Restoring or Cleaning Windows

[PaulGa]

Evening All,
Looking for some advice on the best product to clean or restore windows in my 182. Main issue is discolouration to rear and a little hazy on sides as parked outdoors. Seems like there are a lot of products with little reviews other than manufacturer promos.
Any advice would be appreciated.

[glenb]

Cant remember the name of the product, but its in a blue aerosol can. Contact any boat shop (and I reckon theres a few in your neck of the woods). Better range and possibly better pricing because of their volumes.

[AbsoluteFokker]

Non-structural windows are owner-replaceable.

Last time I had a similar problem, I took them out, gave it to a plastics fabricator to use as a mould, gave it a bit of a shave with a file and installed it.

Lastly, invest in a good cover. Ones with bungee cords to give a nice tight fit.

[fujii]

The one glenb mentioned is probably Plexus which is good for everyday use. If you need something for discolouration, Megiure's kits from automotive shops are made to restore modern acrylic headlight covers. My LAME put me on to them.

[Squawk7700]

Yep, schedule 5 maintenance allows you to do it yourself without a LAME.

I recently did an aircraft repaint and my panel beater accidentally left my doors with windows fitted, lying within a few meters and subsequently over sprayed them quite badly with 2-pak. One was also already quite scratched. I wasn't overly impressed, however he assured me he could remove the paint. Sure enough, none of that fancy micro-mesh gear, he simply used his sheep skin woolen panel beating buff with cutting polish and finishing polish and removed all the paint and some fairly significant scratches. I never thought he would be able to. As much as I tried perspex polishes and Mr Sheen type products, they did squat.

[Plow King]

Might be thinking of VuPlex. If so, you can get it at Bunnings, it's also used to clean outdoor cafe blinds.

[dubbleyew eight]

you are talking about a couple of different things here and mixing it all up.

if you want to clean undamaged perspex then wash the grit off with plain water.
after that to get it really clean "Prist" is a foam aerosol cleaner made for aircraft perspex.
spray the foam over the surface and wipe it off with a clean soft cloth.
does a magic job.

restoring degraded perspex is a task for the micro mesh products.
they work well.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

"Prist" is a foam aerosol cleaner made for aircraft perspex

I thought Prist was a jet-fuel anti-icing additive? Plexus is the stuff in the blue bottle.

UTR

Wait - turns out Prist is also a window cleaner - I wonder if its the same stuff as the additive?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Tooth Paste....macleans is pretty good:ok:

[tail wheel]

"I wonder if its the same stuff as the additive?"

If it is don't touch it as I understand Prist is carcinogenic.

[yr right]

Yep, schedule 5 maintenance allows you to do it yourself without a LAME.

I recently did an aircraft repaint and my panel beater accidentally left my doors with windows fitted, lying within a few meters and subsequently over sprayed them quite badly with 2-pak. One was also already quite scratched. I wasn't overly impressed, however he assured me he could remove the paint. Sure enough, none of that fancy micro-mesh gear, he simply used his sheep skin woolen panel beating buff with cutting polish and finishing polish and removed all the paint and some fairly significant scratches. I never thought he would be able to. As much as I tried perspex polishes and Mr Sheen type products, they did squat.

In correct. Shedule 8 for a start. However it's refers you on. Now this is thought with danger if you have an over zealous inspector around. Also you this dose not allow you to remove parts for painting and most certainly dose not allow to manufacture your own parts. I even seen people pulled up for washing an aircraft and not putting it on the m/r as its a maintence action !!!

[yr right]

Sometime ago I ask a awi about this. His said that its is not what was intended. It was meant to be that a pilot could remove and reinstall a side window as in a high wing Cessna for photo type work. It was not intended for a pilot to remove and replace any side window

[Aussie Bob]

Your right yr right, definitely not permitted. BUT, there is an exemption for folk with a lockable hanger.

[baron_beeza]

Yep, a big difference between cleaning a window and replacing a window. Any owner that thinks he can make and fit parts to a certified aircraft would have to have rocks in his head.
It makes you wonder about the knowledge and skills level of some of these blokes. As for the hangar elves, well they are the ones that just ruin it for those that are trying to do things correctly.
Fortunately there are not many about but they do exist.

