Light Aircraft Costs Schedule 5 v.s. Manufacturer Maintenance Schedules etc.

[stevo200]

Hi Guys,

Just wondering if some of the more experienced guys out there could give me some info on the differences in costs between servicing your light aircraft on CASA Schedule 5 compared to other maintenance schedules like the Manufacturer Maintenance Schedule or anything else you guys use.

For private owners, is it really economically viable to use a more detailed maintenance schedule and are people using Schedule 5 to cut their costs?

What is driving light aircraft maintenance in reality? Is safety the most important factor or is this too expensive for some owners and using a less detailed machinate schedule is their only option?

Some real life actual cost figures of what it costs you per year to maintain your aircraft, and on which maintenance program you use and why would also be great!


Thanks in advance!

Steven.

[Creampuff]

The more important choice is that of the maintenance organisation. You must choose one that has a deep understanding and long experience in the maintenance of the type and model being maintained.

Most manufacturer's maintenance schedules require too much unnecessary maintenance and not enough necessary maintenance, resulting in the Waddington Effect. Unfortunately, the person considering whether to approve a System of Maintenance must take into consideration the manufacturer's maintenance schedule when deciding whether to approve the System of Maintenance, so often the same outcome is produced.

Incompetent, misguided or pencil-whipped maintenance produces the same practical outcome, whether it's done under the manufacturer's maintenance schedule, the CASA maintenance schedule (i.e. Schedule 5) or an approved system of maintenance.

An experienced maintainer will know how and when to do more of the necessary maintenance and less of the unnecessary maintenance. Schedule 5 will give you more flexibility to do that, if you have the option to use Schedule 5. If you can get the same flexibility enshrined in an approved system of maintenance for the aircraft, so much the better, but the manufacturer's maintenance schedule may get in the way.

(Typical example of this and the Waddington Effect: Injectors on fuel injected piston engines. They are constantly cleaned in operation by a wonderful solvent called 'AVGAS'. The greatest risk of them becoming partially or completely blocked arises during removal, cleaning and replacement required by maintenance schedules. Some engineers may produce scary pictures of dirty solvent after injectors have been removed and 'cleaned'. The dirty stuff comes almost entirely from the outside of the injector. An engine monitor and knowing how to use it will tell you if you have a partially or completely blocked injector.)

Unfortunately, the drive for getting rid of Schedule 5 or an equivalent and imposing more maintenance more often is driven by people who think that more maintenance more often must equal more reliability and more safety, and who - surprise surprise - make money from doing maintenance or regulating the doing of maintenance.

[rutan around]

Everything Creamy said :ok:. Also make sure that whoever you choose has experience on your model aircraft . It's an expensive time consuming exercise paying a maintence organization to make mistakes and learn the idiosyncracies of your pride and joy. :{

[Old Akro]

I think one of the biggest differences between Schedule 5 and the manufacturers schedule is that Schedule 5 gives greater flexibility about replacing time lifed parts.

[Jabawocky]

Creamy……. I think we have a POTY winner with that post.

Says everything it should and nothing it shouldn't.

BZ that man! :D:D:D:D

[yr right]

Life components have to be done on both shed 5 or manufactures

[BEACH KING]

Are Yr sure about that?
As a bit of research, (in yr spare time), have a look at the differing requirements of a Baron electric fuel pump under both schedules (sch 5 vs manufacturer)

[Creampuff]

He's sure, but he's wrng.

[yr right]

Find someone that won't change it if the manufacture says it has to. Fact is if it goes pear shaped and you have not complies with what the manufacture has said then who holds the blame. Bit like SIDS really.
Gp back and read some over threads as this issue has already been spoken about.
It's no different to manufactures SBs.

[yr right]

And creamy the super hero of all aviation as you would know shed 5 is only work sheets to do a check. It's only one part of a whole maintence program which is listed on your lbs. So while you may op for shed 5 casa can and have said no and have you do a Som or manufactures. As we'll you still must comply with ADs and SB and limitations in the m/m.

[CHAIRMAN]

I believe that everyone has to comply with an AD. An SB on the other hand is not an AD, and the operator/owner could elect not to have the SB done if not thought applicable. The maintenance organisation gets a waiver signed, and the responsibility for not having the SB carried out is the operators. Am I wrong yr right?

[yr right]

No your not. Read what casa now say. Only if the word recommend is used may you have the option not comply. And remember ADs are country of origin as we'll.

[Eddie Dean]

The Chief Engineer tells me it is the CAR30 organisation that is responsible for the aircraft being released with ALL due maintenance carried out.
The Service Bullitens that I have seen are mandatory, recomended or customer convenience. The mandatory ones are carried out without reference from CASA of other regulator.
CASA Schedule 5, part 2 is the minimum maintenance required for issue of the MR.
I had a look at one of the helicopter Log Book Statements, which could be likened to the Aircraft Maintenance Program of larger machines, it lists OEM schedules, Schedule 5 for EIR,as well as components hard landing etc etc.
CAR 41 1 states that components are to be included in maintenance schedule41 Maintenance schedule and maintenance instructions
(1) The holder of the certificate of registration for a class B aircraft must ensure that all maintenance required to be carried out on the aircraft (including any aircraft components from time to time included in or fitted to the aircraft) by the aircraft’s maintenance schedule is carried out when required by that schedule.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) A person must not use a class B aircraft in an operation if there is
not a maintenance schedule for the aircraft that includes provision
for the maintenance of all aircraft components from time to time
included in, or fitted to, the aircraft.
To answer the OP question, my first inspection by my maintenece org was a little expensive, but after that I have paid about 3,000 per 100 hourly for cessna 206

[Super Cecil]

Just one example, CASA requirement new lower spar cap at 11,000 hours cost $80,000+
Manufacturer has no spar life

[Creampuff]

Another round of the decades-old, pointlessly circular argument. Feels suspiciously like the usual spiral dive...

But never fear: The new, simple 1998 regulations will make it all crystal clear. :ok:

[Eddie Dean]

Death spiral? OP is asking about costs. And that could cause a death spiral I guess.
Out in the GAFA, the maintenance seems to be done to the owners whimsy.
Maybe there needs to be a tightening up of standards, and a separation of private and "commercial" operations and maintenance.

