Toasted my engine

Dale Scroggins wrote:



Hartzell built Q-tip props. McCauley never did. Hartzell does not make
fixed-pitched props. Cessna 152s were delivered with fixed-pitch props.
Therefore stock Cessna 152s are extremely unlikely to have Hartzell
constant-speed Q-tip props bolted to the front of their 115-HP Lycoming
engines. They would not fit, to begin with. And they would weigh too
much.


Does that engine even have a pad for a governor?

On 9/20/05 19:28, "Bob Noel" wrote:

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

That's what I thought, Bob. Hopefully someone in the know will confirm this.

- Don
When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with
your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will
always long to return. - Leonardo da Vinci

Yep,

The annual inspection is complete when the log book is filled out.
It does not have to pass, just the inspection has to be complete.

If there are items that need to be attended to, those items can be
completed prior the end of the inspection, then the inspection is
complete and the aircraft is deemed airworthy.

Or the logbook can be signed off with the unairworthy items noted and
the inspection is complete, but unairworthy.

A&P can bring the aircraft up to snuff.


Dave


No Spam wrote:
On 9/20/05 19:28, "Bob Noel" wrote:


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


That's what I thought, Bob. Hopefully someone in the know will confirm this.

- Don
When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with
your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will
always long to return. - Leonardo da Vinci

wrote:
Yep,

The annual inspection is complete when the log book is filled out.
It does not have to pass, just the inspection has to be complete.

If there are items that need to be attended to, those items can be
completed prior the end of the inspection, then the inspection is
complete and the aircraft is deemed airworthy.

Or the logbook can be signed off with the unairworthy items noted and
the inspection is complete, but unairworthy.

A&P can bring the aircraft up to snuff.


Dave


No Spam wrote:
On 9/20/05 19:28, "Bob Noel" wrote:


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


That's what I thought, Bob. Hopefully someone in the know will confirm this.

- Don
When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with
your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will
always long to return. - Leonardo da Vinci



I believe that it's FAR 91.7 that makes the annual inspection _process_
"complete". It says that:

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy
condition.
(b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for
determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The
pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy
mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur.

The PIC has the the onus of ensuring that only airworthy airplanes get
flown, not the inspector.

-R

I believe that it's FAR 91.7 that makes the annual inspection _process_
"complete". It says that:

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy
condition.
(b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for
determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The
pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy
mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur.

The PIC has the the onus of ensuring that only airworthy airplanes get
flown, not the inspector.

-R

Yes but if a "competent person" informs the PIC that the plane is
unairworthy (s)he better have a darn good explanation for flying it.

Drew Dalgleish wrote:
Yes but if a "competent person" informs the PIC that the plane is
unairworthy (s)he better have a darn good explanation for flying it.

That's my point. An inspector doesn't have to "ground the airplane" in
any formal manner. He/she just has to state that it's not airworthy.
There's no leeway in the regs for a pilot to decide they don't agree
and fly it anyway.

-R

What is the Gull Wing prop?
The prop I saw had the tip bent back maybe 1/4"-3/8".

The Gullwing prop is a nickname given to the prop used on
the 152. The inboard section of its blades were angled forward a few
degrees, then straightened out past that. If it was laid flat on a
table it would look from the side like a gull in flight.
That angle caused structural failures in the blades.
Centrifugal forces tried to straighten that bend and it would crack.
The prop type was a McCauley 1A103, and ADs 95-21-01PL,
97-06-16, and 2003-12-05 applied to it, with the newest ADs supseding
the earlier ones.
Dan

Then you clearly have not the vaguest concept of what 91.3 means.

Jim




That's my point. An inspector doesn't have to "ground the airplane" in
any formal manner. He/she just has to state that it's not airworthy.
There's no leeway in the regs for a pilot to decide they don't agree
and fly it anyway.

-R

RST Engineering wrote:
Then you clearly have not the vaguest concept of what 91.3 means.

Oh. O.K. Sorry. Perhaps you could clarify the concept for me then,
Jim.

Rob

Rob wrote:
RST Engineering wrote:
Then you clearly have not the vaguest concept of what 91.3 means.

Oh. O.K. Sorry. Perhaps you could clarify the concept for me then,
Jim.

Rob

Posted this before and it looks like Google ate it:

Disregard my previous post Jim. You said "91.3", I read "91.7". 91.3
says the PIC may deviate from the FARs if necessary to deal with an
emergency. That's a lot of "leeway". Point taken.

-R