New control cable inspections.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not heard that. You be brave not to do some of the sids on them with whats been found ove the year
It is perfectly reasonable for aircraft owners to object to wasting money on unnecessary and potentially counterproductive maintenance.
I can afford to pay for whatever maintenance is necessary to address risks that are worth mitigating. I reckon Dick Smith can afford it too. But I suspect Dick has the same view as I do about wasting a cent.
I could afford to buy the new model of the aircraft I fly. The reason I don't is that the manufactured quality is now crap. I would be less safe.
I never buy new piston engines. The reason is that the manufactured quality is now crap. CMI doesn't know how to do valve guides and cylinders any more, and Lycoming makes bushings out of cheese. To add insult to financial injury, the people who buy and fly behind this crap are blamed when it fails and has to be repaired.
At least 300 to 400 hours' TIS after manufacture and deeper-level human meddling before I'll pay for a piston aircraft engine.
Was it pilots and aircraft owners who manufactured and certified cables with latent defects in the terminations?
Nope.
Is there a guarantee that new cables and terminations will be defect free and fitted perfectly?
Of course not.
Has there been a proper cost/benefit analysis on the cost of the mitigation compared with the cost of the risk being mitigated, taking into consideration the risks and costs of fitting defective parts and fitting good parts incompetently?
Unnecessary: This is about the safety of air navigation and aircraft owners can pay whatever it costs to deal with whatever messes other people make, in whatever cost-inefficient way CASA plucks.
The data are irrelevant.
It's pure coincidence that the people who support and mandate this stuff are the people who make their living off the back of it.
Eddie: You're welcome to try to give me a smack in the chops any time.
I can afford to pay for whatever maintenance is necessary to address risks that are worth mitigating. I reckon Dick Smith can afford it too. But I suspect Dick has the same view as I do about wasting a cent.
I could afford to buy the new model of the aircraft I fly. The reason I don't is that the manufactured quality is now crap. I would be less safe.
I never buy new piston engines. The reason is that the manufactured quality is now crap. CMI doesn't know how to do valve guides and cylinders any more, and Lycoming makes bushings out of cheese. To add insult to financial injury, the people who buy and fly behind this crap are blamed when it fails and has to be repaired.
At least 300 to 400 hours' TIS after manufacture and deeper-level human meddling before I'll pay for a piston aircraft engine.
Was it pilots and aircraft owners who manufactured and certified cables with latent defects in the terminations?
Nope.
Is there a guarantee that new cables and terminations will be defect free and fitted perfectly?
Of course not.
Has there been a proper cost/benefit analysis on the cost of the mitigation compared with the cost of the risk being mitigated, taking into consideration the risks and costs of fitting defective parts and fitting good parts incompetently?
Unnecessary: This is about the safety of air navigation and aircraft owners can pay whatever it costs to deal with whatever messes other people make, in whatever cost-inefficient way CASA plucks.
The data are irrelevant.
It's pure coincidence that the people who support and mandate this stuff are the people who make their living off the back of it.
Eddie: You're welcome to try to give me a smack in the chops any time.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is perfectly reasonable for aircraft owners to object to wasting money on unnecessary and potentially counterproductive maintenance.
I can afford to pay for whatever maintenance is necessary to address risks that are worth mitigating. I reckon Dick Smith can afford it too. But I suspect Dick has the same view as I do about wasting a cent.
I could afford to buy the new model of the aircraft I fly. The reason I don't is that the manufactured quality is now crap. I would be less safe.
I never buy new piston engines. The reason is that the manufactured quality is now crap. CMI doesn't know how to do valve guides and cylinders any more, and Lycoming makes bushings out of cheese. To add insult to financial injury, the people who buy and fly behind this crap are blamed when it fails and has to be repaired.
At least 300 to 400 hours' TIS after manufacture and deeper-level human meddling before I'll pay for a piston aircraft engine.
Was it pilots and aircraft owners who manufactured and certified cables with latent defects in the terminations?
Nope.
Is there a guarantee that new cables and terminations will be defect free and fitted perfectly?
Of course not.
Has there been a proper cost/benefit analysis on the cost of the mitigation compared with the cost of the risk being mitigated, taking into consideration the risks and costs of fitting defective parts and fitting good parts incompetently?
Unnecessary: This is about the safety of air navigation and aircraft owners can pay whatever it costs to deal with whatever messes other people make, in whatever cost-inefficient way CASA plucks.
The data are irrelevant.
It's pure coincidence that the people who support and mandate this stuff are the people who make their living off the back of it.
Eddie: You're welcome to try to give me a smack in the chops any time.
I can afford to pay for whatever maintenance is necessary to address risks that are worth mitigating. I reckon Dick Smith can afford it too. But I suspect Dick has the same view as I do about wasting a cent.
