Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:23 AM - Re: TeamGrumman-List Digest: 1 Msgs - 08/26/04 (Tiger 67B)
2. 02:02 AM - Re: Paint Gun Needle Size (TeamGrumman@AOL.COM)
3. 02:08 AM - Re: Tiger Inspection (TeamGrumman@AOL.COM)
4. 06:00 AM - Re: Re: TeamGrumman-List Digest: 1 Msgs - 08/26/04 (Steven Jackson)
5. 06:17 AM - Aileron repair and bondo (Weir, Douglas (CALYON))
6. 06:24 AM - Re: Paint Gun Needle Size (linn walters)
7. 11:49 AM - 337s and GPS and AC 20-138A (TeamGrumman@AOL.COM)
8. 06:13 PM - no TFRs for Kerry? (Anna3003@AOL.COM)
9. 09:37 PM - Re: no TFRs for Kerry? (Walt Beaulieu)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: TeamGrumman-List Digest: 1 Msgs - 08/26/04 |
--> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: Tiger 67B <jnpsavage@cox.net>
If you replace it, you'll have to hang your hand out now to signal a
turn....
TeamGrumman-List Digest Server wrote:
> *
>
> ==================================================
> Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
> ==================================================
>
> Today's complete TeamGrumman-List Digest can be also be found in either
> of the two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest
> formatted in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked
> Indexes and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII
> version of the TeamGrumman-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic
> text editor such as Notepad or with a web browser.
>
> HTML Version:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/teamgrumman-list/Digest.TeamGrumman-List.2004-08-26.html
>
> Text Version:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/teamgrumman-list/Digest.TeamGrumman-List.2004-08-26.txt
>
>
> ================================================
> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
> ================================================
>
>
> TeamGrumman-List Digest Archive
> ---
> Total Messages Posted Thu 08/26/04: 1
>
>
> Today's Message Index:
> ----------------------
>
> 1. 10:28 PM - Tail Beacon (Steven Jackson)
>
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 10:28:53 PM PST US
> From: "Steven Jackson" <steven.jackson14@adelphia.net>
> Subject: TeamGrumman-List: Tail Beacon
>
> --> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: "Steven Jackson" <steven.jackson14@adelphia.net>
>
> Finishing up my annual today--my mechanic noticed that someone along the way
> had removed the original tail beacon and replaced it with an automotive turn
> signal flasher and bulb. They just cut the wires to the old power supply
> and light, and spliced it in. They left the old power supply mounted in the
> tail cone. It even sounds like a turn signal when its on and the engine
> isn't running. I hadn't done very much night flying to notice.
>
> Hmmmmmmmmm--what will they think of next?
>
>
> Steven Jackson
> N1434R
> L22
> Yucca Valley, CA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Visit our PERSONAL WEBSITE at: http://www.geocities.com/tiger67bravo/
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Paint Gun Needle Size |
--> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: TeamGrumman@aol.com
In a message dated 8/25/04 11:46:14 PM, steven.jackson14@adelphia.net writes:
> Can someone explain to me what difference the size of the paint gun needle
> makes?=A0 Also, what size needle for certain applications?
>
>
The needle sizes vary greatly with the gun type and the gun and the available
air pressure, and the viscosity of the paint, and ..... Your best bet is to
go to your local auto paint jobber, get a reference for a body shop which uses
your type of gun, and talk to them and get some guidance. Ny experience is
that body shops are more than happy to help wanna be painters.
I have also called the makers of the gun and talked to technical folks to get
info. They are usually very helpfull.
Also, the paint suppliers, here in Lancaster at least, know a lot about
painting and what works and what doesn't. I've been told more than once to get
a
compressor with more volume output.
Gary
PS, I've also thought about removing the wings and taking the fuselage to a
custom paint shop and have them put a trick paint job on it. Then, just paint
the wings white.
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tiger Inspection |
--> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: TeamGrumman@aol.com
In a message dated 8/26/04 11:09:14 AM, edward.park@IngramMicro.com writes:
> I heard that hail damage on control surfaces cannot be repaired due to the
> bondo throwing off the weight/balance too much - what do you think about this
> ?
