8130 Form

[CID]

Well...not "special". Just the right ones. There's nothing special about the correct parts that meet the standards the airplane was designed to. And the method to establish that is with the airworthiness release. GM specifies "DEX COOL" coolant for newer GM engines. I have a feeling your warranty would be garbage if you used other than the coolant specified. And how about brake fluid and oil?

[ruddersup?]

CID, you are correct in everything you say but I think you are naive to a certain extent. I feel any AME worth his salt can ground every aircraft flying for a snag not identified or deferred or improper log entry or ................. Now should we be doing this? Have you ever had a new customer come in and want his oil changed and you open the cowl and oh my, what a mess. It's happens all the time and now I refuse to just do an oil change for a new customer. I tell them when I open the cowl be prepared for some work that might have to be done.
Next time you have your aircraft fueled check for certification on the fuel. Excuse me? You put the most import item in your aircraft and assume it is certified, hmmmm. Most smaller airports are not dealers anymore and buy fuel from the cheapest guy. Questionable traceability if any and what about his quality control on dispensing (daily water checks, etc.). Up north you might not want to ask for traceability from the local float operator who is "helping" you out.
We can beat this traceablitly and accountability to death but common sense is still the best defense because yes, bogus parts can be supplied by your old trusty parts supply shop with a stack of paperwork to verify that it is "airworthy". Parts that are new, overhauled, repaired, does not necessarily make them serviceable. I've had so many disappointments over the years with what are supposed to be serviceable parts that I question the validity of the supporting paperwork. I know we have to have it but don't accept the premise that because you have paperwork the part is perfect.
Don't be anal retentive in other words.

[c170b53]

About six months ago I fixed a plane in SEA, the repair required parts and they were sourced in the States. I was sent two identical components and upon opening the box, I knew I was in trouble as both parts looked like they were from WWII. One 8130 had part TT at 15000 hrs o since overhaul and it had been removed u/s a month before it had been" overhauled". The part didn't work. The next (same) part again at 15000 tt looked like it had seen some recent attention so I installed it and the aircraft system worked but alas there was no data plate (but had paperwork) on the part so I was unable to use it even though it solved the problem. The next day a part was sent from Canada, just out of the shop with nice paperwork, looking like new and when installed it was Tango U. Day 3 and a new part from Hamilton Sundstrand fixed the defect. Unfortunately for some reason this type of thing never happens near a beach.
There's not much oversight anymore so you have to be careful. I'm going to worry about the big stuff, I know what my comfort zone is. Everyone else will have their zone defined likely by their experiences and I certainly don't expect everyone to feel the same way.

[robertw]

but I wouldn't recommend you never change the oil or tires or use straight water in the radiator because it's cheaper.

To continue with your metaphor, I don't think anyone was suggesting not changing the oil or tires, or using straight water. I think the thing that hurts is being mandated to use expensive, special oil and tires that are specially expensive because they come with a special bit of paper to tell you all about how special they are.

If you can't afford to properly maintain an aircraft in accordance with the regulations, then you should not own one. It angers me that owners will expect an AME (or try to guilt one into it) to cheap out and install non certified parts that lack proper certification. This strikes directly at the heart of mine and my families welfare. Since the responsibility rests upon the INSTALLER to determine if a part is eligible for installation, the poor schmuck who agrees with an owners request to put uncertified partson an aircraft holds the bag. Owners who do this so THEY can save a buck (usually not that much either!) make my blood boil. How would you like it if the next time you went flying, I told you about the great deal I got off ebay on the propeller I just installed on your musketeer, or the bolts I just used to hang your engine I got at the auto store? Bet it would be a different story then huh?

[cgartly]

but I wouldn't recommend you never change the oil or tires or use straight water in the radiator because it's cheaper.

To continue with your metaphor, I don't think anyone was suggesting not changing the oil or tires, or using straight water. I think the thing that hurts is being mandated to use expensive, special oil and tires that are specially expensive because they come with a special bit of paper to tell you all about how special they are.

If you can't afford to properly maintain an aircraft in accordance with the regulations, then you should not own one. It angers me that owners will expect an AME (or try to guilt one into it) to cheap out and install non certified parts that lack proper certification. This strikes directly at the heart of mine and my families welfare. Since the responsibility rests upon the INSTALLER to determine if a part is eligible for installation, the poor schmuck who agrees with an owners request to put uncertified partson an aircraft holds the bag. Owners who do this so THEY can save a buck (usually not that much either!) make my blood boil. How would you like it if the next time you went flying, I told you about the great deal I got off ebay on the propeller I just installed on your musketeer, or the bolts I just used to hang your engine I got at the auto store? Bet it would be a different story then huh?

