If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message ... On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 12:20:10 -0500, " jls" [...] I do agree with this. If you don't like it my way.. feel free to A&P/IA shop... it is your right and you, as pilot and/or owner share the liability for your choices. Seek your own level of comfort.... I don't seek to impose my anal will upon you, it is your decision, and your decision alone as to the level of compliance you are comfortable with..... suit yourself.... but don't snivel if you bear the consequences Spamcan-think duly noted. Now please answer the question regarding unapproved elevator tips. BTW, I went to your website and took a look at your taildragger project. Now that is an ambitious undertaking and I wish you well. I had a project in the eighties, a Taylorcraft, and have "courted calamity" with it now for going on two decades. One A&P/IA didn't like my ancient wingtank valve and made me change it out to a working one. In other words, we went from an unsafe,dripping legal valve to an illegal one that didn't leak. I re-covered the wings on this airplane, fly it all over the country, rebuilt the engine, restored the trim system, restored the brakes, rebuilt all the control surface hinges, watch every little thing, and do my own annuals -- under the A&P's watchful eyes, of course. I recently looked at a fuel cutoff valve which comes with an RV-6 kit. It is a boat valve like I have seen used -- probably legally -- on Taylorcrafts. It seems to me the A&P's pay is earned by finding solutions, not snapping condemnations. That's the reason why I go with the guys who gave Michael Horowitz answers, not nononononono. And you still haven't shown why SAE parts are illegal for a Taylorcraft, the plumbing of which came from the factory with all kinds of them. The brakes are from a motor scooter. They work too. And you can buy plexi for the windows at Home Depot. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Gene Kearns wrote:
And then, I, as the next *responsible* inspector at annual, follow up your work and have to ground the aircraft.... pending the lengthy process of finding a legal, airworthy replacement part.... Yeah, you could do that. But the word you're really looking for is irresponsible. You know damn well that the legal valve is going to leak, because getting the FAA to approve anything that smells of new technology in a cost-effective manner just doesn't happen. Therefore, by grounding the airplane, you're making the owner's operation less safe in every way. Less safe by grounding him and making him uncurrent when he does fly again, less safe by making him fly with a leaky valve, and less safe by absorbing money that could be used for more important things, like proficiency and good equipment. What you're doing is legal, and it good CYA, but you need to look in the mirror and face the fact that you (and everyone like you) is making GA less safe - and the A&P who is willing to look the other way and count on "No, that was NOT there when I looked at the plane" is the responsible one, making things safer. ....now, both of us have generated a hate factor and given all A&Ps a black eye. No. Just you. Michael |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
On 29 Dec 2004 11:29:02 -0800, "Michael"
wrote: What you're doing is legal, and it good CYA, but you need to look in the mirror and face the fact that you (and everyone like you) is making GA less safe - and the A&P who is willing to look the other way and count on "No, that was NOT there when I looked at the plane" is the responsible one, making things safer. I had a good IA that would use some common sense in his approach. Personally, I don't stray much from approved parts, but some of his customers did so extensively. His reward for working with people is that he no longer has his license and is being sued by one of the people he helped for an accident he could not do anything about (a crank shaft broke on a new overhaul, and the pilot stalled above the trees). While I'd agree using an alternative approach to repairs can be beneficial, given the sue happy society we live in today, if I were an A&P/IA, I'd be VERY cautious in straying from the laws I'd be governed by. Mechanics often need to walk a fine line, and i don't envy them for it. z |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message ... On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 08:21:02 -0500, " jls" [...] Equal to is a repair. Better than, is an alteration. I think it was one of the FARs I quoted..... wanna check again? By the way, if your A&P installs a part that is "better than" he is making an alteration I don't believe you. A fiberglas wingtip or fiberglas rudder tip is better than a Royalite one, and yet that is not an alteration. A McFarlane throttle cable, having a slick polymer liner for the cable is better than the original, but that is not an alteration. Installation of all kinds of improved parts on Cessnas does not require 337 or field approval. Bulb on the flap trailing edge, e. g. What about installing that neat new shimmy dampener which is sealed? Is that an alteration? You are clear as mud. .... and by the quoted FARs it will, de facto, be a major alteration. Thus, you MUST, in this instance, seek a field approval. Yep, clear as mud, and you can leave out the pretentious "de facto" and still be just as articulate as before and still clear as mud. