Blow out static port

[[email protected]]

Hi group,

There are larve in my static ports again.
The problem is that I do not have compressed air to blow them out.
I was thinking about using CO2 cartridges like they use for emergency
tire repairs. Or maybe a bicycle pump will do the job.
My concern is the max pressure I can use before I damage something.
I know that I have to de-couple the static lines from the instruments.

I'm going to try to build something to block the ports.
The ports are about 1/8"dia. and 1/4" deep. A pin will do the job but
I'm afraid that even a small remove-before-flight flag will pull them
out in some wind.

-Kees.

[Jon A.]

You'll need to disconnect the instruments or they'll be damaged! Get
a bicycle pump and blow it out with that air pressure.

On 2 May 2005 01:01:30 -0700, wrote:

>Hi group,
>
>There are larve in my static ports again.
>The problem is that I do not have compressed air to blow them out.
>I was thinking about using CO2 cartridges like they use for emergency
>tire repairs. Or maybe a bicycle pump will do the job.
>My concern is the max pressure I can use before I damage something.
>I know that I have to de-couple the static lines from the instruments.
>
>I'm going to try to build something to block the ports.
>The ports are about 1/8"dia. and 1/4" deep. A pin will do the job but
>I'm afraid that even a small remove-before-flight flag will pull them
>out in some wind.
>
>-Kees.

[Blanche]

Disconnect the lines! I had a pitot/static test done (that IFR test)
a couple years ago and the moron didn't understand how to do it (a
student learning under the direction of the A&P who was someplace
else) and cost me $3K to replace/repair and re-install everything.
And since I can't prove it, my loss.

As for keeping this from happening again...the classic tennis ball
solution -- slice it open about an inch, slip over the pitot tube.

[pittss1c]

I knew a guy that did this with his pitot system, and unfortunately
found out there was a junction somewhere difficult to get to in the
middle of his wing (that came disconnected when he tried to blow out the
pitot tube). There was much swearing.


Blanche wrote:
> Disconnect the lines! I had a pitot/static test done (that IFR test)
> a couple years ago and the moron didn't understand how to do it (a
> student learning under the direction of the A&P who was someplace
> else) and cost me $3K to replace/repair and re-install everything.
> And since I can't prove it, my loss.
>
> As for keeping this from happening again...the classic tennis ball
> solution -- slice it open about an inch, slip over the pitot tube.
>

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> Hi group,
>
> There are larve in my static ports again.

Disconnect the static line as close to the static port blockage as
possible and blow out (not toward the instruments).

Depending on the type of bug, you may not have any other choice but
compressed air. There's some type of larvae that find the tiny static
hole in my pitot blade to be just the right size for growing. They
build some kind of goopy cocoon in there. Every time I've blown them
out it took more that 120 lbs. of pressure to get them to budge.

Good luck,

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Darrel Toepfer]

> wrote:
>
>>Hi group,
>>
>>There are larve in my static ports again.

Had one of these on the C152:
http://www.theflightdepot.com/acft_accessories.html

We've had the flap type on the Tri-Pacer and now on the C172. Just blow
on it before flight to test that its functioning. Purchased from a local
parts supplier...

We've screened over the overflow tubes as well...

[Robert M. Gary]

Legally, if you disconnect the lines they must be recertified by an
avionics shop. Not even an A&P can disconnect static lines.

[RST Engineering]

Really? I'm not doubting that you found this provision somewhere, but I
don't recall it. Mind giving a chapter and verse?

And I think that if the provision exists, the "certification" (again,
chapter and verse) would be by an instrument repair facility, not an
avionics facility.

Jim



"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> Legally, if you disconnect the lines they must be recertified by an
> avionics shop. Not even an A&P can disconnect static lines.
>

[Scott Skylane]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Legally, if you disconnect the lines they must be recertified by an
> avionics shop. Not even an A&P can disconnect static lines.
>
Robert,

A) Arguably, anyone can disconnect anything they like on an aircraft.
It's the returning to service part that will require some sort of
official blessing.

