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
|
|||
|
|||
Radio buzz
The Visitor writes: Could you cite the appropriate CAR please. Like you, I don't have time to wade through them. And I don't have them memorized. That's rich -- after you make the blanket assertion: In Canada a pilot isn't even allowed to remove and re-install a radio. Actually not even tighten it up in it's tray, technically. [...] [...] If you find anything post it here? Certainly. http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Re...ards/a625a.htm (18) removal and replacement of avionics components that are rack mounted or otherwise designed for rapid removal and replacement, where the work does not require testing other than an operational check; Next time you feel the need to make a blanket statement, please do your homework first, or at least when someone calls you on it. - FChE |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Radio buzz
Hey, don't be a turd.
I was on my way out the door to do a ride. I tried pointing him in the right direction and did my best under the time constraints. I thought I started him on the right path in case I couldn't help him in time. And I was going to follow up on it. Your quote. Did you read the second paragraph...at the TOP!! "For aircraft operated pursuant to Subpart 406* and Part VII, the applicable tasks listed below are elementary work, provided they are individually listed in the operator's maintenance control manual and or operational manual as applicable," Subpart 406, isn't that Flight Training Units? (Okay I was going to get rude, but I won't.)Does he have an operator's maintenance control manual? No!! Is he a flying school???? No!! There is a listing of private owner maintenance, (non-experimental) And I still feel it is not on the list. I don't rule out being wrong, but hey fella, loose the attitude. I don't think the person asking, is the owner of a flying school with an approved MCM. Man what is it with some of you. You play that, "cite the regulation" game to no end. Don't you have a life of any sort. No? Okay fine, then there is the work of art such as yourself that jumps, without understanding (reading) just to score a "kill". When do you jacka@$'$ say "sorry" when you are wrong???? Duh, like now. As for "blanket statements" and "homework". Man you have it coming in spades for this boneheaded mistake. Why are you so effing hostile???????? I have helped a lot of people in aviation and don't deserve your brand of smelly crap, even _if_ I was wrong. Last time I met someone like you, he was a Ph.D. of basket weaving. I am going to read again what you wrote, just for a laugh. Well you taught me for trying to be informative. What a waste of my time. Thank you very much, you have succeeded in making your problem, my problem. I'm glad I'm not sitting in the back of your airplane, or even, dare I say, car. Get lost. I hope you fly better than you live life. And although it is wasted on you this day, I hope, one day, you live better than you fly. Now on the something interesting. Some helicopters that have four main rotor blades with a blade folding system are constructed that by pulling some magic expandable bolt out they can be swung around and stowed together so that space is saved in a hangar. In the US this is commonly done by the pilot. One manufacturer even markets it as a pilot function. But in reality it needs to be done, and signed off, by an AME. Strange, but true. But I don't ever rule out being wrong. And if you are civil I would enjoy conversing with you. But, be warned, it is true, I gave up being perfect long ago. I have had a long day. Kindest regards to the friendly people in this group. John * http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Re...les/NPA406.htm Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: The Visitor writes: Could you cite the appropriate CAR please. Like you, I don't have time to wade through them. And I don't have them memorized. That's rich -- after you make the blanket assertion: In Canada a pilot isn't even allowed to remove and re-install a radio. Actually not even tighten it up in it's tray, technically. [...] [...] If you find anything post it here? Certainly. http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Re...ards/a625a.htm (18) removal and replacement of avionics components that are rack mounted or otherwise designed for rapid removal and replacement, where the work does not require testing other than an operational check; Next time you feel the need to make a blanket statement, please do your homework first, or at least when someone calls you on it. - FChE |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Radio buzz
Robert M. Gary wrote: Gees, you'd think there would be an IQ test to use a computer. Robert, you have a talent for hitting the nail, square on the head. I probably don't belong in here(to many pin headed buzzards)but I had to come back to your post, and pay it homage; one more time. People's attitudes are so indicative of their life choices. It is that diversity that makes the world-go-round. Don't you change. John |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Radio buzz
Drew, along those lines at a local flying school, (I have nothing to do
