Folks -
I have a '46 Taylorcraft with a leaking fuel cut-off valve. I suspect
the valve stem packing is causing the problem. As this is the third
time I"ve had to address a seep with this original valve, I'd like to
replace it. I believe a ball type valve from the local hardware store
would do the trick, as it has no parts that would be harmed by
gasoline. It appears to be all brass with teflon bearings.

A look at the FAR indicates replacing the valve is not a major thing
and a 337 is not require; however, the proposed valve is not certified
for use in an a/c.

I plan on talking with the local FSDO, but until then, can someone
provide any insight into what I'm going to have to do? Thanks, Mike

Abandon hope, all ye who enter here.

Jim


"Michael Horowitz"

> I plan on talking with the local FSDO

<sigh>
Yeah, and to compound the problem, being in the DC area, the local
FSDO is sure to dot all the 'i's.

I'm open to suggestion. - Mike




"RST Engineering" > wrote:

>Abandon hope, all ye who enter here.
>
>Jim
>
>
>"Michael Horowitz"
>
>> I plan on talking with the local FSDO
>

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 17:52:48 -0500, Michael Horowitz
> wrote:

>Yeah, and to compound the problem, being in the DC area, the local
>FSDO is sure to dot all the 'i's.
>
>I'm open to suggestion. - Mike


I think you said it was for a Taylorcraft. Take a look at what the
J-2, 3, 4, or 5 use. They are similar airplanes so it may have the
same type of shut-off valve. Also, call Univair. They deal with
antiques as a specialty, maybe a sales person can give you some ideas,
or let you talk to their tech support guys.

HTH.
z

Contact Forrest Barber, Barber Airport, Alliance OH 330.823.1168

> I believe a ball type valve from the local hardware store
>would do the trick,

Quite possibly true but not a legal repair.

>A look at the FAR indicates replacing the valve is not a major thing
>and a 337 is not require; however, the proposed valve is not certified
>for use in an a/c.

Look deeper, deeper, deeper into those FARs. Per the FARs you cannot replace a
certificated part with common hardware store parts unless those parts meet
whatever standard applies. If you were to replace the fuel shut off valve with
something not certificated for that aircraft you would need a Form 337 to gain
approval.

>I plan on talking with the local FSDO, but until then, can someone
>provide any insight into what I'm going to have to do? Thanks, Mike

Another poster recommended talking to Univair. They probably have the part or
know who can get them for you. Is there a Taylorcraft club? Taylorcrafts are
back in production so they probably have fuel shut off valves. Aircraft model
numbers have changed so that the current production part may not apply to an
older model but they might and it would be easier to approve a part from the
current type certificate holder than anywhere else.

John Dupre'

Buy what you consider an adequate replacement. Do your homework and get
something that will stand up to gasoline for dozens of years.

Plug the input and output ports. Put the part into a mixing bowl with sand
and dirt. Let the mixer run for a few hours. You now have a part that has
been on the airplane for years Nobody is going to question it unless you
spill the beans.

Sheesh...

Jim


"Michael Horowitz" > wrote in message
...
> <sigh>
> Yeah, and to compound the problem, being in the DC area, the local
> FSDO is sure to dot all the 'i's.
>
> I'm open to suggestion. - Mike

You really don't understand, do you John? The process to approve this part
is NOT a simple 337. A 337 means you have approved data to make the
modification.

Oh, no, sir. You submit a request to the local FSDO inspector, who transfers
it to regional engineering, who passes it on to Oklahoma City, who bucks it
up the ladder to Washington DC for a policy decision, while you wait, and
wait, and wait for an answer.

This is a frikkin' low horsepower single engine airplane out of the 1930s.
If the valve the person is suggesting that they use is available at the
local hardware store, it is far superior to ANYTHING that was available in
the middle of the last century.

Put the sumbitch on and keep your mouth shut.

Jim



"JDupre5762" > wrote in message
...

If you were to replace the fuel shut off valve with
> something not certificated for that aircraft you would need a Form 337 to
> gain
> approval.

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 15:17:44 -0500, Michael Horowitz
> wrote:

>Folks -
>I have a '46 Taylorcraft with a leaking fuel cut-off valve. I suspect
>the valve stem packing is causing the problem. As this is the third
>time I"ve had to address a seep with this original valve, I'd like to
>replace it. I believe a ball type valve from the local hardware store
>would do the trick, as it has no parts that would be harmed by
>gasoline. It appears to be all brass with teflon bearings.
>
>A look at the FAR indicates replacing the valve is not a major thing
>and a 337 is not require; however, the proposed valve is not certified
>for use in an a/c.

I am not familiar with the fuel cutoff valve on the Taylorcraft, but this
is a common problem on Champs and Chiefs. Replacement valves are made of
unobtanium. The good news if yours is similar, is they are almost always
repairable.

If the leak is around the valve stem, consult your local plumbing or
hardware store for replacement packing material. If it is not shutting off
(fuel continues to flow to the carburetor), the valve/seat can be lapped
with a fine abrasive such as toothpaste. Mine had both problems.
disassembly, cleaning, lapping, and new packing material were the answer.

