Annuals Vs engine change

Tom-D said:
Every entry in a maintenance record doesn't return the aircraft to service. Many simply say what was done, and by who.
Click to expand...

How is this act relevant to the subject of returning an aircraft to service?:dunno: Arguing a point that doesn't exist is something I'm not willing to participate in.
 
Tom-D said:
Every entry in a maintenance record doesn't return the aircraft to service. Many simply say what was done, and by who.
Click to expand...
When an A&P signs a maintenance record the default interpretation of the significance of that signature is it's returned to service for that work performed. If the wings were previously removed and a A&P was hired to replace a vacuum pump, he would replace the vacuum pump and sign the log indicating he did the job correctly and used airworthy parts, and for what
he did, the aircraft is returned to service. He's not declaring the entire aircraft is returned to service --- the wings still need to be replaced. If an A&P, for whatever reason, committed maintenance on an aircraft and didn't do an airworthy job on the task, he had better make it clear what was done wasn't airworthy and I wouldn't sign the entry (just print my name).
 
Now, I'm thinking....I need to remove a wheel assembly.



Should I log that....?:dunno:
 
RotorAndWing said:
Yep, the "trolling for an argument" paid off, one more time.
Click to expand...


Well, you've posted quite a few times on a thread you claim is not worthy of your participation. Why?

Secondly, a rather large portion of your posts on this forum seem snide, regardless of the subject matter. So why do you feel like you're any better than Tom? If you disagree with something, or don't feel as though you should contribute, then just give your opinion and leave it at that. Don't continue to come back and say the same unhelpful crap over and over. How many time do the rest of us need to hear that you think the thread is stupid, or that Tom is trolling? Seriously. Take a look in the mirror dude. End of rant.

My apologies to everyone else for the outburst.
 
OkieFlyer said:
Well, you've posted quite a few times on a thread you claim is not worthy of your participation. Why?

Secondly, a rather large portion of your posts on this forum seem snide, regardless of the subject matter. So why do you feel like you're any better than Tom? If you disagree with something, or don't feel as though you should contribute, then just give your opinion and leave it at that. Don't continue to come back and say the same unhelpful crap over and over. How many time do the rest of us need to hear that you think the thread is stupid, or that Tom is trolling? Seriously. Take a look in the mirror dude. End of rant.

My apologies to everyone else for the outburst.
Click to expand...

Tom D does that regularly. :yes:
 
Tom-D said:
And every body except you and Norm learned some thing.

Maybe not Henning. :)
Click to expand...

I never saw where you indicated I had anything to learn?:dunno: You never once said anything I said was incorrect. The only thing you did was change the conditions in your relentless questioning of the obvious to something inane that could not be answered correctly.

By definition that is trolling.
 
Norman said:
Tom D does that regularly. :yes:
Click to expand...

Perhaps. I guess I haven't noticed. My impression of Tom over the few years I've been haning around POA is, overall, positive.

The multiple posts about trolling just got under my skin a little. My apoligies for getting upset about it.
 
Henning said:
I never saw where you indicated I had anything to learn?:dunno: You never once said anything I said was incorrect. The only thing you did was change the conditions in your relentless questioning of the obvious to something inane that could not be answered correctly.

By definition that is trolling.
Click to expand...

Is it obvious and inane to everyone though?
 
Henning said:
To those whom it does not so appear, is a welcome to continue to play in search of enlightenment.
Click to expand...

Haha, right on. I don't mean to be a beotch, really. Most of the time you guys are operating over my head anyway, so I don't even notice if someone is baiting. In situations like these, it's difficult for a newb to fugure out who to listen to. Just seemed like y'all were being awfully hard a feller who has I thought has been a pretty helpful member. No offense intended to anyone, well, maybe to R&W a little, but I know he don't give two chits about anything I would say. ;)

I digress.
 
OkieFlyer said:
Haha, right on. I don't mean to be a beotch, really. Most of the time you guys are operating over my head anyway, so I don't even notice if someone is baiting. In situations like these, it's difficult for a newb to fugure out who to listen to. Just seemed like y'all were being awfully hard a feller who has I thought has been a pretty helpful member. No offense intended to anyone, well, maybe to R&W a little, but I know he don't give two chits about anything I would say. ;)

I digress.
Click to expand...

No worries.;)
 
OkieFlyer said:
Haha, right on. I don't mean to be a beotch, really. Most of the time you guys are operating over my head anyway, so I don't even notice if someone is baiting. In situations like these, it's difficult for a newb to fugure out who to listen to. Just seemed like y'all were being awfully hard a feller who has I thought has been a pretty helpful member. No offense intended to anyone, well, maybe to R&W a little, but I know he don't give two chits about anything I would say. ;)

I digress.
Click to expand...

But I do, and it's for folks like you that I will continue to post even though I get called a pig for trolling by the internet bullies that frequent this page and are not held responsible for their posts by the moderators.
I feel this page deserves a better reputation than what the few try to make it. We have a multitude of readers, that never post, because the inter net bullies (like Norman, and R&W) that call me for trolling never realize that because of their actions the many will not participate in these threads.

IMHO R&W and Norman should be totally ashamed of them selves for doing what they are famous for. Because all it does is to show them for what they really are. It certainly doesn't stop me for asking a question that generates a topic that every one could learn.
If they are who they say they are with the experience they brag about, they should be an asset to this page ,, but what are they really.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
That was me saying I had something to learn, not you, and your answer confirmed what I thought.
Click to expand...

What ever sonny :) You will always get my opinion right or wrong.
 
philiplane said:
If the IA signed each each airframe, engine, and propeller logbook with individual entries using the "airframe annual", "engine annual", and "propeller annual", then each of those has distinct annual sign offs and expirations. If he signed the airframe logbook with the phrase "aircraft annual" instead of airframe, then each part does not require a separate annual sign off. Semantics, but important ones.
Click to expand...
Unless I've got some progressive inspection set up, I'd assume the IA has no clue what he's doing with regard to the aircraft paperwork. There's no such thing as an airframe, propeller, or engine annual.

Tell me where in the FARs does it mention either the requirement to have an airframe, propeller, or engine annual nor in Part 43 describe what such would consist of.

The regulations only talk about aircraft having annual inspections. I've never seen an engine or prop manufacturer even putting out ICAs that were keyed to an annual inspection. They're all done on TIS.

Installing an overhauled engine (not the one that was on the plane at the aircraft annual) requires that the engine have an annual inspection of its own recorded in its logbook, since it has not been documented to meet the annual inspection requirements prior to installation on the airframe in question.
Click to expand...

Absolutely untrue. An engine or propeller is just a part. It has no "annual" requirement outside of a given aircraft it is installed in. It has a separate log book to keep maintenance records nicely able to follow the part.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
But I do, and it's for folks like you that I will continue to post even though I get called a pig for trolling by the internet bullies that frequent this page and are not held responsible for their posts by the moderators.
I feel this page deserves a better reputation than what the few try to make it. We have a multitude of readers, that never post, because the inter net bullies (like Norman, and R&W) that call me for trolling never realize that because of their actions the many will not participate in these threads.

IMHO R&W and Norman should be totally ashamed of them selves for doing what they are famous for. Because all it does is to show them for what they really are. It certainly doesn't stop me for asking a question that generates a topic that every one could learn.
If they are who they say they are with the experience they brag about, they should be an asset to this page ,, but what are they really.
Click to expand...

Are you really that thin skinned? If so, perhaps you should turn off your 'puter and take up knitting. :D
 
flyingron said:
Unless I've got some progressive inspection set up, I'd assume the IA has no clue what he's doing with regard to the aircraft paperwork. There's no such thing as an airframe, propeller, or engine annual.