>
> thank you
>
>
I would agree if it's too badly dented. if they are simply a few thousa
ndths deep and just need a light skim coat, bondo or a high fill sanding surfacer
(K-36 or K200) will do the trick. Always have the surfaces checked for
balance both before and after any repair (before and after to get a comparison
of
just how much was added.)
The Tiger to which you refer can be cleaned up, but, it will always have
damage.
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: TeamGrumman-List Digest: 1 Msgs - 08/26/04 |
--> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: "Steven Jackson" <steven.jackson14@adelphia.net>
Nah, I'll just honk the horn...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Tiger
67B
Subject: TeamGrumman-List: Re: TeamGrumman-List Digest: 1 Msgs -
08/26/04
--> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: Tiger 67B <jnpsavage@cox.net>
If you replace it, you'll have to hang your hand out now to signal a
turn....
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Aileron repair and bondo |
--> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: "Weir, Douglas (CALYON)" <Douglas.Weir@us.calyon.com>
Before I had my plane painted, I spoke with both the paint shops and Bob
Stewart about the fact I had light, but wide-spread hail damage on the plane
including the control surfaces. One shop said they would not/could not
repair the hail damage to the control surfaces, and the only solution was to
replace the ailerons and elevators - we're talking $8000.... They even
showed me a Tiger which had just been painted - to the tune of $15k - which
had similar hail damage visible after the paint. Really unfortunate.
OTOH, I spoke to Bob Stewart, and the other paint shop who both said a
little bondo repair to the control surfaces was OK as long as they were
balanced. Evidently on the Tiger there is some leeway since we are not
approaching the speed of sound, and upon repair an repainting of my plane
all was OK. There is no sign of hail damage any more, and the plane flies
fine.
In answer to the question of whether the aileron was removed a second time
for the trailing edge repair, the answer is no. But the amount of
light-weight bondo that was added was tiny. I don't want to suggest this
was the "book" repair proceedure, but I'm not losing sleep over the prospect
of getting sudden uncontrolable aileron flutter and losing control of the
plane.
My feeling is go to a reputable shop that you are comfortable with, and see
what they recommend. I my case, I am pleased with the end result. My plane
also won Best 4-Place at Baraboo, so it shows.
Good luck.
*** Calyon ****************************************************
This message and/or any attachments (the "message") is intended for the sole use
of its addressee. If you are not the addressee, please immediately notify the
sender and then destroy the message. The unauthorized disclosure, use, dissemination
or copying (either whole or partial) of this e-mail, or any information
it contains, is prohibited. E-mails are susceptible to alteration and their
integrity cannot be guaranteed. As this message and/or any attachments may
have been altered without our knowledge, its content is not legally binding on
CALYON Corporate and Investment Bank. All rights reserved.
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Paint Gun Needle Size |
--> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: linn walters <lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
TeamGrumman@AOL.COM wrote:
>--> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: TeamGrumman@aol.com
>
>
>In a message dated 8/25/04 11:46:14 PM, steven.jackson14@adelphia.net writes:
>
>
>
>
>>Can someone explain to me what difference the size of the paint gun needle
>>makes?=A0 Also, what size needle for certain applications?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>The needle sizes vary greatly with the gun type and the gun and the available
>air pressure, and the viscosity of the paint, and ..... Your best bet is to
>go to your local auto paint jobber, get a reference for a body shop which uses
>your type of gun, and talk to them and get some guidance. Ny experience is
>that body shops are more than happy to help wanna be painters.
>
>I have also called the makers of the gun and talked to technical folks to get
>info. They are usually very helpfull.
>
>Also, the paint suppliers, here in Lancaster at least, know a lot about
>painting and what works and what doesn't. I've been told more than once to get
a
>compressor with more volume output.
>
>Gary
>PS, I've also thought about removing the wings and taking the fuselage to a
>custom paint shop and have them put a trick paint job on it. Then, just paint
>the wings white.
>
But if you have the wings off, why not take them to the paint shop too?
Get the whole job done!!!
Linn
do not archive
>
>
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 337s and GPS and AC 20-138A |
--> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: TeamGrumman@aol.com
I'm adding this to TeamGrumman because I feel it's relavant. Way too much
time and effort is expended over working the problem of 337s, simlpy out of
ignorance.
