Question on 172 M electrics... (1974 Skyhawk II)

[[email protected]]

Hi All!

We do not have a wiring diagram (yet) for our plane.

The Cigar Lighter socket is dead, and we need to fix it to
power our new portable GPS. (or have a poower cable installed....)

Which 12V point (bus) should it be wired to? (dont want to
unwrap the harness to check out the wiring. )

Inline fuse or one of the panel breakers?

Would it have been disconnected for some reason?

(I have heard there was an AD on some aircraft to disco it)

TY!

Dave

[G.R. Patterson III]

wrote:
>
> Would it have been disconnected for some reason?

Yep. As you've heard, there was an AD (at least in the U.S.) to either put it on its
own circuit breaker or fuse or to disconnect it. Most owners opted to disconnect it.

I don't know Canadian practice, but in the States there would be an AD log in the
back of the airframe logbook. Check the text of all those shown as complied with
until you find that one. I've been told that you can reactivate the outlet by adding
a breaker, but you'd need to check the AD text to be sure.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

[[email protected]]

Found it! discoed in 1983...

Looks like it can be reconnected if we install a fuse or
breaker in line...

Can anybody confirm this?

Dave



On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 01:07:13 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>
>
wrote:
>>
>> Would it have been disconnected for some reason?
>
>Yep. As you've heard, there was an AD (at least in the U.S.) to either put it on its
>own circuit breaker or fuse or to disconnect it. Most owners opted to disconnect it.
>
>I don't know Canadian practice, but in the States there would be an AD log in the
>back of the airframe logbook. Check the text of all those shown as complied with
>until you find that one. I've been told that you can reactivate the outlet by adding
>a breaker, but you'd need to check the AD text to be sure.
>
>George Patterson
> This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
> play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
> a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

[C J Campbell]

> wrote in message
...
> Found it! discoed in 1983...
>
> Looks like it can be reconnected if we install a fuse or
> breaker in line...
>
> Can anybody confirm this?
>

Sure. Just install a fuse or breaker. The fuse is probably easier.

[Bill Zaleski]

You must have a mechanic perform the work in accordance with the AD
and sign off the compliance.


On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 03:14:04 GMT, wrote:

>Found it! discoed in 1983...
>
> Looks like it can be reconnected if we install a fuse or
>breaker in line...
>
> Can anybody confirm this?
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 01:07:13 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
wrote:
>>>
>>> Would it have been disconnected for some reason?
>>
>>Yep. As you've heard, there was an AD (at least in the U.S.) to either put it on its
>>own circuit breaker or fuse or to disconnect it. Most owners opted to disconnect it.
>>
>>I don't know Canadian practice, but in the States there would be an AD log in the
>>back of the airframe logbook. Check the text of all those shown as complied with
>>until you find that one. I've been told that you can reactivate the outlet by adding
>>a breaker, but you'd need to check the AD text to be sure.
>>
>>George Patterson
>> This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
>> play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
>> a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

[Newps]

Bill Zaleski wrote:
> You must have a mechanic perform the work in accordance with the AD
> and sign off the compliance.


Anybody can do the work, the mechanic must sign it off.

[Bill Zaleski]

Yes, correct to the extent that you describe, but not only must the
mechanic sign it off, but he must personally observe the work being
done before it is signed off. After the fact maintenence sign-offs,
though common, are illegal. Guess you want the reference? FAR 43.3
(d)

I should have used the word "inspect" instead of perform. Sorry.
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 17:03:10 GMT, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>Bill Zaleski wrote:
>> You must have a mechanic perform the work in accordance with the AD
>> and sign off the compliance.
>
>
>Anybody can do the work, the mechanic must sign it off.

[Jim Weir]

Ah, grasshopper, you must read the WHOLE paragraph, not just those parts that
you personally believe. You, of course, are mistaken once again.

See the "to the extent necessary" clause? If I tell an owner to remove a wheel,
clean and lube the wheel bearings, and reinstall the wheel, and if I've seen the
owner do this perfectly a half-dozen times, how many "personal observations" do
you think I'm going to make?

After the fact maintenance sign-offs are NOT illegal if the signer was in on the
deal from the getgo and told the owner exactly what to do and when any
inspections (if any) were necessary.

(BTW, I don't mind disagreement with my holdings. However, you need to post
your qualifications for making the statements before I will give you one gram of
credence. A&P? IA? Private pilot with 43 hours?)

Jim



Bill Zaleski >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->Yes, correct to the extent that you describe, but not only must the
->mechanic sign it off, but he must personally observe the work being
->done before it is signed off. After the fact maintenence sign-offs,
->though common, are illegal. Guess you want the reference? FAR 43.3
->(d)


Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Bill Zaleski]

A&P, I.A., FAA Aviation Maintenance Safety Counselor, 11,000+ hours,
holder of all category and class ratings except airship, 4X ATP, 4X
commercial, if you must ask, but what does that matter?

Are you really going to try and sell the idea that observing an
operation being done once on an aircraft automatically covers
repeated occurences of the same operation of multiple instances? That
sure doesn't fly in the Airlines. If you watch a few engine overhauls
from one non mechanic, are you going to sign off on one you didn't
supervise? "To the extent necessary" does not mean "no extent". The
reg requires you to be personally present to "observe the work BEING
done", not BEEN done, to ensure that it is being done properly.

As a Master Parachute Rigger, I can not simply fall back on the
premise that my supervision is valid just because I watched my trainee
pack correctly in the past. Every operation has to be observed, each
time. Same idea, Jim. Maybe things are different in Grass Valley.


On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 18:14:09 -0700, Jim Weir > wrote:

>Ah, grasshopper, you must read the WHOLE paragraph, not just those parts that
>you personally believe. You, of course, are mistaken once again.
>
>See the "to the extent necessary" clause? If I tell an owner to remove a wheel,
>clean and lube the wheel bearings, and reinstall the wheel, and if I've seen the
>owner do this perfectly a half-dozen times, how many "personal observations" do
>you think I'm going to make?
>
>After the fact maintenance sign-offs are NOT illegal if the signer was in on the
>deal from the getgo and told the owner exactly what to do and when any
>inspections (if any) were necessary.
>
>(BTW, I don't mind disagreement with my holdings. However, you need to post
>your qualifications for making the statements before I will give you one gram of
>credence. A&P? IA? Private pilot with 43 hours?)
>
>Jim
>
>
>
>Bill Zaleski >
>shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:
>
>->Yes, correct to the extent that you describe, but not only must the
>->mechanic sign it off, but he must personally observe the work being
>->done before it is signed off. After the fact maintenence sign-offs,
>->though common, are illegal. Guess you want the reference? FAR 43.3
>->(d)
>
>
>Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
>VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
>http://www.rst-engr.com