Jump to content

Pics of my engine for review!


Buckaroo

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

It went up accidentally but that's ok! If people want to look at my boring life have at it. On the other hand if someone wants to come over and steal shit that's cool as well. I'm always locked and loaded!

 

Mr Skycatcher you sure worry a lot it seems! Lighten up and enjoy life!

 

Your pictures are fantastic.  And the fact you own other high quality toys like the handgun is a plus too.  We are more than our aircrafts are we not? :clap-3332:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HI Tom,

There is no real right or wrong way just lack of for the most part.

That's the issue on regulations. The FAA told me the regulations were bare minimums and there was nothing stopping anyone from documenting more. They said they encouraged people to write more. During my research to write a couple of articles I sent 10 of my logbook labels to them along with other not so good from others. I prefer legal scrutiny before I need it for real. Their comment was they wished everyone documented like that. It would make everyone's job easier. You can win Ed a little gbook label almost anyway you want so long as the info is in there. They said even though some of those 3-4 liners might pass legally they considered them the bottom of the bucket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was doing logbook entries in aircraft and engine logs, I would want to thoroughly document what was done and why.  On the other hand, I would try to do it in as few words as possible.  Remember, it's quite possible the person suing you is the aircraft owner or his wife/estate.  Having documented something on a separate piece of paper may be of little value in court.

 

People sue.  With or without merit.  It's a litigious society unless we can reform the system and make losers pay court and lawyer costs too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the people that don't know me here documentation is a major soapbox for me. It's the one area that the majority is lacking.

 

 

Hi Doug,

 

I don't care for the practice. They are hard to get later, the next mechanic can't see it when the plane comes into the shop. The system at the shop storing these could crash or the place could burn down, a disgruntled employee could wipe the system, ect... There is no quick access. How hard would it be for that same organization to hit the print tab. Since they hit print for the label and it's supposedly on file then how hard would that have been to leave them as one. When I have people come to the shop I open the logbook to read and there is little there other than saying someone else has it. Now I have no idea what was done or not done or if they did a crappy annual or inspection. Then it takes them time to call and try to get a copy in some sort of a decent time line and when people are only here two days that won't happen.

 

Since the owner is paying damn good hard earned money to get an inspection done they should demand that the rotax checklist and fuselage checklist be used. Signed and annotated as to what was done. I had one come in from Lockwood. It wasn't filled out on the front. Could have been any plane. It had initials along the way, but not all areas and you had no idea who the mechanic was and he didn't annotate anything along the way so you have no idea what he did.

 

You guys pay good money to get something that is very important done. They are not doing you any favors so get it done so you have some real well documented records. Anyone should be able to look at a logbook or other documentation from an inspection and not have any questions as to what was done or if things were left out which is a HUGE problem with many mechanics. Unless they document then it's just a crapshoot.  Get something for your money and expect and accept nothing less.

 

The FAA says you have to document. Unfortunately they don't spell out very well what is needed and it's vague and only a guideline. They said it was the bare minimum to meet legal requirements. Is that what owners want the bottom 10% or the top 10% working and documenting what was done so you know, the next mechanic knows, the next owner knows, and possibly the FAA and insurance company if that becomes an issue.

 

In all my schooling and legal work with documentation the biggest documented reason for poor documentation is laziness. Second is lack of education on what should really be there. Just because you go to a school that has an instructor doesn't make him good. He may be a bottom 10%'er too.

 

 

Ask Bill Ince his experience with asking a service center to do better documentation. he even handed them the Rotax checklist.  I would have handed it back and told them to do it right. Documentation takes time. If you don't want to do it you're in the wrong business. When I'm done doing the work on an inspection I spend at least 2-3 hours on paperwork on the computer to give to the customer. Some inspections are 2 pages in the logbook at #9 size font to cover everything. 

