Owner maintenance

[Colonel]

I used to teach my students that maintenance entries[br /](such as an annual inspection, for private aircraft) had[br /][i]absolutely nothing[/i] to do with physical airworthiness of an aircraft.[br /][br /]Take a privately-registered Cherokee that's been sitting [br /]in the infield, not flying since it's annual 11 months ago.[br /][br /]Someone that cares about paperwork would look at the[br /]journey log and say, "Hey! TC says it's good to go!".[br /][br /]Practically speaking, that aircraft is pretty fucked. The[br /]battery is dead - it may have even cracked in the winter[br /]and poured acid all over the bottom of the fuselage - [br /]the tires are flat, the oleos need pumping up, the cowl[br /]and tail are probably full of bird's nests and oh yeah [br /]the cam and cylinder walls are probably done for, too.[br /][br /]And it might have been damaged by people mowing[br /]the lawn or blowing snow around it. I've seen chunks[br /]of ice go right through the windshield from the blower.[br /][br /]And were the flight controls damaged by high winds?

It probably had leaking fuel caps - no one ever changes
the seals, so the tanks are probably full of water.

Now, if that annual inspection had been done 13 months[br /]ago, well, the airplane magically would have been transformed[br /]from legal and airworthy to illegal and un-airworthy.[br /][br /]Uh huh.[br /][br /]Regulatory compliance is no guarantee whatsoever that[br /]the aircraft is airworthy.[br /][br /]The reason that you need an annual inspection in your[br /]journey log within the last year in a privately-registered[br /]aircraft, is to protect yourself against malevolent bureaucrats[br /]that couldn't find a job in the private sector.[br /][br /]It is up to you as the pilot/owner/operator to evaluate[br /]an airplane before you fly it. Is it physically and legally[br /]airworthy?[br /][br /]My apologies if my engineering approach to machinery[br /]upsets you.

[John Swallow]

Andrew:

“Regulatory compliance is no guarantee whatsoever that the aircraft is airworthy.”

You are correct in that statement.  However, this discussion has nothing to do with whether or not aircraft owners know anything about Airworthiness Directives on their magnetos, their carbs, their filters, or their alternators. 

This is not about how many aircraft owners have spread sheets with calendar and flight times tracking their AD required inspections.

This is not about the micturition contest between you and Transport Canada. 

This is about whether or not your insurance company can find a loop-hole through which they emerge with their money intact…

Here’s what it’s about:
    You go up in your aircraft and put on a dazzling 20 minutes of eye-watering low-level aerobatics (all caught of video, BTW).  During the final loop-to-a-landing, a locked brake sends the aircraft off the runway, across the taxiway, and into a conveniently placed drainage ditch which stops the aircraft but irreparably damages it in the process.

The question is:  will your insurance company pony up the funds after they find out that your C of A was invalid, your medical was out of date, and you have no valid ACE card and there is no SFOC in existence? 

None of the other stuff is germane…


PS  From my source down east:  TimBit was SOL on their claim; no insurance money. 

PPS  No need to apologize for your approach to keeping safe…

[Colonel]

Oh dear.

John, you're arguing my case.

[quote]this discussion has nothing to do with whether or not aircraft owners know anything about Airworthiness Directives[/quote]

Oh yes, it is.  Like almost all aircraft owners, you have
no idea what an Airworthiness Directive is, or how to
comply with it.

But AD's must be complied with, for the C of A to be
in force.

If AD's are not complied with, the C of A is not in force.

I don't know how to explain this any clearer.  Are we
agreed upon the above?  I can dig up the CARs reference
for you, if you don't believe me that AD compliance is
required for the C of A to be valid.

Now that we have agreed on the above, I accept your
ridicule that private owners of certified aircraft have
absolutely no clue about AD compliance.  Therefore it
is extremely likely that their C of A is not in force.

Therefore, according to you, no one has any insurance,
and no insurance company ever has to pay out.

That is silly, John.

Ask any 172 owner about gas caps and sintered oil
pump gears, and watch the furrows form on their brows.

They haven't a clue.