I could afford to buy the new model of the aircraft I fly. The reason I don't is that the manufactured quality is now crap. I would be less safe.
I never buy new piston engines. The reason is that the manufactured quality is now crap. CMI doesn't know how to do valve guides and cylinders any more, and Lycoming makes bushings out of cheese. To add insult to financial injury, the people who buy and fly behind this crap are blamed when it fails and has to be repaired.
At least 300 to 400 hours' TIS after manufacture and deeper-level human meddling before I'll pay for a piston aircraft engine.
Was it pilots and aircraft owners who manufactured and certified cables with latent defects in the terminations?
Nope.
Is there a guarantee that new cables and terminations will be defect free and fitted perfectly?
Of course not.
Has there been a proper cost/benefit analysis on the cost of the mitigation compared with the cost of the risk being mitigated, taking into consideration the risks and costs of fitting defective parts and fitting good parts incompetently?
Unnecessary: This is about the safety of air navigation and aircraft owners can pay whatever it costs to deal with whatever messes other people make, in whatever cost-inefficient way CASA plucks.
The data are irrelevant.
It's pure coincidence that the people who support and mandate this stuff are the people who make their living off the back of it.
Eddie: You're welcome to try to give me a smack in the chops any time.
I can see from your postings that you have deep unresolved issues with mechanics, were you backdoored by one perhaps?
I'm at Mareeba Airport for a few days, drop past and we can have a gentlemanly discussion about maintenance matters.
Too old to fight, too fvcked to run, that only leaves one option. 👍
I spent many years up to my elbows in aircraft access panels, usually wishing I had triple jointed wrists and double-jointed fingers. I still enjoy doing aircraft maintenance, although I don't get paid to do it these days.
I know what the data say about what maintenance is necessary, and what maintenance is unnecessary and potentially counter-productive.
I know what the data say about what maintenance is necessary, and what maintenance is unnecessary and potentially counter-productive.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I spent many years up to my elbows in aircraft access panels, usually wishing I had triple jointed wrists and double-jointed fingers. I still enjoy doing aircraft maintenance, although I don't get paid to do it these days.
I know what the data say about what maintenance is necessary, and what maintenance is unnecessary and potentially counter-productive.
I know what the data say about what maintenance is necessary, and what maintenance is unnecessary and potentially counter-productive.
"Examine"? I did and do "inspections".
"Sign off on"? I did and do "certifications".
You trolls need to do a bit more homework.
"Sign off on"? I did and do "certifications".
You trolls need to do a bit more homework.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please tell me how you certified for completion of work ?
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can I simply ask what is the approved and documented procedure to determine "unnecessary" and "potentially counter productive" maintenance?
I do agree that these forms of maintenance exist - but in what documented and legal way do aircraft owners determine this?
In my life time aircraft owners consider the fuel tanks 1/2 full - when in fact they were 1/2 empty (and in old and new craft running out of gas happens way to often)
We use to use marine cables for engine controls - we had to test them prior fitment it was a simple lever and weight thru full movement.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can I simply ask what is the approved and documented procedure to determine "unnecessary" and "potentially counter productive" maintenance?
I do agree that these forms of maintenance exist - but in what documented and legal way do aircraft owners determine this?
In my life time aircraft owners consider the fuel tanks 1/2 full - when in fact they were 1/2 empty (and in old and new craft running out of gas happens way to often)
We use to use marine cables for engine controls - we had to test them prior fitment it was a simple lever and weight thru full movement.
I do agree that these forms of maintenance exist - but in what documented and legal way do aircraft owners determine this?
In my life time aircraft owners consider the fuel tanks 1/2 full - when in fact they were 1/2 empty (and in old and new craft running out of gas happens way to often)
We use to use marine cables for engine controls - we had to test them prior fitment it was a simple lever and weight thru full movement.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I never use Tempest filters nor plugs both cost labour time over all, I never use to use Slick Mags, but now think over 1 engine life the are far better.
I would buy a new or reman to get the extra life on a Conny as an operator (12 year should be flexi) Lycos have some great and a few not great models (as TCM).
But to run a Bar(r)on on a run/s I would not look at the new model Baron - but a very light jet and check the numbers on that.
I would buy a new or reman to get the extra life on a Conny as an operator (12 year should be flexi) Lycos have some great and a few not great models (as TCM).
But to run a Bar(r)on on a run/s I would not look at the new model Baron - but a very light jet and check the numbers on that.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only problem with jets is cost. Not so much outright cost of purchase but parts. I change two small solid bearings. Inner 745 and outer 755 that 3k witn out fittng labour. 1/2inch dia and 1/2 long plus the product support is just not t here as they dont wont them flying. There better aircraft to buy instead of a new barrrrrron. Nice to fly but a dog to work on
Can you get back on your medication so that you aren't conversing with yourself in jibberish?