 

 

Ask yourself do you want a 3-4 line annual inspection logbook label? May most likely aren't getting what you paid for and didn't get what you were supposed to. Every Time I have to call another mechanic to ask if something was done they usually say they don't remember or they didn't know that had to be done. These guys are a lawyers dream for a client.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger, when you lost your engine, Rotax replaced it for reasons other than your documentation (IMHO).  When my engine failed (with similar time) due to a well-known crankcase weakness, Rotax never response to any of my efforts to contact them and they never asked for my log books.  I worked through one of the three US Rotax distributors.

 

Do you really think you are a "typical" Rotax customer?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have talked with Rotax warranty / engine claims people many times. Here is what they say (I talked to them directly). If you do not do or log the 25 hr. inspection no warranty. If you have crappy logbooks and or fail to do the prescribed maintenance no warranty or help with cost when you are out of warranty. If you use the wrong oils or aftermarket parts no warranty or after warranty help.. When I use the word warranty it also included engines out of warranty claims, but the owner is filing a claim to get help. They say the majority of the logbooks are terrible. When I did mine I submitted my logbooks that covered the engine from day one with the engine claim. My engine was 6 years old with 833 hrs. They called me after 48 hours and said and I quote: "We never see logbooks like this and this makes our decision easy. We will replace your engine and you only have to pay for the used hours." I had a new engine in 7-10 days.

I have had a couple of people tell me a particular service center didn't want the logbook unless they ask. The claims department always wants the logbook so that was poor advice. They do a terrible job inspecting the form for problems and lines left blank. This just causes huge delays every time the claims has to call and ask why it isn't filled out correctly.

 

This said some service center people are better at their job and keep on an engine claim and call the claims department without being prompted. Others just sit and let it go until an owner complains which doesn't happen that often either.

 

Good documentation is for the life of that engine not just the last inspection.

 

It most likely wasn't Rotax that failed you, but the service center that didn't keep up or pursue your claim.

 

Just so users know. If you have an engine claim you must fill out a CSIR (customer service incident report), you must fill in all blanks even if you have to write not applicable on a line, you must copy and send in your entire logbook from day one with that engine. Then once a week I would be calling the service center for ongoing info. This is more to get them to get things moving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds to me detailed standardization with regard to maintenance and documentation is missing from Rotax and their relationship with authorized mechanics! This makes me nervous as a new owner of a Rotax product. My up coming rubber hose replacement may be done in many different ways I gather depending on where I take her. A good example is the work performed on my 2007 CTSW through the years. There's got to be a standardization developed industry wide with Rotax that governs the quality of work, parts used, technique and documentation!

 

My 2015 BMW has standards with regard to parts, technique and book entries which are more consistent that what I'm learning and seeing in my aircraft log book. My BMW can't catch fire at 12,500 feet or lose a engine and kill me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"There's got to be a standardization developed industry wide with Rotax that governs the quality of work, parts used, technique and documentation! "

 

There is, but some fail to follow and do what's right. This happens way too much. Some think they can change whatever they want on an SLSA and some absolutely have no idea what can be done legally to an SLSA. Some mechanics don't know how to work on a Rotax, don't have manuals and fail to ask someone when needed. If they don't at least have the manuals I would walk. Ask them where they can find the SB's, if they can't walk. That tells me they want the money, but not willing to learn what it takes to do the job right.

This is where the owner comes in. Just like a Doctor or lawyer. Ask for referrals and ask the mechanic questions. Educate yourself. This is a must. make them use a checklist. Ask them if they have ever done this procedure before. Going a little farther away to get a better mechanic may be time well worth spending. An A&P that hasn't been to a Rotax school may not be the best choice.

 

Ask the owners here on this sight. They can help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to Rotax-owners.com and looked up their map of Rotax schooled technicians. I called a couple in Idaho and Montana as listed on the map. When they answered I asked each and everyone of them if they could do the five year hose replacement. A couple asked what that was and had a slim idea of that procedure and the other two said sure they can handle that! I then asked if they had the parts and knew about the carb rebuild and other work involved. All those thought the hose thing was simple and a easy procedure that involves a few hoses. I can picture my plane with auto hose clamps vibrating loose and cutting rubber into my carbs.

