Sabremech

You don’t know all the facts in regards to the downlock blocks. Please stop acting as you do. The friendly aviation administration has not replied to my response and subsequent questions to them challenging their assertions from June of last year. I don’t know where this stands with them, but do know that I’m disputing their claims. If and when this is resolved, I’ll be happy to give you all the details so you can be informed instead of posting your personal opinion. I don’t mean to be rude, but these comments are irritating when I and a few others know the facts. David

Is there a need for a set of wing jacks that can be broken down to ship as a rental? Thanks, David

It appears that I don’t have this specific tool. Thanks, David

I may have the crimpers you’re looking for. Let me confirm and if I do, I’d be willing to rent them. Thanks, David

I believe the white dots signify that it is a tubed tire where green dots signify it is tubeless.

Did you find a solution and get your bird back airborne? David

You might try this procedure as I’ve found it accurate on a C, F and J model. Use a digital angle finder and zero it out at the fuselage level points. After zeroing it out, take it to the vertical leading edge and set the tail to 87.5 degrees if the spec for nose up trim is 2.5 (check the trim spec for your K) degrees at takeoff position indication ( the leading edge of the horizontal stab will be 2.5 degrees nose down in relation to the fuselage level point). If you have stripes on your fuselage or any other paint markings that extend on to the tail, they should line up nicely. Worth a try. I’ve done this procedure via FaceTime with an A&P in your same position using the rig boards I have and the J model I have access to and we confirmed it to be the same. Thanks, David

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