Restoring or Cleaning Windows
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Brisbane
Age: 48
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for all the advice. Used Vuplex and cleaned them up really well. Now I can see the scratches clearly.
Now that I have a good cleaner, can anyone recommend a scratch remover. I was looking at the Novus product sand Plastx from Meguiars. Last thing I want is to be sanding something and having to replace it due to lack of ability. I do keep a cover on the plane as a hangar at YBAF is dearer than a penthouse in the city !
Now that I have a good cleaner, can anyone recommend a scratch remover. I was looking at the Novus product sand Plastx from Meguiars. Last thing I want is to be sanding something and having to replace it due to lack of ability. I do keep a cover on the plane as a hangar at YBAF is dearer than a penthouse in the city !
For those wondering about Prist, Prist is the manufacturer of several products. They make the fuel additive and they also make an acrylic cleaner, two seperate products.
I have not used it on an aircraft window but Farecla products do work well on Perspex. It's for painted surfaces but it still works.
I have not used it on an aircraft window but Farecla products do work well on Perspex. It's for painted surfaces but it still works.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Aus, or USA, or UK or EU, or possibly somehwere in Asia.
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fitting and certifying is naturally the realm of the LAME or A&P.
That is commonsense and is indeed the ways the rules are written.
It doesn't matter how many times you see the owner maintenance fallacy repeated on the internet it still doesn't make it any more correct.
That is commonsense and is indeed the ways the rules are written.
It doesn't matter how many times you see the owner maintenance fallacy repeated on the internet it still doesn't make it any more correct.
You do not have to be an LAME or A&P. Nonsense proliferated by these people who think they are have the only God Given right to work on aircraft.
I have personally made and installed dozens of windscreens, and possibly a hundred of more side windows. Very few LAMES would even be capable of manufacturing them. I have blown bubble canopies and presently making a windscreen and sliding canopy for a Hawker Hurricane replica. It only needs skill and patience, not a massive ego.
HD
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PaulGa,
Micromesh Plastic & Acrylic Restoration kit or Flitz Headlight Restoration kit. Used both with excellent results. Can be found online at 'The Sandpaper Man' or 'Car Car Products.'
With the Micromesh stuff, it's probably worth investing in an electric buffer/drill attachment if you're doing larger areas (at least for the initial polish).
Micromesh Plastic & Acrylic Restoration kit or Flitz Headlight Restoration kit. Used both with excellent results. Can be found online at 'The Sandpaper Man' or 'Car Car Products.'
With the Micromesh stuff, it's probably worth investing in an electric buffer/drill attachment if you're doing larger areas (at least for the initial polish).
Baron,Folks,
Schedule 8.
Note that Item (6) make no mention of why a side window might be removed and replaced.
It goes without saying that all maintenance must be carried out to approved data, where something is replaced, various "approved part" rules apply, but one to note here is the provision for parts manufactured in the course of maintenance (Part 21), which is quite different to manufacturing under a production certificate or such as an STC.
It is relatively straightforward to "legally" make side windows, and fit same, I would hope your friendly family LAME would assist. For a non-structural side window, it can be done legally without the expense of an approval from an Approved Design Organization (used to be CAR 35).
Naturally, there is an array of advisory information available that constitutes acceptable means of compliance.
Either comply with the CAAP/AC or have CASA approve an alternative means of compliance. Believe me, the former is much easier, cheaper and more certain of outcome.
Tootle pip!!
CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - SCHEDULE 8
Maintenance that may be carried out on a Class B aircraft by a pilot entitled to do so under subregulation 42ZC(4) (subregulation 42ZC(4))
1.Removal or installation of landing gear tyres, but only if the removal or installation does not involve the complete jacking of the aircraft.
2.Repair of pneumatic tubes of landing gear tyres.
3.Servicing of landing gear wheel bearings.
4.Replacement of defective safety wiring or split pins, but not including wiring or pins in control systems.
5.Removal or refitting of a door, but only if:
(a) no disassembly of the primary structure or operating system of the aircraft is involved; and
(b) if the aircraft is to be operated with the door removed--the aircraft has a flight manual and the manual indicates that the aircraft may be operated with the door removed.
