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
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"RST Engineering" wrote: [a bunch of stuff snipped] (S)he cannot sign off the annual inspection. 43.11 (a)(5) is quite specific as to what has to happen when the aircraft is inspected and not found airworthy. If you have another section of the regs that countermands this section, please post it. Otherwise I maintain that the inspection is neither complete nor current. Maybe I haven't followed this thread well enough. Are you saying that an Annual Inspection is not complete and valid if there is a list of unairworthy items given to the owner? I don't mean to imply that the aircraft is airworthy or "in annual", rather that the inspection was finished and that any appropriate A&P could sign off the repair of those unairworthy items (as appropriate), right? (In this case I'm asking about a hypothetical case, not the specific stuff earlier in the thread). thanks -- Bob Noel no one likes an educated mule |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
RST Engineering wrote: wrote in message ... RST Engineering wrote: wrote in message ... If the airplane was going through an annual inspection, the IA should have generated a list of discrepancies of what didn't pass and given that to the owner. At that point the annual was complete. I'm not sure what you are saying. That the airplane has a current valid annual at this point? That isn't so. THe logbook should have contained words to the effect that the aircraft was inspected on (date) and a list of unairworthy items given to the owner or operator. I was saying the annual inspection was complete and current at that point and if there were any unairworthy items, they need to be attended to. The IA had completed his duties and is no longer involved. Once he signs off the annual inspection, whether airworthy or not, the inspection is complete and current. (S)he cannot sign off the annual inspection. 43.11 (a)(5) is quite specific as to what has to happen when the aircraft is inspected and not found airworthy. If you have another section of the regs that countermands this section, please post it. Otherwise I maintain that the inspection is neither complete nor current. Cut from 43.11: ========================= (5) Except for progressive inspections, if the aircraft is not approved for return to service because of needed maintenance, noncompliance with applicable specifications, airworthiness directives, or other approved data, the following or a similarly worded statement-- ``I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with (insert type) inspection and a list of discrepancies and unairworthy items dated (date) has been provided for the aircraft owner or operator.'' ========================= The annual inspection is an annual inspection. Whether or not it is "approved for return to service" is the outcome of the inspection. No other inspection is necessary for the next year. 91.409 ========================= Sec. 91.409 - Inspections. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may operate an aircraft unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months, it has had -- (1) An annual inspection in accordance with part 43 of this chapter "and" has been approved for return to service by a person authorized by §43.7 of this chapter; ===================================== The big word here is "and" for allowed operation of the aircraft. The inspection is current and complete, but not airworthy. That inspection will be current for the next year and if it was not airworthy it can be brought into airworthiness and flown during that time period. The A&P has 0% authority with the inspection process. Citation from regulation, please? Otherwise I maintain as above, not current, not "in annual". "in annual" is a slang term for an annual inspection that has been returned to service. I think we're stuck on the term "annual" meaning two different things. Cheers Dave Jim A&P, IA |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
I'm not that knowledgeable about the internal details of the engines, so
could you explain how that bolt could get sheared off? See my post about three lines up under . I found some info in the Cardinal Flyers group. Kobra |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Already gone from my screen...oh well!
"Kobra" wrote in message ... I'm not that knowledgeable about the internal details of the engines, so could you explain how that bolt could get sheared off? See my post about three lines up under . I found some info in the Cardinal Flyers group. Kobra |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Probably so. I see where you are coming from. It has always been my policy
to neither charge for nor sign a logbook when there are unairworthy items to be taken care of. I see your point -- but I don't operate that way. In any case, refusing to sign a legitimate annual when the mag switch(es) were in conformance with the type certificate and the fabric punched at the lower limit of acceptable strength was unethical in the least sense of the word. Jim Cut from 43.11: ========================= (5) Except for progressive inspections, if the aircraft is not approved for return to service because of needed maintenance, noncompliance with applicable specifications, airworthiness directives, or other approved data, the following or a similarly worded statement-- ``I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with (insert type) inspection and a list of discrepancies and unairworthy items dated (date) has been provided for the aircraft owner or operator.'' ========================= The annual inspection is an annual inspection. Whether or not it is "approved for return to service" is the outcome of the inspection. No other inspection is necessary for the next year. 91.409 ========================= Sec. 91.409 - Inspections. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may operate an aircraft unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months, it has had -- (1) An annual inspection in accordance with part 43 of this chapter "and" has been approved for return to service by a person authorized by §43.7 of this chapter; ===================================== The big word here is "and" for allowed operation of the aircraft. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Fuelers often ground airplanes. (Sorry, but I couldn't resist).
