411 413 inspection question

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

On 5/17/2005 15:46, A Lieberman wrote:

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.

Works, or appears to work. If it were not connected to the static source,
wouldn't it simply vent to the area behind the panel?


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


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

On Tue, 17 May 2005 15:55:42 -0700, Mark Hansen wrote:

Works, or appears to work. If it were not connected to the static source,
wouldn't it simply vent to the area behind the panel?

Mark,

I plan to fly tomorrow to the practice area. What I am planning to do is
time the climb rate to see if it is registering correctly (I.E climb or
descend at 500 per minute).

I flew last week in IMC doing some ILS approaches in actual conditions and
I truly did not notice anything unusual about the VSI.

Like I said, I don't know anything about systems, other then when something
doesn't work, to get it to the repair shop and get it fixed.

As far as I knew before today, everything worked perfectly, so I was not
expecting any problems.

Allen

On 5/17/2005 16:54, A Lieberman wrote:

On Tue, 17 May 2005 15:55:42 -0700, Mark Hansen wrote:

Works, or appears to work. If it were not connected to the static source,
wouldn't it simply vent to the area behind the panel?

Mark,

I plan to fly tomorrow to the practice area. What I am planning to do is
time the climb rate to see if it is registering correctly (I.E climb or
descend at 500 per minute).

I flew last week in IMC doing some ILS approaches in actual conditions and
I truly did not notice anything unusual about the VSI.

If the VSI is vented to the cabin, you won't notice much of a difference.
Unless the cabin is pressurized, the air pressure will be slightly lower
than the actual static air pressure (from outside the cabin). However, when
you climb, the VSI will still show a climb, and at virtually the proper
rate.

Using the cabin air pressure as an "alternate" static source for the VSI
is fine in an emergency.


Like I said, I don't know anything about systems, other then when something
doesn't work, to get it to the repair shop and get it fixed.

Even thought you don't notice a problem, given that someone found that it is
not connected up properly, you should take this as a problem that needs
to be fixed ;-)


As far as I knew before today, everything worked perfectly, so I was not
expecting any problems.

Allen


--
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.


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.

The VSI will operate even though it is not connected the the official static
system. However, it should be fixed.

Mike

On Tue, 17 May 2005 19:28:37 -0500, Mike Ferrer wrote:

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.

Can an A&P work on the static system? Again, you are talking to a real
newbie even though I have owned the airplane for 2 1/2 years, so please
excuse the questions due to my ignorance.

The VSI will operate even though it is not connected the the official static
system. However, it should be fixed.

If this is such the case, why should it be hooked into the static system?
It seems to work good the way it is.

Also, one less instrument subject to failure should the pitot static system
go belly up?

Whatever the case, I want the plane to be as reliable as possible.

Allen

A Lieberman wrote:

Can an A&P work on the static system? Again, you are talking to a real
newbie even though I have owned the airplane for 2 1/2 years, so please
excuse the questions due to my ignorance.

Yes, but it takes a repair facility who can do the appropriate tests to
recertify the plane for IFR after most static system work.

"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.

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

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