Panel Maintenance Question

[thinwing]

PS..even the elec turn indicator looks frosted...is this condensation?

[Bob Weber]

"Popping" the front off an altimeter involves the Kollsman adjust mechanism, effecting the calibration. I would bet there was a ring of crap around the perimeter as well, that's decomposed gasket.

An old crotchety inspector I have the utmost respect for had a saying I have always heard in my head "Folks, these are not lawn chairs we are working on here."

There are far less critical areas to assist with, we have to keep in mind you are depending on these systems with your life and those with you.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, thinwing said:

Exactly ,once the instrument face is cracked ,it’s gasket is a required replacement...all that fogging is decades of ram air and maybe water vapor from the static system getting introduced inside the case.These instruments should go to an instrument shop...especially if operating IFR.Maybe the original poster should “edit “ his original post.He is to be commended on his intent ,but even Hangar elves need reining in from time to time

Unless of course the Hangar Elves are working at a CRS.

Clarence

[Shadrach]

On 8/27/2019 at 11:46 AM, Bob Weber said:

You might also keep in mind that opening those instruments renders them unairworthy until recertified and an 8130-3 is provided, legally speaking.

Can you point to the FAR that states that an instrument that’s been opened requires an 8130 to be airworthy? 

[PT20J]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

Can you point to the FAR that states that an instrument that’s been opened requires an 8130 to be airworthy? 

I think the important point is that only an instrument repair station can legally repair instruments, and it will supply the 8130 to certify that the repaired instrument is airworthy.

§ 65.81 General privileges and limitations.

(a) A certificated mechanic may perform or supervise the maintenance, preventive maintenance or alteration of an aircraft or appliance, or a part thereof, for which he is rated (but excluding major repairs to, and major alterations of, propellers, and any repair to, or alteration of, instruments)...

[Bob Weber]

3 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Can you point to the FAR that states that an instrument that’s been opened requires an 8130 to be airworthy? 

 

 

It's right here... Know it, love it, bla bla bla. Glad I'm retired!!!

Bla Bla Bla.pdf

[Shadrach]

5 hours ago, Bob Weber said:

 

 

It's right here... Know it, love it, bla bla bla. Glad I'm retired!!!

Bla Bla Bla.pdf 453.59 kB · 3 downloads

I read the AC but was unable to find where it states an 8130 is needed anytime an instrument is opened. I found the AC to be reasonably written. Perhaps I missed the section stating that any tom an instrument is opened an 8130 is needed.  I’m certainly not advocating that people tear into their own instruments, but I also don’t advocate interpreting the regs to say things the don’t say. I’m not saying that you’re wrong, I’m just asking for the section that you’ve interpreted to mandate the 8130.

This discussion is interesting to me because I recently spoke with a mechanic that stated an 8130 was required to install any used part. I asked for the reg but one could not be produced. I’m not say you are doing this but some folks are clearly interpreting the practices they are familiar with as regulatory. 

Edited August 29, 2019 by Shadrach

[Shadrach]

7 hours ago, PT20J said:

I think the important point is that only an instrument repair station can legally repair instruments, and it will supply the 8130 to certify that the repaired instrument is airworthy.

§ 65.81 General privileges and limitations.

(a) A certificated mechanic may perform or supervise the maintenance, preventive maintenance or alteration of an aircraft or appliance, or a part thereof, for which he is rated (but excluding major repairs to, and major alterations of, propellers, and any repair to, or alteration of, instruments)...

 That point is well taken. However, I’m not sure what has been stated as regulatory is actually regulatory.  Smart, prudent and legal are rarely mutually exclusive terms but it’s certainly beneficial to review the actual statute when deciding the best course of action.

Edited August 29, 2019 by Shadrach

[GeeBee]

Under FAR 43 Appendix A (b)4  repair or calibration of an instrument is defined as a major repair. As such FAR 43.5 requires a record of such work to be documented per FAR 43.9 and 43.11 and recorded in accordance with FAR 43 Appendix B. (Which means an 8130 has to follow the unit)

 

 

 

[EricJ]

As has been pointed out, even A&Ps are not allowed to open instruments, only a repair station with an appropriate rating can do that legally.    To find what documentation is required for return to service requires knowing the rules that the repair stations have to follow, and I doubt many here know what all those are.

As has been pointed out here in the past, 8130s are generally only required when a part is being imported or exported.   Domestic use of domestically sourced new or used parts does not require an 8130.   Buy stuff from aircraft spruce or whoever, most does not come with any paperwork.

It's not hard to find this stuff in the regs, e.g., limitations on A&Ps, repair stations, etc.   What gets less straightforward is stringing all the requirements together to answer a question like this.  

 

[GeeBee]

If you buy stuff from Spruce that is subject to FAR 43 major component or appliance rule such as a magneto, new or built and I guarantee it comes with an airworthiness release. I have a stack of them. Some recent purchases include magnetos, wet compass, ELT. For unregulated items such as hardware, you can get documentation if you "check the box" and pay.

