Sky Arrow Annual - mostly ROTAX

[Anticept]

 

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.

 

Just put the inspections into their own little folder. My logbook signoffs only state what I have done and results of some tests (performed inspection IAW blah blah, replaced blah, did blah, results of torque test are blah, such and such safe operation). In effect, if it is a simple check, then it doesn't go in the log because it is covered by the "inspection" line of the log. I record the outcome of things like compression and torque tests because it is useful to establish trends. If i go to sell my plane, i will provide the checklists digitally, but it is a waste of paper to print them.

 

Some companies have been doing this for a long time already, because many manufacturers have checklists in the standard category as well.

[FastEddieB]

Thanks, Roger.

 

No real reason I spread it over two labels. I guess I started it because the short version never varies - the exact verbiage is called for in my Operating Limitations.

 

I have not used a ROTAX checklist, since I thought all the items were mirrored on the 3i checklist. I do have digital copies of all the ROTAX manuals, and I will double check that I'm performing all the required items.

 

Anticept,

 

It seems like we ended up at about the same endpoint. I have a file box with hanging folders. Each year's documents go in one of two folders: "2105 Annual" or "2015 Maintenance", for example. In the "Maintenance" folder go receipts and any invoices or paperwork not related to the annual. I do get comfort from physical copies, so I do print everything out, as my photo shows.

[FlyingMonkey]

Does anybody have a link to the 100hr / annual Rotax checklist?

[FastEddieB]

I assume it's buried in here somewhere:

 

http://www.flyrotax.com/portaldata/5/dokus/d05562.pdf

 

Yep. Starts on page 11.

[Tom Baker]

 

Tom,

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

 

 

 

 

Doug Hereford

 

Doug, the FAA definition of maintenance does include inspection, but they do clearly separate the two in the regulations.

[gbigs]

What's the point underlying all the nitpicking over language?   If an annual is done, say so.  If a 100 hour inspection is done, say so.  If something is found and fixed, say that... If something is changed, note it...

 

Here is the FAA doc 'Aging Aircraft Best Practices'   https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/small_airplanes/cos/aging_aircraft/media/aging_aircraft_best_practices.pdf

 

In the middle of it is this statement:   "Always ask the question: Does the logbook reflect what has actually been done to the airplane?"

 

HOW that gets said does not seem as important as WHAT gets said.

[FastEddieB]

Roger,

 

I scanned the ROTAX checklist.

 

At first glance the 3i checklist seems to hit all the major bases:

 

(click to enlarge)

 

 

Please let me know if you see any major omissions.

 

Next year I may print out the ROTAX checklist as well to back up the 3i one.

[Doug G.]

One thing more in relation to this. I had not removed the wings on my plane so when it was due last year I gave an A&P the relevant pages and had him supervise my work. He then signed off, not on it having been done, but on my ability to do it.

[Roger Lee]

Hi Eddie,

 

There are things on the Rotax check list that aren't on most others. Take a look. Here is a copy for people who want to print the check list out for their mechanic to use. There are several important things left out of a generic check list. Just as an example look at section 18 and there are several others.

New Rotax Inspection Checklist.pdf

[Doug Hereford]

Tom Baker,

100% agreed (that is why I duly noted your reference to 43.11). I only made mention of it because I had often been confused in the past about the way Light Sport refers to "maintenance and inspection procedures", when other areas of GA use different phrasing. I liken that phrase to the terms: methods,

techniques, and practices (43.13).

 

The term "maintenance and inspection" procedures tends to cause me to think of them separately (and as you pointed out, they are different when we talk

about maintenance records sign offs for inspections vs other kinds of maintenance 43.9 vs 43.11).

I wonder if the "maintenance and inspection procedures" phrase was adopted from ASTM.?

 

Doug Hereford

[Doug Hereford]

Doug G,

That is the way someone satisfies their requirements in part 65 (65.81 for mechanics, and 65.107 for repairmen). Since this thread has dealt with documentation (among other things), I would point out the part 43.9 requirement here.

Since you performed maintenance (removed and reinstalled the wings), an entry must be made. In this case however, since you had not successfully performed this work before, you were supervised by someone who was appropriately rated, and who had also had prior experience with this operation. The maintenance record entry would be governed by 14 CFR part 43.9. Your name (not signature) should be included as the person performing the work. The signature and certificate number and kind of certificate of the person who supervised you is then entered in order to approve the aircraft for return to service.

As you eluded to, this record is also evidence that you have successfully performed the work for the future. Next time, you can perform the wing R&R and approve the aircraft for return to service afterward.

This whole process illustrates an important thing that may be misunderstood by some. As a properly rated repairman, one can perform (and ultimately approve for return to service) almost any maintenance that an A&P can. Just because a repairman hasn't ever riveted, or welded, or maintained a turbojet engine, does not mean that they are precluded from doing so. As long as one abides by 14 CFR part 65.107, their potential as a repairmen is less limited than may be believed ( I realize that there could be an entire new thread devoted to this discussion).

 

Doug Hereford

[liltaka]

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.

 

I do believe what you do is better and please do not change your way.  It is not just my opinion, but it is also based on Bank of America Loan Officer Aircraft & Marine Loan Officer.  So, if an experienced major bank Loan Officer thinks your way is better, then that is all you need to know.  I bet she sees log books way more than all of us combined in daily basis...just saying...

[Doug G.]

Not sure if I did it correctly, Doug, but I noted the wing removal as a part of the inspection and asked the A&P to sign off on what I had done as a separate document.

This raises the question of what, "you can't do it unless you have done it." I have done a lot of soldering, but was not trained by an A&P or I repairman training. At what point is supervision necessary?

I agree this should be another topic. Admin?

[gbigs]

I do believe what you do is better and please do not change your way.  It is not just my opinion, but it is also based on Bank of America Loan Officer.  So, if an experienced major bank Loan Officer thinks your way is better, then that is all you need to know.  I bet she sees log books way more than all of us combined in daily basis...just saying...

 

A bank loan officer?    What bank loan officer is an aviation expert?

[Jim Meade]

Doug, Didn't you go through a wing removal in your LSRM training? If so, that is your "been there done that".

[Roger Lee]

You guys keep throwing my soapbox down in front of me.

 

Hi  Bob,

"As far as legal issues, there are actually some legal risk to including more information than is legally required."

 

Not if you're doing the right things and only if your're doing things wrong. You wouldn't have a fear of documenting the wrong things with more current education.

 

If you had spent the last 30 years in court with civil and criminal trials as I have you wouldn't say that. Documentation saves you every time. If it isn't written you didn't do it and that is pretty easy to prove especially if it's months later and you can't remember. I have been saved time and time again with documentation, sent people to jail with better documentation than the Cop's and never been raked over the coals in court.

 

The term "IAW" is dangerous without any details. It means you knew every little thing you were supposed to do untill they should you don't. All they have to do is ask you enough questions to find out what you didn't do or know even existed and you wrote IAW which is ALL encompassing and your toast.

 

When the lawyers and judges came to my classes back in 1979 and said document, document, document I took it to heart and it has never been bad advise.

8 years ago because I had better documentation than the City they were set to loose a multi million lawsuit that had been filed against them by a female firefighter claiming discrimination. They thought the same thing. Less documentation and don't write anything bad about the person and they would win. They were headed down the tubes. I had paperwork that no one knew I had and I never turned it over until after the depositions. The girl lost.

 

 I have seen some many raked over the coals many times. Cop's, Medical and Fire personnel and all because of lazy and poor documentation. I can always tell people that haven't had to sit in days of depositions and trials. They think less documentation saves them, it isn't so. They will bring in 5 good documenters and mechanics and other experts and eat that guy for lunch. They set these people up for a major fall in court because it so easy because you have zilch to fall back on and support anything you say. You have no defense other than to say I don't know because you can't remember and they will pull every document that you were supposed to have read and followed (i.e. every SB from Rotax, FD and the other MFG's that have equipment in the plane), they will ask where you got your training for those specific procedures and ask you questions about every detail you should have known, they'll ask you if you followed and filled out ALL the check list, ect... They will nit pick you until you wish you had never heard the word mechanic. Documentation is your only life saver.

If you don't think this is true then you haven't been to court a lot.

 

This is a proven fact on documentation. If you don't think so ask any medical personnel, lawyer or judge. You can though be dumb enough to write something down you had no business even doing then yes you helped tighten the noose. This is why I think so many A&P's that take no LSA schooling or further their education to today's standards and new ideas versus what they learned 20-30 years ago and fail to learn all the facts hang themselves so far out on the limb it would take one dis-satisfied owner to burn them.

 

Education isn't cheap and takes your time. For me I have pretty much been going to school my entire life and an instructor for many things. Here in May I have to go to Nassau, Bahamas for more schooling. That's a $5K week. Most won't go there because of the expense and time it takes, but if you're committed to wanting the best then it's a must. Money can be replaced and the mind is a terrible thing to waste.

 

One reason I also think some A&P's are behind the LSA 8 ball is they took their schooling many years ago and then didn't keep up with LSA. The guys who have been to school the last 8-10 years are better equipped in their knowledge base. Old school and old traditions are hard to break for some and some could care less about learning new things. I can hear it in post from many A&P's on different forums  when they relate to some subjects. When I teach classes I get a lot of "I didn't realise" comments from A&P's.  My point is some think there is this much to learn___________________________________________________________ and then never get more education, but some know there is this much to learn _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________and do a good job and furthering the education.

 

It's what you don't know or even what you think you know that falls short and bites you in the butt.

 

 

p.s.

 The loan officer on the logbook post. The loan officer may not be an aviation expert, but because he makes loans on aircraft I would imagine he has seen his fair share of garbage logbook entries. That part doesn't take an expert just someone with common sense and a little education. Who knows maybe he is a mechanic background. 

[gbigs]

Roger.

 

So you think a high school educated bank loan officer with no aviation background can ferret thru the language in an aircraft log book and make sense of it?  Yikes... 

 

Banks don't loan based on loan officers opinions, they loan based on appraisals from trusted professionals they pay to assess asset values.  Remember, they are putting cash on the line, they don't usually do it too recklessly, but then they did trust Fannie Mae during the subprime bubble, so then again, they are capable of even screwing up what they are supposed to know, namely mortgage lending.

[Roger Lee]

Do you know him personally?

"So you think a high school educated bank loan officer with no aviation background can ferret thru the language in an aircraft log book and make sense of it?  "

 

How do you know what education or experience he has? I doubt the bank just lets anyone give away their money.

 

​Without further info on the loan officer it would be hard to make blanket judgemental statements.

[Doug G.]

On the other hand, my loan had absolutely nothing to do with my airplane. It was a partial mortgage loan on our house and based on extremely good credit. It was at a rate that is less than my investments pay, plus we get the tax credit for paying back the mortgage. Let's just say it was a loan I couldn't refuse.

[Doug Hereford]

Doug G,

I suspect you did it exactly correct. Also, as Jim Meade had said, if you have R&R wings before (say in school) you are/were good. I would be glad to start a new thread on this, because it is very important, and may be somewhat misunderstood. I guess I don't have the authority to do that, or don't know how.

 

Doug Hereford

[FastEddieB]

On the other hand, my loan had absolutely nothing to do with my airplane. It was a partial mortgage loan on our house and based on extremely good credit. It was at a rate that is less than my investments pay, plus we get the tax credit for paying back the mortgage. Let's just say it was a loan I couldn't refuse.

 

That's partially how I bought my Cirrus in 2003.

[Doug Hereford]

Roger,

It is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion, but because from your posts you make it abundantly clear that the details matter.........the loan officer that Liltaka referenced is a "she".

 

Doug Hereford

[Roger Lee]

Sorry Bob,

 

You can't convince me. Been there done that more than most and watched countless people go down the toilet for lack of documentation.

 

Your quotes:

"Do you ever accept the fact that maybe you don't know everything there is to know about everything?  A lot of what you spew as fact is opinion."

"If I was buying an LSA, it would not have a parachute or second screen and possibly not an autopilot (on the fence about that)."

 

Bob,

 

Do you own an LSA, are you an LSA mechanic, have you been to at least 15 years of Rotax schools, work on more than 30 LSA a year that got your experience or specialize in FD aircraft or any LSA?

I write tech articles for Rotax and have many LOA's for FD and 3 other LSA companies have come from me and have helped change several maint. manuals for LSA companies. I think you may want to do more reading on our maint. section and read the Rotax owner forum. I re-wrote the Rotax service course and will be one of their instructors soon. Many articles out there under my other pen names are published LSA articles. I also do research and testing for companies.

I learn something new from someone all the time, but I tend to listen and evaluate not condemn.

 

I think I just might be able to hold my own.

 

You're the new guy on the block.

Have you ever judge a book or movie by its title and been so wrong? You may want to learn more about LSA and the people here first.

There are some really bright smart people here and we all help each other and sometimes we walk away with new insight we didn't have and other times we learn it's nothing more than personal preference, but personal attacks don't go very far.

The people I debate with here I highly respect and I'm always willing to listen and I never get upset. That does not mean I won't be passionate about our debates. These are all good people.

[FlyingMonkey]

Roger, there are ALWAYS some RISK with including more information than is legally required.  If you don't know that, you should.  The more you include, the more chance you have to make a mistake or leave something out among other things.  Do you ever accept the fact that maybe you don't know everything there is to know about everything?  A lot of what you spew as fact is opinion.

 

You posts seem to demean or attack other members very often.  Including some very well respected members who have helped the CT community immensely.  I'm sure in your 14 whole posts of experience on this forum, you've proven yourself a worthy arbiter of information.  No name, location USA...why would anyone on the internet doubt you?

[FastEddieB]

I remember an anecdote from a book a friend read and related to me.

 

The name was "The awful truth about lawyers" or something like that.

 

It was that lawyers tend to fear simple documents. Two people writing something on a napkin, let's say, and both signing it.

 

Often the meaning is so clear that there's little or no "wiggle room" to debate the intent.

 

Then again, if the same document was 13 pages long and started, "The party of the first part does hereby agree that the party of the second part in consideration of..." the attorney can pore through all 13 pages looking for every little omission or misplaced comma and try to find an "out".

 

So, sometimes brevity can lead to clarity while excessive wordiness can obfuscate meaning.

 

That said, "If in doubt, scratch it out". Not sure whether to log something? Log it - in most cases it can't hurt.

 

What I think most of us are looking for is a reasonable middle ground where pertinent items are logged in logbooks and extraneous ones are documented elsewhere.

 

In order to "Not let the perfect be the enemy of the good."