Aileron alignment question

[Magman]

It is possible, they are right. Asked to see the rigging fixtures to see what they used. If they cannot produce them, they are wrong.
The “I/a/w” really isn’t .

 

[murphey]

Yeah, they have a massive library of maintenance manuals... Plus they own and operate their own Arrow 2.

Great! Next question - do they ever open the manuals, read them and use the info?

 

[Dan Thomas]

Also, I should add they reserved the right to change their mind based on what they see in person tomorrow.

They need to change their minds based on what the Service Manual says. What they see might look right to them if they're not in the habit of consulting the manual.

There is a common "norm" in aircraft maintenance: Doing stuff the way you picked it up in your apprenticeship, or just flying in the dark and coming up with your own methods. But if your own methods don't match with the service manuals, you're not going to get it right.

Norms are one of the Dirty Dozen Human Factors in aircraft maintenance. They lead to mistakes.



As always, there is overlap, and there are at least two of these at work in the flap and aileron problems. Norms cause mechanics to do the procedure the wrong way. Maybe the manual isn't available, so we have the Lack of Resources. That in turn causes a Lack of Knowledge. Maybe the mechanic know that he should have the manual but the boss won't buy them, so the mechanic suffers a Lack of Assertiveness when he knuckles under and just makes adjustments instead of refusing to shortcut the work like that. If the boss isn't supporting his staff, we have a Lack of Teamwork.

 

[ArrowFlyer86]

They need to change their minds based on what the Service Manual says. What they see might look right to them if they're not in the habit of consulting the manual.

Thanks.

I'm going to flip open the mx manual and point to the steps about aileron rigging and then ask them to do what's outlined. But at the end of the day it's up to them to actually follow through with each step.
And like most customers I'll be none the wiser if they take a short-cut. I'll have to take their word that it was done right.

Re: human factors. That I can't control.
Also, IMHO, that list is missing one: work ethic. If you don't have that internal drive and pride in your work then no exogenous factors about the situation is going to improve the outcome*.
EDIT: *Unless someone has a gun to your head and makes you do the right steps, then I think that would overpower poor work ethic

 

[jsstevens]

If you don’t tell her you’ll have lots more free time.

For a while, maybe...

 

[Magman]

You need 2 small fixtures to position bellcranks when adjusting cables.

Then you need a fixture to check aileron position when adjusting pushrods.

These are 2 separate procedures. You do not adjust cables to line up

ailerons. Doing so without centering bellcranks will result in the travel of

left and right being different.


An aileron deflected downward has more drag than when deflected upward

the same amount. Most modern aircraft have the aileron move upward

more than the opposite one moves down. Along with other features

this is helpful in maintaining coordinated by reducing Adverse Yaw.

Adverse Yaw is having more drag on the wing opposite the desired turn.

ie Turning LEFT but yawing RIGHT.

Poor rigging can make a good pilot look bad!

 

[Dan Thomas]

And like most customers I'll be none the wiser if they take a short-cut. I'll have to take their word that it was done right.

Oh, you can tell. If the ailerons are lined up with the flaps, good. (As long as the flap rigging was done right!) If you move each aileron up and down by hand, you should feel its bellcrank contact the stops at the ends of the travel. If the bellcranks are off, and the cables have been adjusted to get the ailerons streamlined, the bellcrank will only contact the top OR the bottom stop, on both ailerons. Now the travels are limited and the differentials screwed up.

This is why manuals were published. Lots of moving parts that have to be coordinated properly. In the old days, when cables ran directly to the ailerons, cable adjustment was all you could do.

 

[Magman]

Low cable tension can give lower actual travel in flight due to air loads.

Sort of like driving with low tire pressures.

 

[ArrowFlyer86]

Just to close this out - I got this sorted out by the shop.
After dropping it back off they appear to have rigged everything great and now it's working perfectly.
Best I can tell it's aligned great on both wings and has the same range of motion. It also corrected the slightly cocked yoke (it was minor but it was pitched just slightly right at "neutral" before). All better now.
Thanks again for the confirmation that it looked like it needed adjustment!

