Tail light - buld replacement

[Shiny moose]

2 hours ago, Yetti said:

The IA and I have an agreement that the plane is only fixed until it exits his hangar door.   It would seem hard to be responsible for the future.

Your agreement with the IA is all good until you have a small incident, FAA gets involved and its found that your IA missed something in the logs 5 years or 30 years ago and gets dinged for it,  looses an A or P for a while and with that the IA is gone, livelihood gone. Annual signiture is valid up to that date including everything before 

[gsxrpilot]

19 minutes ago, Shiny moose said:

Your agreement with the IA is all good until you have a small incident, FAA gets involved and its found that your IA missed something in the logs 5 years or 30 years ago and gets dinged for it,  looses an A or P for a while and with that the IA is gone, livelihood gone. Annual signiture is valid up to that date including everything before 

Has this ever happened? Is it documented somewhere?

[Yetti]

Best I can tell not in 2017

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/enforcement/reports/

It's like my fuel pump that showed a hiccup on the return to service flight after the annual.   No way to tell it was bad during annual.

[Shiny moose]

22 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

Has this ever happened? Is it documented somewhere?

Not to me!   28 years A&P 20 with IA, 7K hours and no, although over the years I have had some phone conversations, says I am playing the game properly like most people.  

[gsxrpilot]

2 minutes ago, Shiny moose said:

Not to me!   28 years A&P 20 with IA, 7K hours and no, although over the years I have had some phone conversations, says I am playing the game properly like most people.  

Sorry, didn't mean to you. I've heard about this type of enforcement action being a possibility, but just wondered if it actually happens and how much it happens. It seems a bit harsh.

[MyNameIsNobody]

I don’t want to buy your airplanes.  Just make it experimental and stop bitching.  I spit on your “hanger fairey” B.S.  I think anyone that pays $200 bucks for a tail recognition light is an idiot.  Take that same person installing a non-certified light and I just face palm.  What a waste of money.  Nothing funny about thwarting regulations.  Don’t do it in a certified plane.  End of story.  To those that say just put it in and keep the extra...REALLY?

[EricJ]

2 hours ago, MyNameIsNobody said:

I don’t want to buy your airplanes.  Just make it experimental and stop bitching.  I spit on your “hanger fairey” B.S.  I think anyone that pays $200 bucks for a tail recognition light is an idiot.  Take that same person installing a non-certified light and I just face palm.  What a waste of money.  Nothing funny about thwarting regulations.  Don’t do it in a certified plane.  End of story.  To those that say just put it in and keep the extra...REALLY?

And TSA keeps us all safer!

...runs away...

 

[Guest tommy123]

This comes up in every IA seminar I've been to. General consensus from the FAA is the annual signoff liability is as long as the ink takes to dry. I'm not saying that missed ADs or unauthorized and uncertified parts and repairs fall into this. You would be liable for them. That's why when I see car parts, including bulbs, and other non certified parts on your airplane you get a unairworthy signoff. You want to use non certified parts and then have a IA sign off your annual. You guys have a lot of nerve.

[DonMuncy]

19 minutes ago, tommy123 said:

This comes up in every IA seminar I've been to. General consensus from the FAA is the annual signoff liability is as long as the ink takes to dry. I'm not saying that missed ADs or unauthorized and uncertified parts and repairs fall into this. You would be liable for them. That's why when I see car parts, including bulbs, and other non certified parts on your airplane you get a unairworthy signoff. You want to use non certified parts and then have a IA sign off your annual. You guys have a lot of nerve.

I assume you mean that you sign off on the inspection with a discrepancy list given to the owner.

[Guest tommy123]

2 hours ago, DonMuncy said:

I assume you mean that you sign off on the inspection with a discrepancy list given to the owner.

No, what I do now is warn the owner that if I find stuff that doesn't belong on a airplane I'm going to stop right there and they can take their business elsewhere. The only exception is a newly purchased airplane (new to owner) and then I'll start looking for bogus items. I wouldn't fault new owner for past owners sins.