Rob

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> You really don't understand, do you John? The process to approve this
> part is NOT a simple 337. A 337 means you have approved data to make the
> modification.
>
> Oh, no, sir. You submit a request to the local FSDO inspector, who
> transfers it to regional engineering, who passes it on to Oklahoma City,
> who bucks it up the ladder to Washington DC for a policy decision, while
> you wait, and wait, and wait for an answer.
>
> This is a frikkin' low horsepower single engine airplane out of the 1930s.
> If the valve the person is suggesting that they use is available at the
> local hardware store, it is far superior to ANYTHING that was available in
> the middle of the last century.
>
> Put the sumbitch on and keep your mouth shut.
>
> Jim
>

You're a bad person.

But I totally agree. ;-)

The only way you get busted is if: A) The airplane crashes because the valve
failed and B) You open your mouth.

KB

RST Engineering wrote:
>
> If the valve the person is suggesting that they use is available at the
> local hardware store, it is far superior to ANYTHING that was available in
> the middle of the last century.

Having done a fair amount of plumbing repairs in the last fifteen years, I beg
to differ. Pay *close* attention to the country of manufacture. If the new valve
is made in the US, Canada, or just about any European country, Jim's statement
is absolutely correct. One made in Indonesia *may* be satisfactory. Having seen
the failure rate on the Chinese shutoff valves which I've put in, there's no way
I would install something made in Asia in my fuel system.

And make absolutely sure that it has the warning label to the effect that it
contains substances that are "known to the State of California" to cause birth
defects. That substance is lead, which is required in the manufacture of quality
brass valves.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

Kyle Boatright wrote:

> "RST Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>You really don't understand, do you John? The process to approve this
>>part is NOT a simple 337. A 337 means you have approved data to make the
>>modification.
>>
>>Oh, no, sir. You submit a request to the local FSDO inspector, who
>>transfers it to regional engineering, who passes it on to Oklahoma City,
>>who bucks it up the ladder to Washington DC for a policy decision, while
>>you wait, and wait, and wait for an answer.
>>
>>This is a frikkin' low horsepower single engine airplane out of the 1930s.
>>If the valve the person is suggesting that they use is available at the
>>local hardware store, it is far superior to ANYTHING that was available in
>>the middle of the last century.
>>
>>Put the sumbitch on and keep your mouth shut.
>>
>>Jim
>>
>
>
> You're a bad person.
>
> But I totally agree. ;-)
>
> The only way you get busted is if: A) The airplane crashes because the valve
> failed and B) You open your mouth.

Actually, a crash for any reason is bad if it results in the uncovering
of the unapproved part.


Matt

"JDupre5762" > wrote in message
...
> > I believe a ball type valve from the local hardware store
> >would do the trick,
>
> Quite possibly true but not a legal repair.
>
> >A look at the FAR indicates replacing the valve is not a major thing
> >and a 337 is not require; however, the proposed valve is not certified
> >for use in an a/c.
>
> Look deeper, deeper, deeper into those FARs. Per the FARs


Per WHICH FAR? I don't know how many Taylorcrafts have automotive stuff
in them. Hell, they were built that way. They have copper plumbing and
SAE 45 degree fittings and valves and on and on. The A&P who owned a
Taylorcraft used to say, when you were changing out a part, "equal to or
better." Now THAT's in the FAR's or somewhere in advisory circulars. I've
seen it.

I know a Cub with a fuel shutoff valve from Home Depot. It's been there,
installed by an A&P, for years. And you know what? It still works.


you cannot replace a
> certificated part with common hardware store parts unless those parts meet
> whatever standard applies. If you were to replace the fuel shut off valve
with
> something not certificated for that aircraft you would need a Form 337 to
gain
> approval.

A 337 doesn't get you approved; that's for major repairs and alterations.
You would need to go running to the FSDO for approval first.
>
> >I plan on talking with the local FSDO, but until then, can someone
> >provide any insight into what I'm going to have to do? Thanks, Mike
>

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Kyle Boatright wrote:
>
>> "RST Engineering" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>You really don't understand, do you John? The process to approve this
>>>part is NOT a simple 337. A 337 means you have approved data to make the
>>>modification.
>>>
>>>Oh, no, sir. You submit a request to the local FSDO inspector, who
>>>transfers it to regional engineering, who passes it on to Oklahoma City,
>>>who bucks it up the ladder to Washington DC for a policy decision, while
>>>you wait, and wait, and wait for an answer.
>>>
>>>This is a frikkin' low horsepower single engine airplane out of the
>>>1930s. If the valve the person is suggesting that they use is available
>>>at the local hardware store, it is far superior to ANYTHING that was
>>>available in the middle of the last century.
>>>
>>>Put the sumbitch on and keep your mouth shut.
>>>
>>>Jim
>>>
>>
>>
>> You're a bad person.
>>
>> But I totally agree. ;-)
>>
>> The only way you get busted is if: A) The airplane crashes because the
>> valve failed and B) You open your mouth.
>
> Actually, a crash for any reason is bad if it results in the uncovering of
> the unapproved part.
>
> Matt

Especially for the widow, and what little if anything will be left of the
estate once a lawyer finds out about the automotive valve.

It always amazes me how people insist on taking a chance on having a lawyer
walk away with your life's savings and assets just because they're too damn
lazy to track down the right part...

Juan

Which he already did, thanks to a simple thing called groups search on
google...

