Sunny probably inadvertently gave a very good example of what the regulator would pick up on and then start on some very serious questions.
Something as simple as fitting a valve cap would soon expose some irregularities if any of that was mentioned on the worksheets.
I have never torqued anything to 10 inch pounds and not sure it is even possible. If a guy reckoned he had, and wrote the entry up accordingly, the regulator would be wanting to know how he did it and what equipment he used.
Mention of Aircraft Spruce as a supplier would have the alarm bells ringing very loudly. The regulator would be wanting to see the Form 1 or FAA 8130. Spruce would not normally be a supplier for RPT operations. The regulator would also want to know if the catalogue has been approved as acceptable data for the operation, (Torque figure), - that would be opening another can of worms.
So in just a few simple steps of procuring and fitting a tyre valve cap you may have left yourself open to some real serious interrogation... depending of course on how it was all written up.
This goes back to what I said the other day about it is what is written up that often causes the grief.
In this case a brand new valve cap just appearing would attract much less attention.
I agree that operating wheels with caps missing is not a good look. I have actually handed some caps to Bouraq engineers in Indonesia to fit to the front of their 737. Pretty obvious to some passengers when you are standing at the bottom of the entry stairs.
GA aircraft have a low pressure dust cap which is a little different again.
Last edited by baron_beeza; 14th Jan 2013 at 07:17.