The International Cessna^® 170 Association

learaviator wrote:

DaveF wrote:

it just had a "fresh" annual in July

Learaviator,

How about the prop? I assume you've got a Hartzell HC-C2YK-1BF? How did the seller comply with AD 2006-18-15? I've got one of those props on my Avcon conversion and am wondering how others are dealing with the AD. The previous owners of my airplane chose to do the 100hr/annual eddy current inspections instead of replacing the hub. That's not how I'd have chosen to comply with the AD, but it's too late now to take Hartzell's "deal" on a new hub.

Dave

The prop AD was also accomplished in July of 08, so I have a bit to decide the direction I will go. It will cost 275.00 every year to have it accomplished. I am trying to see if I can have it done on the airplane, so add in a 100.00 hamburger, and it would be 375.00. 10 years worth of that would pay for a hub and an overhaul. I am still undecided.

Let clear something up though before I get posts saying I am wrong. A hub at todays price is 2900.00, to install it WITHOUT an overhaul could be 750.00 to 1000.00. If it would need an overhaul, that would be an additional 2500.00 2700.00.

learaviator wrote:

mit wrote:There is no required 500 hour inspection on the mags.

Then why didn't you do it yourself????

I am afraid you are wrong with the first statement about there not being a 500hr inspection. I have attached the page from the Magneto Manual that clearly states the inspections required in the top right paragraph.

And as far as the second comment, the annual was accomplished in July, 5 months before I started looking at the airplane.

As an IA you should have been right on top of the word "required" that I used.

mit wrote:

learaviator wrote:

mit wrote:There is no required 500 hour inspection on the mags.

Then why didn't you do it yourself????

I am afraid you are wrong with the first statement about there not being a 500hr inspection. I have attached the page from the Magneto Manual that clearly states the inspections required in the top right paragraph.

And as far as the second comment, the annual was accomplished in July, 5 months before I started looking at the airplane.

As an IA you should have been right on top of the word "required" that I used.

As far as I am concerned, if it is in the Bendix manual, and if my family is in it, and if it has to do with engine, ignition, fuel delivery, or big parts falling off, it is required. Call me silly, but I guess that is just me being an I.A.

Nope that isn't silly at all, it's good idea. but it still doesn't make it mandatory and if your customer doesn't want to pay for it you shouldn't be forcing them. That's the IA in me.

mit wrote:Nope that isn't silly at all, it's good idea. but it still doesn't make it mandatory and if your customer doesn't want to pay for it you shouldn't be forcing them. That's the IA in me.

Did I miss something!!!Who said anything about a customer?? And who said anything about forcing a customer to pay for something? I thought we were discussing my airplane and my preferences about the way I do things on my plane? Now I see why I do not get on these forums.

I enjoy these forums an awful lot, and there's much to be learned from them. There is a certain amount of noise obscuring the true signal, however.

For maximum benefit, we all must maintain the attitude that other people's opinions are nothing more than that; always assume the other guy didn't really mean it that way, and never take it personally!

In the spirit of peaceful discourse,

John

learaviator wrote:

mit wrote:Nope that isn't silly at all, it's good idea. but it still doesn't make it mandatory and if your customer doesn't want to pay for it you shouldn't be forcing them. That's the IA in me.

Did I miss something!!!Who said anything about a customer?? And who said anything about forcing a customer to pay for something? I thought we were discussing my airplane and my preferences about the way I do things on my plane? Now I see why I do not get on these forums.

What I got from mit's statement was that the previous owner elected to not have it done so that IA should not insist on it.

Shouldn't be a problem with getting the AD done on wing. I have a friend with an M20 Mooney that was going that route but ended up just getting the new prop instead. I had call the local prop shop here in Ga and they told me to fly the airplane up and they would meet us at the airport to perform the eddie current inspection.

learaviator wrote:If it would need an overhaul, that would be an additional 2500.00 2700.00.

That's in line with what my local prop shop quoted. They'll also do the eddy current inspection for 300 on the airplane.

Sigh, all those years I owned McCauley props without so much as an oil drip, now caught in the web of Harzell airworthiness directives. "Built on Honor"? How about engineering??

Dave

learaviator wrote:

mit wrote:Nope that isn't silly at all, it's good idea. but it still doesn't make it mandatory and if your customer doesn't want to pay for it you shouldn't be forcing them. That's the IA in me.

Did I miss something!!!Who said anything about a customer?? And who said anything about forcing a customer to pay for something? I thought we were discussing my airplane and my preferences about the way I do things on my plane? Now I see why I do not get on these forums.

Two Hours ago I tried to post a response to learavaitor.... and it went piffle (which is good because the banter has been better since then).....I was trying to say that Tim was sorta,,kinda right that there is no (mandatory rebuild or inspection) on S-20 or S-200 mags.... There is a mandatory inspection on the impulse coupling......My take on that has always been.....while I have the mag off why not rebuild the mag? (rebuild not overhaul)...that can only be done by a certified shop....As brought up by George....most items needn't be replaced.......but I figure, if I have them there going into the mag.........no mater what.......I can sleep at night for another 500 Hrs......

There is no question regardless of an AD that the mags should be looked at at or before 500 hours. I had a S-20 series mag bearing disintegrate at 352 hrs since overhaul by a major overhauler. I got lucky it happened on the ground and I realized immediately and shut down the engine limiting the damage.

I might have found the bad bearing at 250 hrs had we inspected them as my IA had wanted to, but I resisted. I might have found the bearing at about 310 hrs had I had them inspected as my IA wanted but I resisted. After all at 310 hrs the mags were just over half through that magic 500 hour mark and many mags go much farther, right. My new personal mag inspection interval is 250 hrs.

I'm with Bruce on the inspection interval. I'm doing mine at every alternate annual as a minimum. (I doubt I'll make 250 hours in two years.)

Steve, don't give up so easily on the forums. Sometimes what is written may appear to be a personal criticism when it's not...it's only another persons thinking "out loud"...but without the "voice" I spoke of earlier. It's the conversational exchange that we all live and learn by in these types of exchanges.

As for your experience with other A&P/IA 's work..... hopefully without offending anyone present... The WORST airplanes I"ve ever seen had the most BEAUTIFUL paperwork.... because they were previously owned/operated by certificated mechanics who made beautiful paperwork as it came by them so easily.... but being comfortable with things mechanical...they operated with many discrepancies with which a subsequent owner would be appalled! (And in one case, it was an A&P/IA who had a purely fraudulent ballpoint pen!) As a result, the airplanes that I am most suspicious of at a distance (i.e., until I actually see the airplane itself) are those offered for sale by A&P owners.

Again, no offense intended to be reflected upon anyone present. That's just been my personal experience.

gahorn wrote: (And in one case, it was an A&P/IA who had a purely fraudulent ballpoint pen!)

George, It could have been the paper at fault, and not the pen. A piece of paper will hold still and let you write anything on it. I agree, good maintenance records are not necessarily an accurate representation of the aircrafts condition. I always look at the aircraft first, and then the logs. If a person looks at the "good" logs first, and then the aircraft, it's to easy to get an idea of what to expect and therefore not look at everything with unbiased eyes.

Unfortunately I fall into that category, where my aircraft may not be totally free from defect, but will be safe. Whenever I see the word fresh describing a mechanical device, I'm inclined to think there had been the need to use a spray can.