I'm not trying to be cheap, I'm trying to not waste money. Just because I own an airplane doesn't mean that I want to through money away unnecessarily. In this case the price difference on the muffler between Aircraft Spruce and the shop I was dealing with was $200+.

Does the FAA PMA markings on a part along with part number and serial number not imply that the part is certified? Have you ever seen a non-certified muffler for a 172? This is the type of situation I feel requires a more common sense approach.

I would never install or ask my AME to install a non certified part on my certified aircraft, I value my insurance and would never put anyone in that position.

[CID]

c170b53, that's what the SDR system and CAIRS etc are for. If you receive parts with a tag on them and they fail, you're supposed to report it up the ladder. There are numerous instances of distributors losing their certification and suffering heavy fines for similar instances. If you're getting tagged parts that aren't serviceable, it doesn't mean that you shouldn't need to have proper paperwork and traceability.

Just because there are laws, doesn't mean people won't try to break them. If you apply due diligence and report questionable behavior, the system works.

I'd like to understand what you people would do if you were the regulator. Just let people put what they want on their airplanes? Apply the all too common uninformed "common sense" rather than proper traceability on parts? You know, people who claim they are being gouged by the regulations are the first to sue the regulator because they were too lax with regulation. Did you report the suppliers that provided you those faulty parts? Did you even check to see if they were legitimate aircraft parts distributors?

You might want to check this website:

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/safety/programs/sups/upn/

And this one:

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/de ... pma_parts/

[torquey401]

The following is a cut and paste, but covers the material in question. Recall what is specifically being discussed here - tires. I believe tires fall into the standard parts category and thus the following applies. This would not apply to a muffler (a propriatory part) or unairworthy parts being dumped to make a quick buck.

Installation of New Parts
571.07 (1) No person shall install a new part on an aeronautical product unless the part meets the standards of airworthiness applicable to the installation of new parts and, subject to subsections (2) and (3), has been certified under Subpart 61.
(amended 2007/12/01; previous version)
(3) No certification referred to in subsection (1) is required in respect of a new part that bears markings identifying it as a part specified in the type design and that
(a) is a standard part;
(amended 2002/03/01; previous version)
(b) is a commercial part;
(amended 2002/03/01; previous version)
(c) was manufactured under a Parts Manufacturer Approval issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (United States), if that part meets the installation criteria specified in Chapter 571 of the Airworthiness Manual; or
(amended 2002/03/01; previous version)
(d) is a part that was not originally designed and manufactured for aeronautical use but has been approved for use on the aeronautical product in the type design.
(amended 2002/03/01; no previous version)
Standard 571.13 Installation Of Parts - General
Information Notes:
(i) In some cases, the type certificate holder of an aeronautical product will, through the part number contained in the parts catalogue, add a suffix or a prefix to what appears to be a standard industry part. Where this has occurred, the modified part number is accepted as proprietary to the aeronautical product type certificate holder, and the installation of the standard or commercial part is not permitted without an appropriate engineering approval as a modification.
(amended 2002/03/01; previous version)
(ii) In many cases, the illustrated parts catalogue may contain a standard or commercial part number. This may be especially true in the case of bearings and electronic components. Standard and commercial parts having the identical part number may be installed regardless of the part manufacturer.
(amended 2002/03/01; previous version)

[photofly]

I thought standard parts were things like nuts and bolts, not especially designed for aircraft but used on them anyway.

[photofly]

This strikes directly at the heart of mine and my families welfare.

Do you mean their safety in the sky? Or your pay-cheque? In so far as the regulations improve the former, i am all for them. Where they appear only to improve the latter, I'm against them.

[CID]

Sorry, but a tire is not a "standard part". You can check CAR 100 for that. And for good measure, the FAA has AC 21-29B the helps define what a "standard part" is. But a tire, it ain't.

[Rudder Bug]

This strikes directly at the heart of mine and my families welfare.

Ok well, after reading all that, I need a vote.

Should I remove my brand new Mccreary tires bought from A/S, return them at my expense and buy another pair (the same ones) with the darn 8130 form, or not?

Are my CofA and insurance jeopardized even if my aircraft flips over in a hurricane with the new tires, or if I have an engine failure and crash in the trees?

Who thinks so, who doesn't, and why?

Thanks

RB

[ruddersup?]

Got certification on the old tires you removed? Gosh I hope so, or you've been flying illegally all this time and your insurance would be void and you've been risking your life and limb. Sue your AME for starters. Sorry, just had to make a snide comment, this is about tires on a light single, right?

No further comment, one can't win this argument. It is black and white, not gray.