Paper work required for Hanlon Wilson install.

Pete B · Post by **Pete B** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 22:49

Hi all. My name is Pete and I own a 46 7AC. I've been lurking here for quite a while now and finally have a question that needs expert advice. I have purchased a Hanlon Wilson exhaust system for my Champ. My A&P has asked for paperwork on the installation, as far as I've seen by researching and searching past articles it's a bolt on option even on a a-65. Anybody here know any different? Any and all advise will be Greatly appreciated. I live in Northern Minnesota and sure will like to have some cabin heat for Winter Ski Flyin. Thanks in advance. Pete

Nathan K. Hammond · Post by **Nathan K. Hammond** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 00:07

Hi Pete!

I'm no-where near an expert, but have delt with this same question on my airplane. Installing H/W's is a simple logbook sign off since they are listed as optional equipment for 7AC through 7DC in the Type Certificate and Data Sheet (TCDS). The only oddity about the sign off is it goes in the Airframe Log Book, it's strange but according to the great FAA, an exhaust system is not part of the engine! Looking at my logs, the sign-off reads......

"Removed "Y-pipe" exhaust, installed Hanlon-Wilson Exhaust per TCDS A-759 Item 105(a)."

nkh

Pete B · Post by **Pete B** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 13:48

Hey Nathan, Thanks for the info. and the quick reply. I'm going to pass this on to my A & P. The only other thing he requested was an installation drawing. I called American Champion and they have it but want 50 bucks. Now I don't want to sound Cheap but after spending about 900 on the mufflers I don't want to spend it if I don't Have to. By the way Nice Champ. I hope someday to do that C-85/ 0-200 engine. I have a freind with a T-Craft that has that engine and it really rocks. Thanks again. Pete

Nathan K. Hammond · Post by **Nathan K. Hammond** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 00:57

Pete, I looked through all my drawings and don't have one for the mufflers, bummer. I'm curious why your A/P needs the drawing though, it's a simple bolt-and-go; maybe for the logs?? If it will help, I'll snap a bunch of muffler pics and send them your way.

nkh

those engines sure do have a kick to them!

Post by **joea** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 01:00

Agree with Nathan and I am an A&P. The drawing is not needed to simply install the mufflers, just a logbook reference to the TCDS saying that you are installing them. They are already approved from the factory so thats all thats needed.

Joe A

Pete B · Post by **Pete B** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 09:39

Thanks for all the info Guys, I think I'll be O.K. getting it done without the Drawing. There is another Chief on the field with H.W. mufflers that we can look at. He just mentioned that it would be nice to have the drawing and part #'s for the log, but after showing him this post I believe we will just install and make the proper log entry. Thanks for all the Help. Pete

Post by **joea** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:46

Pete,

It "would be nice" to win the lottery!

Tell him that you are fine the way you are as it was installed by the factory and they did all the paperwork needed.

Show us a photo when you get it finished!

joe

Nathan K. Hammond · Post by **Nathan K. Hammond** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 12:02

Look at the bright side, your A/P actually gives a damn about doing things the right way!

He doesn't sound like one of those, fly-by-nighter kind that scribble their name in a log bood once a year.

nkh

Pete B · Post by **Pete B** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 16:28

Thanks for all the info Guy's. I do believe I have all the info I need and will try to post pic's when finished. The support here is second to none. Pete

gusc · Post by **gusc** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 19:08

Nathan,

My license is Airframe only and I run into the question very often about what I can and cannot do on engines. The way it was explained to me is that I can legally work and sign off on anything that is not absolutely required to make the engine operate. This seems logical to me and has always been my quide. This covers a lot of ground. Exhaust systems come under this definition and so do many other components that attach to an engine.

I was in A&P school and was not able to finish the second half of the course which was the P part but it has not been a real big hinderance so far. As an owner I can do a lot of other stuff on the engine also - so all in all it has worked out very well.

MikeB · Post by **MikeB** » Sun Nov 26, 2006 15:12

Reading Gus's post kind of triggered a thought I've had for awhile, but it seems as though the A & P regulations as they are presently written don't neccessarily apply to our older aircraft. In fact, my experience has been that a lot of recent graduates of A & P school have no or very little knowledge of tube, fabric and wood component aircraft. Maybe I should rather say the competencies are too broadly written. After I retired I thought about working on my A & P license, but I'm 60 plus miles from the nearest school (which has recently closed anyway) and I really have no interest in working on jet engines or high performance aircraft, retractable gear, etc.

As a journeyman diesel mechanic, I hold or rather did hold all of the certifications for medium and heavy duty trucks. However, they are broken down in different areas that need to be passed. Example: light and heavy duty transmissions, preventive maintenance systems, air conditioning, electrical systems, annual vehicle inspection procedures, diesel engines and electronic fuel control systems, chassis and alignment, etc. In addition to the certifications I taught at the local techical college for 30 years.