Sheesh.

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> Buy what you consider an adequate replacement. Do your homework and get
> something that will stand up to gasoline for dozens of years.
>
> Plug the input and output ports. Put the part into a mixing bowl with
> sand and dirt. Let the mixer run for a few hours. You now have a part
> that has been on the airplane for years Nobody is going to question it
> unless you spill the beans.
>
> Sheesh...
>
> Jim
>
>
> "Michael Horowitz" > wrote in message
> ...
>> <sigh>
>> Yeah, and to compound the problem, being in the DC area, the local
>> FSDO is sure to dot all the 'i's.
>>
>> I'm open to suggestion. - Mike
>
>
>
>

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Kyle Boatright wrote:
> >
> >> "RST Engineering" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>
> >>>You really don't understand, do you John? The process to approve this
> >>>part is NOT a simple 337. A 337 means you have approved data to make
the
> >>>modification.
> >>>
> >>>Oh, no, sir. You submit a request to the local FSDO inspector, who
> >>>transfers it to regional engineering, who passes it on to Oklahoma
City,
> >>>who bucks it up the ladder to Washington DC for a policy decision,
while
> >>>you wait, and wait, and wait for an answer.
> >>>
> >>>This is a frikkin' low horsepower single engine airplane out of the
> >>>1930s. If the valve the person is suggesting that they use is available
> >>>at the local hardware store, it is far superior to ANYTHING that was
> >>>available in the middle of the last century.
> >>>
> >>>Put the sumbitch on and keep your mouth shut.
> >>>
> >>>Jim
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> You're a bad person.
> >>
> >> But I totally agree. ;-)
> >>
> >> The only way you get busted is if: A) The airplane crashes because the
> >> valve failed and B) You open your mouth.
> >
> > Actually, a crash for any reason is bad if it results in the uncovering
of
> > the unapproved part.
> >
> > Matt
>
> Especially for the widow, and what little if anything will be left of the
> estate once a lawyer finds out about the automotive valve.
>
> It always amazes me how people insist on taking a chance on having a
lawyer
> walk away with your life's savings and assets just because they're too
damn
> lazy to track down the right part...
>
> Juan

Are you totally clueless? Have you never heard of proximate cause as a
condition precedent to getting into court on a personal injury or wrongful
death lawsuit?

Now listen heah, Mr. Kearns, you anal retentive. Go to Home Depot and buy
one of those brass ball valves with teflon ball. Hell, buy several of
them. Some of them are called "bolla valvola" giving you an idea where
they are made.* Soak them in mogas or 100LL or both for a decade and see
if one of the damn things fails. I get angry at Jim Weir every once in a
while, but you know the guy has practical good sense that others are often
devoid of.
"Gene Kearns" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 08:21:02 -0500, " jls" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"JDupre5762" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> > I believe a ball type valve from the local hardware store
> >> >would do the trick,
Damn right, Dupres or Jim Weir or whoever said that. Stand and testify!



*BTW, I bought cylinders from Superior recently. The valves were made in
Italy and the pistons in Brazil. Didn't bother me a damn bit.

" jls" > wrote in message
...
>
> Are you totally clueless? Have you never heard of proximate cause as a
> condition precedent to getting into court on a personal injury or wrongful
> death lawsuit?

No, and apparently neither have the lawyers that have obtained multimillion
judgements against companies like Parker-Hannafin even when the NTSB
concluded their products were working just fine (Carnahan case), or when it
was absolutely crystal clear that the crash was a result of the captain
deciding to commit suicide (Silk Air flight MI-185).

What was it that you were saying about clueless? How are things in La-La
Land these days?

<sheeshh....>

"Gene Kearns" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 20:29:43 -0500, " jls" >
> wrote:
>
[...]

If so, concerning the word "practical," I think
> we have different dictionaries... In fact, I think the word you are
> grasping for is "expedient."

No thanks for your defective Thesaurus, not a synonym for "practical."
*You* are the grasper here, and I doubt you have knowledge or experience in
the upkeep of old airplanes like Michael's. That's the reason why he
should consult with a *reasonable* A&P, not an anal one. I've known of
A&P's who didn't know the difference between a Taylorcraft and a Chris
Craft, and your strawman is duly noted.

What one does is seek out a reasonable A&P, thank goodness for the abundance
of competent A&P's in my neck of the woods. If you run up on an anal one,
shun him and go to one with practical sense who knows how to interpret the
FAR's reasonably enough and safely enough to keep the old airplanes flying.

>I plan on talking with the local FSDO

Then you will never be able to do it. Never. Once they know you had
plans to do it, you lose plausible deniability.

Look, here's the way it is. All alterations to the fuel system are
major. You have no approved data. You have an unapproved part. It
would take an STC or field approval to make it happen, and you won't
get one. You're stuck with either your obsolete, leaky, marginally
safe - but legal - valve, or you make the alteration yourself, by dark
of night, and don't tell anyone. And make sure you have the kind of IA
who doesn't notice such things.

