Tires and tubes for Cessna 172

[spriteah]

Guys and Gals,

Where is the best place to source tires and tubes for a C172M? And any particular model I need?

Thanks in advance.

Jim.

[Clearedtoreenter]

eBay?:ooh:

[VH-XXX]

What do you mean by "best" Jim, cheap or good quality or both?

[T28D]

Aviall is good

[Aussie Bob]

Check the cost of bringing them in from USA. Desser tyres is a good start. Tyres are easy to post, the ones I have brought in just had a delivery tag tied through the hole, no packaging required. I have never had much joy with Aussie aircraft parts suppliers, they seem to only want too supply aircraft engineering businesses. Individuals with credit cards are ruled out.

[cowl flaps]

Spriteah, they are 'tyres' not 'tires.

[spriteah]

Well I want reasonable tyres and tubes.

I can source from US the following:

06-07110 G/Y FLT SPEC 500-5 4 PLY 1.00 98.990 98.99
06-00021 MICH AIRSTOP TUBE 6.00-6 STR ST 2.00 54.850 109.70
06-00019 MICH AIRSTOP TUBE 5.00-5 BNT90 1.00 69.000 69.00
06-00017 MICH AVIATOR TIRE 600-6 4PLY 2.00 129.000 258.00
7277-5-2 MIN 2 AMP CIRCUIT BREAKER LONG 1.00 29.850 29.85
FREIGHT ESTIMATED FREIGHT CHARGE 1.00 270.000 270.00

Total Quote: $835.54 USD

Is that reasonable.

Jim.

[Aussie Bob]

Freight seems a bit rich Jim. Been a while since I brought in such weight so I can't really recall. Also try Aircraft Spruce. Recently it was cheaper for me to bring in 3 air filters and 6 oil filters from them with $70 odd in freight than it was for me to buy them in Australia. Tyres are somewhat heavier ...

[Ultralights]

i have been getting my supply of tubes for 6.00x6 tyres from the UK. via Ebay. tyres i get through Hawker pacific at YSBK. last lot were about $50 a tyre.

[peterc005]

I recently got a very good deal on a new set of 5 * 5.00 6 ply tyres and tubes from Budget Pilot Supplies: The Pilot Shop for Cheaper Pilot Supplies (http://www.budgetpilotsupplies.com.au)

Had a problem with slow leaks so I had to replace the tubes too. Aircraft tubes are surprisingly expensive. Car tubes are probably < $20, plane tubes > $100.

From memory, a pair of tyres and tubes (including freight) from Qld to Melb) cost $440, which was a heaps better than the ~$600 I was quoted by someone else.

They had them in stock and they arrived two days later.

[Old Akro]

Aviation Consumer did tests on aircraft tyres a couple of years ago. I don't distinctly remember, but I think Goodyear & Condor were rated best. Aviation Consumer did a pretty good job of the testing and used a number of tests including a cut test and a flat spotting test.

[peterc005]

The tyres I picked up were Condors, which are also a fairly cheap option.

Cost me $440 from Budget Pilot Supplies, and the quote was about $600 from Aviall. I don;t think Aviall like dealing with people off the street and will usually push you to order thru a LAME.

[Clearedtoreenter]

I got a Goodyear flight custom for a Cirrus (those low profile tyres are really expensive here) from Preferred Air Parts for $50, new with paperwork. It cost $75 to ship.:ugh:

[Mr Milk]

Here's an idea, why not get your maintenance done at an approved facility.
Why do you think there is such a shortage of decent engineers around when everyone wants to do it themselves.

[Old Akro]

Replacement of tyres is allowed by pilots. Pull your head in.

Maintenance is done by owners (in part) because there is a shortage. It just doesn't work the other way around. Frankly, in my opinion we would have a better standard of aircraft maintenance if owners were encouraged to be more engaged (before you react, consider my use of the word engaged).

[haydnc]

The latest trader has a 'specials board' which has an offer for tyres 6.00x6-6

[baron_beeza]

I may just wade into this one also.

I have been around a while and done the legislation exam in many countries. Indeed I hold licences from more than a handful of countries.

I get to hear this pilot maintenance thing quite a bit. Many owners actually do seem to think they can do various tasks on their machines.
We are talking tyre replacement here and there is obviously an impression that the owner can do that particular task.