 

This is concerning to me but reading your posts and listening to your feedback I would like you to do my 5 year replacement in the Spring if you will. Also I'll need a annual then as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger, thanks for the response.

I log the use of both Rotax and FD checklists, SDs, and anything unusual or replaced, I keep the checklists and SDs on file. Last inspection the log included oil, filter, plugs, float bowl gaskets and sight tubes. If there was anything unusual with compression, oil filter inspection, mag plug, gascolator, float bowls, plugs or anything else it would be noted in the logbook.

All the measurements (compression, clutch torque, etc.) are on the checklists on file but not in the logbook if they are in normal range.

I should add that I document much more than the previous owners - an FD dealer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Doug,

 

"I should add that I document much more than the previous owners - an FD dealer."

 

You just can't go wrong with good detailed documentation and it makes the plane easier to sell and helps keep its value up.

I'm sure some of the problem with some is what entails good documentation. It may be a little subjective to them. To me a detailed logbook entry is written by nothing more than a secretary. You write what you touched, torqued, fixed, SB's, important items extra. It doesn't have to be in any special format. The FAA just gave us minimum guidelines (right out of their mouth) and aren't limiting in how much you can write. If you want to write 4 pages worth then have at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right out of the regulations, "(1) The type of inspection and a brief description of the extent of the inspection.". I don't think a 4 page entry could be considered brief.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti documentation. I just think all the detailed fluff as Corey put it should be on a separate document for the owner than in the logbook. When provided to the owner after maintenance or inspection they should be retained as part of the aircraft records just as if it had been written in a logbook. In fact when it comes to logbook for aircraft maintenance there is no requirement to even have one. What you are required to have is aircraft records, they could be written on napkins if you wanted and still be legal. Also once an inspection has been completed the previous inspection can be completely removed from the records. I'm not advising you do that, but it is completely legal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Tom,

 

"brief"

 

How much in your interpretation is brief?

 

What if the logbook is narrow vs wide?

Dependant on the amount of work done 4 pages could be brief. If the engine and fuselage were both overhauled/rebuilt at annual time. Brief is very subjective.

 

Personally I don't care what format people write in a logbook (more than one way to skin a cat theme) so long as it has some meat to it and I think or at least hope everyone here thinks a 3-4 line annual logbook label is unacceptable and stems from just being lazy. I like to be able to open a logbook and see what was done. Not just some sentence that it was found to be in safe condition for operation. 9 times out of 10 I usually find things that weren't done, but the label said it was done IAW. That 3 letters means you did it all and are held to that level in a court. If you left anything out you didn't do it IAW. That's a terrible solo 3 letter item to use without detailed follow up. I don't think every single itsy bitsy item needs to be in the logbook, but that's where the checklist comes in that you signed showing it was at least looked at. This is where the owner should ask for a signed list.

 

 

This is subjective. Does that mean don't write 4 pages only write one, write 4 lines or one paragraph. When I talked to the FAA during my research to write a paper they said this was only a minimum guideline and that they encouraged mechanics and owners to write more.

 

I wouldn't think the FAA would want the last or older annual lables tossed because they have info on what was legally changed, fixed, SB compliance and trends for wear problems, ect... I'll try and call them tomorrow and ask that very question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I 'hear' Roger saying he wants to write as much detail as he deems necessary.  I 'hear' other say they want their logbooks to be compliant with the 'rules'.  The difference is imprecise and subjective. 

 

Lone Mountain uses labels that contain their idea of 'standardized' language for a given service they render.  For 'squawks' or work not deemed standard they write a sentence or so.  Frankly, I have no clue if what Lone Mountain does satisfies Rotax or Flight Design.  I do know that when the work was covered under 'warranty' Lone Mountain took care of it.  The same is true today applying to work done on my Cirrus at Woodland Aviation (a Cirrus Certified Shop).

 

A big reason I am not interested in doing my own work is to avoid conflict by using a shop the manufacturers have certified.  The cost may be a bit more, but the warranty work is never questioned when it comes up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Tom,

 

"brief"

 

How much in your interpretation is brief?

