You failed to give a simple question. And you expected an answer to a items you made up and introduced. Are you not able to stick to the facts?
Fact: STAL6 didn't state which manual he used (aircraft manual could refer to any number of the).
Fact: STAL6 didn't state what other documents might be applicable.
Fact: STAL6 didn't state if he meant the airframe manufacturer or the bottle manufacturer.
Fact: We don't even know if the bottle that's in the aircraft is original equipment, or if additional documentation might apply.
The answer is, you go with what the aircraft manufacturer's maintenance manual says.
No. You go with the what the component manufacturer's approved publications and data have to say on the subject. The airframe manufacturer may or may not have anything to say about a bottle manufactured by someone else. Where a conflict exists on life limits, yes, the most conservative provision applies. However, simply because an item or appliance is installed in a particular airframe does not mean that the documentation or instruction ends with the airframe manufacturers data. It doesn't.
A common example is a powerplant, in which the airframe serves as the customer to the powerplant. Want engine data? Go to the engine manufacturer.
Want to know what to do with Cleveland wheels or BF Goodrich brakes? Go to their publications. Want to know about an airborne pump? You can't just look to the airframe manufacturer; yo go to the appliance or component manufacturers data, too. Which is precisely why I said we needed more information to answer a question which lacked any semblance of information in the first place.
If it is not aircraft manual, you then go to the next level - who installed it.
Absolutely NOT. The installer doesn't set the parameters for the product that's been installed. I can't install an item, for example, and then establish the airworthiness limitations and components life limits merely because I installed it.
If an item has been installed by a supplemental type certificate, then the STC should spell out either the limitations themselves, or point to the approved data where that information will be located. In many cases, STC's ammend what's published in the airframe manufacturer's data, requiring additional mx manuals, additional publications, and additional data.
I didn't complicate anything; the issue is more complex than a vague reference to a "maintenance manual" with the hope of gleaning somethin definitive from that reference alone. You know this. Or you should.
Who ever installed it in the aircraft has to have gone by the bottle manufacturer's specifications.
That really has no bearing on the life limits or other constraints which might be imposed by AD, STC, bottle or airframe official publications and data. That the installer may or may not have adhered to the bottle manufacturer's requirements is subject to what you see when you inspect the system, and whether the installer did it correctly or not, you're responsible for all previous work when you return that component to service. If you accept what's been done before and don't re-do it yourself, then you're now responsible for what others have done...regardless of whether they complied with any specific requirements or not.
Moreover, I've seen plenty of work done by mechanics and installers in the past which was incorect. Sometimes grossly so. As assumption that anybody properly complied in the past is a very dangerous one to make indeed. Especially when your fingerprints are now on the work, too. You know better than to assume.
What others did to comply in the past is also really quite irrelevant, so long as you're working on the product, because your job is to ensure that it's compliant now, and that when it leaves your hands, with your signature intact, it's 100% compliant with ALL relevant data. Not merely the airframe manufacturers, and not merely the bottle manufacturers. You may have additional relevant data with which to comply which doesn't apply to either one, such as the manufacturer of the regulator which is attached to the bottle etc.
Data is often applicable by effectivity only, segregated by serial number or part number. It may be applicable to one bottle, or one bottle type and not the next, and this information may be found in only one of the several sources discussed above. It's just not as simple as going to chapter 12 and being done with the matter...and it's CERTAINLY not as simple as referencing the installer of the equipment.
Years ago when I first came across this site, I had a lot of respect for you....
I suppose that's very sweet, but I really don't care.
Ya give the man a simple question and you provide the answer and he STILL doesn't answer it.
You didn't do that, of course. You provided a question regarding STAL6's post, then proceded to introduce things that weren't in his post in a nonsensical manner which served only to muddy what should have been a rhetorical question in the first place. It was neither a simple nor a correct question, and deserved only the reply it received.
You've argued throughout the thread falsehoods and assertions which are incorrect. You showed us references to "Uncle Fed" which weren't really accurate, difinitive, nor regulatory, and suggested throwing out the baby with the bathwater just to be on the safe side.
If you want to get specific, then let's do so. But use real data, and all the data, and quit making things up. You'll fare much better.