I would be keen to see a reference which states that is actually the case.

We can assume we are talking about a privately owned C-172 operated privately by just the owner/pilot for the purpose of this exercise.


Let's do both Aussie and NZ because many here would be keen to know the answer.

Anyone here up to speed with the regs ?

[LewC]

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 SCHEDULE 8--- Maintenance that may be carried out on a Class B aircraft by a pilot entitled to do so under sub regulation 42ZC(4), sets out the Australian authority.

[tnuc]

CAAP 42ZC-1(2) gives easier to understand guidance on approved pilot maintenance.
Even though a pilot is permitted to do this work they are still held to the same level of compliance as a LAME would be.
Current data, calibrated tooling, release notes, and certification of the work performed.

[baron_beeza]

What kind of Maintenance Can I do On My Aircraft ?** (http://avstop.com/technical/maintenance/maintenance.htm)

PART 43--MAINTENANCE, PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE, REBUILDING, AND ALTERATION (http://www.3rddoor.com/pilots/far43.htm)

Ok, these sites are not from the FAA directly and are possibly not up to date but they may serve to highlight the confused areas.

Part 43 very clearly states how ALL maintenance is to be carried out and documented. There is no exception for 'Pilot' maintenance.
It is a clause within the Part that lists a variety of 'preventative maintenance' tasks the pilot may be able to c/o and certify.
Be it a A&P, his grandmother or a private pilot, the requirements are all exactly the same.

Although the following examples of preventive maintenance authorized by FAR Part 43 can be done by a certificated pilot under the conditions listed in the FAR, each individual planning on doing such work should make a self-analysis as to whether or not he or she has the ability to perform the work satisfactorily and safely. If any of the preventive maintenance authorized by FAR Part 43 is done, the person doing the work must make an entry in the appropriate logbook or record system to document the work done.

The actual regs are more difficult to digest and often you cannot just read one paragraph in isolation.


As mentioned in the post above there are various requirements.

Part 21 is very much applicable obviously. We are talking about the supply and fitting of replacement parts here. This has the potential to be a major hurdle if the purchaser has little appreciation of the requirements.
We are obviously going to need some form of release documentation and some acceptable data for the conformity requirements there.
We then need the current publications to actually complete the task and do the Release to Service.

Now that is the US version, it is perhaps the most documented and with the widest range of info available on the 'net.

%20branded.pdf"] ("https://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Aug/56398/FAA%20P-8740-15%20Maintenance%20Aspects%20of%20Owning%20Your%20Own%20Airc raft%20[hi-res)


I asked about the NZ and Aussie versions for a reason.

In every country I work in I have always seen the local regs have provision for similar work. Invariably the requirements are the same as indeed are the issues.

Many owners purchase and produce parts they expect to get fitted to their aircraft. Nope, doesn't happen. A large percentage don't make the grade.
Often it something as basic as not reading the IPC, or the notes, correctly.
Sometimes a SB or SL has the real data on the requirements and instructions.
More often it is due to a complete lack of awareness, and understanding, of Part 21.

We then get the competency to do the job. Has the person the training and ability to do the task proficiently, and safely, and then do the paperwork correctly. Remember this is usually an unsupervised effort.

The NZ regs have a few twists and turns in them when it comes to Pilot maintenance.
Anyone care to have a crack at it ?

As an aside I have even seen a Student Pilot trot out his version of how he can do 'Pilot Maintenance'.
It is very clearly a misunderstood area in the regs, - either that or the guys are bending the rules to suit themselves.

[Old Akro]

Maintenance topics often get emotive. But I'd like to point out 2 things.

Firstly, there is a wide range of competence & workmanship that exists by both LAME's & pilot / owners. LAME's are not automatically more skilled (typically - yes. Automatically no). Some owners are highly competent. And there are some jobs that owners do better because they just put much more time into the job that a commercial mechanic wants - or can justify.

Secondly, all the owners that I know who work on their aircraft do it in concert with their LAME. Its not a mutually exclusive thing.

At the end of the day, the real test should be what is the best, rational course of action rather than trying to read nuances into legalese. The LAME's that I respect welcome owner engagement - they typically only get to look at the aircraft for a handful of hours every year. An owner who is familiar with the aircraft and the state of various components who has a strong working relationship with a LAME delivers the best outcome for the aircraft in my opinion.

