Jump to content

Inspections


Spectre

Recommended Posts

I don't think I've ever billed a customer for the time spent putting band-aids on.

I’ve never had the pleasure (or displeasure depending how you look at it) of wrenching for myself. I’ve always been on-the-clock working for a company. Therefore, my Band-Aid reference simply illustrated the fact that under normal working conditions, the timeframe to do the job is rarely close to what the manufacturer estimated due to distractions and unanticipated interferences. Furthermore, with implementation of SMS, you cut a finger; it must be reported and documented. It’s an “on-the-job” injury and subject to policies and procedures of the organization. All of this takes time away from actually doing the job and why the inspection or repair takes longer than originally estimated. Basically, it’s the difference between the real world and the theoretical world…….

Edited by Spike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never had a problem completing an inspection or repair within manufacturer's guidelines when a guideline was given, but I digress - just BSing not measuring my e-peen....

 

Yea, never had to worry about all that crap working for myself, had plenty of it in the military to deal with so I know where you are coming from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Dont get tied up with time, more important to trust the wrench. There are to many variables,

Like Is it the first time they have worked on the machine? it realy makes a differance, you know the tank cover\ bulkhead screws were not done up by a gorilla! screw heads FU, starter gen wires are numbered, all the little things that make the job go easier, then paper work if it is the first time we have seen a machine we go back to check hours ( suprising how some companies cant add up) How long to clean ? a lot of vairiables .

the next time you do that machine should be quicker for the prescribed work BUT then you find a trim unit with slow responce needs removing? no inspection access in belley pan so have to cut one make new closing plate doubler for skin paint & you havent looked at the origional problem yet, so hours are misleading, as others have said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup. Just looking for what the MD book said, if it said. Just the hours required to perform the different inspections. That's all. Just that simple. But I know who I would want touching one now.

 

The intelligent owner/operator wants someone touching their aircraft who is thorough.

 

The operator who seeks minimum time on the machine and a set cost is far more interested in the bottom line than safety.

 

I know whose equipment I don't want in my shop.

Edited by avbug
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already added my two cents, bro.

 

You did, and contributed nothing, as usual. "Bro?" What might you say if you didn't wish to sound like a fourteen year old?

 

You're not a mechanic, are you? Shame. You might have had something to contribute, but then you'd have to make an effort, and you've yet to do that. Pitifully, the thread once again becomes about you.

 

If you've nothing to contribute or offer, perhaps you'd do best to keep our trap shut until such time as you may actually contribute in some minor way. Anything positive would be a plus, but will likely never occur. How very consistent of you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What might you say if you didn't wish to sound like a fourteen year old?

 

 

 

What might you say if you didn't want to sound like an ostentatious unbearable prick ?

 

Get over yourself already.

 

You are not even smart enough to recognize that you not only did not answer the original poster's question but you are not even near enough of a man to own up to the fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I answered the original poster. He asked the wrong question, and wanted to hear what he wanted to hear.

 

The MD500 manuals are online, incidentally.

 

Most aircraft manufacturers do NOT offer estimates for the time to complete inspections, particularly given that inspections vary widely with the owner/operator and the program which the owner/operator has approved (progressive or otherwise). Additionally, installed equipment varies the requirements for a given inspection, as does the age and condition of the aircraft, and the specific effectivity by serial number, and airworthiness directives.

 

A shop that tells you to expect a 15 hour labor cost for an annual on a MD500 is not being realistic, and likely has little or no experience with the type.

 

A shop that hasn't worked with your aircraft before, but which gives a base number and tells you that after viewing your aircraft records and the aircraft, you'll get a more complete estimate of the hours (and cost) necessary, IS being realistic.

 

The original poster asked the wrong question.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i really must side with the avbug on this one, the correct question should have been: "who on this forum is like playing checkers with a pigeon, even if you win, the pigeon sh*^ts on the board and struts about like it won"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

avbug "The original poster asked the wrong question."

 

Now folks, that right thar is about the most amazing display of arrogance I've ever witnessed: since avbug didn't correctly answer the OP's question, the OP asked the wrong question! This is the most amazing and novel way of never being wrong I've ever seen. Every avbug answer is always correct and if it's not, then the question is "wrong"! Pathetic, but he is innovative.

 

Kind of like Randy Babbitt's career being "over" after a DUI. Here's avbug:

 

"Oh...Randy Babbitt was immediately hired by Southwest Airlines right after? Well, I meant his career in government! Oh, he never had a career in government? You're a 14 year old!"

Edited by helonorth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your post has failed to address the thread topic. Have you something to contribute to the subject of aircraft inspections? Clearly not.

 

Babbit's government career ended with his DUI. That's without question and indisputable. He ended it with his resignation.

 

Babbit's DUI case was vacated on a technicality, although he was drunk, and under the influence. Babbit initially tested .01 under the state legal limit, and retested at .08, under which he was arrested. Likely had his initial test been at .08, he wouldn't have been hired at SWA, either. The Officer's protocol in making the traffic stop for Babbit was questioned and factored in the dismissal; Babbit was not seen on the wrong side of the road and did not leave his lane as originally indicated by the arresting officer. Babbit was simply driving home from a party where he had been drinking.