The owner should have the courtesy to keep his maintainer abreast with any maintenance activity and preferably at the earliest possible stage. I would think that most LAME's would be obliging and come up with some good suggestions that keep the costs down.

There are some great products about these days that would clean-up the transparencies but replacement is often the best option.
I see many aircraft logbooks and it is always a shame to encounter a machine with unrecorded maintenance in the logs.
It ruins the aircraft and generally costs well over the top to get sorted.
They would be the same guys that complain about the cost of their maintenance.

For those owners that want accurate logs then put it in the log yourself !
If you aren't prepared to certify for your own work then at least have the courtesy to ring the LAME for advice.

I think a number of people would have their noses out of joint if the aircraft just sprouted a set of new windows overnight. I am sure it would look much nicer however..

Asking here for cleaning products and methods is a good start. There will be owners, and pilots, that have botched a simple cleaning job.

[Squawk7700]

Thanks for the prompt YR, my typo, should have been an 8.

[yr right]

And having been in the end of a fatal accident where parts had been replaced by the owner. The only thing that safed us was I was at a good workshop and prove we didn't fit it. Had it been at a smaller workshop that out come may have been different. Even though this part was not part of the accident it was found.

[AbsoluteFokker]

yr_right, time to read up about Schedule 8.

Schedule 8:
Maintenance that may be carried out on a Class B aircraft by a pilot entitled to do so under subregulation 42ZC(4)
...
6. Replacement of side windows in an unpressurised aircraft.

Note that it does not say MANUFACTURE the window. An aircraft plastics place is the best to do that. A couple hundred dollars each.

Of course you have to put it in the log book. Same if you replace the battery.

[Desert Flower]

If it is don't touch it as I understand Prist is carcinogenic.

Yes - the fuel additive one definitely is! You need to be VERY careful when handling it.

DF.

[baron_beeza]

I don't really want to take the thread down the pilot maintenance deviation but I do see many pilots try and do selective reading of the regs.

It happens often and you see many examples on the various internet forums.

Pilots can't change a side window... it is as simple as that.
You need to work to the vibe of it, the gist of it if you like.

If you think it is too good to be true then it probably is.

Now that said you can start looking at the regs with that in mind and see if you an find the out that allows people to do these various tasks.
The Australian regs are not the easiest to navigate about but if you look at the NZ one or even the FAA version you will get a feel for what they are trying to say.
I have done engineering law exams and operated the licence all over the show, they are all remarkably similar in most respects.

What can be possible is it may be ok for a trained and proficient pilot/owner to replace a window, or at least rather to certify for the job.
Indeed that is where the particular task is often found... under the certification section.
Anyone can make a part for an aircraft. Anyone can work on an aircraft, there is generally no rule there. A ten year old girl can make a new window, out of cardboard if she wanted.

If you do selective reading you will soon discover that.
Now, does that pass the vibe test ? Of course not.

Anyone can make a part, possibly even fit it but it all stops there.
Only certain tasks can be certified and the owner can't certify beyond a few preventative maintenance jobs, and only then if he has been mentored and has the tools, books and skills etc.
The fitting and certifying is naturally the realm of the LAME or A&P.
That is commonsense and is indeed the ways the rules are written.
It doesn't matter how many times you see the owner maintenance fallacy repeated on the internet it still doesn't make it any more correct.

No-one can fit any aircraft part without acceptable data. There are no exceptions and certainly no exemptions for an owner.
Yes, if you read up you may well find that a side window may be able to be fitted and certified. Some countries do allow that but in every case they will have provisos that must be met.
I am thinking in terms of skill and experience there but of course the window may even be an STC'd item so we now have another raft of criteria.

I think the important term is 'may' as opposed to 'can'.

I have even had American pilots try and tell me that as an A&P I can do an engine overhaul. They are obviously not living in the real world.

[yr right]

yr_right, time to read up about Schedule 8.

Schedule 8:
Maintenance that may be carried out on a Class B aircraft by a pilot entitled to do so under subregulation 42ZC(4)
...
6. Replacement of side windows in an unpressurised aircraft.

Note that it does not say MANUFACTURE the window. An aircraft plastics place is the best to do that. A couple hundred dollars each.

Of course you have to put it in the log book. Same if you replace the battery.

