Light Aircraft Costs Schedule 5 v.s. Manufacturer Maintenance Schedules etc.

[RatsoreA]

I also despise removing something perfectly serviceable, just to look at it to confirm its serviciblitly. As someone that regularly maintains Diesel engines, the injectors get much dirtier in diesel engines than aircraft engines, yet they don't require removing and cleaning every ten minutes?

[Perspective]

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.

[gerry111]

Perspective, I'm clearly not an engineer.


Please explain to me why "..alternator brushes wear 3 times as fast at altitude".


Somewhere I've read of 'Brush Sparking' but is that really true?

[Perspective]

Generally, the atmosphere is drier at altitude and leads to premature brush wear,
(And the generation of more ozone due to lack of pressure, I am led to believe)
But there is a lot more to it than that, brush design and material etc.

The way technology has evolved in the automotive industry you'd probably
Find an automotive alternator that would last quite well on a aircraft now, after all, they were automotive originally, and automotive have built in Reg's and the ability to change brush's quite easily.

There are many brush grades now, but with the cost of certifying I guess we are
Stuck with the status quo.

[Creampuff]

I actually have more years' experience maintaining aircraft than you, Perspective. That's one of the reasons I don't lose my temper when my aircraft comes out of maintenance with new, human-induced problems (and a bill in the double-digit thousands). I know, from long, first-hand experience, what goes on during maintenance and how easy it is to make mistakes.

I know what point you are trying to make. That you believe some maintainers over maintain for no benefit to safety.

No, that's not the point I was trying to make.

I apologise for not being clearer.

The point I'm trying to make is this: The data prove that some periodic maintenance required by manufacturers' maintenance manuals is unnecessary and counter-productive.

What I said in my first post on this thread was:

Most manufacturer's maintenance schedules require too much unnecessary maintenance and not enough necessary maintenance ...

An experienced maintainer will know how and when to do more of the necessary maintenance and less of the unnecessary maintenance.

You see: I'm actually advocating "more" - i.e. an increase in the amount of - maintenance. But only of the necessary stuff.

And that's not the same as saying leave everything alone until it breaks.

When people refuse to accept the implications of the data and instead treat a time limit in a maintenance manual as holy writ, it is indeed regulation by gut feeling rather than science. Old Wive's Tales rather than data.

I did chuckle at your mention of vacuum pumps. We'll have to agree to disagree on whether maintenance against schedule 5 provides more flexibility than the manufacturer's maintenance schedule. (I'm pretty sure there are lots of aircraft flying around with control cables more than 15 years old, despite the manufacturer's maintenance schedule, but I must be mistaken.)

The most authoritative link drawn between component time limits in maintenance manuals and schedule 5 was drawn by Egon Fice in the Brazier decision. Although my view is that Egon got it wrong on the legal reasoning, that's neither here nor there at the moment. The irony of the decision is that it provides another example, par excellance, of how arbritray the life limits in manufacturers' maintenance manuals are.

One of the many atrocities alleged by CASA against Mr Brazier was that he didn't replace an aircraft's vac pumps at 500 hours TIS or 12 monthly, which ever came first, in accordance with the Service Manual. At the time this atrocity was detected, the left hand pump had overrun by 886.9 hours and was still going strong. The right-hand vacuum pump had overrun by 1599.6 hours.

Imagine the horrific risks to aviation safety that arose when those pumps went past 500 hours' TIS, then the right hand pump went past 1,000, then 1,500 ... Oh the humanity!

Anyone who's run an aircraft with a vac pump or two knows when they're most likely to fail, and why.

[Perspective]

There are many out there with vastly more experience with I.

I think we agree more than disagree to be honest, but regardless of that, my point back on topic is there are regs in place, it's not up to me how they are written, but follow them I must, regardless of your and my experience.

[Creampuff]

I think we agree more than disagree to be honest, but regardless of that, my point back on topic is there are regs in place, it's not up to me how they are written, but follow them I must, regardless of your and my experience.

Indeed!

[Eddie Dean]

Mr Brazier had so consistently breached the Regulations as to indicate a
culture of noncompliance; and as a consequence, he was not a fit and
proper person to exercise the privileges of an aircraft maintenance
engineer licence. The CASA delegate found there was a serious risk to
aviation safety if Mr Brazier's aircraft maintenance engineer licence was
not cancelled.

Is this the Mr Brazier you refer to Creampuff?

[Creampuff]

No. I'm referring to the other Mr Brazier.

[yr right]

Can you please enlighten us when a vac pump is likely to fail. Now the manufacture has placed an opening that allows the pump to be measured strangle though this is not in shed 5 but a manufactures. And btw I do know fly boy !!!!
I also know what happen in regards to his demise in the industry.

[Creampuff]

*sigh*

**double sigh**

I understand the first sentence. The rest is incomprehensible.

The data prove the greatest risk of vacuum pump failure arises immediately after the 'benefit' of human intervention. Just like injectors on piston engines.

It's worth reflecting on the abject ridiculousness of the implications of the Brazier matter.

