411 413 inspection question

[A Lieberman]

Unpleasant surprise on my .411 .413 check.

Person doing the check would not certify the inspection. He said that the
VSI is not connected to the pitot static system.

I am the first to say I am clueless about "systems". He said I would have
to take it to a certified repair place to get it fixed.

The VSI works, so I don't get this at all.

It passed 2 years ago, with no problems. Do things "disconnect" on it's
own or what's up with my VSI. Everything else appears to work just fine
(ASI, altimeter and VSI).

My plane does not have an alternate static in the plane.

What should I expect when I take it to a repair center?

Allen

[Mark Hansen]

On 5/17/2005 15:46, A Lieberman wrote:

> Unpleasant surprise on my .411 .413 check.
>
> Person doing the check would not certify the inspection. He said that the
> VSI is not connected to the pitot static system.
>
> I am the first to say I am clueless about "systems". He said I would have
> to take it to a certified repair place to get it fixed.
>
> The VSI works, so I don't get this at all.

Works, or appears to work. If it were not connected to the static source,
wouldn't it simply vent to the area behind the panel?

>
> It passed 2 years ago, with no problems. Do things "disconnect" on it's
> own or what's up with my VSI. Everything else appears to work just fine
> (ASI, altimeter and VSI).
>
> My plane does not have an alternate static in the plane.
>
> What should I expect when I take it to a repair center?
>
> Allen


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

[A Lieberman]

On Tue, 17 May 2005 15:55:42 -0700, Mark Hansen wrote:

> Works, or appears to work. If it were not connected to the static source,
> wouldn't it simply vent to the area behind the panel?

Mark,

I plan to fly tomorrow to the practice area. What I am planning to do is
time the climb rate to see if it is registering correctly (I.E climb or
descend at 500 per minute).

I flew last week in IMC doing some ILS approaches in actual conditions and
I truly did not notice anything unusual about the VSI.

Like I said, I don't know anything about systems, other then when something
doesn't work, to get it to the repair shop and get it fixed.

As far as I knew before today, everything worked perfectly, so I was not
expecting any problems.

Allen

[Mike Ferrer]

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
...
> Unpleasant surprise on my .411 .413 check.
>
> Person doing the check would not certify the inspection. He said that the
> VSI is not connected to the pitot static system.
>

Interesting point. Although the VSI should be connected to the static
system, it is not required by 91.411 or FAR Appendix E. In other words, he
could have certified the system and you could have had an A&P investigate
why the VSI wasn't hooked to the static system afterwards.

The VSI will operate even though it is not connected the the official static
system. However, it should be fixed.

Mike

[A Lieberman]

On Tue, 17 May 2005 19:28:37 -0500, Mike Ferrer wrote:

> Interesting point. Although the VSI should be connected to the static
> system, it is not required by 91.411 or FAR Appendix E. In other words, he
> could have certified the system and you could have had an A&P investigate
> why the VSI wasn't hooked to the static system afterwards.

Can an A&P work on the static system? Again, you are talking to a real
newbie even though I have owned the airplane for 2 1/2 years, so please
excuse the questions due to my ignorance.

> The VSI will operate even though it is not connected the the official static
> system. However, it should be fixed.

If this is such the case, why should it be hooked into the static system?
It seems to work good the way it is.

Also, one less instrument subject to failure should the pitot static system
go belly up?

Whatever the case, I want the plane to be as reliable as possible.

Allen

[A Lieberman]

On Tue, 17 May 2005 20:05:31 -0700, Jim Burns wrote:

> Talk with your instructor, pester your mechanic, watch, ask, listen, learn,
> live, and fly safe!

Jim,

Thanks for your quality post! I am taking your advice to heart, especially
about watching the process and learning what could have gone wrong (and can
go wrong). Like you are implying, IMC is not the place to learn about what
is going wrong.....

I am trying to find a place that can check this out, and I am planning to
stay and observe if they allow me to do so. I was told the inspection
takes 2 hours without problems and 3 to 5 hours if problems are
encountered.

The last .411 and .413 check, I dropped the plane off, they did their
thing, and I picked it up. Because this came up, I am more interested in
getting the plane "right" rather then just passing the inspection.

Your above statement cannot be said any better. I am a strong believer
flying safe includes doing it right...

As far as the VSI, it's the original that came with the plane. Plane has a
little more then 2300 hours on it. I am planning down the road, upgrades,
but I do want to preserve what I have now, so I can do the upgrade right
the first time.

