Hi John,
I understand your desire to be specific in your reply, and I'm sure you understand why I press for more "daylight" in some of what you say. Comments/questions interspersed below. Many thanks for sharing your knowledge and opinions, WRB On Mar 11, 2009, at 13:15, John Cooper wrote: > WRB asked: > Does an A&P or IA have the authority to replace a failing non-TSO > Altimeter with a used or new functioning non-TSO altimeter with only a > log > book entry and without the necessity of FSDO review and/or approval? > > > Bill, et al: > > First, let's separate out the TSO issue. > > FSDO review and approval is only required for major repairs and major > alterations not supported by other approved data. > > Major repairs and major alterations are defined in part 43 appendix A. > > Approved data includes STC's, Type certificate data sheets and aircraft > specifications, AD's, FAA approved manufacturer's maintenance manuals, > work > product of a DER, and field approvals (this is where the FSDO comes > in). In > addition, for unpressurized aircraft under 12500 lbs for which there > is no > FAA approved maintenance manual, AC43-13.1C and .2B constitute approved > data. (I may have missed one, and I may have gotten the 1C-2B stuff > mixed > up a little, but you get the idea....) > > All major repairs and major alterations must be recorded on a form 337 > and > supported by approved data. > > By (their) definition, anything that is not a major repair or major > alteration is a minor repair or alteration and can be returned to > service by > an A&P with a log book entry. I would take this to be a substantially unqualified "YES" annswer to my question. > > Replacement of an approved altimeter with another approved altimeter > is a > minor repair, hence an A&P and log book entry is sufficient. > Now, we're back to "what constitutes an approved altimeter"? I still > feel > that the field is not unlimited. I would be comfortable with a used or > overhauled altimeter of the same make and model as the original, or a > similar make and model used in another approved application, i.e. from > a > Cessna, Piper, Beech, etc. I think the non-TSO'd UMA unit previously > mentioned would probably be acceptable as would any TSO'd unit. I am > still > not comfortable with the "Chin Wah" unit, the Timex watch, or the unit > from > Sharper Image. OK, so we're back to the experience and personal discretion of the individual A&P and IA? That would seem to indicate that if Paul Anton does not have to notify his FSDO of the installation and is comfortable with the proposed unit, he can install it without fear of retribution. Would that be a substantially correct application of what you have said...i.e. decision and descretion his to exercise? > > There was an interesting comment by someone else earlier that a TSO'd > part > still has to be approved for a particular airframe. If I may cite an > example to clarify this: Most aircraft tires are manufactured to a > TSO. > The Aircraft specification or TCDS calls out a specific size and ply > rating. > Hence, a TSO'd tire of 600-6 2 ply is acceptable on an Erccoupe but > another > tire manufactured to the same TSO but of a different size is not > approved, > assid from the fact that it wouldn't fit... Yes, and how many Ercoupes are "out there" hauling around the extra weight of their "unapproved" 6 or 8 ply tires ;<) My personal preference for "unapproved" tires is the 15x600x6, of smaller diameter, width with less weight and drag. They fit just fine. > > An aside: Chin Wah Tire Works LTD manufactures a 600-6 2 ply wheel > barrow > tire marketed through Harbor Freight. Is that approved for the > Ercoupe? Not > in my book... > TMSAISTI! > > John Cooper > Skyport Services > www.skyportservices.net Yes, there are lawn tractor tires in that size but no thanks ;<) But did you know that the 4" tire originally specified for the Ercoupe nose strut was a tail wheel tire? WRB