I, too, was sucked into writing 337s for each and every item added to or
subtracted from an airplane. There is a guy here at FOX (I call him 310_Bill
because he built a 310 from scratch. I'm not exaggerating) who went head to head
with the FSDO on the (re)construction of his 310. He wasn't an A&P, but, he
is an engineer and was an inspector on the B-2 from its inception. 310_Bill
would read the FARs, something I'll bet none of us do, and do to his plane
anything not prohibited. Once he got his A&P, he really went to town, pushing
the regulation envelope to its limit. I've had many a discussion with him
regarding what is and isn't a major repair or alteration. His logic is very
enlightening. Even when it comes to aircraft interiors (where he showed me
there is no requirement for an FAA person or FAA approved lab to validate the
suitability of a material for an aircraft) he corrected many misconceptions=20I
had
about the FAAs requirements.
The following covers the changes to installing GPSs, both IFR and VFR,
without a field approval.
-------------------------------------
In a message dated 8/26/04 6:32:09 AM, rblevy@mindspring.com writes:
> First, since the AC says no field approval is required, why did your
> avionics guy ask for it?
>
Well, that is a good question.=C2=A0 I asked him the same thing.=C2=A0 He told
me that
since his PAI had always signed the 337 (field approval), and it was the way
he had always done it so, with a dozen planes ready to be worked on and or
deilvered, he mailed the 337s to his PAI.=C2=A0 It was over a week before he received
word that, not only were the being returned, but that the ENTIRE format he had
been using for 8 years was wrong.=C2=A0
I saw the new format.=C2=A0 All references to using FAR 43.13 to do the
installation was removed and a whole series of ACs were inserted to replace=20the
authority to do the installations.
> Second, I'm pretty sure a 337 is still required for all avionics
> installations, but the MIDO approval of the individual installation is definitely
no
> longer required for GPS installations.=C2=A0 Field approval by the FSDO was never,
I
> believe, an issue, since panel mount GPS's are STC'd -- you only need field
> approval if there's no STC for your aircraft.
>
I'm not going to debate who is or isn't involved.=C2=A0 Field approvals, according
to the original AC 20-138, were required prior to the 22 Dec 03 change (AC
20-138A) because GPS was considered unproven technology and required a field
approval.=C2=A0 It is now considered a minor alteration for an IFR installation
[para,
8(c)(1)(iii)] and for a VFR installation [para, 8(c)(1)(iii)]
With respect to avionics requiring a 337, there is nothing in the regulations
which indicates that installing or removing avionics is a major alteration.=C2=A0=C2=A0
The original intent of the 337 was to record any major alterations or repairs
to the airframe, engine, etc.=C2=A0 The FARs are very specific regarding what is
and what is not a major alteration.=C2=A0 337s were NOT intended to be used=20to
record variations to the type certificate. =C2=A0 That is what log books are for.=C2=A0
Far
too many 337s are sent to the FAA which have nothing to do with major repair or
alteration of any part of the airplane.=C2=A0=C2=A0 Sure, you can inundate the
FAA with
paperwork and use them to justify the work performed, but, the fact is, 337s
are not required for each and every change to the airplane.=C2=A0 If an owner is
concerned about a premanent record, make a copy of the logs and keep it in a
safe.
> Third, if a local airworthiness inspector is insisting on field approvals
> for GPS installations despite the latest change to AC 20-138A, ask the FSDO
> manager to read the current version of AC 20-138A and intervene.=C2=A0 If=20that
> doesn't work, contact the avionics person in the airworthiness section of=20the
> flight standards group at your regional HQ.=C2=A0 If THAT doesn't work, contact
me and
> I'll get the HQ FAA people to look into the situation.
>
I appreciate your willingness to get involved.=C2=A0 The avionics shop contacted
his guy (? Sorry, brain fart, it was some sort of lawyer/advocate for avionics
shops) in Washington and was told the FSDO was wrong on some accounts and did
misunderstand AC 20-138A BUT ... it might be easier to just
'go-along-with-the-FSDO requirements since it would take less time than fighting
the FSDO.=C2=A0 The
bottom line was, do what you need to do to get the job done and get paid.
