Part M - CAMO - etc
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bose-x
Quote
Prop Overhaul for a prop that has 700 hours on it from new.
Mag overhauls because they are over 500 hours
Vac pump replacement at 500 hours
Seat belts replacing as they are 10 years
Static lines replacing
Interesting attitude!
As the owner of four aircraft I have found that Slick Mags require the 500 hour at just over 500 hours or the internal timing falls out of limits making for poor low speed running & starting, At about 600 hours the Vac pumps fails with no warning what so ever.
Just two issues that I would think the serious IFR pilot that you seem to be would give some consideration to.
As for the prop is that not the manufactuers limits ? not EASA.
As you may guess form other posts I am no friend of EASA however you seem to think that the FAA is unlikely to want you putting an aircraft on the American system just so you can cheapskate on maintenance.
Prop Overhaul for a prop that has 700 hours on it from new.
Mag overhauls because they are over 500 hours
Vac pump replacement at 500 hours
Seat belts replacing as they are 10 years
Static lines replacing
Interesting attitude!
As the owner of four aircraft I have found that Slick Mags require the 500 hour at just over 500 hours or the internal timing falls out of limits making for poor low speed running & starting, At about 600 hours the Vac pumps fails with no warning what so ever.
Just two issues that I would think the serious IFR pilot that you seem to be would give some consideration to.
As for the prop is that not the manufactuers limits ? not EASA.
As you may guess form other posts I am no friend of EASA however you seem to think that the FAA is unlikely to want you putting an aircraft on the American system just so you can cheapskate on maintenance.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not about cheapskating, it is about having the option to run items on condition. Justify to me why seat belts NEED replacing at 10 years that the engineer deems to be serviceable. Justify to me why a prop with 700 hours from new NEEDS to be overhauled rather than inspected just because it is 6 years old?
I am all for ensuring quality of maintenance and ensuring safety, but we have to draw a line somewhere.
EASA is going to drive GA into extinction with this stuff. It therefore forces people to look elsewhere. The FAA seem to take a logical view which is to trust the engineers to decide if something should be run on condition.
A and C - Go, give me a reason why my static lines need replacing rather than inspecting and my engineer using his expertise to decide if they need anything doing with them? Same goes for the mags, they work perfectly, if they did not I would overhaul them. My last vac pump did 1500 hours and failed gradually so I replaced it.
I am not looking to cut corners, but at the same time I am not prepared to blindly just throw serviceable stuff away. Does that make me a cowboy?
I am all for ensuring quality of maintenance and ensuring safety, but we have to draw a line somewhere.
EASA is going to drive GA into extinction with this stuff. It therefore forces people to look elsewhere. The FAA seem to take a logical view which is to trust the engineers to decide if something should be run on condition.
A and C - Go, give me a reason why my static lines need replacing rather than inspecting and my engineer using his expertise to decide if they need anything doing with them? Same goes for the mags, they work perfectly, if they did not I would overhaul them. My last vac pump did 1500 hours and failed gradually so I replaced it.
I am not looking to cut corners, but at the same time I am not prepared to blindly just throw serviceable stuff away. Does that make me a cowboy?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But as others keep telling you, it isn't EASA making up the inspection/overhaul periods it is the aircraft manufacturer and it's all stated (and therefore required to be complied with) in the Maintenance Manual for the aircraft.
Doesn't matter where the aircraft is registered, the Maintenance Manual has to be complied with - if you don't want to replace the seatbelts every 10 years, sell the Cessna and buy a Piper.
McCauley and Hartzell mostly have 6 year overhaul periods on their CS props regardless of hours (how do you know what the internal condition of the hub is?) - McCauley have the same overhaul period on their fixed pitch props too. Sensenich FP props were 1000 hour overhaul period but extended it to 2000 hours.
Cessna stipulates in the MM a 500hr mag inspection (note 500hr service NOT overhaul) - Piper don't on say the PA28-161 - it just says 'replace or overhaul as required or at engine overhaul'.
