Any IAs? How handle this log entry?

[mhorowit]

Assume I came to you with a covered, used landing gear and said "look, I found a landing gear to replace the one I broke, and it's just the right color". What would you do?

a) remove the covering, make the most complete inspection you could, have it recovered, make some log book entry.

b) say "great", do as good an inspection as you could without removing the covering, accept the part, make some log book entry.

c) something else

In each case, what would the logbook entry be? Is there a logbook entry that says essentially "I don't know anything about the history of this part or how good any repairs would be?" -

Bear with me, there really is a rationale for my question - Mike

[mhorowit]

Re: Any IAs? How handle this log entry?

Well, I got an answer that almost answered the question; it's an answer I keep forgetting. And the answer is.... (sound of an envelope opening) -

For any major repair, there must be a 337 signed by an A&P and inspected by and IA. This doesn't answer my original question where a repaired part comes over the transom without any paperwork - in that case the IA makes a judgement call.

(the fact that I did the work under the A&P's supervision has no bearing on this; that's between me and the A&P. We have to agree on what means 'under his supervision') - Mike

[fearofpavement]

Re: Any IAs? How handle this log entry?

Well, I don't think that replacing the gear with a used gear would be considered a major repair according to FAR 43 appendix A (b) (1). If you repaired the damaged gear that would be a major repair, but replacing the gear is parts changing. So in my opinion any A&P could sign it off with something like:

Removed damaged landing gear leg. Inspected attach areas at fuselage for damage and corrosion, installed servicable gear leg using original bungees, new hardware, torqued and saftied per Taylorcraft Service Manual and AC 43.13 1B/2A. Serviced and installed wheel and brake assembly, checked brake adjustment, tire pressure, and wheel alignment. All ok and returned aircraft to service after taxi check.
Joe Schmoe, A&P 1234567

A REPAIR to a landing gear is considered a major repair, replacement of primary structural members is a major repair WHEN replacement is by FABRICATION such as riveting or welding. Installing a used part is not fabrication. Now if you repaired (or had it repaired) the gear leg and conceal that from the person signing it off that would not be the right thing to do as a 337 would then be in order.

A mechanic or IA can generate a 337 for a previously undocumented repair by inspecting the aircraft/item and writing up the 337 as if they had done it (the repair) themselves. Saying for instance, the repair splice covers an area extending x distance from the axle and the material used complies with AC 43.13 blah blah and then sign it off. Obviously a mechanic wouldn't want to sign off a repair he wasn't convinced was airworthy but this is how non documented repairs are handled. If I was going to install a "repaired" gear leg with no paperwork and generate a 337 for it, I would remove the fabric. No other way to verify that it would comply with airworthiness standards.
Hope that helps.

[mhorowit]

Re: Any IAs? How handle this log entry?

A mechanic or IA can generate a 337 for a previously undocumented repair by inspecting the aircraft/item and writing up the 337 as if they had done it (the repair) themselves. Saying for instance, the repair splice covers an area extending x distance from the axle and the material used complies with AC 43.13 blah blah and then sign it off. Obviously a mechanic wouldn't want to sign off a repair he wasn't convinced was airworthy but this is how non documented repairs are handled. If I was going to install a "repaired" gear leg with no paperwork and generate a 337 for it, I would remove the fabric. No other way to verify that it would comply with airworthiness standards.
Hope that helps.

You've hit the heart of the question - a repaired part coming in without documentation. The IA looks over the 'patch' and it looks good, but he really doesn't know that the patch is centered over damaged area or that it extends the correct distance from the damage, right? - Mike

[fearofpavement]

Re: Any IAs? How handle this log entry?

You've hit the heart of the question - a repaired part coming in without documentation. The IA looks over the 'patch' and it looks good, but he really doesn't know that the patch is centered over damaged area or that it extends the correct distance from the damage, right? - Mike

That would have to be a judgement call on the part of the IA. Without having done the repair themselves or observing it in process he/she couldn't know everything about the history of what is underneath a patch but a discerning eye should be able to determine if what they are looking at is going to hold up a T-craft for the foreseable future. My personal policy is I don't sign off anything I am not comfortable with. If it was an old repair and the gear had been in service I would be much more likely to sign off on it than if the repair had been done recently and not documented. I don't feel responsible to fix paperwork problems that someone else created either out of ignorance or apathy for the regulations. If an A&P did or observed the repair, they could write up the repair on a 337 and most IA's would probably sign it off. In the original scenario presented it was not clear to me that the gear had been repaired, just that it was a "used" part. A previous repair casts a different light on the situation.

[mhorowit]

Re: Any IAs? How handle this log entry?

Is it allowed or even practical to put all the repairs done during a restoration on a single 337? - Mike

[fearofpavement]

Re: Any IAs? How handle this log entry?

No, they wouldn't all be on one 337. You would need a separate 337 for each repair. If you had the fuselage bare for instance and repaired the tubing in 9 different places, it wouldn't require a 337 for each of those repairs, they could all be done on one as fuselage repairs but each repaired area should be described, then perhaps a separate 337 for repairs to the right wing, one for a landing gear, one for installing a tow hook (alteration, not repair but still on a 337) one for replacing fabric (repair) and if a different fabric system is used (alteration) for instance, if your plane is covered in Ceconite, there should be a 337 on file since it was originally covered in cotton. Not too many planes (except perhaps a few purists or museum pieces) that still have cotton and nitrate on them, but if they don't it should be documented.
In the FAR's (close to where I referenced earlier in this thread) there is a list of what is considered a major repair. Those items require a 337. 337's for repairs are pretty straight forward, it is when you get into alterations that the fun begins...

[mhorowit]

Re: Any IAs? How handle this log entry?

No, they wouldn't all be on one 337. You would need a separate 337 for each repair.

I like the logic; it would be like a 'yellow tag' for each item repaired. - Mike

[N96337]

Re: Any IAs? How handle this log entry?

It depends on the PMI (primary maintenance inspector).... if you sent a bunch of 337's in on that stuff to our inspector, you'd be getting them back with a nice request to consolidate them a bit more. If they're field approvals, they like them more seperated, and of course they like the engine 337's on a seperate sheet than the airframe 337's.
JH