Toasted my engine

[Kobra]

Flyers,

This was part of a post in "Selling my Garmin 296" and decided to make it a
separate post. Sorry for the redundancy.


Kobra wrote:
>>...I toasted my engine about 3 weeks ago.


> Urgh. Sorry to hear that. What happened?

I have a Cardinal RG with a IO-360A1B6 with 1000 hours on it. On one short
30 min. flight to Cape May, NJ (WWD) I noticed a small amount of oil running
down the nose gear door. I did a cursory look and found the oil level
unchanged and saw nothing through the oil access door. I wiped it off.

On the flight back all oil indicators were fine. When I landed the drip of
oil was back. No big oil loss, but when you fly the same airplane you know
what's suppose to be there and what's not. I called my mechanic and
co-owner and explained the problem. At first the mechanic was not
concerned.

My partner flew a few days later on a short flight and when he landed the
A&P came over to say hello. He then noticed the oil on the gear door. He
grounded the plane and the next day called me to the airport. He showed me
a pretty good leak coming through something called a "though-bolt" on the
number two cylinder. A though-bolt is a long bolt that goes completely
through the engine from one cylinder to the other and helps keep the case
enlighten and tight.

That wasn't the big problem though, he said I could fly with a minor leak at
the through-bolt to TBO. Next he did a dye penetrate test and found a crack
in the case in front of the number 4 jug at one of the studs for that
cylinder. That did it. The engine had to come off, the case split and a
new case was ordered.

The story goes on though. As he was taking the engine off he found one
other interesting item. One of the through-bolt nuts on the bottom of
cylinder number 3 was sheared off completely flush the cylinder base.
That's when the hair on the back of my neck stood up. I have to think that
all this was related as the nut was still laying in the bottom of the
engine. This was recent!

Next I had a recollection of starting the engine before my flight to WWD and
I remember that I heard a "snap!" just as the engine caught. It was loud
enough to make me say, "...what the %$#@ was that?!" and just soft enough
for me to dismiss it and ponder, "...did you really hear what you think you
heard?"

The rest is speculation, but maybe that was the nut snapping off and
something bad happened in the engine causing the leak at the through bolt on
number two cylinder. Maybe the engine was ready to self-destruct in the air
on the next flight. Who knows? But I hope to learn more when the engine is
broken down and inspected. I will keep you all posted if you are
interested.

Kobra

[Peter R.]

Kobra > wrote:

> But I hope to learn more when the engine is
> broken down and inspected. I will keep you all posted if you are
> interested.

I am interested. Thanks for the story and my condolences.


--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Marco Leon]

Definitely warrants a separate post. With an 800 hour (SMOH) engine, this
news definitely has raised an eyebrow.

Any more stories of "early" overhauls that anyone care to share?

Marco Leon


"Kobra" > wrote in message
...
> Flyers,
>
> This was part of a post in "Selling my Garmin 296" and decided to make it
a
> separate post. Sorry for the redundancy.
>
>
> Kobra wrote:
> >>...I toasted my engine about 3 weeks ago.
>
>
> > Urgh. Sorry to hear that. What happened?
>
> I have a Cardinal RG with a IO-360A1B6 with 1000 hours on it. On one
short
> 30 min. flight to Cape May, NJ (WWD) I noticed a small amount of oil
running
> down the nose gear door. I did a cursory look and found the oil level
> unchanged and saw nothing through the oil access door. I wiped it off.
>
> On the flight back all oil indicators were fine. When I landed the drip
of
> oil was back. No big oil loss, but when you fly the same airplane you
know
> what's suppose to be there and what's not. I called my mechanic and
> co-owner and explained the problem. At first the mechanic was not
> concerned.
>
> My partner flew a few days later on a short flight and when he landed the
> A&P came over to say hello. He then noticed the oil on the gear door. He
> grounded the plane and the next day called me to the airport. He showed
me
> a pretty good leak coming through something called a "though-bolt" on the
> number two cylinder. A though-bolt is a long bolt that goes completely
> through the engine from one cylinder to the other and helps keep the case
> enlighten and tight.
>
> That wasn't the big problem though, he said I could fly with a minor leak
at
> the through-bolt to TBO. Next he did a dye penetrate test and found a
crack
> in the case in front of the number 4 jug at one of the studs for that
> cylinder. That did it. The engine had to come off, the case split and a
> new case was ordered.
>
> The story goes on though. As he was taking the engine off he found one
> other interesting item. One of the through-bolt nuts on the bottom of
> cylinder number 3 was sheared off completely flush the cylinder base.
> That's when the hair on the back of my neck stood up. I have to think
that
> all this was related as the nut was still laying in the bottom of the
> engine. This was recent!
>
> Next I had a recollection of starting the engine before my flight to WWD
and
> I remember that I heard a "snap!" just as the engine caught. It was loud
> enough to make me say, "...what the %$#@ was that?!" and just soft enough
> for me to dismiss it and ponder, "...did you really hear what you think
you
> heard?"
>
> The rest is speculation, but maybe that was the nut snapping off and
> something bad happened in the engine causing the leak at the through bolt
on
> number two cylinder. Maybe the engine was ready to self-destruct in the
air
> on the next flight. Who knows? But I hope to learn more when the engine
is
> broken down and inspected. I will keep you all posted if you are
> interested.
>
> Kobra
>
>



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[George Patterson]

Kobra wrote:

> My partner flew a few days later on a short flight and when he landed the
> A&P came over to say hello. He then noticed the oil on the gear door. He
> grounded the plane and the next day called me to the airport.

Sounds like you have a pretty good A&P there.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Jim Burns]

I'd love to know what caused the through bolt to shear or snap.
Thanks for posting.
Jim

"Kobra" > wrote in message
...
> Flyers,
>
> This was part of a post in "Selling my Garmin 296" and decided to make it
a
> separate post. Sorry for the redundancy.
>
>
> Kobra wrote:
> >>...I toasted my engine about 3 weeks ago.
>
>
> > Urgh. Sorry to hear that. What happened?
>
> I have a Cardinal RG with a IO-360A1B6 with 1000 hours on it. On one
short
> 30 min. flight to Cape May, NJ (WWD) I noticed a small amount of oil
running
> down the nose gear door. I did a cursory look and found the oil level
> unchanged and saw nothing through the oil access door. I wiped it off.
>
> On the flight back all oil indicators were fine. When I landed the drip
of
> oil was back. No big oil loss, but when you fly the same airplane you
know
> what's suppose to be there and what's not. I called my mechanic and
> co-owner and explained the problem. At first the mechanic was not
> concerned.
>
> My partner flew a few days later on a short flight and when he landed the
> A&P came over to say hello. He then noticed the oil on the gear door. He
> grounded the plane and the next day called me to the airport. He showed
me
> a pretty good leak coming through something called a "though-bolt" on the
> number two cylinder. A though-bolt is a long bolt that goes completely
> through the engine from one cylinder to the other and helps keep the case
> enlighten and tight.
>
> That wasn't the big problem though, he said I could fly with a minor leak
at
> the through-bolt to TBO. Next he did a dye penetrate test and found a
crack
> in the case in front of the number 4 jug at one of the studs for that
> cylinder. That did it. The engine had to come off, the case split and a
> new case was ordered.
>
> The story goes on though. As he was taking the engine off he found one
> other interesting item. One of the through-bolt nuts on the bottom of
> cylinder number 3 was sheared off completely flush the cylinder base.
> That's when the hair on the back of my neck stood up. I have to think
that
> all this was related as the nut was still laying in the bottom of the
> engine. This was recent!
>
> Next I had a recollection of starting the engine before my flight to WWD
and
> I remember that I heard a "snap!" just as the engine caught. It was loud
> enough to make me say, "...what the %$#@ was that?!" and just soft enough
> for me to dismiss it and ponder, "...did you really hear what you think
you
> heard?"
>
> The rest is speculation, but maybe that was the nut snapping off and
> something bad happened in the engine causing the leak at the through bolt
on
> number two cylinder. Maybe the engine was ready to self-destruct in the
air
> on the next flight. Who knows? But I hope to learn more when the engine
is
> broken down and inspected. I will keep you all posted if you are
> interested.
>
> Kobra
>
>

[RST Engineering]

There aren't a lot of possibilities, are there?