So don't blame EASA or the CAA about the cost of maintaining your aircraft - have a go at the people who built the aircraft and its components.
Doesn't matter where the aircraft is registered, the Maintenance Manual has to be complied with - if you don't want to replace the seatbelts every 10 years, sell the Cessna and buy a Piper.
McCauley and Hartzell mostly have 6 year overhaul periods on their CS props regardless of hours (how do you know what the internal condition of the hub is?) - McCauley have the same overhaul period on their fixed pitch props too. Sensenich FP props were 1000 hour overhaul period but extended it to 2000 hours.
Cessna stipulates in the MM a 500hr mag inspection (note 500hr service NOT overhaul) - Piper don't on say the PA28-161 - it just says 'replace or overhaul as required or at engine overhaul'.
So don't blame EASA or the CAA about the cost of maintaining your aircraft - have a go at the people who built the aircraft and its components.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smarthawke
You are wrong. It is EASA that have dumped the previous 'on condition' situation. The manufacturer's recommendations were just that, but EASA has taken that and made it a requirement.
Given that most light aircraft fly only a relatively few hours per year, this is an unwarranted impostion and additional cost.
What worries me is that my engine with 1000 hours against a 2000 hour 'life' may need an expensive maintenance because the 12 year calendar life - new from EASA - has appeared from nowhere.
A friend scapped a perfectly serviceable prop because it was scheduled for an overhaul, the cost was fractionally less than buying a new one. So rather than have the prop removed and checked and risk that it was out of tolerance, he went straight for a new prop.
We are not commercial outfits for whom these are legitimate business expenses. All this comes out of our taxed income and each new requirement (Mode S, Part M, PLB/ELT) just makes it less sustainable.
You are wrong. It is EASA that have dumped the previous 'on condition' situation. The manufacturer's recommendations were just that, but EASA has taken that and made it a requirement.
Given that most light aircraft fly only a relatively few hours per year, this is an unwarranted impostion and additional cost.
What worries me is that my engine with 1000 hours against a 2000 hour 'life' may need an expensive maintenance because the 12 year calendar life - new from EASA - has appeared from nowhere.
A friend scapped a perfectly serviceable prop because it was scheduled for an overhaul, the cost was fractionally less than buying a new one. So rather than have the prop removed and checked and risk that it was out of tolerance, he went straight for a new prop.
We are not commercial outfits for whom these are legitimate business expenses. All this comes out of our taxed income and each new requirement (Mode S, Part M, PLB/ELT) just makes it less sustainable.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cilboldentune, Britannia
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robin
I think part of the debate was that by moving to N reg it would obviate the need to comply some of what might seem to be nonsensical maintenance requirements. What was being pointed out was that N reg maintenance can be just as onerous.
Even under the old CAA M3 rules there were 100s of UK derived ADs which should have complied with - a lot of these disappeared when the move to EASA was implemented. I believe that SIDs (Supplemental Inspection Document) were being ignored by UK maintenance organisations. With regard to woobly props, under the old UK rules there was a Notice 75 every 3 years regardless of hours.
My advice would be to seek out a good maintenance organisation with Part G + I who should be able to help through what might seem a new and tortuous procedure.
HETLFT and flack jacket on!
I think part of the debate was that by moving to N reg it would obviate the need to comply some of what might seem to be nonsensical maintenance requirements. What was being pointed out was that N reg maintenance can be just as onerous.
Even under the old CAA M3 rules there were 100s of UK derived ADs which should have complied with - a lot of these disappeared when the move to EASA was implemented. I believe that SIDs (Supplemental Inspection Document) were being ignored by UK maintenance organisations. With regard to woobly props, under the old UK rules there was a Notice 75 every 3 years regardless of hours.
My advice would be to seek out a good maintenance organisation with Part G + I who should be able to help through what might seem a new and tortuous procedure.
