Shadrach Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 Guys, all this talk about 337s for gear ups is nonesense. A gear up in and of it self is not a major repair, nor is replacing an engine. I don't even think it requires an IA. An A&P could do all of it as long as it was still in annual.
John Pleisse Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 I think Mike wasn't fixated on the 337's as much as there being no log entries. Things like gear doors, prop and manditory tear downs should be in the books (if same engine SN).
Shadrach Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 Quote: N4352H I think Mike wasn't fixated on the 337's as much as there being no log entries. Things like gear doors, prop and manditory tear downs should be in the books (if same engine SN).
Sabremech Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 What you're also missing is that logbook entries
PTK Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 Quote: Sabremech What you're also missing is that logbook entries weren't required to be as detailed 35 years ago as they are today. I also agree with others comments that 'damage history' is a phrase that should be erased from the aviation language. It all comes under maintenance regardless of what happened or why. My airplane has had 2 gear ups in it's history. I don't care as it isn't any different than another aircraft of the same age with maintenance being done to it. Let's get away from using 'damage history' and call it 'maintenance history'.
jetdriven Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 Just about every airliner you have ridden on has "damage history." I think it is a marketing term and is only a "deal-killer" for inexperienced aircraft buyers. Seriously, there is a valuation adjustment but, beyond that, it is just history. As far as the FAA is concerned, a repaired aircraft is fundamentally the same as one that was never involved in an incident. Now, there can be shoddy repairs and that is another story. On the other hand, "1200 SNEW" "creampuff" hangar queen 1978 airplanes have their own issues as well such as corrosion, dry rot, and the fact the engine has not been disassembled in 34 years. Inexperienced buyers love those, then sell them 2 years later after they put a new engine and everything else in them because they cannot afford them anymore. Buy a plane that has no major deficiencies that is flown regularly. Adjust value for times, equipment, condition, and history.
PTK Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 Quote: jetdriven Just about every airliner you have ridden on has "damage history." I think it is a marketing term and is only a "deal-killer" for inexperienced aircraft buyers. Seriously, there is a valuation adjustment but, beyond that, it is just history. As far as the FAA is concerned, a repaired aircraft is fundamentally the same as one that was never involved in an incident. Now, there can be shoddy repairs and that is another story. On the other hand, "1200 SNEW" "creampuff" hangar queen 1978 airplanes have their own issues as well such as corrosion, dry rot, and the fact the engine has not been disassembled in 34 years. Inexperienced buyers love those, then sell them 2 years later after they put a new engine and everything else in them because they cannot afford them anymore. Buy a plane that has no major deficiencies that is flown regularly. Adjust value for times, equipment, condition, and history.
Sabremech Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 In the grand scheme of things, it's maintenance regardless of what happened. By some peoples account running my Mooney wing into the hangar wall is considered damage history. So I hang a new aileron on it and sign it off in the logbook. Do I sign it off as replaced aileron due to running it into the hangar wall? No! It all boils down to replacing parts and returning the airplane to airworthy condition (meets the TCDS). What does it matter if it has a one piece belly installed, new antenna's, new prop, new gear doors? They're all new and meet the requirements for airworthy. Again, I really don't care to use the word damage. It's not damage if it's been repaired to airworthy condition. Sure it's nice to know the complete history of an airplane including how many times the landing light has been changed or air was put in the tires. The big question is whether the airplane meets the requirements of the TCDS and that can be determined by an A&P or MSC. Those damaged parts are replaced by new or used airworthy parts, so why don't we throw away the word damaged with those parts. That's exactly what happens in reality.
Sabremech Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 Allsmiles, I bet you won't find much detail in the logbooks at all. You'll have to go back and dig through the workorders and then good luck finding those as they're only required to keep the last 2 years worth of maint. Have you looked at the types of entries made in logbooks 30 years ago? Can you even read some of the hand writing?
rbridges Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 being a new pilot, here's my take. Prior to coming to this forum, I would have been very shaken to find out that a plane had potentially significant damage history. Assuming the repairs are 100%, you may still run into a problem when it comes time to sell it. Maybe it is solely a marketing issue, but it's something that needs to be taken into consideration when purchasing.
PTK Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 Quote: Sabremech In the grand scheme of things, it's maintenance regardless of what happened. By some peoples account running my Mooney wing into the hangar wall is considered damage history. So I hang a new aileron on it and sign it off in the logbook. Do I sign it off as replaced aileron due to running it into the hangar wall? No! It all boils down to replacing parts and returning the airplane to airworthy condition (meets the TCDS). What does it matter if it has a one piece belly installed, new antenna's, new prop, new gear doors? They're all new and meet the requirements for airworthy. Again, I really don't care to use the word damage. It's not damage if it's been repaired to airworthy condition. Sure it's nice to know the complete history of an airplane including how many times the landing light has been changed or air was put in the tires. The big question is whether the airplane meets the requirements of the TCDS and that can be determined by an A&P or MSC. Those damaged parts are replaced by new or used airworthy parts, so why don't we throw away the word damaged with those parts. That's exactly what happens in reality.
