411 413 inspection question

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

"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

"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

"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.

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

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

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

"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.

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

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