Allen

[Jim Burns]

Allen,
For an instrument pilot especially, a complete understanding of all of your
airplanes systems is imperative. Your knowledge of the airplane systems
normal operations, failures, possible causes, and indications may be all
that saves you if you have a failure while IMC. A quick google for "pitot
static system" will bring up plenty of hits to start your way towards a
better understanding of why your VSI may appear to work but may also not be
connected to your static system. I would also strongly recommend sitting
down with your instructor and your mechanic for a quick review of your
aircrafts systems, possible failures, how to recognize them and the proper
decision making action to take once a failure occurs. While turning it over
to your local repair shop may be the easiest solution, you will get more for
your money if you stand over their shoulder, watch, learn, and ask plenty of
questions.

You also probably already know more than you think, don't sell yourself
short! You said that they told you the VSI was unhooked, right? Unhooked
from what? The only thing the VSI is hooked to is the static line, which
leads to the static port, typically on the exterior of the airplane so it
can vent to the outside static air pressure. Remember, the VSI is similar
to the altimeter, but instead of having a sealed bellows like the altimeter,
the VSI contains a bellows that has a small hole through which the air
pressure inside the bellows can slowly be equalized until it reaches the
outside static air pressure. Thus, measuring a "rate" of change in air
pressure which is indicated on the face of the VSI as a rate of climb or
descent.

Now, if it is unhooked, what is the VSI measuring? Well, since the
instrument is inside the cockpit, it must be reading the interior cockpit
air pressure. Now the question becomes, is there that much difference
between the outside air pressure and the inside air pressure? It "seems" to
be working, so it must be operational, but is it accurate? Normally, if you
have an alternate static source that is vented inside of the cockpit, when
you open it your VSI will momentarily indicate a climb because the cockpit
pressure is less than the outside air pressure but then it should settle
towards a normal indication. After this initial adjustment to the cabin air
pressure the accuracy of the indications of your VSI should be suspect due
to the non-constant air pressures inside the cockpit.

Truthfully, I'd be more concerned with your VSI sucking in dust and dirt due
to the lack of a filter than the accuracy of the instrument.

Talk with your instructor, pester your mechanic, watch, ask, listen, learn,
live, and fly safe!

Jim

[Jim Burns]

Great Allen! I'd be willing to bet and I hope that you'll come away from
your experience with more questions than answers. Let us know what you
find!!

Knowledge about your airplane is like altitude below you, runway in front of
you, and fuel in your tanks.... the more you have, the better off you are
and the safer you are.

(Ok Ok, I know... unless you are out of oxygen or on fire, but you know what
I mean :)

Jim

[Ron Natalie]

A Lieberman wrote:

> Can an A&P work on the static system? Again, you are talking to a real
> newbie even though I have owned the airplane for 2 1/2 years, so please
> excuse the questions due to my ignorance.
>
Yes, but it takes a repair facility who can do the appropriate tests to
recertify the plane for IFR after most static system work.

[Mark Hansen]

On 5/17/2005 16:54, A Lieberman wrote:

> On Tue, 17 May 2005 15:55:42 -0700, Mark Hansen wrote:
>
>> Works, or appears to work. If it were not connected to the static source,
>> wouldn't it simply vent to the area behind the panel?
>
> Mark,
>
> I plan to fly tomorrow to the practice area. What I am planning to do is
> time the climb rate to see if it is registering correctly (I.E climb or
> descend at 500 per minute).
>
> I flew last week in IMC doing some ILS approaches in actual conditions and
> I truly did not notice anything unusual about the VSI.

If the VSI is vented to the cabin, you won't notice much of a difference.
Unless the cabin is pressurized, the air pressure will be slightly lower
than the actual static air pressure (from outside the cabin). However, when
you climb, the VSI will still show a climb, and at virtually the proper
rate.

Using the cabin air pressure as an "alternate" static source for the VSI
is fine in an emergency.

>
> Like I said, I don't know anything about systems, other then when something
> doesn't work, to get it to the repair shop and get it fixed.

Even thought you don't notice a problem, given that someone found that it is
not connected up properly, you should take this as a problem that needs
to be fixed ;-)

>
> As far as I knew before today, everything worked perfectly, so I was not
> expecting any problems.
>
> Allen


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

[Mark Hansen]

On 5/17/2005 17:28, Mike Ferrer wrote:

> "A Lieberman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Unpleasant surprise on my .411 .413 check.
>>
>> Person doing the check would not certify the inspection. He said that the
>> VSI is not connected to the pitot static system.
>>
>
> Interesting point. Although the VSI should be connected to the static
> system, it is not required by 91.411 or FAR Appendix E. In other words, he
> could have certified the system and you could have had an A&P investigate
> why the VSI wasn't hooked to the static system afterwards.

