Toasted my engine

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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