Think you need to read what I wrote. At no time may you manufacture a window or anything else for an aircraft. It's simple. Yes it states you may replace a window but also read what else it states. Or better what you can't do. Now tell me how you can change a window without removing structure. I can tell you now if you do you will leave yourself wide open for demerit points. Don't say you have not be warned.
A solid rivet is considered structure btw.

[PaulGa]

Thanks for all the advice. Used Vuplex and cleaned them up really well. Now I can see the scratches clearly.:ugh: Now that I have a good cleaner, can anyone recommend a scratch remover. I was looking at the Novus product sand Plastx from Meguiars. Last thing I want is to be sanding something and having to replace it due to lack of ability. I do keep a cover on the plane as a hangar at YBAF is dearer than a penthouse in the city !

[Car RAMROD]

For those wondering about Prist, Prist is the manufacturer of several products. They make the fuel additive and they also make an acrylic cleaner, two seperate products.

I have not used it on an aircraft window but Farecla products do work well on Perspex. It's for painted surfaces but it still works.

[Lumps]

and if I may, Vuplex truly does suck compared to Plexus. Anyone know where you can get Plexus for under $30/can?

[HarleyD]

The fitting and certifying is naturally the realm of the LAME or A&P.
That is commonsense and is indeed the ways the rules are written.
It doesn't matter how many times you see the owner maintenance fallacy repeated on the internet it still doesn't make it any more correct.

This of course is not correct.

You do not have to be an LAME or A&P. Nonsense proliferated by these people who think they are have the only God Given right to work on aircraft.

I have personally made and installed dozens of windscreens, and possibly a hundred of more side windows. Very few LAMES would even be capable of manufacturing them. I have blown bubble canopies and presently making a windscreen and sliding canopy for a Hawker Hurricane replica. It only needs skill and patience, not a massive ego.

HD

[Oliver Klozof]

PaulGa,

Micromesh Plastic & Acrylic Restoration kit or Flitz Headlight Restoration kit. Used both with excellent results. Can be found online at 'The Sandpaper Man' or 'Car Car Products.'

With the Micromesh stuff, it's probably worth investing in an electric buffer/drill attachment if you're doing larger areas (at least for the initial polish). :ok:

[LeadSled]

Baron,Folks,
Schedule 8.
Note that Item (6) make no mention of why a side window might be removed and replaced.
It goes without saying that all maintenance must be carried out to approved data, where something is replaced, various "approved part" rules apply, but one to note here is the provision for parts manufactured in the course of maintenance (Part 21), which is quite different to manufacturing under a production certificate or such as an STC.
It is relatively straightforward to "legally" make side windows, and fit same, I would hope your friendly family LAME would assist. For a non-structural side window, it can be done legally without the expense of an approval from an Approved Design Organization (used to be CAR 35).

Naturally, there is an array of advisory information available that constitutes acceptable means of compliance.

Either comply with the CAAP/AC or have CASA approve an alternative means of compliance. Believe me, the former is much easier, cheaper and more certain of outcome.
Tootle pip!!

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 subregulation 42ZC(4) (subregulation 42ZC(4))

1.Removal or installation of landing gear tyres, but only if the removal or installation does not involve the complete jacking of the aircraft.
2.Repair of pneumatic tubes of landing gear tyres.
3.Servicing of landing gear wheel bearings.
4.Replacement of defective safety wiring or split pins, but not including wiring or pins in control systems.
5.Removal or refitting of a door, but only if:
(a) no disassembly of the primary structure or operating system of the aircraft is involved; and
(b) if the aircraft is to be operated with the door removed--the aircraft has a flight manual and the manual indicates that the aircraft may be operated with the door removed.
6.Replacement of side windows in an unpressurised aircraft.
7.Replacement of seats, but only if the replacement does not involve disassembly of any part of the primary structure of the aircraft.
8.Repairs to the upholstery or decorative furnishings of the interior of the cabin or cockpit.
9. Replacement of seat belts or harnesses.
10. Replacement or repair of signs and markings.
11. Replacement of bulbs, reflectors, glasses, lenses or lights.
12. Replacement, cleaning, or setting gaps of, spark plugs.
13. Replacement of batteries.
14. Changing oil filters or air filters.
15. Changing or replenishing engine oil or fuel.
16. Lubrication not requiring disassembly or requiring only the removal of non-structural parts, or of cover plates, cowlings and fairings.
17. Replenishment of hydraulic fluid.
18. Application of preservative or protective materials, but only if no disassembly of the primary structure or operating system of the aircraft is involved.
19. Removal or replacement of equipment used for agricultural purposes.
20. Removal or replacement of glider tow hooks.
21. Carrying out of an inspection under regulation 42G (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/s42g.html) of a flight control system that has been assembled, adjusted, repaired, modified or replaced.
22. Carrying out of a daily inspection of an aircraft.

