Searching for a Cigarette Lighter

[canav8]

OK, I opened Pandoras box by seeking a FAA friend of mine to help get a field approval on my Garmin 496 with an AirGizmo removable tray. Well it turns out while seeking the approval, I showed him a picture of my current panel. It has a Loran in the Panel and I wanted to remove it and put this Garmin in there. He said it would be no problem. Well after he approved the 337 he said "where is the cigarette lighter?" I told him that it was removed a long time before I owned 2713D. He said "We got a problem". He wants me to replace the cigarette lighter since there is no 337s to remove the lighter and that it was factory. Well I have 2 options at this point. One is to see if I can get a lighter and the other is to seek another 337 to remove it. If there is one available on our list, I would like to replace it but if there is noone that has one then I will have to go through the paperwork process. For anyone who is currently working with the FAA, believe me, it is far easier to get replacement parts for your old bird then get paperwork approval from the FAA in the lower 48. As as added bonus, I told my FAA friend that I was doing this during an Annual. (Just incase he might surprise me and say he wanted to see the airplane). Well that was a good call. He now wants to see the aircraft while it is opened up. This is Pandoras box. The FAA guy is not my Best friend just rather good aquantences. Anyone knows that an FAA rep can ground an airplane even with the best Maintenance turnin wrenches. That is my biggest fear. She is an old bird. I might be in for a full restoration. That would be so time consuming and then I wouldnt be flying.Thanks, Doug

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Tell them it never had a cigarette lighter....it was a cigar lighter.

Seriously the cigar lighter is not required per the TCDS or any other document that i can think of. Baffle the Feds with BS by telling them the cigar lighter was removed as part of AD 79-08-03. They'll love this BS.

Then as part of the 337 for installation of the dock note that the cigar lighter was previously removed. End of story.

[4583C]

Bruce
Thanks for remembering that bit of trivia! When I read Doug's post earlier I thought I remembered something to that effect! Baffle em with their own BS ... I love it

Here is the AD


Airworthiness Directives

Header Information
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
Amendment 39-3428; AD 79-08-03

Airworthiness Directives; CESSNA Models 120, 140, 150, A150, 170, 172, R172, P172, 175, 177, 177RG, 180, 182, 185, 188, 190, 195, 210-5 (205), 210-5A (205A), 206, U206, TU206, P206, TP206, 207, 210, and T210 Series Airplanes


Preamble Information
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT


DATES: Effective June 6, 1979.






Regulatory Information

79-08-03 CESSNA: Amendment 39-3428. Applies to the following models and serial numbered airplanes certified in all categories:

MODELS SERIAL NUMBERS
120, 140 8000 through 15075 and 15200 through 15724
150 15065062 through 15075564
A150 A15000001 through A15000480
170 18000 through 20999 and 25000 through 27169
172 28000 through 29999, 46001 through 47746, 17247747 through 17250572, and 17259224 through 17267584
R172 R1722000 through R1722724
P172 P17257120 through P17257189
175 55001 through 56777 and 17556778 through 17557119
177 17700001 through 17702314
177RG 177RG0001 through 177RG0788
180 30000 through 32999, 50000 through 50355, and 18051608 through 18052770
182 33000 through 34999, 51001 through 51556, and 18254680 through 18265965
185 18500968 through 18503458
188 188-0001 through 188-0572 and 18800573 through 18803046
190, 195 7001 through 7999 and 16000 through 16183
210-5 (205) and
210-5A (205A) 205-0320 through 205-0577
206, U206, TU206,
P206, TP206 206-0001 through 206-0275, U206-0276 through U206-1444, U20601445 through U20604074, P206-001 through P206-0603, and P20600604 through P20600647
207 20700001 through 20700414 (except those aircraft with factory installed 24-volt electrical system)
210, T210 21058162 through 21061039 and T210-0001 through T210-0454

COMPLIANCE: At the next appropriate inspection prescribed by Federal Aviation Regulation 91.169 following the effective date of this AD, unless previously accomplished.