 

[Dan Thomas]

Just to close this out - I got this sorted out by the shop.
After dropping it back off they appear to have rigged everything great and now it's working perfectly.
Best I can tell it's aligned great on both wings and has the same range of motion. It also corrected the slightly cocked yoke (it was minor but it was pitched just slightly right at "neutral" before). All better now.
Thanks again for the confirmation that it looked like it needed adjustment!

Thanks for getting back to us. So often we don't hear how things turned out, and so none of us learn anything.

 

[Steamflyer]

I asked to do it here and last year at another shop. Neither approved it.

It's a slow process of building trust with a shop that knows you to be able to do an owner assisted annual. Frankly, with the general decline of mechanical aptitude (often replaced by amazing computer aptitude mind you), it requires a particular pilot for the shop to allow an owner assist. Half the time can barely stand it when the owner comes in to chat about "how's the annual going" when they reveal that they really know rather little of what's "under the hood," but do bear it since generally they want to learn.

I think the PVT should have a mechanical/maintenance component to it. The tasks permitted by regs to be performed by the owner perhaps.

 

[Dan Thomas]

I think the PVT should have a mechanical/maintenance component to it. The tasks permitted by regs to be performed by the owner perhaps.

There could at least be a little more education on the airplane's systems and functions. I taught Aircraft Systems in college to the CPL students. It gave them a firm idea as to how the airplane worked, and made them more likely to be able to describe symptoms to a mechanic. It also gave them an appreciation for the mechanic that had to fix certain stuff. Half the classes involved "lab work" in the hangar, wiring up big circuit boards with the basic electrical systems, including a motor-driven alternator, and seeing the insides of some components. Pulling out the pilot's seat and getting each student to lay on their back and look up behind the panel was particularly instructive. I would ask them which wire might be the one that was causing some problem. They could work the aileron/elevator mechanisms and see how we had to be careful that wiring and hoses didn't get in the way.

The course textbook was this one:



Owners interested in maintenance need to get this book first, and read it.

 

[flyingron]

Yes, that's the protocol But how many owners know what is deferrable and what is not?

They don't and they don't need to. The inspection results in a list of discrepancies. NONE are deferrable. The airplane is not airworthy until these are resolved.
And sometimes, it doesn't take even an A&P to resolve these things. For example, if my IA comes in and does the annual and signs it with the notation that the nosegear tire is flat. The airplane is unairworthy. However, as owner-pilot, I can replace the nose tire, and sign off the return to service and the plane is now airworthy.

 

[Magman]

Perhaps replace “ Pilot” with “ Aircraft Systems Operator” which would

include Human Systems?

 

[Dan Thomas]

They don't and they don't need to. The inspection results in a list of discrepancies. NONE are deferrable. The airplane is not airworthy until these are resolved.
And sometimes, it doesn't take even an A&P to resolve these things. For example, if my IA comes in and does the annual and signs it with the notation that the nosegear tire is flat. The airplane is unairworthy. However, as owner-pilot, I can replace the nose tire, and sign off the return to service and the plane is now airworthy.

I recorded everything that needed fixing whether it was deferrable or not. The owner had to sign off on whatever he wanted deferred. For instance, a burned out nav light is deferrable if he never flies at night.

But there were things I refused to defer. Cracked exhaust components were one of them. I would not sign the logs unless it was fixed.

 

[Bell206]

There could at least be a little more education on the airplane's systems and functions.

Agree. I’ve always been a proponent there should be a “aircraft ownership” section as part of a PP certificate. There’s already a number of existing guidance docs where it wouldn’t cost anything more to develop. However, the feeling I got from various people was since an owner is responsible for the aircraft it was on them to educate themselves to the extent necessary to take care of their regulatory requirements just as a mechanic is required to do.

The inspection results in a list of discrepancies. NONE are deferrable.

FYI: Some can be deferred if they meet the requirements per the existing guidance like 91.213. On the flip side, the guidance also states that all discrepancies shall be repaired or properly deferred between scheduled inspections vs waiting till to fix them at annual time. As they say, the devils in the details.

