Alternator failure--What would you do?

[Tom-D]

Are you advocating the government tell an owner where and who will repair his aircraft? Personally I feel that's up to the owner, as it should be.

On a related note, now many commercial operators (135/121) actually carry ferry permits onboard the aircraft and have a blanket approval to use them as required.

Just ask them back to please show in guidance where they are required to have repairs made at a particular facility.

First of all I'm not advocating anything, Would you issue a Ferry Permit knowing it will create an unsafe condition? If not, how would you know it will or will not, with out asking the question.

OBTW part 135 isn't a good comparison to part 91

 

[poadeleted20]

what's airworthy? What's safe to fly? Who's decision is that ? 91.3

In this case, is the failure of an alternators an emergency?

Whether it's an "emergency" or not within the FAA definition of the term is both debatable and situational, but in most planes that have one, the failure of the only alternator renders the aircraft unairworthy, and it's written that way in the manuals for those aircraft. For example, if you look in a C-172 POH, you'll see the alternator is an R-item, meaning it is required to be operable for even Day VFR operations, and the aircraft is unairworthy if it's not working.

 

[Tom-D]

Whether it's an "emergency" or not within the FAA definition of the term is both debatable and situational, but in most planes that have one, the failure of the only alternator renders the aircraft unairworthy, and it's written that way in the manuals for those aircraft. For example, if you look in a C-172 POH, you'll see the alternator is an R-item, meaning it is required to be operable for even Day VFR operations, and the aircraft is unairworthy if it's not working.

That is not the definition of airworthiness, The wording in 91,3 and the FAA's definition of airworthiness both give the pilot the desecration to make the decision.

Quoted from the FAA training guide
What is the meaning of airworthy?
2 conditions :
1 CONFORMS WITH TYPE DESIGN.
Attained when the proper components are installed, and they are consistent with drawings, specifications, and other data that are a part of the type certificate, and supplemental type certificates and field approval alterations.

2 THE AIRCRAFT IS IN A CONDITION FOR SAFE OPERATION.
This refers to the condition of the aircraft with relations to wear and deterioration.

that's directly from the FAA and says nothing about the equipment being in a working order. It does say the aircraft must be in a condition for safe operation that is why we have 91.3

Loosing an alternator does not render the C-182 unsafe to operate, because we have redundant systems, and there is no requirement in "Airworthy" to have all equipment in working order, or we could not have deferred maintenance.

If you would like a copy of the Power point presentation I will send it to you. give me an e-mail (nc19143(at)comcast.net)

 

[Jaybird180]

I recall wording about the PIC determining airworthiness....sure I read that somewhere.

 

[Pa28-140]

There is no thermal protection in the master switch. The breakers are usually thermal devices and need a bit of cooldown time, especially the larger sizes. The alternator output breaker is an example of that; the alternator field breaker does nothing but power the tiny relay in the regulator; the field current itself comes from the alternator's "A" terminal which is also connected to the bus via the output breaker.

Tripping offline for no good reason is often due to a bad ground connection for the overvolt sensor. It loses its reference and goes nuts and shuts off the regulator. If the field breaker is old its contacts might be corroded or oxidized and it will also trip the system offline. Old airplanes (like 1970s) are famous for oxidized breakers. Newer airplanes often have electronic regulators with the overvolt sensor built in, and those things are hypersensitive to stray RF that leaks into the aircraft's wiring via a corroded or loose Comm antenna cable connection. The cable shielding can't control the leakage if it has a dirty bayonet. Commonly found in the ceiling at the antenna itself, where condensation collects on the inside of the skin.


That said, most alternator hassles are due to worn field brushes. A 500-hour inspection catches that before it's a problem, and alternator failures become almost unknown.

Dan

Thanks Dan! Good information. The airplane is a 2003 model and has been hangared its entire life in the Midwest. That doesn't exclude the possibility of corrosion though. The airplane is now down for its annual inspection so this is a great time to check everything out. I'll pass along your comments to the IA who is doing the annual. Hopefully, I can post that something obvious was found and problem resolved.

 

[poadeleted20]

That is not the definition of airworthiness, The wording in 91,3 and the FAA's definition of airworthiness both give the pilot the desecration to make the decision.

Quoted from the FAA training guide
What is the meaning of airworthy?
2 conditions :
1 CONFORMS WITH TYPE DESIGN.
Attained when the proper components are installed, and they are consistent with drawings, specifications, and other data that are a part of the type certificate, and supplemental type certificates and field approval alterations.

