The International Cessna^® 170 Association

Walt, I should have pointed out that an AC is not a FAR or regulation but methods, procedures, and practices acceptable to the
Administrator. The following is part of the order creating the AC system.

• ORDER 1320.46C
  ADVISORY CIRCULAR SYSTEM
  May 31, 2002
  DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
  FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
  Distribution: A-WXYZ-2; ZMS-321; ZMS-328
  Para 3. What the AC System is.
  The AC system:
  a. Provides guidance such as methods, procedures, and practices acceptable to the
  Administrator for complying with regulations and grant requirements. ACs may also contain
  explanations of regulations, other guidance material, best practices, or infonnation useful to the
  aviation community. They do not create or change a regulatory requirement.
  b. Publishes ACs in an electronic database available on the internet.
  c. Is the system FAA offices should use to provide guidance materials to the aviation
  community. It does not include Notices to Ainnen (NOT AMS).
  Link to Full Order

Even so this paragraph in AC 43-11 doesn't say you must follow all SBs. It says should you use parts that only meet service limits that they must meet the limit set forth in overhaul manuals and SBs. Through bolts don't have a service limit. There is an SB that says they should be replaced. Do you have to replace them? Not per this paragraph.

Yes I misread that. When I read 43-11 I had FAR 43 in my mind instead of AC 43. Thanks for keeping me straight.

Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 43—MAINTENANCE, PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE, REBUILDING, AND ALTERATION


Browse Previous | Browse Next


§ 43.2 Records of overhaul and rebuilding.
(a) No person may describe in any required maintenance entry or form an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part as being overhauled unless—

(1) Using methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator, it has been disassembled, cleaned, inspected, repaired as necessary, and reassembled; and

(2) It has been tested in accordance with approved standards and technical data, or in accordance with current standards and technical data acceptable to the Administrator, which have been developed and documented by the holder of the type certificate, supplemental type certificate, or a material, part, process, or appliance approval under part 21 of this chapter.

(b) No person may describe in any required maintenance entry or form an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part as being rebuilt unless it has been disassembled, cleaned, inspected, repaired as necessary, reassembled, and tested to the same tolerances and limits as a new item, using either new parts or used parts that either conform to new part tolerances and limits or to approved oversized or undersized dimensions.

[Amdt. 43–23, 47 FR 41084, Sept. 16, 1982, as amended by Amdt. 43–43, 74 FR 53394, Oct. 16, 2009]


Browse Previous | Browse Next
This is verbatim from FAR 43.2 which is relatively new October 16 2009. All Chapters and subchapters and paragraphs were originally odd numbered so space was available to add new if needed. If you see an even numbered paragraph or chapter it is new such as this one

Almost ready for a trip to KLMO for installation! It took longer than we thought but was worth the time and effort.

Engine looks super and I see you have your # 1 mechanic there to assist you Mechanic looks super as well.

OLE POKEY, Thanks for the nice words. It would not have been possible without my friend and mentor Lars.

Hope to do this again soon.

Looking good, Thad! I'm a few weeks behind you on the major overhaul. I have the new cylinders, the overhauled crankcase, carburetor, fuel pump, and prop governor. Magnetos are still out, as are the steel parts and the propeller. Given my mechanic's schedule and my glacial pace of work I expect to be flying again by Thanksgiving.

Let me know when you're back out at the airport so I can stop by and admire your new machinery!


Dave

Thanks Dave,
Lars and I installed the engine in the airplane last week. I will be in the hangar next Monday through Friday. Stop by any time!

Pre oiling the engine. We should have it running next week.

Aryana wrote:...
BTW, I love the polished prop...that would give some folks out here in CA an instant aneurism, and they would start ranting and raving about how your plane should be red tagged and is unairworthy

Show those folks a picture of the FAA DC-3 with polished props.

(Polishing is merely a method of cleaning.... for inspection purposes.)

I found the the plans to make the pre-oiler in a hot rod magazine. I gave the plans to Lars and he did a great job building it. We would like to make it available to members to use if they have a need for it. its just a plastic bucket with an old GM oil pump on the underside with a pick up tube welded to it. Lars also incorporated an oil filter and pressure gauge as well. I will post some pictures of it later this week.

I'm trying to come up with a name for my aircraft. what do you think about "instant aneurism"?
Thanks for the compliment on the prop. I would have to say that it was the least fun job of the project.
I know how the Karate kid felt. Polish on polish off.

gahorn wrote:

Aryana wrote:...
BTW, I love the polished prop...that would give some folks out here in CA an instant aneurism, and they would start ranting and raving about how your plane should be red tagged and is unairworthy

Show those folks a picture of the FAA DC-3 with polished props.

(Polishing is merely a method of cleaning.... for inspection purposes.)

From what I have learned, Hamilton Standard is the only prop manufacturer that has a spec for polishing then corrosion protecting with oil. I don't think it would carry over to other manufacturers. Every other prop manufacturer has a corrosion protection spec that includes some kind of coating such as paint. You wouldn't want to paint a polished prop.

This is how far we got today. Almost ready to fire it up!

hilltop170 wrote:[...From what I have learned, Hamilton Standard is the only prop manufacturer that has a spec for polishing then corrosion protecting with oil. I don't think it would carry over to other manufacturers. Every other prop manufacturer has a corrosion protection spec that includes some kind of coating such as paint. You wouldn't want to paint a polished prop.

Not disagreeing with that point,..... But for those who condemn the practice of polished prop finishes.... I don't know of an approval basis for polished airplanes either. The original unpainted surfaces were "Alclad", a protection scheme which is removed by polishing. If a polished prop is condemend for lack of corrosion protection, the same logic might be applied to the polished airframe.