O-ring / seals replacement
Join Date: May 2002
Location: somewhere near an airport
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have the balls to call AOG....
Follow the MM and company procedures.
Or end up in jail when the investigation pins it on you for not following
the procedures......ie Helios
And then make sure you some in stock for the next time
Follow the MM and company procedures.
Or end up in jail when the investigation pins it on you for not following
the procedures......ie Helios
And then make sure you some in stock for the next time
Last edited by nitro rig driver; 30th Jun 2012 at 17:31.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Ventura Ca U.S.A.
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're too lazy or cheap to replace an "O" ring. 
what else do you skip? 
Had an MD 80 (Alaska Air) kill a bunch of folks off point Magu. Just because a part looked OK. Real close, No problem, Did you ever work on the DC 10 that lost an engine. ie ; Fall off?
what else do you skip? Had an MD 80 (Alaska Air) kill a bunch of folks off point Magu. Just because a part looked OK. Real close, No problem, Did you ever work on the DC 10 that lost an engine. ie ; Fall off?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: near EDDF
Posts: 775
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or end up in jail when the investigation pins it on you for not following the procedures......ie Helios
The final report says at page 116:
Originally Posted by AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT REPORT
...
Finally, the Board considered it important to determine whether the AMM Task, “Cabin Pressure Leak Test”, called for the pressurization mode selector to be returned to the AUTO position following such a test. AMM Task 05-51-91-702-001 was examined. Its last action item stated “F. Put the Airplane Back to its Initial Condition” and specifically contained 3 actions sub-items as follows:
(1) checking the pitot static system, if necessary,
(2) opening the equipment cooling flow control valve, and
(3) returning the equipment cooling fan switches to NORMAL if previously
selected to ALTERNATE.
The Board was of the opinion that the AMM instructions were vague in making such a broad reference to an aircraft’s “initial condition” and that the three actions items listed did not include returning the pressurization mode selector to the AUTO position, although the AMM Task explicitly required setting that selector to the MAN (manual) position for the Test. In this respect, the Board concluded that if the Ground Engineer number one had not returned the mode selector to the AUTO position, this could not be considered an omission as there was no specific requirement to do so.
Finally, the Board considered it important to determine whether the AMM Task, “Cabin Pressure Leak Test”, called for the pressurization mode selector to be returned to the AUTO position following such a test. AMM Task 05-51-91-702-001 was examined. Its last action item stated “F. Put the Airplane Back to its Initial Condition” and specifically contained 3 actions sub-items as follows:
(1) checking the pitot static system, if necessary,
(2) opening the equipment cooling flow control valve, and
(3) returning the equipment cooling fan switches to NORMAL if previously
selected to ALTERNATE.
The Board was of the opinion that the AMM instructions were vague in making such a broad reference to an aircraft’s “initial condition” and that the three actions items listed did not include returning the pressurization mode selector to the AUTO position, although the AMM Task explicitly required setting that selector to the MAN (manual) position for the Test. In this respect, the Board concluded that if the Ground Engineer number one had not returned the mode selector to the AUTO position, this could not be considered an omission as there was no specific requirement to do so.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: somewhere near an airport
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My point exactly.
He followed the then (vauge in a court of law) written procedures) and was still jailed.
What do you think would happen if you just decided ignore the
MM,IPC,FIM whatever,,,,were does it stop
Answer-the court
He followed the then (vauge in a court of law) written procedures) and was still jailed.
What do you think would happen if you just decided ignore the
MM,IPC,FIM whatever,,,,were does it stop
Answer-the court
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
The AMM is your friend . It takes the guess work out of things like this. It protects you as much as it exposes you if you do, or not use it.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had an MD 80 (Alaska Air) kill a bunch of folks off point Magu. Just because a part looked OK.
There is a marked difference between assessing an o ring as serviceable and missing maintenance tasks.
Agreed that in a perfect world with everything on hand you would be negligent not to do the replacement.
But there are times, as senior LAMEs, we have to make the call, no revenue no pay it is as simple as that.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why the debate?
Guys
Change the bloody 'O' Seal!
The Pax can wait - rather 4 hrs late in this world than 50 years early in the next!!
The engineer who wrote the maintenance procedures generally has taken account of 'o' seal 'sqeeze' -some fitting are more prone to failure from fit/refit - ie an 'o' seal used in a hydraulic transfer port which is sealing on the outer surface of transfer tube to inner surface of port is less likely to be damaged than a seal which is seated at the bottom of a 'screw-on' thread, where damage can occur from a sharp barb on the leading thread etc. whilst it may seal the first time - re-use and further damage is more likely to leak - keep in mind damage to hydraulic seals are not always obvious to the naked eye.
so Change it! - keep yer job - and let your company pick up the spares costs - they should scale their spares for each and every eventuality - if not they soon will!
Change the bloody 'O' Seal!
The Pax can wait - rather 4 hrs late in this world than 50 years early in the next!!
The engineer who wrote the maintenance procedures generally has taken account of 'o' seal 'sqeeze' -some fitting are more prone to failure from fit/refit - ie an 'o' seal used in a hydraulic transfer port which is sealing on the outer surface of transfer tube to inner surface of port is less likely to be damaged than a seal which is seated at the bottom of a 'screw-on' thread, where damage can occur from a sharp barb on the leading thread etc. whilst it may seal the first time - re-use and further damage is more likely to leak - keep in mind damage to hydraulic seals are not always obvious to the naked eye.
so Change it! - keep yer job - and let your company pick up the spares costs - they should scale their spares for each and every eventuality - if not they soon will!
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Downunder
Age: 74
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So I guess that settles it then !
A lot of engineers re-use o-rings to save their company time / money / inconvenience whereas many engineers do not reuse them citing AMM / safety concerns !
ST
A lot of engineers re-use o-rings to save their company time / money / inconvenience whereas many engineers do not reuse them citing AMM / safety concerns !
ST
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Downunder
Age: 74
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just for ships and giggles.............
Can you resuse them, *OBVIOUSLY* even those saying yes would only do so after an inspection in which they were satisfied as to its continued serviceability, there is no suggestion that ANY engineer would "just reuse" every o-ring !!
SpannerTwister..NO
Beeline..No opinion stated
Golden Rivet..Implies YES
stevef..As above
Kuchan..Implies YES
Nutloose..Implies NO
Aus AF..NO
Mig15..NO
cockney steve.. Possibly not an aircraft engineer
Fargoo..Implies NO
blackhand..YES
Krystal n chips..Implies NO
Yeelep..NO, but with a caveat, HIS approved data has a "Get out of jail free" card
spannerhead..Implies YES
nitro rig driver..Implies NO
spannersatcx..Implies NO
hillberg..Implies NO
ampclamp..Read the AMM
blackhand..YES
Wildfire101..NO
grounded27..YES, never replace
So, Of the answers where we can be reasonably sure of the posters intent.....
YES, 7 would reuse o-rings
NO, 11 would not reuse o-rings.
Note, I counted Yeelep as a NO, he would not reuse o-rings, unless he received specific approval for each event.
As a LAE, I have to support his answer, even though I don't like it
!!
ST
Can you resuse them, *OBVIOUSLY* even those saying yes would only do so after an inspection in which they were satisfied as to its continued serviceability, there is no suggestion that ANY engineer would "just reuse" every o-ring !!
SpannerTwister..NO
Beeline..No opinion stated
Golden Rivet..Implies YES
stevef..As above
Kuchan..Implies YES
Nutloose..Implies NO
Aus AF..NO
Mig15..NO
cockney steve.. Possibly not an aircraft engineer
Fargoo..Implies NO
blackhand..YES
Krystal n chips..Implies NO
Yeelep..NO, but with a caveat, HIS approved data has a "Get out of jail free" card
spannerhead..Implies YES
nitro rig driver..Implies NO
spannersatcx..Implies NO
hillberg..Implies NO
ampclamp..Read the AMM
blackhand..YES
Wildfire101..NO
grounded27..YES, never replace
So, Of the answers where we can be reasonably sure of the posters intent.....
YES, 7 would reuse o-rings
NO, 11 would not reuse o-rings.
Note, I counted Yeelep as a NO, he would not reuse o-rings, unless he received specific approval for each event.
As a LAE, I have to support his answer, even though I don't like it
!!ST
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YES, 7 would reuse o-rings
NO, 11 would not reuse o-rings.
NO, 11 would not reuse o-rings.
Cheers
Last edited by blackhand; 4th Jul 2012 at 07:15.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Downunder
Age: 74
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Went and checked - Approved Data
I take it that we can consider it a given that if you are not familiar with the term "Approved data" your comments in this thread don't count ?
My "Approved data" has two things to say on the subject .......
Standard practices, O-Rings
Removal
OK, So at all times, unless specifically authorised by other "Approved Data", *ALL* o-rings must be cut on removal
Installation
Again, There is no mention of inspecting the used o-rings with a 10x glass, no mention of the number of passengers you may inconvenience or "It's OK if it'll cause an AOG situation".
My approved data actually BOLD UNDERLINES the word "CAUTION" and has that sentence in all-caps !