 

What if the logbook is narrow vs wide?

Dependant on the amount of work done 4 pages could be brief. If the engine and fuselage were both overhauled/rebuilt at annual time. Brief is very subjective.

 

Personally I don't care what format people write in a logbook (more than one way to skin a cat theme) so long as it has some meat to it and I think or at least hope everyone here thinks a 3-4 line annual logbook label is unacceptable and stems from just being lazy. I like to be able to open a logbook and see what was done. Not just some sentence that it was found to be in safe condition for operation. 9 times out of 10 I usually find things that weren't done, but the label said it was done IAW. That 3 letters means you did it all and are held to that level in a court. If you left anything out you didn't do it IAW. That's a terrible solo 3 letter item to use without detailed follow up. I don't think every single itsy bitsy item needs to be in the logbook, but that's where the checklist comes in that you signed showing it was at least looked at. This is where the owner should ask for a signed list.

 

 

This is subjective. Does that mean don't write 4 pages only write one, write 4 lines or one paragraph. When I talked to the FAA during my research to write a paper they said this was only a minimum guideline and that they encouraged mechanics and owners to write more.

 

I wouldn't think the FAA would want the last or older annual lables tossed because they have info on what was legally changed, fixed, SB compliance and trends for wear problems, ect... I'll try and call them tomorrow and ask that very question.

 

Roger no need to call the FAA, the answer is in 91.417. Look it up.

 

Inspection sign offs should include what inspection was performed, what checklist was used to perform the inspection, and any routine maintenance items that normally go with that inspection.

 

Any other major work that is not normal part of the inspection should be logged as a separate maintenance entry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger no need to call the FAA, the answer is in 91.417. Look it up.

 

Inspection sign offs should include what inspection was performed, what checklist was used to perform the inspection, and any routine maintenance items that normally go with that inspection.

 

Any other major work that is not normal part of the inspection should be logged as a separate maintenance entry.

 

 

Hi Tom,

 

According to your answer and definition here any crappy 3-6 line annual label is negligent.

 

You put your finger on a couple of problems that I see every time an LSA comes into the shop from an A&P.

No checklist used. Then the routine maint. Items which could be everything and all repeat SB's. Any routine maint. Items covers everything on both checklist which would be a very lengthy logbook label.

 

I just got home from the perfect example airplane.

 

It was a 2014 Sling with a 912iS. The gearbox had been torn apart twice, the stator replaced twice and an electrical plug. There is no explanation why. Was it routine maint., was it a problem, was it a repeat problem. What was the cause to look for this problem in the future and to alert the owner and next mechanic to watch for. There were several logbook entrie that said something was done out of the norm, but no one knows why or what to keep their eyes open for since it looks like a repeat issue.

 

A little of that fluff to explain why these were done multiple times would have been good. I usually write that I safety wired the oil tank and mag plug. They didn't and sure enough no safety wire on either. If they had the mag plug come out and fry the engine the maint. Shop would be on the hook for a new engine and labor.

My fluff saying I did in fact safety wired those would protect me better especially if the next guy doesn't do it either. The plugs were in the log as being done. No other info. Guess what. Gaps at .030 with anti seize. I always log the gap and that I applied the correct thermal paste. Protected again. No silicone on the springs and not safety wired properly. I log these things too. If I had been called to court as an expert witness these guys would have been toast from their logbook labels.

 

My take away here is fluff is your only protection from having someone sue you (and win) along with some other neglectful mechanic and it can be defended if the FAA wants your license because they can't say you didn't use due diligence. I know you can be sued anytime, but having some leg to stand on may mean the difference from winning or loosing. If it's in front of a jury they'll give you the Benicia of the doubt if you showed better logbook diligence over the 3 liner guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that and now that you have a Cirrus and not a CT you would have to be an A&P to do your own work.

 

I am going to own an Aerotrek with a Rotax 912iS also in the near future.   It's a big reason I am hanging around the board and picking up tidbits regarding the engine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom,

I think that 91.417 is a good reference.