6.Replacement of side windows in an unpressurised aircraft.
7.Replacement of seats, but only if the replacement does not involve disassembly of any part of the primary structure of the aircraft.
8.Repairs to the upholstery or decorative furnishings of the interior of the cabin or cockpit.
9. Replacement of seat belts or harnesses.
10. Replacement or repair of signs and markings.
11. Replacement of bulbs, reflectors, glasses, lenses or lights.
12. Replacement, cleaning, or setting gaps of, spark plugs.
13. Replacement of batteries.
14. Changing oil filters or air filters.
15. Changing or replenishing engine oil or fuel.
16. Lubrication not requiring disassembly or requiring only the removal of non-structural parts, or of cover plates, cowlings and fairings.
17. Replenishment of hydraulic fluid.
18. Application of preservative or protective materials, but only if no disassembly of the primary structure or operating system of the aircraft is involved.
19. Removal or replacement of equipment used for agricultural purposes.
20. Removal or replacement of glider tow hooks.
21. Carrying out of an inspection under regulation 42G of a flight control system that has been assembled, adjusted, repaired, modified or replaced.
22. Carrying out of a daily inspection of an aircraft.
Schedule 8.
Note that Item (6) make no mention of why a side window might be removed and replaced.
It goes without saying that all maintenance must be carried out to approved data, where something is replaced, various "approved part" rules apply, but one to note here is the provision for parts manufactured in the course of maintenance (Part 21), which is quite different to manufacturing under a production certificate or such as an STC.
It is relatively straightforward to "legally" make side windows, and fit same, I would hope your friendly family LAME would assist. For a non-structural side window, it can be done legally without the expense of an approval from an Approved Design Organization (used to be CAR 35).
Naturally, there is an array of advisory information available that constitutes acceptable means of compliance.
Either comply with the CAAP/AC or have CASA approve an alternative means of compliance. Believe me, the former is much easier, cheaper and more certain of outcome.
Tootle pip!!
CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - SCHEDULE 8
Maintenance that may be carried out on a Class B aircraft by a pilot entitled to do so under subregulation 42ZC(4) (subregulation 42ZC(4))
1.Removal or installation of landing gear tyres, but only if the removal or installation does not involve the complete jacking of the aircraft.
2.Repair of pneumatic tubes of landing gear tyres.
3.Servicing of landing gear wheel bearings.
4.Replacement of defective safety wiring or split pins, but not including wiring or pins in control systems.
5.Removal or refitting of a door, but only if:
(a) no disassembly of the primary structure or operating system of the aircraft is involved; and
(b) if the aircraft is to be operated with the door removed--the aircraft has a flight manual and the manual indicates that the aircraft may be operated with the door removed.
6.Replacement of side windows in an unpressurised aircraft.
7.Replacement of seats, but only if the replacement does not involve disassembly of any part of the primary structure of the aircraft.
8.Repairs to the upholstery or decorative furnishings of the interior of the cabin or cockpit.
9. Replacement of seat belts or harnesses.
10. Replacement or repair of signs and markings.
11. Replacement of bulbs, reflectors, glasses, lenses or lights.
12. Replacement, cleaning, or setting gaps of, spark plugs.
13. Replacement of batteries.
14. Changing oil filters or air filters.
15. Changing or replenishing engine oil or fuel.
16. Lubrication not requiring disassembly or requiring only the removal of non-structural parts, or of cover plates, cowlings and fairings.
17. Replenishment of hydraulic fluid.
18. Application of preservative or protective materials, but only if no disassembly of the primary structure or operating system of the aircraft is involved.
19. Removal or replacement of equipment used for agricultural purposes.
20. Removal or replacement of glider tow hooks.
21. Carrying out of an inspection under regulation 42G of a flight control system that has been assembled, adjusted, repaired, modified or replaced.
22. Carrying out of a daily inspection of an aircraft.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ChCh NZ
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It goes back to the word 'May'.
Exactly. What one guy, and his friends, may find a easy task given their experience and skills others may not always find that to be the case.
