PTK Posted May 25, 2017 Report Share Posted May 25, 2017 The reason the CHT gauge is primary and required for airworthiness and the UBG-16 is advisory only is because the FAA requires a hard red line max. limit for CHT. As an example JPI makes units with hard coded limits specific to aircraft, i.e. EDM700 vs. EDM701. I'm sure EI has a similar approach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyNameIsNobody Posted May 25, 2017 Report Share Posted May 25, 2017 I replaced all of cluster except fuel gauges. The receiver and whole plug remained as he said there might be issues with removing it while keeping the fuel gauges. RULES ARE RULES I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vance Harral Posted May 25, 2017 Report Share Posted May 25, 2017 11 hours ago, ragedracer1977 said: See page 11 of that document, line that says "required equipment". Says that it requires the basic equipment specified in CAR 3. CAR 3 specifies that there must be a CHT gauge. So, it IS definitely required. You're correct, and I stand corrected, thanks! I didn't dig deep enough to find this cross-reference, I was just searching the TCDS for "CHT", cylinder head", etc. It's interesting that CAR 3 "required basic equipment" lists a CHT gauge as required, whereas FAR 91.205 does not. I wonder what the history of that change is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonMuncy Posted May 25, 2017 Report Share Posted May 25, 2017 19 hours ago, ragedracer1977 said: Follow up question. If the seller agrees to drop the price to match what it would cost me to have the G2 installed. Do you think the seller is obligated to pay to "upgrade" to a G2, or only the cost to repair the existing gauge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragedracer1977 Posted May 25, 2017 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2017 1 hour ago, DonMuncy said: Do you think the seller is obligated to pay to "upgrade" to a G2, or only the cost to repair the existing gauge. Not really, no, lol. But, I don't have any idea how much repairing the cluster might cost. Either way, legally no one can fly the plane til it's fixed, correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonMuncy Posted May 25, 2017 Report Share Posted May 25, 2017 Technically, you are right. I would never advocate someone fly with a "non airworthy" plane, but if someone decided to fly it out/home and was not aware of the problem, they might make the flight without noticing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vance Harral Posted May 25, 2017 Report Share Posted May 25, 2017 Flying the airplane as currently equipped is a (small) legal risk. The actual safety risk is effectively zero in my opinion, but that's a separate subject. The assertion that "no one" can fly the airplane until the issue is resolved, and your questions about it being "grounded", make it sound like you're considering using inappropriate leverage against the seller. e.g. trying to prevent him from saying "no thanks" and flying away from your offer by intimating you'll involve the FAA. Hopefully that's not what you're getting at. This is an airworthiness issue per your purchase contract, so by all means negotiate on price to have it resolved. But as Anthony says, it's a relatively small and likely inexpensive issue in the grand scheme of things. And if you're considering trying to get the mechanic or FAA involved... don't be that guy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragedracer1977 Posted May 25, 2017 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2017 1 hour ago, Vance Harral said: Flying the airplane as currently equipped is a (small) legal risk. The actual safety risk is effectively zero in my opinion, but that's a separate subject. The assertion that "no one" can fly the airplane until the issue is resolved, and your questions about it being "grounded", make it sound like you're considering using inappropriate leverage against the seller. e.g. trying to prevent him from saying "no thanks" and flying away from your offer by intimating you'll involve the FAA. Hopefully that's not what you're getting at. This is an airworthiness issue per your purchase contract, so by all means negotiate on price to have it resolved. But as Anthony says, it's a relatively small and likely inexpensive issue in the grand scheme of things. And if you're considering trying to get the mechanic or FAA involved... don't be that guy. Oh, heck no. I don't negotiate like that. Sorry if I gave that impression! I was talking about what do *I* do. I was wondering what I do if we come to an agreement on the issue, like a price deduction if appropriate, or what have you; what happens then? I suppose if I just don't know it's broken or it broke in flight, I could fly it home, right? But what about the CFI flying with me? Would a hypothetical CFI have a problem flying with me in it? Or would this need to be something I take care of where the plane is and then fly it home? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vance Harral Posted May 26, 2017 Report Share Posted May 26, 2017 1 minute ago, ragedracer1977 said: But what about the CFI flying with me? Would a hypothetical CFI have a problem flying with me in it? Can't speak for others, but as a CFI, I wouldn't fly the airplane with you unless the issue was either resolved where it is, or by getting a ferry permit to take it somewhere to have the work done (which would be pretty straightforward to obtain). The reason I wouldn't fly the airplane isn't because it's "dangerous". Rather, as an instructor, it would convey the wrong impression - that bending the rules is OK when you think it's "reasonable". Students learn as much or more by your actions, as they do by your words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSMooniac Posted May 26, 2017 Report Share Posted May 26, 2017 If it were me and the rest of the plane is acceptable, I'd negotiate a deduction to cover restoring function to the OEM instruments and buy it. If you want to cover your tail to fly it, getting a ferry permit should be simple, especially since/if everything else is in order. It could cover you + CFI to get it home, but likely not indefinite flying/training.Get it home, then fix it, or better yet, put in a primary replacement monitor and ditch the old stuff!Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted May 26, 2017 Report Share Posted May 26, 2017 (edited) The logistics are getting more expensive than getting the initial problems fixed... Is the seller willing to get these things fixed to OEM standard? It could be some simple broken wires or corroded connections. Your PPI mechanic should take five minutes to tell what is wrong with these devices. The thermocouple is either there or not, broken or whole, giving a signal or not... the amp gauge is either connected or not. The shunt has two fuses that are whole or burnt... A good time to review... 1) Do you want the plane or not... 2) Do you want to take it home this week or wait... 3) Are you going to spend some dough on a JPI 900 or put in as little dough as possible for some time... I'm in the get it air worthy first camp, complete the sale, then get to the next step. Minimizing the variable of having the previous owner around... good to have, for conversation and questions. But can get in your way when he starts inhibiting your maintenance plan... You are going to see dozens of ethics type questions arise in your flying career. Personal limitations get discussed around here a lot. Set you your ethics/personal limitations level really high at first, come down from the lofty level over time as you gain the experience. People do this with cloud clearances, flying in the dark, flying near storms, flying with low fuel. Flying with missing gauges is just one of those links in a chain... Best regards, -a- Edited May 26, 2017 by carusoam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orionflt Posted May 26, 2017 Report Share Posted May 26, 2017 12 minutes ago, KSMooniac said: If it were me and the rest of the plane is acceptable, I'd negotiate a deduction to cover restoring function to the OEM instruments and buy it. If you want to cover your tail to fly it, getting a ferry permit should be simple, especially since/if everything else is in order. It could cover you + CFI to get it home, but likely not indefinite flying/training. Get it home, then fix it, or better yet, put in a primary replacement monitor and ditch the old stuff! Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk A ferry permit would only allow the ferry pilot to fly the aircraft. that means he would either have to get qualified in another aircraft or have a qualified pilot fly it home NO passengers, No flight training, they will also want justification for the permit, IE no maintenance on the field. just wanting to take it home doesn't usually cut it. Brian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSMooniac Posted May 26, 2017 Report Share Posted May 26, 2017 For a technicality airworthiness issue I suspect they would have some flexibility...it's not like asking for one after a prop strike or bird strike with damage.Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N601RX Posted May 26, 2017 Report Share Posted May 26, 2017 Let the owner deliver it to you with closing occurring at delivery. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliffy Posted May 26, 2017 Report Share Posted May 26, 2017 Here's 2 questions to ask yourself- Is there a "limitation" in the book referring to the inop or missing gauge? If there is, you have to have a legal gauge working to be legal to fly. Secondly, how many people know of the inop or missing gauge at this point? Obviously it has been discussed with several, even here on an open website. If it is more than only you, think twice about flying it before it gets fixed. Does anyone actually think that the Feds don't occasionally read our forum? The chances are slim but you have no legal position if caught in a random ramp check- deliberately breaking an FAR plus 91.3 and 91.13 will be added to the list of charges. I know, Mr. Doom and Gloom but that's the way it would work out if caught. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HRM Posted May 27, 2017 Report Share Posted May 27, 2017 On 5/24/2017 at 7:15 AM, Marauder said: As Peter suggests, I would call EI to confirm but my review of the UBG-16 on their website seems to indicate it is not a primary instrument replacement. The CGR-30P is a primary, as is their MVP-50P. When I replaced my UBG-16 with an MVP-50, out went the cluster gauges. I tried to toss the tach but my IA wouldn't let me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsxrpilot Posted May 28, 2017 Report Share Posted May 28, 2017 2 hours ago, HRM said: When I replaced my UBG-16 with an MVP-50, out went the cluster gauges. I tried to toss the tach but my IA wouldn't let me. On what basis? The MVP-50 is certified primary for the tach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HRM Posted May 28, 2017 Report Share Posted May 28, 2017 29 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said: On what basis? The MVP-50 is certified primary for the tach. Orneryness. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.