WSplit Cowl

[M Towsley]

Re: WSplit Cowl

My first annual I had a nose bowl so eroded from baffle rubbing that it had made a hole. The felt was gone, as was a bunch of original baffle and it's staples. I was blessed with layers of JB weld and Duct tape. You wouldn't believe the names and number of years that where signed in my log book, at some point it became OK to leave the nose bowl on. It takes ten minutes. Take the damn thing off and look.

Edit to add.. If something happened to my AP/IA and I had to find a new one, if he didn't ask me to take the prop and nose bowl off, I'd find a new mechanic.

Ten minutes? Off maybe. Please video the ten minute installation and post, maybe we can have a contest as to who is quicker. Are those billable minutes if I were an A&P/IA?

[Nefj40]

Re: WSplit Cowl

Ten minutes? Off maybe. Please video the ten minute installation and post, maybe we can have a contest as to who is quicker. Are those billable minutes if I were an A&P/IA?

On is at least double that unless torque wrenches and cotter pins are optional. My time is free.

I hope nobody is taking this personal. I just see a lot of "guests" reading everything that is posted.

[M Towsley]

Re: WSplit Cowl

On is at least double that unless torque wrenches and cotter pins are optional. My time is free.

I hope nobody is taking this personal. I just see a lot of "guests" reading everything that is posted.

I'm not taking anything personal, I like to learn. I never knew it was common for the nose bowl to be taken off. Plus I still want to hear why the original poster wants to split his cowl.

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: WSplit Cowl

I am guessing he would want it split for the same reason I would. It is a better design. As an owner I can remove the cowl, but I need at least an A&P to put on the prop and torque it.

Hank

[flyguy]

Re: WSplit Cowl

Probably a minor one, but cleaning bugs and other crap off the front baffles. When I am working around the engine with the top and bottom cowlings off the front cowl gets scraped if I rotate the prop and it is difficult to do a paint touch up with the cowling on.

It is difficult to check for exhaust leaks, oil oozing, whatever stuff, on the front cylinders that happen on an almost 70 year old airplane. It is not unusual for me to have to do a engine run-up with the top and bottom cowls off when I have done repair work of some sort. Front cowl has to come off, then prop off, then prop back on. Then prop back off and cowl on. Then prop back on. You get my drift.

It bothers me to have to do something as critical as torquing and safety wiring a prop just so I can get a clear view of the engine front cylinders and case. A split cowling installation mistake would be a lot less likely cause a really bad incident.

Personally I find the one piece cowling and torquing and safety wiring the prop to be a frustrating pain in the butt.

My old BC12 is a rather tired old bird and I work on it rather often. Perhaps that is part of the reason it has never let me down too firmly or in the wrong place.

DC

[flyguy]

Re: WSplit Cowl

Multiple posting erased.

DC

[LostnSpace]

Re: WSplit Cowl

[QUOTE=flyguy;90880]Probably a minor one, but cleaning bugs and other crap off the front baffles. When I am working around the engine with the top and bottom cowlings off the front cowl gets scraped if I rotate the prop and it is difficult to do a paint touch up with the cowling on.

Would it be easier to leave the nose cowl on, use a mirror if needed for the inspection, looking for oil leaks, etc., then put the cowling back on, run the engine, open the top two side cowls to make sure you have no oil leaks, etc.?, just a thought, gary

[astjp2]

Re: WSplit Cowl

Ok, its a deviation of the aircraft...and if you "change the airplane" from the specification of the type certificate without approval of the administrator, then its a major. because there are 2 criteria for being airworthy: meet type design (type certificate/STC/field approval) and be in condition for safe flight. That is not in any definition per the FAR's but an interpretation based on countless violations and FAA types interpretation of the regulations. I guess I need to be clearer in my legaleze

Tim and all,

You are not making a change to the Type Certificate, the FAA does that not us.

I was thinking about this after making the initial post (just the one line above) and want to suggest a way to approach the part of the reg that says "when not listed in the aircraft specifications issued by the FAA, are airframe major alterations".

Here is my suggestion,

If an item is listed in the TCDS then it is not possible for that specific item (alteration) to be a major alteration, it is an alteration but not a major one. (this makes the legitimate assumption that the item is implemented as the manufacturer prescribed not by some unapproved alternative)

If an alteration is not listed in the TCDS than it might be a major and to determine if it is we have to consider what the regs say (like Tim did for the cowl).

I think this approach is consistent with the FAA chief legal counsel approach.

Dave

[Guest]

Re: WSplit Cowl

Ok, its a deviation of the aircraft...and if you "change the airplane" from the specification of the type certificate without approval of the administrator, then its a major. because there are 2 criteria for being airworthy: meet type design (type certificate/STC/field approval) and be in condition for safe flight. That is not in any definition per the FAR's but an interpretation based on countless violations and FAA types interpretation of the regulations. I guess I need to be clearer in my legaleze

That doesn't make sense. By that reasoning everything is a major alteration.

Dave

[Guest]

Re: WSplit Cowl

I recant. I guess it does make sense. My bad.

Dave

[astjp2]

Re: WSplit Cowl

Dave, I am just trying to make sure that what I said makes sense...just because I think it does, does not mean that someone else understands that I am thinking. Tim

[Guest]

Re: WSplit Cowl

I think that you are right Tim.

I was/am tired so that makes me slow.

But since it is in the aircraft specification (even though it is such a simple change from 6 ply to 4 ply) we cannot alter that item and argue that the plane meets it type data and properly altered condition because I can't think of a basis to call it properly modified except for STC, FA, AD... a mere log entry is not enough to alter it.

I think it goes something like this; 1) if it is in the specifications then adopting it can't be a major and 2) if it is in the specifications then violating it must be a major.

Dave

I

[PA1195]

Re: WSplit Cowl

It's time for you that wrap your lives around regulations and semantics to chill...instead of maintaining your aircraft and loosing sleep have it done by someone else. Let your concerns be theirs. And...as a pilot if the plane is safe to you then go fly unless you'd rather concern yourselves with endless documentation.

Gary

[Guest]

Re: WSplit Cowl

It's time for you that wrap your lives around regulations and semantics to chill...instead of maintaining your aircraft and loosing sleep have it done by someone else. Let your concerns be theirs. And...as a pilot if the plane is safe to you then go fly unless you'd rather concern yourselves with endless documentation.

Gary

You are out of line Gary.

I am not interested in your assessment of my life, practices and interests.

You should keep your personal assessments and evaluations of others to yourself, they are not welcomed.

Dave

[waltermrich]

Re: WSplit Cowl

Just a thought , When the Wright Brothers had a question about air worthiness, what Regulating authority did they go too ?