Sabremech

If I spelled it out in the correct format, I get spammed to death! That’s the reason for the “at” instead of @.

Might be faster to e-mail as I’m not always on here! Just another option!! Thanks

Yes, it will fit a K model. I used it on a J model to test it and fit it. It’s hydraulic and should fit almost all Mooney models as I don’t think the nose gear has changed much over the years. Open to being educated on that though! As for the at’s, was trying to avoid any more spam e-mails than I already get!! Thanks, David

We don’t have any “new” guys! Mechanic shortage is only going to get worse!!

I was hoping to post a picture but apparently have exceeded my photo data limit!

Be glad as we’re now dealing with vacuum toilets and need to connect a laptop to it to download the poo trouble data for troubleshooting. Yippee!

Good morning, I have a new designed nose gear shock disk R&R tool available for rent. Three days in your hands rental $75 plus shipping both ways. Contact David at sabremech at gmail.com for more information or to rent this tooling. Thank you, David

CFR 65.81 is in regards to a repair station where supervisors who don’t have an A&P are responsible for signing off work. The key word is “supervise”. This does not mean as an A&P that you must be supervised and signed off before you can do this work on your own. I had this discussion with the infamous Mike Busch and asked him to provide the document the FAA requires for me to keep with sign offs to prove I had previously done a task. I’m still waiting for his reply 10 years later. I also called my PMI and he confirmed this is geared towards repair stations with non certified mechanics in a supervisory role.

Hi Denis, Let me take a look at the other one I have. It might not be much better than yours, but I’ll look it over. Thanks

" The part must be produced to conform to the design. A properly produced part means the part conforms to the FAA approved design. Usually a properly produced part will have the following characteristics: The part complies with all applicable structural requirements of its design. The materials and products conform to the specifications in the design. The part conforms to the drawings in the design. The manufacturing processes, construction, and assembly of the part conform to those specified in the design." Now here is a question posed to Bill O'Brien (an FAA Maintenance guy) many years ago (he's now passed away) "Question 8: How does the owner or operator get the approved data to make a part if the manufacturer and other sources are no longer in business? Answer 8: For aircraft that the manufacturer is no longer supporting the continuing airworthiness of then the owner or operator can petition the FAA Aircraft Certification Directorate under the Freedom of Information Act for the data on how the part was made. Or the owner or operator can reverse engineer the part and have the data approved under a FAA field approval or if it is a real complicated part, have the data approved by a FAA engineer or FAA Designated Engineering Representative." I was stating that the part has to have some sort of traceable design paperwork to an approved status of manufacture. Factory design drawings, reverse engineer with DER, total DER design. I can see no way to just "design" your own part (even if it is better than original) because it still has to conform to the "approved " design. In addition, as was postulated in later additions to this thread, one "could" make 50 pieces to a "proper order" from one owner and put 49 on the shelf and NOT advertise them for sale to the general public. IF another owner needed one that owner "could" participate in the design by submitting the proper paperwork to the person making the part, purchase it and install it and get it legally signed off by an A&P. This is exactly how McFarlan sells throttle. mixture and prop controls. They supply the paperwork for the owner to specify what he needs (participates in the design of the part). They don't just hold out to the public that they have the parts for sale. I think all of the above go along with what I postulated in my first post Where is the controversy or confusion? Sabremech- How can what I've posted be worked around when it comes straight from an FAA maintenance person? I am confused by your post. You say no approved data needs to be on hand and that only one leg of the four needs to be considered? Please tell me how this can be accomplished in light of my above additional postings? I guess I could say I feel that it needs to be in 43.13 OR have tracable approved data to make the part comply. I am willing to learn but I see no way around it If there is any FAA opinion contrary to what I have posted please show me so I can change my position on the subject at hand. I can find noting to contradict what I have posted. Attached is the original Bill O'Brien article https://150cessna.tripod.com/obrienonownermadeparts.html I think you are confusing and intermingling OPP and FAA/PMA parts together. I think even Bill O’Brien was referencing PMA parts process in his article a bit. I spoke with a DER during the process of the downlock blocks as to whether their services were required and the answer was no unless I was seeking a PMA. Much like the FAA, I think we’re interpreting the OPP rule differently.

Are you willing to share which FSDO?

From your linked article, the owner must participate in at least ONE of the five ways to be considered owner produced. Did you miss that in your reading? I stopped reading any further after that!

You do NOT have to comply with all 4 parts of OPP. You need only to comply with one of them to meet the rule. You also don’t need qualified data. You need nothing other than an original part to make a new one. Sorry Cliffy, but you don’t seem to understand OPP rules.

Good morning sir! Great to hear and happy to help. I’ll be interested to also get your feedback on your stab trim and how it feels now for takeoff? Thanks, David

I found nothing in regards to looking at the downlock block for wear in the S/B or the limits of wear allowed. No inspection interval either for that matter on the blocks themselves. Still missing a crucial part in the gear up scenario.

I’m not done! Just in a holding pattern for a bit.

For the J model, the mains require the gear rigging tool and the torque is checked. For the nose, a measurement on the rod springs is made. I’ve yet to have to adjust any on the Mooney’s I’ve worked on. Now rigging on the horizontal stabilizer is another story! Plenty of those I’ve made corrections on. David

I reached out to the ACO Engineer listed on the SAIB because I feel they missed the most important part for the manual gear airplanes which is a worn downlock block. They didn’t seem to know anything about the downlock as the focus was on rigging and lubrication. I’m not convinced it’s really a rigging issue as much as it’s a worn block with no instructions for inspection or limits. I sent the engineer a number of pictures of worn down lock blocks for them to review. Let’s see if there’s an update to this SAIB. David

I don’t think that is appropriate to post here as this issue has not been resolved. Some day if it can be shared, I will share it but most likely never on social media. David

That tube is there to provide air to cool the magneto. I’d recommend re-installing it. David

I installed the LASAR down lock in my C when I owned it and it was difficult to get in the down lock. I did quite a bit of looking and inspecting and that’s when I found the Johnson bar bent slightly. I confirmed it with D Maxwell and how it can get bent. One of the easiest things you can do is put a straight edge, ruler, against the bar as close to the bottom of it as you can. If you see any daylight between the straight edge and the bar, it’s bent. I do not believe that the LASAR down lock block is an issue in regards to the handle being difficult to engage.

The Johnson bar is bent by someone accidentally kicking the handle out of the uplock in flight and it slamming forward into the instrument panel and down lock. This isn’t a new issue but something few people think about.

You beat me to it! Been there on the one I use to own.

It appears you just want to continue this so you can be right. Sorry, but you’re not. You replaced the wing on your 140. Once again, the why doesn’t matter. You also did a repair for normal wear and tear, not damage.

You’re talking something that could define damage history if it wasn’t repaired correctly. If it was repaired with new or serviceable parts just like original and doesn’t require a 337, then it’s maintenance.