Jump to content

Pulling wings


procharger

Recommended Posts

There is another entry in the same manual, Page 3-5,

3.4 Propulsion System

Fuel Sight Gages. Inspect for security and presence of fuel leakage. When hoses get coloured due to fuel additives and fuel level becomes difficult to read, they must be exchanged.

Behind this entry there is a checkbox for 100 hour and Annual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Tom,

FD maint. manual checklist and Rotax both have 100 hr and annual inspection boxes for the entire checklist. If they don't have them then why have 100 hrs. listed. See section 2 first sentence, then section 2.2 right side box. They even recommend on the Rotax in section 2.2 to do a 100 hr. on the engine.

"Check each 600 hrs or at the next 100 hrs inspection after 2 years, whichever occurs first."

Is a 600 hr. not a 100 hr. x 6? So we don't need to check the aircraft within a whole year if they only put on 550 hrs that year? There is nothing that says we can't do a 100 hr. as it says in their own sentence. Since their language is vague and maybe even misleading in our debate it can easily be interpreted that you can go up to 100 hrs. past 2 years. It's on their own maint. checklist. When I do an annual my opening sentence always says "In accordance with the Flight Design and Rotax maintenance manuals this aircraft had its 100 hr & Annual Condition Inspection." That way a cover all my bases and reset Rotax, FD and annual times and cover both documented inspection intervals for the engine and fuselage in case I have to go before the FAA, an insurance company or a court. I also do more than just the items listed for 100 hrs. I like to see if there are trends that may show up long before a 200+ hr. inspection.

Here's another one. Have you read the CTLSi supplement for inspections? Most people don't even know it exist. I use it and the regular CTLS maint. checklist every inspection. It list several different intervals for the engine and other items including some 100 hr. It also list 100 hr. and annual inspections on the checklist.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Removing wings for inspection every 2 yrs is ridiculous.  Changing the sight tube I get it. The wing inspection should be done based on flight hrs. Sitting in a hangar does not affect a composite wing, it should be based on load cycles. I would love to have a conversation with a FD engineer on this. I think it was a CYA issue since day one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the root inspection would be best done on flight hours, but checking the inside of the fuel tank should be done based on time (we have to clean out the gunk in the corner and fuel intake filters anyways).

While at large, people aren't going to have too many issues with the inside of their fuel tanks, the difference between catching issues from the liner early and waiting until there's evidence on the outside of the wing amounts to thousands easy, or flat out replacement of the whole wing in one person's case out on the west coast.

Said internal tank inspection could be satisfied by just draining and using a long borescope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Roger Lee said:

Hi Tom,

FD maint. manual checklist and Rotax both have 100 hr and annual inspection boxes for the entire checklist. If they don't have them then why have 100 hrs. listed. See section 2 first sentence, then section 2.2 right side box. They even recommend on the Rotax in section 2.2 to do a 100 hr. on the engine.

"Check each 600 hrs or at the next 100 hrs inspection after 2 years, whichever occurs first."

Is a 600 hr. not a 100 hr. x 6? So we don't need to check the aircraft within a whole year if they only put on 550 hrs that year? There is nothing that says we can't do a 100 hr. as it says in their own sentence. Since their language is vague and maybe even misleading in our debate it can easily be interpreted that you can go up to 100 hrs. past 2 years. It's on their own maint. checklist. When I do an annual my opening sentence always says "In accordance with the Flight Design and Rotax maintenance manuals this aircraft had its 100 hr & Annual Condition Inspection." That way a cover all my bases and reset Rotax, FD and annual times and cover both documented inspection intervals for the engine and fuselage in case I have to go before the FAA, an insurance company or a court. I also do more than just the items listed for 100 hrs. I like to see if there are trends that may show up long before a 200+ hr. inspection.

Here's another one. Have you read the CTLSi supplement for inspections? Most people don't even know it exist. I use it and the regular CTLS maint. checklist every inspection. It list several different intervals for the engine and other items including some 100 hr. It also list 100 hr. and annual inspections on the checklist.