I don't want to get too far off topic here but I have replaced numerous windows from Tomahawk to 737. I also know the rules. I have plenty of exam result slips and licences to remind me as well.
While some forums may have a number of smart and astute members you don't have to look too far on the internet to see owner forums where the members are basically clueless.
I think the danger there is that some of these guys actually believe they can do various tasks on their own aircraft. The regs are written very well when it comes to owner maintenance but the problem is that the misunderstanding, even myth, surrounding it is one of the worst being spread about.
The regs basically say anyone can do maintenance. That is true.
So that is our starting point. A 10 year old girl, our grandmother, a pilot, indeed anyone.
Now obviously that may not be the safest for the industry, and the Government, so now we get some conditional clauses.
For the aircraft to remain airworthy it must have a record of the maintenance and a Release. It must be certified. Hmmm, getting more difficult now.
Now who can do the certification ?
That is the trick. The LAME, A&P or IA can of course, - but subject to the knowledge, the skills, tools etc.. and acceptable data. It has to be done iaw a publication and indeed the certification is exactly that.
Most regulators then have a range of tasks an owner may certify.
There are no exemptions here.... the owner can't do the work. He may do it but subject to those very same conditions. He needs the skill, the tools and he is permitted to certify if he meets all those prerequisites.
Many seem to think the owner can do the work on that list. Not the case at all...
It is actually the work he may be able to CERTIFY subject to him meeting all other criteria.
ie, exactly the same rules that the A&P must meet including the worker must be competent, the work meets acceptable standards, done correctly and certified as such.
There is no list of tasks that any owner can do to his aeroplane. I think many pilots seem to believe there may be one.
There has never been such a list in any of the countries I have worked in.
Making parts for an aircraft is another topic.... Nothing unusual there though. The trick is who can sign for the release to service.
I don't want to get too far off topic here but I have replaced numerous windows from Tomahawk to 737. I also know the rules. I have plenty of exam result slips and licences to remind me as well.
While some forums may have a number of smart and astute members you don't have to look too far on the internet to see owner forums where the members are basically clueless.
I think the danger there is that some of these guys actually believe they can do various tasks on their own aircraft. The regs are written very well when it comes to owner maintenance but the problem is that the misunderstanding, even myth, surrounding it is one of the worst being spread about.
The regs basically say anyone can do maintenance. That is true.
So that is our starting point. A 10 year old girl, our grandmother, a pilot, indeed anyone.
Now obviously that may not be the safest for the industry, and the Government, so now we get some conditional clauses.
For the aircraft to remain airworthy it must have a record of the maintenance and a Release. It must be certified. Hmmm, getting more difficult now.
Now who can do the certification ?
That is the trick. The LAME, A&P or IA can of course, - but subject to the knowledge, the skills, tools etc.. and acceptable data. It has to be done iaw a publication and indeed the certification is exactly that.
Most regulators then have a range of tasks an owner may certify.
There are no exemptions here.... the owner can't do the work. He may do it but subject to those very same conditions. He needs the skill, the tools and he is permitted to certify if he meets all those prerequisites.
Many seem to think the owner can do the work on that list. Not the case at all...
It is actually the work he may be able to CERTIFY subject to him meeting all other criteria.
ie, exactly the same rules that the A&P must meet including the worker must be competent, the work meets acceptable standards, done correctly and certified as such.
There is no list of tasks that any owner can do to his aeroplane. I think many pilots seem to believe there may be one.
There has never been such a list in any of the countries I have worked in.
Making parts for an aircraft is another topic.... Nothing unusual there though. The trick is who can sign for the release to service.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mmm please advice how you can manufacture a side window with out an approval or a release or an EO. Please tell me how this is possible .
Any part that is placed on an aircraft must have a release of some sort.
But I guess I don't know what im talking about. Same as everything I say and do, OMG maybe im in the wrong industry, nooooooo.
Even if I manufacture parts under maintenance I must do it under some sort of reference and do it IAW.
As I said earlier this was not the intent of this when originally done.
