Excellent

About DVA

  • Rank
    Full Member
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    www.vanallenairmotive.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Allentown PA
  • Reg #
    N9153Z
  • Model
    M20M

Recent Profile Visitors

611 profile views
  1. I’ll be surprised if it’s the filter for no reason other than they don’t often fail or clog. But I’ve been surprised before.
  2. Here’s one: 97-14-15 ... so your first theory is blown; there are others. Next, there are many “mechanics” here and some are participating in this thread. Finally, no need to be cynical, this is not as simple as you make it sound.
  3. Thanks Steve, I appreciate your comments. Just for clarity, there is no client being advised - the post is hypothetical and just an example. We would, of course, do the inspections for anyone as required. You write: “Although the message back to your client should reiterate that owner maintenance is a good thing, this particular owner-performed maintenance item isn’t one of them." I’d like to know why you feel this “isn’t one of them?” - Please consider that absent the AD in this case the owner is allowed to do everything surrounding removal and replacement of the fuel line. In the end this about owner maintenance and promoting it - we as a shop want to do that - and I think that helps make a Good Shop. I have seen in 35 years of flying that when owners get involved in the maintenance of their aircraft they are safer in the air. In this case there is absolutely no reason why (IMO) that if an owner can replace a fuel line under the FARs, then the owner has had to inspect it, too. This particular AD calls only for a visual inspection for compliance, the owner can do that - as an option, and as such I see no need to add time and cost of a A&P wandering over just to take a look. Best regards, Dave
  4. It’s an acronym for Alternate Method of Compliance. Basically anyone can suggest to the FAA an alternative way to comply with an AD that will bring the same or better results. The FAA has to review the AMOC request, but they don’t have to grant it. They often do, however.
  5. Hi Steve, sure ... In the case I am presenting, I content that an owner should be able to opine to this particular AD themselves (as is done in some other AD’s). This will save both time and money, and the same results in terms of compliance and safety will be met. I am seeking opinions here before I file an AMOC as a vehicle to both clarify some abigutity and to show that the FARs already prescribe that an owner has the authority to replace and verify that these fuel lines are safe.
  6. So it begins ... time to define “pre-fabricated”
  7. But when a line is replaced for any reason, the AD is triggered.
  8. PM me, I have a few questions that you if you don’t mind.
  9. @donkaye Check this out - the friction lock was loose enough (and worn) that just the normal vibration was enough to cause the vernier knob to slowly rotate and do exactly what @M016576 was suggesting. This was the fix while we waited for the new assembly to arrive.
  10. Had it happen to me on a J ... Good suggestion @M016576 !
  11. @bradp the FARs for owner maintenance allow you do that replacement yourself if the line is pre-fabricated. I would ask your A&P to be there the first time and guide you, as I think you’re suggesting. This is a simple repair but the fittings on the lines have to be torqued to a certain value and unless you own and are familiar with a torque wrench you’ll need him/her anyway. I would also suggest that you mark the fittings with TorqueLock so you can easily see if they work loose. Do it all yourself, and you should make the required log entries yourself, just use your A&P as a watch person. I reference the FAR when I make my entries, here’s an example: Have fun and thanks for sharing your story!
  12. Once again a great example of an owner, admittedly not a tech guy, opens his cowling and finds something that could have been disastrous. I am going to work on a video soon that I’ll post in my blog area that shows what an owner/operator, who is not an A&P, can do as an extended preflight. It will be a de-cowling and we will point out what to look for. Someone did this for me, so I want to pass it on.
  13. Once again a great example of an owner, admittedly not a tech guy, opens his cowling and finds something that could have been disastrous.
  14. So timely in two ways. 1) good for you doing a great inspection. 2) look for the thread I just started in General called Owner Maintenace and AD compliance and let everyone there know about your win today!
  15. First Deb, thanks for referencing real stuff to make a point. It always helps to see people backing up opinions with facts! This is complicated, and I will add that there is confusion at the FAA on this, as well as with experts. I have gotten about 50/50 and no definitive reference yet. I’ve spoken with people from various FSDOs on this particular example and gotten both, “in this case, yes” and “no, never” (which is obviously incorrect as there are a number of ADs out that owners can comply with; RLCarter made just one example of a few I know of). If you agree that an owner can replace a pre-fabricated fuel line under the FARs and sign off that it is installed per recommended guidance, then it is presumed that absent any AD, that repair can be made safe and valid. The mere presence of the AD which only states that a visual inspection is necessary doesn’t change the fact that a visual inspection was done when the owner properly replaced the line, and that was satisfactory to the FAA. I may just take the time to apply for Alternate Method of Compliance as a vehicle to get clarification as “Anyone (my emphasis) may propose an AMOC according to § 39.19.” I will reference the above Owner Maintenance FARs and argue that the visual inspection is already presumed to occur in the same manner and with the same end results. This may be the only way to get an “official” response to this as one can easily argue the ambiguity of this example no matter who it is - including reps from the FAA. Thanks Deb!