The point being that each is a different certification, where as (unless I'm mistaken) the A & P rating is only broken into two areas; i.e. A & P. which to me is too all encompassing.

I am fortunate in having a AP/AI that will work with me, but he's also 60 miles away and not always available when I need him either.

Not wanting to step on anyone's toes who has a AP/AI license because I know it wasn't easy to get and keep up, but it would be nice if there were a easier way or a tiered system for certified aircraft.

Just my thoughts (and not wanting to kick over any beehive

)

Mike Berg

Post by **joea** » Sun Nov 26, 2006 22:01

Mike,

I got my A&P way back in 1981 and that was the last class taught at our school where they taught a full course in dope and fabric. The next set of students were then introduced to the new fangled composite materials as was then used in helo's and some newer jets.

Finding a good person to help you with dope and fabric is getting more and more difficult these days and it will not get any better in the future.

For guys like you one alternative is to get your "A" license. It allows you to legally do anything on the airframe and that is a big deal with our old birds. I know several people like this and its a big help.

Regarding your comments on the license. Canada and most of the rest of the world have a tiered system that you mention. In some ways its good but some not so good.

For someone working at a large airport FBO on one brand of airplanes its good but if a Piper Cherokee flies into a smaller airport with a problem, the A&P there who is licensed to work in single engine Cessna'a cannot work on or sign off the logs after any repair, so it boxes you into a corner. Also the govt hassle to get licensed to work on various aircraft is much more hassle than its worth in many cases so it just drives up the cost of flying even more. I agree with it in theory but in practice its a different thing.

Joe

MikeB · Post by **MikeB** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 08:53

Joe,
Thanks for the thoughts and reply. We probably should have started another thread on this, but it came to mind after reading Gus's post. I guess another way to state what I was thinking is it's too bad that those of us who own and maintain these older tube and fabric birds don't have the option of taking a 'training course' so we can legally perform some maintenance other than the listed 'preventive maintenance' described in the FAR's. After I retired, I seriously thought about building a 'homebuilt' aircraft, but was not sure I would have the tenacity to finish the project and would be stuck with a unfinished project and lots of $$$$ out. Once I got started with my Champ project, I found I really liked the restoring almost more than flying. Especially when I could see the end of the project and, if for some reason, things didn't work out I could sell the project. Of course, I'm flying it now, have finished another for a friend and have a L16 in progress (which I can't see the end of, by the way).

I do log everything I do each day which, I guess, if I can get my AP/AI to verify it (no problem, I'm sure) could be used towards a "A" rating. I think I have around 700 hours logged at this point.

In fact, since my wife is headed for the Twin Cities to go Christmas shopping (ugh) I'm headed to the shop, turn the heat and the radio on and finish taping the ailerons on my L16

.

Mike Berg

Dennis · Post by **Dennis** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 15:00

Mike,

I can appreciate where you are coming from. I came from a "mechanic" background. My dad always told me if I was going to tear them up, I had to fix them. So I worked in a diesel shop at night, tried to maintain what I thought was a "fast" car on the weekends and went to engineering school during the week days. When I got into aviation around 1978, I immediately wanted to see what made them tick. But was told NO NO, FAA big brother says you can't do that. Just like you, as I stuck in aviation, I developed friends (A&P/IA) who would oversee my work, rebuilt several airplanes and maintained my own. Ultimately, I got my A&P. I agree with you that there should be an intermediate level for owners who want to maintain there own plane and not interested in doing A&P work for a living.

I also agree with Joe about a tiered system. As an engineer, my PE stamp does not indicate which area of engineering in which I am licensed to practice. The code of ethics, however, require that I only "practice" in my field of expertise. So it is an ethics issue. I think the same holds true for A&Ps. Regardless of whether it is a Champ, Cherokee or a Citation, is it within my abilities to render the appropriate repair? I think I can handle a Champ or a Cherokee but a Citation? I am not touching it.

For someone with your experience, the A&P exam will be a snap. You will be glad when it is in your hip pocket.

Dennis

Paul Agaliotis · Post by **Paul Agaliotis** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 05:18

The Part 66 addition to the FAR,s was intended to address this issue. It created a regulation to require recurrent training on each aircraft worked on by the FBO. The cost of training was one of the complaints from the FBO,s. It also created a Transport maintenance rating (AMTT) which would be used by the airline workers. Most of the airline work does not relate to general aviation and visa-versa.
Contrary to popular belief the FAA does not consider maintenance, skilled labor. By definition we are semi-skilled. Which is funny because it takes 40hrs to become a pilot and 1800hrs to become a mechanic.
One thing I remind our pilots is when the auto-pilot is engaged, maintenance is flying.
Paul