The International Cessna^® 170 Association

Hi guys,

*Warning Legality Question*

Hopefully I am not overthinking this. I recently replaced my broken tail wheel channel (0510000-31) with a new one from Air Repair. IPC page 54, Figure 29 number 8. I am catching up on my logs. What would I use for the approved data for replacing this part? I do not think the 100 series service manual addresses this part.

On early 170 there was a service kit to upgrade to the fish mouth style. I'd have to look in our SBs to find it but it's there.

Forums- MX library- Service letters-; SK70A52-4 is a service letter to replace the old style tailwheel bracket with the "fish mouth" style. (Thanks Gary for the many posts you've made to this section)
As your plane came with the new style, I would think that the data for replacement would be "acceptable data " referencing the service letter and for the standard practices involved, the 100 series Cessna manual or AC43-13B with the specific pages for the torque values used. This is what I would do but I'm Canadian and for Canadians, the specific pages need to be logged as its important for the MOT guys.

I don't think nippaero changed the bracket assembly. I think he said he replaced the Tail Wheel Spring Retainer Channel (IPC Fig 29, Item #8) with a new one. If this is the case, since there is no "current manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness prepared by its manufacturer" (see 14 CFR 43.13(a)), you can rely on the fallback "or other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator" (again see 14 CFR 43.13(a). In other words, AC 43.13-1b.

Ahh...never mind, I'm over thinking this..thks Gene

Yes. I only replaced the old retainer channel #8 with a new one. I was thinking acceptable data in this case would be falling back to AC 43.13 since I cannot find any other reference to this part.

I may be opening a can of worms here, and others may disagree, but I think you can also (in addition to AC 43.13) rely on IPC Fig. 29. I know, I know, it's just a catalog. But in this instance where the IPC is the only published data from the manufacturer showing the part and its installation in reference to the other parts of the aircraft (including how it's attached), and at least for this part we know the info is correct, I think it's reasonable to rely on the IPC. We are dealing here with "acceptable" data, rather than "approved" data required for major repairs or alterations. In my view, I'll let the Feds tell me that the only publicly-available document from the manufacturer showing the part (including the correct part number) and its installation is not "acceptable". But, I personally rely on the IPC as acceptable data on a case by case basis because, as we all know, it does contain some errors.

How about something like this?

"Replaced broken tail wheel retainer channel shown in Cessna 170B IPC dated 09-01-1956, page 54, Figure 29 number 8 with new 0510000-31 channel and new AN3-4A hardware. All work performed in accordance with AC 43.13-1b....."

You got it. That's almost identical to how I'd write it.