Jump to content

Sky Arrow Annual - mostly ROTAX


FastEddieB

Recommended Posts

"Roger, you need to stop think that if someone doesn't do it like you they are wrong."

 

No one has to do it like me and I'm not professing that any one does. Just do it better than not at all, poorly or because being at the bottom 10% is easy. In the LSA market at I would bet 80% or more mechanics don't use a check list.

 

 

 

Tom,

After seeing the Discrepancy list in my post and you saw that 2007 CTSW come into your shop and found all those things what would have been your first thought?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 169
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Roger,

 

  I really like your attention to detail and recording your work in the appropriate logbooks. As a non-mechanic qualified pilot I'm always a little unsure of how it's ' supposed to be logged' and how it actually 'is' logged. I always feel mechanics write them as to be slightly ambiguous , if you know what I mean? For example, 'oil changed' without including what type oil or the quantity. The mechanic could later argue what he did but couldn't be held accountable for not doing it quite right since it wasn't fully logged. Am I just being harsh?

 

 I find I always have to push to the point of being a pain in the butt to get the mechanic to write in more detail and so there's a disagreement between what I'd like and what he feels is right, but he's the qualified mechanic, not me.

 

  I believe that you should write in the logbook today thinking you'll be explaining it at an FAA hearing tomorrow. I try to get my mechanics to follow that rule but it's tough sometimes.

 

  BTW…earlier you noted that a plane's logs, that you looked at,  didn't record the latest version of the Dynon software in the log? I didn't know this was a requirement (logging it that is) although I do keep them up to date. Should a mechanic write this, or the owner?

 

 If the plane is an SLSA how much of this can the owner write in the log and how much needs to be written in by a qualified mechanic? 

 

 Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Roger, you need to stop think that if someone doesn't do it like you they are wrong."

 

No one has to do it like me and I'm not professing that any one does. Just do it better than not at all, poorly or because being at the bottom 10% is easy. In the LSA market at I would bet 80% or more mechanics don't use a check list.

 

 

 

Tom,

After seeing the Discrepancy list in my post and you saw that 2007 CTSW come into your shop and found all those things what would have been your first thought?

I would think that the airplane needs some attention. The thing is the list of discrepancies does not belong in the aircraft records. They should be given to the owner. The work performed to correct the Discrepancies should be logged, but not as part of the inspection sign off. I suggest you take a look at CFR 43.11.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob and Tom,

 

Give me a solid factual reason for not detailing a logbook that has no personal preference included? Show me where it is written not to detail the logbook?

 

 

So we'll have to agree to disagree. Documentation is everything and lack of it puts the owner and mechanic hanging out on a limb if anything happens.

 

"The thing is the list of discrepancies does not belong in the aircraft records."

 

 Why not and who says?

 CFR 43.11 only list minimums and nothing toabout how much detail can be added. There is no cap on it. Minimums are old school and a liability to both owner and mechanic.

When I talked to the FAA on records that is exactly what they wanted. 

When I lost an engine and needed Rotax's help they stated the only reason it was done in 48 hours was the detailed logbook entries. There was no guess work like others they had seen. Many have been denied help due to poor logbook entries.

When I went to mechanics school they were adamant that we put the discrepancy in and what we did to fix it. The mechanic's job is to protect the owner/pilot and then protect himself. If everything turns to crap you'll get tagged for not enough logbook detail , but never too much. 

 

"I DO NOT want to see that long list of things enumerated in my aircraft or engine logbooks."

 

Why not? What's the negative?

Then you know he did what he was supposed to do. His job is to protect the owner/pilot and then himself. If he sold the plane right away who would the next owner sue if there was a serious problem causing injury or death. yes the owner, but the mechanic too. I want to know the mechanic did a good job and put it in writing to protect me as a pilot.

 

 

Can you give me a good solid reason for not documenting in detail in the logbook other than personal preference? What would be the negative side?

 

According to the FAA, insurance companies, lawyers and maint. schools detailed book entries area best practices.

 

 

I personally wouldn't buy a plane with 3 line annual entries. Your buying nothing, but promises from an owner which in turn has no idea what the mechanic really did. Then if something happened to me guess who gets sued with no documentation to back up a thing. He said, she said, you lose.

 

I want to know that the aircraft had detailed care and that someone cared enough to make that happen whether it is the owner and or mechanic.

 

 

If you buy a 10 year old car what would you rather buy. A guy just saying things were done without any proof or a guy who has kept every record and receipt?  Think about everything in our lives that require some documentation. It's in all our lives and in all aspects. Now think about all the stories from people that got bit in the butt and maybe yourself included over poor documentation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sandpiper went to school with me. Ask him what they wanted in the logbook and how much detail.

 

John you're up.

 

 

liltaka, Time to weigh in.

 

Before you bought your plane was the logbook detailed and were you happy and well informed by reading its history compared to  someone that only wrote IAW.

 

 

My business is only 5% from in town. The other 95% is from out of town and up to 900 miles away. Care to guess why they told me they come so far for their annuals?

 

Ask John-Olav or Tim Greer. Detailed work and documentation to show that work is what owners like. Vagness isn't in vogue anymore. Those old traditions and ways of thinking are slowing being left behind and being replaced with new mechanics and ways of doing things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Examples of bad and better. The 3 liner garbage is obvious. The others are better and everyone's will differ, but some basics shouldn't change. The short ones are absolutely horrible, the other longer ones are okay and I'm sure would differ a lot between mechanics, but the basic info is all in there. The better ones help protect the owner, the mechanic, keep resale value up, help the next mechanic and may show repeat issues and will go a lot farther protecting owner and mechanic in any legal action.

 

No one has given us a solid factual reason why you should not detail your logbook? The FAA has seen these very entries and dislike the short ones and like the longer ones. These were presented in a class at one time.

post-3-0-45785900-1428242495_thumb.jpg

post-3-0-00822700-1428242500_thumb.jpg

post-3-0-01728400-1428242504_thumb.jpg

post-3-0-74274000-1428242510_thumb.jpg

Log5.pdf

Log6.pdf

Log7.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

§43.11   Content, form, and disposition of records for inspections conducted under parts 91 and 125 and §§135.411(a)(1) and 135.419 of this chapter.

(a) Maintenance record entries. The person approving or disapproving for return to service an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part after any inspection performed in accordance with part 91, 125, §135.411(a)(1), or §135.419 shall make an entry in the maintenance record of that equipment containing the following information:

(1) The type of inspection and a brief description of the extent of the inspection.

 

Roger, you just don't get the point I am trying to get across. By regulation the entry for the inspection should be brief, and not include all the items that you want in there.

I am not saying that you shouldn't document maintenance in the aircraft records, just that it shouldn't be included in the inspection entry. Everything you are putting in the records is fine except the list of discrepancies, because by regulation they don't belong in the records.Maintenance items should be logged as a separate record entry, and not included with the inspection entry.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Tom,

 

I do get it. Your definition of brief is different than mine. The FAA when shown the above posted labels liked all the longer ones and consider those to be brief and complete.

 

define brief? how many lines is that? What is too brief? Who decides what brief is? What did the author of brief have in mind when they wrote that. was it a three liner or just don't write a 4 page 8.5x11 paper book. Where in that publication did it say you couldn't or shouldn't list the discrepancies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These articles all refer to the FAA requirement as you guys point out as brief to be a minimum standard.

 

Here's a good article.

 

http://www.rainbowaviation.com/articles/Maintenance%20recrods%20rainbow_aviation_editorial%5b1%5d.pdf

 

 

Here is another really good article on documentation form Avweb. You only need to read the first half.

 

http://www.avweb.com/news/usedacft/182800-1.html

 

Another article.

 

All these also refer to better documentation also usually means better resale value. 

Quote:

"These regs define the minimum records that we as aircraft owners must keep. But they also leave quite a bit to the judgment of the folks doing the recordkeeping (the aircraft owner and his mechanic). As conscientious aircraft owners, I believe we can and should be doing more than the bare-bones minimum required by the FARs. In this article, I'll start by discussing what the FAA says our maintenance records must contain, and then offer some personal observations about what I think they should contain."

 

http://www.avweb.com/news/savvyaviator/190596-1.html

 

 

 

Another article. See logbook example.

 

http://www.aerotrakr.com/images/aircraft/Twin_Turbine_Article.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sandpiper went to school with me. Ask him what they wanted in the logbook and how much detail.

 

John you're up.

 

 

liltaka, Time to weigh in.

 

Before you bought your plane was the logbook detailed and were you happy and well informed by reading its history compared to  someone that only wrote IAW.

