High time airframe question

"Peter Clark" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:33:38 GMT, "Mike" wrote:


From reading the description on the low time plane, I didn't get the
impression it was a 0 time engine. A 0 time engine to me means a factory
new engine or 0 TTSN. In this case the engine could be 0 TTSN, or it
could
be 0 TSMOH, or it could be 0 TSTOH. I tend to suspect the latter, because
it isn't specified. The reason I think the plane has been sitting in a
field is because just about everything that wears out from just sitting
has
been recently replaced or overhauled.

Isn't a factory reman also 0 time w/ new logbooks?

It can be. There's also such thing a factory overhaul, which is not a 0
time engine. Most people just do a major overhaul or a top overhaul, which
can be done by someone who is powerplant certified.

My engine was factory new when last replaced. It isn't a factory overhaul
or a factory rebuilt one. It cost $30K (not including installation) and
that was some time back. I could have had the old one overhauled for
probably as cheap as $12K at the time.

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:48:48 GMT, "Mike" wrote:

"Peter Clark" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:33:38 GMT, "Mike" wrote:


From reading the description on the low time plane, I didn't get the
impression it was a 0 time engine. A 0 time engine to me means a factory
new engine or 0 TTSN. In this case the engine could be 0 TTSN, or it
could
be 0 TSMOH, or it could be 0 TSTOH. I tend to suspect the latter, because
it isn't specified. The reason I think the plane has been sitting in a
field is because just about everything that wears out from just sitting
has
been recently replaced or overhauled.

Isn't a factory reman also 0 time w/ new logbooks?

It can be. There's also such thing a factory overhaul, which is not a 0
time engine. Most people just do a major overhaul or a top overhaul, which
can be done by someone who is powerplant certified.

Unless I'm mistaken, 0SFOH is not a 0 time engine, where 0SFRM is a 0
time engine with new logs etc. It's how they're defined. So if they
did a factory remain it's cheaper than factory new but still 0 time,
but a factory overhaul carries over whatever time was on it when it
was overhauled.

On Jul 25, 6:28 pm, "Mike" wrote:
"Newps" wrote in message

. ..

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:

Just as a point of interest these two pipeline patrol pilots do often
meet up in the air. A long while back they decided that one would fly at
400' AGL and the other would do 500'.

You have to get a waiver to fly a 500 foot altitude at all times. They
don't give waivers for less than that so the 400 foot guy was busting the
reg for traffic purposes.

Hogwash.

In Canda, we have this rule in
http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Re...602.htm#602_14
CAR 602.15(2) A person may operate an aircraft, to the extent
necessary for the purpose of the operation in which the aircraft is
engaged, at altitudes and distances less than those set out in

(a) paragraph 602.14(2)(a), where operation of the aircraft is
authorized under Subpart 3 or section 702.22; or

(b) paragraph 602.14(2)(b), where the aircraft is operated without
creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface and the
aircraft is operated for the purpose of

(i) aerial application or aerial inspection,

(ii) aerial photography conducted by the holder of an air operator
certificate,

(iii) helicopter external load operations, or

(iv) flight training conducted by or under the supervision of a
qualified flight instructor.

So (i) allows it for pipeline patrol. They come over our
airport looking at pipe ROW at around 150'.

I looked at FAR 9.119 but couldn't see any exemptions similar to
ours. They call it a "general" which leads me to believe that there
might be some other section dealing with pipeline patrolling or other
low-altitude ops such as cropspraying.
See
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...2.4.10&idno=14

Dan

"Peter Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:48:48 GMT, "Mike" wrote:

"Peter Clark" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:33:38 GMT, "Mike" wrote:


From reading the description on the low time plane, I didn't get the
impression it was a 0 time engine. A 0 time engine to me means a
factory
new engine or 0 TTSN. In this case the engine could be 0 TTSN, or it
could
be 0 TSMOH, or it could be 0 TSTOH. I tend to suspect the latter,
because
it isn't specified. The reason I think the plane has been sitting in a
field is because just about everything that wears out from just sitting
has
been recently replaced or overhauled.