"RST Engineering" wrote in message Oh, and BTW, mechanics cannot ground airplanes. IAs cannot ground airplanes. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Saying the engine has 800 hours doesn't really say much. I'd be more
interested in how many years since overhaul. There are a lot of planes for sale out there with low time engines that have sat for many years. I would not feel comfortable flying behind an 800 hour engine if it has sat for 10 years. -Robert |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Robert M. Gary wrote:
I would not feel comfortable flying behind an 800 hour engine if it has sat for 10 years. I'm a little nervous flying behind one that has sat for 6 months. George Patterson Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
RST Engineering wrote:
Probably so. I see where you are coming from. It has always been my policy to neither charge for nor sign a logbook when there are unairworthy items to be taken care of. I see your point -- but I don't operate that way. In any case, refusing to sign a legitimate annual when the mag switch(es) were in conformance with the type certificate and the fabric punched at the lower limit of acceptable strength was unethical in the least sense of the word. Jim Are you saying that, if you perform an inspection, and the aircraft has unairworthy items, that you make no entry in the aircraft records? If so, do you believe this is legal? I've owned several Pacers and Tripacers, and inspected scores of them. I've never seen one that had only "On" and "Off" positions for the magneto switch. Nor have I seen any such thing in the parts catalog or maintenance data. Punch testing fabric covering is not a sufficient test for determination of airworthiness IF the fabric condition is questionable. I leave you to reference AC43.13-1B for the only acceptable method of determination if a covering either fails or barely passes a punch test. Dale Cut from 43.11: ========================= (5) Except for progressive inspections, if the aircraft is not approved for return to service because of needed maintenance, noncompliance with applicable specifications, airworthiness directives, or other approved data, the following or a similarly worded statement-- ``I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with (insert type) inspection and a list of discrepancies and unairworthy items dated (date) has been provided for the aircraft owner or operator.'' ========================= The annual inspection is an annual inspection. Whether or not it is "approved for return to service" is the outcome of the inspection. No other inspection is necessary for the next year. 91.409 ========================= Sec. 91.409 - Inspections. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may operate an aircraft unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months, it has had -- (1) An annual inspection in accordance with part 43 of this chapter "and" has been approved for return to service by a person authorized by §43.7 of this chapter; ===================================== The big word here is "and" for allowed operation of the aircraft. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
RST Engineering wrote:
There aren't a lot of possibilities, are there? 1. The case crack set up a vibration or torque that overstressed the bolt -- and since it happened on startup when things are running less than smooth in a Lyc, I'd bet on this one. 2. The bolt was WWAAAYYY overtorqued on installation. You'll never know about this one. However, a through bolt shearing and a case crack by another through bolt leads me to check the calibration on somebody's torque wrench. 3. Something else in the engine was vibrating ... not likely as the whole AIRplane would have been vibrating to shear a through bolt. 4. Defective bolt ... not likely as throughbolts get magnafluxed or x-rayed at overhaul. 5. (Add yours here) 5. The engine had cylinder work done. Either the cylinder bases were painted while off, as mentioned earlier, and the paint eventually squeezed out beneath the fasteners leaving them loose, or, the mechanic neglected to loosen and retorque all the through bolts, in proper sequence, as Lycoming recommends. Both are good bets. Failure to retorque ALL the through bolts in sequence after installation of a cylinder is a VERY good bet, based upon my observations. Oh, and BTW, mechanics cannot ground airplanes. IAs cannot ground airplanes. The FAA (unless they pull the airworthiness cert.) cannot ground airplanes. I know it is a common phrase, but the mechanic simply suggested that it would be less than wise to fly the airplane in its current condition. Jim FAA inspectors have a form (more of a tag, really) that is designed to be attached to an aircraft that the inspector believes should not be flown. If one removes that tag, and flies the aircraft anyway, one may lose the privilege of flying for some set period. Not immediately, but in due course. I knew a pilot who did so. He flew the aircraft three states away from the site it was tagged. The FAA inspector traced the plane, found its location, notified the local FSDO, got the assistance of the local sheriff, who chained and locked the aircraft to the ground. All in one day. And merely because one of the elevators had a 12" crack. Dale |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Engine Balancing and Resonance Vibration Problem | AllanFuller | Owning | 13 | September 12th 05 12:51 AM |
Proposals for air breathing hypersonic craft. I | Robert Clark | Military Aviation | 2 | May 26th 04 06:42 PM |
Car engine FAA certified for airplane use | Cy Galley | Home Built | 10 | February 6th 04 03:03 PM |
What if the germans... | Charles Gray | Military Aviation | 119 | January 26th 04 11:20 PM |
Real stats on engine failures? | Captain Wubba | Piloting | 127 | December 8th 03 04:09 PM |