General maintenance discussion (split from EZ riveting thread)

[VictorBravo]

Re: EZ Flush riveting???

Ken, you said you had heard that another AD is on the way, and there has not been a full explanation. Did you or did you not "hear" about another AD and what exactly is it?

[flykenken]

Re: EZ Flush riveting???

Again the next AD - and I hope it isn't while I am still flying -will most likely come from a tcraft that was not properly maintained/inspected.

[VictorBravo]

Re: EZ Flush riveting???

Again the next AD - and I hope it isn't while I am still flying -will most likely come from a tcraft that was not properly maintained/inspected.

So was the last AD.

The one before that came from a crook looking to make a sow's ear into a silk purse.

All that was needed (in the very worst case) was a generalized AD saying that you have to look at the structure very carefully, in one of three or four ways. But this should have been an AD on any and every tube/fabric airplane over 40 years old... Cubs, Champs, Porterfields, etc.

There are a whole lot of us who thought that you were saying there is another AD on the way, as if you knew about a pending FAA action.

[fearofpavement]

Re: EZ Flush riveting???

Again the next AD - and I hope it isn't while I am still flying -will most likely come from a tcraft that was not properly maintained/inspected.

Well, if people already aren't properly maintaining and inspecting an aircraft what difference will an AD make? Sorta like gun control, eh? If you don't care what the law says, another law isn't gonna fix the problem...

Does Canada automatically reissue any USA AD's? Or are you expecting the Canadian authorities to issue an AD on their own?

[flykenken]

Re: EZ Flush riveting???

Canada the US, Australia and I think England all recognize eachothers SBs and ADs. The biggest difference between Canada and US maintenance rules is that an engine can only be zero timed by a certified engine shop NOT by an AME(here) or A&P (USA). The reason being both the overhaul work was often not done to standard and the paperwork as to what was done or replaced inaccurate/incomplete at best.

[fearofpavement]

Re: EZ Flush riveting???

Well, I don't think the engine zero time thing is any different here. Only the manufacturer or their designated representative can zero time an engine in the USA. A mechanic can "overhaul" an engine but the previous time carries on. So the log would say something like "engine total time 4354.1, time since major overhaul 345.3"

A zero time engine (FAA calls it "rebuilt", most others call it "reman") will start with new logbooks and there is no history carried forward. You have no idea as to which parts are new, how many hours the used parts have on them or even how many engines donated items for the assembly. Of course the manufacturer provides a list of items they always change with new so I guess there is some idea of what has taken place.

All that to say, that a quality field or shop overhaul can acheive similar results but doesn't get to start from "0" hours.

[N96337]

Re: General maintenance discussion (split from EZ riveting thread)

Last summer an improperly maintained and inspected Taylorcraft (experimental I understand) went down in Oregon and 2 men lost their lives. Now there are 2 ADs and I hear a third on the way.

Again the next AD - and I hope it isn't while I am still flying -will most likely come from a tcraft that was not properly maintained/inspected.

So now you haven't heard anything???? Which is it?? Let's stick to one story or the other.

John

[Edwin Otha]

Re: General maintenance discussion (split from EZ riveting thread)

I haven't seen any NPRM's about the Taylorcraft issue. Ken may be making a point about the lack of qualified inspectors for these type aircraft.
AD's are generally issued after a discovery (accident). But to categorize all AD's are a fault of the inspector is wrong. With few exceptions inspectors and mechanics are doing an excellent job. Typically you are dealing with an aircraft that has no factory support, no spares available, no specific inspection criteria and all of the installed components are 60 years old. Failures will happen. The maintenance staff are trying to minimize the impact.
I've been working in aviation for the last 30 years and this is not a new subject. If the owner/operator thinks he was overcharged he's not happy with the maintenance. If he has a break down or incident he's not happy with the maintenance. I think the conclusion is that owner/operators are not happy people.
EO

[Pearson]

Re: General maintenance discussion (split from EZ riveting thread)

Well I can't speak for any of the other owners, buy as far a myself.....well I am just tickled pink. Every time I ease back on that yoke and slip those surly bonds a big grin comes across my face. To me that is true happiness!

[lfries]

Re: General maintenance discussion (split from EZ riveting thread)

ditto Mr. Pearson.

[VictorBravo]

Re: General maintenance discussion (split from EZ riveting thread)

I think the conclusion is that owner/operators are not happy people.
EO

Almost correct but not quite. Safe owner/operators of airplanes are SUSPICIOUS people. Like that famous quote from a Vietnam era news reporter (I think it was Harry Reasoner) about Huey helicopter pilots... that they fly around in a state of suspicion knowing that if something hasn't already gone wrong something's about to.

I happen to fly very very suspiciously. Mostly because I do the majority of the work on my airplane, and I'm not a professional mechanic. I fly without the happy-go-lucky bliss that most private pilots enjoy, for several valid and invalid reasons.

Owner-Operators have their problems to complain about, as do the mechanics.

The owner has X dollars to fly his airplane for the year, the hangar costs .25X, and the mechanic wants .75X for fixing everything he thinks should be fixed. The mechanic thinks the airplane should be Oshkosh-Restored at $75 an hour because his wife wants a new car. The Owner thinks that a roll of duct tape and re-used Cotter pins should guarantee the mechanic's putting his life on the line when signing off a repair. The mechanic thinks the IA should trust everything he said and sign off the mechanic's work for $4.75 and a six-pack.

Nothing new here

[Steve Morgan]

Re: General maintenance discussion (split from EZ riveting thread)

The Owner thinks that a roll of duct tape and re-used Cotter pins should guarantee the mechanic's putting his life on the line when signing off a repair. The mechanic thinks the IA should trust everything he said and sign off the mechanic's work for $4.75 and a six-pack.

Nothing new here

Well said! That is exactly how I have interpreted the aviation food chain so far in my career, and it seems to be the same theme everywhere.

[flykenken]

Re: General maintenance discussion (split from EZ riveting thread)

Again from what I am hearing...not from the FAA, but from some members of this forum, is that the primary interest in maintenance is cheap and easy. This means to me a third AD/SB is ineviatble. IMHO the lift strut SB issued by the manufacturer was not unreasonable. IMHO some members reactly inappropriately to the service bulletin and unfortunately not everyone complied with the SB. As events followed, a Tcraft lost its wing and the SB became an AD. This AD was issued by the FAA not the manufacturer. As for the oft heard laments of the cost of flying, well everyone likes to complain don't they? but it costs what it costs to do it right.

[Robert Lees]

Re: General maintenance discussion (split from EZ riveting thread)

Ken, are you sure you've got your facts right? The accident was not as a result of not complying with the strut SB or AD. The accident occurred as a result of corrosion on the fitting, not the struts. It was not influential in the strut SB becoming an AD.

Further, inplying that the "primary interest in maintenance is cheap and easy" is insulting to most here who's primary interest is in fact safety.

[Forrest Barber]

Re: General maintenance discussion (split from EZ riveting thread)

thank u Robert , I still get phone calls about all of this and am frankly tired of explaining the TWO SEPARATE AD's....... IMHO as kenken puts it , I too agree that the AD's showed they were necessary as we had Owners, Mechanics and Inspectors who ignored common sense and just passed the corroded, rusted crap along each year.
(In our area) , we now have a few Owners asking to have their struts go to NDT ( Ultrasonic) testing just for their own peace of mind and I think it is wisely spent money.