[Colonel]

[quote]FAA AD Note 96-09-10, which is covered in Lycoming Service Bulletin 524. Service Bulletin 524 addresses the subject of replacing sintered iron oil pump impellers and aluminum oil pump impellers in various specific engine models. It’s quite complex and deserves close attention to determine whether your engine is involved. The final determination may have an impact on the TBO of an engine.

For those of us who have been around GA for some time, seeing something that deals oil pump impeller gears in a Lycoming engine causes rapid heart beat, nausea, and a host of other things right off the bat. I must admit this subject has been a real test of mental endurance for many of us in the industry, going back to the late 1970s. The subject of oil pump impellers unfolded almost more times than any one person could bear, but I think we’ve seen the last of it.

The only question remaining is: How do you know what you’ve got in your engine? Before you begin, get a copy of Lycoming Service Bulletin 524. Once you have that document in hand, the following advice should be followed by anyone who doesn’t know exactly what they have installed in their engine. Start with a close review of all engine paperwork, such as the engine logbook, maintenance records, including but not limited to AD Note compliance, shop work orders, overhaul parts sheets, etc. Check closely for any mention of previous compliance with past Lycoming Service Bulletins (depending on specific engine models), such as Service Bulletin 385 or Service Bulletin 456 or any of their revisions and the respective AD Notes making reference to these bulletins.

NOTE: It is very important that you read, digest, and review Lycoming Service Bulletin 524 before doing anything else. The important part of this exercise is to determine if your specific engine serial number falls within those covered in the Service Bulletin. However, this does not mean that your engine may not be involved. If your engine was repaired in the field at some point after it was shipped from the Lycoming factory, there is no way the factory can tell you what oil pump impellers are installed and this is where complete review of all specific engine records becomes so important.

The difficult part about all of this is verifying the actual parts installed. The likelihood of those being replaced in the field increases with the time the engine has been away from the factory. In other words, who knows what might have been done to comply with the oil pump impeller situation once the engine left the factory? If the engine was overhauled in the field and the oil pump impellers were replaced, the specific part numbers of the oil pump impellers installed should be listed on the overhaul paperwork for that engine and AD Note compliance so recorded.

Things might turn ugly from this point forward. The FAA only requires a repair station to maintain records for a limited period of time, which really isn’t that long. Most good overhaul facilities will maintain records for a longer period than the FAA requirement, but each facility establishes that time and then the records are discarded. You can see where this could leave you in a real bind if you cannot locate specific oil pump impeller part numbers in some record you still have access to.

Let me try to sum this entire thing up for you: If you cannot confirm in any of the engine records the specific oil pump impeller part numbers after reviewing SB 524, then you may have no other choice than to inspect the engine by removing the accessory housing and the oil pump body. With regard to your question as it impacts the engine TBO, yes it may, and your attention should be directed to the Time Of Compliance section in Service Bulletin 524.

I can tell you there is one certain way to confirm what you’ve got in your engine: Inspect the engine by removing the accessory housing and the oil pump body. I can see you rolling your eyes now and saying, “does he know how much that’ll cost?” But to be in compliance, you’ve got to know.

I’ll just add you can’t put a price tag on safety and you’ve got to find out what’s in there.

“Seeing something that deals oil pump impeller gears causes rapid heart beat, nausea, and a host of other things right off the bat.”[/quote]

And that's one tiny little flyspeck of pepper in
the pile of shit known as AD's.

[Colonel]

I'll stick with the 172 because it's a particularly
unusual, exotic aircraft, produced in low numbers
and rarely found in private hands.

But here's a typical example of the applicable AD's
to a 172 from the mid-70's:

[img width=193 height=500][/img]

I will wager that there is not a single privately-registered
172 in all of Canada, that I could not find to be in non-
compliance with either the paper or physical aspect of
AD compliance.

If that is so, then there is not a single privately-owned
172 in Canada that has a C of A in force.

Then according to you, there is not a single privately-
owned 172 that has valid insurance.

What nonsense all this chickenshit paperwork is,
that you regard so highly.

You probably hate Americans - I rather like my ex-USAF
and ex-USN friends - but they have a marvellous saying:

[size=18pt][b]Skin, tin, ticket[/b][/size].

The paperwork is your last concern.

The best pilots I know have no paper.

The worst pilots I know have paper.

Think about it.