B) As I read 91.411(b)(3), any Airframe Mechanic can perform the
required static system tests after opening up the system.

C) Such testing is only required *if* the aircraft is to be operated in
controlled airspace under IFR.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane
N92054

[Peter Clark]

On Mon, 2 May 2005 12:48:53 -0700, "RST Engineering"
> wrote:

>Really? I'm not doubting that you found this provision somewhere, but I
>don't recall it. Mind giving a chapter and verse?

I would think that any A&P can open the system, but if they do and the
aircraft wants to fly IFR I think they'd be subject to shipping it
over to a proper facility to do an AST.

91.411(a)(2) - "Except for the use of system drain and alternate
static pressure valves, following any opening and closing of the
static pressure system, that system has been tested and inspected and
found to comply with paragraph (a), appendices E and F, of part 43 of
this chapter; ..."

43(e)(1) "Test by an appropriately rated repair facility in
accordance with the following subparagraphs." does seem to support
that it has to be a repair station, but what's the practical
difference between an avionics shop and repair station?

[Jon Kraus]

Yea... Blow a can of Fix-A-Flat in there and it should work good as
new.. :-)

Jon Kraus
'79 Mooney 201

wrote:

> Hi group,
>
> There are larve in my static ports again.
> The problem is that I do not have compressed air to blow them out.
> I was thinking about using CO2 cartridges like they use for emergency
> tire repairs. Or maybe a bicycle pump will do the job.
> My concern is the max pressure I can use before I damage something.
> I know that I have to de-couple the static lines from the instruments.
>
> I'm going to try to build something to block the ports.
> The ports are about 1/8"dia. and 1/4" deep. A pin will do the job but
> I'm afraid that even a small remove-before-flight flag will pull them
> out in some wind.
>
> -Kees.
>

[Robert M. Gary]

Yes. Sometimes its temping to write a one line answer, then you have to
remember that this is a newsgroup :) Of course its the recertifying
that is important not the opening, but I think that is obvious. Yes, if
you don't have an IFR cert for your plane its not important. Its been a
very long time since I've run across a plane without a current IFR
cert. All FBOs like to do instrument flying in their clubs planes, and
us owners like to fly IFR. Now, if I still had my Aeronca, I might
agree with you more. :)

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

Jim, you know more than I do. I've owned airplanes for over 10 years
now and never knew there was a difference between an avionics shop and
an "instrument repair facility". Anytime something is wrong in my panel
I just call Nat at Airborne Electronics at SAC. I've always called him
an avionics shop, perhaps he's really an "instrument repair facility".
The appropriate reg has been quoted twice now on this thread so I won't
requote it.

-Robert, CFI

[Robert M. Gary]

Some large A&P shops will have one guy who is certified to work on
avionics ("instrument repair" according to RST). However, most shops
use roving instrument guys who come by once or so a week. The
certification necessary to work on avionics is different than the A&P
certification.

I have run into this with aircraft owner's that are working on their
private tickets. Most don't realize that they need to have a
transponder inspection every 24 months for VFR flying. An A&P cannot
perform this test and most IA's don't mention this at annual because
they don't consider it their business.

-Robert

[RST Engineering]

OK, let's get this out in the open and done with.

Where is the regulation on what it means for an individual to be "certified"
to work on avionics or "certified" to work on instruments?

All the beer you can drink at Oshkosh (at one sitting) for the right answer.

Jim



"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Some large A&P shops will have one guy who is certified to work on
> avionics ("instrument repair" according to RST). >

[Darrel Toepfer]

RST Engineering wrote:

> Where is the regulation on what it means for an individual to be "certified"
> to work on avionics or "certified" to work on instruments?

The tech can be FAA certified as an "A" of the A&P, ie Airframe, the
work signoff comes from the Repair Station itself who oversees/approves
it...