with them or any flying school though) an instructor got in trouble for changing a landing light and going night flying. not because he didn't do a logbook entry.Turns out there, it has to be changed out by the shop. Sometimes it doesn't pay to get the job done. But he was supposed to know the procedure, I think it is outlined in the MCM or something. Myself, I just get the job done. I imagine there are owners who have beentheir own avionics technicians. Sure they can't tag a radio servicable, but then it was not written up defective in a journey log either. When should someone have a problem with this? If someone else buys the aircraft. I see if I dont cite the rules, I am viewed as wrong, trying to escape something. Lots of people don't have time for this. Like googling things for people that will not search out the answer themselves. If it is important to them, then they should dig in and do it themselves. This tactic is usually used with goverment people, to restrain them. In there quest "to help". Often they try to make management decisions when really their job is only to enforce the regulations. So one must always ask for a reference and make sure the person who pays for the fix, is interperting the regulations the same way. I am now getting ready to go out the door and will be flying again, soon. If it is important to you, do give TC a call and ask to speak to an inspector regarding private owner maintenance. Or are you sort of fearful that will prompt a 'visit'? (Probably a realistic concern.)It's pretty odd the things one can and can't do. But has little bearing on what is actually going on. I don't mind being right, I don't mind being wrong. It's just what I think I was told some time ago. I have no ego wrapped up in either outcome. Just to busy doing 'real things' to act like some do-nothing pinhead over something so incredibly trivial. Just trying to inject something interesting and wanting to help. Got to go do things now, so I won't even proof read. (The human spell-checkers and syntax gurus can have a field day!) Thanks for reading. John Drew Dalgleish wrote: On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:17:56 -0400, The Visitor wrote: In Canada a pilot isn't even allowed to remove and re-install a radio. Actually not even tighten it up in it's tray, technically. Obviously those get ignored alot but opening the case, hmmmm. I'm sure his local(or not so local) FSDO will help him out. John Could you cite the appropriate CAR please. Those seem like rather harsh rules for something that's not even required for safe flight. Am I breaking rules when I remove my ELT and send it out for recert. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Radio buzz
The Visitor writes: [...] I was on my way out the door to do a ride. I tried pointing him in the right direction and did my best under the time constraints. I thought I started him on the right path in case I couldn't help him in time. And I was going to follow up on it. That's great, but that was hard to read into your words. [...] Did you read the second paragraph...at the TOP!! "For aircraft operated pursuant to Subpart 406* and Part VII, the applicable tasks listed below are elementary work, provided they are individually listed in the operator's maintenance control manual and or operational manual as applicable," Subpart 406, isn't that Flight Training Units? (Okay I was going to get rude, but I won't.)Does he have an operator's maintenance control manual? No!! Is he a flying school???? No!! It really is not a complicated text - certainly no worse than other stuff in the CARs. This paragraph simply means that, even though the rest of the appendix is the all-inclusive list of "elementary work", commercial aircraft such as those of flight schools' need to specifically include them in their OM's in order to apply. The paragraph in no way implies that the entire list *only applies* to such commercial aircraft -- almost the opposite. There is a listing of private owner maintenance, (non-experimental) The appendix I linked to is exactly that list. And I still feel it is not on the list. I don't rule out being wrong [...] That's wise. - FChE |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Radio buzz
Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: The appendix I linked to is exactly that list. It's exactly the list for flight schools with an approved maintenance manual. Read the second paragraph. Here it is.... "For aircraft operated pursuant to Subpart 406 and Part VII, the applicable tasks listed below are elementary work, provided they are individually listed in the operator's maintenance control manual and or operational manual as applicable, along with a reference to the training to be undertaken by persons authorized to perform them in accordance with paragraph 571.10(3)(b) of the CARs." The applicability of that list is explained at the top. You may not infer other uses for the list. Unless it suits your argument and being correct isn't important. And do not confuse privately operated with privately registered. The applicability of that list is clearly explained. It exists to help flying schools get by without needing an AME to do everything, which would bust any small operation. Take your own advice you dished out so arrogantly, and in such an uncalled for manner. Waste your time on trivia if that is your specialty. What's the big deal to you anyway. But do it on your own, I'm busy. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Radio buzz
Hey guys and gals. Sorry about my offensive tone. This is gong to be an
argument that never ends and that is not what I do in life. I would actually feel better if I was wrong, but as it is now, the greater mystery, I just can't figure some guys out. I try to stay out of these internet events (picayune games for shut-ins)but I am amazed how easily one can get suckered in. Happy flying. The Visitor wrote: Hey, don't be a turd. I was on my way out the door to do a ride. I tried pointing him in the right direction and did my best under the time constraints. I thought I started him on the right path in case I couldn't help him in time. And I was going to follow up on it. Your quote. Did you read the second paragraph...at the TOP!! "For aircraft operated pursuant to Subpart 406* and Part VII, the applicable tasks listed below are elementary work, provided they are individually listed in the operator's maintenance control manual and or operational manual as applicable," Subpart 406, isn't that Flight Training Units? (Okay I was going to get rude, but I won't.)Does