Ask the A&Ps 5-year Rubber Replacement

[airhound]

My overall maintenance remarks stem from other than CT experiences.. Our small Professional community polices itself well. I guess other aircraft communities do too, kinda sorta.

Our Log Book entry discussion is meaningful to me an owner-operator. So what about supporting checklists? At annual and for major repairs: Who’s Checking the Checker? The non-trained Owner Operator is, right?

My experience is those IA three liner entries can leave a lot to be desired on their own and Thoroughness can be predicated on supporting checklists/notes. However, been told, as a know-nothing, non-A&P, owner-operator, everything from; “I have my own checklist” and it’s up here (pointing to one’s head) to, Sure-it’s on file, I’ll send a copy, if you want, what’s your address, it’ll take a few weeks”.
 

For official record keeping how important are completed/signed/dated checklists for my filing cabinet? 

Appreciating the camaraderie!

Ho, Ho, Ho!

 

 

 

 

[FredG]

Roger, I have no idea what you are talking about.  Really.  You have derailed a discussion of hoses and attempted to glorify yourself by describing your personality in glowing terms and making claims about something or other you did with Homeland Security.  It has nothing to do with hoses or CT aircraft.  

[Roger Lee]

Airhound said,

"Our Log Book entry discussion is meaningful to me an owner-operator. So what about supporting checklists? At annual and for major repairs: Who’s Checking the Checker? The non-trained Owner Operator is, right?

My experience is those IA three liner entries can leave a lot to be desired on their own and T horoughness can be predicated on supporting checklists/notes. however, been told, as a know-nothing, non-A&P, owner-operator, everything from; “I have my own checklist” and it’s up here (pointing to one’s head) to, Sure-it’s on file, I’ll send a copy, if you want, what’s your address, it’ll take a few weeks”.

Me,

Technically the logbook is the legal document you are required to have, but signed and filled out checklist go a long way and can also protect you in court, with the FAA and the insurance company. Lawyers and courts love documentation and helps keep the owner and mechanic out of trouble. It's like the IRS. You can claim anything you want until you get caught and then need help.  Plus well documented logbooks and checklist keep resale values up and also makes your aircraft more desirable to other buyers.

[airhound]

Thanks Roger! Are the IAs required to have completed checklists on file, for inspection?

[Roger Lee]

55 minutes ago, FredG said:

 

Fred, You're right. See this branched off because of logbook entries and mechanics.

It's always in your best interest to know what type of person trying to keep you safe and legal in all aspects of life. I drifted too far here too, probably because I have too much time on my hands right now. Gives me something to do. I'm not glorifying myself. Just responding to comments. Good ethics from a mechanic which is someone you're trusting your life to is important. Your job as an owner is to make sure your mechanic is doing what you want him to do (you're paying good money for that) and to make sure he follows the rules to keep you out of trouble and to definitely make sure he is protecting you from a disastrous incident.

See, back on track. 

And because you're right on some post they are gone. 

So aiming back at hoses the mechanic and aircraft MFG are the important people to talk to on hose safety, compliance and installation.

 

 

 

[Roger Lee]

28 minutes ago, airhound said:

Thanks Roger! Are the IAs required to have completed checklists on file, for inspection?

No they aren't, but it's BEST PRACTICE for either you or them to have them in case of any issues. It's unfortunate that many mechanics don't use checklist.  They are published for the engine and fuselage. Plus too many times I see mechanics inspect an SLSA under FAA Part 43. Most don't use these checklist, but if you want to be a cut above then use them. Then at least you hope the mechanic followed it and didn't try and treat your engine like a Lycoming or missed half the things. Since day one I have always given my clients checklist with anything I touched, tweaked, torqued or changed. This way they have a good idea I actually looked at everything and they have documentation that helps protects us both from from the FAA, the court and insurance companies. It helps me keep on track and keeps me from missing something. Plus it helps keep their re-sale value up and makes the plane more desirable to the next buyer. This is no different than our cars. 

[Anticept]

I personally agree with log entries being reasonably descriptive, but also reasonable to have brevity. If I followed a procedure, I believe in calling out the reference (revision and section or page included) instead of writing it out. If a test is not a simple pass or fail and useful to monitor, write the result. If a part is substituted and not called out in a specific reference, noting part numbers are appropriate. (not debating legality here, if we're writing a log, the issue should have been settled already). Writing huge, complex logs actually makes future research more difficult, so I like to say as little as I can that still conveys what I did and where my supporting data is.