Roger, 

Why have 100hr inspections on the checklist if they are not required? I never said they are not required, I said the name is wrong for the US market. The manuals are not written for just in the US, they are written for multi national aviation authorities, some of which use the 100hr inspection program. 

I have never advocated for doing less. I use the complete 100hr/annual inspection checklist when performing a condition inspection even if the airplane only has 25hrs since the last inspection. In the case of the wing inspection I perform them at the next inspection after 2 years, not when the airplane reaches 100 hours from its last inspection. When I do an inspection I sign it off using the FAA regulatorily recognized term, (condition inspection). 

The 600 hour limit is a hard limit. If you fly 550 hours in one year, as soon as you hit the 600 hour mark the inspection is due.

 

If you want to play word games you could have a really low time airplane out there that has never had the wing inspection because it hasn't had a 100hour inspection after it was 2 years old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Madhatter said:

Removing wings for inspection every 2 yrs is ridiculous.  Changing the sight tube I get it. The wing inspection should be done based on flight hrs. Sitting in a hangar does not affect a composite wing, it should be based on load cycles. I would love to have a conversation with a FD engineer on this. I think it was a CYA issue since day one.

I somewhat agree, but I also somewhat disagree. For most airplanes removing the wing every 2 year would be a bad idea. Since I also maintain some gliders, and the Flight Design wing installation is very glider like I think the wings being removed and lubricated is a good idea. Most of the gliders I maintain have the wings removed for their annual or condition inspections at a minimum every 2 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whats the difference, dirt is dirt, it's lawyers or overzealous engineers. There is no requirement to inspect the tanks inside every 2 yrs on a CT or any aircraft that I am aware of. The more you disassemble and assemble something the more chance of wear on close tolerance fittings. I see it all the time on aircraft, somewhere there has to be some common sense. (But I'm not holding my breath)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dirty fuel is exactly the issue. Tulsa has had to repair more than one aircraft now by having to open the tanks and sand out the old liner. Whatever was in that fuel, it was turning the liner porous and any attempts to recoat over the old liner was bubbling. Cleaning didn't work.

One of those aircraft is one that has been here in Ohio for several years. The only common link was that those aircraft with the problems used to operate in New Mexico.

The reason I back checking the inside of the tank is to ensure the liner hasn't cracked or broken down and letting fuel get to the carbon fiber. This is what happened to the airplane on the west coast; the fuel got into the fabric about the middle of the tank, found its way to the spar and just tore everything up. Wing was ruined. The pictures were posted on this forum years ago for a few days then removed, but it was really, really bad. I think the owner hadn't flown it in a week and came back, and that's all it took to just destroy the bottom of the wing. The damage inside the tank was far worse than what you could see from the outside.

It's why I also said, a borescope would be enough. Snake it around to get a look at the condition of it, don't have to dismount the wing. Lots of relatively inexpensive ones on amazon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it was that rampant then I would never own a CT and no one in their right mind should. Obviously some of these these aircraft have factory defective coatings, it's not on a majority of them. If everyone got cracks I would have to have a sit down with FD. In this case if FD did not issue a fleet wide SB for modifications the FAA would get involved. There are always a few GA aircraft that have unusual issues, some huge,    stuff happens. If you want to remove your fuel suction tube  plate assy every 2 years that's your option, I choose not to, I pulled mine a few years ago for other reasons . I don't see how fuel in New Mexico is different than anywhere else. I am very carefull on fueling my plane since containered fuel can become contaminated easily. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Tom Baker said:

Roger, 

Why have 100hr inspections on the checklist if they are not required? I never said they are not required, I said the name is wrong for the US market. The manuals are not written for just in the US, they are written for multi national aviation authorities, some of which use the 100hr inspection program. 

I have never advocated for doing less. I use the complete 100hr/annual inspection checklist when performing a condition inspection even if the airplane only has 25hrs since the last inspection. In the case of the wing inspection I perform them at the next inspection after 2 years, not when the airplane reaches 100 hours from its last inspection. When I do an inspection I sign it off using the FAA regulatorily recognized term, (condition inspection). 