HETLFT and flack jacket on!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JXK has made the point I was trying to make. It is the new and stupid regulations that have been imposed that I am looking to move away from. The service manuals do dictate things like prop overhauls and seat belts, but the FAA allow them to run on condition and be changed when the engineers recommend it not just because they have reached some arbitrary figure.
I know the condition of my prop, it has a notice 75 inspection 100 hours ago, I would expect the engineers to inspect during the 100 hour and if they have an issue to recommend a solution. I do not see the benefit of dictating an overhaul without the need for it. The prop is lifed at 2400 hours, when I reach that then I expect to overhaul it or if it is damaged before then.
If a seatbelt has no damage and is in good condition then I why should I replace them? Why can't I refurb them rather than throwing them away?
Static lines, if they are inspected and deemed serviceable, why throw them away for the hell of it?
We are being hammered for our direct carbon emissions on the fuel, has anyone considered the carbon cost of producing all of these unneeded new parts and the fact that the old stuff ends up in land fill?
Safety always comes first and I will always maintain the aircraft to the highest standards. I will take the advice of my engineers and follow it, after all it is there signature that says the aircraft is airworthy.
I know the condition of my prop, it has a notice 75 inspection 100 hours ago, I would expect the engineers to inspect during the 100 hour and if they have an issue to recommend a solution. I do not see the benefit of dictating an overhaul without the need for it. The prop is lifed at 2400 hours, when I reach that then I expect to overhaul it or if it is damaged before then.
If a seatbelt has no damage and is in good condition then I why should I replace them? Why can't I refurb them rather than throwing them away?
Static lines, if they are inspected and deemed serviceable, why throw them away for the hell of it?
We are being hammered for our direct carbon emissions on the fuel, has anyone considered the carbon cost of producing all of these unneeded new parts and the fact that the old stuff ends up in land fill?
Safety always comes first and I will always maintain the aircraft to the highest standards. I will take the advice of my engineers and follow it, after all it is there signature that says the aircraft is airworthy.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: THE NORTH
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MAGS!
Slick mags have a life limit which is the same a the tbo of the engine.
Slick recommend a 500 hour inspection so under EASA you must do this and I would also strongly suggest it is done anyway.
I can not imagine that FAA reg. aircraft with these mags miss such an important inspection.
You will usually find they need parts at 1000 hours or 1500 hours from new, the odd one needing somthing at 500 hours.
Lets be realastic a 500 mag inspection is around £100.00 + Vat + parts + removal and fitting/ timing.
It should take no longer than a couple of hours for the spannering! The parts however have gone silly at the moment with the $ being strong, mind you so has the price of a new mag.
Bendix mags are lifed at 4 years between overhaul! not inspection!!! Not sure about the hours without getting the book out, stick with the slicks....
Slick recommend a 500 hour inspection so under EASA you must do this and I would also strongly suggest it is done anyway.
I can not imagine that FAA reg. aircraft with these mags miss such an important inspection.
You will usually find they need parts at 1000 hours or 1500 hours from new, the odd one needing somthing at 500 hours.
Lets be realastic a 500 mag inspection is around £100.00 + Vat + parts + removal and fitting/ timing.
It should take no longer than a couple of hours for the spannering! The parts however have gone silly at the moment with the $ being strong, mind you so has the price of a new mag.
Bendix mags are lifed at 4 years between overhaul! not inspection!!! Not sure about the hours without getting the book out, stick with the slicks....
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think there are some misguided views around.
Mags are about the weakest link on an engine. Overhauling them at 500hrs is a desirable thing. Just make sure it is not done by a cowboy.
Overhauling a prop at 6 years (which it sounds like this is) is perfectly reasonable too. Nobody knows the internal condition by looking at the outside of the hub. Anyway, based on previous postings by its owner here and elsewhere, that 6 year prop has done about 1800 hours, not 700 hours, so needs looking at. Again, make sure it is not done by a cowboy (like that well known firm which got shut down for forging a load of prop overhaul documents).
