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

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 12:20:10 -0500, " jls"
[...]
I do agree with this. If you don't like it my way.. feel free to
A&P/IA shop... it is your right and you, as pilot and/or owner share
the liability for your choices. Seek your own level of comfort....

I don't seek to impose my anal will upon you, it is your decision, and
your decision alone as to the level of compliance you are comfortable
with..... suit yourself.... but don't snivel if you bear the
consequences

Spamcan-think duly noted. Now please answer the question regarding
unapproved elevator tips.

BTW, I went to your website and took a look at your taildragger project.
Now that is an ambitious undertaking and I wish you well. I had a project
in the eighties, a Taylorcraft, and have "courted calamity" with it now for
going on two decades. One A&P/IA didn't like my ancient wingtank valve and
made me change it out to a working one. In other words, we went from an
unsafe,dripping legal valve to an illegal one that didn't leak. I
re-covered the wings on this airplane, fly it all over the country, rebuilt
the engine, restored the trim system, restored the brakes, rebuilt all the
control surface hinges, watch every little thing, and do my own annuals --
under the A&P's watchful eyes, of course.

I recently looked at a fuel cutoff valve which comes with an RV-6 kit. It
is a boat valve like I have seen used -- probably legally -- on
Taylorcrafts.

It seems to me the A&P's pay is earned by finding solutions, not snapping
condemnations. That's the reason why I go with the guys who gave Michael
Horowitz answers, not nononononono. And you still haven't shown why SAE
parts are illegal for a Taylorcraft, the plumbing of which came from the
factory with all kinds of them. The brakes are from a motor scooter. They
work too. And you can buy plexi for the windows at Home Depot.

Gene Kearns wrote:
And then, I, as the next *responsible* inspector at annual, follow up
your work and have to ground the aircraft.... pending the lengthy
process of finding a legal, airworthy replacement part....

Yeah, you could do that. But the word you're really looking for is
irresponsible. You know damn well that the legal valve is going to
leak, because getting the FAA to approve anything that smells of new
technology in a cost-effective manner just doesn't happen. Therefore,
by grounding the airplane, you're making the owner's operation less
safe in every way. Less safe by grounding him and making him uncurrent
when he does fly again, less safe by making him fly with a leaky valve,
and less safe by absorbing money that could be used for more important
things, like proficiency and good equipment. What you're doing is
legal, and it good CYA, but you need to look in the mirror and face the
fact that you (and everyone like you) is making GA less safe - and the
A&P who is willing to look the other way and count on "No, that was NOT
there when I looked at the plane" is the responsible one, making things
safer.

....now, both of us have generated a hate factor and given all A&Ps a
black eye.

No. Just you.

Michael

On 29 Dec 2004 11:29:02 -0800, "Michael"
wrote:

What you're doing is
legal, and it good CYA, but you need to look in the mirror and face the
fact that you (and everyone like you) is making GA less safe - and the
A&P who is willing to look the other way and count on "No, that was NOT
there when I looked at the plane" is the responsible one, making things
safer.


I had a good IA that would use some common sense in his approach.
Personally, I don't stray much from approved parts, but some of his
customers did so extensively. His reward for working with people is
that he no longer has his license and is being sued by one of the
people he helped for an accident he could not do anything about (a
crank shaft broke on a new overhaul, and the pilot stalled above the
trees).

While I'd agree using an alternative approach to repairs can be
beneficial, given the sue happy society we live in today, if I were an
A&P/IA, I'd be VERY cautious in straying from the laws I'd be governed
by. Mechanics often need to walk a fine line, and i don't envy them
for it.

z

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 08:21:02 -0500, " jls"
[...]
Equal to is a repair. Better than, is an alteration. I think it was
one of the FARs I quoted..... wanna check again? By the way, if your
A&P installs a part that is "better than" he is making an
alteration

I don't believe you. A fiberglas wingtip or fiberglas rudder tip is better
than a Royalite one, and yet that is not an alteration. A McFarlane
throttle cable, having a slick polymer liner for the cable is better than
the original, but that is not an alteration. Installation of all kinds of
improved parts on Cessnas does not require 337 or field approval. Bulb on
the flap trailing edge, e. g. What about installing that neat new shimmy
dampener which is sealed? Is that an alteration?