[baron_beeza]

Exactly. What one guy, and his friends, may find a easy task given their experience and skills others may not always find that to be the case.

I don't want to get too far off topic here but I have replaced numerous windows from Tomahawk to 737. I also know the rules. I have plenty of exam result slips and licences to remind me as well.

While some forums may have a number of smart and astute members you don't have to look too far on the internet to see owner forums where the members are basically clueless.
I think the danger there is that some of these guys actually believe they can do various tasks on their own aircraft. The regs are written very well when it comes to owner maintenance but the problem is that the misunderstanding, even myth, surrounding it is one of the worst being spread about.

The regs basically say anyone can do maintenance. That is true.
So that is our starting point. A 10 year old girl, our grandmother, a pilot, indeed anyone.
Now obviously that may not be the safest for the industry, and the Government, so now we get some conditional clauses.

For the aircraft to remain airworthy it must have a record of the maintenance and a Release. It must be certified. Hmmm, getting more difficult now.

Now who can do the certification ?
That is the trick. The LAME, A&P or IA can of course, - but subject to the knowledge, the skills, tools etc.. and acceptable data. It has to be done iaw a publication and indeed the certification is exactly that.

Most regulators then have a range of tasks an owner may certify.
There are no exemptions here.... the owner can't do the work. He may do it but subject to those very same conditions. He needs the skill, the tools and he is permitted to certify if he meets all those prerequisites.

Many seem to think the owner can do the work on that list. Not the case at all...
It is actually the work he may be able to CERTIFY subject to him meeting all other criteria.
ie, exactly the same rules that the A&P must meet including the worker must be competent, the work meets acceptable standards, done correctly and certified as such.

There is no list of tasks that any owner can do to his aeroplane. I think many pilots seem to believe there may be one.

There has never been such a list in any of the countries I have worked in.

Making parts for an aircraft is another topic.... Nothing unusual there though. The trick is who can sign for the release to service.

[yr right]

mmm please advice how you can manufacture a side window with out an approval or a release or an EO. Please tell me how this is possible .


Any part that is placed on an aircraft must have a release of some sort.


But I guess I don't know what im talking about. Same as everything I say and do, OMG maybe im in the wrong industry, nooooooo.


Even if I manufacture parts under maintenance I must do it under some sort of reference and do it IAW.


As I said earlier this was not the intent of this when originally done.


Its the same as the wheel bearings. You may service the bearing but you may not REPLACE the bearing, also you may not touch remove structure.


I would be very carful to even use anything than a polish or cleaner on windows. Anything abrasive can be classed as maintenance.

[LeadSled]

Please tell me how this is possible .


yr wrong,
You claim to be the expert, you read the rules.
There is enough in my post to point you in the right direction.
Tootle pip!!

[yr right]

yr wrong,
You claim to be the expert, you read the rules.
There is enough in my post to point you in the right direction.
Tootle pip!!

Mmm no. You are incorrect.

This is what is called a bogus part.
You may not manufacture a part and place it on an aircraft if it has not had some sort of release.
Please explain again how you may do this.
We as a work shop have to have a release for everything. Down to a 6/32 washer.
We can use some comercail products ie cleaners etc. but we must have releases sheet alloy paint. I even heard of an aircraftbthatbeas grounded because it was painted with out the use of an approved paint.

So please tell us oh wise one how on a c172 or pa 28-140 how you can make and install a window on these two simple aircraft.

[baron_beeza]

I think it is mischievous to try and read rules in isolation. You need to know the whole package. This is where I have seen so many guys get it wrong over the years.