I suggested to the avionics guy to talk to the new FSDO guy regarding the new
AC and he was told that one line in AC 20-138A limiting flight to VFR only
totally negates the value of the intention of AC 20-138A.=C2=A0 That line, which
applies only to VFR, is in paragraph 9 and states:=C2=A0 Installation guidelines
for
such an installation are provided in appendix 5 of this AC. Loss of or
misleading VFR navigation information is considered a minor failure condition;
therefore, Software Development Assurance Level D is acceptable. A readable=20placard
stating "GPS limited to VFR use only" must be installed in clear view of the
pilot, unless the equipment automatically displays this message on start-up=20and
pilot action is required to clear the message.=C2=A0 An A/RFM(S) is not required
since the placard or display contains the equipment limitation.
From the FAAs FSDO inspector's point-of-view, any change to the aircraft
operating limitations requires a FIELD APPROVAL.=C2=A0 When I asked if a field
approval
is required for a failed instrument, which is not required for VFR flight,
but which is placarded as inop, he told me no.=C2=A0 He clearly did not know how
to
differentiate between changing an 'aircraft's' limitations and changes to an
aircraft's operational limitations.=C2=A0
I still haven't found the regulation which states limiting a plane to VFR
requires a field approval.
------------------------ if you are NOT curious, ignore this part.
In case you are curious, here is the approval required for installing a GPS.=C2=A0
AC 20-138A states it is a minor alteration and=C2=A0 does not require a 337.
Para 8=C2=A0 APPROVAL PROCESS. This paragraph describes the general approval
process
applicable to GNSS equipment intended for IFR navigation (paragraph 9
provides
guidance addressing installation of GNSS equipment for VFR use). Unique
approval
issues associated with GPS for Oceanic/Remote Navigation and GLONASS are
defined
in appendices 1 and 2, respectively.
(1) Evaluation of installation. The installation should be evaluated to
classify
the installation and determine the type of approval vehicle. The following
guidelines are
provided:
(i) Major change to type design: Per 14 CFR Part 21.93, the applicant
should determine if the installation has an appreciable effect on the
structural strength or
operational characteristics affecting the airworthiness of the product. An
example is
installation in multiple-pilot aircraft where another, dissimilar area
navigation system is
also installed (see paragraph 18f), which should be thoroughly evaluated
under the
TC/STC process unless intermixing of the same GNSS equipment was part of the
initial
design approval or specifically addressed under an approved model list (e.g.,
the
Brand-A, model X instructions may adequately address intermixing with Brand-A
model
Y equipment).
(ii) Major alteration: Per 14 CFR Part 43 Appendix A, installation of GNSS
equipment may be a major alteration requiring FAA-approved data pertinent to
that
installation. For example, installation of the GNSS antenna may impact
structural
strength, and the GNSS equipment may be connected to other equipment that has
not
been previously determined to be compatible or for which the installation
instructions are
not adequate to ensure compatibility under all conditions. If the
installation is
determined to be a major alteration, the applicant can obtain an STC or a
field approval
using FAA Form 337 (Major Repair and Alteration).
(iii) Minor alteration: Under the original AC 20-138, installation of GPS
equipment required the use of approved data (under an STC or major
alteration) because
GPS was a new and unique technology. However, since GPS technology is now
common
and considerable experience has been obtained in the installation of GPS,
approved data
for every installation is no longer appropriate. Instead, installations that
do not qualify as
major alterations above should be accomplished as minor alterations. These
installations
should be based on acceptable data including the following:
(A) Data previously approved as applicable to the aircraft (e.g., STC,
Approved Model List).
(B) Data previously approved as applicable to a different make/model
aircraft (e.g., an initial STC obtained by the equipment manufacturer),
provided the
installation is installed in accordance with the manufacturer=E2=80=99s instructions,
any equipment
interfaces are adequately addressed in the installation instructions for the
GNSS
equipment and the equipment with which it is interfacing, and the equipment
is installed
in accordance with the guidelines in this AC. For example, installation of
GNSS
navigation equipment that only interfaces with an antenna, power, ground, an
external
HSI/CDI with a single source selector switch, and a left/right
(deviation-based) autopilot
would typically be considered a minor alteration.