FAA Certified aviation repair stations:
FAA Air Agency Certificate Instruments are divided into 4 Classes, 1
(Mechanical), 2 (Electrical), 3 (Gyroscopic), & 4 (Electronic)
Accessory Class 2 = Electrical Accessory Class 3 = Electronic
Radio Class 1: Communications Equipment
Radio Class 2: Navigational Equipment
There is also a Limited Airframe rating for the Repair Station.

JAA has JAR Acceptance Certificates

> All the beer you can drink at Oshkosh (at one sitting) for the right answer.

So the short answer is, there isn't one... Will it have a Root in it?

[Steve Foley]

I won't provide the correct answer because:

a) You couldn't afford 'All the beer I can drink'

and

b) If a correct answer exists, I have no idea what it is.


Wait a minute!

The correct answer is: "I don't know"

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> OK, let's get this out in the open and done with.
>
> Where is the regulation on what it means for an individual to be
"certified"
> to work on avionics or "certified" to work on instruments?
>
> All the beer you can drink at Oshkosh (at one sitting) for the right
answer.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Some large A&P shops will have one guy who is certified to work on
> > avionics ("instrument repair" according to RST). >
>
>

[[email protected]]

Thanks for the info.

I will be careful when I try to blow out the static ports.

Now I have to try something to prevent the larvea to block them.
The pitot is just a piece of bended tube under the wing, no problem
there.
The ports are two small holes on both sides of the fuselage just behind
the cockpit.
To cover them and attach something to it that makes it clear that they
are covered will become a challenge.

-Kees

[Robert M. Gary]

In this case "certified" is a colloquial term meaning "authorized by
the FAA". An A&P (or even an A ) is not necessary. However, you do need
to have specific radio training (even if you already have an A). The
FSDO issues the authorizations to repair radios based on a
demonstration of the required tools and manuals etc. The actual person
doing the work may or may not hold an FAA repairman's certificate of
any kind (although, in theory he could hold an A&P). Most people who
are authorized to perform avionics work are so busy doing that, they
have no reason to be A&Ps at the same time. The FAA generally refers to
avionics guys as "avionics technicians".
Here are some common FAA authorizations (as taken from a particular
shop)...

Radio Class I and II

Limited Radio
Various Transponders
Various DMEs

Limited Instrument
King HSI Indicator KG525A
King Attitude Indicator KG102A
Autopilot - S-Tec Model 40, 50, and 60


Limited Airframe
Radio and Instrument Install
Return to Service authorization


Limited Specialized Service
Static System, Altimeter, and Transponder certifications


Here are some references for you.

http://www3.ccps.virginia.edu/career_prospects/briefs/A-D/AircraftMechs.shtml
"In contrast to mechanics or repairmen, avionics technicians don't
necessarily need FAA certification, although this will probably change
once the FAA revises its certification process. Avionics technicians
usually need other types of certifications from one or more of these
associations: the National Association of Radio and Telecommunications
Engineers, Inc., the International Society of Certified Electronics
Technicians, or the Electronics Technicians Association. Avionics
technicians who service transmitting equipment--radios or radar--must
also hold a license from the Federal Communications Commission."

http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/mechanicbasic.cfm
"Do I need any other certificate to work on avionics equipment?

If you have an airframe certificate you don't need any other
certificate, but you must be **properly trained and qualified** and
have the proper tools and equipment. You can even work on avionics
equipment without a certificate if you have avionics repair experience
from the military or from working for avionics manufacturers and
related industries."



Most avionics guys have an FAA repairman certificate as well. Of
course, certain items such as autopilots require "type certificates" in
which the tech must prove to the FAA he has the specific tools to work
on that make/model of autopilot he wants to work on before the FSDO
issues the approval for that make/model of autopilot.


-Robert

[Ron Natalie]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Legally, if you disconnect the lines they must be recertified by an
> avionics shop. Not even an A&P can disconnect static lines.
>
Only if you intend to fly IFR.