Oh look CASR 1998 is nearly here.and the responsibility for not having the SB carried out is the operators. Am I wrong yr right? Now there is pause for thought, if an AD or other mandatory requirement is missed who bears legal responsibility, should an accident occur?

[Creampuff]

A test, ED and yr right:

What does the periodic removal and cleaning of injectors on injected piston engines achieve?

I'm not interested in generalities or references to legislative bullsh*t.

I'm interested in knowing what contaminants, precisely, build up where, precisely, on injectors on piston engines. What gets cleaned when injectors are removed and cleaned?

What risk is being mitigated, and why, when injectors on injected piston engines are removed, cleaned and replaced?

I repeat: I'm not interested in generalities or references to legislative bullsh*t.

Give us the hard facts from experts at the coal face. :ok:

[Perspective]

Creamie, your joking...right?
Unfortunately it appears you have not been present when someone has
Removed injectors for cleaning, as I can tell you, it is quite necessary,
Continental are 300hrs or periodically,
GAMI say 100-200 hrs for cleaning.
And please cut it out with the old " doing it for $$, or creating work bulls#€T,
I'm sick to death of it.
Next time I remove some injectors I promise, I will take some pictures and
Send to you.
Avgas...cleaning medium.. Not so much..
Kero...yes more so.

Firstly, schedule 5 is not used in isolation.
Schedule 5 is a list of things to look at, not how to maintain
Your aircraft.
Guide-
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100178/maint-guide-owner-operators.pdf

Some choice quotes..

"However, some operators of privately operated aeroplanes favour CASA Schedule 5 over the manufacturer’s schedule, because it appears at first glance to be simpler (and cheaper) than the manufacturer’s schedule or an SOM. However, you should bear in mind that Schedule 5 is just a list of inspection items, a ‘shopping list’ of tasks to be completed either every 100 hours, or 12 months (whichever comes first), without any specific instructions on how any of the inspection items listed in the schedule should be carried out."

Remember also that under CAR 42V (1), because all maintenance is required to be carried out in accordance
with the applicable approved data, you must still consult the manufacturer’s maintenance manuals for the airframe, engine and propeller, as well as applicable literature such as service bulletins, for instructions on how to carry out inspections and corrective maintenance.

And this one,

"If you do not follow the manufacturer’s maintenance schedule, you should know why, and be able to explain your reasoning to an auditor or accident investigator."

Here is the schedule 5 section on ignition systems.

IGNITION SYSTEM
(1) Remove the spark plugs, clean and inspect them, check the spark plug electrode gap, test the spark plugs and renew them if required.
(2) Inspect the spark plug high tension leads and ceramics.
(3) Inspect the magneto housing.
(4) Inspect the breaker compartment and cam follower.
(5) Inspect the breaker points for serviceability and check the breaker points gap, magneto engine timing and synchronisation.
(6) Inspect the switch and earth leads.
(7) Refit and torque the spark plugs.
(8) Refit the spark plug high tension leads.

Do you see anything explicitly mentioning magneto 500hr inspections?

This paragraph is at the start of the schedule 5 text.
(You say there is nothing saying in schedule 5 you must do components?)

"6.7 Except where otherwise approved or directed by CASA the procedures and limits prepared by the aeroplane manufacturer are to be used when performing an inspection required by this schedule." (Schedule 5)!


I don't think you will find too many LAME's out there that will sign out a magneto that is past it's 500hr inspection limit, I certainly wouldn't, and for bendix, yes I'm afraid in will do the 4yearly also.

But Dukes fuel pumps?
Vac pumps?
Yeah, your right, let's let them go so they fail right when you need them most.
Even though you as a registered operator are responsible that all maintenance is
Bla Bla Bla... You already know.

Let me ask you this, say you have a 182 with a McCauley, under AD/Prop/1, would you operate
It with no consideration to calendar, because it's hours only. Or would you take my advice to
Do it in accordance with the manufacturers timeframe, or do you require some pic's of corroded or failed hubs, the former means a lot more parts in the bin, the latter means.....

You keep referring to human factors without saying it, it is obviously a part of everything
We do, it should not be used as a reason, to not do something, however unnecessary you think
It is.

Quote:
"An experienced maintainer will know how and when to do more of the necessary maintenance and less of the unnecessary maintenance. Schedule 5 will give you more flexibility to do that"

First part, Not worded how I would put it, but I sort of agree,
But saying schedule 5 gives you more "flexibility" is a furphy..

I believe from a CASA insp.

""However, CAR 42V requires persons undertaking maintenance (including inspections) to do so in accordance with applicable maintenance data. CAR 2A(2)(c) defines such data to include instructions issued by manufacturers of aircraft, components and materials.""

Same old argument.

[yr right]

Creamy.

Our cleaner is worth around $15000. Do you have your car serviced. Is it injected. Dose it say when you fill your car up at the service station that our fuel has cleaners in our fuel.

Have a look around the base of your injectors are they clean or dirty. Next go do some research and attuatly see how they work. Then come back and ask.

Next vac pumps and mags. Do you do the o/h periods on them and the scheduled service on them. What about your electix fuel pump or what about your trim jacks or u/c motor or gearbox. None of the above are in the sched 5 work sheets.

But it's a con isn't just to take your $$$$.
Funny thing is your prepared to tell me and try and belittle me about lop and engine operation but you don't know the a simple basic engine components and how they work. You can read all you like in a book but nothing beats hand on experience.

Btw I know how an injector works. 👍

[yr right]

Eddie.
To answer your question.

Unless the aircraft is controlled by a maintence controller the the person (lame) that signs of each cat is and the lame co-ordinator will be deemed the responsible as we'll as the owner.

Also where in the reqs dose it state a wavier is legal. If the sb is recommend the casa has give a direction that it is now recommend and may be viewed as that. If an Ad states a Sb then it must be done if it's applicable to the aircraft in question.

If the aircraft is under the controll of a maintence controller then they take the reponasabillity for the paper work and the lame takes resopability for the work carried out.