To prevent an inflight electrical system failure, smoke in the cockpit, and/or fire in the wire bundle behind the instrument panel, accomplish the following:

A) Disconnect the wire, at the ammeter or at the electrical system bus as applicable, that connects the bus to the cigar lighter receptacle. (The wire is connected to either the bus side or equipment side of a circuit breaker or to the ammeter.) Following the disconnection of this wire either:

1) Reconnect the wire to the electrical bus by using an existing or newly installed circuit protection device that is properly rated to protect the wire gauge used for this circuit, or

2) Disconnect the wire from the lighter receptacle at the opposite end and remove it from the airplane, or

3) Protect the wire by insulating its disconnected end, fold this wire end back against the wire bundle in which it is routed and secure it to that bundle.

NOTE: For those installations reconnected in accordance with paragraph A 1 the proper rated circuit protection device to be used may be determined by consulting FAA Advisory Circular 43.13-1A.

B) Any equivalent method of compliance with this AD must be approved by the Chief, Engineering and Manufacturing Branch, FAA, Central Region.

Amendment 39-3428 became effective May 21, 1979.

This correction becomes effective June 6, 1979.

[canav8]

Thanbk you for posting that. It is perfect. That is exactly what I needed. This is going to be easy. Now if there was a way to convince him to not look at the aircraft, I would stop sweating. Thanks for the insight. Doug

[GAHorn]

Doug, you have found one of the FAA types that gives the good ones bad names. Obviously, he is an idiot.
If you have not already told him where the airplane is being inspected, then call him back, tell him you no longer require his attention to the matter, thank him, and hang up. Do not become engaged in any further discussion with him. Do not tell him where your airplane is based or it's registration number if you haven't already. Have a crying baby or loud music in the background readily available to excuse yourself from the phone.
If he insists upon getting involved, ask to speak to the facility director. Ask the facility director why his inspector insists you have to have a cigar lighter, and why it takes a Form 337 to remove it per an AD.
The idea is to get that inspector disinterested in you and your airplane. You do not need an anally-challenged inspector like that looking at your airplane or it's records. If his director/supervisor assigns him to recurrent training he'll have less time for you.

[Showboatsix]

This FAA guy is living proof of how the FAA restricts any growth or advancment of avaiation!

There are 60,000 FAA personel, and 59,999 are like him!

Of course that's just my opinion!....

[voorheesh]

Removal of a cigarette lighter could also be documented by a logbook entry in the same way as removal/disablement of the parking brake system. This is a minor alteration that has no effect on the flight characteristics of the airplane, has a negligible effect on the empty weight/CG, and (most importantly) has a beneficial effect on your health. If you keep an AD log you can indicate 79-08-03 "previously complied with. Removed cigarette lighter". Your IA can document all of this during the current annual if previous owners did not bother to.
I do not believe that an FAA employee can demand to see your airplane during an annual unless there is a reason and you are notified in writing. They can perform surveillance on the IA while he is performing inspections but this should not be targeted at a specific airplane or owner, it is about the IA. The FAA can not ground your airplane. They can put a condition notice on it if they find an unairworthy item and you would be expected to reply to that notice with evidence of corrective action. In this case you could send them a copy of your logbook entry. If your aircraft is airworthy, you can fly it. If you get an order or a request from an FAA employee that does not make sense or does not seem reasonable, ask for it to be put in writing.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Hold on folks. You may be right that this particular inspector might turn out to be "an idiot". But the fact that he/she seems willing to approve the installation of an AirGizmo says to me he/she may not be all that bad. I know several inspectors that wouldn't approve an AirGizmo very quickly.

Perhaps this inspector knows about the cigar lighter and AD and is testing this owner. I know one or two that would do that as well.

I would present the information about the AD to the inspector and act like you know what your doing and you may earn their respect and have an ally in the FAA. Depending on how that goes I might avoid them inspecting the aircraft.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

This FAA guy is living proof of how the FAA restricts any growth or advancment of avaiation!

There are 60,000 FAA personel, and 59,999 are like him!

Of course that's just my opinion!....

Well Showboatsix I can think of about 6 FAA personnel that are great people and are very helpful. Of course there are many more that don't seem to be which leads to your impression.

[GAHorn]

...
Perhaps this inspector knows about the cigar lighter and AD and is testing this owner. I know one or two that would do that as well.

I would present the information about the AD to the inspector and act like you know what your doing and you may earn their respect and have an ally in the FAA. Depending on how that goes I might avoid them inspecting the aircraft.

