BC-12 vs BC-12D

[Guest]

Re: BC12 vs BC12D again

Is the Univair P/N called out on the AD? I don't think it is.

Yes, it is.

AD calls for A-A815 and A-A854 OR approved equivalent.

Univair's approved equivalent is UA-A816 and UA-A854.

Turns out its also a sealed strut too so its also equivalent to the MA... part numbers.

Dave

[cpirrmann]

Re: BC12 vs BC12D again

All I can say is, this is ridiculous! You guys have opened my eyes as far as wanting to finish getting my A&P. I want nothing to do with a system as screwed up as this.

[Guest]

Re: BC12 vs BC12D again

Hi Terry, there is one more way. Well its not really another way its an elobaration on your #2.

I can exercise my priveledges as an IA to approve a 337 that describes the strut change based on the part # info in the AD as approved data and do it completely on my own. No feild approval (FA) needed, merely a 337 approval.

see http://www.faa.gov/education_researc...g-8082-11a.pdf

Section titled "BASIC FUNCTIONS OF AN IA"

I think this same message is in the 8300 series doc too, I just can't find it now.

I can't approve data but can use any approved data.

I did a similar thing a few months ago approving a change based on data in an STC even though the STC was not completely installed.

Dave

After sleeping on it I 've concluded that an A&P can do the strut swap in an aircraft records entry (usually a log book) and merely refer to the AD. This is not a major repair or alteration so the 337 can be used but is not required.

If the A&P doesn't know this then he may end up consulting an IA and want to do the 337 route to cover his butt.

[Guest]

Re: BC12 vs BC12D again

All I can say is, this is ridiculous! You guys have opened my eyes as far as wanting to finish getting my A&P. I want nothing to do with a system as screwed up as this.

Why?

These are the answers to the Mr. Webster's question regarding using a strut set that is not PMA'd for his airplane.

He is is quite happy and has saved about $700 and dropped out of the chat early on.

What's the problem with that?

Most A&Ps and owners never see or are aware of this info.

The questions have been from other intersted parties who require more explanation.

Dave

[Guest]

Re: BC12 vs BC12D again

So go for your A&P!

You will only be annoyed by this other wrangling on forums.

[NY86]

Re: BC12 vs BC12D again

I'm not convinced the AD constitutes approval to put a strut on a plane for which the PMA does not apply. It sort of smells of circular logic. The AD says "or approved equivalent", but the PMA does not apply to the model in question, so it is not approved, but it's called out in the AD so it's approved?

[Guest]

Re: BC12 vs BC12D again

I'm not convinced the AD constitutes approval to put a strut on a plane for which the PMA does not apply. It sort of smells of circular logic. The AD says "or approved equivalent", but the PMA does not apply to the model in question, so it is not approved, but it's called out in the AD so it's approved?

PMA is incomplete apparently, that's not hard to imagine.

No doubt in my mind that the AD is approved data. I can legally put an A-A815 on any plane on that AD list.

Univair's part is the eqv of an A-A815.

Univair must have left some models off if the info we have about their model list is correct.

[NY86]

Re: BC12 vs BC12D again

Univair's part is the eqv of an A-A815.

Common sense has nothing to do with it. The rules of PMA make that true only for the models for which the PMA applies. Two different type aircraft can use the identical part, but if the PMA only applies to one of them, then the PMA'd part is not approved for use on the other type. If the part is not approved for a particular type the AD does not somehow confer approval; on the contrary, the AD specifically requires the part be previously approved.


Clear?



BTW, I at do agree that what you're saying *should* be true...

[Guest]

Re: BC12 vs BC12D again

Common sense has nothing to do with it. The rules of PMA make that true only for the models for which the PMA applies. Two different type aircraft can use the identical part, but if the PMA only applies to one of them, then the PMA'd part is not approved for use on the other type. If the part is not approved for a particular type the AD does not somehow confer approval; on the contrary, the AD specifically requires the part be previously approved.


Clear?



BTW, I at do agree that what you're saying *should* be true...

I am gonna ask fsdo. Will let you know.