The static lines are probably a waste of time but they cannot cost that much... Changing the seat belts is definitely a waste of time if they look brand new, but the mountings need checking for corrosion (should be done annually).
The vac pump WILL go one day; probably before 1000hrs. Changing it at 500hrs is reasonable. That's about 50p/hour on the engine fund.
One can buy all these parts mail order from the USA, at good prices e.g. here and here.
What is legally required is another matter. It is a bit complicated but I gather that only items listed in the Airworthiness section of the MM are mandatory; the rest are optional under Part 91. Overall, I have not found a significant saving in regular maintenance costs from being on the N-reg. The EASA moves do put costs up but the cost of doing the various small items is not that much. It is more irritation to take apart stuff for no good reason, than anything else, and this extra stuff results in the aircraft ending up in worse condition because of the monkey spanner people dismantling everything every year.
Mags are about the weakest link on an engine. Overhauling them at 500hrs is a desirable thing. Just make sure it is not done by a cowboy.
Overhauling a prop at 6 years (which it sounds like this is) is perfectly reasonable too. Nobody knows the internal condition by looking at the outside of the hub. Anyway, based on previous postings by its owner here and elsewhere, that 6 year prop has done about 1800 hours, not 700 hours, so needs looking at. Again, make sure it is not done by a cowboy (like that well known firm which got shut down for forging a load of prop overhaul documents).
The static lines are probably a waste of time but they cannot cost that much... Changing the seat belts is definitely a waste of time if they look brand new, but the mountings need checking for corrosion (should be done annually).
The vac pump WILL go one day; probably before 1000hrs. Changing it at 500hrs is reasonable. That's about 50p/hour on the engine fund.
One can buy all these parts mail order from the USA, at good prices e.g. here and here.
What is legally required is another matter. It is a bit complicated but I gather that only items listed in the Airworthiness section of the MM are mandatory; the rest are optional under Part 91. Overall, I have not found a significant saving in regular maintenance costs from being on the N-reg. The EASA moves do put costs up but the cost of doing the various small items is not that much. It is more irritation to take apart stuff for no good reason, than anything else, and this extra stuff results in the aircraft ending up in worse condition because of the monkey spanner people dismantling everything every year.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a fine line between what is actually legally required and what is recommended or interpreted as being required.
Case in point is the Slick 500hr inspection. On, for instance, the PA28-161 there is no call up for a 500hr inspection. Slick has a Service Bulletin to say that a 500hr inspection must be carried out but that is not mandatory as it is only a SB. LAMP leaves it to the discretion of the CRS signatory to determine what should be carried out to ensure the safe continued operation of the aircraft when it comes to continuing airworthiness stuff - like maufacturers SBs.
Normally, mags fail shortly after a 500hr inspection has been carried out....
PS If the prop on the aircraft in question actually had AWN75 carried out 100hrs ago, with the hours that it apprently flies annually, one would have thought the owner would have been better advised to bring the overhaul date forwards that few months....
Case in point is the Slick 500hr inspection. On, for instance, the PA28-161 there is no call up for a 500hr inspection. Slick has a Service Bulletin to say that a 500hr inspection must be carried out but that is not mandatory as it is only a SB. LAMP leaves it to the discretion of the CRS signatory to determine what should be carried out to ensure the safe continued operation of the aircraft when it comes to continuing airworthiness stuff - like maufacturers SBs.
Normally, mags fail shortly after a 500hr inspection has been carried out....
PS If the prop on the aircraft in question actually had AWN75 carried out 100hrs ago, with the hours that it apprently flies annually, one would have thought the owner would have been better advised to bring the overhaul date forwards that few months....
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cilboldentune, Britannia
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bose_x
In theory a Part M - G organisation could make a decision as to whether eg seat-belts need replacing or even simpler whether an oil change is required however in these days of litigation would they or you take the risk of prosecution. You would be surprised how far the AAIB can go in establishing the provenance of parts even they are not related to the cause of an accident.