Isn't a factory reman also 0 time w/ new logbooks?

It can be. There's also such thing a factory overhaul, which is not a 0
time engine. Most people just do a major overhaul or a top overhaul,
which
can be done by someone who is powerplant certified.

Unless I'm mistaken, 0SFOH is not a 0 time engine, where 0SFRM is a 0
time engine with new logs etc. It's how they're defined. So if they
did a factory remain it's cheaper than factory new but still 0 time,
but a factory overhaul carries over whatever time was on it when it
was overhauled.

All of this may be, but it's probably a poor assumption that anything was
done at the factory as most overhauls aren't. Generally people who have
overhauls or rebuilds done at the factory or with notable engine builders
like PennYan Aero are going to mention that in the ad.

wrote in message
...
On Jul 25, 6:28 pm, "Mike" wrote:
"Newps" wrote in message

. ..

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:

Just as a point of interest these two pipeline patrol pilots do often
meet up in the air. A long while back they decided that one would fly
at
400' AGL and the other would do 500'.

You have to get a waiver to fly a 500 foot altitude at all times. They
don't give waivers for less than that so the 400 foot guy was busting
the
reg for traffic purposes.

Hogwash.

In Canda, we have this rule in
http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Re...602.htm#602_14
CAR 602.15(2) A person may operate an aircraft, to the extent
necessary for the purpose of the operation in which the aircraft is
engaged, at altitudes and distances less than those set out in

(a) paragraph 602.14(2)(a), where operation of the aircraft is
authorized under Subpart 3 or section 702.22; or

(b) paragraph 602.14(2)(b), where the aircraft is operated without
creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface and the
aircraft is operated for the purpose of

(i) aerial application or aerial inspection,

(ii) aerial photography conducted by the holder of an air operator
certificate,

(iii) helicopter external load operations, or

(iv) flight training conducted by or under the supervision of a
qualified flight instructor.

So (i) allows it for pipeline patrol. They come over our
airport looking at pipe ROW at around 150'.

I looked at FAR 9.119 but couldn't see any exemptions similar to
ours. They call it a "general" which leads me to believe that there
might be some other section dealing with pipeline patrolling or other
low-altitude ops such as cropspraying.
See
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...2.4.10&idno=14

Dan

I have no idea what Canada does, but one has to assume there is a method for
getting approval because lots of commercial flying has to be done at lower
than 500'. What I can say is that in the US it is possible to get a waiver
for whatever altitude is necessary to perform the function (aerial
application, pipeline patrol, banner tows, etc.), and many commercial
aviators have waivers that do NOT specify a hard limit such as 500' or
anything else, and that includes pipeline patrol. I know pipeline patrol
guys that routinely go down to 200' or lower quite legally and I'm pretty
sure no aerial applicator is going to spray for boll weevils at 500'.
Stating "they don't give waivers for less than [500']" is hogwash.

"Morgans" wrote in message
...


Interesting, but I wonder who is going to be walking out in a minefield
planting the plants?


Well, as they say, tobacco kills!!!!!!!!!


--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)

On 2008-07-18, Bob Noel wrote:
How many of those hours were spent doing pipeline patrols or other
activities that are tough on the airframe?

I have only ever seen pipeline patrol being done by high wing aircraft -
never a Cherokee.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

In article ,
Dylan Smith wrote:

On 2008-07-18, Bob Noel wrote:
How many of those hours were spent doing pipeline patrols or other
activities that are tough on the airframe?

I have only ever seen pipeline patrol being done by high wing aircraft -
never a Cherokee.

IIRC A couple of the cherokees that had wing spar failures which lead
to the (short-lived) wing spar AD were high time aircraft previously
involved in pipeline patrols. I realize that high wing aircraft are
have better visibility for such patrols.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)