It is always something…

[Morgan3820]

My plane partner and I tried to go flying today as we wanted to try out the new autopilot.
Just about to takeoff and the ‘low voltage’ indicator lights up.
Returned to the hanger to find this. Look carefully and you will see a alternator housing bolt hanging out where it should not be.
Just had the alternator rebuilt last spring too.
It is always something.

 

[Magman]

Was it done by an auto shop or repair station?

Auto guys generally do not have safety hardware.

 

[Morgan3820]

Faa repair station

 

[hindsight2020]

Was it done by an auto shop or repair station?

Auto guys generally do not have safety hardware.

That's funny. cErtIfIEd baby!

ETA: See post 3. Beat me to it.

 

[Magman]

Locking device missing?

 

[FORANE]

That's funny. cErtIfIEd baby!

ETA: See post 3. Beat me to it.

Yeah, when I had my cylinders overhauled the R&R was done by a licensed A&P. Before I recowled the plane I gave it a look over and found this exact same bolt backed out. After looking at it some more later I found the baffles under and between the cylinders weren't wired up in position. After looking at the log entry I found they didn't bother to mention what type cylinder overhaul was done, nor any part numbers for rings used or the new piston that was installed...

I really wish there was a means to obtain authorization of signing off condition inspection on an experimental by the subsequent non-builder owner, similar to the ELSA repairman courses. it seems I know more about my plane than most A&P's out there.

 

[hindsight2020]

Yeah, when I had my cylinders overhauled the R&R was done by a licensed A&P. Before I recowled the plane I gave it a look over and found this exact same bolt backed out. After looking at it some more later I found the baffles under and between the cylinders weren't wired up in position. After looking at the log entry I found they didn't bother to mention what type cylinder overhaul was done, nor any part numbers for rings used or the new piston that was installed...

I really wish there was a means to obtain authorization of signing off condition inspection on an experimental by the subsequent non-builder owner, similar to the ELSA repairman courses. it seems I know more about my plane than most A&P's out there.

Oh brother, from your mouth to the cosmos ears....

 

[TCABM]

Oh brother, from your mouth to the cosmos ears....

Sometimes I think the only reason that won’t happen is Piper and Textron are afraid of the SEP fleet being abandoned at that point.

Reality is it won’t have much of an impact.

 

[Magman]

I always suggest that anyone getting involved in aviation should log their Mx time.

Someday you just might want the A or P or Both.

Having the self discipline to log the time is the hard part.

 

[Morgan3820]

Locking device missing?

Not missing so much as not installed properly. Looked at the logs, 38.3 hours since overhaul/installation. Removed from aircraft. hope to get a quick turnaround. Hope it’s under warranty also.

 

[Bell206]

Sometimes I think the only reason that won’t happen is Piper and Textron are afraid of the SEP fleet being abandoned at that point.

Of all things the FAA could change with the stroke of a pen with no international repercussions would be to allow E/AB owners to sign off their own condition inspection regardless if builder or not. And I doubt Cessna or Piper would give a hoot.

 

[mondtster]

I really wish there was a means to obtain authorization of signing off condition inspection on an experimental by the subsequent non-builder owner, similar to the ELSA repairman courses. it seems I know more about my plane than most A&P's out there.

Obtaining a repairman certificate for an aircraft you didn’t originally construct can be done, but it isn’t something that happens often. But your lamenting about doing a condition inspection has nothing to do with whether you could have done your own cylinder change on an E/AB.

 

[mondtster]

Sometimes I think the only reason that won’t happen is Piper and Textron are afraid of the SEP fleet being abandoned at that point.

Reality is it won’t have much of an impact.

Judging by what I’ve seen going through Piper’s facility, the manufacturers are well aware of their target market and that it won’t be affected by anything in E/AB world.

 

[mandm]

Arg no fun, hope it gets fixed correctly and addressed (aka they missed it should be fixed for free!)

 

[Bell206]

I really wish there was a means to obtain authorization of signing off condition inspection on an experimental by the subsequent non-builder owner, similar to the ELSA repairman courses.

What I don't understand is why the EAA hasn't made this a priority. They were all hot and bothered a Primary Non-commercial category which had zero to do with "experimental aircraft." You'd think this would have been a good Plan B to that when it failed to materialize. Perhaps someone needs to remind the EAA what the "E" stands for again?

 

[hindsight2020]

Arg no fun, hope it gets fixed correctly and addressed (aka they missed it should be fixed for free!)

heh, wish in one hand....

I'm on month two waiting on an aircraft signed off on annual, unable to retract gear on very first flight. If I had jacks in the hangar I'm sure those pesky hangar fairies would do a fly by night with them.... y me someto a la quinta enmienda.

#shawshank #putitonmytab

 

[TCABM]

Of all things the FAA could change with the stroke of a pen with no international repercussions would be to allow E/AB owners to sign off their own condition inspection regardless if builder or not. And I doubt Cessna or Piper would give a hoot.

