Control surface repair legal? Part II

[[email protected]]

A few weeks ago, I acquired the "collective usenet wisdom" on whether or not moveable control surfaces are repairable. The
answer I received was that "It depends on whether or not the service manual allows it." As an example, I looked through a Piper
Cherokee service manual which said that the control surfaces must stay within the balance limits after "painting or repairs."
Sounded feasible, especially since the book also said that the factory tries to leave the counterweight at the heavy end of the
allowable range to allow for painting and repairs.

After discussing this with my A&P/IA friend, he said he was told by a New Piper Aircraft rep that the official word is
that the official stance is that now control surface are NOT repairable. He went further to say that the IA was bound to adhere to
this, now that he knew.

OK... so the question NOW is, which one is correct? The written word of Piper Service manual, or the verbal communication
of the currect stance. Is there any *WRITTEN* documentation of this change of policy?

Curiously,
-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[A Lieberma]

wrote in
:

> After discussing this with my A&P/IA friend, he said he was told
> by a New Piper Aircraft rep that the official word is
> that the official stance is that now control surface are NOT
> repairable. He went further to say that the IA was bound to adhere to
> this, now that he knew.
>
> OK... so the question NOW is, which one is correct? The written
> word of Piper Service manual, or the verbal communication
> of the currect stance. Is there any *WRITTEN* documentation of this
> change of policy?

Maybe I am missing the obvious? Get your A&P to get the change of policy
in writing?????????

Then you got your answer.

Allen

[Michelle P]

wrote:
> A few weeks ago, I acquired the "collective usenet wisdom" on whether or not moveable control surfaces are repairable. The
> answer I received was that "It depends on whether or not the service manual allows it." As an example, I looked through a Piper
> Cherokee service manual which said that the control surfaces must stay within the balance limits after "painting or repairs."
> Sounded feasible, especially since the book also said that the factory tries to leave the counterweight at the heavy end of the
> allowable range to allow for painting and repairs.
>
> After discussing this with my A&P/IA friend, he said he was told by a New Piper Aircraft rep that the official word is
> that the official stance is that now control surface are NOT repairable. He went further to say that the IA was bound to adhere to
> this, now that he knew.
>
> OK... so the question NOW is, which one is correct? The written word of Piper Service manual, or the verbal communication
> of the currect stance. Is there any *WRITTEN* documentation of this change of policy?
>
> Curiously,
> -Cory
>
The current, I do mean CURRENT, written book is the authority. This is
what the FAA will use to judge the legality of the repair. The company
rep sounds like a lawyer talking....

Michelle P

[Denny]

Ya need new friends... Your IA friend is CYA (not necessarily a wrong
posture, but certianly not courageous)...
The factory is perfectly happy to take such a stance because they will
sell high profit replacement parts... Every FSDO manager in the
country is praying that no one drops this dispute on 'his' desk,
threatening his retirement...
In a lifetime of banging around airplanes I have seen repaired,
rebuilt, even to the point of literally being brand new, controls
surfaces inspected and signed off as an acceptable field repair...
Now maybe an IA that New Piper has on record of having told he must
replace with new might feel constrained... But any active IA, who
actually drives rivets and overhauls magnetos, etc., will likely not
blink at signing off on a competent repair... The word is competent...

cheers ... denny



Michelle P wrote:
> wrote:

> >
> > After discussing this with my A&P/IA friend, he said he was told by a New Piper Aircraft rep that the official word is
> > that the official stance is that now control surface are NOT repairable. He went further to say that the IA was bound to adhere to
> > this, now that he knew.

[Stache]

I take issue with what the Piper guy told the A&P shame on him or her
its just flat wrong.

The bottom line is the Federal Aviation Rules (FAR). The FAR are
public law under Title 49 and in Title 49, part 43, Section 43.13(a) it
states: Each person performing maintenance, alteration, or preventive
maintenance on an aircraft, engine, propeller, or appliance shall use
the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the current
manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness prepared by its manufacturer, or other methods,
techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator, except as
noted in §43.16.

What this means is the person who repairs or maintains an aircraft MUST
follow the current maintenance manual period. If something is not in
the manual you cannot do it unless approved by the FAA Administrator.
If a Piper representative says you cannot do something they are wrong
unless it so states it in the maintenance manual. If the repair manual
shows a repair for the control surfaces which it does the mechanic can
perform it because Section 43.13(a) says so (it the law).

Sorry but Piper is all wet on this issue if they did state such a
thing. I would bet the Piper Company would not put it in writing and
give it to your mechanic would they?

Stache

[[email protected]]

Stache > wrote:
: The bottom line is the Federal Aviation Rules (FAR). The FAR are
: public law under Title 49 and in Title 49, part 43, Section 43.13(a) it
: states: Each person performing maintenance, alteration, or preventive
: maintenance on an aircraft, engine, propeller, or appliance shall use
: the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the current
: manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued
: Airworthiness prepared by its manufacturer, or other methods,
: techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator, except as
: noted in ??43.16.