Michael

"Gene Kearns" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 12:20:10 -0500, " jls" >
[...]
> I do agree with this. If you don't like it my way.. feel free to
> A&P/IA shop... it is your right and you, as pilot and/or owner share
> the liability for your choices. Seek your own level of comfort....
>
> I don't seek to impose my anal will upon you, it is your decision, and
> your decision alone as to the level of compliance you are comfortable
> with..... suit yourself.... but don't snivel if you bear the
> consequences

Spamcan-think duly noted. Now please answer the question regarding
unapproved elevator tips.

BTW, I went to your website and took a look at your taildragger project.
Now that is an ambitious undertaking and I wish you well. I had a project
in the eighties, a Taylorcraft, and have "courted calamity" with it now for
going on two decades. One A&P/IA didn't like my ancient wingtank valve and
made me change it out to a working one. In other words, we went from an
unsafe,dripping legal valve to an illegal one that didn't leak. I
re-covered the wings on this airplane, fly it all over the country, rebuilt
the engine, restored the trim system, restored the brakes, rebuilt all the
control surface hinges, watch every little thing, and do my own annuals --
under the A&P's watchful eyes, of course.

I recently looked at a fuel cutoff valve which comes with an RV-6 kit. It
is a boat valve like I have seen used -- probably legally -- on
Taylorcrafts.

It seems to me the A&P's pay is earned by finding solutions, not snapping
condemnations. That's the reason why I go with the guys who gave Michael
Horowitz answers, not nononononono. And you still haven't shown why SAE
parts are illegal for a Taylorcraft, the plumbing of which came from the
factory with all kinds of them. The brakes are from a motor scooter. They
work too. And you can buy plexi for the windows at Home Depot.

Gene Kearns wrote:
> And then, I, as the next *responsible* inspector at annual, follow up
> your work and have to ground the aircraft.... pending the lengthy
> process of finding a legal, airworthy replacement part....

Yeah, you could do that. But the word you're really looking for is
irresponsible. You know damn well that the legal valve is going to
leak, because getting the FAA to approve anything that smells of new
technology in a cost-effective manner just doesn't happen. Therefore,
by grounding the airplane, you're making the owner's operation less
safe in every way. Less safe by grounding him and making him uncurrent
when he does fly again, less safe by making him fly with a leaky valve,
and less safe by absorbing money that could be used for more important
things, like proficiency and good equipment. What you're doing is
legal, and it good CYA, but you need to look in the mirror and face the
fact that you (and everyone like you) is making GA less safe - and the
A&P who is willing to look the other way and count on "No, that was NOT
there when I looked at the plane" is the responsible one, making things
safer.

> ....now, both of us have generated a hate factor and given all A&Ps a
> black eye.

No. Just you.

Michael

On 29 Dec 2004 11:29:02 -0800, "Michael"
> wrote:

>What you're doing is
>legal, and it good CYA, but you need to look in the mirror and face the
>fact that you (and everyone like you) is making GA less safe - and the
>A&P who is willing to look the other way and count on "No, that was NOT
>there when I looked at the plane" is the responsible one, making things
>safer.


I had a good IA that would use some common sense in his approach.
Personally, I don't stray much from approved parts, but some of his
customers did so extensively. His reward for working with people is
that he no longer has his license and is being sued by one of the
people he helped for an accident he could not do anything about (a
crank shaft broke on a new overhaul, and the pilot stalled above the
trees).

While I'd agree using an alternative approach to repairs can be
beneficial, given the sue happy society we live in today, if I were an
A&P/IA, I'd be VERY cautious in straying from the laws I'd be governed
by. Mechanics often need to walk a fine line, and i don't envy them
for it.

z

"Gene Kearns" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 08:21:02 -0500, " jls" >
[...]>
> Equal to is a repair. Better than, is an alteration. I think it was
> one of the FARs I quoted..... wanna check again? By the way, if your
> A&P installs a part that is "better than" he is making an
> alteration

I don't believe you. A fiberglas wingtip or fiberglas rudder tip is better
than a Royalite one, and yet that is not an alteration. A McFarlane
throttle cable, having a slick polymer liner for the cable is better than
the original, but that is not an alteration. Installation of all kinds of
improved parts on Cessnas does not require 337 or field approval. Bulb on
the flap trailing edge, e. g. What about installing that neat new shimmy
dampener which is sealed? Is that an alteration?

You are clear as mud.



.... and by the quoted FARs it will, de facto, be a major
> alteration. Thus, you MUST, in this instance, seek a field approval.

Yep, clear as mud, and you can leave out the pretentious "de facto" and
still be just as articulate as before and still clear as mud.

"Michael" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Gene Kearns wrote:
>> And then, I, as the next *responsible* inspector at annual, follow up
>> your work and have to ground the aircraft.... pending the lengthy
>> process of finding a legal, airworthy replacement part....
>
> Yeah, you could do that. But the word you're really looking for is
> irresponsible. You know damn well that the legal valve is going to
> leak, because getting the FAA to approve anything that smells of new
> technology in a cost-effective manner just doesn't happen. Therefore,
> by grounding the airplane, you're making the owner's operation less
> safe in every way. Less safe by grounding him and making him uncurrent
> when he does fly again, less safe by making him fly with a leaky valve,
> and less safe by absorbing money that could be used for more important
> things, like proficiency and good equipment.