Its the same as the wheel bearings. You may service the bearing but you may not REPLACE the bearing, also you may not touch remove structure.
I would be very carful to even use anything than a polish or cleaner on windows. Anything abrasive can be classed as maintenance.
Any part that is placed on an aircraft must have a release of some sort.
But I guess I don't know what im talking about. Same as everything I say and do, OMG maybe im in the wrong industry, nooooooo.
Even if I manufacture parts under maintenance I must do it under some sort of reference and do it IAW.
As I said earlier this was not the intent of this when originally done.
Its the same as the wheel bearings. You may service the bearing but you may not REPLACE the bearing, also you may not touch remove structure.
I would be very carful to even use anything than a polish or cleaner on windows. Anything abrasive can be classed as maintenance.
Please tell me how this is possible .
You claim to be the expert, you read the rules.
There is enough in my post to point you in the right direction.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is what is called a bogus part.
You may not manufacture a part and place it on an aircraft if it has not had some sort of release.
Please explain again how you may do this.
We as a work shop have to have a release for everything. Down to a 6/32 washer.
We can use some comercail products ie cleaners etc. but we must have releases sheet alloy paint. I even heard of an aircraftbthatbeas grounded because it was painted with out the use of an approved paint.
So please tell us oh wise one how on a c172 or pa 28-140 how you can make and install a window on these two simple aircraft.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ChCh NZ
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it is mischievous to try and read rules in isolation. You need to know the whole package. This is where I have seen so many guys get it wrong over the years.
I have never worked as a regulator, well not at least in the civil environment. The LAME is not a policeman or even a judge. The problem we have though is both of those groups have real strange interpretations of how things are done.
Something similar happens when the regulator does an audit of the facility.
If we look at Item 12 on the list for example. Refitting a plug.
The way the work is judged during audit is the publication, do you have the latest and relevant acceptable data for the torque figure. Is the torque wrench suitable and is the calibration chart current.
You would be expected to have the correct anti-seize compound and new or annealed gaskets.
We all know the regulators have different personal opinions and understandings. It is difficult to get a straight answer at times.
When you ask how the owner is supposed to manage a task such as cleaning a plug the reply is often 'ensure they have the correct publications and calibrated wrench'.
That may sound completely impractical but that is what these guys assume. The certification is signed signifying that the work has been done correctly !
The owner would have difficulty fitting a new part legally, well in compliance with the full rule package that is. Unfortunately for us as GA type operators the rules are covering a very wide range of aircraft maintenance activity.
The guys in the hangars have no trouble working to the rulebooks, the hangar protocols and procedures are such that the system just works.
They are working on privately owned, club and RPT aircraft as part of the daily mix.
If we just concentrate on privately owned for this conversation though we can then look at owner maintenance and parts supply.
The owner needs to have an overview of the regs and various rules. Tying to read each clause will just be misleading.
I mentioned the words 'Gist' and 'Vibe' earlier in this thread.
When you look at the owner maintenance list you have to wonder.
Can't jack the aircraft.
Can only replace defective lockwire ! ( Well I guess it would be if someone cut it).
Can only repair a tube, not replace.
Same with wheel bearings, service but not replace.
See how the filters are different, an appropriately skilled owner may CHANGE them.
We don't see that word often.
OK, given that an owner can't fit new items like tyres and bearings then what are the chances he can fit a new battery, seatbelts or side windows ?
I don't have a problem with a skilled owner doing whatever he likes to his aircraft. He owns it and as far as I am concerned he can do what he wishes.
That seems fair.
The only times I am concerned if he then involves me or my signature...
Changing the status of something when it is still showing against my signature gets my attention.
If he removes and refits wheels and there is no new certification then obviously there will be words.
The owner must realise he is potentially setting the maintainer up by not getting into the swing of things.
The other times I may get involved is if the aircraft rocks up with unrecorded maintenance and the owner expects an annual or 100 Hr or similar done.
Where do you start there ?
If it had new windows, for example, then I guess the easiest path would be to convince the owner he has to sign the RTS log entry himself. The alternative would be to remove and refit them properly, yet another job getting done twice.