Really, it was easier working at the airlines, didn't have to worry about risking my certificates because someone thought they knew better than a experienced, licensed professional because they read it on a forum. People that want to save $100 and don't care if they risk the livelihood of a IA really disgust me. Don't get me going about owners that are so happy to get a $300 drive by annual.

[DonMuncy]

I'm sure you are more knowledgeable than I am in this respect.

I was under the impression that once an annual inspection was started, the only two things that could happen was the inspection could be completed with a sign-off, or it could be signed off with a list of discrepancies. Even if my information was correct, if you discovered  the bulb, before you began the inspection, I assume you would be well within your rights to refuse to start the inspection.

I also thought an AI's protection was that if they signed it off as a discrepancy, they were no longer liable for that discrepancy, and it is the owner's responsibility to have the discrepancy resolved before flight.  

 

[jaylw314]

1 hour ago, DonMuncy said:

I also thought an AI's protection was that if they signed it off as a discrepancy, they were no longer liable for that discrepancy, and it is the owner's responsibility to have the discrepancy resolved before flight.  

Unfortunately, the absence of liability does not prevent you from being sued.  "All someone needs to sue you is 200 bucks and a bad attitude."

 

[Hank]

4 hours ago, jaylw314 said:

Unfortunately, the absence of liability does not prevent you from being sued.  "All someone needs to sue you is 200 bucks and a bad attitude."

 

When i lived in WV, all that was required was $35. Not sure about Alabama. 

[nightmoves]

I just wanted to let everyone know that I located a bulb for my plane and it still seems to fly OK.

 

Thanks again for all the help!

[Aviationinfo]

12 hours ago, tommy123 said:

No, what I do now is warn the owner that if I find stuff that doesn't belong on a airplane I'm going to stop right there and they can take their business elsewhere. The only exception is a newly purchased airplane (new to owner) and then I'll start looking for bogus items. I wouldn't fault new owner for past owners sins.

Really, it was easier working at the airlines, didn't have to worry about risking my certificates because someone thought they knew better than a experienced, licensed professional because they read it on a forum. People that want to save $100 and don't care if they risk the livelihood of a IA really disgust me. Don't get me going about owners that are so happy to get a $300 drive by annual.

I want my airplane to be safe and hopefully legal at the same time, but I think we all know there’s a difference between airline and private maintenance.   It’s one thing doing maintenance on transport category airplanes for which parts are readily available, and quite another on 50-60 year old airplanes where standard (read that to mean...automobile light bulbs and tractor headlights) parts were used.  

There are no experimental aircraft flying in the transport category world or trust me—your management would be ALL over the FAA and Congress to let them use the parts.  They are the ultimate CBs.  

There is room in the regs for IAs to make decisions about what may be installed with a signoff and when certain items are major mods.  I hope an IA working on a Part 91 privately owned GA airplane would exercise that discretion if he wants to keep these airplanes around (although I would respect his final decisions).  I don’t want or need a drive-by annual but I do expect my IA to have enough judgement to understand that the purpose of an annual is not to make these airplanes new again.  

Edited May 9, 2018 by Aviationinfo

[philiplane]

1 hour ago, Aviationinfo said:

There is room in the regs for IAs to make decisions about what may be installed with a signoff and when certain items are major mods.  I hope an IA working on a Part 91 privately owned GA airplane would exercise that discretion if he wants to keep these airplanes around (although I would respect his final decisions).  I don’t want or need a drive-by annual but I do expect my IA to have enough judgement to understand that the purpose of an annual is not to make these airplanes new again.  