[Eddie Dean]

Unless the aircraft is controlled by a maintence controller the the person (lame) that signs of each cat is and the lame co-ordinator will be deemed the responsible as we'll as the owner. Yr Right, this would contradict CAR 41, for Cat B maintenance.
As a LAME certifying in a category I don't see the log book only the work sheets, so how could I be responsible for something not on the worksheeets?
I think you are right about SBs, if an AD is raised refering to the SB it becomes mandatory as well.

[yr right]

If you do all the work you don't even need work sheets if all is places in the log book.
As an owner you are reasonable unless under control of a maintenance controller as we'll.

[Creampuff]

Creamie, your[sic] joking...right?No, I'm not.Unfortunately it appears you have not been present when someone has
Removed injectors for cleaning, ...Yes I have been. ...as I can tell you, it is quite necessary, ... I didn't ask you to tell me your opinion. I asked for things called "facts". That's why I said:I'm interested in knowing what contaminants, precisely, build up where, precisely, on injectors on piston engines. What gets cleaned when injectors are removed and cleaned?Just facts please.Continental are 300hrs or periodically,
GAMI say 100-200 hrs for cleaning.Don't you comprehend the patent nonsense in one organisation saying it's OK to run a component for 300 hours without cleaning, and another organisation saying 100-200 hours for cleaning, when both components are used in exactly the same operational circumstances?And please cut it out with the old " doing it for $$, or creating work bulls#€T,I didn't say that. Please revisit your highschool comprehension texts.Next time I remove some injectors I promise, I will take some pictures and
Send to you.Right on cue....Some engineers may produce scary pictures of dirty solvent after injectors have been removed and 'cleaned'. The dirty stuff comes almost entirely from the outside of the injector. An engine monitor and knowing how to use it will tell you if you have a partially or completely blocked injector.I realise that people in Australia are willing captives of thousands of pages of regulations. (And BTW: You don't have to quote them at me. I know them off by heart.)

What I was trying to ascertain is whether anyone has any idea about the physical reality of how a component works and where the 'dirt' comes from, or are merely trained monkeys who just go through the rote-learned motions.

Take a deep breath, put down the banana, and try providing some facts.

Go over to Beechtalk and read about how a real aviation country with a real GA fleet deals with these manufacturers' periodic arseplucks. A couple of quotes.

The first from Walter Atkinson:I've run a few engines to TBO without EVER cleaning the injectors. Clean them only if the GAMI spread indicates a change, then I might ONLY clean the one that's showing a problem. Remember, all of these recommendations to clean them annually came long before we had engine monitors. Once we had engine monitors, we could see that cleaning them was the most common problem and that they really got cleaned every time you ran avgas through them."... Once we had engine monitors, we could see that cleaning them was the most common problem".

".... I've run a few engines to TBO without EVER cleaning the injectors."

One from John-Paul Townsend from GAMI:My personal opinion is that the avgas is one of the better cleaners and more people get clogged nozzles as a result of the removal and reinstallation process than through normal usage. It is also my opinion that if you have a multiprobe engine monitor you can tell whether you have a situation that requires a nozzle cleaning. If you don't need to be cleaned . . . don't...."[M]ore people get clogged nozzles as a result of the removal and reinstallation process than through normal usage."

Periodic injector removal for cleaning is an example, par exellance, of the Waddington Effect. If you can't or won't see it, you are part of the problem.

[Eddie Dean]

Periodic injector removal for cleaning is an example, par exellance, of the Waddington Effect. If you can't or won't see it, you are part of the problem. I have seen more problems from periodic replacement of oil filters than from fuel nozzles, but that is for another thread.
Although I believe you are correct in this case, as you are suggesting, the contamination is on the outside, covering the airshroud on NA injected engines. not a problem for turbo charged engine injectors. The workshops I am experienced with don't service the nozzles unless there is a problem relating to the nozzles.

[Perspective]

Quote,
"Take a deep breath, put down the banana, and try providing some facts."

Nice. Honestly, what's the point, great, you have spoken to a few people and
Latched onto whatever suits your argument, nothing anyone else states is
Worth taking in that's obvious.
I just offered to send you some pics of injectors that are built up with deposits
Internally and I get shot down.
You insinuate we should go to where the real GA is, yes I have been to the
States on numerous occasions.
Your mind is made up creamie.
We are all uneducated monkeys.

[Creampuff]

The data demonstrate that periodic removal, cleaning and refitting of injectors creates more defects than it solves. If that's too traumatic for you to accept, Perspective, that's your problem.

You refer to an important difference, ED, that used to have me worried (until I studied the system and the data): NA injectors as compared with TN/TC injectors.

When the engine is running the NA injectors are sucking in air through the fine screen at the bottom of the airshroud. I used to worry that the fine screen would eventually get clogged if there were any impurities/particles/dust in the air inside the cowling. But then I saw what the fuel in the injector lines does when the diaphragm in the manifold closes on shut down...

[Perspective]

As I said creamie,
Human factors is not an excuse to either,
- not carry out a maintenance task,
- not follow the reg's, which you seem to conveniently brush over in my response, after I pointed out the text covering components.

Yes there are many that over maintain, probably balanced out by those
Who under maintain.
As you say, you mention the difference between cont. and gami injector
Cleaning schedule, the same could be said for bendix and slick mags.

That does not mean I take it apon myself to pick whatever time I please.
Maybe you have more flexibility to work within the FAA regs than we do here.

[yr right]

Creamie.
It's quite obvious you don't understand how an injector works. I will give you a clue. It's two parts. Air and fuel and as you have aluded to Walter not cleaning his nozzles it shows also what little he knows as we'll whoops wastnt he who also said he ran his engine 0/80

[yr right]

Consider this.
Pt6-67 in a 1900d. 200 hours between service.
Pt6-67 in an 802 air tractor 100 hrs betwen service.

Now consider this. A gami injector are set to an engine to a much finer tolacemce than a standard injector although now this is much less than earlier engines.

As you said earlier leave the piano playing to the people that know. Go get some lessons if you won't to play with the big boys.