That's got to be the most bass-ackwards logic I've seen in years. Don't
ground an aircraft using unapproved parts in critical systems (and if you
tell me fuel system is not critical I'll instantly plonk you) because you'll
cause more harm when the owner can't fly? <chuckle>

Juan

Juan Jimenez wrote:
> That's got to be the most bass-ackwards logic I've seen in years.
Don't
> ground an aircraft using unapproved parts in critical systems (and if
you
> tell me fuel system is not critical I'll instantly plonk you) because
you'll
> cause more harm when the owner can't fly? <chuckle>

You're certainly welcome to plonk me - I'm sure others have - but I'm
not going to tell you the fuel system is not critical. Of course it's
critical, and in fact it's the number one thing that brings down
homebuilts in the Phase I period. But we're not talking about
compromising the fuel system - we're talking about improving it via a
simple component substitution - a good modern valve in place of an
obsolete leaky one.

Our realistic choices are a leaky valve or an unapproved one.

The key word you've got there is unapproved. Not unsafe, not
unreliable, but unapproved. Basically, not allowed. The question to
be asked is - how important is that? In other words - how much faith
do you place in the opinion of government bureaucrats?

Michael

Me? You get angry at MOI? I'm just going to go out in the backyard and cry
and eat worms.

Sniff...

{;-)

Jim



> if one of the damn things fails. I get angry at Jim Weir every once in a
> while,

"Gene Kearns" > wrote in message
...
> On 30 Dec 2004 07:47:55 -0800, "Michael"
> > wrote:
>
> >Juan Jimenez in his usual slobbering spasms:
[...]leaky one.
> >
> >Our realistic choices are a leaky valve or an unapproved one.
> >
> >The key word you've got there is unapproved. Not unsafe, not
> >unreliable, but unapproved. Basically, not allowed. The question to
> >be asked is - how important is that? In other words - how much faith
> >do you place in the opinion of government bureaucrats?
> >
> >Michael
>
> If you don't want to follow the rules.... fine..... stick to
> homebuilts. If you buy a certificated aircraft, you know from the
> git-go that there is a specific set of rules you must, by law, follow.
>
> >"in fact it's the number one thing that brings down homebuilts in
> >the Phase I period"
>
> And that doesn't suggest something to you?!?!
Fuel starvation suggests a whole lot more glitches than a valve. It suggests
a rich complexity of issues. Furthermore, homebuilts have an enviable
safety record, and the statement you're replying to is woefully overbroad
and unspecific. Let's have real numbers when discussing these things;
otherwise, it sounds more like amateurs and simpletons discussing them.
Thus, what percentage of homebuilts crash during Phase I, and what
percentage of those are attributable to fuel starvation, and what percentage
of those fuel starvation cases are attributable to defective valves.

The last couple of cases of Phase I crashes I'm familiar with due to fuel
starvation was 1) empty fuel tanks because of poor fuel monitoring, i. e.,
pilot error, and 2) fuel strainer screens covered with trash because of
failure to clean out the tanks after sloshing.

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 12:45:03 -0500, " jls" > wrote:

>> >"in fact it's the number one thing that brings down homebuilts in
>> >the Phase I period"
>>
>> And that doesn't suggest something to you?!?!
>Fuel starvation suggests a whole lot more glitches than a valve. It suggests
>a rich complexity of issues. Furthermore, homebuilts have an enviable
>safety record, and the statement you're replying to is woefully overbroad
>and unspecific. Let's have real numbers when discussing these things;
>otherwise, it sounds more like amateurs and simpletons discussing them.
>Thus, what percentage of homebuilts crash during Phase I, and what
>percentage of those are attributable to fuel starvation, and what percentage
>of those fuel starvation cases are attributable to defective valves.

I ran a detailed analysis of homebuilt accidents about a year ago. During the
1998-2000 time period (e.g., 3-year period), here are some of the fuel-related
accidents:

- Cracked engine impulse line, which disabled the fuel pump
- Obstructed fuel nozzle.
- Inadequate inspection of the fuel system that led to fuel filter
contamination.
- Blockage of the airplane fuel system, a delamination of the fiberglass fuel
tanks, and the usage of an improper fuel (alcohol-based)
- The introduction of a fuel containing an ethanol additive into fuel tanks
sloshed/sealed with a compound incompatible with alcohols, resulting in
debonding of the compound from the fuel tank walls, leading to partial
blockage of an in-line fuel filter
- Separation of the fuel pick-up line.
- Malfunctioning landing gear, which blocked the radiator scoop, leading to
increased fuel temperature and the subsequent vapor lock condition and fuel
blockage.
- Failure of a plastic 90-degree fitting at the inlet fitting of the carburetor.
- Loose fuel pump output line attachment fitting leading to in-flight fire
- Mechanical failure of a fuel sump tank check valve
- Interruption of fuel to or within a carburetor (cause undetermined)
- Fracturing of the fuel pump switches
- Fuel starvation due to fuel leak in the gascolator as a result of improper
maintenance
- Loose fuel line fitting
- Loose fuel cap
- Builder's improper installation that resulted in the fuel line being snagged
- Inadequate marking of the fuel selector valve to clearly indicate a fully open
position.
- Blocked fuel strainer due to an inadequate maintenance inspection
- Improper installation of the fuel selector valve and failure to placard the
operating positions of the valve handle.
- Misalignment of the fuel pump front cover by the pilot/builder
- Obstructed fuel vent system
- Improper sealant material used by the owner/builder
- Improper fuel vapor return system.
- The fuel leak for an undetermined reason which resulted in an in-flight fire.
- Obstructed fuel system filter due to inadequate silicone sealer
- Rotation of fuel tank elbow fitting within the tank during previous
maintenance, leading to improper alignment of the fuel pick-up tube
- Fuel drain left remaining partially open during preflight
- Failure to adjust newly installed wing fuel caps leading to fuel starvation,
and failure of the vent system to adequately compensate for the pressure
differential created and the failure of the pilot to monitor fuel balance.
- Partial loss of engine power due to water contamination of the fuel (three
cases)