An IA does not have discretion to use un-approved parts. Nor can he make a "mod" without approved data. Unapproved parts are the FAA's biggest concern, and the most likely cause of an enforcement action against the IA when they are found. Does it happen often? Yes, usually as a result of something else. Pilot has a prop strike, FAA comes with operations and maintenance inspectors to evaluate the faulty pilot and his airplane. Maintenance inspector finds illegible placards, NAPA parts in various places, and the infamous LED retrofit lamps. Pilot says, "i dunno, he signed it off". IA holds the bag, usually with a 90 to 180 day suspension of his certificates. That's a 1/4 to 1/2 of his annual earnings gone, over an unapproved lamp. But he is supposed to know better, whether it's a lamp, a carburetor, or a wing spar.

I hope you can see this from the perspective of the person who has the most to lose.

Edited May 9, 2018 by philiplane

[jaylw314]

17 minutes ago, philiplane said:

An IA does not have discretion to use un-approved parts. Nor can he make a "mod" without approved data. Unapproved parts are the FAA's biggest concern, and the most likely cause of an enforcement action against the IA when they are found. Does it happen often? Yes, usually as a result of something else. Pilot has a prop strike, FAA comes with operations and maintenance inspectors to evaluate the faulty pilot and his airplane. Maintenance inspector finds illegible placards, NAPA parts in various places, and the infamous LED retrofit lamps. Pilot says, "i dunno, he signed it off". IA holds the bag, usually with a 90 to 180 day suspension of his certificates. That's a 1/4 to 1/2 of his annual earnings gone, over an unapproved lamp. But he is supposed to know better, whether it's a lamp, a carburetor, or a wing spar.

I hope you can see this from the perspective of the person who has the most to lose.

Wait, what's an "approved" part?  The only things I can think of are a STC'd, TSO'd, PMA'd or "standard" part?  Is there some FAA approval level above that I'm not aware of?

And am I correct in my understanding that "approved data" is only required for major modifications or repairs?  I thought "acceptable data" was adequate for minor modifications and repairs?  I'm assuming an A&P can make a patch plate for a crack without approved data, right?

Thanks for clarifying, always good to have a knowledgeable IA around!

[MyNameIsNobody]

3 hours ago, nightmoves said:

I just wanted to let everyone know that I located a bulb for my plane and it still seems to fly OK.

 

Thanks again for all the help!

Hey clever, how’s that working out so far?

[MyNameIsNobody]

2 hours ago, Aviationinfo said:

I want my airplane to be safe and hopefully legal at the same time, but I think we all know there’s a difference between airline and private maintenance.   It’s one thing doing maintenance on transport category airplanes for which parts are readily available, and quite another on 50-60 year old airplanes where standard (read that to mean...automobile light bulbs and tractor headlights) parts were used.  

There are no experimental aircraft flying in the transport category world or trust me—your management would be ALL over the FAA and Congress to let them use the parts.  They are the ultimate CBs.  

There is room in the regs for IAs to make decisions about what may be installed with a signoff and when certain items are major mods.  I hope an IA working on a Part 91 privately owned GA airplane would exercise that discretion if he wants to keep these airplanes around (although I would respect his final decisions).  I don’t want or need a drive-by annual but I do expect my IA to have enough judgement to understand that the purpose of an annual is not to make these airplanes new again.  

Not talking about an airliner.  YOU injected that into this thread.  What I was talking about was a link that had LED bulb (in this thread) that is $20 bucks.  NOT tso’d or pma’d or approved in any way.  OR the other rich guys that spend $200 bucks on a certified “upgrade” to their tail-light white bulb.  THAT is what I am talking about...OR the guys that pop in a hose clamp from NAPA in their engine.  I don’t WANT your airplanes.  I want a certified airplane that is maintained by an IA that does it right and would call me on a non-approved part that I installed.  Maybe a milled aluminum seatback adjustment that may or may not meet OEM criteria.  I don’t really give a rats about what you do with your plane, but I don’t like you coming on here bragging about your hanger fairy whiz bang wink nod fix you did.  That is a FAIL to me.  To that I say again: Make it experimental, go to an experimental thread and have at it.