1. The case crack set up a vibration or torque that overstressed the
bolt -- and since it happened on startup when things are running less than
smooth in a Lyc, I'd bet on this one.

2. The bolt was WWAAAYYY overtorqued on installation. You'll never know
about this one. However, a through bolt shearing and a case crack by
another through bolt leads me to check the calibration on somebody's torque
wrench.

3. Something else in the engine was vibrating ... not likely as the whole
AIRplane would have been vibrating to shear a through bolt.

4. Defective bolt ... not likely as throughbolts get magnafluxed or x-rayed
at overhaul.

5. (Add yours here)


Oh, and BTW, mechanics cannot ground airplanes. IAs cannot ground
airplanes. The FAA (unless they pull the airworthiness cert.) cannot ground
airplanes. I know it is a common phrase, but the mechanic simply suggested
that it would be less than wise to fly the airplane in its current
condition.

Jim



"Jim Burns" > wrote in message
...

> I'd love to know what caused the through bolt to shear or snap.
> Thanks for posting.
> Jim

[nrp]

It could be undertorqued too. In that case there would be a lot of
fretting under the base flange of the cylinder, and probably on the
main bearing webs too.

If it hasn't been disassembled yet, you might check the other
throughstuds to see what torque is required to very slightly further
tighten them - giving you an indication of how close to the spec the
previous assembler was.

Another possibility is the hardness of the thru studs I don't know
what the spec is (probably not published ) but maybe Rockwell C = 48 to
52 or so?

That engine wouldn't have gone much further at all. You were lucky.

[RST Engineering]

"nrp" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> It could be undertorqued too. In that case there would be a lot of
> fretting under the base flange of the cylinder, and probably on the
> main bearing webs too.

Yes, but that wouldn't have sheared the bolt at the jug stud ring as the OP
said it did. You would get fretting at that location, but I don't see a
failure mode in shear.

>
> If it hasn't been disassembled yet, you might check the other
> throughstuds to see what torque is required to very slightly further
> tighten them - giving you an indication of how close to the spec the
> previous assembler was.

And how much torque it takes to loosen a couple of them.

Jim

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Kobra wrote:
> The story goes on though. As he was taking the engine off he found one
> other interesting item. One of the through-bolt nuts on the bottom of
> cylinder number 3 was sheared off completely flush the cylinder base.
> That's when the hair on the back of my neck stood up. I have to think that
> all this was related as the nut was still laying in the bottom of the
> engine. This was recent!



You definitely need to head off to the temple and sacrifice a virgin... you're
being well looked after. I congratulate you on your good luck, conscientious
A&P, and your good sense to be aware of such minor anomalies.

I've had the pleasure of a catastrophic engine failure in a single... and it
really ain't.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Denny]

Oh, and BTW, mechanics cannot ground airplanes
************************************************** *****
Yup, true fact...

Though one local recently got into a ****ing match with his API over
some annual inspection issues on a well worn TriPacer (couple of 3
year olds in adult bodies)-
including the CAR 23 original equipment single mag switch that has only
two positions - off and on -
and the fabric passing the punch test though at the lowest allowable
reading, and the mechanic refused to sign it off..

The owner (an AP but not an I) demanded the mechanic turn the plane
back to him now, or else... The mechanic did, but he put an entry in
the log book that the airplane was unairworthy and called the FSDO and
faxed them a copy of the log entry... It took a ferry permit to get it
off the field...
So, the plane was shopped around to several API mechanics before he
found one that would touch it... 6 months later and it is still not
flying... The story I hear is that the FSDO inspector is demanding
documentation that they are having problems coming up with...

While an mechanic cannot "ground" an airplane he can do a fair
imitation if he is determined...

denny

[nrp]

"Yes, but that wouldn't have sheared the bolt at..."

I agree not sheared but it would have looked like that to the OP. I
would guess a tensile fatigue (probably initiated by bending) with the
crack starting on the side closest to the cyl centerline for cyl 3.
Assuming it is truly one of the bottom studs - they would not be
thru-studs but short ones instead. My guess is a partial loss of
preload of the #3 cyl assy initiated by the failure of the thru stud
between 2 & 3, then causing a progressive failure at the bottom of
three. There probably are also some cracks around the base of #2 also

I can't explain the crack at 4.

If the cyls are reused the flanges around the bottom should be subject
to very careful magnaflux inspection. Maybe on general principle they
should be junked.

Torque to loosen will be less than torque to tighten, and less
indicative. The engine history would be interesting. It certainly
would have failed in a few minutes rather than hours - and it would
have been a massive noisy failure too.

A Bonanza friend found one of those short studs laying in the cowl
while preflighting his airplane in the Bahamas. He put the family on
commercial airlines & flew home on minimum power - with a life jacket
on!

[Kobra]

>> It could be undertorqued too. In that case there would be a lot of
>> fretting under the base flange of the cylinder, and probably on the
>> main bearing webs too.

Flyers,

Here is a post I found about a Cardinal RG with a similar problem.

This was an interesting situation FWIW. I have pictures if you want
to see them. Can they be posted here?

Kobra
<snip>
You can tell from the type of cylinders, in this case the angle valve
cylinders, that this is a Cardinal RG. I'll confess that I'm not certain
that you can tell this from the base of the cylinders.. I think I cropped
the picture some since I first asked that question.

Visibly wrong in the picture are the two missing hold-down nuts and
sheared stud and through-bolt. There are two more you can't see on the other
side. Also visible is a long crack running down from the center of the
cylinder base. This can be more clearly seen in the picture to the right.
So, two items visibly wrong.

What could cause this? Usually detonation causes broken pistons. This
is more about looseness in the cylinder base. How could it get loose after a
reputable shop worked on it?

The best guess at this point is that the cylinder base or case may
have been painted, or had a little bit of paint slide into the mating
surface somehow. Over time this gets beaten down or squeezed out and a
little looseness develops.


Once loose, the power pulses at 50 HP per pulse work on the hold-down
studs and bolts, eventually fatiguing them to failure. Then it's just the
case and lower bolts doing their best to keep the cylinder on.

This problem was first observed as a substantial oil leak enough to
make oil visible outside the cowl. There was no perceptible difference in
engine operation or smoothness. The pilot simply arrived at his destination
and the people he was meeting commented on the oil on the cowl.

With the cowl top off the pilot and a mechanic stared at the engine
for about 15 minutes before one of them noticed the missing nuts. In fact
one of the nuts (seen to the right) lying between the cylinders, was found
and a search for where it came from ultimately led to the discovery.


Before you judge these people harshly let me assure you that it was
not obvious. The studs sheared off so smoothly that it looked like it was
suppose to be that way. And the crack where the oil was coming from was
buried behind the air filter baffling.

What's the lesson here? When you have a cylinder off make sure it is
reinstalled properly, with no paint in bad places, and consider talking to
the shop about retourqing after a while. We're not sure what the ideal
answer is, or a single thing that resolves this, but it's a possibility that
should be kept in mind during cylinder work. An interesting point for
discussion with your mechanic.

The final result for this pilot was a series of logistics: first, a
call to a friend (who happened to be me in this case) for a ride home. Next
research on engine rebuilders and the selection of the best one. A fair
amount of research on case half options and purchase of suitable parts to
make a compete case, major overhaul, re-installation of the engine and an
uneventful flight home.

In all, 4 weeks and about $20,000. At least he got a freshly
overhauled engine for that price.

[[email protected]]

If the airplane was going through an annual inspection, the IA should
have generated a list of discrepancies of what didn't pass and given
that to the owner. At that point the annual was complete.

An ordinary A&P could then bring the aircraft back to airworthinness
condition without the need for the IA.

I don't believe that there is anywhere where the FSDO could have
demanded anything except to do a ramp inspection after the aircraft had
been flying.


Denny wrote:
> Oh, and BTW, mechanics cannot ground airplanes
> ************************************************** *****
> Yup, true fact...
>
> Though one local recently got into a ****ing match with his API over
> some annual inspection issues on a well worn TriPacer (couple of 3
> year olds in adult bodies)-
> including the CAR 23 original equipment single mag switch that has only
> two positions - off and on -
> and the fabric passing the punch test though at the lowest allowable
> reading, and the mechanic refused to sign it off..
>
> The owner (an AP but not an I) demanded the mechanic turn the plane
> back to him now, or else... The mechanic did, but he put an entry in
> the log book that the airplane was unairworthy and called the FSDO and
> faxed them a copy of the log entry... It took a ferry permit to get it
> off the field...
> So, the plane was shopped around to several API mechanics before he
> found one that would touch it... 6 months later and it is still not
> flying... The story I hear is that the FSDO inspector is demanding
> documentation that they are having problems coming up with...
>
> While an mechanic cannot "ground" an airplane he can do a fair
> imitation if he is determined...
>
> denny
>

[Mark Hansen]

On 9/20/2005 12:44, nrp wrote:

[ snip ]

>
> A Bonanza friend found one of those short studs laying in the cowl
> while preflighting his airplane in the Bahamas. He put the family on
> commercial airlines & flew home on minimum power - with a life jacket
> on!
>

Yea, 'cause sharks like life jackets ;-)

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

[Matt Whiting]

RST Engineering wrote:
> There aren't a lot of possibilities, are there?
>
> 1. The case crack set up a vibration or torque that overstressed the
> bolt -- and since it happened on startup when things are running less than
> smooth in a Lyc, I'd bet on this one.
>
> 2. The bolt was WWAAAYYY overtorqued on installation. You'll never know
> about this one. However, a through bolt shearing and a case crack by
> another through bolt leads me to check the calibration on somebody's torque
> wrench.
>
> 3. Something else in the engine was vibrating ... not likely as the whole
> AIRplane would have been vibrating to shear a through bolt.
>
> 4. Defective bolt ... not likely as throughbolts get magnafluxed or x-rayed
> at overhaul.
>
> 5. (Add yours here)

I'd think 2 is most likely, but who knows?


> Oh, and BTW, mechanics cannot ground airplanes. IAs cannot ground
> airplanes. The FAA (unless they pull the airworthiness cert.) cannot ground
> airplanes. I know it is a common phrase, but the mechanic simply suggested
> that it would be less than wise to fly the airplane in its current
> condition.

True, but once the pilot knows the airplane isn't airworthy, isn't
he/she obligated not to fly it? At least not without a ferry permit?

Matt

[RST Engineering]

> wrote in message
...

> If the airplane was going through an annual inspection, the IA should have
> generated a list of discrepancies of what didn't pass and given that to
> the owner. At that point the annual was complete.

I'm not sure what you are saying. That the airplane has a current valid
annual at this point? That isn't so. THe logbook should have contained
words to the effect that the aircraft was inspected on (date) and a list of
unairworthy items given to the owner or operator.

If the airplane is "ratty" but the mag switch(es) had been installed in
accordance with the type certificate in effect as of date of manufacture and
there were no subsequent ADs to change it, then the IA cannot on his own
hook declare them unairworthy.

Similarly, if the fabric punched "at the bottom of the airworthy scale" then
the fabric is airworthy. THe IA does not get to set a higher standard than
the FAA requires.


>
> An ordinary A&P could then bring the aircraft back to airworthinness
> condition without the need for the IA.

That's true, but the aircraft still does not have a current annual
inspection.


>
> I don't believe that there is anywhere where the FSDO could have demanded
> anything except to do a ramp inspection after the aircraft had been
> flying.

They can demand green cheese. What they get or are entitled to get are two
separate matters.

Jim

[RST Engineering]

"nrp" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> "Yes, but that wouldn't have sheared the bolt at..."
>
> I agree not sheared but it would have looked like that to the OP. I
> would guess a tensile fatigue (probably initiated by bending) with the
> crack starting on the side closest to the cyl centerline for cyl 3.

Hm. Most people can detect the crystallization of fatigue as opposed to the
clean cut of a shear. Perhaps not. However, the OP clearly stated that it
was a throughbolt, not a stud.

I agree with the centerline analysis ... those pistons are slapping up and
down a hell of a lot harder than left and right (we hope).


>
> Torque to loosen will be less than torque to tighten, and less
> indicative.

Respectfully disagree. WIth torque values of these magnitudes, you will get
very little movement to find the point of actual torque by tightening.
However, just before the nut loosens you will generate very nearly the tight
torque. The problem is to have somebody reading the reverse torque very
carefully and noting the peak while you VERY SLOWLY bring the nut off.

It is, as they say, an interesting (and very expensive) problem in forensic
mechanics.


Jim

[Matt Barrow]

"Kobra" > wrote in message
...
> Flyers,
>
> The story goes on though. As he was taking the engine off he found one
> other interesting item. One of the through-bolt nuts on the bottom of
> cylinder number 3 was sheared off completely flush the cylinder base.
> That's when the hair on the back of my neck stood up. I have to think
that
> all this was related as the nut was still laying in the bottom of the
> engine. This was recent!
>
> Next I had a recollection of starting the engine before my flight to WWD
and
> I remember that I heard a "snap!" just as the engine caught. It was loud
> enough to make me say, "...what the %$#@ was that?!" and just soft enough
> for me to dismiss it and ponder, "...did you really hear what you think
you
> heard?"