If a guy wants to change a tyre - good on him. If it means it gets replaced earlier rather than being extended to be done at a 100 hourly, then its a safer choice. While he's there its likely that he'll look look at a bunch of other stuff and gain a better understanding of his aircraft. If this results in more things being brought to the LAME's attention and being fixed then it also leads to a safer aircraft.

[baron_beeza]

No emotion involved.

The rules are well defined and as I say they are pretty well international.
Much like it is frowned upon to fly without a current medical or even teach your daughter to fly when you don't have an instructor's rating.

It is illegal to operate an aircraft when it is maintained outside of the regulations in force. Most C of A certificates have a clause on the front stating that the certificate is invalidated in such an event.

The statement made was along the lines of 'Pull your head in, owners can do that '.

I was curious as to what the level of understanding really was.
Quite clearly the pilot/owner cannot do it unless certain conditions are met.

Having a good working knowledge of the regulations being one of them, Certifying the logbook another.

Working under the direct supervision of a LAME is another matter altogether and indeed another paragraph or two in the regs.
We then get into the definition of direct supervision.

Many may be surprised by the definition there also.

No legalese involved. These are the regs we are required to operate with. They are not that difficult to read and understand.

I know many pilots that have a very good understanding of the regs, they would generally be the maintenance controller at a club or similar.
The average private owner typically has a lesser knowledge of the rules.

They are the ones that need to read up in order to understand their aircraft a little better.

As suggested some owners do have a mechanical knowledge and aptitude. Changing a tyre is an easy task for some. That is not to say the log entries are done in any kind of acceptable fashion though.

I get to see many owners do pilot maintenance very well, and iaw all the rules and regulations.
Thinking about it they are also the ones that have a good dialogue with the LAME and listen to the prompting.

To suggest all pilots can do the tasks included included in the list would be a little mischievous, - if not incorrect.

[First_Principal]

Old Akro + 1

baron_beeza, that's a fairly narrow response with a great deal of concentration on rules and rather less on competency IMO.

Whilst it is important to fill in logs and comply with reasonable regulation these are not the arbiter in how well a job is physically done. Nor are all rules and regulations reasonable, or adequately cover certain situations. I'm reminded a little of the old adage 'aviate, navigate, communicate', the corollary in this situation might be 'assess, research, repair, inform' or something similar (probably someone could think of a better way of putting that!).

Given the original query was simply about where to get tyres and tubes from, and no statement that the OP wasn't simply going to hand them to his local AME, I think it's a fairly long bow to draw the way this conversation is going don't you think? I note the OP hasn't bothered to reply...

Incidentaly I seem to recall that in NZ at least a pilot is required to have a LAME sign off on his competency for specific tasks. I would imagine that a competent LAME would ensure an understanding of regs/log requirements etc of the candidate before signing them off as ok on these things....

FP.

[baron_beeza]

For many here the rules are second nature. Just as we as pilots know about weather minimums and altitude limitations. It is just part of the daily grind.

We don't get to make the rules but we are in a regulated environment and are expected to have a knowledge of them at least.

It is about competency as you suggested.

As for buying the items and where to get them from, well yes this is exactly about that.

The area that owners seem to have least knowledge about is the requirements for the supply and fitting of aviation products.
That is the very question that was asked here.
You mentioned 'simply'.

Part 21 has to be one of the most difficult regulations to read and understand. I would have thought it is anything but simple.

I do see many owner produced items. I have already mentioned that many do not end up getting fitted to a certified machine.
Just because the owner has spent money buying something does not in any way negate the requirements. It is a bit much expecting the LAME to sign off on an item that is 'wrong' for possibly any one of a number of reasons.
I do get to see it far too often.
It is much easier to ask the LAME for some advice before dragging the credit card out.

Some may seem to think that the Part 43 and Part 21 regs don't weigh as much as Part 91. It does to the guy that has to put his licence on the line every day. The thing is it so easy to operate within the rules.
Just like stopping at a stop sign for example, what is to be gained by driving through it ?
The point being that you may only stop if you are aware you have to. Some may not even see it !!

A lackadaisical attitude may see pilots flying about without medicals and renewals. Most however would probably bother to meet those requirements.
Same rules...