 

[Dan Thomas]

However, the feeling I got from various people was since an owner is responsible for the aircraft it was on them to educate themselves to the extent necessary to take care of their regulatory requirements just as a mechanic is required to do.

Many pilots, maybe most of them, from what I've experienced, just want to fly the airplane, like they just want to drive their cars. A lot of them did just enough studying to get past the exams. I have often found it difficult getting them interested enough to want to understand the physics of the real killers like carb ice and accelerated stalls.

It would likely take legislation to force further study. At that point most will demand self-piloting airplanes to keep them out of trouble instead.

 

[Bell206]

Many pilots, maybe most of them, from what I've experienced, just want to fly the airplane,

I wouldn't use "most" but perhaps a majority of pilot/owners just want to fly. I've found a solid 30% are willing to dive down the mx rabbit hole if given a chance... which is the key part. And if enough mechanics were willing, I'd bet we could get another 10-15% of those owners to at least attempt more prevent mx tasks or more tasks outside their comfort zone. Even today from what I've seen. But as you mentioned, education is paramount and when combined with a decreasing number of willing mechanics we will probably eventually end up at the "most" level. Sad if you ask me.

 

[flyingron]

I recorded everything that needed fixing whether it was deferrable or not. The owner had to sign off on whatever he wanted deferred. For instance, a burned out nav light is deferrable if he never flies at night.

But there were things I refused to defer. Cracked exhaust components were one of them. I would not sign the logs unless it was fixed.

Again, that's not what an annual is supposed to be. If you have indicated components that are unairworthy, you sign the logs (without authorization to return to service). Your job as the IA is done. Anybody qualified to resolve the discrepancies can do so and return the aircraft to service.

 

[Dan Thomas]

Again, that's not what an annual is supposed to be. If you have indicated components that are unairworthy, you sign the logs (without authorization to return to service). Your job as the IA is done. Anybody qualified to resolve the discrepancies can do so and return the aircraft to service.

I'm a Canadian, and things work a little differently here. If we find defects and the owner doesn't want to rectify them, we can sign off the work we did but also make statements in the Journey Log listing the defects not rectified.

The thing we sign goes like this, and it's called a Maintenance Release: “The described maintenance has been performed in accordance with the applicable airworthiness requirements.”
We don't certify the aircraft as airworthy. That is assumed to be so as long as it meets the definition of "Airworthy," which means it has no disqualifying defects. When we list those defects, the airplane is grounded. Period. We are only certifying the work we did, nothing more.

Canadian definition of airworthy:
airworthy, in respect of an aeronautical product, means in a fit and safe state for flight and in conformity with its type design;

Some of the required entries in the Journey Log are these:




The Journey Log records all flights made by the aircraft. The PIC is supposed to check it before flying to make sure someone hasn't entered a defect. In this way, safety is improved. Legally, I could walk onto the ramp and see an airplane with a big bird's nest inside the cowling, and ask for the Journey Log and snag that defect. There are pilots who don't do walkarounds, and I know one that took off with such a nest. Of course, he wouldn't have checked the Log either.

The #10 above is for the mechanic. In listing the unrectified defects in the Journey Log, and photocopying that, he protects himself in the event that the owner flies it anyway and has an accident. Just telling him isn't enough; it won't stand up in court.

Long rant, I know, but I come from a somewhat different perspective. I sometimes forget that on this site, and that you folks don't have Journey Logs. Forgive me.

 

[Magman]

US

The Tech performing any maintenance on an aircraft is REQUIRED to make

an entry regardless whether Airworthy or not.

If I find a serious issue my practice is to write it up on a separate sheet

and give to the Owner. Witnessed of course. If Owner is not present

these days it will go in an obvious place with cell pix.


A Tech is not allowed to hold an aircraft captive regardless of how bad the

condition is. You might discourage some idiots by accidentally leaving a

truck parked in front . Not for long though.

Yes; there ARE stories!

 

[Dan Thomas]

A Tech is not allowed to hold an aircraft captive regardless of how bad the

condition is.

Same in Canada. The Owner is ultimately responsible for the airplane's airworthiness, and the PIC, if different, is also responsible or the airworthiness for the intended flight.

