New control cable inspections.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has any aircraft owner identified any LAME who says the newly-proposed inspection regime for cables over 15 years old will be any less expensive than replacing the cables in accordance with the original (and still current...) AD?
My inquiries so far suggest that CASA's proposed "new approach" is the fire alternative to the pan of replacement. Expensive overkill, either way.
My inquiries so far suggest that CASA's proposed "new approach" is the fire alternative to the pan of replacement. Expensive overkill, either way.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 21st Jul 2017 at 07:16.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has any aircraft owner identified any LAME who says the newly-proposed inspection regime for cables over 15 years will be any less expensive than replacing the cables in accordance with the original (and still current...) AD?
My inquiries so far suggest that CASA's proposed "new approach" is the fire alternative to the pan of replacement. Expensive overkill, either way.
My inquiries so far suggest that CASA's proposed "new approach" is the fire alternative to the pan of replacement. Expensive overkill, either way.
The old major was a bit of an over kill for cables but each 10 years would be an ok option.
Disconnect one end of the cable each 15 years and have a good look at the "hard to see" areas is not a bad idea.
Yep as a LAME it should/will be cheaper than replacement.
And how many cables do you reckon that could be, and having disconnected them, how much re-tensioning and re-rigging will be required and how long will that take.
How many quotes have you obtained from a LAME, or provided as a LAME, that show the alternative annual inspection regime is cheaper than replacing the cables outright? How many quotes? In round numbers.
How many quotes have you obtained from a LAME, or provided as a LAME, that show the alternative annual inspection regime is cheaper than replacing the cables outright? How many quotes? In round numbers.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And how many cables do you reckon that could be, and having disconnected them, how much re-tensioning and re-rigging will be required and how long will that take.
How many quotes have you obtained from a LAME, or provided as a LAME, that show the alternative annual inspection regime is cheaper than replacing the cables outright? How many quotes? In round numbers.
How many quotes have you obtained from a LAME, or provided as a LAME, that show the alternative annual inspection regime is cheaper than replacing the cables outright? How many quotes? In round numbers.
I give quotes, I don't get them! the old major is your data point.
What aircraft type?
The old major was, demonstrably, expensive overkill.
Beech Baron.
Beech Baron.
While you're working on the quote for the annual cost of the alternative inspection regime in the proposed AD, versus outright cable replacement, for my Beech Baron, Band a Lot, I note for other readers that the AD itself shows why it's an overkill:
Seven! Count them: Seven!
And the number of fatalities: Zero! Count them: Zero!
Pass me the smelling salts.
Naturally there is no statement or analysis of failure and fatality data from the USA - with orders of magnitude more aircraft that don't have calendar-based mandatory replacement for Part 91 aircraft cables. I know people in the USA who own aircraft with original stainless steel terminated cables that are over 40 years old.
CASA "deemed" industry practice to be insufficient. That means making true, by law, that which is untrue, in fact. So 'typically CASA'.
The truth is that a tiny minority of LAMEs have been certifying inspections of flight control systems without doing a proper inspection. That's not "insufficient". That's "malpractice". But as is so often the way in Australia, everyone pays for the lowest common denominator fringe dwellers.
Seven cases of terminal failures were reported in Australia in the six years preceding release of AD/GENERAL/87 with no fatalities recorded. CASA deemed industry practice at the time insufficient to reliably detect or manage the failure mode.
And the number of fatalities: Zero! Count them: Zero!
Pass me the smelling salts.
Naturally there is no statement or analysis of failure and fatality data from the USA - with orders of magnitude more aircraft that don't have calendar-based mandatory replacement for Part 91 aircraft cables. I know people in the USA who own aircraft with original stainless steel terminated cables that are over 40 years old.
CASA "deemed" industry practice to be insufficient. That means making true, by law, that which is untrue, in fact. So 'typically CASA'.
The truth is that a tiny minority of LAMEs have been certifying inspections of flight control systems without doing a proper inspection. That's not "insufficient". That's "malpractice". But as is so often the way in Australia, everyone pays for the lowest common denominator fringe dwellers.