I also like to organize my logs so the first line conveys if this is routine inspection (calling out what inspection reference was used) and results. Maintenance goes after inspection data and any notes about what I did if it wasn't in a procedure somewhere (ex: you wont have a replace wiring reference but generally it's accepted to replace like with like). Last line calls out post inspection/maintenance such as ground runs or test flight requests.

[Anticept]

22 minutes ago, Roger Lee said:

Plus too many times I see mechanics inspect an SLSA under FAA Part 43. 

This I partially blame on poor oversight. 43 app D is used for everything *except* S-LSA (and maybe a couple other esoteric cases like R&D). I ran into mechanics who were even rotax trained and didn't know that you can't reference App D at all on S-LSA even though they were using the mfg checklist.

I believe S-LSA should have a required legal specific course (Faast Team) because of its uniqueness and difficulty to navigate regs compared to the relatively straight forward standard and experimental stuff. Nothing big, just guidance on inspections, the ASTMs role, and how the manufacturer is responsible for procedures and ongoing compliance and the mechanics role in coordinating more complex mx processes with the mfg, and the safety alert system.

[Madhatter]

2 hours ago, Anticept said:

This I partially blame on poor oversight. 43 app D is used for everything *except* S-LSA (and maybe a couple other esoteric cases like R&D). I ran into mechanics who were even rotax trained and didn't know that you can't reference App D at all on S-LSA even though they were using the mfg checklist.

I believe S-LSA should have a required legal specific course (Faast Team) because of its uniqueness and difficulty to navigate regs compared to the relatively straight forward standard and experimental stuff. Nothing big, just guidance on inspections, the ASTMs role, and how the manufacturer is responsible for procedures and ongoing compliance and the mechanics role in coordinating more complex mx processes with the mfg, and the safety alert system.

They won't do it, I already requested it of the senior people and they said they're not interested. At least in my FSDO.

[Towner]

4 hours ago, Madhatter said:

You guys haven't seen bad ethics until you see what's been going on in the last 20 years with used certified aircraft.

When I make the comment to a used aircraft salesman that I know about how atrocious some of his planes are, even bordering on criminal, he tells me. "There is a sucker born every minute but I will make a lot of money on it". Most of you guys have no clue on how bad things have gotten. A lot of these 50 to 60 year old planes are so worn out and corroded, restoration is almost impossible. The FAA no longer makes rounds at local airports and even if they did , most wouldn't know what to look at, I know these guys, I could write a book on stupid things they've done.

Be glad you have fairly new planes.

I didn’t think the FFA did many inspections anymore either, but they were at my local airport recently to investigate an emergency call a pilot had made during flight.

While at the airport, they walked around and did inspections of other planes parked there. They tagged one airplane as “unairworthy “. Not sure if they had the legal right, but actually went inside his airplane and inspected the cabin. Needless to say, the owners/pilots of the planes being inspected were not present.

[FredG]

3 hours ago, Roger Lee said:

It's always in your best interest to know what type of person trying to keep you safe and legal in all aspects of life.

Roger, trust me, I don't read CTflier to be told what is in my best interest "in all aspects of life."   You do not know what is in my best interest in any aspect of my life with the possible exception of the maintenance of my CTsw.  The fact that you continue to stray from airplane maintenance is a distraction from what people actually come here to do.

[Tom Baker]

34 minutes ago, Towner said:

I didn’t think the FFA did many inspections anymore either, but they were at my local airport recently to investigate an emergency call a pilot had made during flight.

While at the airport, they walked around and did inspections of other planes parked there. They tagged one airplane as “unairworthy “. Not sure if they had the legal right, but actually went inside his airplane and inspected the cabin. Needless to say, the owners/pilots of the planes being inspected were not present.

Most in the FFA don't know the difference between a tractor and airplane.

[Towner]

34 minutes ago, Tom Baker said:

Most in the FFA don't know the difference between a tractor and airplane.

I generally land a tractor much smoother…

[Madhatter]

1 hour ago, Towner said:

I didn’t think the FFA did many inspections anymore either, but they were at my local airport recently to investigate an emergency call a pilot had made during flight.

While at the airport, they walked around and did inspections of other planes parked there. They tagged one airplane as “unairworthy “. Not sure if they had the legal right, but actually went inside his airplane and inspected the cabin. Needless to say, the owners/pilots of the planes being inspected were not present.