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael" wrote in message oups.com... Gene Kearns wrote: And then, I, as the next *responsible* inspector at annual, follow up your work and have to ground the aircraft.... pending the lengthy process of finding a legal, airworthy replacement part.... Yeah, you could do that. But the word you're really looking for is irresponsible. You know damn well that the legal valve is going to leak, because getting the FAA to approve anything that smells of new technology in a cost-effective manner just doesn't happen. Therefore, by grounding the airplane, you're making the owner's operation less safe in every way. Less safe by grounding him and making him uncurrent when he does fly again, less safe by making him fly with a leaky valve, and less safe by absorbing money that could be used for more important things, like proficiency and good equipment. That's got to be the most bass-ackwards logic I've seen in years. Don't ground an aircraft using unapproved parts in critical systems (and if you tell me fuel system is not critical I'll instantly plonk you) because you'll cause more harm when the owner can't fly? chuckle Juan |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Juan Jimenez wrote:
That's got to be the most bass-ackwards logic I've seen in years. Don't ground an aircraft using unapproved parts in critical systems (and if you tell me fuel system is not critical I'll instantly plonk you) because you'll cause more harm when the owner can't fly? chuckle You're certainly welcome to plonk me - I'm sure others have - but I'm not going to tell you the fuel system is not critical. Of course it's critical, and in fact it's the number one thing that brings down homebuilts in the Phase I period. But we're not talking about compromising the fuel system - we're talking about improving it via a simple component substitution - a good modern valve in place of an obsolete leaky one. Our realistic choices are a leaky valve or an unapproved one. The key word you've got there is unapproved. Not unsafe, not unreliable, but unapproved. Basically, not allowed. The question to be asked is - how important is that? In other words - how much faith do you place in the opinion of government bureaucrats? Michael |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Me? You get angry at MOI? I'm just going to go out in the backyard and cry
and eat worms. Sniff... {;-) Jim if one of the damn things fails. I get angry at Jim Weir every once in a while, |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message ... On 30 Dec 2004 07:47:55 -0800, "Michael" wrote: Juan Jimenez in his usual slobbering spasms: [...]leaky one. Our realistic choices are a leaky valve or an unapproved one. The key word you've got there is unapproved. Not unsafe, not unreliable, but unapproved. Basically, not allowed. The question to be asked is - how important is that? In other words - how much faith do you place in the opinion of government bureaucrats? Michael If you don't want to follow the rules.... fine..... stick to homebuilts. If you buy a certificated aircraft, you know from the git-go that there is a specific set of rules you must, by law, follow. "in fact it's the number one thing that brings down homebuilts in the Phase I period" And that doesn't suggest something to you?!?! Fuel starvation suggests a whole lot more glitches than a valve. It suggests a rich complexity of issues. Furthermore, homebuilts have an enviable safety record, and the statement you're replying to is woefully overbroad and unspecific. Let's have real numbers when discussing these things; otherwise, it sounds more like amateurs and simpletons discussing them. Thus, what percentage of homebuilts crash during Phase I, and what percentage of those are attributable to fuel starvation, and what percentage of those fuel starvation cases are attributable to defective valves. The last couple of cases of Phase I crashes I'm familiar with due to fuel starvation was 1) empty fuel tanks because of poor fuel monitoring, i. e., pilot error, and 2) fuel strainer screens covered with trash because of failure to clean out the tanks after sloshing. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 12:45:03 -0500, " jls" wrote:
"in fact it's the number one thing that brings down homebuilts in the Phase I period" And that doesn't suggest something to you?!?! Fuel starvation suggests a whole lot more glitches than a valve. It suggests a rich complexity of issues. Furthermore, homebuilts have an enviable safety record, and the statement you're replying to is woefully overbroad and unspecific. Let's have real numbers when discussing these things; otherwise, it sounds more like amateurs and simpletons discussing them. Thus, what percentage of homebuilts crash during Phase I, and what percentage of those are attributable to fuel starvation, and what percentage of those fuel starvation cases are attributable to defective valves. I ran a detailed analysis of homebuilt accidents about a year ago. During the 1998-2000 time period (e.g., 3-year period), here are some of the fuel-related accidents: - Cracked engine impulse line, which disabled the fuel pump - Obstructed fuel nozzle. - Inadequate inspection of the fuel system that led to fuel filter contamination. - Blockage of the airplane fuel system, a delamination of the fiberglass fuel tanks, and the usage of an improper fuel (alcohol-based) - The introduction of a fuel containing an ethanol additive into fuel tanks sloshed/sealed with a compound incompatible with alcohols, resulting in debonding of the compound from the fuel tank walls, leading to partial blockage of an in-line fuel filter - Separation of the fuel pick-up line. - Malfunctioning landing gear, which blocked the radiator scoop, leading to increased fuel temperature and the subsequent vapor lock condition and fuel blockage. - Failure of a plastic 90-degree fitting at the inlet fitting of the carburetor. - Loose fuel pump output line attachment fitting leading to in-flight fire - Mechanical failure of a fuel sump tank check valve - Interruption of fuel to or within a carburetor (cause undetermined) - Fracturing of the fuel pump switches - Fuel starvation due to fuel leak in the gascolator as a result of improper maintenance - Loose fuel line fitting - Loose fuel cap - Builder's improper installation that resulted in the fuel line being snagged - Inadequate marking of the fuel selector valve to clearly indicate a fully open position. - Blocked fuel strainer due to an inadequate maintenance inspection - Improper installation of the fuel selector valve and failure to placard the operating positions of the valve handle. - Misalignment of the fuel pump front cover by the pilot/builder - Obstructed fuel vent system - Improper sealant material used by the owner/builder - Improper fuel vapor return system. - The fuel leak for an undetermined reason which resulted in an in-flight fire. - Obstructed fuel system filter due to inadequate silicone sealer - Rotation of fuel tank elbow fitting within the tank during previous maintenance, leading to improper alignment of the fuel pick-up tube - Fuel drain left remaining partially open during preflight - Failure to adjust newly installed wing fuel caps leading to fuel starvation, and failure of the vent system to adequately compensate for the pressure differential created and the failure of the pilot to monitor fuel balance. - Partial loss of engine power due to water contamination of the fuel (three cases) About 6.1% of homebuilt accidents involve mechanical problems with the fuel system; about 0.7% are related to fuel contamination, and about 4% involve fuel exhaustion (some overlap in causes can occur). Homebuilts suffer accidents related to fuel system problems about four times as often as Cessna 172s; they also suffer fuel-exhaustion accidents about half as often as the Cessnas. More homebuilt accidents are caused by "undetermined loss of power," and some of those might be fuel-related. Ron Wanttaja |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
" jls" wrote:
Furthermore, homebuilts have an enviable safety record...Let's have real numbers when discussing these things; ... Real overall numbers are contained in the annual NTSB and ASF Nall Reports re homebuilt safety. Compared to production aircraft, it is anything but enviable. The comparison isn't even accurate, as homebuilt accidents are less likely to be reported. At our field, NTSB has all reportable production A/C crashes for the many years we can remember, except for one recent, uninsured one. But the several homebuilt ones over the years are quickly dragged into a hangar. No control tower; no hull insurance; no serious injury. The airport, for their insurance and other reasons, prefers to be unable to ever recall the incident, unless you report it to the gov't. Fred F. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fuel Selector Valve | Tom Cummings | Owning | 1 | March 7th 04 02:44 PM |
Airplane Parts on Ebay Vac Reg Valves, Fuel Floats, O-200 Spider, Fuel Injection Valve | Bill Berle | Home Built | 0 | January 26th 04 07:48 AM |
Airplane Parts on Ebay Vac Reg Valves, Fuel Floats, O-200 Spider, Fuel Injection Valve | Bill Berle | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | January 26th 04 07:48 AM |
Airplane Parts on Ebay Vac Reg Valves, Fuel Floats, O-200 Spider, Fuel Injection Valve | Bill Berle | Owning | 0 | January 26th 04 07:48 AM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |