new cat among pigeons - SS terminals
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
new cat among pigeons - SS terminals
The pigeons shouldn’t be surprised. The cat’s been belled for some time:
http://www.pprune.org/pacific-genera...le-report.html
http://www.pprune.org/pacific-genera...probs-too.html
http://www.pprune.org/pacific-genera...le-report.html
http://www.pprune.org/pacific-genera...probs-too.html
So do you support the mandatory replacement of cables/terminations on every aircraft every 15 years, Leadslead?
What was/were the cause/s of the breaks to which you referred? (You are probably referring to termination failures, not cable failures, but I look forward to your response.)
How many failures is that per hour flown?
I’ve posted this in a thread about DAMP, but I think it’s worth repeating here. Some of you may be aware of an FAA NPRM for an AD relating to ECi Cylinders. Well known expert and aviation journalist Mike Busch has said this, in part, in response:
My all-time favourite comment on this proposed AD (and any other one for that matter) is:
What was/were the cause/s of the breaks to which you referred? (You are probably referring to termination failures, not cable failures, but I look forward to your response.)
How many failures is that per hour flown?
I’ve posted this in a thread about DAMP, but I think it’s worth repeating here. Some of you may be aware of an FAA NPRM for an AD relating to ECi Cylinders. Well known expert and aviation journalist Mike Busch has said this, in part, in response:
On August 12, 2013, the FAA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register for a proposed Airworthiness Directive (AD) that would basically legislate more than 30,000 ECi cylinders out of existence, forcing the owners of about 6,000 Continental IO-520, TSIO-520 and IO-550 engines to perform $14,000 top overhauls. The total cost to affected aircraft owners would be $83 million, making this one of the most costly general aviation ADs in history. The FAA’s rationale for this Draconian AD is that they’ve received reports of 30 head-to-barrel separations in ECi cylinders (out of a population of 30,000, a failure rate of 0.1%).
This proposed AD is one of the most unwarranted, inappropriate, punitive and generally boneheaded rulemaking actions I’ve ever seen come from the FAA. Here’s why:
- At 0.1%, the reported head separation rate of ECi cylinders is the lowest in the industry, lower than for Continental factory cylinders. Why is the FAA picking on ECi jugs?
- There have been ZERO accidents and ZERO injuries resulting from the reported head separations of ECi cylinders.
…
This proposed AD is one of the most unwarranted, inappropriate, punitive and generally boneheaded rulemaking actions I’ve ever seen come from the FAA. Here’s why:
- At 0.1%, the reported head separation rate of ECi cylinders is the lowest in the industry, lower than for Continental factory cylinders. Why is the FAA picking on ECi jugs?
- There have been ZERO accidents and ZERO injuries resulting from the reported head separations of ECi cylinders.
…
I am an emergency physician of 35 years experience with extensive involvement in helicopter EMS and a private pilot flying in the back country of Idaho. I understand, in detail, risk mitigation.
I wish to point out that based on available information the risk of appendicitis in FAA employees is much higher than having a ECI cylinder fail inflight. Following the FAA's assessment model, immediate prophylactic appendectomy is indicated for all 47,000 FAA employees.
Immediate appendectomy is particularly indicated for the 30,000 FAA employees involved air traffic control, as an appendix "failure" while on duty can affect the lives of hundreds people inflight.
I can provide the supporting calculations if desired.
I wish to point out that based on available information the risk of appendicitis in FAA employees is much higher than having a ECI cylinder fail inflight. Following the FAA's assessment model, immediate prophylactic appendectomy is indicated for all 47,000 FAA employees.
Immediate appendectomy is particularly indicated for the 30,000 FAA employees involved air traffic control, as an appendix "failure" while on duty can affect the lives of hundreds people inflight.
I can provide the supporting calculations if desired.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 58
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New cables are not that expensive, something like a couple of hundred bucks in our case. There is a guy at Moorabbin Airport who specialises in making cables apparently.
The real cost is labour to either inspect or replace the cables.
If replacing cables every 15 years means fewer inspections, it may be cheaper in the long term.
The real cost is labour to either inspect or replace the cables.
If replacing cables every 15 years means fewer inspections, it may be cheaper in the long term.
You know, I think there should be a mandatory scrapping of all aircraft over 15 years of age. Anything could go wrong with them in the air, and that is not a nice thing to happen.
The laws of physics are different in Australia compared with the USA.
And GA in Australia wonders why it's being regulated out of existence.
The laws of physics are different in Australia compared with the USA.
And GA in Australia wonders why it's being regulated out of existence.
This is a bit like shooting sharks after a shark attack. It does nothing to reduce the probability of another attack, but lets the regulator look like they are doing something to protect people.
Frequently its cheaper / faster to buy the new off-the-shelf replacement part from Piper, Beech, Cessna, etc.
Its not a huge amount of money when done in an orderly manner with 100 hourlys. And replacing cables at 15 years is not unreasonable. But its not logic or evidence based.
Yeah, but not many more than one and its not clear that they failed due to age rather than service conditions.
AND I would maintain that diligent service inspections should pick it up long before the cable fails.
There is a guy at Moorabbin Airport who specialises in making cables apparently.
Its not a huge amount of money when done in an orderly manner with 100 hourlys. And replacing cables at 15 years is not unreasonable. But its not logic or evidence based.
with more than one cable break
AND I would maintain that diligent service inspections should pick it up long before the cable fails.
But its not logic or evidence based.
…
[N]ot many more than one and its not clear that they failed due to age rather than service conditions.
AND I would maintain that diligent service inspections should pick it up long before the cable fails.
…
[N]ot many more than one and its not clear that they failed due to age rather than service conditions.
AND I would maintain that diligent service inspections should pick it up long before the cable fails.
But we need to focus on the key issue here: It’s the corrosion cracking of the SS terminations, which cracking is difficult to detect before failure. But note I said “difficult”, not “impossible” (at least not in the USA, where the laws of physics are different from those in Australia).
Creamie,
I am on your side, my only statement was that this issue has been around for quite a while. Unfortunately, several prominent GA people have pushed the CASA hard to mandate lives for these cables and fittings.
The particular failures I am referring to are corrosion within the end fitting leading to the failure --- and it would certainly seem to be age related.
I am well aware of the ECi cylinder issue, yet another example of what happens when an NAA such as the FAA ignores proper process, including cost/benefit analysis of the alleged solutions to the problem.
Whether it is CASA of FAA going off on a frolic, the only certainty is that the aviation community will wear the costs.
Tootle pip!!
I am on your side, my only statement was that this issue has been around for quite a while. Unfortunately, several prominent GA people have pushed the CASA hard to mandate lives for these cables and fittings.
The particular failures I am referring to are corrosion within the end fitting leading to the failure --- and it would certainly seem to be age related.
I am well aware of the ECi cylinder issue, yet another example of what happens when an NAA such as the FAA ignores proper process, including cost/benefit analysis of the alleged solutions to the problem.
Whether it is CASA of FAA going off on a frolic, the only certainty is that the aviation community will wear the costs.
Tootle pip!!
Well said. 
(Although I do worry when costly decisions appear to be based on issues that merely "seem" to be "age related".)
I think I’ll get some “prominent friends” to start pushing CASA to ground all aircraft over 15 years of age, to see if the “prominent people in GA” to whom you referred change their tune (or preferably STFU).
(Although I do worry when costly decisions appear to be based on issues that merely "seem" to be "age related".)I think I’ll get some “prominent friends” to start pushing CASA to ground all aircraft over 15 years of age, to see if the “prominent people in GA” to whom you referred change their tune (or preferably STFU).
