PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Light Aircraft Costs Schedule 5 v.s. Manufacturer Maintenance Schedules etc.
Old 5th Oct 2014, 02:30
  #33 (permalink)  
Creampuff
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,079
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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 0/80
Walter 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.
Creampuff is offline