Source: http://www.beechaeroclub.org/showthread.php/315-IMPERIAL-FUEL-SELECTOR-VALUE-QUESTION
Timestamp: 2018-11-14 21:36:53
Document Index: 549031044

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 91', 'art 135', 'art 120', 'art\n120', 'art 91', 'art\n91', 'art 91', 'art 135', 'art 120', 'art 91']

IMPERIAL FUEL SELECTOR VALUE QUESTION
Thread: IMPERIAL FUEL SELECTOR VALUE QUESTION
05-01-2005, 10:18 PM #1
These Imperial valves were very prone to binding and broken shafts. They were all supposed to have been replaced in 1977 using Kit 23-9019-1 S, as outlined in Mandatory SI 838-289 (downloadable from BAC). RAPID still shows one of these kits left... for $3,148.31. They were twenty bucks in 1977. Just one more example of why it can make sense to comply with non-regulatory Service Bulletins. It is also interesting that this is about $1,000 cheaper than RAPID's price for the PN 169-380086-1 valve alone.
See SI 0364-289 and SI 0529-289 (downloadable from BAC) for information on how to inspect, lubricate, and adjust this old style fuel selector valve (including a diagram). I don't think that they have any o-rings in them. They are seldom properly set up, and are often found to be binding when one is encountered. Beech mandated their replacement in 1977 due to handles and shafts breaking off of improperly maintained valves. The lubrication they rely upon to prevent binding gets washed away by the fuel flowing through them.
From: kagleason2002
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 1:35 PM
Subject: [musketeermail] IMPERIAL FUEL SELECTOR VALUE QUESTION
Does anyone have instructions and o-ring kit, photos or digram showing how to rebuild the IMPERIAL Fuel Selector Value in my 1967 A23-24 Super III (MA-139)? Thank you,
N7958L
05-01-2005, 11:02 PM #2
--- In musketeermail@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Rellihan" &lt;rellihan@r...>
> These Imperial valves were very prone to binding and broken shafts.
>They were all supposed to have been replaced in 1977 using Kit
>23-9019-1 S, as outlined in Mandatory SI 838-289
Rats, but thx for the info. Wasen't aware of this &amp; not really sure
what I have, but I think I have this valve. I'm not clear on Mandatory
SI. &amp; non regulatory SB. Sounds like a contradiction &amp; optional; how's
> (downloadable from BAC). RAPID still shows one of these kits
>left... for $3,148.31. They were twenty bucks in 1977. Just one
>more example of why it can make sense to comply with non-regulatory
>Service Bulletins. It is also interesting that this is about $1,000
>cheaper than RAPID's price for the PN 169-380086-1 valve alone.
> See SI 0364-289 and SI 0529-289 (downloadable from BAC) for
>information on how to inspect, lubricate, and adjust this old style
>fuel selector valve (including a diagram). I don't think that they
>have any o-rings in them. They are seldom properly set up, and are
>often found to be binding when one is encountered. Beech mandated
>their replacement in 1977 due to handles and shafts breaking off of
>improperly maintained valves. The lubrication they rely upon to
>prevent binding gets washed away by the fuel flowing through them.
> From: kagleason2002
> Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 1:35 PM
> Subject: [musketeermail] IMPERIAL FUEL SELECTOR VALUE QUESTION
> Does anyone have instructions and o-ring kit, photos or digram
showing how to rebuild the IMPERIAL Fuel Selector Value in my 1967
A23-24 Super III (MA-139)? Thank you,
> N7958L
05-02-2005, 07:59 AM #3
I want to thank everyone for the quick response. I'm having a meeting with the A/P today.
05-02-2005, 10:18 PM #4
--- In musketeermail@yahoogroups.com, "jon simik" &lt;bigbajon@a...>
>I'm not clear on Mandatory
> SI. &amp; non regulatory SB. Sounds like a contradiction &amp; optional;
> Jon 63
If the manufacturer sees something in service that could be a
problem, they have to decide whether it's an airworthiness issue or
not. If not raising airworthiness concerns, for any number of
reasons they can issue a Service Instruction (SI, usually just an
inspection) or a Service Bulletin (SB) if parts are needed.
Examples of reasons for these include improving service life,
getting less warranty claims, cutting labor hours for dealers, etc.
However, if the builder judges a potential problem to affect
airworthiness, they are required to inform the FAA. The
manufacturer will also develop the fix, usually with the FAA fully
aware, and the airplane owners get notice of an available SI or SB.
There is a one more decision, in which the manufacturer decides if
this is something that REALLY ought to be changed. This goes beyond
the famous Cessna placards stating soemthing pretty obvious like "DO
NOT FLY INTO ICING CONDITIONS." If so, they call it a mandatory SI
or SB.
Everything to this point is optional compliance on the owner's
part. However, things are changing. For example, after the engine
quit in a recent accident, the owner was faulted for not complying
with a mandatory SB!
The FAA then has to decide if they are going to write an
airworthiness directive. Usually, once a manufacturer calls an SB
mandatory, the FAA goes along and issues the AD. Once the AD is
issued, compliance is mandatory. However, there are cases in which
the FAA doesn't see the mandatory need and doesn't issue an AD. The
owner is back to optional compliance.
This may have been one of those, but it's nearly impossible to tell
from the outside. Hope this helps.
05-03-2005, 08:28 AM #5
--- In musketeermail@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Swaim" &lt;dswaim1119@c...> wrote:
> >I'm not clear on Mandatory
> > SI. &amp; non regulatory SB. Sounds like a contradiction &amp; optional;
> how's that work?
> > Jon 63
&lt;snip> from the bottom..
[This may have been one of those, but it's nearly impossible to tell
from the outside. Hope this helps.]