Para 9 GNSS EQUIPMENT LIMITED TO VFR USE. GNSS equipment may be
installed on a no-hazard basis as a supplement to VFR navigation. Such
installations
need only to verify that the GNSS installation does not introduce a hazard to
the aircraft
(e.g., properly secured for crashworthiness, not combustible, etc). GNSS
installations
limited to VFR USE ONLY should be evaluated under the criteria described in
paragraph
Par 8 8c(1) to classify the type of aircraft/appliance modification. The only
exception is that,
for installations where the GNSS equipment does not interface with other
equipment
(except a dedicated remote indicator if applicable), the installation can be
accomplished
without any reference to previously approved data (i.e., the equipment does
not need a
TSO or prior STC). Installation guidelines for such an installation are
provided in
appendix 5 of this AC. Loss of or misleading VFR navigation information is
considered
a minor failure condition; therefore, Software Development Assurance Level D
is
acceptable. A readable placard stating "GPS limited to VFR use only" must be
installed
in clear view of the pilot, unless the equipment automatically displays this
message on
start-up and pilot action is required to clear the message. An A/RFM(S) is
not required
since the placard or display contains the equipment limitation.
In a message dated 8/27/04 7:49:07 AM, rblevy@mindspring.com writes:
> any IFR GPS installation is a major alteration because it changes the
> operating limitations of the
> aircraft per the Approved Flight Manual Supplement.=C2=A0 A major alteration
> requires either an STC or a field approval, and a 337 in either case, the
> difference being whether it's a "stamp and forward" (STC) or "review and approve"
> (field approval).=C2=A0
>
AC 20-138A states for IFR, under MINOR alteration
For these installations, any A/RFM(S) associated with the original approved
data should be used as the basis for an A/RFM(S) for this installation.
Limitations
imposed on the GNSS equipment during the initial approval should be imposed
for
follow-on equipment approval unless an FAA re-evaluation of the relevant
issues
determines that they do not apply.
NOTE:
An A/RFM(S) is not necessary if it was not part of the original installation,
if the operating manual
addresses the use of the equipment and associated installed components (e.g.,
remote source selection),
and there are no unique limitations associated with the particular
installation.
Yea, I know, a gray area.=C2=A0 Very poorly worded, but, then, consider the
source.=C2=A0
AC 20-138A gives a sample of Flight Manual Supplement.=C2=A0 The flight manual
supplement does NOT change the aircraft's operating limitations.=C2=A0 Only=20the
Type
Certificate holder (or STC) can change the aircraft's operating limitations.=C2=A0
The Flight Manual Supplement (sample) states:
This document must be carried in the airplane at all times. It describes the
operating procedures for the ABC Model XXX GPS navigation system when it
has been installed in accordance with <manufacturer's installation manual
number and date>.
Thus, the FMS MAY, or may not, change the operating PROCEDURES.=C2=A0 It does NOT
change the aircraft limitations.=C2=A0 NO 337 for a major alteration is required.
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | no TFRs for Kerry? |
--> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: Anna3003@aol.com
Today, I scheduled a flight from Palo Alto to Half Moon Bay (the coast is
indeed clear all the way to Crescent city-yippee fall wx in northern CA!).
Because I knew Kerry was in SF, I called Oakland FSS and asked about TFRs. I was
really surprised when the briefer told me, yes, Mr. Kerry rates TFR's but he's
declined them. This man can campaign in the bay area all he wants! Politics is
one thing, but flying the sf bay area on a clear day is something else.
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | no TFRs for Kerry? |
--> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: "Walt Beaulieu" <aviation@acs-group.net>
Al Queeeda luv's John Kerry. He is in no danger from them.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
Anna3003@AOL.COM
Subject: TeamGrumman-List: no TFRs for Kerry?
--> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: Anna3003@aol.com
Today, I scheduled a flight from Palo Alto to Half Moon Bay (the coast is
indeed clear all the way to Crescent city-yippee fall wx in northern CA!).
Because I knew Kerry was in SF, I called Oakland FSS and asked about TFRs. I
was
really surprised when the briefer told me, yes, Mr. Kerry rates TFR's but
he's
declined them. This man can campaign in the bay area all he wants! Politics
is
one thing, but flying the sf bay area on a clear day is something else.
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|