1941 TC for sale

[3Dreaming]

Re: 1941 TC for sale

Yea, that IS a little different. If I had a mag that had an AD, but only of it was on a different engine, I would want to look very carefully to find out why it didn't apply to the engine on my plane.
1) Is the same problem there on MY engine, but the FAA messed up and forgot mine? (Of course the FAA would NEVER make a mistake).
2) Is the Mag not even supposed to BE on my engine? (yea, I have seen that a lot of times)
3) Is the problem to do with the mating of the Mag on those SPECIFIC engines, and it really does NOT apply to my legal instillation?

I guess for the first example I would inspect it, and if it looked like the same problem was there on my application I would bite the bullet and tell the FAA they missed an application (then everyone would hate me, but at least they would be around to give me a problem about it)

For the second example, I would inspect the installation and end up taking the Mag off to sell on eBay while I looked for a legal Mag.

For the third example, I would inspect it, and confirm it did not apply to my plane and fly away happy, not worrying about examples 1 & 2.

In each case I would probably record that I did the inspection and what I found. Even if it isn't "complying" with the AD it would help the guy downstream who knew about the AD and saw the Mag on my plane. My entry would probably keep him from having to look as deep if he was worried. (My IA worries a lot, and I like it).
I have rarely seen log entries that didn't provide some kind of intel. In just a few cases, that intel was just to inform me that the guy who wrote it wasn't the brightest bulb in the box. I would much rather have a fairly useless entry than have a needed one missing. I have a LOT of those for my plane. Getting the plane to match the records has been a real experience. I have BOXES of junk I took out of my plane that was never recorded as being added to the plane.
Hank

Actually in this case the perceding AD 96-12-07 which was superseded by AD 2005-12-06 did apply to his mags. The FAA with more information over time found that there was not a problem with all engines using this style mag and impulse coupling. I just wonder how he decided it applied to the airplane.

[Tom T]

Re: 1941 TC for sale

By the way, he did replace some stuff inside the mag to his satisfaction. OK with me any way. I like his way of inspections. He had a very long list of questions he resolved.

[3Dreaming]

Re: 1941 TC for sale

By the way, he did replace some stuff inside the mag to his satisfaction. OK with me any way. I like his way of inspections. He had a very long list of questions he resolved.

Tom, sorry for taking over your thread. It was just one of those things as a mechanic that makes me set back and go, huh.

[Tom T]

Re: 1941 TC for sale

Well, I understand how safety and efficiency can be time consuming, I spent 40 years in the electrical field and safety is always no. 1. As a Mechanic, I am sure you agree there can't be to much inspection and question. If in any doubt, fix it.

[N96337]

Re: 1941 TC for sale

Hank's right on the money (as usual), but also, I've seen the exact opposite come true too.... where an AD is listed like this and then amended to include MORE installations etc. In that case, prior compliance (whether written as complying with that AD or just doing the work or inspection as per an SB or something) could save the next mechanic going inside and doing again, what had already been accomplished.
That being said, I personally wouldn't have signed it off as complying with that particular AD, but probably would have indicated that I used that AD as guidance along with the appropriate Service Bulletin or whatever.
John

[magman]

Re: 1941 TC for sale

Doing this particular AD is not a 5 minute job as he mag must be removed , inspected, reinstalled & retimed.


AD 78-08-09 (?) was the original AD & required the Impulse Inspection @ 1000 hr intervals.

Later revisions to 78-08-09 & superceding AD's reduced the interval to 500 hrs between inspections.

Ultimately 05-12-06 superceded 96-12-07 and did not include MANY of the engines that were in previous AD's.

However; the Tech researching AD's finds 05-12-06 applies to mainly big Lycomings & ignores it.

How does he/she become aware of the change?

If the Tech's AD are on paper the recission of 96-12-07 is not obvious.

I'm sure many Tech's did do the AD even though it was no longer applicable.

I agree with N96337 that signing per a "non-applicable" AD is not a good idea.

Doing the inspection per the SB is a VERY GOOD idea though.

Failure of the Coupling will likely be Engine failure as well.


The owner is required to keep records that show CURRENT compliance with applicable AD's.

My choice is to have them keep all "Recurrent Only" AD's on a separate sheet.

1. Easy is identify as recurrent.

2. When sheet is superceded you can toss it.

NEVER give FAA records that show the time between complince was exceeded.


However; if you check "Recurrent" you may find the "AD that went away" still

showing up as requiring compliance.

[Ray36048]

Re: 1941 TC for sale

The AD system like many other has holes in it. I own a Piper Cherokee, for many years there was an AD on the landing gear links to be dye inspected every 500 hours. The AD called out the link PN. The problem came with the link having a PN cast into the side. This was a casing PN, not the PN of the final part after machining which was the subject of the AD. Many many airplanes got signed off as " does not apply due to PN". It took about 10 years for the AD to be updated.

[3Dreaming]

Re: 1941 TC for sale

The AD system like many other has holes in it. I own a Piper Cherokee, for many years there was an AD on the landing gear links to be dye inspected every 500 hours. The AD called out the link PN. The problem came with the link having a PN cast into the side. This was a casing PN, not the PN of the final part after machining which was the subject of the AD. Many many airplanes got signed off as " does not apply due to PN". It took about 10 years for the AD to be updated.

I've seen several AD where they have continued to make sign offs when they didn't apply. One is AD 76-04-12 ignition swithes. I've seen this signed off over and over every year when it didn't apply to the swith installed. I think it was a case of it being easier to do the check required by the AD than to crawl under the panel and check to see what kind of switch is installed. Another one is AD 72-03-03R3 This one for Cessna aircraft required parts to be installed by 01-01-1973. When the parts are installed then a,b,and c of the AD no longer applied. I still see these parts of the AD being signed off 35 years later. Are the inspections that were required a good thing to do? Yes by all means, but you don't need to sign it off per the AD.

[Tom T]

Re: 1941 TC for sale

I think I will start a new add: 1941 TC all AD's complied with, MAYBE! lol

[Richh2only]

Re: 1941 TC for sale

Tom T. the two log book entries show different times for Total Time on Airframe one shows 5321.59 and the other is 2521.54 which is correct?

[3Dreaming]

Re: 1941 TC for sale

I'll reply for him. 2521.54 is engine total time. 5321.59 is aircraft total time. At least that is what I get from the two entries.

[Tom T]

Re: 1941 TC for sale

Yup

i'll reply for him. 2521.54 is engine total time. 5321.59 is aircraft total time. At least that is what i get from the two entries.