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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Always something to be learned
A very interesting article.
http://www.designnews.com/article/CA...dustryid=43657 How could this error be trapped? All you "owner produced parts" guys take note. I wonder if this instance is what shut down the carb guys. Bill Hale |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Always something to be learned
A very interesting article. http://www.designnews.com/article/CA...dustryid=43657 How could this error be trapped? All you "owner produced parts" guys take note. I wonder if this instance is what shut down the carb guys. I'm a little fuzzy on what this has to do with owner produced parts. The article did not make specific mention of the traceability of the parts kit or the rebuilder's credentials. Absent that, we might assume that, either this was an FAA sanctioned outfit using parts from another FAA blessed supplier. Or, that the parts were non-approved knock offs and/or the shop was also operating without the proper paperwork. How could this error be trapped? Not sure because we don't have enough information to determine who is at fault. If the parts and overhauler WERE approved, then the FAA takes the hit for not providing the oversight they are hired to provide. If the parts and/or overhauler were bogus, there may be nothing that can be done other than jailing the culprits (NOT the pilot). Short of bankrupting every airplane owner and parts manufacturer with endless testing (that governments LOVE to do), I'm not sure you will ever prevent EVERY mistake. It proves to me that no system is perfect. Be careful out there, Mike |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Always something to be learned
Mike Spera wrote:
A very interesting article. http://www.designnews.com/article/CA...dustryid=43657 How could this error be trapped? All you "owner produced parts" guys take note. I wonder if this instance is what shut down the carb guys. I'm a little fuzzy on what this has to do with owner produced parts. The article did not make specific mention of the traceability of the parts kit or the rebuilder's credentials. Absent that, we might assume that, either this was an FAA sanctioned outfit using parts from another FAA blessed supplier. Or, that the parts were non-approved knock offs and/or the shop was also operating without the proper paperwork. How could this error be trapped? Not sure because we don't have enough information to determine who is at fault. If the parts and overhauler WERE approved, then the FAA takes the hit for not providing the oversight they are hired to provide. If the parts and/or overhauler were bogus, there may be nothing that can be done other than jailing the culprits (NOT the pilot). Short of bankrupting every airplane owner and parts manufacturer with endless testing (that governments LOVE to do), I'm not sure you will ever prevent EVERY mistake. It proves to me that no system is perfect. Without even opening the FAR, I would think the A&P would be at least partially at fault for not making the repair in a "competent and workmanlike manner", the minimal legal standard for *any* repairman. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Always something to be learned
On Dec 12, 8:23 pm, Jim Stewart wrote:
Mike Spera wrote: A very interesting article. http://www.designnews.com/article/CA...dustryid=43657 How could this error be trapped? All you "owner produced parts" guys take note. I wonder if this instance is what shut down the carb guys. I'm a little fuzzy on what this has to do with owner produced parts. The article did not make specific mention of the traceability of the parts kit or the rebuilder's credentials. Absent that, we might assume that, either this was an FAA sanctioned outfit using parts from another FAA blessed supplier. Or, that the parts were non-approved knock offs and/or the shop was also operating without the proper paperwork. How could this error be trapped? Not sure because we don't have enough information to determine who is at fault. If the parts and overhauler WERE approved, then the FAA takes the hit for not providing the oversight they are hired to provide. If the parts and/or overhauler were bogus, there may be nothing that can be done other than jailing the culprits (NOT the pilot). Short of bankrupting every airplane owner and parts manufacturer with endless testing (that governments LOVE to do), I'm not sure you will ever prevent EVERY mistake. It proves to me that no system is perfect. Without even opening the FAR, I would think the A&P would be at least partially at fault for not making the repair in a "competent and workmanlike manner", the minimal legal standard for *any* repairman.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Well, I had a carb from an approved rebuilder, using approved parts, who sent it to me lacking an internal part - TWICE... So, 'approved' apparently isn't what it used to be... denny |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Always something to be learned
