It looks like we have quite a bit of play in a few bushings of the landing gear. So we need to do something about it.
Where would you overhaul an arrow landing gear? And why?
Bonus points for reasonable distance from Zurich if the whole aircraft is needed…
A lot depends on whether there is a legal repair process for replacing the bushings. If not, it is awfully expensive to do legally because you have to buy the whole piece of aluminium with the bushings in it.
With most light GA aircraft there is no CMM (component maintenance manual) so nobody will do the obvious thing which is to push the old ones out and press-fit new ones. The new ones would have to come from some legit source too, even if the obvious way is to machine them up in a few mins from phosphor-bronze.
This is the main reason why older planes which have not been properly lubed for years end up having 10k Annuals.
The first thing to say is Peter is totally correct with his views on landing gear lubrication.
From memory Piper are quite good at supplying bushings for landing gear, the problem comes after these bushings are fitted because the bushes then need to be reamed to fit the pins. This is quite a skilled job and few maintenance shops have the kit to do it properly.
Peter wrote:
With most light GA aircraft there is no CMM (component maintenance manual) so nobody will do the obvious thing which is to push the old ones out and press-fit new ones.
In the US no A&P would have the slightest issue in doing a landing gear overhaul and replacing bushings as a normal maintenance procedure. I think most certified aircraft, and especially older types that will continue flying for many more decades, were made before the Component Maintenance Manual concept was invented.
I think the over developed respect for rules and authority that has become so widespread in Europe must eventually implode, if it isn’t already imploding. The pendulum has to swing back some day.
Installing and reaming approved bushings to fit the pins is perfectly normal shop practice, not rocket science and does not require special CMM guidance. If necessary, the mechanic can take the parts to any local machine shop to have the bushings pressed in and reamed to fit under his supervision.
Landing gear can be got pretty close to perfect, even in older airplanes. Have a look at the Comanche Gear website to see just how good the americans are at this sort of type specific maintenance. There is an expert for everything over there.
Silvaire wrote:
I think the over developed respect for rules and authority that has become so widespread in Europe must eventually implode, if it isn’t already imploding.
Who said rules don’t get broken all the time? It’s just not something one advertises and one won’t encourage others to do so publicly, especially if it leaves such public traces. However, some people like to know into how much trouble they could get if they got caught and what the rules actually are.
Martin wrote:
Who said rules don’t get broken all the time? It’s just not something one advertises and one won’t encourage others to do so publicly, especially if it leaves such public traces. However, some people like to know into how much trouble they could get if they got caught and what the rules actually are.
The issue is not “breaking rules” in my view… and I don’t think they know at all what the “rules” actually are. That black/white perception in a grey world is part of the problem. Specific to this case, most certified aircraft have one maintenance manual (no CMMs), and older types don’t have any approved MM. If they do have one, it doesn’t cover every single maintenance operation at the component level. Despite that, there is no reasonable case that in 1967 or whenever, or now using the same documentation, it wasn’t or isn’t legal to overhaul your landing gear!
Aircraft maintenance ‘regulations’ (in any number of forms, created over decades) commonly end up being ambiguous, because when written they weren’t actually intended to be so strictly enforced or to eliminate the necessary judgement of individual certificated mechanics. The solution is for people (including aircraft mechanics!) to follow what they as individuals feel is the best and most productive interpretation of the rules, and be properly judged on that basis, not to freeze in place under fear of prosecution. Certainly in the case of aircraft maintenance the rules aren’t, and never should be so rigidly defined for private property being maintained by owners for their own use. It’s just not a productive way forward.
One other example of how operating with mindless blinders doesn’t work is when a US aircraft manufacturer’s ‘mandatory’ service bulletins are interpreted as mandatory under law , presumably because a certified aircraft manufacturer in Europe has legal authority to directly dictate maintenance procedures in real time. When applied to a US built aircraft, that is giving respect to the manufacturer beyond what the manufacturer itself expects, and it is inappropriate.
Silvaire is right. Unfortunately…
Obviously this is an advantage of the homebuilt regime, but for the wrong reasons.
Peter wrote:
this is also a common position in the US e.g. the man who runs the Socata owners’ group takes this position absolutely: no CMM, no component repair
Peter, this interface with US practice is a tiny fraction of the whole, centered on a small number of aircraft manufactured overseas by a manufacturer who I think is itself lost in relation to legal and customary practice under FAA regs. I’d submit that it isn’t representative, particularly not for a Piper Arrow. 
I know a couple of people who have built virtually a whole aircraft starting with the data plate, some parts from multiple planes and not much else, and now operate it in FAA standard category as a certified plane. That’s not common either, but its the opposite end of the spectrum. In the middle lies normal maintenance practice.
All that said, this is one reason why I chose to own FAA certified aircraft manufactured a long time ago, no longer ‘supported’ by a today non-existent manufacturer. Life is simpler that way, all certified modern types and their makers are increasingly an impractical pain in the behind.
Come on, please stop this maintenance facility bashing.
As A_and_C mentioned, these parts are readily available, a normal shop or mechanic wouldn’t have issue to propperly replace these.
Peter wrote:
With most light GA aircraft there is no CMM (component maintenance manual)
It a good thing there is no CMM for these kinds of parts. Some CAA’s see that as component maintenance, requiring another expensive C rating on a Part 145.
The parts are in the parts manual, so the work is just carried out according standard practices.