I agree on the first part. Textron owns Lycoming, which I guess still has a significant number of certificated engines in the E/AB space. I reached for Piper because if, in the long run, a rule change allows non-builder repairman privileges, does that open up owner maintained as an option for parts of the standard AWC fleet. Without some type of tort block, I can see angst on the liability leash that change could produce.

The other influencer on FAA policy I would expect is insurers, if their data suggests variability in claims between aircraft maintained by a repairman, an A&P, and just an interested owner.

And then sometimes, fear is just fear.

Maybe it’s time to lobby the GA caucus for a BasicMx for the EAB condition inspection.

 

[Magman]

IMHO Sending one off the shelf exchange is the least the CRS can do.

 

[Magman]

Hind :

IMHO An owner can put their aircraft on jacks and diagnose the issue.

Recently I posted “ Tele-Tech” where you may have a guru assist you remotely.

However; this does not include adjustment or “ fixin”.

I’m sure most Techs will “ fire” anyone that has “ fairies” doing that.

I know I have. Better to walk away with no charges and leave them hanging then

to put your ASSets on the line.

 

[Bell206]

Without some type of tort block, I can see angst on the liability leash that change could produce.

The other influencer on FAA policy I would expect is insurers,

I doubt even that would be a concern. For example, nobody flinched when they allowed a "regulated" SLSA to be converted to a "non-regulated" ELSA while still allowing a LSA-I repairman to sign the condition inspection. Besides, once you "stamp" E/AB or ELSA on an aircraft the liability issues drop off a cliff in my experience. I think there's either not enough people making noise on this type of change or there's simply not enough people interested in it. Same with Owner Maintained. If the numbers of aircraft converted to OM in Canada are any gauge, the projected numbers in the US would be a lot lower than most people think which in turn would create a new level of problems.

 

[unsafervguy]

What I don't understand is why the EAA hasn't made this a priority. They were all hot and bothered a Primary Non-commercial category which had zero to do with "experimental aircraft." You'd think this would have been a good Plan B to that when it failed to materialize. Perhaps someone needs to remind the EAA what the "E" stands for again?

im dead set against it unless there is a standard in place to examine the owners ability. with the proliferation of EAB there is an increasing number of people owning them that do not know what end of a screw driver to use. ive seen some questionable things done to an EAB by owner maintenance that I would not sign a CI over. there does need to be a process to allow follow on owners to be allowed to do CI's, but there needs to be a knowledge standard to go with it. on another note, the standard needs to be put in place for repairman certs in general, its all over the place now. I have seen inspectors that were way over the top in there questioning, and others that just issue a cert to someone that built the plane with a pen and checkbook.
for follow on owners, the best solution is to find a good A&P to work with. i do a lot of owner assisted CI's that are two inspections, the owner does one, then I come along or am present when it is done, and do what I am required to do either with them or after they have done it. im not required to do any maintenance, just inspect. i don't charge a lot for that, especially since i really only work on friends airplanes.
in forane's case, I bet if i walked in to the hangar to do a CI on his plane, i would find it opened up, all the lubrication done and documented, the plugs cleaned and gapped and ready to go back in, a filter drained, cut and ready to inspect. ect ect.

 

[Bell206]

im dead set against it unless there is a standard in place to examine the owners ability.

Agree. I believe it was described above as the program could be modeled after the LSA-M certification which could easily tweaked to cover E/AB. I quit performing condition inspects long ago on E/AB airplanes for the same reasons you mentioned. Also saw a number of people obtain their E/AB repairman under less than ideal conditions after using a completion service which further pushed me to drop condition inspects. I think the FAA set a standard when they introduced the LSA-M & I certs. But unless people push the narrative there is no incentive to add E/AB to the mix.

 

[Daleandee]

I live in the E/AB world and admittedly I've seen some things that really scare me as to what some folks think is acceptable. I get it that there is a right to "experiment" but when I see guys using hardware store bolts to hold on wings and props I just cringe when I point it out only to hear them say ... "that'll be awright old boy."

Perhaps to start down the pathway to owner inspections on certified aircraft they could allow the owners of single seat certified planes (or a restriction for no passengers) to perform their own inspection on biennial basis. That way if something went wrong the amount of carnage is limited.

All repairs and every other year the inspection would require an A&P to do the inspection and all needed repairs.

Perhaps I've been awake too long ...

Edit: Meant to add that an owner doing an inspection on their plane would need to complete a minimum training course.

 

[Magman]

Is there a long line of A & Ps that would want to walk those footsteps?

 

[TCABM]

… Besides, once you "stamp" E/AB or ELSA on an aircraft the liability issues drop off a cliff in my experience. ….

Fair enough.

I think there's either not enough people making noise on this type of change or there's simply not enough people interested in it.

Concur.

 

[FORANE]

in forane's case, I bet if i walked in to the hangar to do a CI on his plane, i would find it opened up, all the lubrication done and documented, the plugs cleaned and gapped and ready to go back in, a filter drained, cut and ready to inspect. ect ect.

Close, I don't bother cleaning plugs anymore. Ever since I went automotive plug, I just throw them out and replace with new every year.