[yr right]

Now for a matter of interest how is an engine monitor going to tell you that the air bleed is contaminated. And second you don't need a fancy engine monitor to tell you that a nozzle has a proplem. A simple fuel flow or fuel px indicator will tell you the same thing. It will only tell you which cly is having a proplem. Then anyway good practise will tell you to do the others plus a whole lot more.

[thorn bird]

Passing strange reading through these posts that the same confusion and differing "Opinions" seems to be as rife in the engineering side of our industry as on the operations side. I confess I am no expert on maintenance, I rely as much as possible on the advice of them that are, if a LAME tells me this should be done, then do it.

What seems to creep into anything to do with regulations per say, is compliance at the end of the day relies on the "Expert" opinion of CAsA, FOI's for operation, AWI for maintenance among whom there seems to be the same level of confusion and differing opinions.

From my experience in the USA, outwardly anyway, aircraft generally appear far better maintained than here.
I guess there are sh.t boxes there the same as here, but by and large they are few and far between, on the surface anyway.

Statistically there doesn't seem to be problems with maintenance in the US, and for sure there isn't the same level of confusion over what to do and when to do it.

It is also patently clear that maintenance costs in the USA are vastly less expensive than Australia.

A few pointed questions across the Tasman seems to indicate that our Kiwi brethren don't seem to have the same problems or costs that we do either.

Their reg's are in plain English and everyone seems to "Get" what they mean.

I often wonder how much the costs of committing aviation in Australia would reduce if we were to adopt similar Reg's as the country where most of our aircraft are built.

Would our aircraft end up better maintained or worse?

Would aviation be more safe or less safe?


Would we be having the same discussions on this website?

[yr right]

So let us consider this.
The manufacture has no control of the aircraft once it leaves it's hangars and flys anywhere in the world.
He also knows nothing about his product at all and places extra requirements ie servicing just because he feels that way. Next an accident occurs and what happen. The lawyers get involed and sue the manufacture. Hence we end up over regulated and controlled by low life nutters

[Creampuff]

I agree that if maintenance is required, by law, to be done, it must be done to comply with the law. And if it must be done, the person doing it must do it properly, to comply with the law.

That's obvious.

But that's not my point.

My point is that the law in Australia should not require periodic removal, cleaning and replacement of piston engine injectors, because the data show that:

IT'S NOT NECESSARY.

IT'S COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE.

Hard data from the single biggest piston GA fleet on the planet demonstrate that the manufacturers' periodicity for this item was an arsepluck and caused more problems than it cured.

There are many other examples.

Not opinion. Hard data.

This is nothing new. The Waddington Effect is well known.

You show me some dirty solvent after cleaning an injector, I'll show you a pilot with CVD who can't pass a colour vision test.

Both very scary. Both completely irrelevant to safety.

It's regulation by gut feeling rather than science. Old Wive's Tales rather than data.

If the combined technical wisdom in Australia considers periodic removal, cleaning and replacement of piston engine injectors is still necessary, that would go a long way to explaining the thousands of pages of regulations dictating every facet of anything to do with aviation in Australia, for no substantially different safety outcome than is achieved in the US.

(It's not important to this discussion, but I note that GAMIjectors come in both NA and Turbo versions, as do CMI and Lycoming injectors.)

Walter not cleaning his nozzles it shows also what little he knows as we'll whoops wastnt he who also said he ran his engine 0/80Walter has forgotten more about aircraft piston engines than you'll ever know. The quoted text explains why.

Walter safely flew an aircraft with a piston engine with a cylinder that measured 0/80 on the static check. He did it deliberately (and with an SFP) to prove a point. The point is completely lost on you, because what little you know has been rote-learned.

For you: 0/80 = engine broken. But it flew safely and the data captured on the engine monitor showed the engine was operating normally. For you: "Injector must be cleaned". But many engines have been flown to TBO without periodic injector cleaning, and the data captured on the engine monitors show the engines were operating normally throughout.

Undetered by those facts, you stubbornly stick to your rote-learned folklore because you know yr right.

[yr right]

As I said. How can you show on an engine monitor that the injector nozzle is blocked at the air inlet ?????

Walter is not an engineer. Walter is a PILOT. Walter may be a good pilot that dose not make him an engineer. He may know about engine but dose not make him an expert.

He proved this by running an engine with 0/80.

Dose lycoming or tcm or casa as eng 4 allow this. I'll answer it. NO it dosent. But he is an expert. So where dose it say that casa demands that nozzles in this case be removed and cleaned at 200 odd hours.

What is quite clear is you really don't know much but are just a sheep and are happy to follow what's been told to you.

If you won't to point the finger how about your industry that changes excessive rates for postage or photo copying or my favorite to be thinking about you when he is on the sh$ter.

The difference we generally do this job for love and most of us have a conchion. Plus when we f up we kill people. The likes of your self as an instant expert on all things engineering is quite sicking.

But hey you obviously know more about engineering than I do even though this is all I've done for the last 34 years Maybe you should become a lame then you can do all your own maintence.

Just out of a matter of interest how many of you out there have had a problem in flight that was cause due to a maintence mistake

[RatsoreA]

Just out of a matter of interest how many of you out there have had a problem in flight that was cause due to a maintence mistake

Me. In a fully laden PA31, in Central NSW, in summer.

[yr right]

Further more ALL maintence is done IAW. That's it. IAW. This means we done it all with approved data that is supplied. Not data someone has done on a personal matter and not supposed it for evaluation. Drs or sicentis don't post there findings till it passed others that can replicate there findings.

These are the same people that said that American Airlines double there O/H on engines from the airforce. Once again I showed how the airforce hours for o/h was around 300 hours. Then I was called dangerous. Also data that not approved is not data. It cannot be used. If it was STC then approved then it's ok if it's not from the manufacture.

And your classic that it causes more problems than it fixes. Data. Where is your data to prove that.

[yr right]

Rats do tell or pm me please with details.

[RatsoreA]

No need for a PM. Someone didn't do a magneto pack up properly AND left the ring spanner on top of the engine for good measure.

I now carry a small mirror on a stick for preflight inspections.

[yr right]

Nasty no excuses for that !!!!

