Magneto calendar overhauls - the thin end of the wedge?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeta108. That's why Human Factors is just as relevant in GA as the airlines.
Heard of ETOPS. And they are still inspected at regular maintenance.
I know what your saying, but if you must blame anyone aim it at the
Vendor, it's a bit harsh to blame CASA for saying to follow the manufacturer.
And as time goes on and moves are made to follow the manufacturer closely
By removal of, say, AD/prop/1, no doubt you'll be cursing the regulator then too.
Heard of ETOPS. And they are still inspected at regular maintenance.
I know what your saying, but if you must blame anyone aim it at the
Vendor, it's a bit harsh to blame CASA for saying to follow the manufacturer.
And as time goes on and moves are made to follow the manufacturer closely
By removal of, say, AD/prop/1, no doubt you'll be cursing the regulator then too.
Last edited by Perspective; 7th Jun 2015 at 02:57.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perspective;
The Battle of Agincourt was the last time such a long bow was drawn. How can you equate ETOPS with 1915 technology?
I think our thesaurus challenged thespian may be due for some intervention by LeadSled after his latest adventure into SIDS, (another acronym), and inward looking metallurgical red herrings. But he is right in telling it as it is with old technology waking him up.
The Battle of Agincourt was the last time such a long bow was drawn. How can you equate ETOPS with 1915 technology?
I think our thesaurus challenged thespian may be due for some intervention by LeadSled after his latest adventure into SIDS, (another acronym), and inward looking metallurgical red herrings. But he is right in telling it as it is with old technology waking him up.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: in the bush
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EFTPOS?
I love aronyms. Haven't had such a challenge since Scurvey.D. Dog was a pup. yrright help me willya, I'm a bit wet.
I love aronyms. Haven't had such a challenge since Scurvey.D. Dog was a pup. yrright help me willya, I'm a bit wet.
Last edited by jeta108; 7th Jun 2015 at 06:42. Reason: What Frank said.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank, ha,yeah it's a bit of a stretch!
The longest bow in history even Robin Hood would be proud Of!
My point was you quite often have components in both engines
Done at the same time, the risks don't mean you don't do it,
but there are procedures around mitigating
The risks, not generally Employed in GA. Quite a few advocate risk of intrusion as being of greater
Threat.
The longest bow in history even Robin Hood would be proud Of!
My point was you quite often have components in both engines
Done at the same time, the risks don't mean you don't do it,
but there are procedures around mitigating
The risks, not generally Employed in GA. Quite a few advocate risk of intrusion as being of greater
Threat.
Last edited by Perspective; 7th Jun 2015 at 22:10.
@Perspective; a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Large RPT aircraft components are NOT in the majority monitored "on Condition".
"On condition" means components like a light bulb in a toilet. If it fails, change it, there is no measurable effect on safety.
You probably meant: "Condition monitored" where it is possible to measure they safety state of the item, for example a brake pack, which has wear limits or an NGV via a borescope inspection.
If that is not possible we are back to hard time, hours or cycles or maybe by today real time time/temperature history logging.
Stuff expected to be rebuilt are "rotables" which have traceability (e.g. magneto, FCU, etc.)
All else is manufacturers repair scheme.
P.S. If the manufacturer says Four year time in service then that is the applicable limit as far as I'm concerned. Whats got me scratching my head is that I have a brand new engine and prop that are yet to be fitted or run. Should I overhaul them in four years from date of purchase? DAte of manufacture? Date of first run? If not the latter, then Australia will need "use by" dates and we will need to ask manufacturers for the freshest product.
Large RPT aircraft components are NOT in the majority monitored "on Condition".
"On condition" means components like a light bulb in a toilet. If it fails, change it, there is no measurable effect on safety.
You probably meant: "Condition monitored" where it is possible to measure they safety state of the item, for example a brake pack, which has wear limits or an NGV via a borescope inspection.
If that is not possible we are back to hard time, hours or cycles or maybe by today real time time/temperature history logging.
Stuff expected to be rebuilt are "rotables" which have traceability (e.g. magneto, FCU, etc.)
All else is manufacturers repair scheme.