In theory a Part M - G organisation could make a decision as to whether eg seat-belts need replacing or even simpler whether an oil change is required however in these days of litigation would they or you take the risk of prosecution. You would be surprised how far the AAIB can go in establishing the provenance of parts even they are not related to the cause of an accident.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jxk
If done by a cowboy, sure.....
Is the above real or hearsay? I think it is more hearsay because if many AAIB reports were anything to go by, many maintenance shops in the UK would have been shut down yet clearly this has not happened. Almost none (none?) have ever been shut down by the CAA, and the UK prop shop I mentioned got busted by the FAA, IIRC.
The reason why SBs are not generally mandatory is because when a manufacturer applies for a Type Certificate, he surrenders control of maintenance control to the certifying authority.
This is how e.g. the Lyco 12 year engine life is circumvented. The CAA and the FAA allow on-condition operation to say 2000hrs on public ops, and beyond 2000hrs on private ops. So Lycoming could stick a 12 month life on the engine but they would not be able to enforce it because they don't control it.
Normally, mags fail shortly after a 500hr inspection has been carried out....
You would be surprised how far the AAIB can go in establishing the provenance of parts even they are not related to the cause of an accident
The reason why SBs are not generally mandatory is because when a manufacturer applies for a Type Certificate, he surrenders control of maintenance control to the certifying authority.
This is how e.g. the Lyco 12 year engine life is circumvented. The CAA and the FAA allow on-condition operation to say 2000hrs on public ops, and beyond 2000hrs on private ops. So Lycoming could stick a 12 month life on the engine but they would not be able to enforce it because they don't control it.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cilboldentune, Britannia
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO
From my experience it's real. Of course it's not the job of the AAIB to shut down maintenance organisations; it's that of the CAA. The CAA & AAIB are independent organisations but no doubt if the problem was significant there would some communication between them. I was just making the point in context of why or why not it may be acceptable to apply reason to allowing components to run on pass their shelf life etc..in the Continuing Airworthiness Environment.
Is the above real or hearsay? I think it is more hearsay because if many AAIB reports were anything to go by, many maintenance shops in the UK would have been shut down yet clearly this has not happened. Almost none (none?) have ever been shut down by the CAA, and the UK prop shop I mentioned got busted by the FAA, IIRC.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, yes, the AAIB do voice opinions on maintenance. The recent fatal Sandown PA28 crash, with the well trashed engine, is one recent example. But the CAA does nothing about this, evidently, which makes the AAIB's views worth next to nothing.
Deciding what to change is often tricky. I (N-reg) could run a lot of stuff "on condition", and with a "suitably chosen" maintenance company could tacitly allow the ticking of a lot of boxes representing work done but not done. Unfortunately, planes are not like cars which can be fairly safely run into the ground without the owner giving a damn. The owner does have to get pro-active and has to understand which bits are important and which should therefore be done, even if not legally necessary.
And this applies equally on N-reg and G-reg, because the "box ticking" culture is widespread, and EASA will not change anything there.
A while ago, one American chap in the Socata user group wrote that he found a crack in his prop hub, and didn't like the cost of fixing it. It turned out his prop was 1985-original and never been looked at. I don't think 23 years on a prop is wise, but where does one draw the line? I average 150hrs/year which makes a £3k prop overhaul about £3/hr, which is hardly significant, along the engine fund of £10/hr. I got mine done at 6 years, not least because it was full of nicks (flying to airfields with sh*tty runways covered in stones) which had been individually dressed out.
As already stated by others, this thread is a bit of a puzzle because the owner in this case has claimed to be extremely rich and to fly a huge number of hours, yet the 700hrs probably does represent a 6 year prop overhaul - is there an earlier overhaul period? I though the 3 year one is gone and it is now as per the mfg, which is normally 6 years.