But if the VSI is not connected to the static system, what has happed
to the point where it was connected? Is the static line simply venting
to the area behind the panel? Won't this affect all the other static-based
instruments?

.... unless someone took the time to plug the hole in the static line...

>
> The VSI will operate even though it is not connected the the official static
> system. However, it should be fixed.
>
> Mike
>
>


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

[Mike Rapoport]

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
...
> Unpleasant surprise on my .411 .413 check.
>
> Person doing the check would not certify the inspection. He said that the
> VSI is not connected to the pitot static system.
>
> I am the first to say I am clueless about "systems". He said I would have
> to take it to a certified repair place to get it fixed.
>
> The VSI works, so I don't get this at all.
>
> It passed 2 years ago, with no problems. Do things "disconnect" on it's
> own or what's up with my VSI. Everything else appears to work just fine
> (ASI, altimeter and VSI).
>
> My plane does not have an alternate static in the plane.
>
> What should I expect when I take it to a repair center?
>
> Allen

Check the Flight Manual/Maitenance Manual/Parts Manual to determine if the
VSI is supposed to be hooked up to the static system. Some are not.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
> On 5/17/2005 17:28, Mike Ferrer wrote:
>
>> "A Lieberman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Unpleasant surprise on my .411 .413 check.
>>>
>>> Person doing the check would not certify the inspection. He said that
>>> the
>>> VSI is not connected to the pitot static system.
>>>
>>
>> Interesting point. Although the VSI should be connected to the static
>> system, it is not required by 91.411 or FAR Appendix E. In other words,
>> he
>> could have certified the system and you could have had an A&P investigate
>> why the VSI wasn't hooked to the static system afterwards.
>
> But if the VSI is not connected to the static system, what has happed
> to the point where it was connected? Is the static line simply venting
> to the area behind the panel? Won't this affect all the other static-based
> instruments?
>
> ... unless someone took the time to plug the hole in the static line...
>
>>
>> The VSI will operate even though it is not connected the the official
>> static
>> system. However, it should be fixed.
>>
>> Mike
>
> --
> Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
> Sacramento, CA

Or if it was never connected to the static port.

Miie
MU-2

Or

[Mike Ferrer]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
> >
> Yes, but it takes a repair facility who can do the appropriate tests to
> recertify the plane for IFR after most static system work.

No, a mechanic with an Airframe rating can certify the static system after
it has been worked on. For a non-pressurized aircraft, the test involves
sucking the static system up 1,000 ft and making sure it doesn't leak more
that 100 fpm. If no work was performed on the transponder or blind encoder,
it doesn not require IFR recertification.

[[email protected]]

Here is the mad solution: Take it out! The VSI is not
required for any kind of flight, including instrument flight.

Put a cover there. Go get your signoff.

Put it back.

It will indicate a bit flakily when not connected to the static
system. For example, it will take a jump when you open
your pilot window in flight.

I like Mike's solution: See if it was ever connected. I can't imagine
that having it connected is required for the static check.

Bill Hale

[Mike Rapoport]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Here is the mad solution: Take it out! The VSI is not
> required for any kind of flight, including instrument flight.
>
> Put a cover there. Go get your signoff.
>
> Put it back.
>
> It will indicate a bit flakily when not connected to the static
> system. For example, it will take a jump when you open
> your pilot window in flight.
>
> I like Mike's solution: See if it was ever connected. I can't imagine
> that having it connected is required for the static check.
>
> Bill Hale
>

A lot of homebuilders don't use a static port at all. They just use the
cabin air for static, this works fine for slower airplanes.

Mike
MU-2

[Don Hammer]

>
>No, a mechanic with an Airframe rating can certify the static system after
>it has been worked on. For a non-pressurized aircraft, the test involves
>sucking the static system up 1,000 ft and making sure it doesn't leak more
>that 100 fpm. If no work was performed on the transponder or blind encoder,
>it doesn not require IFR recertification.
>
This would apply to a VFR aircraft only. If you open the system on an
IFR aircraft, the 91.411 required part 43 altimeter tests will have to
be done by a rated entity; an "A" rated mechanic is not one of them.
IFR or VFR aircraft, if the transponder integrated system is disturbed
so as to cause an error, the 91.413 Part 43 tests must be re-done by a
rated entity. Will opening a static line that includes the
transponder quailfy as that kind of disturbance? Most FAA PMI's I
have delt with think so.