 

 

My business is only 5% from in town. The other 95% is from out of town and up to 900 miles away. Care to guess why they told me they come so far for their annuals?

 

Ask John-Olav or Tim Greer. Detailed work and documentation to show that work is what owners like. Vagness isn't in vogue anymore. Those old traditions and ways of thinking are slowing being left behind and being replaced with new mechanics and ways of doing things.

When Roger and I took the three week LSRM course at Rainbow Aviation, Brian Carpenter and his wife Carol both emphasized that "if it isn't  in the logbook, it didn't happen". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sandpiper went to school with me. Ask him what they wanted in the logbook and how much detail.

 

John you're up.

 

 

liltaka, Time to weigh in.

 

Before you bought your plane was the logbook detailed and were you happy and well informed by reading its history compared to  someone that only wrote IAW.

 

 

My business is only 5% from in town. The other 95% is from out of town and up to 900 miles away. Care to guess why they told me they come so far for their annuals?

 

Ask John-Olav or Tim Greer. Detailed work and documentation to show that work is what owners like. Vagness isn't in vogue anymore. Those old traditions and ways of thinking are slowing being left behind and being replaced with new mechanics and ways of doing things.

 

Hi Roger,

 

I concur, that is one of the reason why we purchased 292CT from the hangar next to yours.

If our satisfaction is not good enough for some, I do remember that even Bank of America aircraft loan officer was very happy with the logbook.

She saw the 2 different logbooks' entries and said "you can clearly see that this aircraft has been maintained better than the last".

 

Why she would said that?  The first aircraft we tried to purchase was the epitome of vague logbook entries.   Yes, that aircraft's logbook claimed every necessary maintenance were done and stated "01-01-10 - annual condition inspection IAW manufacture recommendations".  Come on, I can write that on the logbook too and how would I know if that person really did IAW or let alone knows what to check on that particular aircraft?

 

Then, on 292CT logbook, we saw many of entries are written in details, some might say too much, but I would rather purchase aircraft with too much information rather than a very little information.  I guess that is up to your preference, but in my opinion, I would rather purchase 1000 hr aircraft showing all of the previous maintenance record in details than 100 hr aircraft with no or little record.  Isn't that reason why aircraft is worthless without logbooks to begin with...?

 

Therefore, of course we purchased 292CT.  By the way, first aircraft had to be abandoned in the middle of the return flight from the pre-buy inspection.  Then, 292CT still running strong and now we have put on 300+ hours...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Doug,

 

This is why I ask the guys to define brief.

No I don't. Mine look very similar to the ones posted in the examples above. It is one page or less in the small aircraft logbook. That's all that goes into the logbook itself. Similar to the example posted below, but may not be exact. I just did a cut and paste from the examples in the previous post.

 

 

p.s.

 

Going the extra mile for my client and my personal attitude to not being just average or in the bottom 10%:

 

I do give as an extra and separate typed itemised discrepancy list, a Rotax engine check list and an FD inspection check list. All are signed off in the appropriate column for both the 100 hr and annual at the same time and any thing other than just looking (like a fix to something) gets a side note.

The logbook is the legal FAA document. Now the owner and any legal challenge no matter who it may be knows I am taking full responsibility for looking at all those things and it is less likely I missed something. The owner is also covered better for the same reasons. All my clients keep that paperwork in a 3 ring binder. What a nice way to look back and see what was done, not done or a repeat issue. It absolutely benefits the next mechanic if he takes the time to review it. You look at some logbook entries and it looks like they spent 10 minutes of time because there is nothing there other than saying an inspection was done and you haven't a clue on what they did, didn't do and most of the time just out and out missed it because they didn't know they were supposed to do that check.

Log5.pdf

Log7.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eddie,

I personally recommend employing calibration lab that uses traceability to ANSI standards for calibration of any equipment that takes a measurement.

I realize that this can be logistically challenging at times, but if we are measuring something in aviation maintenance, we need to be using calibrated equipment.

 

Roger,

Once the aircraft is flow it has ABSOLUTELY BEEN "returned to service". The term "return to service" applies to what a pilot does when he/she operates an aircraft. An inspector must ALWAYS approve, or disapprove an aircraft for return to service after ANY inspection. What I think you are trying to say (and correctly so) is that in the SLSA or ELSA world, these aircraft are not

found "Airworthy or Unairworthy", but instead in a condition for safe operation......................or not. Every A&P I know understands this concept.

