Always something to be learned

[[email protected]]

A very interesting article.

http://www.designnews.com/article/CA6485769.html?industryid=43657

How could this error be trapped?

All you "owner produced parts" guys take note.

I wonder if this instance is what shut down the carb guys.

Bill Hale

[Mike Spera]

> A very interesting article.
>
> http://www.designnews.com/article/CA6485769.html?industryid=43657
>
> How could this error be trapped?
>
> All you "owner produced parts" guys take note.
>
> I wonder if this instance is what shut down the carb guys.
>
>

I'm a little fuzzy on what this has to do with owner produced parts. The
article did not make specific mention of the traceability of the parts
kit or the rebuilder's credentials. Absent that, we might assume that,
either this was an FAA sanctioned outfit using parts from another FAA
blessed supplier. Or, that the parts were non-approved knock offs and/or
the shop was also operating without the proper paperwork.

How could this error be trapped? Not sure because we don't have enough
information to determine who is at fault. If the parts and overhauler
WERE approved, then the FAA takes the hit for not providing the
oversight they are hired to provide. If the parts and/or overhauler were
bogus, there may be nothing that can be done other than jailing the
culprits (NOT the pilot). Short of bankrupting every airplane owner and
parts manufacturer with endless testing (that governments LOVE to do),
I'm not sure you will ever prevent EVERY mistake.

It proves to me that no system is perfect.

Be careful out there,
Mike

[Jim Stewart]

Mike Spera wrote:
>
>> A very interesting article.
>>
>> http://www.designnews.com/article/CA6485769.html?industryid=43657
>>
>> How could this error be trapped?
>>
>> All you "owner produced parts" guys take note.
>>
>> I wonder if this instance is what shut down the carb guys.
>>
>>
>
> I'm a little fuzzy on what this has to do with owner produced parts. The
> article did not make specific mention of the traceability of the parts
> kit or the rebuilder's credentials. Absent that, we might assume that,
> either this was an FAA sanctioned outfit using parts from another FAA
> blessed supplier. Or, that the parts were non-approved knock offs and/or
> the shop was also operating without the proper paperwork.
>
> How could this error be trapped? Not sure because we don't have enough
> information to determine who is at fault. If the parts and overhauler
> WERE approved, then the FAA takes the hit for not providing the
> oversight they are hired to provide. If the parts and/or overhauler were
> bogus, there may be nothing that can be done other than jailing the
> culprits (NOT the pilot). Short of bankrupting every airplane owner and
> parts manufacturer with endless testing (that governments LOVE to do),
> I'm not sure you will ever prevent EVERY mistake.
>
> It proves to me that no system is perfect.

Without even opening the FAR, I would think the
A&P would be at least partially at fault for not
making the repair in a "competent and workmanlike
manner", the minimal legal standard for *any*
repairman.

[Denny]

On Dec 12, 8:23 pm, Jim Stewart > wrote:
> Mike Spera wrote:
>
> >> A very interesting article.
>
> >>http://www.designnews.com/article/CA6485769.html?industryid=43657
>
> >> How could this error be trapped?
>
> >> All you "owner produced parts" guys take note.
>
> >> I wonder if this instance is what shut down the carb guys.
>
> > I'm a little fuzzy on what this has to do with owner produced parts. The
> > article did not make specific mention of the traceability of the parts
> > kit or the rebuilder's credentials. Absent that, we might assume that,
> > either this was an FAA sanctioned outfit using parts from another FAA
> > blessed supplier. Or, that the parts were non-approved knock offs and/or
> > the shop was also operating without the proper paperwork.
>
> > How could this error be trapped? Not sure because we don't have enough
> > information to determine who is at fault. If the parts and overhauler
> > WERE approved, then the FAA takes the hit for not providing the
> > oversight they are hired to provide. If the parts and/or overhauler were
> > bogus, there may be nothing that can be done other than jailing the
> > culprits (NOT the pilot). Short of bankrupting every airplane owner and
> > parts manufacturer with endless testing (that governments LOVE to do),
> > I'm not sure you will ever prevent EVERY mistake.
>
> > It proves to me that no system is perfect.
>
> Without even opening the FAR, I would think the
> A&P would be at least partially at fault for not
> making the repair in a "competent and workmanlike
> manner", the minimal legal standard for *any*
> repairman.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, I had a carb from an approved rebuilder, using approved parts,
who sent it to me lacking an internal part - TWICE... So, 'approved'
apparently isn't what it used to be...

denny

[Mike Spera]

> Without even opening the FAR, I would think the
> A&P would be at least partially at fault for not
> making the repair in a "competent and workmanlike
> manner", the minimal legal standard for *any*
> repairman.