The original question was about where to buy some aircraft tyres.
It took a long time before the thread had any mention of the requirements and possibly substandard and bogus parts.

Someone did mention Aviall may not like selling directly to the owner... perhaps there is a reason for that.

I am not suggesting that everything from Spruce is suspect. You cannot just blindly go out and buy an aviation product and then proceed to fit it to a certified machine though. Life was never that simple.

The onus is on the individual certifying.
He is accepting all responsibility for the Part 21 and Part 43 requirements.
The problem we often get is that it is the 'hangar gremlins' that mysteriously 'fix' the worn tyre.

I am not sure about the competency of those blighters, in 40 years I have yet to meet one. They don't even sign their name so they really are elusive characters.

[superdimona]

In 40 years, how many accidents have these gremlins caused?

When far more effort is spent on paperwork for a privately operated aircraft then actually doing a good job on a fairly simple maintenance task, GA is in a sorry state.

[LeadSled]

beeza,
In AU, it's Part 42 so far, with the CARs still for non-RPT, but there is a whole bunch of discussion papers from CASA out now.

Lord knows how Schedule 8 in the current CARs will fare, given the implacable opposition of some CASA ex-LAME employees, who would ban pilots doing a daily, if they thought they could get away with it.

In fact, I think they would vote for pilotless aircraft for preference.

CASA have quite extensive documentation on Schedule 8, and if you are into black comedy, the CASA/AOPA touring safety roadshow gives an interesting "CASA" interpretation as to why you can't do many of the things Schedule 8 seems to say you can do.

For example, change a battery ?? ---- not so fast, you have to have the approved data, as beeza says, and when you get the data, the battery manufacturer says the battery must be fully charged prior to fitting --- and that can only be done in a CAR 30/CASR 145 workshop.

When you are changing your tyres/tires, you do have a current calibration certificate for your torque wrench, do you?? That and the data problem solved, when you are cleaning and repacking the bearings, to be absolutely compliant, this is probably best done blindfold, to prove you haven't looked at/inspected the bearing rollers/balls/race surfaces --- because CASA says this is verboten ---- secret LAME business, you know.

Re. spark plugs, some time ago, at a quite heated meeting in Canberra, on this subject, a well known "LAME" complained that he had had to do a five year apprenticeship to change spark plugs.

I sympathized with him, saying I understood why, in his case this was a necessity.

My memory is good enough to remember what I could do, as owner maintenance, on my first aircraft, a Chipmunk. That list has been whittled away over the years by regulations where LAMEs have had the influence, and any question of risk assessment or justification of ever increasing restrictions has been ignored.

Tootle pip!!

PS: I have done a lot of business with Desser (spelling??) over the years, always very good, but for run of the mill branded small tyres/tires, buy them where you get the best landed price, including release notes/8130.3. For small tyres/tires. US Postal Service is the cheapest and fastest from the US, Royal Mail Parcel Force from UK.

[baron_beeza]

I have never worked for CASA, CAA or any other regulatory authority.
I am guilty of having some military time behind me. There we had much more say in the rules as we had a chance to write them.

With the civilian rules that we are supposed to abide by we really don't get so much of an opportunity there.

I didn't want to go into the Australian rules as I was aware things were under discussion there. I was also hoping that someone up with the play would chime in.

I referred to the FAA system for several reasons. Whether we like it or not much of how we all operate tends to go back to their system.
Most of the aircraft or engines originate from the States these days and we are often referred back to the Type Certificate Data Sheets and AD's and similar home based info.

With maintenance there are only really the three parts, 21, 43 and 91.

Part 91 is easy and many here already have exposure to it. Basically standard rules on the operation of aircraft. It is easy to draw parallels to the local rules.

Part 43 has much more variation between countries but again much of the intent is the same.

Part 21 is getting much more interesting with the wide variety of Airworthiness Certificates we are seeing these days.

Naturally the comments on this thread echoes real life in many respects.
Some find it easy to understand and follow the rules.
Others may find them awkward and would like to see them changed.
There would be a small portion that have never got on top of the rules and have their own ideas on how the whole shebang should work.

The rules as they stand have been around a long time.
They have been quite workable but we are seeing changes.
I guess from the bottom up in many respects at that.

The emergence of recreational aircraft, the internet forums like this and the prevalence of suppliers like Spruce may mean the currents rules have reached their use by date.