 

In my experience, many owners are very unfamiliar with their responsibilities in 14 CFR part 91.417.

 

Mx record "fluff" is a pet peeve of mine. Owners can produce the last 30 yrs. of oil changes and inspections records, but can't show me the current status of applicable Airworthiness Directives or Safety Directives. Many can't find records for alterations.

 

In the end, it doesn't matter much to me from a records point,why a certain maintenance task was performed. As an inspector, I only have to confirm the CURRENT condition of the product. As an inspector, do I really care that a tire was changed because it was worn? I don't. I only care about the current condition of the tire. Do I really care what the last 10 years of compressions were? Not much. I only care what the current compression readings are. As an inspector, I don't really concern myself much with what previous inspectors have done or not done because once my maintenance is complete, and I approve the aircraft for return to service, I own it.

 

Like others, I am not suggesting that additional historical info is not valuable, but it does not belong in a maintenance record. I am also not suggesting to an owner that they discard "expired records".

 

I have actually been skeptical of "fluffy" records in the past. You get a two page inspection entry and when you look at the aircraft from across the hangar you can tell that the brakes are installed upside down. Makes me wonder whether the previous inspection was performed with a flashlight and mirror..................or a pen. But at any rate, it really doesn't matter because I will

soon be responsible the my own inspection of the aircraft, and the previous maintenance records will then have effectively "expired".

 

Owners should become very familiar with 91.417, and spend some time talking with their mechanic about the practical reasons why certain records are permanent, and other are not.

 

Doug Hereford

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"In the end, it doesn't matter much to me from a records point,why a certain maintenance task was performed. As an inspector, I only have to confirm the CURRENT condition of the product. I don't."

 

But you still have to determine if issues are repeat, new, degrading or work done not in accordance to the MFG by possibly adding or removing something you have no personal knowledge off.

 

 

" I only care about the current condition of the tire."

I would care because they may be wearing prematurely and being replaced every 100 hours or so when they should last let's say 400 hours. This tells me there is a good chance the alignment is out and if there are no repeated entries how would I know to fix the alignment? If I just slapped a new set of tires on the next mechanic has no clue as to what and why.

 

 

 

 

"Do I really care what the last 10 years of compressions were?"

I would care because I can see a possible slow decline in a cylinder or a rapid acute drop. Without something to compare to how would I know if a particular pressure has been normal or has been looked at. How would I know that his gauge may be possibly wrong. If you  don't write them down like over 50% of the books I see then when called to court in 8 months you won't remember. If you fail with simple things like this this usually tells  me and lawyers what type of job I may be looking at overall.

 

 

 

Not much. I only care what the current compression readings are.

 

 

"As an inspector, I don't really concern myself much with what previous inspectors have done"

I think you should. It might be to advise the owner to stay clear of that mechanic or to see if they may have done unapproved items that when seeing other aircraft you may not know whether it was done by the factory or the last mechanic. With the lack of documentation from this same lack luster mechanic how would you know if they did any SB's or even looked for them?

 

 

"or not done because once my maintenance is complete, and I approve the aircraft for return to service, I own it."

 

You might end up owning what the last guy did and don't even know it and especially if all you write is IAW and that's about all. You may not know what is factory because the last mechanic or owner has poor documentation.

 

Without good records you can set yourself up to fail legally and you may not even know it. I have been to court so much over the last 30 years I'll choose the better documentation every time and according to all the lawyers and judges I have dealt with so do they. I have not once been raked over the coals in court due to record keeping and documentation, but I have certainly seen lots of them tagged even when they thought their work documentation was adequate. If all you think of your documentation is adequate then it may not be good. 

 

On a scale of 1-10 do you want to be a 1 or a 10 documenter? 1 is FAA minimum, I would call 5 adequate and a 10 smart.

 

I am surprised that many don't or won't see that good documentation is for their benefit, the owners benefit, the next mechanics benefit and your only protection, but you see it in the police, fire services and medical field, but only once when you are called on the carpet and can't give any good answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...