: What this means is the person who repairs or maintains an aircraft MUST
: follow the current maintenance manual period. If something is not in
: the manual you cannot do it unless approved by the FAA Administrator.
: If a Piper representative says you cannot do something they are wrong
: unless it so states it in the maintenance manual. If the repair manual
: shows a repair for the control surfaces which it does the mechanic can
: perform it because Section 43.13(a) says so (it the law).

: Sorry but Piper is all wet on this issue if they did state such a
: thing. I would bet the Piper Company would not put it in writing and
: give it to your mechanic would they?

: Stache

I don't know that my mechanic asked to get it in writing. Now that you
mention it, that's an interesting way to go about it. If Piper maintains this
position "on the record," that means that their maintenance manual must be revised to
be in-line.

I do not fault my IA for his position. He's very good being on the flexible
side of allowable interpretations for my benefit. When it's a judegment call, he and
I make it together WRT my airplane. I'm sure the reason he's hard-nosed about this
one is because the factory rep spewed the lawyer-eese CYA approach.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[houstondan]

maybe some knows for sure but usually when a company backdoors itself
and recreates itself with a somewhat new name then it has built a
chinese wall between the new company and the old one. therefore the new
piper would have no responsibility or liability regarding the old piper
and thus no standing on your core question.

dan
wrote:
> Stache > wrote:
> : The bottom line is the Federal Aviation Rules (FAR). The FAR are
> : public law under Title 49 and in Title 49, part 43, Section 43.13(a) it
> : states: Each person performing maintenance, alteration, or preventive
> : maintenance on an aircraft, engine, propeller, or appliance shall use
> : the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the current
> : manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued
> : Airworthiness prepared by its manufacturer, or other methods,
> : techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator, except as
> : noted in ??43.16.
>
> : What this means is the person who repairs or maintains an aircraft MUST
> : follow the current maintenance manual period. If something is not in
> : the manual you cannot do it unless approved by the FAA Administrator.
> : If a Piper representative says you cannot do something they are wrong
> : unless it so states it in the maintenance manual. If the repair manual
> : shows a repair for the control surfaces which it does the mechanic can
> : perform it because Section 43.13(a) says so (it the law).
>
> : Sorry but Piper is all wet on this issue if they did state such a
> : thing. I would bet the Piper Company would not put it in writing and
> : give it to your mechanic would they?
>
> : Stache
>
> I don't know that my mechanic asked to get it in writing. Now that you
> mention it, that's an interesting way to go about it. If Piper maintains this
> position "on the record," that means that their maintenance manual must be revised to
> be in-line.
>
> I do not fault my IA for his position. He's very good being on the flexible
> side of allowable interpretations for my benefit. When it's a judegment call, he and
> I make it together WRT my airplane. I'm sure the reason he's hard-nosed about this
> one is because the factory rep spewed the lawyer-eese CYA approach.
>
> -Cory
>
> --
>
> ************************************************** ***********************
> * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
> * Electrical Engineering *
> * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
> ************************************************** ***********************

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> Stache > wrote:
>
> : Sorry but Piper is all wet on this issue if they did state such a
> : thing. I would bet the Piper Company would not put it in writing and
> : give it to your mechanic would they?
>
> : Stache
>
> I don't know that my mechanic asked to get it in writing. Now that you
> mention it, that's an interesting way to go about it. If Piper maintains this
> position "on the record," that means that their maintenance manual must be revised to
> be in-line.
>

Stache, I wouldn't bet a lot if I were you :-)

Cory, Are you sure that your mechanic is referring to the latest
update of the repair manual? I went through this about a year and a
half ago with my rudder. It had a few cracks that had been stop
drilled over the years, but when one of the cracks jumped the drill
hole, my IA said it couldn't be repaired and had to be replaced. I
whipped out my old repair manual and pointed to the paragraph you
cited. He whipped out his brand new repair manual and showed me the
passage that had the prohibition on control surface repair. It had
been added within the last couple of years. I ended up with a newly
skinned rudder. Ouch!

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

[Stache]

John, the New Piper Company has changed several manuals in the past
few years (CYA). However not all the manuals have been changed and
reskinning is a repair that is showing up in more and more in manuals.
They have even removed the dents limits, which now requies reskinning
if a dent is found or you can pay Piper engineeging to check it. Piper
will send you a DER report on FAA Form 8110-3 to cover their butt.

Piper is concerned with the flutter issues after repairs are made that
is why they went to reskin. Any thing you ask a company like Piper,
Cessna or anyother company always get it in writing on company letter
head. The FAA will accept a letter from the manufacture on company
letterhead, most companies will not send one, but talk big on the
telephone.

Stache