Previous overhaul logbook entry

[JWJR]

That maintenance log may contain some items that comply with an AD. Don’t destroy it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[A64Pilot]

I had said earlier that you can’t destroy old logbook entries.

Apparently I was incorrect, but if you do so, anyone who knows logbooks will be able to tell there are holes in the history, and that will negatively affect value, in my opinion.

Besides if the entry didn’t exist, then all it accomplishes is it definitely dates the engine back to the pervious overhaul, having the entry even if it is in fact an illegitimate entry, it at least says that the components listed in the entry were replaced at the hour level and date as indicated.

I know it’s irritating to have that entry being messed up like it is, but it will become irrelevant upon the next engine overhaul, until then I’d just leave it alone.

 

[vfrsouthbound]

14 hours ago, M20Doc said:

There was a Roy Harris owner of Harris Flying Service in Brownfield Texas.  He owned a Comanche 400.  Did the Mooney do time in western Texas?

Clarence

So I was able to find out this was the Roy Harris who made the entry. Unfortunately he passed away so really no help at that end. I’m probably going to go with the fact that TSMOH isn’t a item to determine the airworthiness of an annual. And have them sign it off or take it to another shop.

[jaylw314]

1 hour ago, vfrsouthbound said:

So I was able to find out this was the Roy Harris who made the entry. Unfortunately he passed away so really no help at that end. I’m probably going to go with the fact that TSMOH isn’t a item to determine the airworthiness of an annual. And have them sign it off or take it to another shop.

If they won't sign off on the annual for that, that would be a slam dunk argument not to go back there again.  They are obligated to sign off on the annual regardless of whether they think it's an airworthiness item or not (and it's not).

[PT20J]

2 hours ago, vfrsouthbound said:

So I was able to find out this was the Roy Harris who made the entry. Unfortunately he passed away so really no help at that end. I’m probably going to go with the fact that TSMOH isn’t a item to determine the airworthiness of an annual. And have them sign it off or take it to another shop.

It sounds like the MSC is doing the right thing. In the grand scheme of things, it’s not a big deal. It’s unfortunate that this didn't get flagged during the logbook inspection at the pre purchase inspection. But … water under the bridge now.

Skip

[A64Pilot]

17 hours ago, EricJ said:

+1 that in the end it doesn't matter for airworthiness or your ability to fly the airplane.   As mentioned, there is no requirement to overhaul an engine for Part 91 operation at a specific TSMOH.   The engine gets overhauled "on condition", and as long as it meets static rpm and any other requirements of the manufacturer (which are typically pretty easy, e.g., compression), it can keep flying.

You're not required to keep maintenance logs past 1 year, so if that entry continues to create problems, you can throw it away, start a campfire with it, or whatever.   It is not consequential to the airworthiness of the airplane.

 

While I agree in concept with your statement, it’s not hard at all to find precedence that improper logbook entries will make an aircraft unairworthy.

http://www.37000feet.com/report/280300/Reporter-makes-logbook-entries-which-FAA-deems-illegal-thus-aircraft-not-airworthy

‘One assumes especially ones dealing with the disassembly, replacement or parts and reassembly of an engine.

‘My guess is their assertion is that the entry of TSMOH is incorrect, I’d say fine either correct it or leave it out as it’s not a required entry and drive on.

But that’s just a guess.

On edit, just don’t involve the FAA, that can be a crap shoot, some can be very reasonable, some not.

Edited August 15, 2021 by A64Pilot

[drapo]

I’m pretty much of the opinion, as other have expressed,  that after 19 yrs, SMOH or IRAN is not an airworthiness issue but a marketing  one. In 2010, I bought my M20E with an engine that had around 1000 SNEW! Since the new engine was installed back in 1970, there was no added value but rather a risk, so I ended up negotiating the price down by a few thousands. 
After 9 yrs and 500hrs, And one cylinder replacement, I ended up overhauling the engine.
 

[47U]

On 8/13/2021 at 8:37 AM, vfrsouthbound said:

My A&P is a reputable MSC and has told me that he cannot verify the logbook entry for the previous overhaul or even the TSMOH is correct.