As I noted above, the Service Manual that was relevant in the Brazier matter specified vac pump replacement no later than 500 hours' TIS or 12 months, whichever came first.

The vac pumps in question in fact continued to run beyond 500 hours' TIS and 12 months. In the case of the left hand pump, it continued to run for more than double that time. In the case of the right hand pump, it continued to run for more than triple that time. And at the point this atrocity was detected, the pumps hadn't failed - we actually don't know how long they would have continued to run.

Yet Australia's bone-headed rules, driven by a bone-headed regulator, say that's 'dangerous' and Mr Brazier is a 'criminal'. Minor issues like data disproving the validity of the arsepluck in the Service Manual are a mere bagatelle.

The people flying around in that aircraft were, of course, at risk of a 30,000 death plunge. They would have been much "safer" if those vacuum pumps had instead been replaced twice or thrice, with the resulting doubling and tripling in risk of failure.

Sheer brilliance.

[yr right]

And when you done with that perhaps you can tell me where I'm going wrong in my serviceing looking at what the sched says and not what's important.
Then you can tell me how to deal with costumers and there bills.

Then maybe you can tell me how to deal with a car company that told me it was going to cost $1700 to fix the wife car and I fixes it for $14.

And what about how an injector works and how you can tell on your monitor when the air filter is blocked.

And then why if your engine was set 2 deg out why and how you found that.

Btw engines will vary up to 2 deg between services depending on what the age of the engine is. That's not uncommon.

[yr right]

Hang on here. You can't understand that the vac pump can be measured. But your telling me how it all works but you don't know that. Typical word smithing. Maybe you should be a polly. Get ask a question give out some dripple and answer nothing.

You refer to data. Data where is your data. What manufactures data dosent matter. Of course not your data is better than there data.

[yr right]

And how many vac pumps have you changed in your vast experience as an engineering expert.

In my experience there was no way before the plug could you tell when a pump was to fail. There are no indications piour to a failure. They work and then they stopped. That simple.
Now we have a port where the vanes can be measured. But as the beast is what they are they can run a life out or they can still fail. Is really in the lap of the gods to what you can get. If you don't won't a failure put a wet pump on. They all but last for ever.

[yr right]

Whoops

Sigh rrrrrrr

[Creampuff]

Yr ignorance is yr problem, yr right.

The fact that you ask these questions demonstrates how little you know about how engines work and how much information an engine monitor provides:

And what about how an injector works and how you can tell on your monitor when the air filter is blocked. ...

The injectors to which I referred are those on an NA CMI engine. Those injectors suck in air through the screen at the bottom of the shroud on the injector. The injector needs to do that to atomise the fuel it is injecting. If the screen is blocked, the injector won't work properly.

But the usual maintenance induced failure is due to partial or complete blockage of the jet - foreign objects introduced into the system. That's easy to spot if you know how engines run and what the monitor is telling you: The cylinder either isn't working (no motion lotion) or has an unusual EGT for the mixture setting (because the cylinder is somewhere different on the lean curve than it usually is).

And then why if your engine was set 2 deg out why and how you found that.

Again, easy if you know how engines run and what the monitor is telling you.

In this case the CHTs were around 10 - 15 degrees C hotter in the climb than normal, straight out of maintenance. With the assistance of The Timing Fairy I discovered that one of the magnetos was advanced 24 degrees instead of 22. You would of course understand why advancing the timing results in an increase in CHTs...

Btw engines will vary up to 2 deg between services depending on what the age of the engine is. That's not uncommon.

BTW, a magneto that's set to 24 instead of 22 out of maintenance is the result of incompetence. That's not uncommon.

Tell us, yr right: Have you ever made a mistake?

[yr right]

You see creamie unlike your profession when I'm in court I have to swear to tell the truth. Unlike your profession where you don't and you try to In trap people we have a set of rules and laws we must follow at all times weather we like them or not. We are accountable for our action and you are not. We have people's life's in our hands your profession dosnt. We lost the death pently in the 60s if I can recall. We generally don't get second chances to review or mistakes you do. We don't charge or get paid anywhere like your do in your profession. We can't change for every photo copy or phone call etc like in your profession. And we don't call each othe my learned friend. We just say it as it is. You "f" wit.

[yr right]

I'm fully aware of how an injector works. I'm fully aware of how a magneto works. I'm fully aware of monitoring systems. I have a lic that's says I'm allowed to do work on these engines. I'm not ignorant at all. Quite the opposite

[Eddie Dean]

The drift here is marked.
The original question is answered in a CASA AWB 0 - 033

Two recent decisions, one in the NSW District Court, the other in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), found against those who, having chosen the CASA maintenance schedule, ignored the manufacturer’s maintenance schedule. 4 One case stemmed from a fatal crash.
So, the CASA maintenance schedule does not replace the manufacturer’s maintenance schedule.
If you don’t follow the manufacturer’s maintenance schedule, you should know why,.......

[Creampuff]

Eddy: That merely proves, once again, what we already knew: The law is ass.

Tell us, yr right: Have you ever made a mistake?