Light Aircraft Costs Schedule 5 v.s. Manufacturer Maintenance Schedules etc.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless the aircraft is controlled by a maintence controller the the person (lame) that signs of each cat is and the lame co-ordinator will be deemed the responsible as we'll as the owner.
As a LAME certifying in a category I don't see the log book only the work sheets, so how could I be responsible for something not on the worksheeets?
I think you are right about SBs, if an AD is raised refering to the SB it becomes mandatory as well.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you do all the work you don't even need work sheets if all is places in the log book.
As an owner you are reasonable unless under control of a maintenance controller as we'll.
As an owner you are reasonable unless under control of a maintenance controller as we'll.
Creamie, your[sic] joking...right?
Unfortunately it appears you have not been present when someone has
Removed injectors for cleaning, ...
Removed injectors for cleaning, ...
...as I can tell you, it is quite necessary, ...
I'm interested in knowing what contaminants, precisely, build up where, precisely, on injectors on piston engines. What gets cleaned when injectors are removed and cleaned?
Continental are 300hrs or periodically,
GAMI say 100-200 hrs for cleaning.
GAMI say 100-200 hrs for cleaning.
And please cut it out with the old " doing it for $$, or creating work bulls#€T,
Next time I remove some injectors I promise, I will take some pictures and
Send to you.
Send to you.
Some engineers may produce scary pictures of dirty solvent after injectors have been removed and 'cleaned'. The dirty stuff comes almost entirely from the outside of the injector. An engine monitor and knowing how to use it will tell you if you have a partially or completely blocked injector.
What I was trying to ascertain is whether anyone has any idea about the physical reality of how a component works and where the 'dirt' comes from, or are merely trained monkeys who just go through the rote-learned motions.
Take a deep breath, put down the banana, and try providing some facts.
Go over to Beechtalk and read about how a real aviation country with a real GA fleet deals with these manufacturers' periodic arseplucks. A couple of quotes.
The first from Walter Atkinson:
I've run a few engines to TBO without EVER cleaning the injectors. Clean them only if the GAMI spread indicates a change, then I might ONLY clean the one that's showing a problem. Remember, all of these recommendations to clean them annually came long before we had engine monitors. Once we had engine monitors, we could see that cleaning them was the most common problem and that they really got cleaned every time you ran avgas through them.
".... I've run a few engines to TBO without EVER cleaning the injectors."
One from John-Paul Townsend from GAMI:
My personal opinion is that the avgas is one of the better cleaners and more people get clogged nozzles as a result of the removal and reinstallation process than through normal usage. It is also my opinion that if you have a multiprobe engine monitor you can tell whether you have a situation that requires a nozzle cleaning. If you don't need to be cleaned . . . don't.
Periodic injector removal for cleaning is an example, par exellance, of the Waddington Effect. If you can't or won't see it, you are part of the problem.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Periodic injector removal for cleaning is an example, par exellance, of the Waddington Effect. If you can't or won't see it, you are part of the problem.
Although I believe you are correct in this case, as you are suggesting, the contamination is on the outside, covering the airshroud on NA injected engines. not a problem for turbo charged engine injectors. The workshops I am experienced with don't service the nozzles unless there is a problem relating to the nozzles.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote,
"Take a deep breath, put down the banana, and try providing some facts."
Nice. Honestly, what's the point, great, you have spoken to a few people and
Latched onto whatever suits your argument, nothing anyone else states is
Worth taking in that's obvious.
I just offered to send you some pics of injectors that are built up with deposits
Internally and I get shot down.
You insinuate we should go to where the real GA is, yes I have been to the
States on numerous occasions.
Your mind is made up creamie.
We are all uneducated monkeys.
"Take a deep breath, put down the banana, and try providing some facts."
Nice. Honestly, what's the point, great, you have spoken to a few people and
Latched onto whatever suits your argument, nothing anyone else states is
Worth taking in that's obvious.
I just offered to send you some pics of injectors that are built up with deposits
Internally and I get shot down.
You insinuate we should go to where the real GA is, yes I have been to the
States on numerous occasions.
Your mind is made up creamie.
We are all uneducated monkeys.
The data demonstrate that periodic removal, cleaning and refitting of injectors creates more defects than it solves. If that's too traumatic for you to accept, Perspective, that's your problem.
You refer to an important difference, ED, that used to have me worried (until I studied the system and the data): NA injectors as compared with TN/TC injectors.
When the engine is running the NA injectors are sucking in air through the fine screen at the bottom of the airshroud. I used to worry that the fine screen would eventually get clogged if there were any impurities/particles/dust in the air inside the cowling. But then I saw what the fuel in the injector lines does when the diaphragm in the manifold closes on shut down...
You refer to an important difference, ED, that used to have me worried (until I studied the system and the data): NA injectors as compared with TN/TC injectors.
When the engine is running the NA injectors are sucking in air through the fine screen at the bottom of the airshroud. I used to worry that the fine screen would eventually get clogged if there were any impurities/particles/dust in the air inside the cowling. But then I saw what the fuel in the injector lines does when the diaphragm in the manifold closes on shut down...
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said creamie,
Human factors is not an excuse to either,
- not carry out a maintenance task,
- not follow the reg's, which you seem to conveniently brush over in my response, after I pointed out the text covering components.
Yes there are many that over maintain, probably balanced out by those
Who under maintain.
As you say, you mention the difference between cont. and gami injector
Cleaning schedule, the same could be said for bendix and slick mags.
That does not mean I take it apon myself to pick whatever time I please.
Maybe you have more flexibility to work within the FAA regs than we do here.
Human factors is not an excuse to either,
- not carry out a maintenance task,
- not follow the reg's, which you seem to conveniently brush over in my response, after I pointed out the text covering components.
Yes there are many that over maintain, probably balanced out by those
Who under maintain.
As you say, you mention the difference between cont. and gami injector
Cleaning schedule, the same could be said for bendix and slick mags.
That does not mean I take it apon myself to pick whatever time I please.
Maybe you have more flexibility to work within the FAA regs than we do here.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creamie.
It's quite obvious you don't understand how an injector works. I will give you a clue. It's two parts. Air and fuel and as you have aluded to 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
It's quite obvious you don't understand how an injector works. I will give you a clue. It's two parts. Air and fuel and as you have aluded to 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
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Consider this.
Pt6-67 in a 1900d. 200 hours between service.
Pt6-67 in an 802 air tractor 100 hrs betwen service.
Now consider this. A gami injector are set to an engine to a much finer tolacemce than a standard injector although now this is much less than earlier engines.
As you said earlier leave the piano playing to the people that know. Go get some lessons if you won't to play with the big boys.
Pt6-67 in a 1900d. 200 hours between service.
Pt6-67 in an 802 air tractor 100 hrs betwen service.
Now consider this. A gami injector are set to an engine to a much finer tolacemce than a standard injector although now this is much less than earlier engines.
As you said earlier leave the piano playing to the people that know. Go get some lessons if you won't to play with the big boys.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now for a matter of interest how is an engine monitor going to tell you that the air bleed is contaminated. And second you don't need a fancy engine monitor to tell you that a nozzle has a proplem. A simple fuel flow or fuel px indicator will tell you the same thing. It will only tell you which cly is having a proplem. Then anyway good practise will tell you to do the others plus a whole lot more.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Passing strange reading through these posts that the same confusion and differing "Opinions" seems to be as rife in the engineering side of our industry as on the operations side. I confess I am no expert on maintenance, I rely as much as possible on the advice of them that are, if a LAME tells me this should be done, then do it.
What seems to creep into anything to do with regulations per say, is compliance at the end of the day relies on the "Expert" opinion of CAsA, FOI's for operation, AWI for maintenance among whom there seems to be the same level of confusion and differing opinions.
From my experience in the USA, outwardly anyway, aircraft generally appear far better maintained than here.
I guess there are sh.t boxes there the same as here, but by and large they are few and far between, on the surface anyway.
Statistically there doesn't seem to be problems with maintenance in the US, and for sure there isn't the same level of confusion over what to do and when to do it.
It is also patently clear that maintenance costs in the USA are vastly less expensive than Australia.
A few pointed questions across the Tasman seems to indicate that our Kiwi brethren don't seem to have the same problems or costs that we do either.
Their reg's are in plain English and everyone seems to "Get" what they mean.
I often wonder how much the costs of committing aviation in Australia would reduce if we were to adopt similar Reg's as the country where most of our aircraft are built.
Would our aircraft end up better maintained or worse?
Would aviation be more safe or less safe?
Would we be having the same discussions on this website?
What seems to creep into anything to do with regulations per say, is compliance at the end of the day relies on the "Expert" opinion of CAsA, FOI's for operation, AWI for maintenance among whom there seems to be the same level of confusion and differing opinions.
From my experience in the USA, outwardly anyway, aircraft generally appear far better maintained than here.
I guess there are sh.t boxes there the same as here, but by and large they are few and far between, on the surface anyway.
Statistically there doesn't seem to be problems with maintenance in the US, and for sure there isn't the same level of confusion over what to do and when to do it.
It is also patently clear that maintenance costs in the USA are vastly less expensive than Australia.
A few pointed questions across the Tasman seems to indicate that our Kiwi brethren don't seem to have the same problems or costs that we do either.
Their reg's are in plain English and everyone seems to "Get" what they mean.
I often wonder how much the costs of committing aviation in Australia would reduce if we were to adopt similar Reg's as the country where most of our aircraft are built.
Would our aircraft end up better maintained or worse?
Would aviation be more safe or less safe?
Would we be having the same discussions on this website?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So let us consider this.
The manufacture has no control of the aircraft once it leaves it's hangars and flys anywhere in the world.
He also knows nothing about his product at all and places extra requirements ie servicing just because he feels that way. Next an accident occurs and what happen. The lawyers get involed and sue the manufacture. Hence we end up over regulated and controlled by low life nutters
The manufacture has no control of the aircraft once it leaves it's hangars and flys anywhere in the world.
He also knows nothing about his product at all and places extra requirements ie servicing just because he feels that way. Next an accident occurs and what happen. The lawyers get involed and sue the manufacture. Hence we end up over regulated and controlled by low life nutters
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 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.
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 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.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said. How can you show on an engine monitor that the injector nozzle is blocked at the air inlet ?????
Walter is not an engineer. Walter is a PILOT. Walter may be a good pilot that dose not make him an engineer. He may know about engine but dose not make him an expert.
He proved this by running an engine with 0/80.
Dose lycoming or tcm or casa as eng 4 allow this. I'll answer it. NO it dosent. But he is an expert. So where dose it say that casa demands that nozzles in this case be removed and cleaned at 200 odd hours.
What is quite clear is you really don't know much but are just a sheep and are happy to follow what's been told to you.
If you won't to point the finger how about your industry that changes excessive rates for postage or photo copying or my favorite to be thinking about you when he is on the sh$ter.
The difference we generally do this job for love and most of us have a conchion. Plus when we f up we kill people. The likes of your self as an instant expert on all things engineering is quite sicking.
But hey you obviously know more about engineering than I do even though this is all I've done for the last 34 years Maybe you should become a lame then you can do all your own maintence.
Just out of a matter of interest how many of you out there have had a problem in flight that was cause due to a maintence mistake
Walter is not an engineer. Walter is a PILOT. Walter may be a good pilot that dose not make him an engineer. He may know about engine but dose not make him an expert.
He proved this by running an engine with 0/80.
Dose lycoming or tcm or casa as eng 4 allow this. I'll answer it. NO it dosent. But he is an expert. So where dose it say that casa demands that nozzles in this case be removed and cleaned at 200 odd hours.
What is quite clear is you really don't know much but are just a sheep and are happy to follow what's been told to you.
If you won't to point the finger how about your industry that changes excessive rates for postage or photo copying or my favorite to be thinking about you when he is on the sh$ter.
The difference we generally do this job for love and most of us have a conchion. Plus when we f up we kill people. The likes of your self as an instant expert on all things engineering is quite sicking.
But hey you obviously know more about engineering than I do even though this is all I've done for the last 34 years Maybe you should become a lame then you can do all your own maintence.
Just out of a matter of interest how many of you out there have had a problem in flight that was cause due to a maintence mistake
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 47
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just out of a matter of interest how many of you out there have had a problem in flight that was cause due to a maintence mistake
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further more ALL maintence is done IAW. That's it. IAW. This means we done it all with approved data that is supplied. Not data someone has done on a personal matter and not supposed it for evaluation. Drs or sicentis don't post there findings till it passed others that can replicate there findings.
These are the same people that said that American Airlines double there O/H on engines from the airforce. Once again I showed how the airforce hours for o/h was around 300 hours. Then I was called dangerous. Also data that not approved is not data. It cannot be used. If it was STC then approved then it's ok if it's not from the manufacture.
And your classic that it causes more problems than it fixes. Data. Where is your data to prove that.
These are the same people that said that American Airlines double there O/H on engines from the airforce. Once again I showed how the airforce hours for o/h was around 300 hours. Then I was called dangerous. Also data that not approved is not data. It cannot be used. If it was STC then approved then it's ok if it's not from the manufacture.
And your classic that it causes more problems than it fixes. Data. Where is your data to prove that.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 47
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No need for a PM. Someone didn't do a magneto pack up properly AND left the ring spanner on top of the engine for good measure.
I now carry a small mirror on a stick for preflight inspections.
I now carry a small mirror on a stick for preflight inspections.
Just out of a matter of interest how many of you out there have had a problem in flight that was cause due to a maintence mistake
Engine probes left disconnected ... tools left in the engine compartment and under the cabin carpet ... access panel missing ... spongy brakes ... circuit breakers pulled (my mistake to miss it on pre-flight, but the aircraft shouldn't leave the hangar that way) ... magneto 2 degrees too far advanced ...
I could go on.
It's what happens when humans fiddle with complicated machinery.
That's why I dread the post-annual test flight.
And of course with the advent of engine monitors and pilot education on proper engine management, pilots started to notice how many injectors ended up partially clogged as a consequence of "cleaning".
Walter is not an engineer. Walter is a PILOT. Walter may be a good pilot that dose not make him an engineer. He may know about engine but dose not make him an expert.
He proved this by running an engine with 0/80.
He proved this by running an engine with 0/80.
As I said. How can you show on an engine monitor that the injector nozzle is blocked at the air inlet ?????