I'd be unhappy to learn that he was knowlegable about the AD and was using it as a method to "test" the owner. A better response on his part would be to query if the cigar lighter had been removed per the AD and then educate the owner about it. (But it's more likely he simply is being as anal as suspected.)

As for presenting the information to the inspector as suggested.... that is clearly good and reasonable advice Bruce is offering, and much more mature method of dealing with the matter.

I hate it when he does that. I wanted to be mad and mean about this.

[Showboatsix]

I hope the FAA guy does not know about the "Flasher AD"! You know the one on a C-172, don't know if it applies to a C-170 though.

[hilltop170]

I might be missing something but I don't see in the posted AD where the cigar lighter receptacle itself is to be removed, only the wire to it. I agree it makes sense to remove the receptacle if you disconnect the wiring but the wording does not indicate it.

Can anyone imagine smoking a CIGAR in an airplane? Talk about nauseating.

[GAHorn]

It's true that the AD only installs a dedicated fuse or c.b. for the cigar lighter, or alternatively, disables it. (It provides a basis for disabling installed equipment however, and removal of disabled equipment is a minor alteration provided it does not affect flying characteristics or significantly affects wt/bal.)

[canav8]

Well to add more info to the original post. I believe the intent of the comment of wanting to look at my aircraft that the FAA guy used was a gesture of help. He did comment "As an extra pair of eyes" I had told him that I recently purchased the aircraft. He has not seen it nor is he privy to the Registration number.

He is an old school FAA and he has been around GA for many many years. Thats good and bad. He commented on the Cigar Lighter( thank you for correcting me) by a picture. He noticed an open hole where the Cigar Lighter Assembly used to be. After I looked at the AD, which I did not know existed, I did have it written down as an old AD that had been complied with back in the early 80's. I was not prepared to respond to the FAA guy with compliance nature of this item upon my consultation of getting the 337 Air Gizmo tray approved. Call it tunnel vision or mission specific. My dealings with this FAA guy are generally good. He is an avid hunter and we talk about a lot of stuff when I see him. This is the first time I approached him for a field approval using the new ICA language. This guy is also a 135 PMI. He is very busy. I have been trying to get to see him in person for several months. That is good because in all probability, he will not find the time to come see the aircraft.

I supplied him with existing supporting data of a 337 that was approved by an FAA inspector in Kansas and supplied by the manufacturer. My FAA guy critiqued it and said it was illegal then in the same breath he says" it is data that lays the ground work for my approval." Once I am done with the install, I will give the Association a copy of the field approval. This approval is very important as Bruce said because this particular device will save you a fortune on getting Technology without paying the price of a fixed mounted GPS. Most Feds have been scoffing at this device because it is made of a plastic material for mounting I believe. Anyway, the Annual is almost done and the aircraft will be flying again soon. Doug

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

As for the AirGizmo I think many FAA people don't like it because they barely tolerate portable GPS units anyway and this device installed and approved would clearly make it legal to have a portable GPS in the cockpit.

As for whether the AD says one way on compliance is to remove the cigar lighter or not I believe and will argue it says you can remove the cigar lighter receptical. Lets examine instructions.

1) Reconnect the wire to the electrical bus by using an existing or newly installed circuit protection device that is properly rated to protect the wire gauge used for this circuit, or

Option #1 clearly allows you to fix the unfused circuit and use the cigar lighter.

2) Disconnect the wire from the lighter receptacle at the opposite end and remove it from the airplane, or

In option #2 does the word it refer to the wire or the lighter receptacle or does it refer to the assembly of the receptacle with wire attached? Lets examine option 3# and see if it sheds and light on it.

3) Protect the wire by insulating its disconnected end, fold this wire end back against the wire bundle in which it is routed and secure it to that bundle.

Option #3 clearly allows you to just disconnect the wire and protect it leaving all components installed but deactivated.

So option #1 allows the fix. Option #2 allows the disconnection and removal of it (the assembly). Option #3 allows for just the deactivation of the system without removal. Why would they need to write 2 options for deactivation without removal. My answer is they didn't and it in option #2 refers to the wire and receptacle assembly.

This is my argument and I believe I could win it. BTW I know of at least one other 170 that had the receptacle removed to comply with the AD so I'm not the only one who thinks this way. At least there are two of us.