I have never worked as a regulator, well not at least in the civil environment. The LAME is not a policeman or even a judge. The problem we have though is both of those groups have real strange interpretations of how things are done.
Something similar happens when the regulator does an audit of the facility.

If we look at Item 12 on the list for example. Refitting a plug.
The way the work is judged during audit is the publication, do you have the latest and relevant acceptable data for the torque figure. Is the torque wrench suitable and is the calibration chart current.
You would be expected to have the correct anti-seize compound and new or annealed gaskets.

We all know the regulators have different personal opinions and understandings. It is difficult to get a straight answer at times.

When you ask how the owner is supposed to manage a task such as cleaning a plug the reply is often 'ensure they have the correct publications and calibrated wrench'.

That may sound completely impractical but that is what these guys assume. The certification is signed signifying that the work has been done correctly !


The owner would have difficulty fitting a new part legally, well in compliance with the full rule package that is. Unfortunately for us as GA type operators the rules are covering a very wide range of aircraft maintenance activity.

The guys in the hangars have no trouble working to the rulebooks, the hangar protocols and procedures are such that the system just works.
They are working on privately owned, club and RPT aircraft as part of the daily mix.

If we just concentrate on privately owned for this conversation though we can then look at owner maintenance and parts supply.

The owner needs to have an overview of the regs and various rules. Tying to read each clause will just be misleading.
I mentioned the words 'Gist' and 'Vibe' earlier in this thread.

When you look at the owner maintenance list you have to wonder.
Can't jack the aircraft.
Can only replace defective lockwire ! ( Well I guess it would be if someone cut it).
Can only repair a tube, not replace.
Same with wheel bearings, service but not replace.
See how the filters are different, an appropriately skilled owner may CHANGE them.
We don't see that word often.
OK, given that an owner can't fit new items like tyres and bearings then what are the chances he can fit a new battery, seatbelts or side windows ?

I don't have a problem with a skilled owner doing whatever he likes to his aircraft. He owns it and as far as I am concerned he can do what he wishes.
That seems fair.
The only times I am concerned if he then involves me or my signature...

Changing the status of something when it is still showing against my signature gets my attention.
If he removes and refits wheels and there is no new certification then obviously there will be words.
The owner must realise he is potentially setting the maintainer up by not getting into the swing of things.
The other times I may get involved is if the aircraft rocks up with unrecorded maintenance and the owner expects an annual or 100 Hr or similar done.
Where do you start there ?

If it had new windows, for example, then I guess the easiest path would be to convince the owner he has to sign the RTS log entry himself. The alternative would be to remove and refit them properly, yet another job getting done twice.

Is replacing a side window the same as changing one ?

How about a towhook, a lightbulb, or a seatbelt.

Did I say the Aussie regs are not the flashest when compared to the NZ and FAA versions ?

[yr right]

Great point. Signing. The M/R has to be signed. This rarely if ever happens.
Just like the prop that came off in Canberra after take off. My mate was going for a row.
In passing a guy came into the hangar. Saw he was a little down and ask why. Told the story about the prop. His luck was on his side. He saw the owner remove the prop that very weekend. Safed by the bell. The owner didn't say to anyone he done left the lame take the blame. I often see what owners have done. zero documents zero m/r entries.
Now with comercail products when I done AA in the old days there was a cause in the CAOs that allowed the use of them. But I do believe it has been removed.
The intent of shed 8 is not for requeral type maintenance but for break downs away from an airfield with a maintenance facility.
Now remember this. You may as an owner remove what ever you like from an aircraft, take the engine out. Pull it down.
But !!!!
You may not put it back together!!!!!!

[baron_beeza]

We are talking transparencies here and I am reminded that so far in this thread we have not had any mention of the most widely used publications.

The books the mechanic would be reaching for would invariably be AC43.13-1B which is basically the bible within the hangar.
The next books would be the Airframe General handbook and the aircraft MM.

The aircraft POH is not held in high regard and would generally never be opened. Tyre pressures would be about the only thing I can recall looking for in the POH and even then it is considered just a quick and ready figure.

I have assumed we are talking American aircraft here but there would be very few occasions when we would have to break out the CAIP's.
Truth be known it would be the laptop that would be getting opened and we all have copies of the AC on there anyway.