The wrench may not be at fault in any way, even a little. He/she could
have been competent and workmanlike all day, but if the parts provided
were of the wrong metallurgy, the problem will still be there. The
mechanic has to depend on the FAA doing its job to provide oversight on
the parts manufacturer and overhauler. If they provide the mechanic a
defective part/overhaul that has no apparent visible flaws (and all
required FAA pedigree paperwork), he/she has done their job. The
bushings may have been properly reamed and "free" operation ascertained.
But if the parts were incorrect, they would have galled up anyway.

Again, hard to tell with the available information.

Good Luck,
Mike

[Ron Natalie]

wrote:
> A very interesting article.
>
> http://www.designnews.com/article/CA6485769.html?industryid=43657
>
> How could this error be trapped?
>
> All you "owner produced parts" guys take note.
>
> I wonder if this instance is what shut down the carb guys.
>
It would be nice to actually have some details other than the
self-congratulatory conclusion by some proferssor who doesn't
seem to have been integral to the investigation.

I can't find any accidents that match the description. Nothing
in Hyannis, nothing mentioning the word carb, carburator, or
throttle anywhere in Massachusettes, even searched every fatal
accident in MASS back to 1990 and can't find anything resembling
this incident.

Anybody find this incident?

[[email protected]]

On Dec 16, 8:03 pm, Mike Spera > wrote:
> > Without even opening the FAR, I would think the
> > A&P would be at least partially at fault for not
> > making the repair in a "competent and workmanlike
> > manner", the minimal legal standard for *any*
> > repairman.
>
> The wrench may not be at fault in any way, even a little. He/she could
> have been competent and workmanlike all day, but if the parts provided
> were of the wrong metallurgy, the problem will still be there. The
> mechanic has to depend on the FAA doing its job to provide oversight on
> the parts manufacturer and overhauler. If they provide the mechanic a
> defective part/overhaul that has no apparent visible flaws (and all
> required FAA pedigree paperwork), he/she has done their job. The
> bushings may have been properly reamed and "free" operation ascertained.
> But if the parts were incorrect, they would have galled up anyway.
>
> Again, hard to tell with the available information.
>
> Good Luck,
> Mike

In Canada the philosophy is to have a big enough legal
threat to make the mechanic, supplier, or anyone else involved think
twice before scamming the system. The person's signature opens him to
huge liability if some lawyer can convince a judge that he
intentionally messed up. "Oversight" and other sorts of control are
really effective only if there are lots of government inspectors and
bureaucrats to catch the devious, and that would mean huge taxation
and fees and all the rest, as if it wasn't bad enough now. Individuals
must take responsibility and act responsibly even if the government
isn't constantly watching, or the whole structure of democracy falls
and we end up with anarchy or a dictatorship. If we act like toddlers
who are into mischief as soon as Mom isn't looking, we're no better
than brats and deserve no better than the brat.
But people, being human, still screw up. We bought a Lyc
factory overhaul, complete with brand-new carb, and that engine ran
rough in the full throttle climb, improving if we leaned it a lot.
Turned out to be a missin accelerator pump check ball spring, so that
venturi vacuum sucked extra fuel past the check and out the
accelerator nozzle.
Stuff like that happens. Runs rough, doesn't quit. Worse is
the Lycoming crankshaft fiasco, with cranks that really might actually
break in flight for no good reason. That's not acceptable, and their
handling of it isn't either.

Dan

[Jim Stewart]

Mike Spera wrote:
>
>> Without even opening the FAR, I would think the
>> A&P would be at least partially at fault for not
>> making the repair in a "competent and workmanlike
>> manner", the minimal legal standard for *any*
>> repairman.
>
> The wrench may not be at fault in any way, even a little. He/she could
> have been competent and workmanlike all day, but if the parts provided
> were of the wrong metallurgy, the problem will still be there. The
> mechanic has to depend on the FAA doing its job to provide oversight on
> the parts manufacturer and overhauler. If they provide the mechanic a
> defective part/overhaul that has no apparent visible flaws (and all
> required FAA pedigree paperwork), he/she has done their job. The
> bushings may have been properly reamed and "free" operation ascertained.
> But if the parts were incorrect, they would have galled up anyway.
>
> Again, hard to tell with the available information.

If you believe the statement of the investigator,
and I thought that was the rules we were playing
by, the A&P would have to be at least partially
at fault.