[Bryan]

My hanger fairy sends me a bill afterwards, with a cute little sticker label.  Most of the time I have to fly it to Longview and leave my plane in a hanger that (I hear) have many fairy angels.

[Aviationinfo]

31 minutes ago, MyNameIsNobody said:

Not talking about an airliner.  YOU injected that into this thread.  What I was talking about was a link that had LED bulb (in this thread) that is $20 bucks.  NOT tso’d or pma’d or approved in any way.  OR the other rich guys that spend $200 bucks on a certified “upgrade” to their tail-light white bulb.  THAT is what I am talking about...OR the guys that pop in a hose clamp from NAPA in their engine.  I don’t WANT your airplanes.  I want a certified airplane that is maintained by an IA that does it right and would call me on a non-approved part that I installed.  Maybe a milled aluminum seatback adjustment that may or may not meet OEM criteria.  I don’t really give a rats about what you do with your plane, but I don’t like you coming on here bragging about your hanger fairy whiz bang wink nod fix you did.  That is a FAIL to me.  To that I say again: Make it experimental, go to an experimental thread and have at it.

I think you're confused about who posted what.  I was quoting tommy123 who said that it was easier for him when he was working for the airlines.  Also, this is not my thread and I did not endorse what you seem to be attributing to me.

I will say though, that you seem to be ridiculing owners (the "rich" guys) who go ahead and spring for $200 certified upgraded light bulbs.  If you don't believe in non-certified standard parts, and you don't believe in expensive legal upgrades for improvements, please share with us all exactly what it is you think we should be doing?  Sometimes you can no longer buy original parts from the 1950s and 60s.   

This is a mountain out of a molehill.  The vast majority of us trust our IAs to make these decisions;  that's what we are paying them for.  The OP's original question was simply about a light bulb.   

Edited May 9, 2018 by Aviationinfo

[MyNameIsNobody]

3 minutes ago, Aviationinfo said:

I think you're confused about who posted what.  I was quoting tommy123 who said that it was easier for him when he was working for the airlines.  Also, this is not my thread and I did not endorse what you seem to be attributing to me.

I will say though, that you seem to be ridiculing owners (the "rich" guys) who go ahead and spring for $200 certified upgraded light bulbs.  If you don't believe in putting cheaper non certified standard parts, and you don't believe in expensive legal upgrades for improvements, please share with us all exactly what it is you think we should be doing?  Sometimes you can no longer buy original parts from the 1950s and 60s.   

This is a mountain out of a molehill.  The vast majority of us trust our IAs to make these decisions;  that's what we are paying them for.  The OP's original question was simply about a light bulb.   

Thanks for your reply.  NOT confused.  Stated my case.  OEM PMA light bulb IS available.  I would replace with same as a $200 bulb is ridiculous and especially so for a taillight recognition on a piston single.  So yes, I will state my opinion on those that spend that money for a bulb (acknowledge that they can) and ridicule those that put non-certified bulbs on their planes.  Have a nice day.

[Stephen]

Hi @MyNameIsNobody, I have worked as an A&P (and IA, mostly on large turbine stuff)  in the past and am currently a Mooney owner, so I hope I can try to give balanced consideration to both sides of the issue.  I think, your last comments capture the core tension here:

1)   "OEM PMA light build IS available"    
Core issue being: legacy certified tech is available and sometimes cheaper than new Tech non PMA, often much more expensive, but it IS available...

... but in this case it is it is incandescent and **generally** deemed a technology that is a) less bright, b) less reliable and c) draws more current than a non PMA LED which would, in most cases, be considered be "safer" at least to the extent that it matters at all that lights are on aircraft (LED's are more likely to be seen, more likely to be left on during times like daylight when non-LED are pretty much invisible) ....BUT...