The 600 hour limit is a hard limit. If you fly 550 hours in one year, as soon as you hit the 600 hour mark the inspection is due.

 

If you want to play word games you could have a really low time airplane out there that has never had the wing inspection because it hasn't had a 100hour inspection after it was 2 years old.

You can't have a manual given out by the MFG for the US and say it doesn't apply because it was written for other countries. Who said and where is that in writing?  FD would have to have a disclaimer or an SB that things in the maint. manual they have for our planes don't apply. The language is strait forward and a court would hold you to the English language and Miant. checklist issued to US owners for their CT's by FD in the US. You can't open this manual and pick and choose what you THINK it says or means and just say I'm not going to do this because it must be written for another country. The language is what it is unless FD publishes what doesn't apply.

I discussed this issue with them several years ago. My only hang up with pulling the wings is it causes wear where there wouldn't have been any if  people didn't remove them. People have damaged their wings trying to perform the wing pull inspection. Pushing the spar pins in and out, wires, tubing flaps, ailerons, ect... I haven't heard of or at least can't remember anyone finding anything from just the wing pull. There have been a few tank and leak issues, but you didn't need to pull a wing to see those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is the 2 year requirement only based on calender time is not based in facts, maybe 4 or 6 years would make sense.  FD should be able to validate their reason, I have not heard it yet,   I am waiting. I am not saying to reject the manual, just saying it doesn't make sense and would like to know why, (FD enlighten me, german engineer call me ,write to me but I'm not holding my breath). When I worked as an aero engineer I had to back up my recommendations with facts and all hell would break loose if I did not, and with the work I did, it came from the CEO down(I experienced it once at Lycoming).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger, I didn't say the manual doesn't apply in the US, I said it wasn't specifically written for the US. I specifically asked one of the Flight Design engineers about the 100 hour inspection ckecklist and just making it a annual inspection checklist. He said they have the 100 hour checklist because of the German market. They are taxed for annual inspections and not 100 hour inspections, so they wanted the distinction.

I never said that the manual doesn't apply. I didn't say pick and choose what you want. What I said is that our regulatory entity, the FAA doesn't recognize a 100 hour inspection for a SLSA. The one and only inspection required by the FAA is the condition inspection. Absolutely use the checklist in the maintenance manual for the condition inspection, even though it says 100hr/annual. When I do a condition inspection I use the 100hrfannual inspection checklist. For the engine I use Rotax's 100hr/annual inspection checklist. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger, I didn't say the manual doesn't apply in the US, I said it wasn't specifically written for the US.

I specifically asked one of the Flight Design engineers about the 100 hour inspection checklist and just making it a annual inspection checklist. He said they have the 100 hour checklist because of the German market.  (First time I have heard this in 16 years) They didn't tell me that and from what I hear now it's been more than one story. Plus FD has never come out in writing to say this and as far as a legal interpretation and liability they would have to in writing. It isn't up to 375+ owners in the US or the rest of the world to figure it out on their own. Also they say to follow the Rotax manual right on the checklist which does say to do 100 hrs. So then do the engine and forget the air frame? You'd have a really tough time to try and get out of the 100 hr. since FD has said nothing about this to all the US customers.

 

They are taxed for annual inspections and not 100 hour inspections, so they wanted the distinction.

I never said that the manual doesn't apply. I didn't say pick and choose what you want. What I said is that our regulatory entity, the FAA doesn't recognize a 100 hour inspection for a SLSA. I'm going to have to re-check this because I think if the aircraft MFG says you have to do 100 hrs and it's on the published MFG's checklist you have to do it. Unfortunately now days you can ask 5 FAA people in Oklahoma and you can get 5 different answers. I've questioned them before knowing the real answer and they gave me the wrong answer. Then I had to tell them where it was in the FAR's. Then they got upset and ask why I even ask. I said to see if everyone there was informed and on the same page. They aren't.