 

Of course, the fact that he was driving in the wrong direction wasn't an issue...

 

The matter rapidly ended his government career, without any question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your post has failed to address the thread topic. Have you something to contribute to the subject of aircraft inspections? Clearly not.

 

Babbit's government career ended with his DUI. That's without question and indisputable. He ended it with his resignation.

 

Babbit's DUI case was vacated on a technicality, although he was drunk, and under the influence. Babbit initially tested .01 under the state legal limit, and retested at .08, under which he was arrested. Likely had his initial test been at .08, he wouldn't have been hired at SWA, either. The Officer's protocol in making the traffic stop for Babbit was questioned and factored in the dismissal; Babbit was not seen on the wrong side of the road and did not leave his lane as originally indicated by the arresting officer. Babbit was simply driving home from a party where he had been drinking.

 

Of course, the fact that he was driving in the wrong direction wasn't an issue...

 

The matter rapidly ended his government career, without any question.

You're responding to the "wrong" thread. You must be drinking again. Ya'll come back when you have some experience with the 500.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite the contrary, in fact in my experience a mechanic that couldn't inspect a small bird in 15 hours would be entirely incompetent.

 

Again, inspection does not equal repair, it means inspect. Which is why an IA can give a squawk list and the owner have another A&P return it to service.

 

As far as all the other BS you're spewing, ever hear of ADLOG ? Takes like 5 minutes tops to research ADs. Most of my customer's have printouts of all applicable ADs already in their records. This imaginary unicorn aircraft you're talking about that has been operating with a sh*t record book by sh*t IAs for years doesn't exist, its not even a realistic concern when you type it out into a written sentence and read it aloud( to any reasonably sane person anyhow...)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adlog is one method of record keeping among many. I've seen meticulous records that are hand kept, maintained through a professional maintenance management service, computerized records, and records kept in a shoe box. I've also seen little or no records, and what I've seen come from other IA's, especially those who have been pencil whipping annuals and maintenance for owners for bargain prices, might make you quake in your sleep. Controls rigged backward or so far off that it's a wonder the aircraft flew (and it did), and numerous other things that quite frankly ought to shock any safety-minded person. Never the less, it does occur, and I've seen it from private owners, corporate operators, Part 135 operators, and part 121 operations, too. If that surprises you, then you've no experience whatsoever in the industry.

 

The aircraft that's been poorly maintained with illegal maintenance, modifications, undone AD's, and other issues is all too common. A few years ago I was asked to takeover management of a King Air 200. I found discrepancies of several hundred hours in the logs, missing AD's, items signed off that weren't done, and several critical items undone, one of which was 25 years past due. Unicorn? Hardly. I've seen owners attempt to use garden hose to replace brake lines. I was presented with an aircraft, by the owner and his wife, with the entire electrical system dyked out...by the wife. She said she thought she was helping. I've seen holes drilled by owner/operators through the pressure vessel of pressurized aircraft, in order to use PK screws to install trim, o-rings and packings from harbor freight, and recently inspected a large airplane that was missing part of its' secondary flight controls. The owner allowed they'd been missing for at least a year, and had been flying regularly during that time. I also did an inspection on a DC3, and found a cracked bracket on an aileron. The owner was notified, and subsequently flew the aircraft. Unusual, you say?

 

If you really believe that these things are unusual or uncommon, and I find it very difficult to think that you could, then you've no experience whatsoever, and have seen nothing yet.

 

You're not familiar with Carson Helicopters? Know anything about Sabretech? Recall Alaska #261? These things are found throughout the industry. I've seen unbelievably bad maintenance, including falsification, missed inspections, extremely poor tracking and management, unairworthy parts and equipment, and an aircraft that came out of an inspection with 16 open major squawks (to go on a revenue passenger flight) with a national fractional program. You haven't seen these things, apparently. Don't let your lack of experience attempt to substantiate your bad information, as it does not.

 

As for providing a list of squawks; that's a iist of discrepancies found during the course of the inspection; installed equipment subject to airworthiness directives and the aircraft itself subject to the same become mandatory parts of the annual inspection (and any 100 hour inspection, as applicable, as the 100 hour is the same scope and scale by regulation). Some AD's can substantially increase the time required to inspect.

 

When an annual is performed, the person performing the inspection doesn't buy the future of the aircraft, but signs off the entire past as it exists in the current aircraft. That is, all former maintenance, repairs, alterations; the airworthiness of this work becomes the responsibility of the person approving the aircraft for return to service subsequent to the inspection, and must by necessity be included in the scope of the inspection. The scope of an annual inspection (or a given phase or progressive inspection) increases with age and time on an airframe, appliance, powerplant, or component. For the initial inspection, a professional will not simply accept that all former maintenance is done properly, or that all previous AD's are complied, or even that an AD list citing applicability by effectivity is correct; a professional will check it for himself, regardless of the record keeping or maintenance tracking used in the past.

 

I don't care that inspector XXX stated that an AD wasn't applicable in 2010. I'm going to verify that it is or isn't by serial number, and verify compliance, if it is.