The MSC is splitting hairs.  Good on them for fastidiousness, but in this case, I think they’re wrong.

On 8/13/2021 at 8:11 PM, philiplane said:

The entry should include the statement "engine overhauled IAW Lycoming direct drive manual ..."

Is the operative word ‘should’ include?  Or ‘must’ include?  Is it prudent to apply mx documentation standards of today to logbook entries almost 20 years old?  No doubt, improving mx documentation has been emphasized for many years.  The first printing of AC 43-9 was in 1998.  The current version in 2018.  Standards change over time.  Mr. Harris’ standards died with him (RIP).  He probably had been turning wrenches since many of us were still in diapers.  Was his GADO busting his chops for sloppy documentation?  Probably not.  You might call his FSDO and see if anyone remembers him.  What was his reputation as an I.A. in their district.    

Mr. Harris states the engine was ‘removed and disassembled for overhaul.’  Further states, ‘engine assembled per Lyc overhaul manual.’  The only words that are missing are ‘direct drive.’  To say the logbook entry means the engine was NOT overhauled is crazy talk.

If you plan on keeping the aircraft through the next engine overhaul, then the devaluation of the aircraft (now with 3,000 hrs  SMOH) carries less weight, except for principle.  We all want a shop that pays attention to the details.  But, it’d be just like them to tell you at the next annual that you need to overhaul the engine because, after all, it’s got over 3,000 hrs on since the last major was done.  (Who did the previous major?  Did they use the magic words?  Or was it a factory reman…)

If you’re not keeping the aircraft through the next overhaul cycle, find another mechanic.  Don’t let the MSC devalue the aircraft.  (But, certainly use them for your next prebuy!)

[philiplane]

37 minutes ago, 47U said:

The MSC is splitting hairs.  Good on them for fastidiousness, but in this case, I think they’re wrong.

Is the operative word ‘should’ include?  Or ‘must’ include?  Is it prudent to apply mx documentation standards of today to logbook entries almost 20 years old?  No doubt, improving mx documentation has been emphasized for many years.  The first printing of AC 43-9 was in 1998.  The current version in 2018.  Standards change over time.  Mr. Harris’ standards died with him (RIP).  He probably had been turning wrenches since many of us were still in diapers.  Was his GADO busting his chops for sloppy documentation?  Probably not.  You might call his FSDO and see if anyone remembers him.  What was his reputation as an I.A. in their district.    

Mr. Harris states the engine was ‘removed and disassembled for overhaul.’  Further states, ‘engine assembled per Lyc overhaul manual.’  The only words that are missing are ‘direct drive.’  To say the logbook entry means the engine was NOT overhauled is crazy talk.

If you plan on keeping the aircraft through the next engine overhaul, then the devaluation of the aircraft (now with 3,000 hrs  SMOH) carries less weight, except for principle.  We all want a shop that pays attention to the details.  But, it’d be just like them to tell you at the next annual that you need to overhaul the engine because, after all, it’s got over 3,000 hrs on since the last major was done.  (Who did the previous major?  Did they use the magic words?  Or was it a factory reman…)

If you’re not keeping the aircraft through the next overhaul cycle, find another mechanic.  Don’t let the MSC devalue the aircraft.  (But, certainly use them for your next prebuy!)

The operative words in any entry are at the closing line, before the name, signature, certificate number, and date. You can have a page full of tasks accomplished, but what matters is the closing statement.

Mechanics are taught to use clear statements: I certify this engine has been overhauled IAW the Lycoming direct drive manual #------ revison#_____, dated 00/00/0000. That statement says he followed all the procedures called out that constitute an overhaul. The list of required parts have been replaced, the engine parts have passed inspection IAW the table of limits, then the engine was assembled and tested. 

His entry says it was removed for overhaul. Without the closing statement, it may have been removed for overhaul, but simply repaired and re-assembled. You can assemble an engine with all used parts if they are serviceable. How can you tell? The entry may have the intention of describing an overhaul, but it leaves more open questions than it provides answers.

