Taylorcraft Inspection Manual proposal

[VictorBravo]

I kind of like the idea of putting some photos out. Look how hard it has been for some of the guys to find the hole for the trim on the elevator.
Hank

Good items to add to that annual list we were going to do.

On this important concept, I'm pleased to say that I'm quite happy and so very magnanimous to volunteer the services... of Rob Lees Based on Rob's fantastic series of detailed Taylorcraft restoration photos from a few years back, I believe that selected photos from this collection would become the basis for a photo-essay or instructional guide of a full proper annual inspection process.

With Rob's permission and some basic photo editing (a couple of arrows, and added text), a good part of this annual guide is probably already there.

Add to that some annotated photos showing an average well-worn "field specimen" T-craft would allow the demonstration of lubrication of all these hard-to-see points that disappear on a small printed "eBay" oil company lubrication chart.

Add to that the photos of Mike's control sprocket discovery, and as many other similar problems or common blunders that can be exposed.

Add to that the photos of where and how people have found corrosion, or things that break, or things that wear out over time and nobody pays attention to. Everything from long-abused landing gear hinge bolts, to the seaplane cluster inspection failure, to my own experiences with wing spar attach bolt looseness.

For whatever it's worth (now that I've deepened Rob's indentured servitude even further than his existing commitment), there is something I can add... so as to put my time and effort where my mouth is. I have experience creating "instruction manuals" that guide a new or inexperienced person through reasonably complex steps with a minimum of pain. Based on these photos, the knowledge of the various experts on the Forum, etc. I'll gladly create a manual that combines the photos, weaving it together with written instructions that make it more idiot-proof, and then submit the manual to the group for corrections and further refinement. Not that writing a relatively simple manual is mystic neurosurgery that only I can perform... it ain't and there's many better than me... but it's something I've done many times and am at least fairly good at.

I'll also suggest we create a section in this manual where common safety problems, complying with AD's or "strongly suggested" tidbits, and collective wisdom on the care and feeding of the Taylorcraft are presented.

That should even be the title of the "book"... "Care and Maintenance of the Vintage Taylorcraft Airplane - The Collective Wisdom of the Taylorcraft Foundation and its Members"

This is a pretty big project, and it will take the time and effort of a large number of people. We all have something to contribute. If another writer wants to step forward and do the compiling and narrative text, I'll step aside and be supportive in some other way, it's fine with me.

But this seems tome to be one of those "for the greater good" things that many of us feel we owe to the Taylorcraft and its continued survival. I think it is well worth all of our effort.

What say ye, oh distinguished group?

[1938BF50]

Re: Bass ackwards

Bill,

Count me in......I will help any way that I can.

Suggest starting a new thread dedicated to the "ANNUAL INSPECTION" cause. Moderators can make it "stick" so we can all find it quickly.

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: Annual Inspection Manual proposal

I'm in! It would be great to use it as the basis for every annual. We used to get folks around here together any time one of us did an annual. Made for some REALLY GOOD inspections (but notice, NONE of them ever caught my fuel system problem!)
Let's do this and I would be glad to help with the photos and writing too. I have planes in different stages of disassemble to take photos of.
Hank

[Carrieve]

Re: Annual Inspection Manual proposal

This sounds like one of the better things we can do for continued safe existance. I know I have lots of notes in my "Official Tcraft Manual" pertaining to things that are not covered there. Count me in.

[mulwyk]

Re: Annual Inspection Manual proposal

How about a wiki? Like wikipedia only for Taylorcraft. T-Craft Wiki.

Everyone could contribute what they know.

In additional to mechanical issues, I'd like to see articles on what folks have learned about how to fly them. Like sections on slipping methods and crosswind landings.

Sure would be better than trying to search the forum to find information. (And, wouldn't the cub guys be jealous!)

[mikerice]

Re: FAQ page - what happened to it?

As an aside to this thread, there was an FAQ page that Forrest Barber wrote years ago, and I updated earlier this year. It was a good compilation of assorted facts and figures, not all of which was common knowledge.

A wiki is a good idea for contributing info and making a living document, but the moderation/editing is important to prevent bad data from becoming institutionalized as fact or best practice.

The reason for the FAQ was to start to collect obscure, but useful data not found in a manual or difficult to search for in the forum into an easy to find location. It was a great place to start if you are new to Taylorcrafts.

