"Gene Kearns"
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:


-
-No... you shouldn't sign it off at all. You, as a mechanic or owner
-cannot just arbitrarily decide to "....inspect each component by
-whatever approved standard I wished...."

That is not true. If 43.13.1x or 65-9/12/15 or any one of a number of Advisory
Circulars gives me, as a mechanic, the option of inspecting a particular part by
a number of methods, then absent direct prohibition during a REPAIR, I can use
any one of them. For example, there are four methods by which I am authorized
to inspect a part (magnetic particle, dye penetrant, x-ray, or hydrostatic). It
is MY option in MY professional opinion as to which method I am going to use on
a particular part.

However, if it is to be a major OVERHAUL, then I must use whatever method(s) are
specified in the o/h manual.

-
-If one *must* do business in this manner.... go homebuilt.

Please, don't talk down to me.


-
-Probably not. The work, if it to be signed off as a "major overhaul" must be
-done in STRICT accordance with the manufacturer's overhaul procedure.
-
-
-"major overhaul" is not a defined concept. There are overhaul
-standards clearly stated in FAR 43. An overhaul may be a major
-*repair* or not.... under Part 43.

I'd suggest a brief discussion with your Principal Maintenance Inspector at your
local FSDO. "Major overhaul" is a VERY WELL defined concept.

-
-1. If the manufacturer's overhaul manual specified dye penetrant inspection
and
-I chose the much better and more conclusive X-ray inspection of a part, it is
-not a major overhaul.
-
-
-Clearly under Part 43 you must follow the manufacturers suggestions.
-That doesn't however, prevent you from having your own procedure
-approved by the FAA. The onus of proving that you "chose the much
-better and more conclusive X-ray inspection of a part" is on you.

No sir, I do NOT have to follow the manufacturer's suggestions. Suggestions are
just that, suggestions. And, if I am "repairing" instead of "overhauling" then
I certainly must follow any approved repair procedures. If there is no clear
repair procedure, I may proceed on my own best judgement.

[snip of a whole bunch of nitpicky crap]


-
-Many manufacturers of engines and airframes allow break-in installed
-on the airframe if the proper engine parameters can be monitored. A
-GEM is usually sufficient.

A GEM didn't even EXIST when a C-85 was designed, nor has the service manual
given that as an approved method of testing. Ditto most engines in service
today.


-
-STRICT accordance with the overhaul manual.
-
-
-And service publications, which engine manufacturers consider to be
-supplements and supercedures to the printed manual.

Only if the magic words, "FAA Approved Data" appear on the publication, in which
case it is a true supplement, not a service letter.

-
-
-Again, if the rules contained in FAR 43 are just too intrusive and
-onerous to follow..... the FAA has give you an "out" ... go homebuilt.

Oh, horsefeathers.

Jim

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