Section § 43.9(a)(1)  requires the maintenance record entry to include “a description of the work performed.” The description should be in sufficient detail to permit a person unfamiliar with the work to understand what was done and the methods and procedures used in doing it

Same for 100 hour or annual inspections. Clarity is required. Here is a copy of a Lycoming factory log entry. The format hasn't changed much in the last 50 years either.

log entry1 (1).pdf

Edited August 15, 2021 by philiplane

[47U]

7 minutes ago, philiplane said:

The operative words in any entry are at the closing line, before the name, signature, certificate number, and date. You can have a page full of tasks accomplished, but what matters is the closing statement.

Mechanics are taught to use clear statements: I certify this engine has been overhauled IAW the Lycoming direct drive manual #------ revison#_____, dated 00/00/0000.

Same for 100 hour or annual inspections. 

First let me say that I agree with you. 

Certainly, Mr. Harris’ logbook entries reflect the standards of the time when he was trained.  The standards that were still in common use when he signed off the engine major overhaul in 2002.  Does changing standards in documentation invalidate previous work?

What is the downside for the MSC if they accept the engine major overhaul as Mr. Harris documented?  Semantics?  Is there a direct impact to the airworthiness of the aircraft?      

[A64Pilot]

The issue is, is that the logbook entry is incorrectly signed off. From the logbook entry it can’t be determined if whoever made it was even an A&P.

‘I got my A&P I think 1988, and you signed entries off with A&P and your cert number then, and  I’d bet it’s been that way since A&P became a thing.

‘The FAA takes that signature part pretty seriously. TSMOH etc is in my opinion secondary.

Personally if I had found that, I’d sit down with the owner and explain the quandary and let them decide what if anything to do about it.

I can’t imagine any A&P making that mistake, I could see maybe forgetting to sign it off, but not to forget the A&P and Cert number, that’s pretty basic

Airframe and Powerplant are different ratings, often a mechanic will hold both, but not always.

First Certificated Mechanic was I think in 1927, just a few months after the first pilots Certificate, but I don’t know of they were called an A&P or how they signed off work.

My C-140 has sign offs from the early 50’s that are the same format as today Name/ rating / cert number, it’s logbooks we’re lost in a fire in the early 50’s. 

[N231BN]

So everyone who said there’s no number, there is it’s just cutoff. So that’s why I’m wondering why it wouldn’t be legitimate?

Bringing this post back, the number is there.

[A64Pilot]

2 hours ago, N231BN said:

Bringing this post back, if the number and I assume rating then it’s of course a legit entry.
.



 

I assumed the picture was of the entire entry, I missed that post 

I’m on an Ipad that keeps flipping orientation as I try to read it so it’s hard, but if I read the entry correctly it says disassembled engine for overhaul? 

I believe it later says something similar to reassembled engine IAW overhaul manual?

If so then I guess it comes down to a matter of semantics, my interpretation since it says disassembled engine for overhaul is thwt it was overhauled, if it had said simply disassembled for repair, which still could have been a overhaul, then it would be muddier as to if it were overhauled or not.

Not much is as clear cut as reading a CFR seems to be, the FAA often contradicts themselves.

‘If anyone is interested there is an AC to “clarity” maintenance entries

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_43-9C_CHG_2.pdf

[ArtVandelay]

I assumed the picture was of the entire entry, I missed that post 
I’m on an Ipad that keeps flipping orientation as I try to read it so it’s hard

You do know you can lock the rotation/orientation?

[carusoam]

24 minutes ago, ArtVandelay said:

You do know you can lock the rotation/orientation?

A64,

use thumb in the area where my 79% is… drag down….   This menu with the screen lock shows up…

If using an ipad1… screen lock is a hard button on the side…

Best regards,

-a-

[carusoam]

Hmmmmm….

Does the shop who did the OH keep records of all the parts used for the job?

A remote chance that some of those records still exist after the first owner has passed….

 

Its possible these records get cleaned out on a schedule of years… somehow limiting liability…

 

Thanks to all of the mechanics for sharing that side of how things work.

PP thoughts…

-a-

 

[philiplane]

4 hours ago, 47U said:

First let me say that I agree with you. 