 2) "a $200 bulb is ridiculous"
Core issue being: Funds are ultimately limited to all of us and we have to make compromise choices: Upgrade, Keep, Do Without. (unless you print the stuff), money spent on "X" no longer exists to buy "Y" and that the opportunity cost.  So, even those who may not deem the $200 bulb "ridiculous" may have had to use those funds on other stuff that are more fundamental (than lights) to safe/legal flight. Consider what we can do for aircraft safety/compliance by way of maintenance with the difference in a certified pair of LED landing lights and a non-certified LED set. 

Resulting gotcha: Some new technologies are so "new" that they are totally unknown qualities and would be sketchy to install in any aircraft if they were a critical system. Some "new" technologies are highly vetted so their performance/reliability are well established vs older technology (e.g. LED's vs incandescent bulbs). But the bigger issue is that the technology world is accelerating far faster than a governmental certification bureaucracy can keep up... and that rate of innovation itself is accelerating further so the gap will continue to widen. The tension really comes to a head when the process which was originally intended to certify parts to make sure that safe parts are in airplanes, in more extreme cases, can get so far out of pace with technology that the net effect of the certification process piles up 1) time delay to certification, 2) large certification-driven expense to the few "approved" parts that make it to market  and 3) a dynamic of  warding  off technology providers who blow off making products for highly regulated environments in favor of less regulated markets. So, ... in more extreme cases the certification process can, in the net, achieve exactly the opposite effect of its core intent/mission/rational for existing. Further complicating that in the Mooney case is the grey areas in the FAR/AC and IPC for the aircraft (apparently) proscribing the light housing but not the bulb. In cases like these LED's as with so many things, now there is no opt out of risk, just choices of risk flavor for both the pilots (balance personal vs financial vs legal risk) and for the A&P/IA's to balance the likelihood/severity of real legal risk (favoring a conservative interpretation of the rules) vs. allowing certain things that they deem safe and within the rules (more liberal interpretation). 

One of my A&P instructors back in 1988 use to answer  "You pays yer money and you makes yer choices..." to a lot of questions that students would ask... It frustrated people often, but I think he was helping prepare them for the the big, wild "out there". 

 

Just a thought (or two)  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[philiplane]

7 hours ago, jaylw314 said:

Wait, what's an "approved" part?  The only things I can think of are a STC'd, TSO'd, PMA'd or "standard" part?  Is there some FAA approval level above that I'm not aware of?

And am I correct in my understanding that "approved data" is only required for major modifications or repairs?  I thought "acceptable data" was adequate for minor modifications and repairs?  I'm assuming an A&P can make a patch plate for a crack without approved data, right?

Thanks for clarifying, always good to have a knowledgeable IA around!

There are two approvals involved in aircraft parts. The part itself must meet one of several standards to be considered an "aircraft part". Then, that part needs an installation basis for the aircraft it will be installed upon. That is where a lot of folks go wrong. They assume that any approved part can be used on any plane, and that is untrue. You can't install an "approved" PT-6 turboprop engine on your Mooney, without an installation basis. In this case, you would need an STC. You also can't put just any FAA approved propeller on your engine. It has to be approved for the engine and airframe combination, either through Mooney, or through an aftermarket STC. The same goes for virtually any part on the plane, even when it is not considered an alteration. 

Repairs are another matter, and they need either approved or acceptable data. Depending on whether the repair is minor, or major.

Edited May 10, 2018 by philiplane

[jaylw314]

4 hours ago, philiplane said:

The part itself must meet one of several standards to be considered an "aircraft part."  Then, that part needs an installation basis for the aircraft it will be installed upon...

Repairs are another matter, and they need either approved or acceptable data. Depending on whether the repair is minor, or major.

Wait, so what are those "several standards?"  Does it go beyond TSO or standard parts?  After all, I can replace my Champion spark plugs with Tempest spark plugs, even though there is no STC, AML or really any installation basis other than the (presumably unofficial) application chart Tempest provides, right?

and if I understand correctly, minor modifications (not just repairs) only require acceptable data, right?