 

 

[thinwing]

20 hours ago, M20Doc said:

Unless of course the Hangar Elves are working at a CRS.

Clarence

Than they are not hangar elves any more!

[Shadrach]

9 hours ago, GeeBee said:

Under FAR 43 Appendix A (b)4  repair or calibration of an instrument is defined as a major repair. As such FAR 43.5 requires a record of such work to be documented per FAR 43.9 and 43.11 and recorded in accordance with FAR 43 Appendix B. (Which means an 8130 has to follow the unit)

 

 

 

@EricJ @GeeBee I’m not talking about calibration of the instrument, that’s clearly defined. I talking about opening the instrument, nothing more. Moreover, what constitutes opening? Certainly removing the bezel and the glass is opening the instrument. What about changing a fitting on the back of the instrument? Both have the potential to create leaks. In both cases no one is making adjustments of accessing gimbals, aneroids or gyros. I’m not trying to be obtuse here but when someone makes a broad claim about a regulation that uses very specific language that does not include that “broad claim” I will always push back. It’s for the best to do so. It’s the only method we have for refining and optimizing the regulations.

Edited August 29, 2019 by Shadrach

[GeeBee]

Why would you open it if you were not repairing it or calibrating it? Replace the fitting on the back? That's a repair. Opening it for cleaning? That's a repair. I guess you could open it because you want to learn how it works, but a manual is easier and cheaper. Further is you open most things it usually requires a gasket or seal of some type, which makes it a repair.

 

 

[Shadrach]

18 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

Why would you open it if you were not repairing it or calibrating it? Replace the fitting on the back? That's a repair. Opening it for cleaning? That's a repair. I guess you could open it because you want to learn how it works, but a manual is easier and cheaper. Further is you open most things it usually requires a gasket or seal of some type, which makes it a repair.

 

 

I installed a brand new sigmatek last year. I don’t believe it came with a fitting. IIRC my IA used the fitting off the old Garwin unit (bought out by sigmatek years ago). You’re illustrating the issue. You are free to interpret the regs as conservatively as you wish but you are not the FAA. Clearly Sigmatek expects fittings to be installed, removed and oriented in the field. You define that as a repair but the FAA makes no mention of changing fittings (which are often switched in the field) or cleaning bezels which I have seen performed by IAs in the field. My only point is that the FAA needs to define this not a bunch of guys on the internet.

[GeeBee]

Have you read Part 43?

 

[Bob Weber]

Pretty sure there is language in there to follow manufacturers maintenance manual procedures,  meaning you need the manufacturers maintenance manual. You may also read in that manual about the clean room that may be required.

[gsxrpilot]

1 hour ago, GeeBee said:

Have you read Part 43?

Of course we've read it. We've read all the Parts. But as @Shadrach is saying, there is a lot of room for interpretation. 

I'm sorry but you sound like the same people who claim the Bible is clear as day, just read it. And yet there are several thousand different denominations all based on the same book and none of them agree on what it says.. 

You say opening the bezel to clean the glass is a "repair". I would say that's "cleaning" which is not a repair. Even if I put a new O ring or gasket in. I say that's reassembly after cleaning, not a "repair". Nothing was broken, nothing was repaired. 

But I welcome the exchange of ideas here on MooneySpace. I won't say you're wrong, I'll just say I don't agree with your interpretation. Some of the members will see it your way, and others won't. But we each get to decide for ourselves.

 

 

[Bob Weber]

Perhaps a great first step would be to peruse the maintenance manual of a common altimeter, say a United Instruments 5934.

[GeeBee]

Yes one can say "I say" to anything you want. When the FAA comes a knocking because you got an altitude bust (remember too that ADS-B is a much stronger surveillance system if your GPS altitude and mode C don't match you'll get a letter). However if you have an accident or incident and your insurance company denies coverage because your rendered your aircraft legally unairworthy (read your policy), you won't be fighting the FAA, you'll be fighting the insurance company. Even if the the item was not the cause of the loss. When it comes to saving "Airplane Units" of money, they are more cheap than any of us. Yes one can say "I say" but that don't make you right when the question is adjudicated by a third party. I come from the PA-18 community which given its Alaskan population, stretches things pretty far, but even they are out on this kind of limb

As to replacing a O-ring or gasket is not a repair, the simple question will be asked. "Why did you believe it needed replacing". The act of replacement creates its own facts.

 

[cliffy]

Here's a thought- Let's settle the argument real easy-

If you profess that disassembly and cleaning the face and glass of the the VSI or altimeter (or any instrument) is OK for you to do as only an owner, then GO to your local FSDO and tell them you already did this and ask if its OK. 

If you won't do that then you know what you did was illegal and you are open to sanctions.

Let us know how that works out. If they say its OK, I'll eat my words right here on MS.  

Case closed. Put up or shut up.

Frankly I'm old, I've been in the business over 50 years (both A&P and MEATP), I hold the Wright Bros Award for Safety, and I've listened to far too many arguments like this over the years by those who are unwilling to be put to the ultimate test.