The prime publications are the regs, from the applicable regulator. Strangely enough they are not used so often because the guys in the hangar have a good working knowledge of them anyway.

Here is a copy of the book... it really is the 'go to' one.

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/99861

I would think that anyone that wants to certify for work on a GA machine would want to have a good working knowledge of the contents of the AC.
That and the maintenance manual.

In addition, for any engine work we have to find the Lycoming or Continental books, - another saga....

[Typhoon650]

Isn't it sad that we have to argue about the interpretation of maintenance regulations with regards window replacement on non pressurised aircraft.
Surely much safer to see where you are going than worry about pages of paperwork for replacing a piece of cheap acrylic sheet.....what's the worst that can happen replacing a side window on a non pressurised aircraft? You don't drill the holes in the acrylic large enough and it cracks? Bolt too long and someone gets a scratch. Please spare me.

[yr right]

Isn't it sad that we have to argue about the interpretation of maintenance regulations with regards window replacement on non pressurised aircraft.
Surely much safer to see where you are going than worry about pages of paperwork for replacing a piece of cheap acrylic sheet.....what's the worst that can happen replacing a side window on a non pressurised aircraft? You don't drill the holes in the acrylic large enough and it cracks? Bolt too long and someone gets a scratch. Please spare me.

Are you sure. What grade is the acrylic. Where did you get the information of the spec grade for that screen. Etc etc etc.
you have entered the black hole. It's easy to be brave when you don't have to sign it !!!!

Just like now if you wish to have a AD that is wrong looked at you have to pay for it to be accessed

Why don't you ask aurora about doing maintenance on a aircraft and then make an assessment on what you may or may not do !!!

[baron_beeza]

Yep, and there will be guys here that have made submissions to the regulator. They may even be the same guys that put forward amendments to the manufacturers' publications.
Something I do regularly myself.
Try and get a POH one through though... I am not so sure I have ever succeeded there.

Changing a window is something I have done literally dozens of times. Every time was quick and easy, and iaw the regs and publications.
Nothing difficult there at all.

Far from arguing I thought I had been generous with my time and knowledge here.
I have also seen the job botched on many occasions.

As you say though, many seem to think it is only a cheap piece of acrylic sheet.

When you question some of these guys on how they got it so wrong you invariably discover they didn't even back the drill bit off. I guess it says a lot for the amount of preparation they have put into the task.
There really are guys about with no idea.

I think I suggested having a chat with the LAME as soon as possible. I know I have saved guys hundreds of dollars on the job, almost each and every time.

Surely that can't be too difficult but you do have to wonder.

It seems there will always others about that just know better, - regardless.
Their money.

[Lead Balloon]

In the case of the botch jobs, how many lives were lost as a consequence? Rounded to the nearest dozen.

[baron_beeza]

In terms of manslaughter cases I can think of three in the last 20 years that I have been dragged into.
Many deaths and not caused by botched jobs but certainly the attitude. In every single one of them.
I think 15 deaths, mostly innocents and directly caused by the 'I know better' attitude.
Is 15 not enough for you ?
I can put some thought into it and come up with a more exact figure.
The guys that maintain the aeroplanes and see how the owners operate.
It is the owner that is the liability, no coincidence that I have distanced myself from most of those guys before they did their thing. Indeed in every-one of those 3 cases I had removed myself from the job beforehand.
My testimony was purely providing background as I was never about for the main event and the lead-up to it.

I have flown a customer's aircraft and the Cherokee was near impossible to land into the setting sun. I made him change the windshield, less than $200 all up for a second hand one we had here. (From a pedantic type).

Anyway the owner couldn't believe the difference. He then told me about the two occasions where he thought he was about to wipe both the plane and himself out. Both times on a strip and into the sun.

Would some-one's life be worth more or less than $200 ?

[Lead Balloon]

And will more rules, and arguments about rules, change "the attitude"?

[baron_beeza]

Oh, I thought we were talking skill and knowledge.
Would those factors assist ?

[yr right]

And will more rules, and arguments about rules, change "the attitude"?


But it may save some lame from the likes of a know it all like yourself.
Easy to be brave when you don't have to sign it

[Lead Balloon]

But surely the person who does the botch job does have to sign for it. The rules require it.

