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.