I've seen too many die from both maintenance and  piloting errors brought about by ignorance or bravado. 

Quit pontificating about what you can or can not do, Publicly take it to the Feds and report back if you have the backbone to support your side of the argument. 

BTW, what you can do as an owner/pilot is specifically defined in "Preventive Maintenance". Technically, anything else is illegal for you to do (hangar elves need not apply). If you have to have hangar elves do it then you know its illegal for you to do it. I don't see anything in there about opening an instrument for any purpose (or even removing it from the panel). All nuances of interpretation are just guesses or uninformed obfuscation. 

Sorry for the tirade but again, I've seen too many die in my career from doing stupid stuff. 

And this is a stupid argument!

 

[GeeBee]

Thank you! 

 

 

 

[Shadrach]

3 hours ago, cliffy said:

Here's a thought- Let's settle the argument real easy-

If you profess that disassembly and cleaning the face and glass of the the VSI or altimeter (or any instrument) is OK for you to do as only an owner, then GO to your local FSDO and tell them you already did this and ask if its OK. 

If you won't do that then you know what you did was illegal and you are open to sanctions.

Let us know how that works out. If they say its OK, I'll eat my words right here on MS.  

Case closed. Put up or shut up.

Frankly I'm old, I've been in the business over 50 years (both A&P and MEATP), I hold the Wright Bros Award for Safety, and I've listened to far too many arguments like this over the years by those who are unwilling to be put to the ultimate test.

I've seen too many die from both maintenance and  piloting errors brought about by ignorance or bravado. 

Quit pontificating about what you can or can not do, Publicly take it to the Feds and report back if you have the backbone to support your side of the argument. 

BTW, what you can do as an owner/pilot is specifically defined in "Preventive Maintenance". Technically, anything else is illegal for you to do (hangar elves need not apply). If you have to have hangar elves do it then you know its illegal for you to do it. I don't see anything in there about opening an instrument for any purpose (or even removing it from the panel). All nuances of interpretation are just guesses or uninformed obfuscation. 

Sorry for the tirade but again, I've seen too many die in my career from doing stupid stuff. 

And this is a stupid argument!

 

Build the straw man, Kill the straw man. 

If you would go back and RTFP,  you wouldn’t be countering arguments that no one is made.

It’s easy to classify an argument as stupid when you’ve restated it incorrectly so as to deliberately make it look stupid. However it does not make for a very good method of counterargument.

The question is can an A&P/IA or an owner under A&P/IA open an instrument to clean the glass and reassemble?

GeeBee has gone so far as to suggest that an A&P/IA can’t even change the elbow fitting on the back of a pneumatic instrument.

PSA for everyone: 

Stating that you’ve done something for 150 years or that you have 165,000 hours is not an argument. If you lead by sighting the appropriate regulations and or factual examples, you don’t need to state your credentials,  people will assume you either have them or have done the research. 

If I had a lawyer who instead of quoting actual case law in trial instead stated that he had been practicing for 40 years so his personal interpretation should stand...I’d would f%#^\?g fire him.

Edited August 30, 2019 by Shadrach

[PT20J]

Here is the rub, I think. If anyone performs maintenance or repair on a certificated aircraft or component, I believe that they have to be authorized to perform such work and they have to certify that after completing the work the aircraft or component is airworthy. The airworthiness certification is by signature in the logbook, or in the case of a component, an 8130.

If you open an instrument, you need to be able to test it to certify it is airworthy after you put it back together. Pilots are not authorized to open instruments and don’t likely have the equipment to verify it after the work. 

Skip 

[cliffy]

No straw man involved at all

Postulations are being made on opening instruments

Opening the instrument is "maintenance" pure and simple. 

Changing a fitting on the back of the instrument is "maintenance" pure and simple

Now the question becomes- Who's allowed to do those maintenance items?

In the first sentence its a licensed Instrument Repairman

In the second its an A&P

None of it is contained in "Preventive Maintenance" for an owner to do on his own. 

If you think its OK for an owner or an A&P/IA to open an instrument for any reason go ask the FAA and report back here and I'll eat my words if they say Yes. 

Your turn to go read the appropriate FARs and yes, I've read them for 50+ years and I have a pretty good grasp of what can and can not be done legally. 

If you don't know the FAA definition of "maintenance" and who can perform various aspects of "maintenance" then its time for you to go back to school and learn the rules. Its not for me to do it for you. You might start with 14 CFR 1.1 Definitions and move on from there.

Regulations do have a way of getting in the way of specious arguments

spe·cious

/ˈspēSHəs/

Learn to pronounce

adjective

 

1. superficially plausible, but actually wrong.

   "a specious argument"

   • misleading in appearance, especially misleadingly attractive.

     "the music trade gives Golden Oldies a specious appearance of novelty"

     synonyms:

     plausible but wrong, seemingly correct, misleading, deceptive, false, fallacious, unsound, casuistic, sophistic "a specious argument"