Without even opening the FAR, I would think the A&P would be at least partially at fault for not making the repair in a "competent and workmanlike manner", the minimal legal standard for *any* repairman. The wrench may not be at fault in any way, even a little. He/she could have been competent and workmanlike all day, but if the parts provided were of the wrong metallurgy, the problem will still be there. The mechanic has to depend on the FAA doing its job to provide oversight on the parts manufacturer and overhauler. If they provide the mechanic a defective part/overhaul that has no apparent visible flaws (and all required FAA pedigree paperwork), he/she has done their job. The bushings may have been properly reamed and "free" operation ascertained. But if the parts were incorrect, they would have galled up anyway. Again, hard to tell with the available information. Good Luck, Mike |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Always something to be learned
On Dec 16, 8:03 pm, Mike Spera wrote:
Without even opening the FAR, I would think the A&P would be at least partially at fault for not making the repair in a "competent and workmanlike manner", the minimal legal standard for *any* repairman. The wrench may not be at fault in any way, even a little. He/she could have been competent and workmanlike all day, but if the parts provided were of the wrong metallurgy, the problem will still be there. The mechanic has to depend on the FAA doing its job to provide oversight on the parts manufacturer and overhauler. If they provide the mechanic a defective part/overhaul that has no apparent visible flaws (and all required FAA pedigree paperwork), he/she has done their job. The bushings may have been properly reamed and "free" operation ascertained. But if the parts were incorrect, they would have galled up anyway. Again, hard to tell with the available information. Good Luck, Mike In Canada the philosophy is to have a big enough legal threat to make the mechanic, supplier, or anyone else involved think twice before scamming the system. The person's signature opens him to huge liability if some lawyer can convince a judge that he intentionally messed up. "Oversight" and other sorts of control are really effective only if there are lots of government inspectors and bureaucrats to catch the devious, and that would mean huge taxation and fees and all the rest, as if it wasn't bad enough now. Individuals must take responsibility and act responsibly even if the government isn't constantly watching, or the whole structure of democracy falls and we end up with anarchy or a dictatorship. If we act like toddlers who are into mischief as soon as Mom isn't looking, we're no better than brats and deserve no better than the brat. But people, being human, still screw up. We bought a Lyc factory overhaul, complete with brand-new carb, and that engine ran rough in the full throttle climb, improving if we leaned it a lot. Turned out to be a missin accelerator pump check ball spring, so that venturi vacuum sucked extra fuel past the check and out the accelerator nozzle. Stuff like that happens. Runs rough, doesn't quit. Worse is the Lycoming crankshaft fiasco, with cranks that really might actually break in flight for no good reason. That's not acceptable, and their handling of it isn't either. Dan |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Always something to be learned
Mike Spera wrote:
Without even opening the FAR, I would think the A&P would be at least partially at fault for not making the repair in a "competent and workmanlike manner", the minimal legal standard for *any* repairman. The wrench may not be at fault in any way, even a little. He/she could have been competent and workmanlike all day, but if the parts provided were of the wrong metallurgy, the problem will still be there. The mechanic has to depend on the FAA doing its job to provide oversight on the parts manufacturer and overhauler. If they provide the mechanic a defective part/overhaul that has no apparent visible flaws (and all required FAA pedigree paperwork), he/she has done their job. The bushings may have been properly reamed and "free" operation ascertained. But if the parts were incorrect, they would have galled up anyway. Again, hard to tell with the available information. If you believe the statement of the investigator, and I thought that was the rules we were playing by, the A&P would have to be at least partially at fault. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[OT] Nothing Learned From History | stop spam | Military Aviation | 48 | September 26th 04 10:43 PM |
[OT] Nothing Learned From History | Chris Mark | Military Aviation | 4 | September 14th 04 07:27 PM |
IFR Practice Lesson Learned | Matt Young | Piloting | 2 | July 11th 04 02:22 AM |
Learned more today - what to buy? | Grasshopper | Piloting | 1 | July 10th 04 09:14 PM |
How many of you learned to fly from relatives? | lardsoup | Piloting | 0 | October 14th 03 11:40 PM |