Is replacing a side window the same as changing one ?
How about a towhook, a lightbulb, or a seatbelt.
Did I say the Aussie regs are not the flashest when compared to the NZ and FAA versions ?
I have never worked as a regulator, well not at least in the civil environment. The LAME is not a policeman or even a judge. The problem we have though is both of those groups have real strange interpretations of how things are done.
Something similar happens when the regulator does an audit of the facility.
If we look at Item 12 on the list for example. Refitting a plug.
The way the work is judged during audit is the publication, do you have the latest and relevant acceptable data for the torque figure. Is the torque wrench suitable and is the calibration chart current.
You would be expected to have the correct anti-seize compound and new or annealed gaskets.
We all know the regulators have different personal opinions and understandings. It is difficult to get a straight answer at times.
When you ask how the owner is supposed to manage a task such as cleaning a plug the reply is often 'ensure they have the correct publications and calibrated wrench'.
That may sound completely impractical but that is what these guys assume. The certification is signed signifying that the work has been done correctly !
The owner would have difficulty fitting a new part legally, well in compliance with the full rule package that is. Unfortunately for us as GA type operators the rules are covering a very wide range of aircraft maintenance activity.
The guys in the hangars have no trouble working to the rulebooks, the hangar protocols and procedures are such that the system just works.
They are working on privately owned, club and RPT aircraft as part of the daily mix.
If we just concentrate on privately owned for this conversation though we can then look at owner maintenance and parts supply.
The owner needs to have an overview of the regs and various rules. Tying to read each clause will just be misleading.
I mentioned the words 'Gist' and 'Vibe' earlier in this thread.
When you look at the owner maintenance list you have to wonder.
Can't jack the aircraft.
Can only replace defective lockwire ! ( Well I guess it would be if someone cut it).
Can only repair a tube, not replace.
Same with wheel bearings, service but not replace.
See how the filters are different, an appropriately skilled owner may CHANGE them.
We don't see that word often.
OK, given that an owner can't fit new items like tyres and bearings then what are the chances he can fit a new battery, seatbelts or side windows ?
I don't have a problem with a skilled owner doing whatever he likes to his aircraft. He owns it and as far as I am concerned he can do what he wishes.
That seems fair.
The only times I am concerned if he then involves me or my signature...
Changing the status of something when it is still showing against my signature gets my attention.
If he removes and refits wheels and there is no new certification then obviously there will be words.
The owner must realise he is potentially setting the maintainer up by not getting into the swing of things.
The other times I may get involved is if the aircraft rocks up with unrecorded maintenance and the owner expects an annual or 100 Hr or similar done.
Where do you start there ?
If it had new windows, for example, then I guess the easiest path would be to convince the owner he has to sign the RTS log entry himself. The alternative would be to remove and refit them properly, yet another job getting done twice.
Is replacing a side window the same as changing one ?
How about a towhook, a lightbulb, or a seatbelt.
Did I say the Aussie regs are not the flashest when compared to the NZ and FAA versions ?
Last edited by baron_beeza; 3rd Sep 2015 at 23:26.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great point. Signing. The M/R has to be signed. This rarely if ever happens.
Just like the prop that came off in Canberra after take off. My mate was going for a row.
In passing a guy came into the hangar. Saw he was a little down and ask why. Told the story about the prop. His luck was on his side. He saw the owner remove the prop that very weekend. Safed by the bell. The owner didn't say to anyone he done left the lame take the blame. I often see what owners have done. zero documents zero m/r entries.
Now with comercail products when I done AA in the old days there was a cause in the CAOs that allowed the use of them. But I do believe it has been removed.
The intent of shed 8 is not for requeral type maintenance but for break downs away from an airfield with a maintenance facility.
Now remember this. You may as an owner remove what ever you like from an aircraft, take the engine out. Pull it down.
But !!!!
You may not put it back together!!!!!!
Just like the prop that came off in Canberra after take off. My mate was going for a row.
In passing a guy came into the hangar. Saw he was a little down and ask why. Told the story about the prop. His luck was on his side. He saw the owner remove the prop that very weekend. Safed by the bell. The owner didn't say to anyone he done left the lame take the blame. I often see what owners have done. zero documents zero m/r entries.