[Buell Powell]

Re: Annual Inspection Manual proposal

I have the Taylorcraft newsletters back to 1990. There are many very good articles --most with illustrations--about how to do things and Tec information that I still refer back to now and then. I could make copys of the articles and send them to anyone that may be interested in using them in the project.
Buell

[mikerice]

Re: FAQ page - what happened to it?

Answering my own question:

I found the link to FAQ on the Technical Resources page at the bottom of the Table of Contents.

http://www.taylorcraft.org/Taylorcraft%20FAQ%20-%20Frequently%20Asked%20Questions.htm

Check it out as a place to start for the Annual Inspection Manual

[VictorBravo]

Re: FAQ page - what happened to it?

A wiki is a good idea for contributing info and making a living document, but the moderation/editing is important to prevent bad data from becoming institutionalized as fact or best practice.

Absolutely correct.

I have had a bad experience with the "wiki" idea. A couple of years ago I tried to add/correct some (IMHO relevant) historical information on the Wikipedia internet page for Taylorcraft. Someone who was working at Harry's House of Horrors (or someone loyal to him) managed to defeat these additions every time. They kept putting back what I perceived as inappropriate or misleading information... to "institutionalize" this bad information... and removing my information such as the name of the founder and designer of the airplane, or the checkered history of company ownership.

I even tried to contact Wikipedia and offer my own credentials as being qualified to write an accurate article for this page. This incident did great harm to Wikipedia's credibility as far as I was concerned. When they asked for charitable donations a few months later, this is why I could not support them.

Regardless of my personal experiences with Wikipedia - Considering what is potentially at stake here :

1) Flight Safety
2) Safe Maintenance Practices
3) A lot of time, effort and sincerity from our membership
4) Money spent by an owner doing something correctly or incorrectly
5) FAA either officially or unofficially recognizing this document
6) This document possibly increasing the status, value, or desirability of our airplane...

I am very strongly against the "wiki" idea where someone can just walk in to the document and tell everyone they need to buy new struts... or that they shouldn't even bother inspecting the longeron cluster because it "only affects seaplanes".

This is not a Woody Allen movie banana republic power struggle - I am not vying for the sole position of authority here, or suggesting that any one other person be elected Il Duce. ("All Taylorcraft owners under the age of 65 years old... are now... 65 years old!")

I'm saying that once the document is effectively approved by this group... it should not be changed or added to without a vote, or some amount of thought, a pro-con debate, etc.

It's not a question of whether the document should be able to be changed (of course it should), but of how necessary it really is for it to be changed easily. Feel free to correct me, but I can't see the value of anyone and everyone being able to change it instantly and with no "check and balance" in place.

The Constitution is also a "living document" but (these days in particular) I'm pretty thankful that it can't just be modified at will by whoever is sitting in the Oval office.

[1938BF50]

Re: Annual Inspection Manual proposal

Perfectly stated Bill! I support you 100%.

I suggest we limit this first effort to an extensive ANNUAL INSPECTION CHECKLIST with accompanying pictures where appropriate.

[mikerice]

Re: Annual Inspection Manual proposal

Victor Bravo-
Exactly my reasoning for using the FAQ's.

I completely reformatted the FAQ because the old one was almost unreadable due to Microsoft Word formatting showing up on the web page.

Forrest Barber wrote the original material and proofed it after I did the web formatting offline.

This process put an A&P mechanic with Inspection Authorization in the loop.

Robert Lees and I discussed putting a detailed checklist (there are several available already) into the FAQ. There is legitimate concern for trailing liability for the Taylorcraft Foundation to promote a procedure that has very real safety implications if not written correctly.

An Annual Checklist is is not a typical forum post: people lives depend on it.

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: Annual Inspection Manual proposal

You guys are EXACTLY on the right track. Anyone should be able to post a PROPOSED change to this site, which any of us could comment on and choose to do or not, but it shouldn't be added to the document until it is FULLY VETTED. We ARE putting lives on the actual document, but I would like to see a problem someone finds as soon as possible so I can inspect my plane for it immediately.
Hank

[flyguy]

Re: Annual Inspection Manual proposal

I don't think we want to create a document that states, implies or suggests, "these are all the things that are important and you don't have to look for any other problems."

Nor do we want to say how to correct the problems--IN THIS DOCUMENT ITSELF.

If it sounds like I am overstating the obvious, that is correct, you read me right.

Document title should not have the word Annual in it. Think about it.

How about INSPECTION ITEMS, or NOTED PROBLEM AREAS or something similar but better. Someone here can think of something good, I'm sure.