he have an operator's maintenance control manual? No!! Is he a flying school???? No!! There is a listing of private owner maintenance, (non-experimental) And I still feel it is not on the list. I don't rule out being wrong, but hey fella, loose the attitude. I don't think the person asking, is the owner of a flying school with an approved MCM. Man what is it with some of you. You play that, "cite the regulation" game to no end. Don't you have a life of any sort. No? Okay fine, then there is the work of art such as yourself that jumps, without understanding (reading) just to score a "kill". When do you jacka@$'$ say "sorry" when you are wrong???? Duh, like now. As for "blanket statements" and "homework". Man you have it coming in spades for this boneheaded mistake. Why are you so effing hostile???????? I have helped a lot of people in aviation and don't deserve your brand of smelly crap, even _if_ I was wrong. Last time I met someone like you, he was a Ph.D. of basket weaving. I am going to read again what you wrote, just for a laugh. Well you taught me for trying to be informative. What a waste of my time. Thank you very much, you have succeeded in making your problem, my problem. I'm glad I'm not sitting in the back of your airplane, or even, dare I say, car. Get lost. I hope you fly better than you live life. And although it is wasted on you this day, I hope, one day, you live better than you fly. Now on the something interesting. Some helicopters that have four main rotor blades with a blade folding system are constructed that by pulling some magic expandable bolt out they can be swung around and stowed together so that space is saved in a hangar. In the US this is commonly done by the pilot. One manufacturer even markets it as a pilot function. But in reality it needs to be done, and signed off, by an AME. Strange, but true. But I don't ever rule out being wrong. And if you are civil I would enjoy conversing with you. But, be warned, it is true, I gave up being perfect long ago. I have had a long day. Kindest regards to the friendly people in this group. John * http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Re...les/NPA406.htm Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: The Visitor writes: Could you cite the appropriate CAR please. Like you, I don't have time to wade through them. And I don't have them memorized. That's rich -- after you make the blanket assertion: In Canada a pilot isn't even allowed to remove and re-install a radio. Actually not even tighten it up in it's tray, technically. [...] [...] If you find anything post it here? Certainly. http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Re...ards/a625a.htm (18) removal and replacement of avionics components that are rack mounted or otherwise designed for rapid removal and replacement, where the work does not require testing other than an operational check; Next time you feel the need to make a blanket statement, please do your homework first, or at least when someone calls you on it. - FChE |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Radio buzz
The Visitor writes: The appendix I linked to is exactly that list. It's exactly the list for flight schools with an approved maintenance manual. Read the second paragraph. [...] The applicability of that list is explained at the top. You may not infer other uses for the list. [...] It exists to help flying schools get by without needing an AME to do everything, which would bust any small operation. I'm afraid you're interpreting it completely the wrong way around. That paragraph means that the list does not apply to e.g. flight schools, *unless* their OM essentially transcribes it. And flight school OMs will probably say that the elementary work needs to be specially supervised or performed by the maintenance department. This exactly explains your other anecdote, where a flight instructor got in trouble for fixing the landing light of a school airplane. Another way to see this is section 571.02 and .03 of the CARs. It applies to private airplanes, describes the concept of elementary work, and (gasp!) it refers to the same subject appendix (standard 625 appendix a) to list them. 571.05 refers to commercial type operations. Waste your time on trivia if that is your specialty. What's the big deal to you anyway. But do it on your own, I'm busy. Next time, please also be busy enough not to post misinformation, then spray recalcitrant insults at those who correct it. - FChE |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Radio buzz
"The Visitor" wrote in message ... RST Engineering wrote: You just don't get it, do you? No. When you have the balls to post your real name, let me know and I'll continue the conversation. Jim |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Radio buzz
I'm told you have to have an FAA approved manual for the unit to open it. Really? Find an FAA approved manual for any radio without a TSO. Narco? King? Icom? Microair? You won't find an "approved" manual for (literally) hundreds of models from dozens of manufacturers. The manufactor has keep those manuals secret (like Garmin does) so you have to send it to the factory. However, the factory will no longer look at it. Are you saying you would be willing to open the unit and service it for me??? Not without a service manual, approved or otherwise. Not for legality, but for tech data necessary to service. Jim |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA Apollo 11 astronauts left to right are Neil A Armstrong, Michael Collins, Edwin E 'Buzz' Aldrin 8903695.jpg | [email protected] | Aviation Photos | 1 | April 10th 07 08:14 PM |
bit of a buzz | Chris | Piloting | 11 | December 14th 05 08:05 PM |
buzz off | Eric Joiner | Military Aviation | 0 | June 1st 04 04:40 PM |
F-14 buzz | JD | Naval Aviation | 3 | February 11th 04 06:39 PM |
the buzz | John Shelton | Soaring | 3 | December 18th 03 12:16 PM |