I'm not that knowledgeable about the internal details of the engines, so
could you explain how that bolt could get sheared off?

Any speculations would be understood as being such.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[[email protected]]

RST Engineering wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>If the airplane was going through an annual inspection, the IA should have
>>generated a list of discrepancies of what didn't pass and given that to
>>the owner. At that point the annual was complete.
>
>
> I'm not sure what you are saying. That the airplane has a current valid
> annual at this point? That isn't so. THe logbook should have contained
> words to the effect that the aircraft was inspected on (date) and a list of
> unairworthy items given to the owner or operator.

I was saying the annual inspection was complete and current at that
point and if there were any unairworthy items, they need to be attended
to. The IA had completed his duties and is no longer involved. Once he
signs off the annual inspection, whether airworthy or not, the
inspection is complete and current.


> If the airplane is "ratty" but the mag switch(es) had been installed in
> accordance with the type certificate in effect as of date of manufacture and
> there were no subsequent ADs to change it, then the IA cannot on his own
> hook declare them unairworthy.
>
> Similarly, if the fabric punched "at the bottom of the airworthy scale" then
> the fabric is airworthy. THe IA does not get to set a higher standard than
> the FAA requires.
>
>
>
>>An ordinary A&P could then bring the aircraft back to airworthinness
>>condition without the need for the IA.
>
>
> That's true, but the aircraft still does not have a current annual
> inspection.

The inspection is current and complete, but not airworthy. That
inspection will be current for the next year and if it was not airworthy
it can be brought into airworthiness and flown during that time period.
The A&P has 0% authority with the inspection process.

>
>
>>I don't believe that there is anywhere where the FSDO could have demanded
>>anything except to do a ramp inspection after the aircraft had been
>>flying.
>
>
> They can demand green cheese. What they get or are entitled to get are two
> separate matters.
>
> Jim
>
>

[RST Engineering]

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> RST Engineering wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>
>>>If the airplane was going through an annual inspection, the IA should
>>>have generated a list of discrepancies of what didn't pass and given that
>>>to the owner. At that point the annual was complete.
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure what you are saying. That the airplane has a current valid
>> annual at this point? That isn't so. THe logbook should have contained
>> words to the effect that the aircraft was inspected on (date) and a list
>> of unairworthy items given to the owner or operator.
>
> I was saying the annual inspection was complete and current at that point
> and if there were any unairworthy items, they need to be attended to. The
> IA had completed his duties and is no longer involved. Once he signs off
> the annual inspection, whether airworthy or not, the inspection is
> complete and current.

(S)he cannot sign off the annual inspection. 43.11 (a)(5) is quite specific
as to what has to happen when the aircraft is inspected and not found
airworthy. If you have another section of the regs that countermands this
section, please post it. Otherwise I maintain that the inspection is
neither complete nor current.



> The inspection is current and complete, but not airworthy. That inspection
> will be current for the next year and if it was not airworthy it can be
> brought into airworthiness and flown during that time period.
> The A&P has 0% authority with the inspection process.

Citation from regulation, please? Otherwise I maintain as above, not
current, not "in annual".


Jim

A&P, IA

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"RST Engineering" > wrote:

[a bunch of stuff snipped]
> (S)he cannot sign off the annual inspection. 43.11 (a)(5) is quite specific
> as to what has to happen when the aircraft is inspected and not found
> airworthy. If you have another section of the regs that countermands this
> section, please post it. Otherwise I maintain that the inspection is
> neither complete nor current.

Maybe I haven't followed this thread well enough. Are you saying that
an Annual Inspection is not complete and valid if there is a list of
unairworthy items given to the owner? I don't mean to imply that the
aircraft is airworthy or "in annual", rather that the inspection was
finished and that any appropriate A&P could sign off the repair of
those unairworthy items (as appropriate), right? (In this case I'm
asking about a hypothetical case, not the specific stuff earlier in
the thread).

thanks

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[[email protected]]

RST Engineering wrote:
> > wrote in message ...
>
>>
>>RST Engineering wrote:
>>
> wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>If the airplane was going through an annual inspection, the IA should
>>>>have generated a list of discrepancies of what didn't pass and given that
>>>>to the owner. At that point the annual was complete.
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm not sure what you are saying. That the airplane has a current valid
>>>annual at this point? That isn't so. THe logbook should have contained
>>>words to the effect that the aircraft was inspected on (date) and a list
>>>of unairworthy items given to the owner or operator.
>>
>>I was saying the annual inspection was complete and current at that point
>>and if there were any unairworthy items, they need to be attended to. The
>>IA had completed his duties and is no longer involved. Once he signs off
>>the annual inspection, whether airworthy or not, the inspection is
>>complete and current.
>
>
> (S)he cannot sign off the annual inspection. 43.11 (a)(5) is quite specific
> as to what has to happen when the aircraft is inspected and not found
> airworthy. If you have another section of the regs that countermands this
> section, please post it. Otherwise I maintain that the inspection is
> neither complete nor current.
>
Cut from 43.11:
=========================
(5) Except for progressive inspections, if the aircraft is not
approved for return to service because of needed maintenance,
noncompliance with applicable specifications, airworthiness directives,
or other approved data, the following or a similarly worded statement--
``I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with
(insert type) inspection and a list of discrepancies and unairworthy
items dated (date) has been provided for the aircraft owner or
operator.''
=========================

The annual inspection is an annual inspection.
Whether or not it is "approved for return to service" is the outcome of
the inspection.
No other inspection is necessary for the next year.

91.409
=========================
Sec. 91.409 - Inspections.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may
operate an aircraft unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months, it
has had --
(1) An annual inspection in accordance with part 43 of this chapter
"and" has been approved for return to service by a person authorized by
§43.7 of this chapter;
=====================================
The big word here is "and" for allowed operation of the aircraft.

>
>
>
>>The inspection is current and complete, but not airworthy. That inspection
>>will be current for the next year and if it was not airworthy it can be
>>brought into airworthiness and flown during that time period.
>>The A&P has 0% authority with the inspection process.
>
>
> Citation from regulation, please? Otherwise I maintain as above, not
> current, not "in annual".
>

"in annual" is a slang term for an annual inspection that has been
returned to service.


I think we're stuck on the term "annual" meaning two different things.

Cheers

Dave
>
> Jim
>
> A&P, IA
>
>

[Kobra]

> I'm not that knowledgeable about the internal details of the engines, so
> could you explain how that bolt could get sheared off?


See my post about three lines up under . I found some info in
the Cardinal Flyers group.

Kobra

[Matt Barrow]

Already gone from my screen...oh well!


"Kobra" > wrote in message
...
>> I'm not that knowledgeable about the internal details of the engines, so
>> could you explain how that bolt could get sheared off?
>
>
> See my post about three lines up under . I found some info in
> the Cardinal Flyers group.
>
> Kobra
>
>

[RST Engineering]

Probably so. I see where you are coming from. It has always been my policy
to neither charge for nor sign a logbook when there are unairworthy items to
be taken care of. I see your point -- but I don't operate that way.

In any case, refusing to sign a legitimate annual when the mag switch(es)
were in conformance with the type certificate and the fabric punched at the
lower limit of acceptable strength was unethical in the least sense of the
word.