[C.]

wrote:
>> Hi group,
>>
>> There are larve in my static ports again.
>
> Disconnect the static line as close to the static port blockage as
>possible and blow out (not toward the instruments).
>
> Depending on the type of bug, you may not have any other choice but
>compressed air. There's some type of larvae that find the tiny static
>hole in my pitot blade to be just the right size for growing. They
>build some kind of goopy cocoon in there. Every time I've blown them
>out it took more that 120 lbs. of pressure to get them to budge.
>
>Good luck,
>
>John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

OWE!!! John, 120 psi? That sounds like overkill. But if that's the
only way you can get them to budge... What kind are they? I have a
PA28-180 and it sounds like I'd hate to get those.

Especially since everyone seem to be forgetting one thing:
The rules say that if you open the static system AT ALL, you have to
reperform the IFR certification test. Ka-ching -- $100 or so down the
tube.


Chuck
N7398W

[C.]

On 3 May 2005 05:57:20 -0700, wrote:

>Thanks for the info.
>
>I will be careful when I try to blow out the static ports.
>
>Now I have to try something to prevent the larvea to block them.
>The pitot is just a piece of bended tube under the wing, no problem
>there.
>The ports are two small holes on both sides of the fuselage just behind
>the cockpit.
>To cover them and attach something to it that makes it clear that they
>are covered will become a challenge.
>
>-Kees


Suggestion Kees,

Whatever you come up with to cover the ports, run strips of that
bright orange safety tape from the two covers to a point in front of
the windshield and use velcro to attach them together there.

That way, with the tape over the doors and in front of the windshield
-- you should never forget the covers before takeoff.


Chuck

[[email protected]]

Thanks Chuck,

Knowing myself, I'm completely capable to forget something like that,
whatever I try.
On the other hand, from the little experience I have I know a plane
flies perfectly well with blocked static ports :-(
So, I'm not too worried about that, since I only fly day-VFR.

But I'm going to try your suggestion anyway.

-Kees

[Robert M. Gary]

I just recently saw an episode of "Air Emergency" that talked about an
Air Peru flight (I may have the details wrong). Basically a 757 take
off at night over the dark ocean and no static system. The pilots never
figured out the problem. They knew their instruments were wrong but
they assumed ATCs altitude readout was correct (which it wasn't the
transponder is also served by the static system). In short, the cause
was a $1/hr aircraft washer who put duct tape over the static ports
before washing the plane. Boeing ended up sending a lot of money to
family members. The interesting thing is that the 757 maint manual says
to only use special Boeing tape (bright orange) when coving up static
ports.

-Robert

[Dave Butler]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> I just recently saw an episode of "Air Emergency" that talked about an
> Air Peru flight (I may have the details wrong). Basically a 757 take
> off at night over the dark ocean and no static system. The pilots never
> figured out the problem. They knew their instruments were wrong but
> they assumed ATCs altitude readout was correct (which it wasn't the
> transponder is also served by the static system). In short, the cause
> was a $1/hr aircraft washer who put duct tape over the static ports
> before washing the plane. Boeing ended up sending a lot of money to
> family members. The interesting thing is that the 757 maint manual says
> to only use special Boeing tape (bright orange) when coving up static
> ports.

Yeah, I've seen that episode. It's always troubled me that the pilots never
figured out the static ports were blocked, and didn't know the transponder
altitude was based on the static pressure. I've wondered whether that part was
true, or whether the truth was altered for dramatic effect. It's just
inconceivable to me that they didn't know these things. 'course, I wasn't there.

Dave

[Mark Hansen]

On 5/4/2005 11:46, Dave Butler wrote:

> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>> I just recently saw an episode of "Air Emergency" that talked about an
>> Air Peru flight (I may have the details wrong). Basically a 757 take
>> off at night over the dark ocean and no static system. The pilots never
>> figured out the problem. They knew their instruments were wrong but
>> they assumed ATCs altitude readout was correct (which it wasn't the
>> transponder is also served by the static system). In short, the cause
>> was a $1/hr aircraft washer who put duct tape over the static ports
>> before washing the plane. Boeing ended up sending a lot of money to
>> family members. The interesting thing is that the 757 maint manual says
>> to only use special Boeing tape (bright orange) when coving up static
>> ports.
>
> Yeah, I've seen that episode. It's always troubled me that the pilots never
> figured out the static ports were blocked, and didn't know the transponder
> altitude was based on the static pressure. I've wondered whether that part was
> true, or whether the truth was altered for dramatic effect. It's just
> inconceivable to me that they didn't know these things. 'course, I wasn't there.
>
> Dave

If this is the same episode I'm thinking of, the co-pilot did figure it
out, and told the pilot that the corrections were not going to work.
The Pilot basically told the co-pilot to keep his place.