Conrad Waddington was assigned to Coastal Air Command during WW II and asked to find out why their B-24 Libertators had such a high rate of downtime. What he discovered was rather non-intuitive, to Engineers and mechanics.
The airplanes were by and large reliable, but after every 50 hours of flying time, they were scheduled for a series of routine maintenance procedures, designed to increase reliability of the aircraft. What Waddington discovered was that after these preventative maintenance procedures, the aircraft were actually less reliable for a while, as systems that were disturbed by the mechanics in maintenance required further maintenance to repair.
In other words, sometimes it is best to leave well enough alone.
And this advice goes against the thinking of most Engineers at the time, or indeed, even today. In Failure Mode Effects Analysis, we study which components in a system will fail, over a given time, and then try to replace those components prior to failure. For a nuclear ballistic missile system, for example, where reliability is paramount, such techniques are followed - with perfectly "good" components being swapped out and discarded, after a number of hours of operating time.
But the problem with this approach to maintenance, is that our old bugaboo, infant mortality, comes into play. There is always a finite chance that the new part you install will be defective, and as a result, you've removed a perfectly good part and discarded it, in favor of a bad one.
Compounding this is the finite and real probability that the process of maintenance itself will cause problems.
The airplanes were by and large reliable, but after every 50 hours of flying time, they were scheduled for a series of routine maintenance procedures, designed to increase reliability of the aircraft. What Waddington discovered was that after these preventative maintenance procedures, the aircraft were actually less reliable for a while, as systems that were disturbed by the mechanics in maintenance required further maintenance to repair.
In other words, sometimes it is best to leave well enough alone.
And this advice goes against the thinking of most Engineers at the time, or indeed, even today. In Failure Mode Effects Analysis, we study which components in a system will fail, over a given time, and then try to replace those components prior to failure. For a nuclear ballistic missile system, for example, where reliability is paramount, such techniques are followed - with perfectly "good" components being swapped out and discarded, after a number of hours of operating time.
But the problem with this approach to maintenance, is that our old bugaboo, infant mortality, comes into play. There is always a finite chance that the new part you install will be defective, and as a result, you've removed a perfectly good part and discarded it, in favor of a bad one.
Compounding this is the finite and real probability that the process of maintenance itself will cause problems.
Stainless steel cable terminations are failing in the USA. It's just that the numbers and consequences are not considered sufficient to justify mandatory calendar-based replacement under the current Australia AD or the inspection regime in the proposed new Australian AD.
And there are 40 year old cables/stainless steel termination in Australia that have not failed.
It's estimated that there are 1.3 million cars in Australia that may have defective Takata airbags. There have been injuries and deaths caused by the defects. Have all of those cars been the subject of a mandatory inspection directive, with a failure in compliance being a criminal offence by the owner? Of course not. But in the good ol' world of aviation safety, around 1 failure a year with no fatalities justifies a criminally-sanctioned directive.
And there are 40 year old cables/stainless steel termination in Australia that have not failed.
It's estimated that there are 1.3 million cars in Australia that may have defective Takata airbags. There have been injuries and deaths caused by the defects. Have all of those cars been the subject of a mandatory inspection directive, with a failure in compliance being a criminal offence by the owner? Of course not. But in the good ol' world of aviation safety, around 1 failure a year with no fatalities justifies a criminally-sanctioned directive.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barron and Bonanza should have cables changed or make access to inspect them, in a time frame that is expected in a normal 100hly or annual.
They are a rubbish aircraft for doing such inspections, yet owners expect to pay the similar 100hly/annual rate as a C310.
I believe that several of those failures are on the Beech mentioned above in Australia. From memory it is luck that a failure was not fatal.
They are a rubbish aircraft for doing such inspections, yet owners expect to pay the similar 100hly/annual rate as a C310.
I believe that several of those failures are on the Beech mentioned above in Australia. From memory it is luck that a failure was not fatal.
You didn't provide the quote for the annual inspections in accordance with the proposed AD in comparison with replacement under the current AD.