Helps alot &amp; thx. IMO at this point, would say that use of IMPERIAL
FUEL SELECTOR VALUE is STILL LEGAL for use (for us poor souls that may
still have em) under certain circumstances. Goes like this..
"In the USA, we have aviation usage that is regulated by FAA Part 91
(private, non-revenue), Part 135 (basically unscheduled charter
operations), and Part 120 (scheduled airlines). The aircraft and
accessory manufacturers issue various forms of communications related
to their products. Some are advisory, some are suggested changes,
and some are "mandatory". All manufacturer's Service Communiqu�s
(Bulletins, Letters, Instructions, etc.) are required by the FAA to be
complied with on aircraft in any form of revenue service (meaning Part
120 and 135 operations). They are non-binding on Part 91 aircraft,
even when the manufacturer identifies them as "mandatory". The only
time they really become "mandatory" in the eyes of the FAA, for Part
91 aircraft, is if they become the basis for an Airworthiness
Directive (which is pretty common). For example, the Mandatory
Service Instruction calling for the new valve never resulted in an AD,
but a companion topic in the same bulletin, calling for the fuel
selector guard and decals.."
Thx Mike R. &amp; Bob Sw,. for the info.
> If the manufacturer sees something in service that could be a
> problem, they have to decide whether it's an airworthiness issue or
> not. If not raising airworthiness concerns, for any number of
> reasons they can issue a Service Instruction (SI, usually just an
> inspection) or a Service Bulletin (SB) if parts are needed.
> Examples of reasons for these include improving service life,
> getting less warranty claims, cutting labor hours for dealers, etc.
> However, if the builder judges a potential problem to affect
> airworthiness, they are required to inform the FAA. The
> manufacturer will also develop the fix, usually with the FAA fully
> aware, and the airplane owners get notice of an available SI or SB.
> There is a one more decision, in which the manufacturer decides if
> this is something that REALLY ought to be changed. This goes beyond
> the famous Cessna placards stating soemthing pretty obvious like "DO
> NOT FLY INTO ICING CONDITIONS." If so, they call it a mandatory SI
> or SB.
> Everything to this point is optional compliance on the owner's
> part. However, things are changing. For example, after the engine
> quit in a recent accident, the owner was faulted for not complying
> with a mandatory SB!
> The FAA then has to decide if they are going to write an
> airworthiness directive. Usually, once a manufacturer calls an SB
> mandatory, the FAA goes along and issues the AD. Once the AD is
> issued, compliance is mandatory. However, there are cases in which
> the FAA doesn't see the mandatory need and doesn't issue an AD. The
> owner is back to optional compliance.
> This may have been one of those, but it's nearly impossible to tell
> from the outside. Hope this helps.
05-03-2005, 12:08 PM #6
First, Jon, thanks for mentioning that a large part of what I wrote
is NOT applicable in commercial service. I was strictly addressing
your Part 91 private use!
I know nothing about the Imperial valve and you'll have to check for
ADs to really answer your own question, but it sounds like you got
it. Since you (I think) have a Canadian registered plane, you'll
need to check the Canadian ADs, as occasionally they'll issue one
where the American FAA does not.
> Helps alot &amp; thx. IMO at this point, would say that use of
> FUEL SELECTOR VALUE is STILL LEGAL for use (for us poor souls that
> still have em) under certain circumstances. Goes like this..
> "In the USA, we have aviation usage that is regulated by FAA Part
> (private, non-revenue), Part 135 (basically unscheduled charter
> operations), and Part 120 (scheduled airlines). The aircraft and
> accessory manufacturers issue various forms of communications
> to their products. Some are advisory, some are suggested changes,
> and some are "mandatory". All manufacturer's Service Communiqu�s
> (Bulletins, Letters, Instructions, etc.) are required by the FAA
> complied with on aircraft in any form of revenue service (meaning
> 120 and 135 operations). They are non-binding on Part 91 aircraft,
> even when the manufacturer identifies them as "mandatory". The
> time they really become "mandatory" in the eyes of the FAA, for
> 91 aircraft, is if they become the basis for an Airworthiness
> Directive (which is pretty common). For example, the Mandatory
> Service Instruction calling for the new valve never resulted in an
> but a companion topic in the same bulletin, calling for the fuel
> selector guard and decals.."
> Thx Mike R. &amp; Bob Sw,. for the info.
> > If the manufacturer sees something in service that could be a
> > problem, they have to decide whether it's an airworthiness issue
> > not. If not raising airworthiness concerns, for any number of
> > reasons they can issue a Service Instruction (SI, usually just
> > inspection) or a Service Bulletin (SB) if parts are needed.
> > Examples of reasons for these include improving service life,
> > getting less warranty claims, cutting labor hours for dealers,
> > However, if the builder judges a potential problem to affect
> > airworthiness, they are required to inform the FAA. The
> > manufacturer will also develop the fix, usually with the FAA
> > aware, and the airplane owners get notice of an available SI or
> > There is a one more decision, in which the manufacturer decides
> > this is something that REALLY ought to be changed. This goes
> > the famous Cessna placards stating soemthing pretty obvious
like "DO
> > NOT FLY INTO ICING CONDITIONS." If so, they call it a mandatory
> > or SB.
> > Everything to this point is optional compliance on the owner's
> > part. However, things are changing. For example, after the
> > quit in a recent accident, the owner was faulted for not
> > with a mandatory SB!
> > The FAA then has to decide if they are going to write an
> > airworthiness directive. Usually, once a manufacturer calls an
> > mandatory, the FAA goes along and issues the AD. Once the AD is
> > issued, compliance is mandatory. However, there are cases in
> > the FAA doesn't see the mandatory need and doesn't issue an AD.
> > owner is back to optional compliance.
> > This may have been one of those, but it's nearly impossible to
> > from the outside. Hope this helps.
imperial fuel valve