Landing Lights at NAPA

And the legend of the brass Home Depot fuel shutoff valve rages anew...

Jim




"Don Hammer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:20:33 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:

If its really the same...


Mike
MU-2

The problem with car parts is you will probably need to have to have
engineering data to determine if it is the same. Often you can't tell
by looking. In any case, because of traceability, it's illegal and
your insurance payment may go away after an accident, whether that
part caused it or not. If you have un-approved parts installed the
aircraft is classified as un-airworthy in the eyes of the FAA and the
insurance industry.

The next thing that will happen is the person who installed it gets
their ticket pulled etc. Probably not worth saving a few bucks.

Don Hammer wrote:

The problem with car parts is you will probably need to have to have
engineering data to determine if it is the same.

If it came off the same assembly line with the same part number, it's the same
part no matter who sold it.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

In article Blh7f.8636$U2.5921@trndny04,
George Patterson wrote:

Don Hammer wrote:

The problem with car parts is you will probably need to have to have
engineering data to determine if it is the same.

If it came off the same assembly line with the same part number, it's the
same
part no matter who sold it.

In theory, it is possible that parts go through a post-manufacturing QA
sorting process, and only those which meet some higher standard get sold to
the aviation market.

On the other hand, in practice, I strongly suspect a light bulb is a light
bulb is a light bulb.

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
In article Blh7f.8636$U2.5921@trndny04,
George Patterson wrote:

Don Hammer wrote:

The problem with car parts is you will probably need to have to have
engineering data to determine if it is the same.

If it came off the same assembly line with the same part number, it's
the
same
part no matter who sold it.

In theory, it is possible that parts go through a post-manufacturing QA
sorting process, and only those which meet some higher standard get sold
to
the aviation market.

Experience tells me just the opposite. I have a lot more faith in NAPA
parts than some of the parts that have gone through some FAA approved
manufacturing, inspection and approval process.

Oh, I love it. I absolutely love it. As Bert Lahr said, "Ain't it the
truth, ain't it the truth."

Jim




"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
m...



Experience tells me just the opposite. I have a lot more faith in NAPA
parts than some of the parts that have gone through some FAA approved
manufacturing, inspection and approval process.

Do you know this for a fact? IE, a first hand account of such an incident?

I've heard the above passed along many times, but I've always wondered
if it's stuff that gets passed along and repeated until it's believed,
or not.

-jav

That's a good question. There's a bunch of silly stuff that ends up
being turned into fact floating around the industry. This overly long
diatribe is not directed to you in particular, but the group in
general

I've been an expert witness a number of times, admittedly for
transport category aircraft. In one case I represented an insurance
carrier. The aircraft, a Hawker 800, crashed through no fault of the
aircraft systems. It was determined that several components on the
aircraft were not correct because the dash numbers of the parts were
not for that particular model, but an earlier one. These were PMA'd
parts, but not listed in the parts manual for that model Hawker. The
attorneys for the insurance company won their case based on the
aircraft being un-airworthy and showed a pattern of poor maintenance.
They didn't pay for the loss. There may have been appeals, but I am
not aware of any.

I wasn't party to it, but my guess is the life insurance on the
passenger and crew went the same way. It is my understanding the DOM
was fined and had certificate action taken against him, but again I
don't have first hand knowledge of that.

Just because a part number matches doesn't count. It has to have the
paper trail and/or PMA or TSO stamp to be legal. My guess is an
insurance company wouldn't waste much effort on a Cessna loss unless
the dead pilot or passenger has a large life insurance policy. I've
seen insurance company attorneys sifting through wreckage looking for
any reason they can to minimize their loss. Do they check part
numbers against the parts book? You bet! That's how they earn their
keep.

We all have to make our own judgment on these kinds of things and what
our tolerance for risk is. I've been a pilot, A&P, and IA for over 30
years. Am I a small plane expert? Nope. Have I been classified by a
Federal Court as an Aircraft Maintenance Expert Witness? Yes. Do I
have the background to know the part is exactly the same and built
with the same level of quality control? Nope. Would I continue to
use a maintainer that would willingly install bogus parts? Nope. Is
it worth risking my life to save $25. NOPE.

Check out http://aea.faa.gov/aea200/ea01/airworthiness/sups.htm and
http://www.faasafety.gov/hottopics.aspx?id=21 for some FAA guidance
material and links.