If I remember correctly, this brought up new rules regarding the ability
of the co-pilot to take control from the pilot in such cases.



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

[Don Hammer]

On 4 May 2005 09:03:12 -0700, Robert M. Gary wrote:

The interesting thing is that the 757 maint manual says
> to only use special Boeing tape (bright orange) when coving up static
> ports.
>
> -Robert

Yes and nobody knows that McDonalds sells hot coffee and you shouldn't pour
it on your crotch.

With the ability of skumbag attourneys to convince a hand-picked dufus jury
that the evil big company needs to pay the dead and injured, no matter who
is wrong, things like that will continue and all us consumers and
stockholders pay. Besides, it's a bunch easier to file suit against a US
company than a foreign airline.

Case in point - In the firestone tire suit for over $1B, the parties to the
class got a coupon for $40 or so off their next set of tires. The lawyers
got the rest.

How many of you non-attourney smokers benefited from the tobacco suit? I
know one lawyer that purchased a $30M Gulfstream with his part of the
settlement. You think the companies paid for this? Nope - us consumers.
Even if you don't smoke your insurance bill went up and mutual fund went
down.


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Robert M. Gary]

Mark, where do you fly out of. I'm in Sacramento too.

-Robert

[[email protected]]

C. wrote:
>
> OWE!!! John, 120 psi? That sounds like overkill. But if that's the
> only way you can get them to budge... What kind are they? I have a
> PA28-180 and it sounds like I'd hate to get those.

Yep, when 60, 80 and 100 lbs. didn't work, I just kept bumping it up.
BTW - when the clog finally lets loose, it's like some sort of
explosion. I've never been able to tell what kind of bugs they were,
since the only thing that comes out is a big blog of orange goo. I
just know that whatever they are, they do their nesting here in central
AZ in June and July.

>
> Especially since everyone seem to be forgetting one thing:
> The rules say that if you open the static system AT ALL, you have to
> reperform the IFR certification test. Ka-ching -- $100 or so down
the
> tube.

Fortunately, that's not a problem for my VFR bird. If I had to
re-certify every time it happened, that would just be adding insult to
injury :-) Usually, the tennis ball I keep on the pitot blade does a
good job of keeping them out, but every time I've forgotten to put it
on during the nesting season, I've been hit.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Mark Hansen]

On 5/4/2005 13:38, Robert M. Gary wrote:

> Mark, where do you fly out of. I'm in Sacramento too.
>
> -Robert
>

I'm currently flying out of Sacramento Executive (KSAC). I'm in a
Part 141 IFR training program with Sky Walk, Inc., a local FBO there.

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

[[email protected]]

Dave Butler wrote:
>
> Yeah, I've seen that episode. It's always troubled me that the pilots
never
> figured out the static ports were blocked, and didn't know the
transponder
> altitude was based on the static pressure. I've wondered whether that
part was
> true, or whether the truth was altered for dramatic effect. It's just

> inconceivable to me that they didn't know these things. 'course, I
wasn't there.
>
As the victim of several instances of a blocked static system, I've
pretty much learned to recognize it right away. I wouldn't be quite
so quick to question the 757 crew's response, though. Their situation
was made quite a bit more complicated by the constant false (and
contradictory) warnings coming from the computers. Every time they
were getting close to getting a handle on the problem, some new
contradictory alarm would go off. Without any ground reference, and
knowing that their instruments were questionable (but not exactly which
ones, due to the number of alarms), it's not hard to imagine them going
into brain overload. Realistically, what are the chances of both
independent static systems failing simultaneously. In the end, they
ran out of time before they could come to the right conclusion.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Robert M. Gary]

I know Sky Walk very well. I remember when their office was literally
the old parking lot toll booth. They have a nice office now and an
excellent testing center. I send all my students to their testing
center, its very professional. They also have the newer FAA testing
software that runs real windows and even includes a built-in E6B.
Sac Flyers literally uses their closet for testing and they have an old
DOS based testing program.