I realise that money is no object when it comes to the safety of air navigation, but I reckon aircraft owners are entitled to know what option will cost less. Given that CASA "deems" either replacement or the proposed inspection regime to be "sufficient", it seems pretty pointless to waste money on the more expensive option.
You seem to be suggesting that replacement is cheaper. Which kinda makes my point that the fanfare around the proposed AD to supersede the current AD was a little premature.
It was just luck that two aircraft full of passengers didn't die in fog at Mildura. Yet - amazingly - no one's at fault and no rules got changed.
I realise that money is no object when it comes to the safety of air navigation, but I reckon aircraft owners are entitled to know what option will cost less. Given that CASA "deems" either replacement or the proposed inspection regime to be "sufficient", it seems pretty pointless to waste money on the more expensive option.
You seem to be suggesting that replacement is cheaper. Which kinda makes my point that the fanfare around the proposed AD to supersede the current AD was a little premature.
It was just luck that two aircraft full of passengers didn't die in fog at Mildura. Yet - amazingly - no one's at fault and no rules got changed.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct, I actually got to the point I will/would not quote on Barron's.
They actually cost us money to work on.
So my suggestion is an honest one, and change the aircraft not the cables.
About 10 years back they could sell at around $150,000 - 3 or 4 years back you could not sell one for $80,000 in good nick with reasonable times to run.
They actually cost us money to work on.
So my suggestion is an honest one, and change the aircraft not the cables.
About 10 years back they could sell at around $150,000 - 3 or 4 years back you could not sell one for $80,000 in good nick with reasonable times to run.
Barron and Bonanza should have cables changed or make access to inspect them, in a time frame that is expected in a normal 100hly or annual.
They are a rubbish aircraft for doing such inspections, yet owners expect to pay the similar 100hly/annual rate as a C310.
I believe that several of those failures are on the Beech mentioned above in Australia. From memory it is luck that a failure was not fatal.
They are a rubbish aircraft for doing such inspections, yet owners expect to pay the similar 100hly/annual rate as a C310.
I believe that several of those failures are on the Beech mentioned above in Australia. From memory it is luck that a failure was not fatal.
Just a small point to enhance the discussion quality, Barron is spelt Baron
The "Barron's" to which Band a Lot referred are cheap imitations of Barons. You can pick them up at markets in Hong Kong.
Nonetheless, his bottom line is similar to the advice I've received from other LAMEs: The AD that CASA proposes to replace the current AD is out of the frying pan and into the fire for owners of aircraft with stainless steel terminated cables in excess of 15 years old. Regulatory overkill, either way.
Nonetheless, his bottom line is similar to the advice I've received from other LAMEs: The AD that CASA proposes to replace the current AD is out of the frying pan and into the fire for owners of aircraft with stainless steel terminated cables in excess of 15 years old. Regulatory overkill, either way.
Barron's from Hong Kong? I'll have to go back and reread the posts to see how they became part of the cables discussion.
The latest AOPA magazine features an interview with the new CEO of CASA. One of the questions asked, at page 21, is prefaced with the statement: "CASA recently rescinded the control cable AD ...."
Does anyone have any link or reference to any piece of paper that rescinds the control cable AD?
Does anyone have any link or reference to any piece of paper that rescinds the control cable AD?
If you read through this thread, you will see that I am aware that CASA is proposing to amend the AD. That ain't rescinding it.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has any aircraft owner identified any LAME who says the newly-proposed inspection regime for cables over 15 years old will be any less expensive than replacing the cables in accordance with the original (and still current...) AD?
My inquiries so far suggest that CASA's proposed "new approach" is the fire alternative to the pan of replacement. Expensive overkill, either way.
My inquiries so far suggest that CASA's proposed "new approach" is the fire alternative to the pan of replacement. Expensive overkill, either way.
Perhaps its more like you cant afford to maintain your aircraft and you should sell it and leave flying and take up fishing. Aviation has always worked in a proactive way and not in a reactive way as your industry dose.
A fault has been identified and so a rectication inspection has been implemented. So now we have this problem of instant expert makeing nonsense coments. I bet you dont believe in childhood vacation as well