About 6.1% of homebuilt accidents involve mechanical problems with the fuel
system; about 0.7% are related to fuel contamination, and about 4% involve fuel
exhaustion (some overlap in causes can occur).

Homebuilts suffer accidents related to fuel system problems about four times as
often as Cessna 172s; they also suffer fuel-exhaustion accidents about half as
often as the Cessnas. More homebuilt accidents are caused by "undetermined loss
of power," and some of those might be fuel-related.

Ron Wanttaja

" jls" wrote:
> Furthermore, homebuilts have an enviable
> safety record...Let's have real numbers when discussing these
things;
> ...

Real overall numbers are contained in the annual NTSB and ASF Nall
Reports re homebuilt safety. Compared to production aircraft, it is
anything but enviable. The comparison isn't even accurate, as
homebuilt accidents are less likely to be reported.

At our field, NTSB has all reportable production A/C crashes for the
many years we can remember, except for one recent, uninsured one. But
the several homebuilt ones over the years are quickly dragged into a
hangar. No control tower; no hull insurance; no serious injury. The
airport, for their insurance and other reasons, prefers to be unable
to ever recall the incident, unless you report it to the gov't.

Fred F.

>If you don't want to follow the rules.... fine..... stick to
>homebuilts. If you buy a certificated aircraft, you know from the
>git-go that there is a specific set of rules you must, by law, follow.

I think that's a very reasonable position from someone who:
Never exceeds the speed limit for any reason
Always comes to a full stop at every stop sign (no rolling stops, ever)
Never parks in a no-parking zone, even for a minute
Never crosses against the light
Never cheats on his taxes
And in fact never breaks any government regulations, ever, for any
reason.

Otherwise it's total hypocrisy.

>>"in fact it's the number one thing that brings down homebuilts in
>>the Phase I period"
>And that doesn't suggest something to you?!?!

It suggests that the system is indeed critical. AFAIK none of those
accidents are fuel valve failure. Just because a system is critical
does not mean every component is critical.

Michael

" jls" wrote:
> Furthermore, homebuilts have an enviable safety record,

!?!

Enviable by whom - Evel Knievel?

> Let's have real numbers when discussing these things;

Indeed.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> " jls" wrote:
> > Furthermore, homebuilts have an enviable safety record,
>
> !?!
>
> Enviable by whom - Evel Knievel?
>
> > Let's have real numbers when discussing these things;
>
> Indeed.
> --
> Dan
> C-172RG at BFM
>
>

Ron Wanttaja just gave you some relevant numbers, and you can go to the EAA
website for the irrelevant ones and get more. Being involved in
experimental aircraft now for almost 20 years, my experience with
experimentals is good. OTOH, there are some kooks who build ratplanes and
fail at trying to fly them.

If it's a Stuart Headwind, Cassutt, or Pou de Ciel, it's sometimes a little
suspect. If it's a Lancair, T-18, or RV-6 then it has a better history,
thus credibility.

Somewhere in one of these threads somebody said homebuilder "incidents"
don't tally correctly because homebuilders grab up their damaged planes,
carry them into the hangars under the cover of night, and hide them. Hey,
I know of instances in which certified aircraft were wrecked, stashed away,
repaired surreptitiously, and manage to escape the official record too.

Whenever you read of one for sale, it's known in the trade as a laughable
lie when the ad says "NDH."

It's not a lie. NO DAMAGE would be a lie. No Damage HISTORY is the truth.
There is no history if it's not recorded.

Jim



> Whenever you read of one for sale, it's known in the trade as a laughable
> lie when the ad says "NDH."
>
>

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> It's not a lie. NO DAMAGE would be a lie. No Damage HISTORY is the truth.
> There is no history if it's not recorded.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> > Whenever you read of one for sale, it's known in the trade as a
laughable
> > lie when the ad says "NDH."
> >

Attaboy, Jim. You always come through.

I bet Penn and Teller would have some choice words to say about this.
<chuckle>

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> It's not a lie. NO DAMAGE would be a lie. No Damage HISTORY is the truth.
> There is no history if it's not recorded.
>
> Jim
>
>> Whenever you read of one for sale, it's known in the trade as a laughable
>> lie when the ad says "NDH."

It really gets down to time and money namely a lot of yours not the
government's so you can educate the FAA government bureaucrat on
modern technology and he can cover his ass in a lot of expensive paper
work..
It could easily cost you more than $50,000 and two years to get that
$5 valve approved by the time you ran enough tests at a CERTIFIED Lab
with certified calibrated equipment using an APPROVED test plan
that will have to be written. The FAA guy will then dream up more
tests so you will have to jump through more hoops. Have you never
heard of the Bob Hoover medical problem? Same problem here.