I have done two mag overhauls. One at 500hrs and one at ~ 700hrs when the engine was rebuilt for SB569A. Each one turned out fine, and the 2nd one was done in the USA (with the engine) and cost hardly anything which is why I had it done; to make sure the engine started off as a new known quantity. With a single shaft dual mag engine, this is definitely the weakest link in the engine...
Deciding what to change is often tricky. I (N-reg) could run a lot of stuff "on condition", and with a "suitably chosen" maintenance company could tacitly allow the ticking of a lot of boxes representing work done but not done. Unfortunately, planes are not like cars which can be fairly safely run into the ground without the owner giving a damn. The owner does have to get pro-active and has to understand which bits are important and which should therefore be done, even if not legally necessary.
And this applies equally on N-reg and G-reg, because the "box ticking" culture is widespread, and EASA will not change anything there.
A while ago, one American chap in the Socata user group wrote that he found a crack in his prop hub, and didn't like the cost of fixing it. It turned out his prop was 1985-original and never been looked at. I don't think 23 years on a prop is wise, but where does one draw the line? I average 150hrs/year which makes a £3k prop overhaul about £3/hr, which is hardly significant, along the engine fund of £10/hr. I got mine done at 6 years, not least because it was full of nicks (flying to airfields with sh*tty runways covered in stones) which had been individually dressed out.
As already stated by others, this thread is a bit of a puzzle because the owner in this case has claimed to be extremely rich and to fly a huge number of hours, yet the 700hrs probably does represent a 6 year prop overhaul - is there an earlier overhaul period? I though the 3 year one is gone and it is now as per the mfg, which is normally 6 years.
I have done two mag overhauls. One at 500hrs and one at ~ 700hrs when the engine was rebuilt for SB569A. Each one turned out fine, and the 2nd one was done in the USA (with the engine) and cost hardly anything which is why I had it done; to make sure the engine started off as a new known quantity. With a single shaft dual mag engine, this is definitely the weakest link in the engine...
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cilboldentune, Britannia
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, yes, the AAIB do voice opinions on maintenance. The recent fatal Sandown PA28 crash, with the well trashed engine, is one recent example. But the CAA does nothing about this, evidently, which makes the AAIB's views worth next to nothing.
Have you or do you ever carry out this 5 min climb test and compare the results with the POH performance figures??
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AAIB Sandown report made reference to the well known Lycoming camshaft wear problem
What I'm trying to say is that it would difficult to blame a maintenance organisation if compressions were good and there was no metal found in the filters.
Have you or do you ever carry out this 5 min climb test and compare the results with the POH performance figures??
Have you or do you ever carry out this 5 min climb test and compare the results with the POH performance figures??
I do the climb test every time I fly, making sure I get the right FPM. The 5 min climb is difficult as I would get done for busting CAS. Also, on takeoff, I check the MP, 2575rpm and the expected 23.6GPH flow rate. With instrumentation, one can see something isn't right.
Last edited by IO540; 10th Apr 2009 at 15:43.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think some people are missing the point here in the usual name of attempting to sling mud.
My issue is around spending on work that has not needed to be done under the old regime and now suddenly needs doing. Last year the prop was fine, this year it needs overhauling because the rules have changed not because the state of the prop has changed. Because of these rules I am going to have to have both of my props overhauled because they have reached an arbitrary life figure. So much for having a spare prop.
The same goes for the other stuff. If it NEEDED doing I would be happy to do so but to be forced into without a good reason grates with me.
I am not talking about trying to cut corners it is the principle of changing things for the sake of it. Rolling over and accepting it is going to force GA into extinction.
How much money I am or may not have or how many hours I or the aircraft may fly has nothing to do with it. It is the principle of the matter.
My issue is around spending on work that has not needed to be done under the old regime and now suddenly needs doing. Last year the prop was fine, this year it needs overhauling because the rules have changed not because the state of the prop has changed. Because of these rules I am going to have to have both of my props overhauled because they have reached an arbitrary life figure. So much for having a spare prop.
