Certified maintenance

[Yetti]

So as we approach 1 year of certified mooney ownership and maintenance.  One of the things about documenting stuff is so the FAA and others know the plane is still airworthy from a MX standpoint.   So let's say you put a new starter on a mooney lycoming.   To get to the 2 back side bolts about the only way is to drop the cowl and remove the alternator.  The log entry only says replaced starter and did W&B and 337.    No mention if everything else got put back together correctly.   Given that the bolts were loose on the alternator and the cotter keys were not done properly, I would say the starter got back on more correctly than the last person did.

discuss

[Yetti]

So the next owner gets the plane and it keeps burning though alternator belts(You have to remove the prop to replace).   Checks the log for any work done to the alternator and finds none.  He sees the starter replacement but that is on the other side from the alternator.

[chrisk]

Doesn't 91.417(B) require records only need to be kept for 1 year?

www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/advisory_circular/ac43-9c.pdf

 

Now, it is an entirely different matter if you would buy a plane that only had records for the last year.

[kortopates]

It's more complicated than that. Some records need to be retained forever - bet you can guess which ones. (AD's and major alterations are examples) retention requirements are in multiple places.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RLCarter]

It's a fine line on the verbiage, some entries are too brief while others look like step by step instructions. The FAA likes to see details as to what was done, with part#'s and in accordance with what ever. The other thing that gets left out of the logbook is the "Return to Service" flight (which is a SOLO flight). Record keeping, some are to be kept as a permanent record for the life of the aircraft, others are only required to be kept until it is repeated...ie annuals, oil & filter, spark plugs...etc. Some are real sticklers as far as record keeping / logs go and some are not. I'll give you an example, when I purchased my "E" I was handed 2 boxes of records, receipts, logs...etc., while digging through all the crap I ran across the side of a styrofoam coffee cup that had been torn off and had "6.00x6 - 6 ply". I assume they needed a main tire. The coffee cup was pitched after I purchased it.

[Andy95W]

"Return to service" flight?  I've never seen a requirement for that in a Part 91 operation.

[midlifeflyer]

6 minutes ago, N1395W said:

"Return to service" flight?  I've never seen a requirement for that in a Part 91 operation.

See 91.407(b) and (c). (b) talks about the requirement; (c) talks about when you don't have to do it.

[Andy95W]

18 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

See 91.407(b) and (c). (b) talks about the requirement; (c) talks about when you don't have to do it.

Absolutely right, thank you for reminding me of it.

I should have said a requirement for it under part 91 for "Normal" maintenance.  Replace a wing? Yes.  Overhaul the engine? No- although it would be prudent not to and I never would.

(b) No person may carry any person (other than crewmembers) in an aircraft that has been maintained, rebuilt, or altered in a manner that may have appreciably changed its flight characteristics or substantially affected its operation in flight until an appropriately rated pilot with at least a private pilot certificate flies the aircraft, makes an operational check ofthe maintenance performed or alteration made, and logs the flight in the aircraft records.

(c) The aircraft does not have to be flown as required by paragraph (b) of this section if, prior to flight, ground tests, inspection, or both show conclusively that the maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration has not appreciably changed the flight characteristics or substantially affected the flight operation of the aircraft.

[Hank]

Yep, you're right. But although changing my oil does NOT change the flight characteristics or affect the operation in flight AT ALL, I still fly to warm the oil for quick drain, and take a lap or two around the pattern afterwards to verify no leaks after I'm done. Besides, it's an excuse to fly. But while I log those flights in my logbook, I certainly don't record them in the aircraft logbook.

[midlifeflyer]

30 minutes ago, N1395W said:

Absolutely right, thank you for reminding me of it.

I should have said a requirement for it under part 91 for "Normal" maintenance.  Replace a wing? Yes.  Overhaul the engine? No- although it would be prudent not to and I never would.

(b) No person may carry any person (other than crewmembers) in an aircraft that has been maintained, rebuilt, or altered in a manner that may have appreciably changed its flight characteristics or substantially affected its operation in flight until an appropriately rated pilot with at least a private pilot certificate flies the aircraft, makes an operational check ofthe maintenance performed or alteration made, and logs the flight in the aircraft records.