2 THE AIRCRAFT IS IN A CONDITION FOR SAFE OPERATION.
This refers to the condition of the aircraft with relations to wear and deterioration.

that's directly from the FAA and says nothing about the equipment being in a working order. It does say the aircraft must be in a condition for safe operation that is why we have 91.3

Loosing an alternator does not render the C-182 unsafe to operate, because we have redundant systems, and there is no requirement in "Airworthy" to have all equipment in working order, or we could not have deferred maintenance.

If you would like a copy of the Power point presentation I will send it to you. give me an e-mail (nc19143(at)comcast.net)

91.213 says otherwise. According to that reg, an aircraft with inoperative equipment is not airworthy because it is no longer in conformance with its type certificate (it wasn't certified with stuff not working). It cannot be flown legally until the procedures in that reg have been followed, in which case it becomes legally airworthy in an authorized altered condition. If it's an R-item, there are no procedures to make the plane legal to fly other than repairing or replacing it. Hope you incorporate that in your presentation.

 

[poadeleted20]

I recall wording about the PIC determining airworthiness....sure I read that somewhere.

You may be thinking of this paragraph of 91.7:

(b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur.

That means if a pilot chooses to operate an aircraft while it is in an unairworthy condition, that pilot has violated the rules and can be held accountable. It does not mean that a pilot can make a determination that and aircraft is airworthy when the regulations, POH/AFM, or other published documents say otherwise.

 

[Tom-D]

Hope you incorporate that in your presentation.

It's not MY presentation it comes directly from the FAA I have a copy and you can too.

http://sliwww.slideshare.net/guest3dac39/airworthiness.

 

[Tom-D]

You may be thinking of this paragraph of 91.7:
That means if a pilot chooses to operate an aircraft while it is in an unairworthy condition, that pilot has violated the rules and can be held accountable. It does not mean that a pilot can make a determination that and aircraft is airworthy when the regulations, POH/AFM, or other published documents say otherwise.

91.213 Inoperative instruments and equipment.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may take off an aircraft with inoperative instruments or equipment installed unless the following conditions are met:

rule does not apply it was OK when he took off,

 

[RotorAndWing]

what's airworthy? What's safe to fly? Who's decision is that ? 91.3

In this case, is the failure of an alternators an emergency?

Better yet, when will the FAA be made aware there's an issue?

Lots of problems on aircraft are discovered during approach or after landing.

 

[poadeleted20]

91.213 Inoperative instruments and equipment.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may take off an aircraft with inoperative instruments or equipment installed unless the following conditions are met:

rule does not apply it was OK when he took off,

The issue was someone who suggested they could take off with an inop alternator if they thought it was safe. Per 91.213, "safe" is a necessary, but not sufficient condition to go under 91.213 with inoperative equipment, and if the items is an R-item, you're stuck on the ground.

 

[poadeleted20]

Better yet, when will the FAA be made aware there's an issue?

Lots of problems on aircraft are discovered during approach or after landing.

Guess that's why your motto is "Everybody lies." Personally, my observation of things is that lying to the Feds usually ends badly, but that's a choice folks get to make for themselves...



...and suffer any consequences resulting.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Guess that's why your motto is "Everybody lies." Personally, my observation of things is that lying to the Feds usually ends badly, but that's a choice folks get to make for themselves...



...and suffer any consequences resulting.

No one's advocating lying, my point is when (and if) will anyone in the FAA be made aware that there's a problem? Even if the individual was ramped right after landing do you expect him to inform the FAA of any equipment failures? Especially if it had zero impact ( no emergency/ no issues with ATC)

Of course I now expect this to be twisted out of proportion. Have at it.

 

[N801BH]

Better yet, when will the FAA be made aware there's an issue?

Lots of problems on aircraft are discovered during approach or after landing.

Without proper and timely feedback on failures and other issues how can the FAA draw any conclusions to a bad product... By not reporting it that may lead to another poor pilot buying the farm because the feds didn't issue a SB or AD.

Try and put yourself in the "next" guys shoes...

Ben.

 

[Tom-D]

The issue was someone who suggested they could take off with an inop alternator if they thought it was safe. Per 91.213, "safe" is a necessary, but not sufficient condition to go under 91.213 with inoperative equipment, and if the items is an R-item, you're stuck on the ground.

In that respect, I agree, my response was to post 1 page one. the C-182 can continue the flight on redundant systems. Once on the ground, he must get it fixed or a ferry permit.

 

[CMTowner]

I think you made the wisest move by returning to home base. I know that I would reported the failure to ATC and returned to home base.

Even with the alternator coming back on line, it is hard to say if it was an intermittent failure, or signs the alternator or something else was on its way to a complete failure.

It was nice to hear that center was kind enough to phone your friend and advise them.

 

[TMetzinger]

One question - I understand the concern for engine damage when a direct-drive (geared) alternator fails.