Tell me where in the FARs does it mention either the requirement to have an airframe, propeller, or engine annual nor in Part 43 describe what such would consist of.

The regulations only talk about aircraft having annual inspections. I've never seen an engine or prop manufacturer even putting out ICAs that were keyed to an annual inspection. They're all done on TIS.



Absolutely untrue. An engine or propeller is just a part. It has no "annual" requirement outside of a given aircraft it is installed in. It has a separate log book to keep maintenance records nicely able to follow the part.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that if you change a engine out it's like changing a light bulb. So why keep a engine logbook it all should go in the airframe logbook as a component of the airframe.:rofl: If it is a major component that requires a logbook like a engine then it requires a little more notation in the airframe log other than a simple sign off as installed by a A&P.
 
Last edited:
to whom it may concern.....the item below is taken from the FAA-G-8082-11A INSPECTION AUTHORIZATION KNOWLEDGE TEST GUIDE. :D

note the use of the word "aircraft".....and the lack of the words "engine", "appliance", "propeller", .....etc. Also, the lack of the SMOH or engine time in the entry.
 

Attachments

  • log entry.jpg
    log entry.jpg
    77.3 KB · Views: 17
Last edited:
Checkout_my_Six said:
to whom it may concern.....the item below is taken from the FAA-G-8082-11A INSPECTION AUTHORIZATION KNOWLEDGE TEST GUIDE. :D

note the use of the word "aircraft".....and the lack of the words "engine", "appliance", "propeller", .....etc. Also, the lack of the SMOH or engine time in the entry.
Click to expand...

Yea, but...but..but......:rolleyes:
 
brien23 said:
So what you are saying is that if you change a engine out it's like changing a light bulb. So why keep a engine logbook it all should go in the airframe logbook as a component of the airframe.:rofl: If it is a major component that requires a logbook like a engine then it requires a little more notation in the airframe log other than a simple sign off as installed by a A&P.
Click to expand...

You can try to make a point without the needless sarcasm, especially when you are wrong. Yes the engine is a big component, but when installed in compliance with the aircraft type certificate and manufacturers recommendation, YES ALL IT TAKES IS A SIMPLE SIGN OFF. If it's not in accordance with the type certificate and you have to use an STC, guess what? Yeah a 337 has to be filed and there's more record keeping but the new engine still doesn't need an "annual".

The reason separate logbook exists has nothing to do with this. It exists because there are maintenance records that are more convenient if they can follow these components around. THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT FOR SEPERATE LOG BOOKS EITHER. It's a convenience. It's highly recommended by the FAA especially when the times in service on these parts are likely to be different than the total aicraft time in service. Ask those who are having to scrap their Mac props right now because they DON'T have the documentation to back up a time in service on their props.

Show me one FAR, Advisory Circular, Manufacturer's ICA, or anything that backs up your statement.
 
Norman said:
Are you really that thin skinned? If so, perhaps you should turn off your 'puter and take up knitting. :D
Click to expand...

Are you that obnoxious, that you you don't know what you do?
 
I wonder why we are not required to record which engine we inspected at each annual?
Wouldn't we be required to log each of these engine annuals on our IA activity sheet at renewal time?
 
Tom-D said:
I wonder why we are not required to record which engine we inspected at each annual?
Wouldn't we be required to log each of these engine annuals on our IA activity sheet at renewal time?
Click to expand...

YGBSM. But, it sure would help meet the minimum requirements quicker.
 
Tom-D said:
I wonder why we are not required to record which engine we inspected at each annual?
Wouldn't we be required to log each of these engine annuals on our IA activity sheet at renewal time?
Click to expand...

you mean you're not doing that? :yikes:
 
This thread was identified as troll-like on page 1. Why are we on page 7 now?
 
F01LA said:
This thread was identified as troll-like on page 1. Why are we on page 7 now?
Click to expand...

Because the guys who ID'ed it as a troll are the biggest fish.
 
I noticed that. That's some bait you're using!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top