Jim



> Cut from 43.11:
> =========================
> (5) Except for progressive inspections, if the aircraft is not
> approved for return to service because of needed maintenance,
> noncompliance with applicable specifications, airworthiness directives,
> or other approved data, the following or a similarly worded statement--
> ``I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with
> (insert type) inspection and a list of discrepancies and unairworthy
> items dated (date) has been provided for the aircraft owner or
> operator.''
> =========================
>
> The annual inspection is an annual inspection.
> Whether or not it is "approved for return to service" is the outcome of
> the inspection.
> No other inspection is necessary for the next year.
>
> 91.409
> =========================
> Sec. 91.409 - Inspections.
>
> (a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may
> operate an aircraft unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months, it
> has had --
> (1) An annual inspection in accordance with part 43 of this chapter "and"
> has been approved for return to service by a person authorized by §43.7 of
> this chapter;
> =====================================
> The big word here is "and" for allowed operation of the aircraft.

[Steve Foley]

Fuelers often ground airplanes. (Sorry, but I couldn't resist).

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
> Oh, and BTW, mechanics cannot ground airplanes. IAs cannot ground
> airplanes.

[Robert M. Gary]

Saying the engine has 800 hours doesn't really say much. I'd be more
interested in how many years since overhaul. There are a lot of planes
for sale out there with low time engines that have sat for many years.
I would not feel comfortable flying behind an 800 hour engine if it has
sat for 10 years.

-Robert

[George Patterson]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> I would not feel comfortable flying behind an 800 hour engine if it has
> sat for 10 years.

I'm a little nervous flying behind one that has sat for 6 months.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Dale Scroggins]

RST Engineering wrote:
> Probably so. I see where you are coming from. It has always been my policy
> to neither charge for nor sign a logbook when there are unairworthy items to
> be taken care of. I see your point -- but I don't operate that way.
>
> In any case, refusing to sign a legitimate annual when the mag switch(es)
> were in conformance with the type certificate and the fabric punched at the
> lower limit of acceptable strength was unethical in the least sense of the
> word.
>
> Jim
>
Are you saying that, if you perform an inspection, and the aircraft has
unairworthy items, that you make no entry in the aircraft records? If
so, do you believe this is legal?

I've owned several Pacers and Tripacers, and inspected scores of them.
I've never seen one that had only "On" and "Off" positions for the
magneto switch. Nor have I seen any such thing in the parts catalog or
maintenance data.

Punch testing fabric covering is not a sufficient test for determination
of airworthiness IF the fabric condition is questionable. I leave you
to reference AC43.13-1B for the only acceptable method of determination
if a covering either fails or barely passes a punch test.

Dale
>
>
>
>>Cut from 43.11:
>>=========================
>>(5) Except for progressive inspections, if the aircraft is not
>>approved for return to service because of needed maintenance,
>>noncompliance with applicable specifications, airworthiness directives,
>>or other approved data, the following or a similarly worded statement--
>>``I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with
>>(insert type) inspection and a list of discrepancies and unairworthy
>>items dated (date) has been provided for the aircraft owner or
>>operator.''
>>=========================
>>
>>The annual inspection is an annual inspection.
>>Whether or not it is "approved for return to service" is the outcome of
>>the inspection.
>>No other inspection is necessary for the next year.
>>
>>91.409
>>=========================
>>Sec. 91.409 - Inspections.
>>
>>(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may
>>operate an aircraft unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months, it
>>has had --
>>(1) An annual inspection in accordance with part 43 of this chapter "and"
>>has been approved for return to service by a person authorized by §43.7 of
>>this chapter;
>>=====================================
>>The big word here is "and" for allowed operation of the aircraft.
>
>
>

[Dale Scroggins]

RST Engineering wrote:
> There aren't a lot of possibilities, are there?
>
> 1. The case crack set up a vibration or torque that overstressed the
> bolt -- and since it happened on startup when things are running less than
> smooth in a Lyc, I'd bet on this one.
>
> 2. The bolt was WWAAAYYY overtorqued on installation. You'll never know
> about this one. However, a through bolt shearing and a case crack by
> another through bolt leads me to check the calibration on somebody's torque
> wrench.
>
> 3. Something else in the engine was vibrating ... not likely as the whole
> AIRplane would have been vibrating to shear a through bolt.
>
> 4. Defective bolt ... not likely as throughbolts get magnafluxed or x-rayed
> at overhaul.
>
> 5. (Add yours here)

5. The engine had cylinder work done. Either the cylinder bases were
painted while off, as mentioned earlier, and the paint eventually
squeezed out beneath the fasteners leaving them loose, or, the mechanic
neglected to loosen and retorque all the through bolts, in proper
sequence, as Lycoming recommends. Both are good bets. Failure to
retorque ALL the through bolts in sequence after installation of a
cylinder is a VERY good bet, based upon my observations.
>
>
> Oh, and BTW, mechanics cannot ground airplanes. IAs cannot ground
> airplanes. The FAA (unless they pull the airworthiness cert.) cannot ground
> airplanes. I know it is a common phrase, but the mechanic simply suggested
> that it would be less than wise to fly the airplane in its current
> condition.
>
> Jim

FAA inspectors have a form (more of a tag, really) that is designed to
be attached to an aircraft that the inspector believes should not be
flown. If one removes that tag, and flies the aircraft anyway, one may
lose the privilege of flying for some set period. Not immediately, but
in due course. I knew a pilot who did so. He flew the aircraft three
states away from the site it was tagged. The FAA inspector traced the
plane, found its location, notified the local FSDO, got the assistance
of the local sheriff, who chained and locked the aircraft to the ground.
All in one day. And merely because one of the elevators had a 12"
crack.

Dale

[john smith]

> FAA inspectors have a form (more of a tag, really) that is designed to
> be attached to an aircraft that the inspector believes should not be
> flown. If one removes that tag, and flies the aircraft anyway, one may
> lose the privilege of flying for some set period. Not immediately, but
> in due course. I knew a pilot who did so. He flew the aircraft three
> states away from the site it was tagged. The FAA inspector traced the
> plane, found its location, notified the local FSDO, got the assistance
> of the local sheriff, who chained and locked the aircraft to the ground.
> All in one day. And merely because one of the elevators had a 12"
> crack.

And then there was the FAA inspector who tagged an aircraft with a Q-tip
prop because he thought it had prop damage. True story, happened back in
the late-70's, early 80's.

[Matt Barrow]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
> Already gone from my screen...oh well!

I take that back, it finally showed up my my ISP's news server today...three
days later.

Lemme take a look...

>
>
> "Kobra" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> I'm not that knowledgeable about the internal details of the engines,
so
> >> could you explain how that bolt could get sheared off?
> >
> >
> > See my post about three lines up under . I found some info
in
> > the Cardinal Flyers group.
> >
> > Kobra
> >
> >
>
>
>

[RST Engineering]

"Dale Scroggins" > wrote in message
...


> Are you saying that, if you perform an inspection, and the aircraft has
> unairworthy items, that you make no entry in the aircraft records? If so,
> do you believe this is legal?