Sabremech Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 Allsmiles, Why does it matter? I'm only concerned with what is on the airplane right in front of me. Do you want to know how many tire changes have been done, brake lining replacements, etc? If it meets the requirements of the TCDS, the rest is good bathroom reading material. To answer your question, as an A&P/IA, I don't have to write in the logbook why I changed the aileron. It isn't relevant and not required by the FAR's.
PTK Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 Quote: Sabremech In the grand scheme of things, it's maintenance regardless of what happened.
Sabremech Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 You can give it a try! That only deals with who is paying for the maintenance not the actual maintenance we are discussing.
PTK Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 There's MAINTENANCE and then there are REPAIRS. There is a distinction made precisely because DAMAGE requires REPAIRS! Insurance covers repairs due to unforseen damage.
Sabremech Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 Hmmm! I don't see a difference between maintenance and repairs. If I'm repairing something, I'm still doing maintenance and if I'm doing maintenance, then likely I'll be repairing something.
jetdriven Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 I have a list of repairs from our annual that were not the result of damage. Things break, wear out, get rusty. Unless you just enjoy replacing parts based on calendar before they fail. Knock yourself out of you like wasting money
Ron McBride Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 I was talking to the factory a few years ago about new ailerons, Hail damage. They told me, if the factory does the repairs, they don't have to log it at all. Could the repairs have been done at the factory. My plane, a previous owner thru a rod and had an off airport landing. I found this by accident on the internet. The only entries in the log book, were the repalcement of the engine. The log books do not say why the engine was changed. Ron
jetdriven Posted March 24, 2012 Report Posted March 24, 2012 I think even the factory would still have to put something in the logs, even if it were "aircraft ok for return to service, details on file as work order #xxxx". Was your airplane damaged during the off-field landing? If the gear was down it could have been undamaged. Stick a new engine on there and fly it out. There is no requirement to list the reason for replacing anything.
Ron McBride Posted March 24, 2012 Report Posted March 24, 2012 Was your airplane damaged during the off-field landing? If the gear was down it could have been undamaged. Stick a new engine on there and fly it out. There is no requirement to list the reason for replacing anything. As near as I can tell, there was no airframe damage, They just replaced the engine with another. A 337 was filed later, they installed an IO360C1C instead of a A1A. There is a 337 that lists the changes to make it an A1A engine. I have the Piper Log books for this engine. Ron
triple8s Posted March 24, 2012 Report Posted March 24, 2012 Maintenance: replacing consumables, nosegear truss bushings, wheel bearings, engine overhaul, rodend bearings, control surface bushings/bearings, tires tubes, recover seats, paint airframe, luggage door hinge, cabin door hinge, yoke tube replacement due to cracks, propellor overhaul, cabin windows, replace battery box, and the list goes on. Repairs: patch/repair lower firewall, replace wingskin panel, cut out and patch outer spar, patch stringer, replace main landing gear leg PN/5071-2, replace main spar box assembly, replace upper nose gear gear structure PN5074, replace elevator assembly PN/4103-5 ect yada yada yada. I'm not saying I wouldnt buy an airplane which has had a major repair but if I do first I want to know it, secondly and probably MOST important I want to be 100% sure the repair/patch made to the main spar is going to hold up when I encounter that turbulence. There is a method of repairing almost any damage. ANY airplane can be repaired no mater how damaged it is. I have seen airplanes (warbirds mostly) be brought back to airworthy condition when they were found in almost unrecognizable condition and this is done so buy a "rebuilding/restoration" process. AC 43.13-1B - Acceptable Methods, Techniques, and Practices - Aircraft Inspection and Repair http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentid/99861 There is a difference and I personally want to know. Just sayin
PTK Posted March 24, 2012 Report Posted March 24, 2012 Quote: Sabremech Hmmm! I don't see a difference between maintenance and repairs. If I'm repairing something, I'm still doing maintenance and if I'm doing maintenance, then likely I'll be repairing something.
danb35 Posted March 24, 2012 Report Posted March 24, 2012 Quote: N4352H I think Mike wasn't fixated on the 337's as much as there being no log entries.
danb35 Posted March 24, 2012 Report Posted March 24, 2012 Quote: allsmiles There's MAINTENANCE and then there are REPAIRS.
Recommended Posts