The International Cessna 170 Association

It is IA renewal time for you IA's out there.

I just talked with my PMI at the Seattle FSDO. The Inspection authorization is now going to be good for two years. You will still have to meet the minimum requirements for renewal for each year.

I think this is just another indication of the FAA not being available, being under staffed and under funded. But I'll take it any way.

I would have liked it if they would have left the basis for renewal the same. Then go to Two year aircraft inspections with an max hours.

I attended the IA renewal forum here in KC about a week and a half ago. It was an all-day joke except for the Kelly Aerospace guy who talked on turbos and carburetors - good info. The FAA talked all of about 5 minutes on renewals. We gave them our tickets and they still haven't sent it back endorsed. Under the new rules, if you don't do the 4 annuals or meet the major repair requirements, you still have to attend a retraining class prior to the end of March to qualify. They implied that if an IA didn't meet the requirements for the first year (annuals, repairs or training), any annuals he did after that would be declared in default and the airplanes would be grounded. So the regulation change really didn't accomplish much.

Pretty sure one of the options is to complete one progressive inspection. Put your 170 on a progressive program and you meet your renewal requirement.

tye

thammer wrote:Pretty sure one of the options is to complete one progressive inspection. Put your 170 on a progressive program and you meet your renewal requirement.

tye

OR

Attend the required 8 hours of training each year.

thammer wrote:Pretty sure one of the options is to complete one progressive inspection. Put your 170 on a progressive program and you meet your renewal requirement.

tye

That's how I do it. Anyone who would like a copy of mine let me know. I have three that have been approved, the 170, 180, and a Stinson 108.

Another issue though is the interpretation of "actively engaged". The Scotsdale office is looking hard at that. I didn't make the refresher course currently going on in Phoenix so I don't have details on what their interpretation is at this point. I know they tried to get a full list of activities for the year from a full time maintenance shop here in AZ when all he put on the renewal form was four annuals and he refused saying he only needed to put down what was necessary for renewal. They backed off. I don't know where they are going with this but it doesn't look good for the part timer.

I attended the Aviation trade conference in Puyallup Washington last weekend and while talking to the FSDO representative I was told: That they were only allowed to expend 3% of there allowable surveillance on part 91 operations, this includes any independent IA, that they are primarily tasked with surveilling 135 & 145 operators.

What that means to me is we may not ever see an FAA inspector in the field and when you do it will most likely be by surprise because they were walking by or someone complained about you.

If you get a progressive maintenance plan for you 170 make sure it is approved by your local FSDO.

Aviation Maintenace Technologies offers 8 hours of recurrent training for IA renewal, I think it was 25.00 dollars a year. After each online lecture you take a quiz and when you pass, you can print out a certificate that is accepted by the FAA. My buddy and I also an AI took the online courses, walked in the the IA semenar showed our certs and recieved our stamps right away. That was definatly the way to go for those of us that only do one or two annuals a year. nick

Dave I just returned from the PHX Seminar. The big buzz this year was Dennis Wolter covering fabricating parts and AC 65-18. He admitted that it says SHOULD not SHALL but basicly you have to come up with a quality control manual with dimensions and material verification along with testing and a part and serial numbering system for each and every part you make. Including his example of the patch you make to cover a bullet hole.
Unfortunately this likely will go from the should to shall arena. I understood him to say that if you couldn't get from the manufacturer all the data you needed to make the part then you legally could not make the part. Unless you jumped thru all the hoops the manufacturer had to come up with your own data. I wanted to ask him 'when we are all in jail or flipping burgers who is going to maintain the A/C " but didn't get a chance.

I too am doing the IA renewal online at http://www.amtonline.com . It is quite disappointing that it is the same material as last year.

Indopilot wrote:Dave I just returned from the PHX Seminar. The big buzz this year was Dennis Wolter covering fabricating parts and AC 65-18. He admitted that it says SHOULD not SHALL but basicly you have to come up with a quality control manual with dimensions and material verification along with testing and a part and serial numbering system for each and every part you make. Including his example of the patch you make to cover a bullet hole.
Unfortunately this likely will go from the should to shall arena. I understood him to say that if you couldn't get from the manufacturer all the data you needed to make the part then you legally could not make the part. Unless you jumped thru all the hoops the manufacturer had to come up with your own data. I wanted to ask him 'when we are all in jail or flipping burgers who is going to maintain the A/C " but didn't get a chance.

What about AC43.13--and some specific instructions on how to repair simple sheet metal stuff? There is seriously something wrong in the Scottsdale office. Doesn't make sense to me they can go to such trouble to make life hard for the certified airplane mechanics and owners and then basically turn their backs to the homebuilt group. Wish I'd been in on that hour. What would Wilbur and Orville say?

Indopilot wrote:... Including his example of the patch you make to cover a bullet hole. ....

It's unfortunate, but sometimes people who should know better become "Chicken Little" and announce the sky is falling. (Don't know Dennis Wolter, and wasn't present to acertain if his statements are applicable in this context but....) This issue (an owner producing/having parts produced for his own aircraft) has been very well addressed by FAA Legal and published many times. (And a bullet hole that is patched is simply a "minor repair". Doesn't even require a Form 337.)
Of course, this applies only to Owner Produced parts not to the parts produced by others for an owner without owner's specificatons... (Reverse Engineering is permissible) per:
http://cessna170.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2567

when we work on flight controls we need to know what FAR 43. A says about recovering/repairing.

When we recover with OEM fabric we are making a major repair.

(FAR 43A(xxvii) Replacement of fabric on fabric covered parts such as wings, fuselages, stabilizers, and control surfaces.

when we recover a flight control with an after market fabric we are applying an STC. a 337 is required

When we are patching a hole we are making a minor repair. (log book entry only)

When we reskin a 170 rudder we are replacing an item with a like item which is a minor repair. (no change to design)

When we patch a rudder on a 170 we are making a major modification to the rudder. approved data is required See AC 43,13 para 1" Purpose" it is now approved data for aircraft that have no manufacturers data. but the 337 is required.

This is why it makes more sence to replace skins in than to repair skins.

Indopilot wrote:Dave I just returned from the PHX Seminar. The big buzz this year was Dennis Wolter covering fabricating parts and AC 65-18. ...

I've searched high/low for AC 65-18 and cannot locate it. What is it's title?

George,
I think that Indopilot ment AC 43-18 fab. of parts by a mech. I don't think there is a AC 65-18