Case in point ... I'm "getting ready" to do the final inspection day after
tomorrow on a 150 for a fellow I've known for 30 years. He just busted a
medical and has to sell his airplane. The "pre-inspection" a month ago
found a bunch of piddledies like missing placards, filters that were due on
time, and the rest of it. I wrote these up on a bitch sheet and told him
that when they were taken care of, I'd finish the inspection.

Had I written the items up in the logbook and signed the annual, he would
have had to get a mechanic to either do the work or inspect the work after
he was done. This way he does, I inspect, and the whole thing gets taken
care of in one labor charge instead of two.

Which one do you think is more legal AND ethical?


>
> I've owned several Pacers and Tripacers, and inspected scores of them.
> I've never seen one that had only "On" and "Off" positions for the magneto
> switch. Nor have I seen any such thing in the parts catalog or
> maintenance data.

The OP said that the switch was original equipment. I've never seen one on
a 'pacer series either, but that doesn't say that they don't exist. I can't
debate the OP assertation because I'm not there.


>
> Punch testing fabric covering is not a sufficient test for determination
> of airworthiness IF the fabric condition is questionable. I leave you to
> reference AC43.13-1B for the only acceptable method of determination if a
> covering either fails or barely passes a punch test.


Yes, the famous lab test. How many swatches have YOU sent in for lab
testing? And how do you know that the swatch you cut out is representative
of the covering as a whole?

Jim

[LWG]

I heard it was a "she" who tagged the Q tip. Owner thought it was joke his
buddies were playing on him.

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
>> FAA inspectors have a form (more of a tag, really) that is designed to
>> be attached to an aircraft that the inspector believes should not be
>> flown. If one removes that tag, and flies the aircraft anyway, one may
>> lose the privilege of flying for some set period. Not immediately, but
>> in due course. I knew a pilot who did so. He flew the aircraft three
>> states away from the site it was tagged. The FAA inspector traced the
>> plane, found its location, notified the local FSDO, got the assistance
>> of the local sheriff, who chained and locked the aircraft to the ground.
>> All in one day. And merely because one of the elevators had a 12"
>> crack.
>
> And then there was the FAA inspector who tagged an aircraft with a Q-tip
> prop because he thought it had prop damage. True story, happened back in
> the late-70's, early 80's.

[Peter Duniho]

"LWG" > wrote in message
...
>> And then there was the FAA inspector who tagged an aircraft with a Q-tip
>> prop because he thought it had prop damage. True story, happened back in
>> the late-70's, early 80's.
>
>I heard it was a "she" who tagged the Q tip. Owner thought it was joke his
>buddies were playing on him.

As the owner of an airplane with a Q-tip prop, I've heard all sorts of
variations of that story.

I've yet to see ANY *documented* proof that it ever actually happened. I
doubt it did. Anyone who says "true story" ought to have more specific
information than that it "happened back in the late-70's, early 80's".
Like, some specific knowledge of a specific instance.

Pete

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> As the owner of an airplane with a Q-tip prop, I've heard all sorts of
> variations of that story.
>
> I've yet to see ANY *documented* proof that it ever actually happened. I
> doubt it did. Anyone who says "true story" ought to have more specific
> information than that it "happened back in the late-70's, early 80's".
> Like, some specific knowledge of a specific instance.

I first heard it reported in an issue of Pacific Flyer (actually a reprint
of the that blurb was in the Atlantic Flyer). I will look to see if I still
have the newspaper scrap at work (the year was 1991 or 1992).

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[john smith]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> "LWG" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> And then there was the FAA inspector who tagged an aircraft with a Q-tip
> >> prop because he thought it had prop damage. True story, happened back in
> >> the late-70's, early 80's.
> >
> >I heard it was a "she" who tagged the Q tip. Owner thought it was joke his
> >buddies were playing on him.
>
> As the owner of an airplane with a Q-tip prop, I've heard all sorts of
> variations of that story.
>
> I've yet to see ANY *documented* proof that it ever actually happened. I
> doubt it did. Anyone who says "true story" ought to have more specific
> information than that it "happened back in the late-70's, early 80's".
> Like, some specific knowledge of a specific instance.

New Cessna 152's came from the factory with a Q-tip prop in 1974? 75?
This was pre-internet, so the reporting came from the regular news
sources at the time (aviation periodicals, regional newspapers, etc).
It is difficult to cite a specific source from twenty-five to thirty
years ago without a clipping in front of me.
If you haven't been around that long, don't bitch about it.
You cannot GOOGLE everything. Not everything is available on the web,
and alot of what is is of dubious credibility. :-))

[[email protected]]

john smith wrote:
> In article >,
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote:
>
> > "LWG" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> And then there was the FAA inspector who tagged an aircraft with a Q-tip
> > >> prop because he thought it had prop damage. True story, happened back in
> > >> the late-70's, early 80's.
> > >
> > >I heard it was a "she" who tagged the Q tip. Owner thought it was joke his
> > >buddies were playing on him.
> >


Yes it was a female that did the tagging along for various alleged
violations. If I remember correctly it was on one of the Phoenix area
airports. We had a client whose aircraft was there for maintenance that
got tagged for having 3" N numbers. He forwarded the violation letter
that he got to us as our boss was also his DAR. Turns out it was some
female within the DC office that wanted to get transferred to the
Flight Inspection group. She tagged something like 60 aircraft and
wrote up violation letters on them all to try and prove how good of an
inspector she was. Turns out that nothing she tagged was a violation
and it created a big headache for a couple of the FSDO's for a week or
two. Time frame was around 1989.

[George Patterson]

wrote:

> Time frame was around 1989.

That's about when I read about it. Probably in Atlantic Flyer.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Scott Skylane]

john smith wrote:

> New Cessna 152's came from the factory with a Q-tip prop in 1974? 75?
> This was pre-internet, so the reporting came from the regular news
> sources at the time (aviation periodicals, regional newspapers, etc).
> It is difficult to cite a specific source from twenty-five to thirty
> years ago without a clipping in front of me.
> If you haven't been around that long, don't bitch about it.
> You cannot GOOGLE everything. Not everything is available on the web,
> and alot of what is is of dubious credibility. :-))

Dubious credibility, indeed! Cessna didn't start making the 152 until
1978, and they never, ever delivered a 150 or 152 with a Q-tip prop.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[john smith]

In article >,
Scott Skylane > wrote:

> john smith wrote:
>
> > New Cessna 152's came from the factory with a Q-tip prop in 1974? 75?
> > This was pre-internet, so the reporting came from the regular news
> > sources at the time (aviation periodicals, regional newspapers, etc).
> > It is difficult to cite a specific source from twenty-five to thirty
> > years ago without a clipping in front of me.
> > If you haven't been around that long, don't bitch about it.
> > You cannot GOOGLE everything. Not everything is available on the web,
> > and alot of what is is of dubious credibility. :-))
>
> Dubious credibility, indeed! Cessna didn't start making the 152 until
> 1978, and they never, ever delivered a 150 or 152 with a Q-tip prop.

Hence my question marks. And, yes they did deliver the 152 with a Q-tip
prop.
Cessna required flight schools in their Cessna Pilot Center program to
purchase a new aircraft every year. I hung out at a small country strip
from 1973 until 1979, so I remembered it was in that time frame.
The owner of the airport showed all of us the prop as a new feature for
that particular model year.