I once had a certified helicopter that had a drilled head pivot bolt
in the tail rotor bell crank that held the bell crank in place. The
bolt's nut was a standard ordinary non fixed to the airframe all metal
self locking nut per the parts manual also. The parts manual showed
that both the drilled and un-drilled AN-6 parts were both approved in
this location. The FAA dick head insisted that if the drilled head
bolt was installed it had to be safety wired to something. What the
hell good is keeping the bolt from turning going to help if the nut is
free to rotate? The A&P /IA showed the FAA dick head the CURRENT
version parts manual, acceptable, approved data.
So the Faa dick head insisted on calling the helicopter MFG. After a
couple of hours on the phone the end result was the parts manual is
correct as it stands per the aircraft MFG. If we had the correct
length AN6 un-drilled bolt we would have changed it but to get one
would take a day or more of lost revenue.
After more than 4 hours the problem got resolved at 4:59 PM when the
FAA guy said I guess that drilled head bolt's OK and went home.
Total cost to me over $200. Did this improve anything? I think not.
The real problem is the FAA inspectors do not want to be held
accountable for ANY judgment calls without a load of expensive paper
to cover their ass and they also like to show the "troops" who is the
boss.
John

On 28 Dec 2004 13:21:19 -0800, "Michael"
> wrote:

>>I plan on talking with the local FSDO
>
>Then you will never be able to do it. Never. Once they know you had
>plans to do it, you lose plausible deniability.
>
>Look, here's the way it is. All alterations to the fuel system are
>major. You have no approved data. You have an unapproved part. It
>would take an STC or field approval to make it happen, and you won't
>get one. You're stuck with either your obsolete, leaky, marginally
>safe - but legal - valve, or you make the alteration yourself, by dark
>of night, and don't tell anyone. And make sure you have the kind of IA
>who doesn't notice such things.
>
>Michael

Gene Kearns wrote:
> >Otherwise it's total hypocrisy.
>
> No, it isn't. Your conclusion is just plain silly. We are talking
> about WILLFULLY violating the law.

As I was about speeding and such.

> Everybody probably inadvertently
> speeds, doesn't come to a *complete* stop at a stop sign, parks in
> no-parking zones, or crosses against the light.

Oh nuts. I'm sure everyone does it inadvertently at some point, but
most people also have been known to drive faster than the speed limit,
not come to a full stop at a light, and similar because they just
didn't feel it was IMPORTANT to comply with the law all the time.

> Looking down at the speedometer and seeing 64 instead of 55 probably
> means you are going to slow down.

Unless you slow down EVERY time, no dice. Hypocrisy.

> So, your position is, what? Anarchy? Since we can't follow ALL of
the
> laws we shouldn't follow ANY of the laws?

No, my position is very different. If you are willing to use you
judgment about which law to follow, it is tremendously hypocritical to
suggest that it's OK to speed for convenience or some perceived
personal need but not OK to install a safer, non-leaking fuel valve
because it's not approved. So if you've NEVER intentionall broken
traffic regulations, OK, you have what may be a valid argument.
Otherwise, it's sheer hypocrisy.

Michael

"Gene Kearns" wrote:
> No, it isn't. Your conclusion is just plain silly. We are talking
> about WILLFULLY violating the law. Everybody probably inadvertently
> speeds, doesn't come to a *complete* stop at a stop sign, parks in
> no-parking zones, or crosses against the light.

Everyone I know--EVERYONE--deliberately breaks the speed limit most of the
time.

> Looking down at the speedometer and seeing 64 instead of 55 probably
> means you are going to slow down.

Not the folks I ride with, nor most of the folks I drive alongside on the
highway.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

Geez y'all, with all the arguing, somebody could have found an approved part
from a certificated aircraft, gotten the conformity data, submitted a 337 with
details, drawings and instructions for continued airworthiness and most likely
have gotten a fuel cutoff valve that doesn't leak.


--
Dr. Nuketopia
Sorry, no e-Mail.
Spam forgeries have resulted in thousands of faked bounces to my address.

"Gene Kearns" > wrote in message
...
> On 13 Jan 2005 19:34:18 GMT, (nuke) wrote:
>
> >Geez y'all, with all the arguing, somebody could have found an approved
part
> >from a certificated aircraft, gotten the conformity data, submitted a 337
with
> >details, drawings and instructions for continued airworthiness and most
likely
> >have gotten a fuel cutoff valve that doesn't leak.
>
> Very true... but several posters seem to continue to insist that not
> only are 337s, approvals, log book entries, drawings and the FARs
> unnecessary and dispensable (at their sole discretion), but a real
> hazard to safe flight.....

Well, nobody has said that, and you act more and more like a rather grim
little troll. Most people are puzzled about all the paperwork and excess
energy unnecessarily expended to replace a part on an aging aircraft, so
they seek out an A&P/AI who is not working on his analworthiness
certificate. (Such as yourself.)

The FSDO in this neck of the woods does not grant field approvals and its
agents have said so time and time again. That's a fact, so why don't you
troll and spam where you'll be more appreciated.