 

[Bell206]

If Owner is not present these days it will go in an obvious place with cell pix.

In my experience, you are better served to physically give the owner a signed/dated discrepancy list vs sending a picture.

 

[Magman]

My point is you must make an entry and must give it to the owner.

The witness or pic is to be able to prove this happened.

One student pilot had metal in the screen and fuel leaks.

He continued to fly passengers after being notified and said we can’t

tell him not too. Later got someone to sign off saying it was only

“Ring Fuzz”. It was big enough to read a p/n though!

Fast forward it turns out a main bearing was incorrect!

 

[Bell206]

The witness or pic is to be able to prove this happened.

FWIW: the 43.11 mx record entry you make will take care of that as it will state you gave that list to the owner. However if you are using this disc list outside a scheduled inspection task, you will lose its regulatory authority regardless if it was witnessed or on your phone.

 

[Magman]

If logs are not available you still have to produce an entry .

I have used a sheet with N number and. “ Aircraft Log” written on it to

give to the Owner along with some form of witness. They can say they

never received it.

 

[Bell206]

If logs are not available you still have to produce an entry . I have used a sheet with N number and. “ Aircraft Log” written on it to give to the Owner along with some form of witness.

They can say they never received it.

I guess I’m still not following the issue. So you’re stating that when you perform an 100hr or annual inspection and find several discrepancies, if you physically provide the owner with the required Part 43.11(a) record entry and a separate signed/dated List of Discrepancies per 43.11(b), regardless of paper format or medium, you can be held accountable in some fashion if the owner decides to state “they never received them.” Correct?

If so, how? Perhaps an example?

 

[Magman]

Not necessarily a required Inspection.

Might be as something as Dan mentioned such as a cracked exhaust pipe

found during an oil change. Or worn out brakes during a tire change.

Fuel leak etc, etc.

If my hands have been on the aircraft and the owner will not do corrective

action I still have a responsibility for a Record Entry. My practice has been

to notify the owner of the defect in a manner that I could prove later.

I can’t impound the aircraft but still have to sign off my actions.

 

[Mikey52]

Why can't you make an entry like, Removed part number tire, installed part number tire. Found brake pads not to be acceptable.

 

[Bell206]

Not necessarily a required Inspection.

Except as I mentioned earlier, without an inspection your discrepancy list carries no regulatory power. Its basically meaningless in the big picture.

If my hands have been on the aircraft and the owner will not do corrective action I still have a responsibility for a Record Entry.

Your regulatory responsibility is limited to a record entry documenting the work you performed per 43.9. However, from an ethical standpoint, yes let the owner know about the crack.

My practice has been to notify the owner of the defect in a manner that I could prove later.

Curious. Prove to who?

Why can't you make an entry like, Removed part number tire, installed part number tire. Found brake pads not to be acceptable.

No reason you can't. However, if the owner wanted to challenge the inclusion of the brake pads in the entry they could from a regulatory/guidance stance. No different than if you wanted to make a mx entry in the actual logbook but the owner wanted it on a Post-It note. Owner controls the record.

 

[Magman]

Possibly prove to FAA or a judge.

I’ve been an IA for a long time so I’ve encountered some odd situations.

When possible I’ve tried to do pre- inspection “ look-overs” to get an idea

of what I’m dealing with but no de-paneling.

One guy had an aircraft with multiple issues. I advised him they would

have to be addressed at the Inspection.

Some time later I get a call from an irate Fed.

Carb Air Box fell off and other problems.

When they asked him who did the Inspection he said that I “looked at it”!

I replied I did “ look” but it was not an Inspection at all.

No problem, for me.

Could I be a magnet for those folks?

 

[Bell206]

Some time later I get a call from an irate Fed. Carb Air Box fell off and other problems. When they asked him who did the Inspection he said that I “looked at it”! I replied I did “ look” but it was not an Inspection at all.

You do realize there is established FAA guidance that would support your position to the ASI when it comes to the difference between a “visual check” vs an inspection? Regardless, I’ve always found it best to have knowledge of the existing guidance and the rules vs developing my own CYA process. And being able to point out that official guidance to the ASI goes a lot farther and has better affect than showing him pics of a witnessed disc list on your phone. At least in my experience.

