Unaffordable/Unavailable

As our aircraft get older, repair parts are becoming problematic. Sometimes parts are available but breathtakingly expensive. Other times, they are simply unavailable. How can we keep our aircraft flying? In this webinar, Mike Busch A&P/IA discusses two real-life cases -- one involving a client's Cessna 182 and another involving his own Cessna 310 -- demonstrating how such problems can be overcome with persistence, ingenuity and research. Savvy Aviation offers Professional Maintenance Services to owners of General Aviation aircraft, such as: SavvyMx (Professional Maintenance Management including Prebuy Services), SavvyQA (Expert Consulting), SavvyAnalysis (Engine Data Analysis) and Breakdown Assistance. Savvy also publishes a monthly newsletter with lots of interesting information for the general aviation enthusiast; subscribe to it at www.savvyaviat... text theword "Savvy" to 33777. This webinar was hosted by the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA).

[@Saml01]

I have a hunch that 9,200 is some sort of default price in Cessna's system. They want the same for a shimmy dampener and a carb heater box for a Cardinal.

[@aero3085]

Good content. (I set speed to 1.5X normal).

[@David-p7z9n]

Same here.

[@P51]

stellar idea!

[@highmarkrich]

I love Mike's webinars. I always listen at 2X

[@larryk130]

2x and closed captions. The best

[@gygw]

its the only way to make it through

[@johnopalko5223]

Love DigiKey. They're my go-to parts supplier. You may have had better luck soldering if you'd used solder paste and a heat gun.

[@lowik1973]

Savvy junkie happy to be among first 10 viewers.

[@williambeatty7781]

I would have taken the strut to an auto shop and had chromed and put it together myself. So many aviation prices are just ridiculous. If an issue won’t cause a safety of flight problem just fix it ! Also, if you have an A&P that wants bankrupt you find a different mechanic.

[@TheReadBaron91]

On the flip side, many owners want A&Ps to take on liability and hard work for pennys.

[@lisaleedavidson]

On the strut, NH hydraulics in Manchester NH and Dynachrome in MA can refurbish then it has to be inspected by IA for serviceability. These companies specialize in hydraulic cylinder repair/re-chroming. Not an FAA repair station so has to be inspected for use by an IA under the new replacement parts rule.

[@utah20gflyer76]

I think Mike was overstating the precision required for an aircraft strut versus a hydraulic cylinder for a piece of heavy equipment. I’m confident any good cylinder shop could do the work adequately and it would last for decades. Making the case to a reasonable IA would not be difficult. It’s chrome applied to a steel shaft that needs to be a certain diameter +/- a margin. It’s not the space shuttle.

[@pharmakon6]

Legacy Part 91 operations for standard GA planes 30+ years old should fall under the same repair rules as Experimentals, full stop. You can load an Experimental with 6-people, file IFR, and land at the Class Bravo with nary a certified part on it. The hamstringing of Legacy GA is absurd.

[@SoloRenegade]

agreed, that's a smart idea with the 30+yr rule on certified planes.

[@Brian_C_]

Does anyone fly for fun anymore? I got back into aviation a year ago after not flying for 10 years, and it’s really hard to find a place that’s not marketing rentals exclusively towards the 141/ATP path. Prices are too high, the airplanes are junk, and the CFIs/owners are kinda jerks toward people who just want to rent an airplane to fly occasionally for fun. I like Mikes’s presentations; but the state of GA is depressing these days.

[@jmizzonini]

Wondering the same

[@watashiandroid8314]

If you're in SoCal, CP Aviation at SZP is totally good for that. I'm sure there are others. Another option to look for is a flying club or partner ownership.

[@bigdaddie40]

I had the same problem years ago with my C-310H. I found a shop in San Jose, CA that was an FAA approved repair station that did gear replating for airliners. I think it cost me like $500 for both struts, BUT that was 30 years ago.

[@whoanelly737-8]

Solved this problem. LSA. Light Sport Repairman. 👋🏻

[@dbkonkle]

It was a sad day when I learned Garmin stopped supporting the 495/496/696 series. Those units are better in many ways than the newer units that replaced them. I bought several 495 marine units off eBay for use on my motorcycle long after garmin discontinued them.

[@JK-rv9tp]

Canada has a category called "Owner Maintenance". You can put your plane into that category and the owner can sign off all maint and overhauls (he only has to be a pilot) and use uncertified parts. Major serialized components must be Xed out on their data plates. The list of eligible aircraft is quite large. The guy with the Corvette powered SeaBee put it in OM to do so. The biggest downside, other than it being very difficult to go back, is Transport Canada couldn't get the FAA to recognize the category. So you can't even overfly US territory in your OM airplane, let alone enter the us via customs. Perhaps FAA will look at a similar category based on canadian data in future.

[@quentagonthornton49]

It would definitely be a huge step in the right direction for GA if the FAA allowed owners to do maintenance on their own aircraft, but if they won't even allow Canadian planes in that category pass through US airspace, I doubt there will be significant change anytime soon.

[@galen2843]

Wentworth Aircraft Inc is another great source for parts.