Darryl

[VictorBravo]

Re: Annual Inspection Manual proposal

My view is pretty simple on the subject of liability and ass-covering. But after expounding on NOT being elected Il Duce, I can only submit this to the group rather than insist on it.

What I personally think is appropriate is as follows:

1) A good solid disclaimer that reminds the reader that these are suggested procedures, represents collective wisdom, consensus, and opinions of people who have experience with the type. Language that this document is a good faith, best efforts document with no guarantee of perfection.

2) Language that reminds the reader that the mechanic who performs and/or signs off the annual is the one making the final decision. That's the way it's been and the way it needs to be. The IA can omit, change, add to, agree, or disagree with anything in the document. As my friend Joel Severinghaus would say when we are discussing one of our favorite authors and books..." Everything in this book may be wrong."
Matter of fact, that should be the last sentence in the manual, as a tribute to the aforementioned author.

3) The Taylorcraft was designed and built in the age of "personal responsibility". It should be maintained the same way. Matter of fact, I like that sentence for the FIRST one in the manual, if it were my decision to make.

4) Most Importantly... we need to understand that a legal case could be made for either, both, or neither side of any issue in today's legal system. You can get sued for anything -
a) If we wrote a manual that said "here's what you should do for an annual", someone could indeed file a lawsuit claiming that we overlooked something, or that we put ourselves into the position of high holy authority. So an attorney would bellow out in court "So instead of leaving it to Mr. Corpse to make his own decisions, your group guided him down the path that you thought was best for him, and thus gave him such a false sense of security that he stopped thinking for himself, and therefore overlooked the set screw on the radio knob, and plummeted to his death?"
b) If we wrote a manual that was wreaking with liability fear and full of weasel words, that was evasive or guarded, that very same lawyer will show up in court saying "So you all actually knew what the right thing to do was... and yet to cover your weasely asses you DIDN'T make it clear enough that Mr. Corpse should have specifically put a Sears torque wrench on the radio knob set screw, which might have made the plane just a little safer, and prevented this tragic crash into Mr. Corpse's own peanut brittle factory?"

The big difference between writing a weasel-word document and the best possible document is that (in my opinion as a non-lawyer), in one case you have people who are trying to do the safest possible thing for the best possible reason (safety), and in the other case you have people not doing the best possible thing, pulling back from the greatest possible safety (because they are now writing for a courtroom instead of writing for the aircraft).

5) Since this document would be "published" by the Taylorcraft Foundation, which is a non-profit entity with minimal assets, I believe there is another layer of protection of sorts. It does not look good to sue a charity, and it is usually not lucrative either.

6) Since this document would be public "freeware" and not sold at a profit, I believe that adds another layer of protection.

7) A real live lawyer would of course have to be consulted on this. Our group had at least one lawyer at one time... Chris P are you there?

So my vote FWIW is to "man up" and create the best, safest document that we can, and at least have that fact as a defense that we did the right thing.

Hell, a guy like Geoffrey Feiger could make a case against us even if we were chicken-s**t and decided we wouldn't even write it at all... "Just so the jury understands... you all represent the greatest amount of safety and operations experience for this airplane in existence, your guys have more knowledge and safety resources than anybody including the factory and the FAA... and if Mr. Mortis had been able to have access to this knowledge he might have maintained his airplane more safely and lived... but you self-serving rodents chose to PREVENT him from having access to this knowledge by keeping it all to yourselves???"

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: Annual Inspection Manual proposal

I ESPECIALLY like your quotes for the beginning and end in lines 3 & 4! Let's just do this and screw the people who want to sue! We are NOT professional instruction writers, we DON'T have much in the way of assets, and if someone DOES decide to sue I say we take a chunk of wood with "Taylorcraft Club" written on it and hand it to the person and tell them, CONGRATULATIONS! You are now the owner of all the Taylorcraft Club assets. You will be hearing from my lawyer tomorrow about whatever part is broken on my plane and it is SURE NICE to have ONE PERSON who wants to be responsible for all the problems with our airplanes!
I bet he fires his lawyer, throws the sign as far as he can and runs for the hills.
Hank

I really don't think this is going to be a problem, but you guys are right, we need for this to be a recommendations document to support an IA/A&P in doing a prescribed, legal annual. Anything my mechanic doesn't think is worth looking at I can look at myself, and anything he wants to look at that isn't on the list, I will suggest be added to the list.