[Robert M. Gary]

I remember covering the McDonalds case in law class. Its a classic
example of what happens when you put a $10/hr McDonalds employee on the
stand without any pre-coaching (which is legal and standard). The woman
in question received serious burns on the genitalia and required
several surgeries to correct ( I think she was still left with lasting
pain and deformities) . McDonalds had a standard for its coffee
temperature but the store did not check it and ran the coffee hotter
than spec. She sent McDonalds several letters asking for some
assistance with medical payments. McDonalds sent her back rude and
terse responses (which were all admissible in court) They also stated
that they knew the coffee was too hot but had not done anything to
correct it. Her neighbor (or son-in-law or what ever) was an attorney
and simply offered to help draft letters. After McDonald's retarded
responses he knew a jury would be upset.
So, no problem, just put the manager on the stand, have him say, "We
are so sorry this happened to this poor woman. We thought we had
corrected the problem with the coffee temp but apparently not. However,
recently we've training all our employees on the correct usage of the
coffee maker". This would have easily made the jury happy (who had just
finished listening to gruesome accounts from medical experts on the
victims injuries). So the $10/hr McDonalds manager gets up on the stand
and says (paraphrased), "Its coffee, its hot, deal with it". I think
the jury found the award simply because they were so mad at McDonald's
attitude toward her. A little sympathy would have gone a long way.
-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

Its too hard to play arm chair quarter back. However, they knew they
didn't know their altitude yet they asked to be vectored further out to
sea to set up the ILS. Why not fly directly (20 miles as I recall) over
the airport and simply fly 100% visual after that? As I recall they
spent something like 30 minutes doing aerobatics before they crashed.
-Robert

[Mark Hansen]

On 5/5/2005 07:32, Robert M. Gary wrote:

> I know Sky Walk very well. I remember when their office was literally
> the old parking lot toll booth. They have a nice office now and an
> excellent testing center. I send all my students to their testing
> center, its very professional. They also have the newer FAA testing
> software that runs real windows and even includes a built-in E6B.
> Sac Flyers literally uses their closet for testing and they have an old
> DOS based testing program.
>

Hmmm, I wasn't very impressed with their computer facilities, but
then I'm in the computer profession, so I was probably expecting too
much.

The testing room is nice, although I haven't see others - this one
did the job nicely.

I've been quite happy with them and Gen, the owner, is top-notch.

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

[[email protected]]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Its too hard to play arm chair quarter back. However, they knew they
> didn't know their altitude yet they asked to be vectored further out
to
> sea to set up the ILS. Why not fly directly (20 miles as I recall)
over
> the airport and simply fly 100% visual after that? As I recall they
> spent something like 30 minutes doing aerobatics before they crashed.

I disagree. Throughout most of the flight they were getting
(unknowingly incorrect) altitude info from the controller. Their
primary concern was the simultaneous stall/overspeed indications. I
read the original report (in spanish) and don't recall altitude being a
primary concern.

In hindsight, their best bet would have been to fly visually over the
city, but of course they didn't know that at the time. They thought
they were safely out over open water at 9,000 ft. dealing with an
airspeed issue.

The one thing that really could have saved them was to completely
ignore their airspeed indications (which they knew were erroneous) and
just fly by groundspeed reported by the controller. But then again,
that's easy to say from the comfort of my chair with an accident report
in my head. I'm not so sure that would occur to me right away with the
combination of incessant alarms that they had to deal with.

Just one guy's opinion.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[[email protected]]

Hi group again,

I've found the solution for my static port problem.
A ground to size cotter pin with a streamer attached to it.

-Kees