[Creampuff]

Just out of a matter of interest how many of you out there have had a problem in flight that was cause due to a maintence mistake The majority of in-flight problems I've had were caused by maintenance mistakes, usually manifesting themselves during the flight immediately after the 100 hourly/annual.

Engine probes left disconnected ... tools left in the engine compartment and under the cabin carpet ... access panel missing ... spongy brakes ... circuit breakers pulled (my mistake to miss it on pre-flight, but the aircraft shouldn't leave the hangar that way) ... magneto 2 degrees too far advanced ...

I could go on.

It's what happens when humans fiddle with complicated machinery.

That's why I dread the post-annual test flight.

And of course with the advent of engine monitors and pilot education on proper engine management, pilots started to notice how many injectors ended up partially clogged as a consequence of "cleaning".Walter is not an engineer. Walter is a PILOT. Walter may be a good pilot that dose not make him an engineer. He may know about engine but dose not make him an expert.

He proved this by running an engine with 0/80.Yes, and while you and your ilk were wailing and gnashing your teeth and consulting the holy maintenance manual and making sacrifices to the cylinder god, the engine was run and flown normally, with engine monitor data to show the engine was running normally on all cylinders. Folklore v facts.As I said. How can you show on an engine monitor that the injector nozzle is blocked at the air inlet ?????It's not hard, but it does require an objective mind and a willingess and capacity to learn, by reference to the laws of physics and hard data.

[RatsoreA]

I also despise removing something perfectly serviceable, just to look at it to confirm its serviciblitly. As someone that regularly maintains Diesel engines, the injectors get much dirtier in diesel engines than aircraft engines, yet they don't require removing and cleaning every ten minutes?

[Perspective]

Hi Chuck,
Quote:
"It's regulation by gut feeling rather than science. Old Wive's Tales rather than data."

Ok, my experience tells me, that in the past 20 years I have changed many vac pumps due to sheared drives.
Removed mag's I've seen for the first time past their calendar due date, and find
They are full of oil.
Replaced alternators due to worn out brushes that someone else didn't inspect
At the 500hr mark (can you tell me why alternator brushes wear 3 times as fast at altitude? Didn't think so).
An so on...

But you come here, stating you have more flexibility on schedule 5 than the manufacturers schedule, then when I show you that's a phurfy, with the relevant data to back my point,
Quote:

"I agree that if maintenance is required, by law, to be done, it must be done to comply with the law. And if it must be done, the person doing it must do it properly, to comply with the law."

My experience tells me that a lot of components left unmolested will fail, either due to perished seals, worn brushes, etc etc.

I know what point you are trying to make. That you believe some maintainers over maintain for no benefit to safety. That people do something because that is the way they have always done it.

But this comment say's a lot,
Quote:

"Walter safely flew an aircraft with a piston engine with a cylinder that measured 0/80 on the static check. He did it deliberately (and with an SFP) to prove a point. The point is completely lost on you, because what little you know has been rote-learned."

Well then, what a fool.
Quote:

"For you: 0/80 = engine broken"

Was it valves, rings, It depends where the leak is coming from as to the seriousness of the fault.

If you want to continue to quote people you have spoken to, or rabbiting on about the waddington effect, then fill your boot.

I cannot come up with your "hard Data" to back my point's, without some effort,
But my experience's tell me that component overhaul/inspection schedule's are important and should be followed.
But above and beyond all of that, the regulator requires it.

I have lost count of how many times owner-pilots want me to let something run on, let something go, sign something out, so here's an analogy for you...

How about I come over there, we hire a 210, and you fly me under the Brooklyn bridge, or Golden Gate Bridge, or let's fly into controlled airspace with out clearance, I'm sure you could do it quite safely, everyday someone fly's into controlled airspace with no clearance without crashing, it must be safe.

You are asking me to use either my experience, or hard data without following the regs, but if I ask you to fly me outside the procedures and regs....not on your life you would say.
Quote:

Undetered (sic) by those facts, you stubbornly stick to your rote-learned folklore because you know yr right."

What exactly is the fact, that now we can all operate engines at 0/80? FFS!

The fact is, every LAME's experience has parallels and differences.
Some LAME's think component maintenance schedule's are a bit tight, some not tight enough. So how do you create a standard that everyone works to, so some engineer out there does not let components continue until failure.

The manufacturer does. And until they change the recommended time between overhaul or inspections, the reg's direct me to follow what is in the latest revision "DATA".
And in my EXPERIENCE, I agree with when components should be done, because
I HAVE, changed many many failed components I have found beyond their insp. period over the years, not folklore, or wives tales or opinion's.

Your constant belittling of someone's experience or opinion over yours is arrogant, and THAT, is counter productive.

Your quote:

"I agree that if maintenance is required, by law, to be done, it must be done to comply with the law. And if it must be done, the person doing it must do it properly, to comply with the law."

At least we agree on something.

[gerry111]

Perspective, I'm clearly not an engineer.


Please explain to me why "..alternator brushes wear 3 times as fast at altitude".


Somewhere I've read of 'Brush Sparking' but is that really true?

[Perspective]

Generally, the atmosphere is drier at altitude and leads to premature brush wear,
(And the generation of more ozone due to lack of pressure, I am led to believe)
But there is a lot more to it than that, brush design and material etc.

The way technology has evolved in the automotive industry you'd probably
Find an automotive alternator that would last quite well on a aircraft now, after all, they were automotive originally, and automotive have built in Reg's and the ability to change brush's quite easily.

There are many brush grades now, but with the cost of certifying I guess we are
Stuck with the status quo.

[Creampuff]

I actually have more years' experience maintaining aircraft than you, Perspective. That's one of the reasons I don't lose my temper when my aircraft comes out of maintenance with new, human-induced problems (and a bill in the double-digit thousands). I know, from long, first-hand experience, what goes on during maintenance and how easy it is to make mistakes.I know what point you are trying to make. That you believe some maintainers over maintain for no benefit to safety.No, that's not the point I was trying to make.

I apologise for not being clearer.

The point I'm trying to make is this: The data prove that some periodic maintenance required by manufacturers' maintenance manuals is unnecessary and counter-productive.