 

The bill for the King Air 200 mentioned above, incidentally, came to over 900,000 dollars, and it was an airplane being maintained under a current 135 program at the time. Where was the POI and PMI for that certificate holder? Apparently not close enough.

 

Perhaps you've lived in a cozy insulated little nirvana where you've seen nothing but perfect aircraft and records, but such exists only in a dream world. Is that where you live?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

an over 25 year old king air? and the owner put 9 hundred thousand $$ into it?? ,,,,could buy one for 1/2 that,,,oh oh,, but this one was "de-avbugged" so it more better

 

i know of Carson, what does that have to do with the price of apples in india?

 

a cracked aileron bracket and they flew it? why didn't you ground it? (hehehehheheeheeee)

 

controls rigged backwards and someone was able to fly it? must have been an exceptional pilot,, (oh wait !,, it was a bug at the controls) of korse !!

 

refer to post #38 for further instrux

Edited by pokey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've nothing to contribute either, we see.

 

The King Air 200 was worth 1.6 million at the time, and yes, the AD was 25 years overdue. The estimate at conclusion of the inspection was over nine hundred thousand. That's what comes from failing to maintain one's aircraft. He was over a barrel, given that he'd kept the aircraft in Part 135 revenue service. His best hope was to see all issues and discrepancies corrected and the logs straightened out. At the time, I refused to take management of the aircraft until it completed two phase inspections with a Beech center, all AD's were brought current, and the aircraft was brought into compliance. I had no intention of taking over that ratnest. I also required that the owner computerize the records and subscribe to a tracking service.

 

You don't understand why Carson's falsification and mismanagement of maintenance records, alternation and falsification of performance data and weight and balance, and the indictment of two top company personnel for records falsification and mismanagement (leading to the worst helicopter crash in USFS history) might apply to the topic? You know Carson, you say?

 

I didn't fly the aircraft with reversed controls. It wasn't the only one I've seen. In one case at the time of an annual, the controls were so misrigged that there was zero travel to the left on lateral control. The operator had flown the aircraft nine hours during the previous year. The operator told me that they simply didn't turn left.

 

I did ground the DC3. The aircraft was no longer airworthy; I left dye penetrant on the part and it was hard to miss; bright red. I placarded the controls, and notified the owner as well as his staff.

 

Again, maintenance discrepancies are not uncommon (else aircraft maintenance would be a very poor profession, and it's not); neither are records discrepancies.

 

Have you something to contribute to the topic? It seems not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maybe i should rant and rage about how great i am,, would that be sufficient to you as a worthy contribution?? again i say: post #38 describes you best

 

 

and who is "we" got a mouse in that avgut of yours?

 

you have de-railed this topic so far off the tracks that there is no one that can contribute anything further than your bragging and vastly superior years of knowledge and experience

 

they "didn't turn left" " good one !! sounds just like some hare-brained scheme you would say ! as bugs bunny would say "whatta marooon"

 

oh and one more thing oh mighty avbug?,,,, how can you tell that an O-ring came from harbor freight? did the mechanic put it in the log book where he/she bought it from??

 

garden hose for a brake line? where do you find these ppls?? i have a feeling you are full of (you know what)

 

it was worth 1.6 million,,,, you an aircraft appraiser now too?

Edited by pokey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.6 million as that was the appraised value at the time; the owner sought refinancing. I don't do appraisals. Not that it's really any of your business.

 

Garden hose for brake line on a Navion. It didn't work, but the owner tried all manner of home-grown shade tree maintenance.

 

Mighty? The only one who's said that is you. I've said nothing about greatness, either. You have, though. You're still entirely unable to contribute to the thread. For a failure, you're in company with several others, it seems.

 

How might one know the o-ring came from harbor freight? Aside from the wrong material, wrong size, and the rough parting line on the o-ring with excess sprue, the fact that the owner produced it from a package from harbor freight was a good indicator. The IA that installed it didn't state that it was from harbor freight. The owner came to me seeking shop air to pop the puck from the brake, stating he couldn't understand why the brake was leaking so badly; it had just been overhauled, after all. The brake was filthy. The o ring was clearly wrong as it didn't fit the groove, was obviously not an aircraft part, and was too small in diameter and thickness, as well as the wrong part number. The brake hadn't been cleaned or honed, and was badly pitted and gouged. I had no idea who had done the work. It wasn't until I asked what idiot called that an overhaul job that the IA standing next to the owner spoke up and admitted it. He didn't need to make an endorsement that he'd installed illegal parts. It was quite obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://helicopterforum.verticalreference.com/topic/18288-another-scary-find/

20 hours from annual

May not agree with AV allways but there are Scary things out there like C18 with wheels 300 hours over, tail boom 100 hours out of life. The pin was one of 3 that was shot after flying for 3 hours after maintance go figure.

The discrepancys in hours is quite noticable as well.

Had a 300 last year with the origional clusters , the AP told customer they were ok as long as he checked them!!! WTF you examine the things before every flight even with the latest - (you do dont you)

 

DSCF0004_zpsf36e36d0.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...