Certainly, Mr. Harris’ logbook entries reflect the standards of the time when he was trained.  The standards that were still in common use when he signed off the engine major overhaul in 2002.  Does changing standards in documentation invalidate previous work?

What is the downside for the MSC if they accept the engine major overhaul as Mr. Harris documented?  Semantics?  Is there a direct impact to the airworthiness of the aircraft?      

The standards for log entries have been the same since the beginning, all the way back to the CAA in 1938. The A&P school I graduated from, several decades ago, first opened in 1929. I think some of my instructors might have been there since then...

We had some original bound copies of CAA regs in the library. And copies of every single item the school had signed off over the years, since it was also a repair station. With all that oversight, the paperwork has to be impeccable. The log entry shown above would not have passed muster, even at the student level.

But, it's just a sloppy entry, that's all.  Since there is no requirement to overhaul the engine, there is no effect on anything. So long as the engine passes the required inspections during annual, it keeps flying. And since it's 20 years old, the time since overhaul doesn't impact the value either. The present day condition has more importance than the vague, old, log entry.

Edited August 15, 2021 by philiplane

[A64Pilot]

45 minutes ago, ArtVandelay said:

You do know you can lock the rotation/orientation?

Not to sound too much like a idiot, yes I do or did anyway,I used to be quite computer / tech literate, but I believe as you age you just care less,I don’t think I’m losing capability or don’t want to admit it if I am, I just don’t care as much as I used to. I used to be the guy that bought a expensive stereo sam learned how to program every function it had, now I just use it to play the TV and Bluetooth music from my Ipad, knowing that MP3 and digital music sources in general suck, but it’s good enough.

Thirty years ago I used to visit my Father, it drove me nuts that the clock on his VCR would be flashing as it wasn’t that difficult to fix andI was the type that everything had to work and work correctly.

I understand now and don’t care myself like I used to

But thank you for the reminder, I have used rotation lock before but it’s been so long that I forgot about it’s existence.

I have one of the first generation Ipad Pro,I used to use it as a back up Plotter for my boat

Edited August 15, 2021 by A64Pilot

[A64Pilot]

These are my Wife’s Grandfathers A&P manuals, he got his A&P before WWII by I believe correspondence, I never met the man, he was dead before I met my Wife over 40 years ago. He worked building Cleveland air racers until one killed the pilot and he quit that, he didn’t go into the Military in WWII. I assume due to age, but he did of course do Military work. 

The China my daughter now has was a gift to him from an Air Force Officer for him building some kind of baggage compt to carry under wing of one of the Century fighters, what’s neat about the China is that it was smuggled in from Japan in the  bomb bay of a Nuclear bomber, a B-52.

If you read them, it’s surprising at how little has changed, and what’s really surprising it is how much knowledge they had black then ref corrosion, metals etc.

 

 

[A64Pilot]

31 minutes ago, carusoam said:

Hmmmmm….

Does the shop who did the OH keep records of all the parts used for the job?

A remote chance that some of those records still exist after the first owner has passed….

 

Its possible these records get cleaned out on a schedule of years… somehow limiting liability…

 

Thanks to all of the mechanics for sharing that side of how things work.

PP thoughts…

-a-

 

If it were a repair station, they are required to keep for two years, but I’d say most keep them forever, but this sounds like an individual A&P, flying service is very often Ag, many Ag pilots are / were A&P’s and many do repair work during the off season, several I know will restore a Super Cub or Stearman etc to make money in the off season.

The plant I worked at we kept the build records back to day one, in 1965, and once in a blue moon it helped an owner, to reissue a data plate for example

[carusoam]

Having a record of all the parts used in an OH…

Is extremely helpful the next time an AD comes out that says… this part has to be replaced…

The FAA states what part it is in which engines that are affected…

The owner has to prove that he doesn’t have that part or swap it out…

Log records are really important when this occurs….

 

All IO550s needed to know which cam gear they had… checking the OH record was the easy route…

Without the paperwork, was a mechanic shop to find Tge gear inside the engine and look to see if had or didn’t have a machining step completed…

 

Check to see if the shop retained a record of the OH… it is likely sitting in a dusty file storage area…

PP thoughts only…

-a-