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

[Mike Ferrer]

"Don Hammer" > wrote in message
...
>
> This would apply to a VFR aircraft only.

There is no requirement for VFR aircraft static systems to be inspected or
tested.

>If you open the system on an
> IFR aircraft, the 91.411 required part 43 altimeter tests will have to
> be done by a rated entity; an "A" rated mechanic is not one of them.

Altimeter doesn't need retesting, just the static system.

91.411(b) The tests required by paragraph (a) of this section must be
conducted by-
(1) The manufacturer of the airplane, or helicopter....
(2) A certificated repair station.....
(3) A certificated mechanic with an airframe rating (static pressure
system tests and inspections only).

> IFR or VFR aircraft, if the transponder integrated system is disturbed
> so as to cause an error, the 91.413 Part 43 tests must be re-done by a
> rated entity. >

Opening or closing the static system is unlikely to introduce a data
correspondance error. AC43-6B, Appendix 1, shows what needs to be done when
system components are replaced. They indicate that replacement of an
altimeter, other than the pilot's primary reference, requires a static leak
test and field elevation test only. This is a similar case to removing and
replacing a VSI or airspeed indicator, which requires opening up the static
system.

>Will opening a static line that includes the
> transponder quailfy as that kind of disturbance?
>Most FAA PMI's I have delt with think so.

Everyone interprets the FARs differently, Just to be sure, I just called my
PMI at the AFW FSDO he agreed with my position.

[Don Hammer]

>There is no requirement for VFR aircraft static systems to be inspected or
>tested.

91.413 requires the transponder checks every 24 mo if you have one and
use it. It makes no distinctions between IFR or VFR

>Altimeter doesn't need retesting, just the static system.
>
>91.411(b) The tests required by paragraph (a) of this section must be
>conducted by-
> (1) The manufacturer of the airplane, or helicopter....
> (2) A certificated repair station.....
> (3) A certificated mechanic with an airframe rating (static pressure
>system tests and inspections only).

Agreed, as long as it is the static pressure system and it is just
opened and closed. Does this include the pitot pressure system? Maybe
- maybe not.

>
>>Will opening a static line that includes the
>> transponder quailfy as that kind of disturbance?
>>Most FAA PMI's I have delt with think so.
>
>Everyone interprets the FARs differently, Just to be sure, I just called my
>PMI at the AFW FSDO he agreed with my position.
>

I'm glad that the guys at AFW agreed with you. Did you ask them if
they would put it in writing to cover you? For 20 + years I was a DOM
at DAL on corporate jets and other than flying them have very little
small aircraft experience so I may be looking trough a different pair
of glasses.

While I was there I got a 145 Limited Instrument Repair Station
certificate so we could legally do our own checks to our own company
aircraft. My PMI at DAL was hard on this; open the transponder system
and you will test it and sign it off.

It is interesting to me how two FSDO's 20 miles apart can be so
different. AFW seems to be much more lenient on a lot of issues. The
real question is, what can you defend on the witness stand? A verbal
from a PMI doesn't count. It's the old $.10 and a cup of coffee
thing. I do some aircraft maintenance-related expert witness stuff and
you'd be amazed how easy it is for a good attorney to turn you into
the bad guy. Just because some FAA inspector told you something won't
get you off the hook if you did or didn't do the work.

On the larger stuff, we always hang our hat on the Manufacturer's
Approved Maintenance Manual. It is interesting to note however that
the Maintenance Manual in not approved by the FAA, it is only an
acceptable document to them. The only FAA Approved aircraft document
is the AFM. In all cases, the FAR's are the law and are controlling.

My advise to the group is this is a news group and a good way to pass
around ideas. However, when it comes to making decisions that effect
your livelihood or a life, this is not the place to rely on. The
FSDO's are a good source of information, but if you really need to
cover your posterior on an issue, get a written ruling from the FAA
attorneys in OKC. Those will work in court.

Thanks for the good feedback,

Don


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

[Mike Ferrer]

Always boils down to interpretation.... Perhaps I should adopt your view,
it would mean more business for me! I own/operate a repair station that
performs transponder, altimeter and static system certifications...

Cheers,

Mike

[Don Hammer]

On Thu, 19 May 2005 12:30:35 -0500, "Mike Ferrer"
> wrote:

>Always boils down to interpretation.... Perhaps I should adopt your view,
>it would mean more business for me! I own/operate a repair station that
>performs transponder, altimeter and static system certifications...
>
>Cheers,
>
> Mike
>

Nice talking with you. Good luck in the business.
Have a good one