I just saw this one for the ones who are interested. The complete TKS system is certainly of interest.
He has been trying for quite some time.
The ads can be easily up"dated" to get fresh attention.
So you may be right.
As to the rules, as a buyer, they come close to what I expect to learn aboit the origin of the part anyway.
I do not want a part…
… ripped out by someone incompetent (causing internal damages)
… after just this system showed failures or caused damage
… that has been subjected to stress (which may have started micro-cracks)
… that should have a service history but hasnt (e.g. magnetos)
And since Form 1 should give me the peace of mind that the above is ok, I find it acceptable. And yes, I differentiate between primary, secondary and “other” parts as far as I understand the tech behind it ;-) and thus find it too strict for some minor parts, but that one must decide and can handle yourself.
Obviously those regs are nonsense if universally applied because loads of planes are being parted-out, and since Socata apparently no longer make custom airframe parts, parted-out planes are the major source of these.
If Socata process these parts, they print off an EASA-1 form for them, but in general the parts are transferred to other aircraft following an informal inspection.
ripped out by someone incompetent (causing internal damages)
Very very few cases of that, in our simple light aircraft. 99% of the stuff just unscrews…
Removing the TKS panels is nontrivial because the rivets need to be very carefully drilled out. But then you need to buy a fresh STC from CAV to install it on something else… I have no idea what this involves and how much it costs.
but that one must decide and can handle yourself.
However, you don’t get the option to do that. The decision on acceptance is made by whoever is in charge of your Part M maintenance.
And since Form 1 should give me the peace of mind
Legally, yes, but you should see some of the junk I have had with a Form 1. Did I post a pic of that P-clip from 1968?
