I'm a Believer isn't just a song

[Roger Lee]

Sent from one of our CT friends,

 

 

"Hi Roger,

I have to admit that I wasn't in favor of the 5 year hose change. But this what I found. This oil hose goes from the sump to the oil tank. It was in contact with the #4 exhaust. Burnt through the fire sleeve and outer layers of the hose. I was within minutes of an engine fire. The hose wasn't routed properly from the factory.

I'm a supporter now!"

 

Good luck if someone thinks they can find these with their X-ray vision and only change hoses on condition. They are hidden under the fires sleeve.

The others were from wear and not heat damaged.

It was a nice find.

This is the 4th or 5th hose someone has sent me pics with damaged hose under the fire sleeve that was close to failure. If this hose had finished breaking in flight you would be buying a new engine and it would have burnt up before you even knew it, not to mention a possible smashed plane.

[FredG]

I hate to ask, but, shouldn't the direct contact of a hose to an exhaust component be found before the five year hose replacement?

[Roger Lee]

I have seen others like this. It happens when some check hoses and accidentally move them or a wire tie pops off and the hose moves.

This is just an example. Vibration and abrasion does the same thing. I have seen quite a few fire sleeves with blemishes on the outside skin.

 

The point is you can't see what's under the fire sleeve and this fire sleeve doesn't lead you to believe the under lying hose would look like this.

[Anticept]

Roger,

 

This is worthy of a service difficulty report. The customer should strongly consider filing one with Dave Armando so that FD has it on record, and if necessary, add in additional QC.

[Doug Hereford]

I agree with FredG and Anticept. The issue here is routing, not age of the hose. You don't need x-ray to see the damage to the fire sleeve. Changing this hose is the correct thing to do, but the definitive fix is to correct the improper routing/securing. If it was routed as originally designed, than FD may need to issue a Safety Directive to mandate additional inspections, modification to routing or mandatory replacement of that hose only.

[Jim Meade]

Citing a misrouted hose as an excuse for a hose replacement is the opposite of good maintenance practice. The lesson learned should be condition inspection of the hoses at each regular inspection interval. This should have been caught by any good inspector at the first look.

 

It does no good to one's credibility to say that because the factory routed a hose wrong we should change it every five years. Does that mean the replacement hose can be routed wrong, as well, as long as we change it every five years?

 

Notify FD, with pictures, so they can correct the QC issue and better instruct and inspect their mechanics. Could notify the FAA, as well.

 

[sandpiper]

Jim - I don't disagree in general but I did have one water hose coming out of the tank on top of the engine that was cracked or sliced on the inside of the bend. The only way anyone could have found this is if they removed the hose. Poor design from the factory, IMHO.