P.S. If the manufacturer says Four year time in service then that is the applicable limit as far as I'm concerned. Whats got me scratching my head is that I have a brand new engine and prop that are yet to be fitted or run. Should I overhaul them in four years from date of purchase? DAte of manufacture? Date of first run? If not the latter, then Australia will need "use by" dates and we will need to ask manufacturers for the freshest product.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but if you must blame anyone aim it at the
Vendor,
Vendor,
A cost benefit analysis should be conducted when determining the life of a component coupled with service history and the severity or otherwise of the effect failure would have on the continued safe operation of the aircraft. Also the mode of failure of any part should be taken into consideration. ie Does it give plenty of warning or does it fail suddenly and catastrophically.
Vendors sometimes seem to produce very long lists of components with short TBOs.
In the words of Christine Keeler ' Well they would wouldn't they '
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunny,
"The bulk of the aviation world (airlines) work their aircraft largely "on condition"
Is NOT what I said, I was paraphrasing.
I said
"(YOU might term that on condition)
I did say,
"and yes have to inspect the health of many components from time to time, even if their not removed from the aircraft". (I.E, condition monitoring.)
I also said,
"That's not entirely the whole story as you know"
As I usually doodle these on the run I usually don't have time to cover every possibility Or terminology,
But I do like the irony sunny, having owners quote selected doc's,
A little bit of knowledge...
As for your components in storage,
The prop could start from time fitted-run, from memory (hartzell?don't quote me!) AD/Prop/1.
But depending how long you've had it there could be many mods/SB's issued in that time.
Do you have slick or bendix?
I'll have to check slick but bendix, 5years whether used or not,
Or was it a rhetorical question..
P.s.
I enjoy reading your views on a particular airline management philosophy,
Gave me some solace round 08!
"The bulk of the aviation world (airlines) work their aircraft largely "on condition"
Is NOT what I said, I was paraphrasing.
I said
"(YOU might term that on condition)
I did say,
"and yes have to inspect the health of many components from time to time, even if their not removed from the aircraft". (I.E, condition monitoring.)
I also said,
"That's not entirely the whole story as you know"
As I usually doodle these on the run I usually don't have time to cover every possibility Or terminology,
But I do like the irony sunny, having owners quote selected doc's,
A little bit of knowledge...
As for your components in storage,
The prop could start from time fitted-run, from memory (hartzell?don't quote me!) AD/Prop/1.
But depending how long you've had it there could be many mods/SB's issued in that time.
Do you have slick or bendix?
I'll have to check slick but bendix, 5years whether used or not,
Or was it a rhetorical question..
P.s.
I enjoy reading your views on a particular airline management philosophy,
Gave me some solace round 08!
Last edited by Perspective; 7th Jun 2015 at 16:06.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a matter of fact.
When two components of the same type are changed on a larger type rpt aircraft they are not done by the same people. One team/person dose one side and the other is done by the other/team.
This is not done generally in GA.
Mainly because in GA your not working in a shift and you stay with the aircraft till it's finished.
And by the way there are lots of components that are date time limited.
But I do find it very strange that it's your bums and your families bums in the seats. One would think you would all wish before the best for your aircraft. I'm constantly amazed by owners of their complete lack of self preservation.
When two components of the same type are changed on a larger type rpt aircraft they are not done by the same people. One team/person dose one side and the other is done by the other/team.
This is not done generally in GA.
Mainly because in GA your not working in a shift and you stay with the aircraft till it's finished.
And by the way there are lots of components that are date time limited.
But I do find it very strange that it's your bums and your families bums in the seats. One would think you would all wish before the best for your aircraft. I'm constantly amazed by owners of their complete lack of self preservation.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So this week I will have to release an engine on a on- condition release.
I will have to do this on my own. I will have nothing from Casa regs to back me up. Nothing from the owner if it goes pear shaped at sometime. I've gone against all sb and o/h periods from all the components manufacturers
So why should I and any other lame take this risk and risk lititagation the possibility of losing my aviation lame lic my house car etc etc.
At what point am I and others allowed to actually place themselves 1st and the owner 2nd.
I will have to do this on my own. I will have nothing from Casa regs to back me up. Nothing from the owner if it goes pear shaped at sometime. I've gone against all sb and o/h periods from all the components manufacturers
So why should I and any other lame take this risk and risk lititagation the possibility of losing my aviation lame lic my house car etc etc.
At what point am I and others allowed to actually place themselves 1st and the owner 2nd.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Yr Right, there in lays the dilemma, and the reason most workshops won't release to service an engine on condition.
The reality though, is that On condition engine overhaul is restricted to Private and Airwork category so isn't a factor for most of the work I am involved in.
BTW Sunfish, on condition does not mean replace when failed.
The reality though, is that On condition engine overhaul is restricted to Private and Airwork category so isn't a factor for most of the work I am involved in.
BTW Sunfish, on condition does not mean replace when failed.
Last edited by Eddie Dean; 8th Jun 2015 at 00:24.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Eddie that is correct. However most workshops look after all aircraft cats. Very view only look after their own aircraft and don't do outside work and have that ability that know one else looks after their own aircraft.
But this still leaves us between a rock and a hard place In the end
But this still leaves us between a rock and a hard place In the end
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And a hard place is not a state of mind. It is a real place in history caused by over regulation by the over zealous. I think yr right has identified his problem which we all share. He can't work within the system because the system is unworkable.
The regulatory authorities are the problem, and not the solution.
As someone said earlier, tick tock...
The regulatory authorities are the problem, and not the solution.
As someone said earlier, tick tock...
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But frank as a lame we can't work without it being Iaw. As such we can only work to a higher standard. This means we do things better than maybe what is required. Then if it dose go pear shaped and the old fella says well what did you do it to you can say what the manufacturer has ask for. If it failed after that I don't have to worry about picking up the soap it's easy to be brave when you don't have to sign for it. As I've said before the hardest word in aviation is NO.
Folks,
Just a few comments:
Cessna SIDs are NOT SBs, they are in the manufacturer's MM.
That makes them mandatory for VH- but not N registered aircraft, because FAA maintenance requirements are graded, and found in Parts 91, 121,125,135, not in something called "maintenance" and NOT one size fits all per, CASA.
US piston engine manufacturer's overhaul periods are RECOMMENDED, not mandatory.
None of you has yet come up with an Australian regulation that makes manufacturer's SBs, advisory documents, MANDATORY in Australia, despite me asking the question on several occasions.
Please don't trot out bush lawyer stories, "duty of care" etc., just tell me what Australian regulation make OEM SBs mandatory.
Sunfish,
I do not believe your "light bulb" is a good example of "on condition". With the very greatest of respect, differentiation between "on condition" and "condition monitoring" in this kind of discussion is semantics. As you may or may not be aware, for large turbines, the most important in service monitoring involves fuel flow/performance records, and no two engines have the same gas path rate of wear, with (most of the time) engines being sent for overhaul when the gas path deterioration results in unacceptable increases in fuel flow.
And I am sure you are aware that for components that are "hard time", it is more likely to be cycles than hours.
Tootle pip!!
Just a few comments:
Cessna SIDs are NOT SBs, they are in the manufacturer's MM.
That makes them mandatory for VH- but not N registered aircraft, because FAA maintenance requirements are graded, and found in Parts 91, 121,125,135, not in something called "maintenance" and NOT one size fits all per, CASA.
US piston engine manufacturer's overhaul periods are RECOMMENDED, not mandatory.
None of you has yet come up with an Australian regulation that makes manufacturer's SBs, advisory documents, MANDATORY in Australia, despite me asking the question on several occasions.
Please don't trot out bush lawyer stories, "duty of care" etc., just tell me what Australian regulation make OEM SBs mandatory.
Sunfish,
I do not believe your "light bulb" is a good example of "on condition". With the very greatest of respect, differentiation between "on condition" and "condition monitoring" in this kind of discussion is semantics. As you may or may not be aware, for large turbines, the most important in service monitoring involves fuel flow/performance records, and no two engines have the same gas path rate of wear, with (most of the time) engines being sent for overhaul when the gas path deterioration results in unacceptable increases in fuel flow.
And I am sure you are aware that for components that are "hard time", it is more likely to be cycles than hours.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadie I beg to differ. For one we are no the USA. Second o/h periods are set by an Australian ad. Next recommend is for time in years only. Next I challenge you to get a diffintion for the word "recommended " from Casa.
In the eyes of the court recommend means you must do. Only option is given by Casa as being an option.