What I said in my first post on this thread was:Most manufacturer's maintenance schedules require too much unnecessary maintenance and not enough necessary maintenance ...

An experienced maintainer will know how and when to do more of the necessary maintenance and less of the unnecessary maintenance.You see: I'm actually advocating "more" - i.e. an increase in the amount of - maintenance. But only of the necessary stuff.

And that's not the same as saying leave everything alone until it breaks.

When people refuse to accept the implications of the data and instead treat a time limit in a maintenance manual as holy writ, it is indeed regulation by gut feeling rather than science. Old Wive's Tales rather than data.

I did chuckle at your mention of vacuum pumps. We'll have to agree to disagree on whether maintenance against schedule 5 provides more flexibility than the manufacturer's maintenance schedule. (I'm pretty sure there are lots of aircraft flying around with control cables more than 15 years old, despite the manufacturer's maintenance schedule, but I must be mistaken.)

The most authoritative link drawn between component time limits in maintenance manuals and schedule 5 was drawn by Egon Fice in the Brazier decision. Although my view is that Egon got it wrong on the legal reasoning, that's neither here nor there at the moment. The irony of the decision is that it provides another example, par excellance, of how arbritray the life limits in manufacturers' maintenance manuals are.

One of the many atrocities alleged by CASA against Mr Brazier was that he didn't replace an aircraft's vac pumps at 500 hours TIS or 12 monthly, which ever came first, in accordance with the Service Manual. At the time this atrocity was detected, the left hand pump had overrun by 886.9 hours and was still going strong. The right-hand vacuum pump had overrun by 1599.6 hours.

Imagine the horrific risks to aviation safety that arose when those pumps went past 500 hours' TIS, then the right hand pump went past 1,000, then 1,500 ... Oh the humanity!

Anyone who's run an aircraft with a vac pump or two knows when they're most likely to fail, and why.

[Perspective]

There are many out there with vastly more experience with I.

I think we agree more than disagree to be honest, but regardless of that, my point back on topic is there are regs in place, it's not up to me how they are written, but follow them I must, regardless of your and my experience.

[Creampuff]

I think we agree more than disagree to be honest, but regardless of that, my point back on topic is there are regs in place, it's not up to me how they are written, but follow them I must, regardless of your and my experience.Indeed! :ok:

[Eddie Dean]

Mr Brazier had so consistently breached the Regulations as to indicate a
culture of noncompliance; and as a consequence, he was not a fit and
proper person to exercise the privileges of an aircraft maintenance
engineer licence. The CASA delegate found there was a serious risk to
aviation safety if Mr Brazier's aircraft maintenance engineer licence was
not cancelled.

Is this the Mr Brazier you refer to Creampuff?

[Creampuff]

No. I'm referring to the other Mr Brazier. :rolleyes:

[yr right]

Can you please enlighten us when a vac pump is likely to fail. Now the manufacture has placed an opening that allows the pump to be measured strangle though this is not in shed 5 but a manufactures. And btw I do know fly boy !!!!
I also know what happen in regards to his demise in the industry.

[Creampuff]

*sigh*

**double sigh**

I understand the first sentence. The rest is incomprehensible.

The data prove the greatest risk of vacuum pump failure arises immediately after the 'benefit' of human intervention. Just like injectors on piston engines.

It's worth reflecting on the abject ridiculousness of the implications of the Brazier matter.

As I noted above, the Service Manual that was relevant in the Brazier matter specified vac pump replacement no later than 500 hours' TIS or 12 months, whichever came first.

The vac pumps in question in fact continued to run beyond 500 hours' TIS and 12 months. In the case of the left hand pump, it continued to run for more than double that time. In the case of the right hand pump, it continued to run for more than triple that time. And at the point this atrocity was detected, the pumps hadn't failed - we actually don't know how long they would have continued to run.

Yet Australia's bone-headed rules, driven by a bone-headed regulator, say that's 'dangerous' and Mr Brazier is a 'criminal'. Minor issues like data disproving the validity of the arsepluck in the Service Manual are a mere bagatelle.

The people flying around in that aircraft were, of course, at risk of a 30,000 death plunge. They would have been much "safer" if those vacuum pumps had instead been replaced twice or thrice, with the resulting doubling and tripling in risk of failure.

Sheer brilliance. :ugh:

[yr right]

And when you done with that perhaps you can tell me where I'm going wrong in my serviceing looking at what the sched says and not what's important.
Then you can tell me how to deal with costumers and there bills.

Then maybe you can tell me how to deal with a car company that told me it was going to cost $1700 to fix the wife car and I fixes it for $14.

And what about how an injector works and how you can tell on your monitor when the air filter is blocked.

And then why if your engine was set 2 deg out why and how you found that.

Btw engines will vary up to 2 deg between services depending on what the age of the engine is. That's not uncommon.

[yr right]

Hang on here. You can't understand that the vac pump can be measured. But your telling me how it all works but you don't know that. Typical word smithing. Maybe you should be a polly. Get ask a question give out some dripple and answer nothing.

You refer to data. Data where is your data. What manufactures data dosent matter. Of course not your data is better than there data.

[yr right]

And how many vac pumps have you changed in your vast experience as an engineering expert.

In my experience there was no way before the plug could you tell when a pump was to fail. There are no indications piour to a failure. They work and then they stopped. That simple.
Now we have a port where the vanes can be measured. But as the beast is what they are they can run a life out or they can still fail. Is really in the lap of the gods to what you can get. If you don't won't a failure put a wet pump on. They all but last for ever.

[yr right]

Whoops

Sigh rrrrrrr

[Creampuff]

Yr ignorance is yr problem, yr right.

The fact that you ask these questions demonstrates how little you know about how engines work and how much information an engine monitor provides:And what about how an injector works and how you can tell on your monitor when the air filter is blocked. ...The injectors to which I referred are those on an NA CMI engine. Those injectors suck in air through the screen at the bottom of the shroud on the injector. The injector needs to do that to atomise the fuel it is injecting. If the screen is blocked, the injector won't work properly.