But my experience with belt-driven engine accessories is that when the belt fails it falls to the bottom or even out of the engine compartment, and doesn't remain somehow magically attached to rotating parts and flailing about. I can see some sort of seal damage happening at the moment of belt failure, but not sure how the broken belt continues to be a threat.

 

[Tom-D]

Guess that's why your motto is "Everybody lies." Personally, my observation of things is that lying to the Feds usually ends badly, but that's a choice folks get to make for themselves....and suffer any consequences resulting.

What would be the problem of telling the FAA ramp checker that your aircraft is broke?

 

[Henning]

Guess that's why your motto is "Everybody lies." Personally, my observation of things is that lying to the Feds usually ends badly, but that's a choice folks get to make for themselves...



...and suffer any consequences resulting.

Who's talking about lying? If keep your mouth shut then nobody knows and you don't have to lie. You have an alternator throw a belt, you land, inspect, reinstall and adjust the tension and be gone. Notice the belt is gone and I have 100nm of day VFR to get home? I'm on my way home.

You say I am more risk tolerant than you and with that I have no disagreement. You seem to indicate that I am on my way to trouble. Now, I have had a CPL for 20 some years now and have been called to the carpet a couple times with the FAA and a few more with USCG. You say you have all these connections, look at my record and see how much trouble I've been in. If my system of dealing with the authorities was so bad, you would think that in 20+ years I would have been violated at least once. The reality was each time I explained my thoughts and actions and walked out of the meeting completely intact.

My findings are that the FAA doesn't 'come after you' unless you egregiously flaunt rules. Every inspector I have ever met understands that there are situations where the rules are not that critical and if you demonstrate to them that you used considered thought and solid judgment you come out just fine. Now again, that's just my experience being called to the carpet and from other colleagues who were on the carpet as well.

 

[N801BH]

Who's talking about lying? If keep your mouth shut then nobody knows and you don't have to lie. You have an alternator throw a belt, you land, inspect, reinstall and adjust the tension and be gone. Notice the belt is gone and I have 100nm of day VFR to get home? I'm on my way home.

You say I am more risk tolerant than you and with that I have no disagreement. You seem to indicate that I am on my way to trouble. Now, I have had a CPL for 20 some years now and have been called to the carpet a couple times with the FAA and a few more with USCG. You say you have all these connections, look at my record and see how much trouble I've been in. If my system of dealing with the authorities was so bad, you would think that in 20+ years I would have been violated at least once. The reality was each time I explained my thoughts and actions and walked out of the meeting completely intact.

My findings are that the FAA doesn't 'come after you' unless you egregiously flaunt rules. Every inspector I have ever met understands that there are situations where the rules are not that critical and if you demonstrate to them that you used considered thought and solid judgment you come out just fine. Now again, that's just my experience being called to the carpet and from other colleagues who were on the carpet as well.

Alot of belts can't be changed without pulling the prop off... That operation is NOT a owner maintenance item..

Ben.

 

[N801BH]

One question - I understand the concern for engine damage when a direct-drive (geared) alternator fails.

But my experience with belt-driven engine accessories is that when the belt fails it falls to the bottom or even out of the engine compartment, and doesn't remain somehow magically attached to rotating parts and flailing about. I can see some sort of seal damage happening at the moment of belt failure, but not sure how the broken belt continues to be a threat.

On the way out the bottom of the cowling it can get wedged next to or on the exhaust system.... if it is close enough it will burn..

IMHO.

Ben.

Remember my pic from a few weeks ago... Aircraft exhaust systems are close to being this hot...

 

[Henning]

One question - I understand the concern for engine damage when a direct-drive (geared) alternator fails.

But my experience with belt-driven engine accessories is that when the belt fails it falls to the bottom or even out of the engine compartment, and doesn't remain somehow magically attached to rotating parts and flailing about. I can see some sort of seal damage happening at the moment of belt failure, but not sure how the broken belt continues to be a threat.

Not on a Lycoming, it's trapped behind the prop. I've only seen it happen once, but I worked on a plane where the belt got sucked in behind the flange and tore up the front crank seal. I have seen several cases where the belt was getting flailed around and tore up the cowling bowl.

 

[denverpilot]

But this was a question about a 182...

 

[poadeleted20]

But this was a question about a 182...

...with which engine? The Continental O-470 or the Lycoming O-540?

 

[Tom-D]

...with which engine? The Continental O-470 or the Lycoming O-540?

Re-read post 1, we really don't know but we all have a guess anyway. but no one ever answered his question of how long could he have operated with out the alternator.

OBTW the 0-470 is a belt drive also, but it is on the back of the engine not the front.

 

[rainsux]

> but no one ever answered his question of how long could he have
> operated with out the alternator.