[baron_beeza]

Only if the aircraft is released to service.
In the cases I was thinking of the aircraft remained on the ground while replacement windscreens were ordered. Something like a 172 is a mongrel to get right. Breaking a new screen is a waste all the same.
Most hangars are more than happy for the owner to be involved for that reason.

I have seen pics taken by owners where the job looks good, great even but then you see metal scrapers and the acidic sealant in the background. Not the end of the world obviously but just a shame that a few basic steps have been missed.
Some of the owners have been good though and managed to get a log entry organised.
The corrosion issues are not really a concern and are probably a little academic anyway.

The signature should still be for the job being done, and to an acceptable standard at that.
It is the guys that don't manage the log entry that are the problem all the same.
I can live with a bad job on someone-else's aeroplane, just as long as he takes responsibility for it. As others have mentioned here, - it should not be something that will bring the aircraft down anyway.
All the owner has to do is a log entry.

[Typhoon650]

You really are self important aren't you? Do you think you are the only person in the world with knowledge and trade skills?
Seriously, light aircraft aren't the pinnacle of modern design or engineering and the relevant maintenance guides are readily available online in the modern world. Do you REALLY think a flat piece of acrylic sheet that is non structural needs any more "spec" than replacing with similar thickness and UV resistance??
It's a light aircraft, unpressurised. Please tell me what will happen if a window is installed incorrectly. Will it leak or crack? Not life threatening.:rolleyes:
We're not talking about triple laminated airliner windscreens here....

Are you sure. What grade is the acrylic. Where did you get the information of the spec grade for that screen. Etc etc etc.
you have entered the black hole. It's easy to be brave when you don't have to sign it !!!!

Just like now if you wish to have a AD that is wrong looked at you have to pay for it to be accessed

Why don't you ask aurora about doing maintenance on a aircraft and then make an assessment on what you may or may not do !!!

[fujii]

Back to the thread topic. Annual finished today. The windows were done with Meguire's PlastX and a buffing wheel then finished off with Plexus. Looks good and they are old windows.

[baron_beeza]

I am pretty sure he was not debating the type or grade as regards the strength or other properties.
It is just an example of something that can be made within the rules but may not necessarily be so easy as some may assume.

Again I get involved a lot in local manufacture of aircraft items. I hear owners talk a lot about 'structural' also but the engineers hardly ever class items as structural or non-structural.
Fairings and other fibreglass items would presumably be classed as non-structural by these same owners. I know I have actually heard owners talking about such fairings as though they were open slather as they were 'non-structural'.
You would have to imagine these fellows actually believe the rules differentiate.... as far as I am aware, they don't !

For major repairs we may hear the terms Primary Structure, Tertiary Structure and the likes.

Yes, we can make new fairings and windows. There are procedures for it. There are also many easier methods that can be used though. One clue would be that it is much easier for a LAME to 'repair' something rather than 'manufacture' it.

Fairings would be a good example there. They can be repaired but to replace may even mean purchasing a STC'd item. We see this with wing tips and wheel fairings.

The rules for local manufacture or 'owner made' are pretty standard about the world.
An owner can make any part. Anything at all and how he/she wants it.
There is nothing stopping them.

What they can't do however is fit it to an airworthy certified aircraft.
They can if the aircraft has the item written up as a defect and the new item is not included in the repair. ie, the aircraft is not released back to service.

You can make a cardboard window, no problems at all.
Many would call that a template though, something you may be using to enable the manufacture of an acrylic one.
Indeed the rules often call for a collaborative effort between the owner and LAME to make parts.
The LAME can't put homemade stuff on your aircraft without your authority. Similarly the owner can't make up stuff and then try and fit it to the plane.

What generally happens is that the LAME tells the owner they need to make a part. The owner must be involved and approves the material specs and other data they require in order to make the part. In the case of a window plastic both parties agree on the thickness, the tint and the material.
The rules make mention of the requirements here. It can not be sub-standard in any way.

The item is then made. Anyone can do that but the owner must have an involvement. Whatever is going on must not be a surprise to the owner.

The only person that can accept and certify the final product and then go on to fit it though is the LAME. The owner has no authority whatsoever there, in any country that I have worked in.