But what I continue to find interesting through your posts, is how the rigors of aircraft maintenance are so much different in your neck of the woods, and from other posts the Pacific Northwest, than the rest of the country and even Alaska. Now whether that makes you a magnet to these misfortunes I have no clue. Perhaps you were just born “lucky”?

 

[Magman]

I would be interested in a ref for the guidance . This situation was

completely unexpected and no way to prepare for it. Once I explained what

had happened all was well for me. This may make more sense if you

consider even a cursory glance would reveal my reluctance to commit to

performing an Annual Inspection. It had been out of Annual for quite some

Time. Was still flying though! This is what justifiably brought FAA into the

picture.


Many folks refer to the “ Dark Side “ as being the FAA. My version of the

term is quite different. It’s when the fun stops and things get serious.

Really serious. Anyone that has been involved in Aviation any length of

time will understand this. Unsuccessfully attempting to deter someone

from flying a problematic aircraft only to later read about it is not what I

want.


My guess is the “ rigors” are not really different here. This impression

may be because of the following:

Fortunately I know a LOT people.

I’ve been doing this a long time. FYI I still have some carbon copies of

FAA Form 8020-3. This was required to be sent to the GADO after

EVERY Annual you performed. I’ve worn many “ hats” during this time.

It has been anything but boring!

The overwhelming majority of the folks I’ve met have been conscientious

regardless of their financial situation . There are those that seem to

have little regard for their passengers or the person they are selling

an airplane to though . They don’t come with ID tags!

 

[Bell206]

I would be interested in a ref for the guidance

Here are two of the most current:

Hochberg LOI



8900.1, Vol3, Ch15, Sec1

My guess is the “ rigors” are not really different here

I too have been doing this for a spell and fondly remember the local GADO office. However, in my limited time on PoA, I’ve read more one-off maintenance “anomalies” from your posts and another individual's posts, than have seen in my entire mx career. Hence my comment.

 

[Magman]

Truth IS stranger than fiction,

Maybe we should have a section devoted to this?

“ As the windsock turns ! “ for a working title? Domenic?

Pardon me if I’m wrong but I get the impression that Bell spent a lot of

time at one facility? When I mentioned that I had worn “ many hats”

my intent was to imply several “careers” in various parts of the

Aerospace World. Some military . Some civilian with both heavy and light

aircraft . Varying tasks and responsibilities. My involvement with helos

was minimal and limited to Bell 47’s and Hughes 269’s. When I was young

and one door closed I went to the one that was open.

There is one project I’m glad was never “ used”.

Along the way I a lot of interesting people. Some great. Some unusual .

Some not so good. Even a couple BAD.

As Sinatra sang; “ That’s Life!”

 

[Bell206]

Pardon me if I’m wrong but I get the impression that Bell spent a lot of time at one facility?

To answer your question, not quite. Retired from one day-job company, but worked at a number different locations/assignments to include overseas. However, I also had a side aviation business that exposed me to many different aircraft, locations, and tasks my day-job couldn't offer.

 

[Magman]

We have some similarities here. Never overseas though.

Still active in some way?

My actual A&P activities generally have not been my primary source of

income so my priorities are different than most Techs. In order they would

be friends, interesting project and profit last. Most business aircraft I

ruled out as committing time would be difficult.

Since you are into “ anomalies “ here are some.

When working on MIL aircraft, 90% of the time I did so as a civilian, in

uniform.

I was issued Inspection Authorization while on Active Duty with USAF.

There was some involvement with civilian aircraft there.


It’s been just over 120 years since Wilbur , Orville and Charlie got their

contraption in the air. It sounds like you and I are among those that

have been engaged with aircraft maintenance more than 50% of the

time since then.


edit. Timely comment on National Aviation Day.

 

[write-stuff]

I recently had a GFC 500 installed in my 182. After hours of joyful AP flying, I did some hand flying and discovered a built-in left turn. After checking the ailerons on the ground, I can see a small amount of asymmetry. I don't know if this occurred during the autopilot installation or not. The shop is pretty slow responding to my calls/emails.