By the way, some friends just replaced the bronze jackscrews on their trim
systems and didn't go through all the anal hoops the lock-sphinctered
hairsplitting like you seem to require out of airplane life. We reverse
engineered them because there was no other source. Much to your chagrin and
pucker-pain, they work beautifully. And the IA's who installed them just
loved them.

In addition I'm personally aware of a mag drive gear from Fresno Airparts
which just had the FAA in a nervous frenzy---because Fresno apparently
didn't go through the hoops to assure the proper Rockwell hardness (It's
soft) and furthermore didn't get it approved and etched 'FAA-PMA' with
permission. And I understand there are thousands of them out there in
service. Now I hate to tell you--- for fear you may swoon and collapse with
a conniption yourself and tear out a sphincter --- but this #36066 drive
gear (price for the legal one: about $500 at ACS) has almost 800 hours on
it -- and not one torn anus. See:
http://www.faa.gov/certification/aircraft/av-info/ad/saibs/ACE-98-21.htm
for details on the discomfort at FAA.

Now there's a real issue for you, my analworthy friend. That and somebody
taking a Cub data plate and putting it on a homebuilt Cub-- then selling it
as if it were the genuine item. Go and find out how many catastrophic
engine failures occurred because of those gears out there turning thousands
and thousands of mags and report back with the scandalous results.

"Gene Kearns" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:11:18 -0500, " jls" >
> wrote:
>
>
> >The FSDO in this neck of the woods does not grant field approvals and its
> >agents have said so time and time again. That's a fact, so why don't
you
> >troll and spam where you'll be more appreciated.
> >
>
> "Your neck of the woods" falls under the local jurisdiction of the
> Charlotte, NC FSDO (SO-FSDO-33). Any statement that implies that the
> ASIs and PMIs at that FSDO won't do field approvals is absolutely and
> totally false... as I'm sure you well know.

The last time I went to FAA/pilot meeting in Hendersonville, the agent there
answered a direct question about field approvals posed by a well-known
pilot/builder/restorer. I could have sworn he said 'NO.' Maybe the policy
has changed; I have heard enough bickering about it from the mechanics in
this area. So don't tell me what I know. I hope you're not as incompetent
at mechanicking as you are at mental telepathy.


I never could understand how a government agency could operate to its
maximum reasonable extent if it were practicing cya for fear of lawsuits.
Besides that, most governmental agencies enjoy sovereign immunity from
actions at law, but I can tell you having sat there and listened that the
agent made reference to the litigious society we live in when he said NO.

"Gene Kearns" > wrote in message
>
> The policy has not changed.... You made a flat statement [i. e., that the
Charlotte FSDO does not grant field approvals] that was
> demonstrably false...

OK, fella, here is your chance to shine. In the last 2 years how many
field approvals have they granted and how many have they refused? That
should be easy enough for you to find out since you make it to appear you
are intimate with them.

That's not what he asked you, idiotbird. What he asked was the ratio of
approved/declined field approvals and the numbers for each. You seem to be
so well connected with the Charlotte FSDO that this information ought to be
trivial to obtain. Unless, of course, you are blowing smoke...

Jim
"Gene Kearns" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:29:07 -0500, " jls" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Gene Kearns" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> The policy has not changed.... You made a flat statement [i. e., that
>>> the
>>Charlotte FSDO does not grant field approvals]

Looks like the start of an internet ****ing match between one fellow
who is always correct but can't prove it, and another fellow who is
just relaying info as it was related to him.

Who was that masked man?

Prove what you're saying!

I will if you tell me who that masked man is.

Hey Gene, regardless of what you may think, statements like that are
strewn all the time by these government hacks, because that's what the
minute by minute policy is. And why don't you just say that you have
a bigger dick than anyone else here and we'll all start accepting your
word as the gospel according to St. Kearns!

A legend in his own mind!



On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:51:31 -0500, Gene Kearns
> wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:29:07 -0500, " jls" >
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Gene Kearns" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> The policy has not changed.... You made a flat statement [i. e., that the
>>Charlotte FSDO does not grant field approvals] that was
>>> demonstrably false...
>>
>>OK, fella, here is your chance to shine. In the last 2 years how many
>>field approvals have they granted and how many have they refused?
>>
>>
>
>Not a problem... answer the question and I'll call him and get your
>figures...
>
>"Just who *was* this mystery agent? Post his name and I'll call him,
>myself, and verify what he said."
>
>>That
>>should be easy enough for you to find out since you make it to appear you
>>are intimate with them.
>
>Not "intimate," but I do attend nearly all of the AMT/IA seminars and
>meet many of the Charlotte people and have formed professional
>acquaintances with them.. I work close enough to the Greensboro FSDO
>to hit it with a rock.... and answer to and am surveilled by at least
>three different PMIs from that office..... so, yes, I *do* know the
>area and I *do* know what they will or won't do. Nice try, but you
>aren't going to blow smoke at me over the local FSDOs.

"Gene Kearns" > wrote in message
...
>
> jls makes an unsupported and untrue statement and I ask for his...

Gene, why do you think I put jls into the twit bucket? Don't waste your
time. :)

" jls" wrote:
> analworthiness
>
> lock-sphinctered
> pucker-pain,
>
> tear out a sphincter
> torn anus.
>
> analworthy

You think about this kind of stuff a lot, don't you?