Doug Hereford Posted January 13, 2015 Report Share Posted January 13, 2015 Roger Lee rules, or the rules created by "We the People"? Also Roger, come on with the paramedic references. I have been a fire medic in the Kansas City ghetto since early 1991. We both know what that's about. We get protocol revisions every other month. The basic rule is " First, Do No Harm". I am also a certified diver (we are probably not the only ones on this forum who are). Who cares? It is all personal accountablility. We are all adults. Doug Hereford Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted January 14, 2015 Report Share Posted January 14, 2015 "Who cares? It is all personal accountablility. We are all adults. Doug Hereford " The Medical oath. " First, Do No Harm". That would carry over to pilots and passengers. Same as a mechanic in my book. "It is all personal accountablility. We are all adults." "Who cares?' We all should care. Personal accountability is "what side of the fence do you fall on" and it's everything as a mechanic, a medic or a diver. What side of the fence do you want to fall on. You said the same thing I did just different words. p.s. Diving for more than 46 years. I redesigned this particular side of the dive industry and I MFG'ed the dive gear. This is all my design: http://www.airlinebyjsink.com/ If you watch the video you may even see someone you know. I have since sold out, but the company is still going strong. You missed the point of my post. When people have lax or poor attitudes in some things it typically shows with their life and personal attitude because these things are not singular life style events. Rules aren't created by we the people. That's idealistic. They are created because dumb people do stupid things and regulatory agencies or employers feel the need to make a new rule to stop the next dummy and all too often it becomes the shotgun approach to the problem. Rules never had to be made until someone did something to caused a new rule. Every rule written is done so with the idea of some sort of protection for someone or something. Didn't you know we need protection from ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Hereford Posted January 14, 2015 Report Share Posted January 14, 2015 Roger, Read the excerpt from Anticept's post in the Piper AD above. Whenever there is a statment preceded by the word "commenter", it is referring to a real person, a common "joe blo" like you or me. The actual preamble to that AD is much longer, and filled with commenter's input. That rule is not unique. Each time a change to the FAR's is proposed, "We the People" have the right (and arguably the responsibility) to opine. The AMOC mentioned was also as a result of input by "We the People". This is not idealistic. It actually happens, for real, everyday. Poor choice of wording on my part with regard to "Who Cares". I didn't mean it to imply that position regarding the hose change ( or maintenance in general) discussion. Rather that everyone on this forum has extensive and diverse back grounds I am sure. Sometimes long "sermons" can come off as "soap boxy". I singled out the Fire Dept thing, because I have personal knowledge on it. I have no doubt that everyone here spends alot of time thinking about the serious nature of what we do. Any implications to the contrary are non-productive at a minimum. Doug Hereford Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Meade Posted January 14, 2015 Report Share Posted January 14, 2015 For many years, A&Ps held forth on the evils of operating lean of peak. Engine companies were either mute or supported rich of peak operations. George Braly, John Deakin and a few others took the time to conduct testing and found, to their surprise, that many long held beliefs did not withstand scientific investigation. They found and now some engine companies agree that lean of peak operation can be beneficial and perhaps better for engine longevity. During WWII, a British operations research group studied the maintenance records of B-24 bombers and concluded that the amount of maintenance needed was highly correlated to the amount of maintenance just done. In other words, when people did maintenance (such as a 50 hour inspection) they messed things up and more maintenance was necessary. As a direct result of these findings, it is reported that US airlines do much of their maintenance on condition rather than on time. Mike Busch is one GA advocate of maintenance based on needing to do it as opposed to doing it based on some schedule. The above comments are based on generally available information but if anyone wants references I'll dig some up and post them. We're discussing here the efficacy of changing hoses at a periodic interval. We are not shown the basis for the five year interval. We are given lectures based on one man's experience in another field about the maintenance philosophy we should espouse. We're warned that we may be liable if we don't apply standards that in the case of ELSA we are not required to apply. George Braly and Mike Busch impress me as advocates of reasoned maintenance, and if one doesn't agree with them, one can at least point to data to discuss, not preferences or opinions or indirect experiences. Every one of us is required by the FAA to perform maintenance if we see an item that is not in acceptable condition, whether a manufacturer gives an time or not. If a hose is no longer up to standard, one repairs it no matter how young it is. The bottom line is condition trumps time. That is logical to me. One thing it does is raises the bar that we each understand condition. If one can make a case that one can not inspect the inside of a hose and that the inside of a hose is known to fail after so much time, then we can discuss that. But changing hoses at 5 years as opposed to 4 1/2 years or 5 1/2 years is inane, in my judgment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted January 14, 2015 Report Share Posted January 14, 2015 This is a lot like Religion. We pick a side of the fence to fall on and move on, but don't disparage the other side. These discussions are a no win debate from either side. Each will say they are right and they can be on each individually judged issue. We all know what side of the fence we fall on so off we go knowing we are right. I think on condition inspections would be great except for most of the people that make that decision. Lack of education and continued education makes for poor decisions. How many here would remove all their oil and fuel lines from fire sleeve to inspect them? (Zero) On condition inspection of certain items is predicated on the fact the the person making that decision is educated enough to make it. The one major thing that no one talks about is most use financial reasons to make too many of those decisions. I see it all the time and people call me and tell me they need to wait due to money issues, but they keep flying. I get calls all the time from people asking me now what because they crashed their plane and want to know how to fix it and how much. I have pilots ask me too many times if they are being forced to fix something worn out. It needs it from an on condition observation, but I think they walk around waving a flag that says, You can't make me do it. The problem with human nature is not making that on condition decision based purely on it's condition, but on money, laziness and lack of expertise on that item. This is the rule unfortunately and not the exception. Getting people to read, go to school, research and get help from more experienced people is an up hill battle so where do these people get the knowledge to make those decisions? So from decades of experience watching people make these decisions the companies of all kinds around the world and governments have learned to draw the line in the sand for us like it or not we ask for it. To me if you don't like a rule or reg. then blame the idiot that caused it. Somebody or a group of somebodies did things to a point that someone thought they needed to make a rule or reg. So those very people caused you to loose on condition decisions. There are some people I know that I would trust my life to to make a decision for me and others I wouldn't let in the same room. I'm jumping down from my soapbox now and time to move on to a different thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbigs Posted January 14, 2015 Report Share Posted January 14, 2015 Illustrating those who 'error on the side of...' versus the crowd of risk takers who rarely see the need to spend money on prevention. FAA Issues AD On Continental Engine Cylinders 8-2013 http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/FAA-Proposes-Checks-For-Thousands-Of-GA-Engines220412-1.html In the AVWEB article the pushback from ECi is disturbing. And the AOPA likewise seems to always find fault with FAA safety decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted January 14, 2015 Report Share Posted January 14, 2015 Illustrating those who 'error on the side of...' versus the crowd of risk takers who rarely see the need to spend money on prevention. So...the entire debate and what is actually being argued is completely lost on you. Got it, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Meade Posted January 14, 2015 Report Share Posted January 14, 2015 Roger, we are expected to make an on condition inspection each time we operate an aircraft. That doesn't change because someone decides to put a time line in it. If Rotax wants me to follow their guidelines in my ELSA, they can give me the criteria they use. It is interesting that you compare the discussion with religion. I hope that my maintenance practices don't have anything to do with religion but have to do with objective reality. It seems to me to be more between myth and objectivity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.