But the usual maintenance induced failure is due to partial or complete blockage of the jet - foreign objects introduced into the system. That's easy to spot if you know how engines run and what the monitor is telling you: The cylinder either isn't working (no motion lotion) or has an unusual EGT for the mixture setting (because the cylinder is somewhere different on the lean curve than it usually is).And then why if your engine was set 2 deg out why and how you found that.Again, easy if you know how engines run and what the monitor is telling you.

In this case the CHTs were around 10 - 15 degrees C hotter in the climb than normal, straight out of maintenance. With the assistance of The Timing Fairy I discovered that one of the magnetos was advanced 24 degrees instead of 22. You would of course understand why advancing the timing results in an increase in CHTs... Btw engines will vary up to 2 deg between services depending on what the age of the engine is. That's not uncommon.BTW, a magneto that's set to 24 instead of 22 out of maintenance is the result of incompetence. That's not uncommon.

Tell us, yr right: Have you ever made a mistake?

[yr right]

You see creamie unlike your profession when I'm in court I have to swear to tell the truth. Unlike your profession where you don't and you try to In trap people we have a set of rules and laws we must follow at all times weather we like them or not. We are accountable for our action and you are not. We have people's life's in our hands your profession dosnt. We lost the death pently in the 60s if I can recall. We generally don't get second chances to review or mistakes you do. We don't charge or get paid anywhere like your do in your profession. We can't change for every photo copy or phone call etc like in your profession. And we don't call each othe my learned friend. We just say it as it is. You "f" wit.

[yr right]

I'm fully aware of how an injector works. I'm fully aware of how a magneto works. I'm fully aware of monitoring systems. I have a lic that's says I'm allowed to do work on these engines. I'm not ignorant at all. Quite the opposite

[Eddie Dean]

The drift here is marked.
The original question is answered in a CASA AWB 0 - 033

Two recent decisions, one in the NSW District Court, the other in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), found against those who, having chosen the CASA maintenance schedule, ignored the manufacturer’s maintenance schedule. 4 One case stemmed from a fatal crash.
So, the CASA maintenance schedule does not replace the manufacturer’s maintenance schedule.
If you don’t follow the manufacturer’s maintenance schedule, you should know why,.......

[Creampuff]

Eddy: That merely proves, once again, what we already knew: The law is ass.

Tell us, yr right: Have you ever made a mistake?

[Creampuff]

Final post on this thread.

I'm struck by the irony that I'm advocating for evidence-based maintenance requirements, using data from the single largest piston fleet on the planet, rather than robotic compliance with asinine law, and some people are arguing against that. It's depressing to say it, but I'm completely unsurprised that GA in Australia is in the state it's in.

For those who consider manufacturers' manuals to be the collected wisdom of lessons learnt by people who know best, I note this from CASA's Discussion Paper on ageing aircraft management.[S]ome Manufacturer’s Schedules are documents which are frozen in time from when the aircraft was first actually produced. In some cases these schedules have not been legally required to be updated to reflect the aircraft ageing well beyond its original design life assumptions, even though these assumptions may have been reached many decades ago.And you know what they say about assumptions...

stevo200: Find an engineer with a deep understanding and long experience in the maintenance of the type and model of aircraft you have/are considering buying. Get him or her to explain what's actually involved in maintaining the aircraft properly. Good luck. :ok:

[stevo200]

I'm probably the furthest thing from an expert in this field, being still a uni student and not knowing much about the industry until a few months ago before starting some research on it all.

But after reading all your comments I can see both sides of the story from an objective view. I think both sides have their fair points they are bringing across and in a way you are both right.

Creampuff, your argument seems to be that although there are these regulations saying you need to replace these components, in actual fact most of these components will last much longer than the manufacturers recommendation, and that the over-servicing of some areas, such as the injectors, can "potentially" introduce more problems than the it solves.

That is perfectly understandable and correct. But I think the point you are arguing about is yes this may be correct mechanically, but what yr right is trying to say is that is it really acceptable from a safety and liability point of view. Yes, a component may last 5 times its recommended replacement time 9 times out of 10. Yes 90% of vac pumps will last over 1000hrs. Yes injectors dont need inspection/cleaning as regularly with modern engines. But what happens when that 1 out of 10 times something fails? Who is responsible for the deaths that could occur from a failure mid flight? The manufacturer does not want that responsibility and it is there duty to ensure that does not occur.

That is why they appear to"over-maintain" certain areas, is to ensure that the 1 in 10 chance of failure does not occur. They do not want any failure rates, they do not want any accidents involving their aircraft and they do not want any lives lost due to a failure of a component they designed. Therefore their servicing intervals have a large factor of safety included to ensure the least liability towards them in the event a failure.

Yes this may increase costs at the expense of the consumer, but at the end of the day that is what they feel is necessary to ensure they have covered themselves from a mechanical failure. It is all a part of risk management, with a very conservative approach being taken. Replacement of parts may be completed much earlier than required but the risk of a failure is dramatically minimised than running the component close to the average failure time.

Running a component beyond its service life may be alright, it may not. There may be an issue, there may not. You may be over-servicing, you may not. It seems like a lot of the maintenance issues within the industry are based on maybes. Something may be able to operate for much longer than its replacement interval, but is it able to operate safely with the lowest possible chance of failure. And is running the risk that something "should" be alright to operate past its service life really an acceptable chance to take when you have other peoples lives in your hands? Fair enough if you are flying only yourself and you can take that chance with your own life, but can you really risk other peoples lives and take responsibility for that 1% chance that something might fail for operating past its service life?

With respect to the cleaning of injectors introducing more problems than it solves, it again is down to the manufacturer both taking responsibility for their designed aircraft, and also shedding responsibility as the component is now within their calculated acceptable factor of safety limits and the responsibility is now on the mechanic to ensure he takes responsibility for completing the work correctly without any issues. The inspection removes the liability of they "should" be alright. Cleaning the injectors every 500 hours means you know they were fully operational 500 hours ago, not they were fine last overhaul which is 2000 hours ago. There could be a 2% chance they could fail within 2000 hours compared to a 0.02% chance they could fail within 500 hours and these regular inspections remove the liability associated with the unknowns of when a component will actually fail from the manufacturer.