[Forrest Barber]

Re: BC12 vs BC12D again

The Univair struts have had this stigma since day one. My advise to owners always was to order by Taylorcraft part # and go from there.

YES Univair is moving forward quickly to add all models to their eligibility on the PMA ... It apparently was an oversight. Wag-Aero is also gearing up along with the Alaska folks. Gee I guess they hope a lot of struts are bad!
For the fellows confused by the various interpretations of the FAA regulations and orders I only offer that is the reason for the prevalance of attorneys around many accident scenes ..... just kidding!
My problem is that we get different answers each year on the same question.

[cpirrmann]

Re: BC12 vs BC12D again

The Univair struts have had this stigma since day one. My advise to owners always was to order by Taylorcraft part # and go from there.

YES Univair is moving forward quickly to add all models to their eligibility on the PMA ... It apparently was an oversight. Wag-Aero is also gearing up along with the Alaska folks. Gee I guess they hope a lot of struts are bad!
For the fellows confused by the various interpretations of the FAA regulations and orders I only offer that is the reason for the prevalance of attorneys around many accident scenes ..... just kidding!
My problem is that we get different answers each year on the same question.

you may be kidding about the attorneys, but it does make it easier for them ,I'm sure.

Anyway, the vendors don't need a lot of 'bad' struts. they just need a lot of scared, frustrated owners who now suspect what they have or won't want to be bothered with the repetitive NDT tests. And this, they already have.

[Guest]

Re: BC12 vs BC12D again

I am gonna ask fsdo. Will let you know.

Checked with FSDO yesterday regarding Univair's p/n UA-A815 not listing a BC12-65 on their pma list even though it is listed in the AD.

They thought it made sense BUT seemed like a back door approach so they wanted to know what the AD writer said and that they would defer to what the engineer on the AD said.

I talked with him today.

His view was that if you get the right p/n he does not care about the PMA list from the manufacturer but the part # (ie A-A815). The intent is to replace the part with the new by part number.

So he would approve it.

I guess that leaves 3 ways to proceed based on how ballsy you want to be.

Here they are in ballsy order, the appropriate balls-ometer is adjacent.

oo => make out a 337 for field approval, reference the AD as approved data
and incude Andy McAnaul's number so the FSDO can contact him for
validation/approval.

oO=> make out a 337, reference the AD as approved data and approve it
yourself if you are an IA or know one.

OO=> just do a log book entry and reference the AD, because changing
struts is not a major repair.


Dave

[Forrest Barber]

Re: BC-12 vs BC-12D

Well said , I ordered by Part# and went from there.

the "D" is not Deluxe , that was the two hinge tail from the "D" model put onto the BC12 ( 1200 gross) ; and yes I know some had the three hinge tail as they used up floor sweepings in 1945.... theya re still "called" BC12D , check the TC 696 for exact dates and changes.

[Forrest Barber]

Re: BC12 vs BC12D again

OO I like that!!!

[Guest]

Re: BC12 vs BC12D again

Checked with FSDO yesterday regarding Univair's p/n UA-A815 not listing a BC12-65 on their pma list even though it is listed in the AD.

They thought it made sense BUT seemed like a back door approach so they wanted to know what the AD writer said and that they would defer to what the engineer on the AD said.

I talked with him today.

His view was that if you get the right p/n he does not care about the PMA list from the manufacturer but the part # (ie A-A815). The intent is to replace the part with the new by part number.

So he would approve it.

I guess that leaves 3 ways to proceed based on how ballsy you want to be.

Here they are in ballsy order, the appropriate balls-ometer is adjacent.

oo => make out a 337 for field approval, reference the AD as approved data
and incude Andy McAnaul's number so the FSDO can contact him for
validation/approval.

oO=> make out a 337, reference the AD as approved data and approve it
yourself if you are an IA or know one.

OO=> just do a log book entry and reference the AD, because changing
struts is not a major repair.

Dave

arg!

I hate when this Happens. I was wrong wrong wrong!

Talked with Andy today, only the green option is acceptable without a previous AMOC.

Dave