You asked me "how many cables did you examine and sign off on"? A few. And, unlike you, my life depended (and continues to depend) on the inspections I did and certified.
Get someone to read you (and if necessary translate into your jibberish) CAR 1988 42G. It's about flight control system inspections - you know, those aircraft bits that occasionally include cables with terminations and tension and lock wire and proper routing that can affect whether minor components like ailerons and elevators and rudders work in the correct sense. Get them to read you the definition of "inspection" for the purposes of that regulation, and who is an appropriate person to do independent "inspections".
CAR 42G isn't there because you're perfect. It's there because you fcuk up. You're human.
The way in which to determine what is unnecessary and potentially counterproductive maintenance is to analyse the data showing what happens when maintenance tasks are carried out in accordance with manufacturers' and regulators' time-based maintenance Bibles. Waddington did that analysis. So have others with a similar capacity as Waddington's to be objective.
I realise that those Bibles provide you with much-needed certainty in a world that you find vary scary, but just as Jonah didn't live in whale, some of those time-based manufacturer and regulator mandated maintenance requirements are faith-based, not evidence-based.
You asked me "how many cables did you examine and sign off on"? A few. And, unlike you, my life depended (and continues to depend) on the inspections I did and certified.
Get someone to read you (and if necessary translate into your jibberish) CAR 1988 42G. It's about flight control system inspections - you know, those aircraft bits that occasionally include cables with terminations and tension and lock wire and proper routing that can affect whether minor components like ailerons and elevators and rudders work in the correct sense. Get them to read you the definition of "inspection" for the purposes of that regulation, and who is an appropriate person to do independent "inspections".
CAR 42G isn't there because you're perfect. It's there because you fcuk up. You're human.
The way in which to determine what is unnecessary and potentially counterproductive maintenance is to analyse the data showing what happens when maintenance tasks are carried out in accordance with manufacturers' and regulators' time-based maintenance Bibles. Waddington did that analysis. So have others with a similar capacity as Waddington's to be objective.
I realise that those Bibles provide you with much-needed certainty in a world that you find vary scary, but just as Jonah didn't live in whale, some of those time-based manufacturer and regulator mandated maintenance requirements are faith-based, not evidence-based.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The way in which to determine what is unnecessary and potentially counterproductive maintenance is to analyse the data showing what happens when maintenance tasks are carried out in accordance with manufacturers' and regulators' time-based maintenance Bibles
Yep all good - at what point do you call it "unnecessary and potentially counterproductive maintenance" and how and when do you document this?
Yep all good - at what point do you call it "unnecessary and potentially counterproductive maintenance" and how and when do you document this?
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The way in which to determine what is unnecessary and potentially counterproductive maintenance is to analyse the data showing what happens when maintenance tasks are carried out in accordance with manufacturers' and regulators' time-based maintenance Bibles
Yep all good - at what point do you call it "unnecessary and potentially counterproductive maintenance" and how and when do you document this?
Yep all good - at what point do you call it "unnecessary and potentially counterproductive maintenance" and how and when do you document this?
He also was part of the system before he was removed. Maybe its more about tnat than more than his expert knowledge that he trys to impose on the weak minded.
He also needs to look at what a secondry inspection is.
This is not certified on the inspection of the control cable its self which is what i asked. So in fact he has not certified for sfa.
At what point, Band? This may be an alarming concept:
The point at which maintenance becomes unnecessary and potentially counterproductive is the point at which the cost paid - both in money and lives - for doing the maintenance is higher than not doing it.
I realise this a concept alien to aviation, where any perceived risk must be mitigated at any cost, even if the mitigation costs more than than the risk mitigated. In aviation, that's called "safety".
How and when do you document this? Another alarming concept: The objective risks and benefits and costs of doing a maintenance task, compared with the objective risks and benefits and costs of not doing that task, are the same, whether or not it's "documented".
Take comfort, however. When the last GA maintenance organisation closes its doors because too many aircraft owners decided that paying money to throw serviceable cables in the bin in return for risk is a fckuing stupid thing to do, we will all be able to get a warm inner glow from being "safe".
The point at which maintenance becomes unnecessary and potentially counterproductive is the point at which the cost paid - both in money and lives - for doing the maintenance is higher than not doing it.
I realise this a concept alien to aviation, where any perceived risk must be mitigated at any cost, even if the mitigation costs more than than the risk mitigated. In aviation, that's called "safety".
How and when do you document this? Another alarming concept: The objective risks and benefits and costs of doing a maintenance task, compared with the objective risks and benefits and costs of not doing that task, are the same, whether or not it's "documented".