So after all that, I think the main thing im trying to get at is yes Creampuff you are 100% right in the fact that a lot of things can operate for much longer than specified, but someone needs to take responsibility for those few times that something fails early, and these early service intervals are the manufacturer taking responsibility to ensure there is no mechanical failure leading to potential accidents from there design and recommendation point.

Thats just how I see it anyway.

[Perspective]

As with any argument Creamie, it is an injustice to only quote figures or statistics selectively so as to try to prove your point.
I have changed Vac pumps below the 1000Hr mark due to sheared drive shafts, worn Vanes. That doesn't mean they all will and Vice Versa.
Why did it fail? Environment, Cleaning agents or over zealous use of degreasers in the vicinity, FOD, turning backwards...
Would it have been good to change the Drive at 6 years as recommended?
would it have made a difference.
You and I know mag timing can change by a degree or Two in 100Hrs of use.
Was it a new mag bedding in,
Is the capacitor flogged out creating heat down the arm melting the cam lifter?
Also saying every time something is changed it will introduce a fault is not correct, and the Data will tell you that.


Human Factors is a reality of course. Aircraft Maintenance is preventative Maintenance, and by default so is probably most things that get any level of maintenance, just focused on more with aircraft.


I understand perfectly where you are coming from, and you are not human if you don't make mistakes.


But there are too many variables in operating environments, Machine operation, FOD, Engineer experience level's, Knowledge, and component operating life expectancy to simply say, well I have seen this or that run for a lot longer than the book allows me to operate it, so I will,
because for every example you give me of extended operations, Several people out there will have the opposite example.


The focus seems to be toward Vac pumps and Injectors. But what about something of a more critical nature.
Would you be happy to let a Governor run well past its Overhaul period,
as I have seen these fail also,
How about a Fuel injection unit, a propeller, does the tendency to leave something to continue operating relate to the perceived risk of failure?


The equipment available to the cockpit these days is vastly improved on when the aircraft was built in most cases.
You have access to a lot of information in regards to engine parameters now, which is great for trouble shooting and engine monitoring.


But that wont stop a failure of a component past its TBO, with all your vast experience you must have had many trouble free hours of maintenance carried out on your aircraft, and carried out by your self.


So let it be, intrusion does not have to equal fault. Components should not be allowed to run until failure.
I cant maintain to your experiences, which may differ greatly from someone else's, in regards to components the limits are clearly defined,
I can evaluate many other facets of aircraft defects and wear, using my experience and wear limits provided.


Other than that you follow the Reg's, regardless of how silly you may think they are, because ultimately, and this is quite important, I cant use you or your experiences as my reference to the Regulator!
Yes shocking, I know, but if I have to justify myself to someone as to why I let something run on, I can's say AMM CreamPuff R1.

[yr right]

I've stated my what I've done on this site enough. I'm
Happy to stand by my qualifications and record. You can read into that what ever you like.
You see I don't really care what people on this site may or may not think of myself. I have enough people that know me personally and what my commitment to safety and engineering I have. I have been in a court by casa try to make me out to be not a good lame only to have them walk out with egg on there face and me make them look like fools.

I stand by I won't give someone an aircraft I will not fly in myself. However there a lot of pilots I would not

[stevo200]

And the other thing, im not saying the manufactures schedules are right at all, im just trying to see it from their point of view.

I think the manufactures schedules are well overdone and require more than is necessary, but Schedule 5 is the exact opposite offering too much flexibility for people to do the wrong thing by it.

Both I think are not really meeting the needs for real word good servicing requirements as they are both too far in each direction from what actually should be done in reality. A combination of both seems to me like the best option or possibly the introduction of new system at an intermediate of the two.

[yr right]

What people have lost is aviation works on preventive maintence and not reactive maintenance. And when you first get your lic and have to sign a document that will remain with you for up to 12 months and your reasonability you can't imagine till you have to do it.

[yr right]

Anyone that thinks there is a lot of difference between a shed 5 and manufactures is deluding them selfs. You still have to do Ads sb time limited components I. Both systems. Shed 5 is just work sheet that mention everything with out being exact That's all the difference is. A good engineer knows where what and when to look regardless of ever system. This all change though with more complex aircraft but. Then aanufactures system comes to it own. As I've said before most people in GA can't afford to own and maintain there aircraft. Cost should not be considered in maintaining your aircraft to an acceptable level. That's the sad truth.
And now with lidication less and less maintence frims are willing to let things go as in the past.

[yr right]

Casa dose NOT won't GA. It's to hard to regulate. That was told to me some 15 odd years ago from an awi in Wagga

But then who wears the coat of blame if it goes wrong.

[Eddie Dean]

A combination of both seems to me like the best option or possibly the introduction of new system at an intermediate of the two.
Steve200 read the AWB (Airworthiness Bulletin) All will be revealed. It is exactly as you said.

Perspective and Yr Right have the right perspective on maintenance I would say.
Interesting that you mention the CSU issue Perspective, that was covered in the Brazier case that Creampuff alludes to. Massive over runs, but with no apparent detriment, although he was lucky to get away with the amount of items he had on over run. Read about it here if interested. Brazier and Civil Aviation Authority [2004] AATA 313 (26 March 2004) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/aat/2004/313.html)

[yr right]

And if you actually know the whole story it was what creamie wonts us to do. Go figure.
And yes I actually know the whole story not just what is in the AAT. That's not to pass any judgement on what occurred to fly boy. But to say that was the only thing that was the story would be in correct

[Perspective]

Many Thanks for the Link Eddie,
Cheers

[Eddie Dean]

Heard a little about the saga a couple of years ago, he was up against it alright, his major client owing him over 100K, 80 in the AAT transcription and no way out but to keep him flying.

[yr right]

Plus plus plus a vindictive casa awi just new to casa and making a mark. As I've said before the hardest word in aviation is NO. And who was doing the maintenance control. !!!!!

[yr right]

As i recall and if I get a chance tomo I'll check. Under the beech system afyer you do your 1st component checks you then have the option of when you do them next if they where ok at the 1at check