(c) The aircraft does not have to be flown as required by paragraph (b) of this section if, prior to flight, ground tests, inspection, or both show conclusively that the maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration has not appreciably changed the flight characteristics or substantially affected the flight operation of the aircraft.

I'm not sure I'd agree that a bunch of ground tests "conclusively show" overhauling an engine has not affected the flight operation of an aircraft. 

[chrisk]

19 hours ago, kortopates said:

It's more complicated than that. Some records need to be retained forever - bet you can guess which ones. (AD's and major alterations are examples) retention requirements are in multiple places.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly.   In the example of the original post, the 337 needs to be kept forever.  The W&B, presumably until the next calculation or weigh in. The description of replacing the starter:  One year.  --But as I said, I'd personally like to see more.  I want to know when the vacuum pump was replace, when the prop and engine had its last overhaul,   etc.

[Andy95W]

33 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

I'm not sure I'd agree that a bunch of ground tests "conclusively show" overhauling an engine has not affected the flight operation of an aircraft. 

Actually, in the case of the engine overhaul, under paragraph B it would not have "appreciably changed its flight characteristics or  substantially affected its operation in flight", so a maintenance flight would not be required to be logged.

No, I would not take passengers with me when flying a newly overhauled engine.

[Hank]

Lots of things I want to know, too. But the FARs cover what is REQUIRED. You may always exceed the requirements, just do not fall short . . .

[Yooper Rocketman]

1 hour ago, Hank said:

Yep, you're right. But although changing my oil does NOT change the flight characteristics or affect the operation in flight AT ALL, I still fly to warm the oil for quick drain, and take a lap or two around the pattern afterwards to verify no leaks after I'm done. Besides, it's an excuse to fly. But while I log those flights in my logbook, I certainly don't record them in the aircraft logbook.

I always complete my run up after an oil change in a spot I can taxi after the run up with a 45 degree turn so I can look back and see if there are any oil spots on the ground before launching.

Tom

[Yetti]

Run up, fast passes down the runway, climb over the airport, come back to check everything once over with flashlight into the cowl.  All good things to do.  That is after going over all your work twice and having some quality study time.

[Shadrach]

21 hours ago, Yetti said:

So the next owner gets the plane and it keeps burning though alternator belts(You have to remove the prop to replace).   Checks the log for any work done to the alternator and finds none.  He sees the starter replacement but that is on the other side from the alternator.

This is why it pays to have someone with experience involved that knows the hardware.  Anyone who has swapped out a stater knows that R&Ring one involves more that just unbolting it.  Also in your scenario, only the first burned belt can be attributed to previous mx.  All of the others would be on the mx that did the replacements as the Alt or Gen must be tensioned every time a belt is changed.  As a side note, any belt that is tight enough to burn will likely toast the bearings in the Alt or Gen first.

[Yetti]

Maybe kind of.   The previous mechanic has installed the  alternator  with the mounting bolts loose enough to be visibly miss aligned and the baffle on it rubbing on the sheet alum.  The B&C starter install requires a alternator stabilizing arm to be fabbed out of mild steel. Even the Prestolite has the stablizing arm.  The B&C is just shorter by a tad.  So the two accessories are more related than the log book entry would suggest.

[midlifeflyer]

3 hours ago, N1395W said:

Actually, in the case of the engine overhaul, under paragraph B it would not have "appreciably changed its flight characteristics or  substantially affected its operation in flight", so a maintenance flight would not be required to be logged.

Neither would the new wing in your first example. 

Got references for either or are we just swapping opinions? (Actually, I don't have an opinion. I'm just asking the question.)

[Guest]

Concerning a post maintenance test flight, Transport Canada have a conditional maintenance release.  If for example I've done maintenance requiring a test flight,  say adjusting the lift detector for the stall horn, the maintenance release would be made subject to a satisfactory test flight.  

A qualified pilot must test fly the plane to verify correct system operation, once the pilot signs the log book testifying to correct system operation in flight the maintenance release becomes valid.  No test flight plus signed statement equals no flight authority.

Clarence

[Andy95W]

7 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

Neither would the new wing in your first example. 

Got references for either or are we just swapping opinions? (Actually, I don't have an opinion. I'm just asking the question.)

Great point.  Probably one of those instances where the FARs are intentionally vague.

No, I don't have references so yeah, I suppose we really are just swapping opinions...