Take comfort, however. When the last GA maintenance organisation closes its doors because too many aircraft owners decided that paying money to throw serviceable cables in the bin in return for risk is a fckuing stupid thing to do, we will all be able to get a warm inner glow from being "safe".
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get someone to read you (and if necessary translate into your jibberish) CAR 1988 42G. It's about flight control system inspections - you know, those aircraft bits that occasionally include cables with terminations and tension and lock wire and proper routing that can affect whether minor components like ailerons and elevators and rudders work in the correct sense. Get them to read you the definition of "inspection" for the purposes of that regulation, and who is an appropriate person to do independent "inspections".
Kudos to you, as you would be one of the few pilots I know that fully understands the importance of a CAR 42G inspection. When I have used a pilot in the field for the same, it is usual to have to tell them exactly what to do, which undermines the integrity of CAR 42G.
I feel you are exaggerating the extent of your responsibilities under 42G, as this does not include the close inspection of the cables and endfittings, it is only for "fit, form and function". Over to you.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst you are correct that an appropriate licenced pilot is approved to carry out an "inspection" pursuant to CAR 42G, most CAR30 and Part 145 workshops have an SOP that only a licenced mechanic may inspect and certify for the aforementioned "inspection".
Kudos to you, as you would be one of the few pilots I know that fully understands the importance of a CAR 42G inspection. When I have used a pilot in the field for the same, it is usual to have to tell them exactly what to do, which undermines the integrity of CAR 42G.
I feel you are exaggerating the extent of your responsibilities under 42G, as this does not include the close inspection of the cables and endfittings, it is only for "fit, form and function". Over to you.
Kudos to you, as you would be one of the few pilots I know that fully understands the importance of a CAR 42G inspection. When I have used a pilot in the field for the same, it is usual to have to tell them exactly what to do, which undermines the integrity of CAR 42G.
I feel you are exaggerating the extent of your responsibilities under 42G, as this does not include the close inspection of the cables and endfittings, it is only for "fit, form and function". Over to you.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We know a few years ago in a couple of Beech aircraft in Australia a primary flight control cable broke - it may have been 2 I don't remember.
But a few others were inspected and found a bit not good.
Now I wonder what steps the "safe operators" have taken to determine the serviceability of their aircrafts flight control cables.
I will put forward (and with a case of beer) that Leady did absolutely nothing other that what CASA mandated at that time - then once that was cancelled still had no plan to do anything other than the minimum mandated (even thou we know that let cables fail in Beech).
Operators if pilots generally will have Leady's view that any maintenance than changing oil is excessive maintenance. But get them to agree a pilot should get rostered for 2,000 hour per year and fatigue pops up fast but the LAME on 24/7 call.
Personally I think the wing bolt inspections on Barons is a waste of time and money - never found a fault ever, so why remove, replace or inspect every 5 years. That can lead to maintenance errors - just leave them in there!
That's my cost/safety bit done, if a wing bolt/s fails it will be worth it in the long run!
But a few others were inspected and found a bit not good.
Now I wonder what steps the "safe operators" have taken to determine the serviceability of their aircrafts flight control cables.
I will put forward (and with a case of beer) that Leady did absolutely nothing other that what CASA mandated at that time - then once that was cancelled still had no plan to do anything other than the minimum mandated (even thou we know that let cables fail in Beech).
Operators if pilots generally will have Leady's view that any maintenance than changing oil is excessive maintenance. But get them to agree a pilot should get rostered for 2,000 hour per year and fatigue pops up fast but the LAME on 24/7 call.
Personally I think the wing bolt inspections on Barons is a waste of time and money - never found a fault ever, so why remove, replace or inspect every 5 years. That can lead to maintenance errors - just leave them in there!
That's my cost/safety bit done, if a wing bolt/s fails it will be worth it in the long run!
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never found a crack bolt but have found damage and corroded bath tub fittings which have required changing in beech wing spars . If you look at your beach manual chap 5 time limits. It states intinal requirements for component change and then states after that ypu may make your own times depending on what you find. B200 damage their cables at the aft fuse area. Once again leadie seams to rhink he is god and blames casa and manufacturers for looking after the simple folk.
Then you relize that casa is now full of ex military bring all the 6 poeple to look into a pannel before you put it back on type inspections. They hzve no idea about civilian aviation and now idea about sfa. Funny leadie ex mill and so is gerry. Get the piture yet !
Then you relize that casa is now full of ex military bring all the 6 poeple to look into a pannel before you put it back on type inspections. They hzve no idea about civilian aviation and now idea about sfa. Funny leadie ex mill and so is gerry. Get the piture yet !