Next your example of what an issue of a M/R is also wrong. It was a civil court that said it was different to what the Car states. In fact Casa told the court what the law was in this regard. But the CIVIL court said that a M/R meant that at issue the aircraft should not break down or have any defects for the issue of the M/R. And just in passing how many have you issued.
Turbine engines are trend monitored. By doing this whilst they many not be completely o/h in their life. Modules are often changed. Your being misleading by your comments. I have change a hyd pump on 747-400 for BA it had an faa release. Had to have special permission to use it. On its return just how luck would have it I changed it to another new pump. This one had a jar release with the next s# from the one I had previously fitted. So don't come and feed bull****e about how large aircraft are on condition because they arnt.
In the eyes of the court recommend means you must do. Only option is given by Casa as being an option.
Next your example of what an issue of a M/R is also wrong. It was a civil court that said it was different to what the Car states. In fact Casa told the court what the law was in this regard. But the CIVIL court said that a M/R meant that at issue the aircraft should not break down or have any defects for the issue of the M/R. And just in passing how many have you issued.
Turbine engines are trend monitored. By doing this whilst they many not be completely o/h in their life. Modules are often changed. Your being misleading by your comments. I have change a hyd pump on 747-400 for BA it had an faa release. Had to have special permission to use it. On its return just how luck would have it I changed it to another new pump. This one had a jar release with the next s# from the one I had previously fitted. So don't come and feed bull****e about how large aircraft are on condition because they arnt.
CASA CAR 1988 CAR 41
(1) The holder of the certificate of registration for a class B aircraft must ensure that all maintenance required to be carried out on the aircraft (including any aircraft components from time to time included in or fitted to the aircraft) by the aircraft's maintenance schedule is carried out when required by that schedule.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) A person must not use a class B aircraft in an operation if there is not a maintenance schedule for the aircraft that includes provision for the maintenance of all aircraft components from time to time included in, or fitted to, the aircraft.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) A person must not use a class B aircraft in an operation if there is not a maintenance schedule for the aircraft that includes provision for the maintenance of all aircraft components from time to time included in, or fitted to, the aircraft.
See above, that does NOT make a OEM SB on a Class B aircraft component mandatory.
yr er er er, wrong,
I beg to differ. For one we are no the USA.
Second o/h periods are set by an Australian ad.
I repeat, the US engine manufacturer's TBOs are ONLY recommended.
Next I challenge you to get a diffintion (sic) for the word "recommended " from Casa.
As a definition of "recommended" is not (as far as I can find) in the Civil Aviation Act 1988, the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 or the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Dictionary, the CASA definition will be the Macquarie Dictionary definition. "Recommended" does not mean mandatory or any variation to that meaning. Strangely enough, it means just what it says. Every part of the definition in the Macquarie falls far short (unsurprisingly) of "mandatory".
In the eyes of the court recommend means you must do. Only option is given by Casa as being an option.
Next your example of what an issue of a M/R is also wrong.
It was a civil court that said it was different to what the Car states. In fact Casa told the court what the law was in this regard. But the CIVIL court said that a M/R meant that at issue the aircraft should not break down or have any defects for the issue of the M/R.
As to the value of a Court decision as a precedent, that entirely depends in which Court the judgement was delivered, as CASA Legal Services Branch well knows.
And just in passing how many have you issued.
As to my generalized comments about operational life of large turbines, they were correct, if I was to go into detail, it would be quite a large book, and irrelevant to this discussion.
So, you changed a couple of hydraulic pumps, one had an FAA 8130.3, the other had the EASA Form 1 --- BFD, and absolutely nothing to do with the price of eggs, let alone an Australian regulation that decrees that OEM SBs are mandatory for either Class A or B or both, aircraft.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well at this point of time it is still a maintenance release and not a return of service. The term return to service is directly to stop the court in the above mention.
So how many maintenance releases have you issued. My god your as good as creamie and Jaba in not answering a direct question.
The faa and the jar form was to inform you that eggs are not all ways eggs even when the eggs are the same. Just as you like to confuse the issue.
I also didn't say which reg to look up by the way but I'm guessing your a little confused.
So how many maintenance releases have you issued. My god your as good as creamie and Jaba in not answering a direct question.
The faa and the jar form was to inform you that eggs are not all ways eggs even when the eggs are the same. Just as you like to confuse the issue.
I also didn't say which reg to look up by the way but I'm guessing your a little confused.