[Newps]

john smith wrote:


>
>
> Hence my question marks. And, yes they did deliver the 152 with a Q-tip
> prop.

A Q tip is a constant speed prop.

[Dave Stadt]

I have never ever seen a 152 with a Q-tip.

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Scott Skylane > wrote:
>
> > john smith wrote:
> >
> > > New Cessna 152's came from the factory with a Q-tip prop in 1974? 75?
> > > This was pre-internet, so the reporting came from the regular news
> > > sources at the time (aviation periodicals, regional newspapers, etc).
> > > It is difficult to cite a specific source from twenty-five to thirty
> > > years ago without a clipping in front of me.
> > > If you haven't been around that long, don't bitch about it.
> > > You cannot GOOGLE everything. Not everything is available on the web,
> > > and alot of what is is of dubious credibility. :-))
> >
> > Dubious credibility, indeed! Cessna didn't start making the 152 until
> > 1978, and they never, ever delivered a 150 or 152 with a Q-tip prop.
>
> Hence my question marks. And, yes they did deliver the 152 with a Q-tip
> prop.
> Cessna required flight schools in their Cessna Pilot Center program to
> purchase a new aircraft every year. I hung out at a small country strip
> from 1973 until 1979, so I remembered it was in that time frame.
> The owner of the airport showed all of us the prop as a new feature for
> that particular model year.

[john smith]

> > Hence my question marks. And, yes they did deliver the 152 with a Q-tip
> > prop.

> A Q tip is a constant speed prop.

Not all of them.

[Scott Skylane]

john smith wrote:


>
> Hence my question marks. And, yes they did deliver the 152 with a Q-tip
> prop.
> Cessna required flight schools in their Cessna Pilot Center program to
> purchase a new aircraft every year. I hung out at a small country strip
> from 1973 until 1979, so I remembered it was in that time frame.
> The owner of the airport showed all of us the prop as a new feature for
> that particular model year.

Hmmm, not to belabor the point, But the Cessna parts catalog does not
show any prop other than the standard McCauley "gull wing" design, the
TCDS does not list any other prop than the standard McCauley, there are
no STC listings for a Q-tip installation on a 152, and in my 24 years in
the business, I've never seen nor heard of any such installation. I
suspect your memory may be failing you on this point. Perhaps someone
did a one-off field approval, but as NEWPS indicated, I don't know of
any fixed pitch Q-tips to begin with.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[john smith]

In article >,
Scott Skylane > wrote:

> john smith wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Hence my question marks. And, yes they did deliver the 152 with a Q-tip
> > prop.
> > Cessna required flight schools in their Cessna Pilot Center program to
> > purchase a new aircraft every year. I hung out at a small country strip
> > from 1973 until 1979, so I remembered it was in that time frame.
> > The owner of the airport showed all of us the prop as a new feature for
> > that particular model year.
>
> Hmmm, not to belabor the point, But the Cessna parts catalog does not
> show any prop other than the standard McCauley "gull wing" design, the
> TCDS does not list any other prop than the standard McCauley, there are
> no STC listings for a Q-tip installation on a 152, and in my 24 years in
> the business, I've never seen nor heard of any such installation. I
> suspect your memory may be failing you on this point. Perhaps someone
> did a one-off field approval, but as NEWPS indicated, I don't know of
> any fixed pitch Q-tips to begin with.

What is the Gull Wing prop?
The prop I saw had the tip bent back maybe 1/4"-3/8".

[Dave Stadt]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Scott Skylane > wrote:
>
> > john smith wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Hence my question marks. And, yes they did deliver the 152 with a
Q-tip
> > > prop.
> > > Cessna required flight schools in their Cessna Pilot Center program to
> > > purchase a new aircraft every year. I hung out at a small country
strip
> > > from 1973 until 1979, so I remembered it was in that time frame.
> > > The owner of the airport showed all of us the prop as a new feature
for
> > > that particular model year.
> >
> > Hmmm, not to belabor the point, But the Cessna parts catalog does not
> > show any prop other than the standard McCauley "gull wing" design, the
> > TCDS does not list any other prop than the standard McCauley, there are
> > no STC listings for a Q-tip installation on a 152, and in my 24 years in
> > the business, I've never seen nor heard of any such installation. I
> > suspect your memory may be failing you on this point. Perhaps someone
> > did a one-off field approval, but as NEWPS indicated, I don't know of
> > any fixed pitch Q-tips to begin with.
>
> What is the Gull Wing prop?
> The prop I saw had the tip bent back maybe 1/4"-3/8".

Really bad landing perhaps?

[Dale Scroggins]

john smith wrote:
> In article >,
> Scott Skylane > wrote:
>
>
>>john smith wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Hence my question marks. And, yes they did deliver the 152 with a Q-tip
>>>prop.
>>>Cessna required flight schools in their Cessna Pilot Center program to
>>>purchase a new aircraft every year. I hung out at a small country strip
>>>from 1973 until 1979, so I remembered it was in that time frame.
>>>The owner of the airport showed all of us the prop as a new feature for
>>>that particular model year.
>>
>>Hmmm, not to belabor the point, But the Cessna parts catalog does not
>>show any prop other than the standard McCauley "gull wing" design, the
>>TCDS does not list any other prop than the standard McCauley, there are
>>no STC listings for a Q-tip installation on a 152, and in my 24 years in
>>the business, I've never seen nor heard of any such installation. I
>>suspect your memory may be failing you on this point. Perhaps someone
>>did a one-off field approval, but as NEWPS indicated, I don't know of
>>any fixed pitch Q-tips to begin with.
>
>
> What is the Gull Wing prop?
> The prop I saw had the tip bent back maybe 1/4"-3/8".

Hartzell built Q-tip props. McCauley never did. Hartzell does not make
fixed-pitched props. Cessna 152s were delivered with fixed-pitch props.
Therefore stock Cessna 152s are extremely unlikely to have
Hartzell constant-speed Q-tip props bolted to the front of their 115-HP
Lycoming engines. They would not fit, to begin with. And they would
weigh too much.

[Newps]

Dale Scroggins wrote:

>
>
> Hartzell built Q-tip props. McCauley never did. Hartzell does not make
> fixed-pitched props. Cessna 152s were delivered with fixed-pitch props.
> Therefore stock Cessna 152s are extremely unlikely to have Hartzell
> constant-speed Q-tip props bolted to the front of their 115-HP Lycoming
> engines. They would not fit, to begin with. And they would weigh too
> much.


Does that engine even have a pad for a governor?

[No Spam]

On 9/20/05 19:28, "Bob Noel" > wrote:

> In article >,
> "RST Engineering" > wrote:
>
> [a bunch of stuff snipped]
>> (S)he cannot sign off the annual inspection. 43.11 (a)(5) is quite specific
>> as to what has to happen when the aircraft is inspected and not found
>> airworthy. If you have another section of the regs that countermands this
>> section, please post it. Otherwise I maintain that the inspection is
>> neither complete nor current.
>
> Maybe I haven't followed this thread well enough. Are you saying that
> an Annual Inspection is not complete and valid if there is a list of
> unairworthy items given to the owner? I don't mean to imply that the
> aircraft is airworthy or "in annual", rather that the inspection was
> finished and that any appropriate A&P could sign off the repair of
> those unairworthy items (as appropriate), right? (In this case I'm
> asking about a hypothetical case, not the specific stuff earlier in
> the thread).
>
> thanks

That's what I thought, Bob. Hopefully someone in the know will confirm this.

