Replacing fuel cut-off valve with non-a/c part???

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On 13 Jan 2005 19:34:18 GMT, ode (nuke) wrote:

Geez y'all, with all the arguing, somebody could have found an approved
part
from a certificated aircraft, gotten the conformity data, submitted a 337
with
details, drawings and instructions for continued airworthiness and most
likely
have gotten a fuel cutoff valve that doesn't leak.

Very true... but several posters seem to continue to insist that not
only are 337s, approvals, log book entries, drawings and the FARs
unnecessary and dispensable (at their sole discretion), but a real
hazard to safe flight.....

Well, nobody has said that, and you act more and more like a rather grim
little troll. Most people are puzzled about all the paperwork and excess
energy unnecessarily expended to replace a part on an aging aircraft, so
they seek out an A&P/AI who is not working on his analworthiness
certificate. (Such as yourself.)

The FSDO in this neck of the woods does not grant field approvals and its
agents have said so time and time again. That's a fact, so why don't you
troll and spam where you'll be more appreciated.

By the way, some friends just replaced the bronze jackscrews on their trim
systems and didn't go through all the anal hoops the lock-sphinctered
hairsplitting like you seem to require out of airplane life. We reverse
engineered them because there was no other source. Much to your chagrin and
pucker-pain, they work beautifully. And the IA's who installed them just
loved them.

In addition I'm personally aware of a mag drive gear from Fresno Airparts
which just had the FAA in a nervous frenzy---because Fresno apparently
didn't go through the hoops to assure the proper Rockwell hardness (It's
soft) and furthermore didn't get it approved and etched 'FAA-PMA' with
permission. And I understand there are thousands of them out there in
service. Now I hate to tell you--- for fear you may swoon and collapse with
a conniption yourself and tear out a sphincter --- but this #36066 drive
gear (price for the legal one: about $500 at ACS) has almost 800 hours on
it -- and not one torn anus. See:
http://www.faa.gov/certification/air.../ACE-98-21.htm
for details on the discomfort at FAA.

Now there's a real issue for you, my analworthy friend. That and somebody
taking a Cub data plate and putting it on a homebuilt Cub-- then selling it
as if it were the genuine item. Go and find out how many catastrophic
engine failures occurred because of those gears out there turning thousands
and thousands of mags and report back with the scandalous results.

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:11:18 -0500, " jls"
wrote:


The FSDO in this neck of the woods does not grant field approvals and its
agents have said so time and time again. That's a fact, so why don't
you
troll and spam where you'll be more appreciated.


"Your neck of the woods" falls under the local jurisdiction of the
Charlotte, NC FSDO (SO-FSDO-33). Any statement that implies that the
ASIs and PMIs at that FSDO won't do field approvals is absolutely and
totally false... as I'm sure you well know.

The last time I went to FAA/pilot meeting in Hendersonville, the agent there
answered a direct question about field approvals posed by a well-known
pilot/builder/restorer. I could have sworn he said 'NO.' Maybe the policy
has changed; I have heard enough bickering about it from the mechanics in
this area. So don't tell me what I know. I hope you're not as incompetent
at mechanicking as you are at mental telepathy.


I never could understand how a government agency could operate to its
maximum reasonable extent if it were practicing cya for fear of lawsuits.
Besides that, most governmental agencies enjoy sovereign immunity from
actions at law, but I can tell you having sat there and listened that the
agent made reference to the litigious society we live in when he said NO.

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message

The policy has not changed.... You made a flat statement [i. e., that the
Charlotte FSDO does not grant field approvals] that was
demonstrably false...

OK, fella, here is your chance to shine. In the last 2 years how many
field approvals have they granted and how many have they refused? That
should be easy enough for you to find out since you make it to appear you
are intimate with them.

That's not what he asked you, idiotbird. What he asked was the ratio of
approved/declined field approvals and the numbers for each. You seem to be
so well connected with the Charlotte FSDO that this information ought to be
trivial to obtain. Unless, of course, you are blowing smoke...

Jim
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:29:07 -0500, " jls"
wrote:


"Gene Kearns" wrote in message

The policy has not changed.... You made a flat statement [i. e., that
the
Charlotte FSDO does not grant field approvals]

Looks like the start of an internet ****ing match between one fellow
who is always correct but can't prove it, and another fellow who is
just relaying info as it was related to him.

Who was that masked man?

Prove what you're saying!

I will if you tell me who that masked man is.

Hey Gene, regardless of what you may think, statements like that are
strewn all the time by these government hacks, because that's what the
minute by minute policy is. And why don't you just say that you have
a bigger dick than anyone else here and we'll all start accepting your
word as the gospel according to St. Kearns!

A legend in his own mind!



On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:51:31 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:29:07 -0500, " jls"
wrote:


"Gene Kearns" wrote in message

The policy has not changed.... You made a flat statement [i. e., that the
Charlotte FSDO does not grant field approvals] that was
demonstrably false...

OK, fella, here is your chance to shine. In the last 2 years how many
field approvals have they granted and how many have they refused?



Not a problem... answer the question and I'll call him and get your
figures...

"Just who *was* this mystery agent? Post his name and I'll call him,
myself, and verify what he said."

That
should be easy enough for you to find out since you make it to appear you
are intimate with them.

Not "intimate," but I do attend nearly all of the AMT/IA seminars and
meet many of the Charlotte people and have formed professional
acquaintances with them.. I work close enough to the Greensboro FSDO
to hit it with a rock.... and answer to and am surveilled by at least
three different PMIs from that office..... so, yes, I *do* know the
area and I *do* know what they will or won't do. Nice try, but you
aren't going to blow smoke at me over the local FSDOs.

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...

jls makes an unsupported and untrue statement and I ask for his...

Gene, why do you think I put jls into the twit bucket? Don't waste your
time.

" jls" wrote:
analworthiness

lock-sphinctered
pucker-pain,

tear out a sphincter
torn anus.

analworthy

You think about this kind of stuff a lot, don't you?