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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Larry Dighera wrote:
On 10 Jul 2003 13:50:37 -0700, (Michael) wrote in Message-Id: : What percentage of aircraft valued in less than six figures do you suppose have such records? I would suppose that those aircraft whose owners' know the value of keeping ALL the records have them. Larry, out of curiousity, how many aircraft of what makes and models have you owned or do you own? Perhaps you've mentioned, but sorry, I don't recall at the moment. Sydney |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 02:05:22 GMT, Sydney Hoeltzli
wrote in Message-Id: : Larry Dighera wrote: On 10 Jul 2003 15:04:35 -0700, (Snowbird) wrote in Message-Id: : If you were charged with maintaining aviation safety, as the FAA is/was, would you rely on a parts tracking system that you didn't control? Well, now, here's the heart of the issue. If I were charged solely with maintaining aviation safety, no. I might not only want a parts tracking system I controlled, I might want all kinds of "I'm in Charge" stuff like ballistic parachutes and retrofit stall warning systems on old taildraggers. Damn the costs! Amusing. Now suppose I'm charged with "promoting aviation" as well as maintaining aviation safety. There's a balancing act here between safety and affordability. Unfortunately, cost is always an issue. (Did the FAA's mission change occur under Reagan or Clinton?) Once bitten by such a lack of records, an aircraft owner soon learns to obtain copies of repair records AT THE TIME OF INSTALLATION, and files them with the aircraft log books. The IA is required by FAA to document all the parts used. The parts used were documented in the logs. There were copies of some repair records The documentation was incorrect. It reflected the installation of a part which was not, in fact, installed. That is one explanation. Another explanation for the discrepancy between the part numbers in the logs and those you found installed is that someone did some work subsequent to that in the logs, and failed to enter it in the logs. Highly implausible. It was a low-time strong engine and there was no evidence that someone decided to disassemble 4 jugs and change the piston pins without logging it, and no plausible motivation for them to do so. The proposed AD only came out as I was considering buying the plane. This additional information seems to support your analysis. I was raised to believe in Occum's Razor and not think of Zebras when I hear hoofbeats in the street; you? I witnessed the scenario to which I alluded above. Prior experience and a dearth of information prompted my suggestion that there may be alternate exploitations for the facts you mentioned. Moreover, when the discrepancy was pointed out to the overhaul shop, the manager couldn't move fast enough to send me a letter stating that the part in question was not installed (insert relevant legal) to relieve me of the AD. If I understand you correctly, the overhaul manager plead substituting the pins to avoid the AD? And the implication being, that was unreasonable due to a conflict in dates between the time of overhaul and the issuance of the AD? I'm just struggling to _correctly_ infer your implication. [...] I stand by my point that the FAA's paperwork trail does nothing to improve the quality of mechanical work nor to protect the plane owner from human error. Only innovative cleaver/creative design can attempt to save us from human error. I haven't heard that FAA is guilty of that. :-) (NASA on the other hand,...) To the extent that the paper trail documents the work and source of parts, and intimidates the mechanic into honestly doing his best, it improves and protects. If it did not exist, how could ADs recall parts? How could the FAA attempt to control/track gype/bogus parts? I have a suspicion, that there's a very good reason for it. Perhaps the shoddy results you perceive are a result of inadequate FAA supervision and enforcement? To the extent manufacturers exploit it economically, it is a burden. But, think whatcha like, You have no idea.... :-) Sydney |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Sydney Hoeltzli wrote: Now suppose I'm charged with "promoting aviation" as well as maintaining aviation safety. There's a balancing act here between safety and affordability. The FAA isn't charged with that anymore. That was removed from their mandate during the Clinton administration. George Patterson The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist is afraid that he's correct. James Branch Cavel |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|