Question...........
If I should ignore THAT approved data, what other approved data should I ignore ?
ST
My "Approved data" has two things to say on the subject .......
Standard practices, O-Rings
Removal
Remove the used O-Rings with an appropriate hook or tool.
Be careful not to scratch the groove or adjacent surfaces.
Cut the used O-ring and discard.
Be careful not to scratch the groove or adjacent surfaces.
Cut the used O-ring and discard.
Installation
CAUTION: REPLACE USED O-RINGS WITH NEW O-RINGS. USED O-RINGS CAN CAUSE LEAKAGE.
My approved data actually BOLD UNDERLINES the word "CAUTION" and has that sentence in all-caps !
Question...........
If I should ignore THAT approved data, what other approved data should I ignore ?
ST
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Spanner Twister
I cannot fault your logic.
Although on the side of a mountain at 8000 feet with night approaching and no other way to get the helicopter out I reserve the right to use my judgement.
I cannot fault your logic.
Although on the side of a mountain at 8000 feet with night approaching and no other way to get the helicopter out I reserve the right to use my judgement.
Thought police antagonist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,372
Received 118 Likes
on
85 Posts
AL1
Delete: implies. Insert: Categorical NO
Delete: implies. Insert: Categorical NO
I've worked in an hydraulic component bay in the past and overhauled/repaired anything from pressure accumulators, pumps, assorted valves and actuators to complete large a/c landing gears. All seals, back-up rings and gaskets were changed as a matter of course. Sometimes the components required partial strip after testing for adjustment or further investigation. We never used new flexible seals on re-assembly and guess what - they never leaked on return to service. Not one single component ever came back.
Now, I'm not for one moment suggesting that 'O' rings never need replacement on 'live' aircraft but sometimes, as mentioned before, familiarity with the component/system concerned and a bit of common sense will guide an engineer.
If someone wants to ground an aircraft because he/she hasn't got a certain new 'O' ring after a parts replacement down-line, even though a function test proves satisfactory, he/she is quite within his/her rights. But as for the commercial aspect, there is a certain balance required. Hotel bills, great inconvenience for pax and disrupted planned sectors to be weighed against re-use of a serviceable part that will get you home.
It would be interesting to know if the 'always change it' proponents would be happy about being stuck in some horrible location like Kinshasa until an envelope eventually arrived with an MS28775-6 static seal....
Now, I'm not for one moment suggesting that 'O' rings never need replacement on 'live' aircraft but sometimes, as mentioned before, familiarity with the component/system concerned and a bit of common sense will guide an engineer.
If someone wants to ground an aircraft because he/she hasn't got a certain new 'O' ring after a parts replacement down-line, even though a function test proves satisfactory, he/she is quite within his/her rights. But as for the commercial aspect, there is a certain balance required. Hotel bills, great inconvenience for pax and disrupted planned sectors to be weighed against re-use of a serviceable part that will get you home.
It would be interesting to know if the 'always change it' proponents would be happy about being stuck in some horrible location like Kinshasa until an envelope eventually arrived with an MS28775-6 static seal....
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Ventura Ca U.S.A.
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your legal department must love your last postYou now have opened up the flood gates for the next smokin hole event.
If you own the aircraft you are responsable for it's airworthyness, Part of that is the continued airworthyness instructions, As a mechanic you are only authorized to sign off your work,
Annual inspections are for the condition of the aircraft for that year prior , due once each year or as the owner requests
.Via Inspection Authorization or repair station (FAA)A pilot is the only one who can return to service after maintenance.
Seen lots of Packings split,cut,swolen,contaminated & in pieces.
Glad I don't fly in your machines, Seen a lot of "part changers" & those who can't follow a simple instruction like "O" ring replacement open the legal door & makes you wonder what else is not being done right?
But as a FSDO friend once said "would you take your family up in that thing?" My answer- Anytime.
You now have opened up the flood gates for the next smokin hole event.If you own the aircraft you are responsable for it's airworthyness, Part of that is the continued airworthyness instructions, As a mechanic you are only authorized to sign off your work,
Annual inspections are for the condition of the aircraft for that year prior , due once each year or as the owner requests.Via Inspection Authorization or repair station (FAA)A pilot is the only one who can return to service after maintenance.Seen lots of Packings split,cut,swolen,contaminated & in pieces.
Glad I don't fly in your machines,
Seen a lot of "part changers" & those who can't follow a simple instruction like "O" ring replacement open the legal door & makes you wonder what else is not being done right? But as a FSDO friend once said "would you take your family up in that thing?" My answer- Anytime.