You are clear as mud.



.... and by the quoted FARs it will, de facto, be a major
alteration. Thus, you MUST, in this instance, seek a field approval.

Yep, clear as mud, and you can leave out the pretentious "de facto" and
still be just as articulate as before and still clear as mud.

"Michael" wrote in message
oups.com...
Gene Kearns wrote:
And then, I, as the next *responsible* inspector at annual, follow up
your work and have to ground the aircraft.... pending the lengthy
process of finding a legal, airworthy replacement part....

Yeah, you could do that. But the word you're really looking for is
irresponsible. You know damn well that the legal valve is going to
leak, because getting the FAA to approve anything that smells of new
technology in a cost-effective manner just doesn't happen. Therefore,
by grounding the airplane, you're making the owner's operation less
safe in every way. Less safe by grounding him and making him uncurrent
when he does fly again, less safe by making him fly with a leaky valve,
and less safe by absorbing money that could be used for more important
things, like proficiency and good equipment.

That's got to be the most bass-ackwards logic I've seen in years. Don't
ground an aircraft using unapproved parts in critical systems (and if you
tell me fuel system is not critical I'll instantly plonk you) because you'll
cause more harm when the owner can't fly? chuckle

Juan

Juan Jimenez wrote:
That's got to be the most bass-ackwards logic I've seen in years.
Don't
ground an aircraft using unapproved parts in critical systems (and if
you
tell me fuel system is not critical I'll instantly plonk you) because
you'll
cause more harm when the owner can't fly? chuckle

You're certainly welcome to plonk me - I'm sure others have - but I'm
not going to tell you the fuel system is not critical. Of course it's
critical, and in fact it's the number one thing that brings down
homebuilts in the Phase I period. But we're not talking about
compromising the fuel system - we're talking about improving it via a
simple component substitution - a good modern valve in place of an
obsolete leaky one.

Our realistic choices are a leaky valve or an unapproved one.

The key word you've got there is unapproved. Not unsafe, not
unreliable, but unapproved. Basically, not allowed. The question to
be asked is - how important is that? In other words - how much faith
do you place in the opinion of government bureaucrats?

Michael

Me? You get angry at MOI? I'm just going to go out in the backyard and cry
and eat worms.

Sniff...

{;-)

Jim



if one of the damn things fails. I get angry at Jim Weir every once in a
while,

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On 30 Dec 2004 07:47:55 -0800, "Michael"
wrote:

Juan Jimenez in his usual slobbering spasms:
[...]leaky one.

Our realistic choices are a leaky valve or an unapproved one.

The key word you've got there is unapproved. Not unsafe, not
unreliable, but unapproved. Basically, not allowed. The question to
be asked is - how important is that? In other words - how much faith
do you place in the opinion of government bureaucrats?

Michael

If you don't want to follow the rules.... fine..... stick to
homebuilts. If you buy a certificated aircraft, you know from the
git-go that there is a specific set of rules you must, by law, follow.

"in fact it's the number one thing that brings down homebuilts in
the Phase I period"

And that doesn't suggest something to you?!?!
Fuel starvation suggests a whole lot more glitches than a valve. It suggests
a rich complexity of issues. Furthermore, homebuilts have an enviable
safety record, and the statement you're replying to is woefully overbroad
and unspecific. Let's have real numbers when discussing these things;
otherwise, it sounds more like amateurs and simpletons discussing them.
Thus, what percentage of homebuilts crash during Phase I, and what
percentage of those are attributable to fuel starvation, and what percentage
of those fuel starvation cases are attributable to defective valves.

The last couple of cases of Phase I crashes I'm familiar with due to fuel
starvation was 1) empty fuel tanks because of poor fuel monitoring, i. e.,
pilot error, and 2) fuel strainer screens covered with trash because of
failure to clean out the tanks after sloshing.