Now with comercail products when I done AA in the old days there was a cause in the CAOs that allowed the use of them. But I do believe it has been removed.
The intent of shed 8 is not for requeral type maintenance but for break downs away from an airfield with a maintenance facility.
Now remember this. You may as an owner remove what ever you like from an aircraft, take the engine out. Pull it down.
But !!!!
You may not put it back together!!!!!!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ChCh NZ
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are talking transparencies here and I am reminded that so far in this thread we have not had any mention of the most widely used publications.
The books the mechanic would be reaching for would invariably be AC43.13-1B which is basically the bible within the hangar.
The next books would be the Airframe General handbook and the aircraft MM.
The aircraft POH is not held in high regard and would generally never be opened. Tyre pressures would be about the only thing I can recall looking for in the POH and even then it is considered just a quick and ready figure.
I have assumed we are talking American aircraft here but there would be very few occasions when we would have to break out the CAIP's.
Truth be known it would be the laptop that would be getting opened and we all have copies of the AC on there anyway.
The prime publications are the regs, from the applicable regulator. Strangely enough they are not used so often because the guys in the hangar have a good working knowledge of them anyway.
Here is a copy of the book... it really is the 'go to' one.
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_polic...cumentID/99861
I would think that anyone that wants to certify for work on a GA machine would want to have a good working knowledge of the contents of the AC.
That and the maintenance manual.
In addition, for any engine work we have to find the Lycoming or Continental books, - another saga....
The books the mechanic would be reaching for would invariably be AC43.13-1B which is basically the bible within the hangar.
The next books would be the Airframe General handbook and the aircraft MM.
The aircraft POH is not held in high regard and would generally never be opened. Tyre pressures would be about the only thing I can recall looking for in the POH and even then it is considered just a quick and ready figure.
I have assumed we are talking American aircraft here but there would be very few occasions when we would have to break out the CAIP's.
Truth be known it would be the laptop that would be getting opened and we all have copies of the AC on there anyway.
The prime publications are the regs, from the applicable regulator. Strangely enough they are not used so often because the guys in the hangar have a good working knowledge of them anyway.
Here is a copy of the book... it really is the 'go to' one.
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_polic...cumentID/99861
I would think that anyone that wants to certify for work on a GA machine would want to have a good working knowledge of the contents of the AC.
That and the maintenance manual.
In addition, for any engine work we have to find the Lycoming or Continental books, - another saga....
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: FG central
Age: 53
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't it sad that we have to argue about the interpretation of maintenance regulations with regards window replacement on non pressurised aircraft.
Surely much safer to see where you are going than worry about pages of paperwork for replacing a piece of cheap acrylic sheet.....what's the worst that can happen replacing a side window on a non pressurised aircraft? You don't drill the holes in the acrylic large enough and it cracks? Bolt too long and someone gets a scratch. Please spare me.
Surely much safer to see where you are going than worry about pages of paperwork for replacing a piece of cheap acrylic sheet.....what's the worst that can happen replacing a side window on a non pressurised aircraft? You don't drill the holes in the acrylic large enough and it cracks? Bolt too long and someone gets a scratch. Please spare me.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't it sad that we have to argue about the interpretation of maintenance regulations with regards window replacement on non pressurised aircraft.
Surely much safer to see where you are going than worry about pages of paperwork for replacing a piece of cheap acrylic sheet.....what's the worst that can happen replacing a side window on a non pressurised aircraft? You don't drill the holes in the acrylic large enough and it cracks? Bolt too long and someone gets a scratch. Please spare me.
Surely much safer to see where you are going than worry about pages of paperwork for replacing a piece of cheap acrylic sheet.....what's the worst that can happen replacing a side window on a non pressurised aircraft? You don't drill the holes in the acrylic large enough and it cracks? Bolt too long and someone gets a scratch. Please spare me.
you have entered the black hole. It's easy to be brave when you don't have to sign it !!!!