The same goes for the other stuff. If it NEEDED doing I would be happy to do so but to be forced into without a good reason grates with me.
I am not talking about trying to cut corners it is the principle of changing things for the sake of it. Rolling over and accepting it is going to force GA into extinction.
How much money I am or may not have or how many hours I or the aircraft may fly has nothing to do with it. It is the principle of the matter.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bose-x
After 500 hours the only way to check the internals in a Slick Mag is to take it apart and look inside.
I cant see how without taking the mag apart how you can see if it needs servicing.
I cant see how without taking the mag apart how you can see if it needs servicing.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After 500 hours the only way to check the internals in a Slick Mag is to take it apart and look inside.
I cant see how without taking the mag apart how you can see if it needs servicing.
I cant see how without taking the mag apart how you can see if it needs servicing.
Not to mention the fact that the only investigation work that needs to be carried out by a new company is any work done since the last ARC, not the back to birth that some are claiming. As nothing has been done to my aircraft other than the 50 hours since the last ARC there is nothing to investigate. The seatbelts can also be run on condition along with a number of other items that I have been told have to be replaced. This answer from the CAA directly.
Following some excellent advice from an old friend I shall be staying G and not going into a controlled environment.
This is just an example of how the rules are not clear enough and a number of maintenance organizations are using the opportunity to rape us.
I shall probably end up getting both of my props overhauled as one is 700 hours and the other is 1900hrs but I will stagger it over a couple of years to keep some reserve on life.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cilboldentune, Britannia
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bose_x
Without trying to be controversial; how do know for certain that the items you have listed are really satisfactory? The reason for instance, the prop is checked (3 or 6 years) is not only to check for bearing problems but to ensure that the seals remain in good shape. How can you ascertain this without stripping the hub down? As IO has pointed out with certain magnetos they are deemed to be good for only 4 years regardless of hours.Very often it's not the hours that are the limiting factor it's time in service where corrosion can set in and cause failures. Who would get the blame if your seatbelts failed in an accident? Not you but your maintenance person for not complying with the requirement.
There are more worrying things going on the aircraft world other than maintenance; what about fuel & oil supplies, airfields closing, lack of facilities and limited hours due rising costs.
Without trying to be controversial; how do know for certain that the items you have listed are really satisfactory? The reason for instance, the prop is checked (3 or 6 years) is not only to check for bearing problems but to ensure that the seals remain in good shape. How can you ascertain this without stripping the hub down? As IO has pointed out with certain magnetos they are deemed to be good for only 4 years regardless of hours.Very often it's not the hours that are the limiting factor it's time in service where corrosion can set in and cause failures. Who would get the blame if your seatbelts failed in an accident? Not you but your maintenance person for not complying with the requirement.
There are more worrying things going on the aircraft world other than maintenance; what about fuel & oil supplies, airfields closing, lack of facilities and limited hours due rising costs.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are more worrying things going on the aircraft world other than maintenance; what about fuel & oil supplies, airfields closing, lack of facilities and limited hours due rising costs.
If we do not trust our engineers to make the correct decisions on what needs replacing then why license them in the first place?
The system of engineers making sensible decisions on what is required has served us well for decades. The FAA as IO freqently points out serves the vast majority of world aviation and they have been firm supporters on reviewing based on the condition rather than arbitrary figures.
My aircraft have operated perfectly safely for many years by allowing the engineers to do the job they have trained and become experienced in, I have seen no evidence that there is a safety case to support a change.
I have seen proof that these new costs are forcing people out of aviation. I have a friend who is facing an 8 grand annual to replace stuff that the engineers not him, deem to be perfectly serviceable. Seat belts are just one example, £1500 to change a set of serviceable belts.
Who would get the blame if your seatbelts failed in an accident? Not you but your maintenance person for not complying with the requirement
Tell me exactly how a serviceable set of seat belts are going to fail in an accident?