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 12:45:03 -0500, " jls" wrote:

"in fact it's the number one thing that brings down homebuilts in
the Phase I period"

And that doesn't suggest something to you?!?!
Fuel starvation suggests a whole lot more glitches than a valve. It suggests
a rich complexity of issues. Furthermore, homebuilts have an enviable
safety record, and the statement you're replying to is woefully overbroad
and unspecific. Let's have real numbers when discussing these things;
otherwise, it sounds more like amateurs and simpletons discussing them.
Thus, what percentage of homebuilts crash during Phase I, and what
percentage of those are attributable to fuel starvation, and what percentage
of those fuel starvation cases are attributable to defective valves.

I ran a detailed analysis of homebuilt accidents about a year ago. During the
1998-2000 time period (e.g., 3-year period), here are some of the fuel-related
accidents:

- Cracked engine impulse line, which disabled the fuel pump
- Obstructed fuel nozzle.
- Inadequate inspection of the fuel system that led to fuel filter
contamination.
- Blockage of the airplane fuel system, a delamination of the fiberglass fuel
tanks, and the usage of an improper fuel (alcohol-based)
- The introduction of a fuel containing an ethanol additive into fuel tanks
sloshed/sealed with a compound incompatible with alcohols, resulting in
debonding of the compound from the fuel tank walls, leading to partial
blockage of an in-line fuel filter
- Separation of the fuel pick-up line.
- Malfunctioning landing gear, which blocked the radiator scoop, leading to
increased fuel temperature and the subsequent vapor lock condition and fuel
blockage.
- Failure of a plastic 90-degree fitting at the inlet fitting of the carburetor.
- Loose fuel pump output line attachment fitting leading to in-flight fire
- Mechanical failure of a fuel sump tank check valve
- Interruption of fuel to or within a carburetor (cause undetermined)
- Fracturing of the fuel pump switches
- Fuel starvation due to fuel leak in the gascolator as a result of improper
maintenance
- Loose fuel line fitting
- Loose fuel cap
- Builder's improper installation that resulted in the fuel line being snagged
- Inadequate marking of the fuel selector valve to clearly indicate a fully open
position.
- Blocked fuel strainer due to an inadequate maintenance inspection
- Improper installation of the fuel selector valve and failure to placard the
operating positions of the valve handle.
- Misalignment of the fuel pump front cover by the pilot/builder
- Obstructed fuel vent system
- Improper sealant material used by the owner/builder
- Improper fuel vapor return system.
- The fuel leak for an undetermined reason which resulted in an in-flight fire.
- Obstructed fuel system filter due to inadequate silicone sealer
- Rotation of fuel tank elbow fitting within the tank during previous
maintenance, leading to improper alignment of the fuel pick-up tube
- Fuel drain left remaining partially open during preflight
- Failure to adjust newly installed wing fuel caps leading to fuel starvation,
and failure of the vent system to adequately compensate for the pressure
differential created and the failure of the pilot to monitor fuel balance.
- Partial loss of engine power due to water contamination of the fuel (three
cases)

About 6.1% of homebuilt accidents involve mechanical problems with the fuel
system; about 0.7% are related to fuel contamination, and about 4% involve fuel
exhaustion (some overlap in causes can occur).

Homebuilts suffer accidents related to fuel system problems about four times as
often as Cessna 172s; they also suffer fuel-exhaustion accidents about half as
often as the Cessnas. More homebuilt accidents are caused by "undetermined loss
of power," and some of those might be fuel-related.

Ron Wanttaja

" jls" wrote:
Furthermore, homebuilts have an enviable
safety record...Let's have real numbers when discussing these
things;
...

Real overall numbers are contained in the annual NTSB and ASF Nall
Reports re homebuilt safety. Compared to production aircraft, it is
anything but enviable. The comparison isn't even accurate, as
homebuilt accidents are less likely to be reported.

At our field, NTSB has all reportable production A/C crashes for the
many years we can remember, except for one recent, uninsured one. But
the several homebuilt ones over the years are quickly dragged into a
hangar. No control tower; no hull insurance; no serious injury. The
airport, for their insurance and other reasons, prefers to be unable
to ever recall the incident, unless you report it to the gov't.

Fred F.