First I don't think the Future Famers of America (FFA) know a lot about aircraft but I might be wrong. I have seen numerous aircraft grounded or cited for violations and a few days later they referenced the wrong AD or were completely wrong. Most find a few screws missing or a trim tab a little loose. What amazes me are the aircraft they missed with real problems. Years ago the good inspectors would find a problem and contact the owner off the record and have a talk with him without gestapo actions, but those days are over. I have one FAA friend who used to wander around a maintenance shop that didn't know him until someone asked if he needed help. He would then pull out his badge and say "I'm from the FAA and I'm here to help you"). But he really meant it. 

Every FSDO is different but a lot has changed they used to read and check every 337 and now no one reads them, they are just sent to Oklahoma City.

There are still some good inspectors out there but many are about to retire. A lot of the new guys don't have field experience and will become beurocrates.  Years ago I was asked to join the FAA multiple times but I don't want to be a beurocrat, I wouldn't be able to play well with them.

 

[airhound]

All enlightening of the big picture, thanks!

[airhound]

So, when 172s and the like fall within the Light Sport domain, does that mean no IA necessary, the buck stops with an A&P for log book entries? Like SLSA.

[Madhatter]

9 hours ago, airhound said:

My overall maintenance remarks stem from other than CT experiences.. Our small Professional community polices itself well. I guess other aircraft communities do too, kinda sorta.

Our Log Book entry discussion is meaningful to me an owner-operator. So what about supporting checklists? At annual and for major repairs: Who’s Checking the Checker? The non-trained Owner Operator is, right?

My experience is those IA three liner entries can leave a lot to be desired on their own and Thoroughness can be predicated on supporting checklists/notes. However, been told, as a know-nothing, non-A&P, owner-operator, everything from; “I have my own checklist” and it’s up here (pointing to one’s head) to, Sure-it’s on file, I’ll send a copy, if you want, what’s your address, it’ll take a few weeks”.
 

For official record keeping how important are completed/signed/dated checklists for my filing cabinet? 

Appreciating the camaraderie!

Ho, Ho, Ho!

 

 

 

 

I have been doing annuals on j3 cubs for over 25 years. The maintenance manual is 15 pages, double sided large print and large spaced. Most of it is on rigging instructions and the rest is general stuff like checking pulleys, bleeding brakes, etc. Major repairs were done with CAM18 and now AC4313. There is no real check list of any substance, I guess 43 but that would be a stretch.  The J3 is as basic as you can get, no electrical, no starter no vacuum, etc. I have modified my j3 with 21 STC's, and a DER, soon to be another DER. My check list is my experience and is far more involved than the service manual. I challenge anyone to test me. The FAA has come to visit once and when I started showing and discussing the cub he raised his arms and backed away saying "we stay away from these". Cubs were built under a different certification standard and a lot of FAA guys don't know much about it. Back in the 30's and 40's mechanics were different and had abilities you don't see today, you were expected to know what you are doing. I went to one of those schools and can repair tubular frames with oxycetalene and I did a lot of it, you won't find much of that today.

The service manual is so minimal that it is included in the pilot's operating manual. The only thing I use it for is rigging. Most of my information comes from five large volumes of cub newsletters going back 50 years, there isn't much else.

[Tom Baker]

3 minutes ago, airhound said:

So, when 172s and the like fall within the Light Sport domain, does that mean no IA necessary, the buck stops with an A&P for log book entries? Like SLSA.

Just like Taylorcraft, Cub, Luscombe, and Champs are LSA by definition, their certification didn't change. They still require a IA for an Annual inspection just like they did prior to the LSA rules. I doubt there will be any changes forthcoming to change the inspection requirements of any other type certified aircraft that may be allowed if and when the new Mosaic rules are made law. Just like the present SLSA aircraft there may be some newer heavier airplanes built to an FAA acceptable standard that can be inspected without an inspection authorization, but until the rule is passed it is just speculation.

[Anticept]

13 minutes ago, airhound said:

So, when 172s and the like fall within the Light Sport domain, does that mean no IA necessary, the buck stops with an A&P for log book entries? Like SLSA.

I read through MOSAIC, and I saw nothing that changed this.

That's one of the annoying things about the word choices in the regs. Light sport is a definition (14 cfr 1.1). Special and experimental light sport aircraft is a certification. The two must not be confused.

Special and experimental light sport aircraft must meet the definition of light sport to be certificated. Standard Airworthiness Aircraft can, but does not have to, also meet the light sport definition. As long as they do, they can be flown by sport pilots.

But maintenance does not make any special provisions for standard airworthiness that meets the definition in 1.1 for light sport. One must be a full A&P/IA to perform annuals on standard airworthiness aircraft, full stop.

[Jim Meade]

Roger,

You have not answered my question of how you document non-standard hoses in your logbook entries.