-> Don
When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with
your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will
always long to return. - Leonardo da Vinci

[[email protected]]

Yep,

The annual inspection is complete when the log book is filled out.
It does not have to pass, just the inspection has to be complete.

If there are items that need to be attended to, those items can be
completed prior the end of the inspection, then the inspection is
complete and the aircraft is deemed airworthy.

Or the logbook can be signed off with the unairworthy items noted and
the inspection is complete, but unairworthy.

A&P can bring the aircraft up to snuff.


Dave


No Spam wrote:
> On 9/20/05 19:28, "Bob Noel" > wrote:
>
>
>>In article >,
>>"RST Engineering" > wrote:
>>
>>[a bunch of stuff snipped]
>>
>>>(S)he cannot sign off the annual inspection. 43.11 (a)(5) is quite specific
>>>as to what has to happen when the aircraft is inspected and not found
>>>airworthy. If you have another section of the regs that countermands this
>>>section, please post it. Otherwise I maintain that the inspection is
>>>neither complete nor current.
>>
>>Maybe I haven't followed this thread well enough. Are you saying that
>>an Annual Inspection is not complete and valid if there is a list of
>>unairworthy items given to the owner? I don't mean to imply that the
>>aircraft is airworthy or "in annual", rather that the inspection was
>>finished and that any appropriate A&P could sign off the repair of
>>those unairworthy items (as appropriate), right? (In this case I'm
>>asking about a hypothetical case, not the specific stuff earlier in
>>the thread).
>>
>>thanks
>
>
> That's what I thought, Bob. Hopefully someone in the know will confirm this.
>
> -> Don
> When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with
> your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will
> always long to return. - Leonardo da Vinci
>
>

[Rob]

wrote:
> Yep,
>
> The annual inspection is complete when the log book is filled out.
> It does not have to pass, just the inspection has to be complete.
>
> If there are items that need to be attended to, those items can be
> completed prior the end of the inspection, then the inspection is
> complete and the aircraft is deemed airworthy.
>
> Or the logbook can be signed off with the unairworthy items noted and
> the inspection is complete, but unairworthy.
>
> A&P can bring the aircraft up to snuff.
>
>
> Dave
>
>
> No Spam wrote:
> > On 9/20/05 19:28, "Bob Noel" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>In article >,
> >>"RST Engineering" > wrote:
> >>
> >>[a bunch of stuff snipped]
> >>
> >>>(S)he cannot sign off the annual inspection. 43.11 (a)(5) is quite specific
> >>>as to what has to happen when the aircraft is inspected and not found
> >>>airworthy. If you have another section of the regs that countermands this
> >>>section, please post it. Otherwise I maintain that the inspection is
> >>>neither complete nor current.
> >>
> >>Maybe I haven't followed this thread well enough. Are you saying that
> >>an Annual Inspection is not complete and valid if there is a list of
> >>unairworthy items given to the owner? I don't mean to imply that the
> >>aircraft is airworthy or "in annual", rather that the inspection was
> >>finished and that any appropriate A&P could sign off the repair of
> >>those unairworthy items (as appropriate), right? (In this case I'm
> >>asking about a hypothetical case, not the specific stuff earlier in
> >>the thread).
> >>
> >>thanks
> >
> >
> > That's what I thought, Bob. Hopefully someone in the know will confirm this.
> >
> > -> Don
> > When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with
> > your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will
> > always long to return. - Leonardo da Vinci
> >
> >

I believe that it's FAR 91.7 that makes the annual inspection _process_
"complete". It says that:

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy
condition.
(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.

The PIC has the the onus of ensuring that only airworthy airplanes get
flown, not the inspector.

-R

[Drew Dalgleish]

>
>I believe that it's FAR 91.7 that makes the annual inspection _process_
>"complete". It says that:
>
>(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy
>condition.
>(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.
>
>The PIC has the the onus of ensuring that only airworthy airplanes get
>flown, not the inspector.
>
>-R
>
Yes but if a "competent person" informs the PIC that the plane is
unairworthy (s)he better have a darn good explanation for flying it.

[Rob]

Drew Dalgleish wrote:
> Yes but if a "competent person" informs the PIC that the plane is
> unairworthy (s)he better have a darn good explanation for flying it.

That's my point. An inspector doesn't have to "ground the airplane" in
any formal manner. He/she just has to state that it's not airworthy.
There's no leeway in the regs for a pilot to decide they don't agree
and fly it anyway.

-R

[[email protected]]

>What is the Gull Wing prop?
>The prop I saw had the tip bent back maybe 1/4"->3/8".

The Gullwing prop is a nickname given to the prop used on
the 152. The inboard section of its blades were angled forward a few
degrees, then straightened out past that. If it was laid flat on a
table it would look from the side like a gull in flight.
That angle caused structural failures in the blades.
Centrifugal forces tried to straighten that bend and it would crack.
The prop type was a McCauley 1A103, and ADs 95-21-01PL,
97-06-16, and 2003-12-05 applied to it, with the newest ADs supseding
the earlier ones.
Dan

[RST Engineering]

Then you clearly have not the vaguest concept of what 91.3 means.

Jim



>
> That's my point. An inspector doesn't have to "ground the airplane" in
> any formal manner. He/she just has to state that it's not airworthy.
> There's no leeway in the regs for a pilot to decide they don't agree
> and fly it anyway.
>
> -R
>

[Rob]

RST Engineering wrote:
> Then you clearly have not the vaguest concept of what 91.3 means.

Oh. O.K. Sorry. Perhaps you could clarify the concept for me then,
Jim.

Rob

[Rob]

Rob wrote:
> RST Engineering wrote:
> > Then you clearly have not the vaguest concept of what 91.3 means.
>
> Oh. O.K. Sorry. Perhaps you could clarify the concept for me then,
> Jim.
>
> Rob

Posted this before and it looks like Google ate it:

Disregard my previous post Jim. You said "91.3", I read "91.7". 91.3
says the PIC may deviate from the FARs if necessary to deal with an
emergency. That's a lot of "leeway". Point taken.

-R

[Rob]

Rob wrote:
> RST Engineering wrote:
> > Then you clearly have not the vaguest concept of what 91.3 means.
>
> Oh. O.K. Sorry. Perhaps you could clarify the concept for me then,
> Jim.
>
> Rob

Disregard. Part of 91.3 means that a pilot may deviate from FARs if
necessary to deal with an emergency. Technically, that's a lot of
leeway. Point taken.

-R

[RST Engineering]

91.3 says in no uncertain terms (a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is
directly responsible for, and is the FINAL AUTHORITY as to the operation of
that aircraft." (emphasis author)

It doesn't say that the inspector can over-ride the PIC's assessment of the
situation, does it?

Jim




"Rob" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> RST Engineering wrote:
>> Then you clearly have not the vaguest concept of what 91.3 means.
>
> Oh. O.K. Sorry. Perhaps you could clarify the concept for me then,
> Jim.
>
> Rob
>