Depends upon:

- Condition of the battery
- Electrical loads

An operating transponder is a significant load. The OP mentioned turning
the TXP off to shepherd his remaining flock of electrons. There is also the
matter of devices that lack discrete On/Off switches. (Avionics fan? Engine
monitor? Backup AI/TC/N&B?, ANR headsets?)

If you leave electrical things operating, I'm *guessing* 10-20 minutes. If
IMC, that's a might short window.

 

[Tom-D]

> but no one ever answered his question of how long could he have
> operated with out the alternator.

Depends upon:

- Condition of the battery
- Electrical loads

An operating transponder is a significant load. The OP mentioned turning the TXP off
to shepherd his remaining flock of electrons.

If you leave electrical things operating, I'm *guessing* 10-20 minutes.

Master off, until the tank runs dry.
Look out the window, if the picture ain't right, fix it.

 

[Mike5250]

I've had it happen once in a 182 but we were on our return trip to home airport so we continued on the additional 45 minutes. Turned off all electrical until we were approaching class D airport.

Remember to not use the flaps even if you have enough juice left. You might not have enough power to retract them if you need to go around.

 

[TMetzinger]

I lost an alternator in day VFR shortly after takeoff in a 1998 C182. I called ATC, told them the issue, and that I'd stay out of the Bravo space on my way back to FDK from Ocean City MD (OXB I think). I told them I'd leave my number 1 radio on and had a handheld to listen as well. ATC cleared me through the bravo at 4500 (I was still significantly east of it) and asked me to call them if I needed anything.

I'd shut down everything else in the radio stack, turned off the lights, and just kept going listening to comm 1. I got advised to change frequencies a couple of time (no response required).

When I exited the bravo on the west side (handheld GPS for navigation) I transmitted a "thank you" and started monitoring the FDK CTAF. I had enough battery power to make pattern calls and to lower the flaps, and still had more left.

Total time well over an hour. But that was a new airplane and a new battery and NOT operating a transponder.

 

[dmccormack]

I lost the alternator in a C152 not long after takeoff leaving VVS on return to LNS as a student pilot.

Me, the engine, a mag compass and a Sporty's SP-200 transceiver flew across PA in severe VFR.

I used the handheld to talk with HBG Approach and then the LNS tower.

I landed, and was surprised when the CFIs and Flight SChool owner were all waiting for me. I saved them a recovery flight to pickup the airplane.

------

Next Alt loss was in a -35 V-Tail over KPIT while IFR.

I was right over KPIT. I called PIT APP, told them I was heading direct to destination (FWQ, my last clearance).

I descended to VFR, cranked the gear down, landed, called PIT APP on the phone to let them know I was safe and sound, and that was that.

 

[Jaybird180]

I lost an alternator in day VFR shortly after takeoff in a 1998 C182. I called ATC, told them the issue, and that I'd stay out of the Bravo space on my way back to FDK from Ocean City MD (OXB I think). I told them I'd leave my number 1 radio on and had a handheld to listen as well. ATC cleared me through the bravo at 4500 (I was still significantly east of it) and asked me to call them if I needed anything.

I'd shut down everything else in the radio stack, turned off the lights, and just kept going listening to comm 1. I got advised to change frequencies a couple of time (no response required).

When I exited the bravo on the west side (handheld GPS for navigation) I transmitted a "thank you" and started monitoring the FDK CTAF. I had enough battery power to make pattern calls and to lower the flaps, and still had more left.

Total time well over an hour. But that was a new airplane and a new battery and NOT operating a transponder.

Did you have to declare E to transit B without a xpndr?

 

[TMetzinger]

Did you have to declare E to transit B without a xpndr?

Nope. I never used the E-word at all in that case. I'd already gotten flight following when the alternator went so I wanted ATC to know what the issue was. If I hadn't already been talking to ATC I would have just stayed outside the 30 NM ring altogether. But since they felt they could handle me at a fixed altitude with just a primary target (this was pre-2001) I appreciated the shortcut.

 

[dmccormack]

Did you have to declare E to transit B without a xpndr?

Why?

5. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each aircraft must be equipped as follows:
(a) For IFR operations, an operable VOR or TACAN receiver; and
(b) For all operations, a two-way radio capable of communications with ATC on appropriate frequencies for that area; and
(c) Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, an operable radar beacon transponder with automatic altitude reporting equipment.

If ATC authorizes you to fly in the airspace without a functioning transponder,etc you're G2G.

I've flown through PIT Class B in the Chief. Call one hour ahead as required by the note and then call 119.350 when a few miles out (they act surprised that I called), but gave me Class B clearance on each leg.

I also flew through on a couple of other occasions on ferry flights (Avionics shop was north of home field). No problems.

 

[gcd89]

Didn't read your whole post, but I would have landed as soon as I found out it was messed up