It is a very common procedure all the same and is one we would have to use from time to time. Repairing something is regarded as the easier option all the same. Often it depends on what the LAME is comfortable certifying and how he wants to approach things. AC 43.13-1B is his best friend normally.

An owner is welcome to say it is non structural, won't do any harm and I can knock one up and fit it.
I am sure many guys have that attitude.

There will be many about that say that they own their aircraft and medicals and flight review make no difference. They can fly whenever.

Neither are legal but of course don't stop some pilots flying.
There will be some pilots that want to fly and operate within the rules though.
I would like to think that would be the majority but sometimes you do have to wonder.

[evansb]

OH MY GAWD!...three pages on Perspex restoration. Really? ..and still only a few character assassinations. Gotta love forums..

Personally, I asked 'Google' and got a great instructional YouTube video on restoring my MGA coupe backlight. I could have phoned my local 'glassier' as they also install and service perspex, but that is so passée and too easy..

[baron_beeza]

Hmmm, I did a Google and discovered that a MGA coupe is not an aeroplane.
Let alone a Type Certified one registered in Australasia.

There will be any number of guys on these forums with mechanical aptitude and skills. I work alongside such owners regularly and they are resourceful and great company.
Invariably their knowledge of the regs is near non-existent and they are keen to listen and learn. That said, every airfield also seems to have a 'character' that knows more than everyone, and anyone, else.

The cleaning of the windscreen was easily sorted. The OP got some good replies.
The option of replacing the windows is still there and available.
Listening to someone that says you can make some replacements out of cheap acrylic sheet may not be such a good idea.
Indeed if you want to remain legal it is not an option.
I thought the best advice was to have a word with the LAME if you wanted something installed.
I very much doubt it would take 3 pages to get the correct gen. A few minutes would do it and how much would you be paying for some sound advice ?

I remember asking a question on a Cherokee forum once. How many members had actually endorsed an aircraft logbook with a Release to Service or similar entry. Not one person replied.

Perhaps we could ask here...
How many guys here have actually certified the fitting of replacement windows to a certificated aircraft ?

*** EDIT ***
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-vz-BnPOPk

[LeadSled]

The intent of shed 8 is not for requeral type maintenance but for break downs away from an airfield with a maintenance facility.

yr' wrong,
Complete rubbish, Schedule 8 means exactly what it says.
Tootle pip!!

[baron_beeza]

Sched 8 is reasonably new to me but I am well aware of similar listings and procedures from other countries. I have included a couple of links to interpretations of the lists. Neither are great explanations and each leaves some room for personal interpretation.

https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/_assets/main/lib100178/maint-guide-owner-operators.pdf

AOPA Pilots' Guide to Preventive Maintenance (http://www.watsonvillepilots.org/articles/DIYmaint.htm)

The AOPA guide has a pilot feel to it and I think could be improved upon in certain areas.
You can soon see by comparing the two that they have similarities and each may help answer questions raised by the other.

I doubt the owner can go far wrong even if the interpretation is off beam.
Provided the work is done satisfactorily and certified then he has made an honest go of it. We have seen from this thread, and a similar one running concurrently, that we have different interpretations probably based on our backgrounds and experiences...... and desires.

Neither of those documents really address the protocols to which the work is normally carried out. The supply and fitting of spares is barely touched upon and yet Part 21 is one of the bigger sections in the regs. Many owners would feel that identifying a P/N and sending an email to Aircraft Spruce is SOP.
I doubt many are interested in researching the actual procedure as it makes little difference to the end result in their eyes.
I am talking side windows again here but it can quickly become much more complicated than either of the linked document indicates.
I think in reading them we should appreciate they are both very much 'dumbed down' versions of the actual rules and protocols.

The LAME, or A&P, works with this stuff on a daily basis and should have a fair idea of the operating requirements of the rules and how best to navigate about them. I am pretty confident he won't be 100% correct but at least if you work within his version then that is one less person that could potentially be upset.
All I expect from the owners would be good communication and records. I would talk them through the log entries, over the phone even if necessary.

[propnut]

Just don't get carried away with an electric buffer.

I saw someone use one once and it generated enough heat that the window suddenly went all soft..........he then had replace the window ;)