The thing is though that even two seat microlights are required to keep current logbooks. Those guys are actually very good at recording their maintenance activities.

What we are seeing with the GA fleet though is that some aircraft obviously have holes in their maintenance records. That makes it difficult at Inspection time.

I have not long ago had to deal with an aircraft that had flown 26 hours in the past year. All three wheels were assembled and installed incorrectly.

Even the Aviall catalogue would have been of some use but you have to imagine that whoever did it just bypassed a few steps.

Naturally there was no mention at all of who had been there. As it stands the chap who did the previous certification for the last inspection could be held accountable.

Pilot maintenance is not difficult at all.
I think the intent is clear to us all. To state that any owner can do a range of tasks is very misleading though.

When I ask the owners where they got their ideas about what they can and can't do to their machine. Legally I guess at that.

If you ask if it was a CASA or CAA website or from some bulletin board. - well again it is not difficult guess the answer there.

This thread would have hundreds of viewers. Only a small percentage will be adding their thoughts. Many will possibly be learning a thing or two at that.

We now some here are owners. Some may be pilots. Some may be much more active in the industry. The thing is that we never really do know the background and knowledge base of some of the members writing comments here.

One of the more vocal 'real life' characters I have met with strong ideas was indeed an owner. With a Student Pilot Licence though, he really did think his views reflected the way the system should work.
Needless to say his knowledge of the regs was superficial and that would be generous.

I have only seen a handful of aircraft that the 'gremlins' had visited. Possibly it was only the ones with the glaring issues that stood out.

Working in with the LAME seems a good way to go. I am sure the majority of owners here would have some kind of arrangement in place there.

[LeadSled]

beeza,
If you have a look at the proposed CASA draft rules for maintenance, they depart completely from the general rules as embodied in FAR 43, 91,121,125, 135 etc.

Given that about 90% of aircraft in Australia have US type certificates, proposing a continuing airworthiness system that fundamentally ignores the origin of the aircraft is (in Yes, Minister terms) "a courageous decision", that is going to cost VH- aircraft owners and operators dearly.

Every survey of owner/operators in Australia in the last 25 years has said we should be using the US system, and, indeed, apart from the inept bureaucratic intrusions, there were many similarities, up until now.

For example, our current Schedule 5 is FAR 43, Appendix D, modified to almost completely render it useless by calling it a "maintenance system", when it is an inspection schedule --- and adding the nonsense that says such maintenance must ensure that the aircraft remains serviceable until the next scheduled inspection - how do you do that?? (Schedule 5, para. 2.7: Unless otherwise indicated in the table, where the table requires a thing to be inspected, the inspection is to be a thorough check made to determine whether the thing will continue to be airworthy until the next periodic inspection.)

If anything like the present proposed rules goes into place, we are in big trouble.

What amazes me is that the CASA CEO/DAS, John McCormick is on the record (more or less) as saying the FAA system works, and that is the way to go ---- and almost all of us agree ---- but that is not what is proposed.

Tootle pip!!

[baron_beeza]

Yes, interesting times indeed. I remember working in Aussie a few years back and hearing from LAME's that were concerned about the way it was all headed then.

I had been working all about the world when NZ made the changeover 10 to 15 years ago.
I was hot to trot on the Aussie regs at the time as well as those from many of the older British colonies.
I had also been operating an FAA A&P a bit a few years earlier.

Anyway I wondered what I had struck when I first encountered the modified NZ system.
The intent was pretty well unchanged but of course the structure was far more like the FAA system. The beauty of it all is that it is easy to navigate around and it works a treat.

One of the Aussies did say that CASA had been offered the complete workable NZ system on a plate.
I believe he had been involved on an industry working committee and was all for the deal.

Somehow, someone knew better.

I am deadly concerned for the future of GA, as we know it, in both countries.
I am an owner, with several machines, as well as trying to derive a living from the industry.
At the moment all I am seeing is doom and gloom.


This is not helping the Cessna tyre discussion but the present rules are quite workable. Despite the 'excessive paperwork' comment earlier it is really just a simple job with the only paperwork being the log sign off and just a few logistic entries.

Physically most LAME's would be doing a bearing and hub assessment at the tyre change. Most hangars I have worked in would be doing a bearing regrease while the hub was apart.