Just like now if you wish to have a AD that is wrong looked at you have to pay for it to be accessed
Why don't you ask aurora about doing maintenance on a aircraft and then make an assessment on what you may or may not do !!!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ChCh NZ
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, and there will be guys here that have made submissions to the regulator. They may even be the same guys that put forward amendments to the manufacturers' publications.
Something I do regularly myself.
Try and get a POH one through though... I am not so sure I have ever succeeded there.
Changing a window is something I have done literally dozens of times. Every time was quick and easy, and iaw the regs and publications.
Nothing difficult there at all.
Far from arguing I thought I had been generous with my time and knowledge here.
I have also seen the job botched on many occasions.
As you say though, many seem to think it is only a cheap piece of acrylic sheet.
When you question some of these guys on how they got it so wrong you invariably discover they didn't even back the drill bit off. I guess it says a lot for the amount of preparation they have put into the task.
There really are guys about with no idea.
I think I suggested having a chat with the LAME as soon as possible. I know I have saved guys hundreds of dollars on the job, almost each and every time.
Surely that can't be too difficult but you do have to wonder.
It seems there will always others about that just know better, - regardless.
Their money.
Something I do regularly myself.
Try and get a POH one through though... I am not so sure I have ever succeeded there.
Changing a window is something I have done literally dozens of times. Every time was quick and easy, and iaw the regs and publications.
Nothing difficult there at all.
Far from arguing I thought I had been generous with my time and knowledge here.
I have also seen the job botched on many occasions.
As you say though, many seem to think it is only a cheap piece of acrylic sheet.
When you question some of these guys on how they got it so wrong you invariably discover they didn't even back the drill bit off. I guess it says a lot for the amount of preparation they have put into the task.
There really are guys about with no idea.
I think I suggested having a chat with the LAME as soon as possible. I know I have saved guys hundreds of dollars on the job, almost each and every time.
Surely that can't be too difficult but you do have to wonder.
It seems there will always others about that just know better, - regardless.
Their money.
In the case of the botch jobs, how many lives were lost as a consequence? Rounded to the nearest dozen.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ChCh NZ
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In terms of manslaughter cases I can think of three in the last 20 years that I have been dragged into.
Many deaths and not caused by botched jobs but certainly the attitude. In every single one of them.
I think 15 deaths, mostly innocents and directly caused by the 'I know better' attitude.
Is 15 not enough for you ?
I can put some thought into it and come up with a more exact figure.
The guys that maintain the aeroplanes and see how the owners operate.
It is the owner that is the liability, no coincidence that I have distanced myself from most of those guys before they did their thing. Indeed in every-one of those 3 cases I had removed myself from the job beforehand.
My testimony was purely providing background as I was never about for the main event and the lead-up to it.
I have flown a customer's aircraft and the Cherokee was near impossible to land into the setting sun. I made him change the windshield, less than $200 all up for a second hand one we had here. (From a pedantic type).
Anyway the owner couldn't believe the difference. He then told me about the two occasions where he thought he was about to wipe both the plane and himself out. Both times on a strip and into the sun.
Would some-one's life be worth more or less than $200 ?
Many deaths and not caused by botched jobs but certainly the attitude. In every single one of them.
I think 15 deaths, mostly innocents and directly caused by the 'I know better' attitude.
Is 15 not enough for you ?
I can put some thought into it and come up with a more exact figure.
The guys that maintain the aeroplanes and see how the owners operate.
It is the owner that is the liability, no coincidence that I have distanced myself from most of those guys before they did their thing. Indeed in every-one of those 3 cases I had removed myself from the job beforehand.
My testimony was purely providing background as I was never about for the main event and the lead-up to it.
I have flown a customer's aircraft and the Cherokee was near impossible to land into the setting sun. I made him change the windshield, less than $200 all up for a second hand one we had here. (From a pedantic type).
Anyway the owner couldn't believe the difference. He then told me about the two occasions where he thought he was about to wipe both the plane and himself out. Both times on a strip and into the sun.
Would some-one's life be worth more or less than $200 ?
And will more rules, and arguments about rules, change "the attitude"?