[@amtpdb1]

I am an a&p for 20 years with little to no work experience. I have a few questions I hope you will answer. 1. What type of paperwork did you have to do on the electronics connector you did? 2. On the wing access for the piper structs there are no dimension listed. The AD does not list or connection attachments. How can you make this and what paperwork is needed? 3. If the part is available, can you copy the part and install the copied part? (The Cessna bottom struct added parts on the floor cost at 8,000 and are only 8 parts plus rivets and bolts)What paperwork would be needed? 4. As I understand if you install a owner made part on a plane it cannot be rented out. What if it cannot be found at any price? 5. If a plane lands without the gear, can I make the skins and ribs , former , ect. or do I have to buy them if available? Alot of this was not covered very deeply in school. 5. What would it cost to have a engineer draw up something like an access door and do what ever paperwork needed by the FAA? (What paperwork would be needed?). What log book entries would be needed? Sorry I brought all this up here, but you can see that on the webinar I most likely not get one question answered. Thanks for the Webinar and any answers you have for me. Have a nice week.

[@richardturner6278]

Yet another example of the absolute absurdity the FAA. Owner produced parts. 1st rule should state that liability is 100% on the owner and not the a&p. What we are facing is hundreds of old airplanes flying around in the near future with lots of unsafe parts. Its inevitable as these older airplanes become near impossible to service legally. The experimental side has a huge advantage in this respect. I see the market falling completely out the bottom on most of the old trainers for this very reason. The days of 50 thousand dollar 152s are nearing the end.

[@onedsc1]

GA is effectively dead for anybody that wants to do it for fun and doesn't own an airplane. I was considering getting my PPL, but this is depressing.

[@jaredharder3375]

If you rent then the mx isn't your responsibility. Can rent for a long time before you have "bought" an airplane.

[@jasonhurdlow6607]

$9200 for a part that would be $92 at an AutoZone for a car. Seriously jumping the shark! Even $920 (10x) would be pushing it IMO.

[@jmizzonini]

It’s sad really. A new off the line C172 in the 70s would be like $85k in today’s dollars. I wish there were more affordable modern options. GA will die out eventually imo. It’ll be the domain of zero to ATP training pilots and ultra wealthy old men. Maybe it’s all by design

[@engineerinhickorystripehat]

I know exactly which stoplight switch that is . Sold a bunch , but to a car collector

[@1964Mooney]

Any used part "should" come with the "N" number of the airplane it came off of. I think this is actually in the regs IIRC This suffices for "traceability" per the regs. Also each part should have a Part Number attached somewhere on it.

[@marklindsey1995]

You would think somebody would get into the reproduction wing spar business.

[@vedymin1]

All these ancient pos airframes that should have been put in a museum a long time ago...its for the most part a 1940's tech, flying behind these tractor engines is nightmarish. Experimentals and ultralights might be the only affordable way to keep ga going at this rate ?

[@utah20gflyer76]

I’d take my 1968 Mooney over 95%+ of experimentals or ultralights. Certified planes generally are better designed and thought out and over all offer better utility and cost less than a comparable experimental plane. Ultralights are worthless for going anywhere. There are certainly certified planes Id stay away from such as really old twins but there are lots of great certified GA airplanes that are reasonable to own and operate.

[@quentagonthornton49]

The airframe isn't really the biggest issue and it's not as if the majority of experimental aircraft use a more modern construction such as composite. Also, the technology isn't 1940s, but 1930s. If general aviation aircraft made use of the technologies developed during World War II, they would be far more advanced. Liquid cooled engines, automatic variable ignition timing, direct cylinder fuel injection, and automatic prop pitch and mixture (one lever control) would be widespread if that was the case. Many, if not most experimentals use the same antiquated engines as certified aircraft, and the prevalence of more advanced engines is far lower than what it should be. Everything about certified aircraft is overpriced, so you're right that experimentals and ultralights are the only affordable option.

[@diveforknowledge]

Need to get the FAA out of the way of technological advancement. Costs a Bajillion dollars to get a new engine certified even if it's technology that has been proven for 25 years in auto engines.

[@SoloRenegade]

@@diveforknowledge 25yrs?! Fuel injection, FADEC, single lever control, autopilot, and more have been around as early as WW2, over 80yrs ago! The stuff the FAA doesn't allow is older than most people alive today!

[@venutoa]

​@@diveforknowledgeyou said it right 100%

[@not_listening2792]

There is a problem with owner produced parts. The airframe and engine manufacturers have decades of experience what works. Metal alloy selection, heat treatment specification, process in manufacturing. You can call and ask, they won't tell you. In the example of the strut there are considerations of surface finish of the cylinder before plating. What is the treatment of metal before plating. How is Hydrogen Embrittlement addressed. You could get it chromed and it looks beautiful, but breaks in half in service. Somethings are much simpler.

[@quentagonthornton49]

Most owner produced parts are not so complex and structurally critical that those aspects are of much concern. In the unlikely event that an incident occurs related to an out of spec owner produced part, the FAA should (at least one would hope) add a statute that requires manufacturers to publish part specifications when requested by an owner intending to make a part for their plane.