Also, what is "Circular 21.191?

 

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger,

I skipped to the attachments on your last post, but assume they are examples of what you consider to be good entries.

As a following inspector, if I read these, I would not give an ounce of credit to anything but the first and last statements. When I am inspecting an aircraft, it is my judgment that will prevail. I don't care that the last inspector said that the "hoses are in good condition". What does that mean anyway? All of the stuff between the first and last statement in those entries is what I refer to as "Fluff".

 

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Doug,

Our debate isn't on return to service or found in a safe condition for operation wording, but how much detail you would put in the logbook for the inspection.

I have to admit I have enjoyed our debate, but the bottom line comes down to a personal preference as many things do here on the forum.

The examples can certainly be written many ways with different wording, but the meat of the inspection needs to be there.

I agree that the ""hoses are in good condition" could be worded differently and may even be somewhat subjective, but at least I know he inspected the hoses. Can't tell you how many leaks, bad clamps and wrong hoses I have had to fix because the last guy never bothered to look. Without the statement how would you know he bothered to look. I would rather have the guy going the extra mile than the minimalist guy.

The fluff in between means you actually looked at something, took note of something or addressed something. The opening and closing statements are just that. They state what you are about to do (most miss that boat too) and and the last statement brings the inspection to a close. It just like any book. You have a start and an end. Without the fluff statements in the middle they are just hollow statements and most of the time they have left out half the fluff they should have done because they didn't do it. I do about 30+ annuals a year plus the smaller side general non inspection work. I could post all the time of lack luster, lazy work that missed so many things. You know they couldn't have read a manual, used a check list, looked at the SB's or gone to a class because so much was left out. So far I have only seen one other mechanic give out any other paperwork other than the logbook entry. So without the fluff you may just have paid for the proverbial pig in the poke because you have no idea what was done or not done.

 

I'll take the fluff in between any day over a three line annual logbook inspection.

The opening and closing statements are just the bare minimum and barely meets the FAA minimum. That fluff takes it up to a higher level of professionalism.

The opening and closing statement only guy is lazy in my eyes and the guy that tried to document and spent the extra time with the inspection and documentation is certainly a cut above.

 

 

Do you log the minimum standard set forth by the FAA or do you rise above the minimum standard and strive to be closer to the top of the scale?

That is the question for every mechanic or owner needs to ask oneself. If I reflect inwardly do I want to associate my actions (documentation in our context), emulate and be judged by the bottom 10% or the top 10%?

 

Just in the articles I posted above it pretty much says it isn't a good idea to be a bare minimum documenter when it comes to logbook entries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger,

My point on the "return to service" comment was meant to point out that it is you, not most A&Ps, who seem to have a misunderstanding about the sign off wording.

I agree, that debate is good. However you frequently single out (for some reason) A&P mechanics when articulating misunderstandings in the LSA realm. I think that there are misunderstandings across the board in the GA world. You are flat wrong on your post with regard to the "return to service" statement.

Pilots always "return an aircraft to service"

Mechanics always approve aircraft for return to service (or disapprove it). Does not matter whether LSA or Standard Airworthiness.

Good documentation is a must, but when it comes to inspections, no one should ever place any trust in the last guy........even if he writes a novel of information (that he believes to be true).

Roger when you certify an aircraft to be in a condition for safe operation, all that other stuff is a given (hoses in good condition, etc...........). If it is not safe, dont certify it as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As background, I have taken a 16-hour course on inspecting an Experimental Light Sport and got certified to do so, only on my own plane.

 

That absolutely pales in comparison to Roger's training and experience, along with any LSRM or A & P.

 

Given my lack of expertise, I only put this forward as a snapshot of where I ended up, which might be of interest to anyone contemplating the conversion to E-LSA and possibly taking the course and doing their own Annual Condition Inspections.

 

I think it's been floated that maybe I'm negligent, and possibly even decreasing the value of my plane, by writing "3-line" logbook entries.

 

In any case, I just finished the paperwork on my annual:

 

16427430633_56f5ed3668.jpg

 

I know it fuzzy, but...

 

Top row - personalized checklist for oil change and torque values and the like.

Second row - 5 page 3i inspection checklist

Third row - 2 page flight test checklist, and to their right my airframe and engine entries, clearer here:

 

17046752791_86c07e040c_z.jpg

 

I think en toto this documents what I did. If a prospective buyer has issues with what is written where, his loss.