Remember it's all about the legality and court decisions and too many times authorities and the aircraft MFG's get it wrong. I've brought it to several aircraft MFG's and they all made changes.

 

 

 

The one and only inspection required by the FAA is the condition inspection. Absolutely use the checklist in the maintenance manual for the condition inspection, even though it says 100hr/annual. When I do a condition inspection I use the 100hrfannual inspection checklist. For the engine I use Rotax's 100hr/annual inspection checklist. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, airhound said:

375 or 70 per state…17 years..

 

Anyone……any idea how many have  converted to ELSA for maintenance convenience.

I'd guess maybe 20-30%.  I like having an E-LSA, and I would not want to go back to an S-LSA.  But a lot of people feel differently about it, and there is the perception that an E-LSA might lose value, even though that doesn't seem to be the case.  I think if maintenance is well documented for either LSA type, the value will be maintained.  I saw an S-LSA CT for sale a while back, and the ad included a picture of the latest condition inspection log entry.  it said:

Annual condition inspection performed in accordance with Flight Design documentation.

That was it.  I'd much rather have an E-LSA with good, complete logbooks than an S-LSA pencil-whipped like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, FlyingMonkey said:

I'd guess maybe 20-30%.  I like having an E-LSA, and I would not want to go back to an S-LSA.  But a lot of people feel differently about it, and there is the perception that an E-LSA might lose value, even though that doesn't seem to be the case.  I think if maintenance is well documented for either LSA type, the value will be maintained.  I saw an S-LSA CT for sale a while back, and the ad included a picture of the latest condition inspection log entry.  it said:

Annual condition inspection performed in accordance with Flight Design documentation.

That was it.  I'd much rather have an E-LSA with good, complete logbooks than an S-LSA pencil-whipped like that.

I talked to Tom Peghiny about ELSA before I changed, he said it would not change the value on a 2006 CT. I maintain my CT in accordance with the manual and any alterations in accordance with AC43.13. Most of any installed equipment is for certified aircraft as much as possible. I experiment with some flight enhancing changes but are well researched and meticulously flight tested. I get input from companies and people that do these things for a profession. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right-on! Sounds like a GA need for data standardization/inspection. 

Since the maintainer community doesn’t police itself, how about—All log-able maintainer entries are saved to centralized servers for FAA automated type-data forensics. A form of log book entry QC/policing?  
 

This would include ELSA Repairmen types.


  
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might get shot for this, but what surprises me is that mechanics don't get the equivalent of a BFR (IA renewal not withstanding). A lot of the time it isn't self-policing that's the issue (but it is an issue), but rather a lack of education.

Be it pilots, mechanics, FAA inspectors, examiners, etc, I feel like an online course covering recent regulatory changes, the most serious issues being found in the field relevant to the ratings being reviewed, and a refresher of some of the most important things would go a long way. No, you don't apply to renew the certificate, but you do have to have the course completed in the past 24 months.

Sure, there is the activity requirement for A&Ps (active 6 months of 24), but if you're already doing it wrong, how does doing it more often correct it?

That said, would such a thing ever be implemented CORRECTLY? Highly doubt 😞

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Roger Lee said:

He said they have the 100 hour checklist because of the German market.  (First time I have heard this in 16 years) 

Roger, I used to help in the Flight Design Booth at Oshkosh and Sebring. I had the chance to visit with the engineers one on one. This is where I asked the question. I guess I was lucky to have that access.

 

9 hours ago, Roger Lee said:

What I said is that our regulatory entity, the FAA doesn't recognize a 100 hour inspection for a SLSA. I'm going to have to re-check

The relevant regulation for this is 91.327. This is where it says the airplane must have a condition inspection within the past 12 calendar months, and if used commercially an inspection within the last 100 hours.

The relevant regulation for 100 hour inspections is 91.409, and contain this, 

"Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do not apply to -

(1) An aircraft that carries a special flight permit, a current experimental certificate, or a light-sport or provisional airworthiness certificate;"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...