If you are happy with the risks for you and your family and want to
save a few bucks, have at it. It may help my business. I may be the
guy on the witness stand testifying for the insurance company. You
may be the guy that killed the next guy that bought your aircraft,
sitting behind the other table, getting ready to answer the tough
questions about your expertise in determining a part's airworthiness
you picked up at NAPA.

On 10/25/05 11:55, "Don Hammer" wrote:

I've
seen insurance company attorneys sifting through wreckage looking for
any reason they can to minimize their loss. Do they check part
numbers against the parts book? You bet! That's how they earn their
keep.

So the idea should be to make sure the wreckage is burned to unrecognizable
debris - after waiting for as many attorneys as possible to show up and be
sifting through the crash, of course.

- Don
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity,
and I'm not so sure about the Universe.
- Albert Einstein

If you are happy with the risks for you and your family and want to
save a few bucks, have at it. It may help my business. I may be the
guy on the witness stand testifying for the insurance company. You
may be the guy that killed the next guy that bought your aircraft,
sitting behind the other table, getting ready to answer the tough
questions about your expertise in determining a part's airworthiness
you picked up at NAPA.

It's important to note that there are NAPA auto parts, and there are
NAPA airplane parts. The landing light I purchased at NAPA *is* an
"aircraft landing light" -- it's not an automotive equivalent.

This is worlds away from (for example) buying a Chrysler alternator at
NAPA, and installing it in my plane.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Let's all remember we are talking about landing lights here, not flap motors
or avionics components.

FAR §43.17, Appendix A, ¶ (c)(17) replacing bulbs, reflectors, and lenses of
position and landing lights.

It does not mention 'approved parts' or similar, as compared to (c)(15)
Replacing seats or seat parts with replacement parts approved for the
aircraft,...

If the bulb I take out is a GE 4059, and I go to Pep Boys and buy a
Westinghouse X4059a, that says on the box 'Replaces GE 4059' I am going to
use it. It is an equivalent part, designed for the same purpose.

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...
Oh, I love it. I absolutely love it. As Bert Lahr said, "Ain't it the
truth, ain't it the truth."

Jim




"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
m...



Experience tells me just the opposite. I have a lot more faith in NAPA
parts than some of the parts that have gone through some FAA approved
manufacturing, inspection and approval process.

A couple of points made during the thread worth mentioning. First, even
if the part number is the same, technically the part has no traceable
history evidenced by paperwork. Hence, installing it in an airplane
without paperwork/pedigree may render the airplane unairworthy. One
person noted that the Part 43 regs did not specifically mention that the
landing light bulb needed to be an "airplane" part. I believe if an
action was brought against you for this, you would lose. Other sections
mention proper workmanship/methods and I believe the finding would be
that approved parts are sufficiently implied.

Others cite "cases" where the basis of the finding was that the
unapproved part caused the airplane to be unairworthy, and thus a claim
was denied. Read the whole sentence. The parts were not approved for
that particular model AND there was a history of unacceptable
maintenance. Perhaps alone the parts would not have been researched.
Perhaps the other shortcomings in maintenance caused the closer
scrutiny. It is dangerous to draw conclusions from summary evidence
snippets.

Finally, as a practical matter, go through the logbooks of a 30 year old
airplane and inspect the beast to find ALL the discrepancies. It takes
loads of time and you need more than just a basic knowledge of not only
airplanes, but that particular make/model to make heads or tails of
these records. Harder still, what if no logbook entry was made? How can
you tell if the installed xxxx light bulb was recently replaced from the
Napa shelf, or was the one in there from Chief aircraft purchased a year
ago (for which there is an invoice or work order produced)? I doubt that
insurance companies have the time and/or talent (or will fund outside
"experts") to pour through the average spamcan books looking for
anomalies like this to base an "unairworthy" claim on.

HOWEVER, if there is an obvious aspect of the plane or crash that
attracts scrutiny and may negate their liability, I don't doubt for a
minute they won't look into it. Also true, the bigger the number, the
greater the incentive to take a closer look.

I believe the "airplane part and pedigree" is like a weather report. You
look it over carefully (the part, the pedigree, the weather) and make
your call as to what YOU believe is the truth (and what is safe). In
both the weather and parts quality it may be dangerous to blindly accept
what your are told and equally dangerous to outright reject it.

Good Luck,
Mike