 

In any case, that's how I've been doing it. Open to suggestions. One thing I've considered is stapling the checklist into the logbook to make it part of the "permanent record", but that seems unnecessary since its on file and accessible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure here, but some of this discussion may be the official difference in signing off on an inspection wish is different for a standard classified aircraft and an S-LSA.

Inn my plane there happened to be an GAS guy present when I purchased it who asked to see the log books and had the A & P change all the inspection sign offs to use the "return to service" language.

I have no problems with A & Ps, but, unless a particular A & P takes time to understand Rotax 912s and the peculiarities of our carbon fiber machines I am not going to trust them with mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one is calling anyone negligent. We are just debating complete documentation and what that entails and that people have personal preferences.

 

The one thing I don't see anywhere on your documents is what inspection it is. Is it an annual condition, 100 hr. or both. It really should say.

 

Just curious:

 

I see you have your main check list, you didn't use the Rotax one too? You used one, but not the other? 

 

 

You could have just had one label. Why not just combined them? There is absolutely no ruling or reg. otherwise. You could have made the label wider to fit the page and all would have been on one label.

 

Your documentation isn't any different than my examples other than you split it up.

 

 

"I think it's been floated that maybe I'm negligent, and possibly even decreasing the value of my plane, by writing "3-line" logbook entries."

 

Yours isn't a 3 liner you just made three labels saying the same thing as one of the sample labels.

The 3 liner guys only have the top label and missed or left out half of what you did because you used a check list.

 

Eddie,

I'm not bashing you here so don't take offense please, but questioning the other guys. I

For those who said don't write too much this is two pages and not one and says the same thing with three labels verses one of the samples on a single page and has almost the same items. 

So why is Eddie's good and the samples too long and detailed?

 

The only thing you and I would have done different is I would have said what inspection it was, just made it one label and used a Rotax check list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Tom,

 

I do get it. Your definition of brief is different than mine. The FAA when shown the above posted labels liked all the longer ones and consider those to be brief and complete.

 

define brief? how many lines is that? What is too brief? Who decides what brief is? What did the author of brief have in mind when they wrote that. was it a three liner or just don't write a 4 page 8.5x11 paper book. Where in that publication did it say you couldn't or shouldn't list the discrepancies?

 

Roger, I don't think you do. You are confusing maintenance with inspection, and there is a difference. 43.11 covers inspections. You simply record the required information and state what documentation you used for the inspection. This is where the entry is brief.

 

What you are saying is missing from the inspection entries are actually maintenance entries, and they are covered by 43.9. These are the entries that tell what was done to an airplane. These are what you showed in the Right column beside your discrepancy list. This is where you get to write pages of information if you want. This is what the articles you listed in the other post refer to.

 

In my opinion the discrepancy list should not be part of the aircraft records, but rather supplied to the owner as called for in 43.11

 

Maintenance entries should be long and detailed. Inspection entries should be short and brief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 CFR part 43.11 specifies the sign off verbiage for aircraft that can be declared " airworthy" or subject to a progressive inspection. SLSA and ELSA can never be certified as such. Look to the individual aircraft operating limitations for the minor differences in the signoffs for these aircraft inspections.

Roger, I still don't see your amendment with regard to the phrase: "return to service". Also, there is only one inspection for SLSA or ELSA aircraft.................Condition Inspection. This is a whole aircraft inspection that is not concerned with the WHEN concept. It does not matter whether performed on an annual basis or 100 hr basis. The inspection is the same, and consequently, the sign off is the same.

 

Tom,

Not to muddy the waters............but by definition inspection is maintenance (your 43.11 reference is duly noted).

 

Doug,

I agree with the premise of your statement............If someone does not know what they are doing, I don't want them maintaining my machine. There has been ( In my opinion) an impetus to try to confine A&Ps to the Standard world because they just can't grasp the nuances of these LSA changes. I would only continue to say, that A&Ps are bound by the same standards that they have always been bound by. As such, they must continue to provide the same level of production, in spite of the misinformation that may be spread (without correction when proven to be false).

 

 

Doug Hereford

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a long post, but hit delete. I don't see this helping anyone with our post because we look at these things from different perspectives and educational backgrounds and it can only degrade the post and friendships. Best to call it a draw and move on.

 

No hard feelings on this end as I love to debate, but at some point it isn't productive any longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...