Where AD compliance is difficult...

[groncher]

Further to GyvAir and PilotDAR, the fact that the individual in question is supposedly an experienced AME with a supposed 30 years of experience, and should be a voice of reason and a mentor to those who are inexperienced or just entering the field, scares me even more.

[NeverBlue]

Oh...so should I quit?

This whole thread was inspired because a very experienced maintainer was unsure about a maintenance task, and asked my opinion. When I considered his observations, I entirely agreed with him, and was able to add some relevant knowledge, based upon a previous experience I had had. That maintainer is just my kind of person, seeking more knowledge, so his job is well done, and eager to collaborate with his colleagues....

...and so you talked to the manufacturer...were told what to do...decided they were wrong...and decided to ask here?

Agreed. The distributor should not have taken it upon themselves to "clarify" how to proceed. The mechanic created his own problem by not going directly to the FAA.

....and that's the type of answer you get which you think is correct.....

[NeverBlue]

The people who declare that they already know

Look...I'm an E...in the Electrickery thread all you did was question what I know about RFI.

Are you an E?

?..no...but YOU declare YOU know.

Hypocrite.

[PilotDAR]

Oh dear.....

Comments are being made about my original post, which make it apparent that the commenter really did not read or understand the post....

...and so you talked

No, I did not, though the AME talked...

...and so you talked to the manufacturer.

No, the AME contacted the manufacturer's Canadian distributor

...and so you talked to the manufacturer...were told what to do

.

No, not by the manufacturer, by the distributor - the main point of my post.

...decided they were wrong

Well observed that the area specified for inspection was not accessible to be seen - making inspection conforming to the AD not possible. So it was not really a decision, but an observation.

..and decided to ask here?

I did not ask a question in my introductory post. I had already confirmed my understanding with Transport Canada staff.

Quote:
Agreed. The distributor should not have taken it upon themselves to "clarify" how to proceed. The mechanic created his own problem by not going directly to the FAA.


....and that's the type of answer you get which you think is correct.....

Yes, I think that the quoted answer is correct.

It's a simple inspection...the manufacture told you what to do and you still disagree...it's an INSPECTION.
So what the doubler is there...inspect the area...

As I previously stated, the doubler blocks visual access to nearly all of the area which is required to be inspected. So it would be like asking the AME to sign off the inspection without removing the access panel to expose the area to be inspected - the task could not be completed.

When I review compliance, before issuing an STC for a mod, one of the things I must evaluate is the possible effect upon the inspectability of underlying airframe, and thereafter the mod itself, with the mod installed. And also an AD review. In some cases, a doubler or other obstruction would make an inspection, or worse and AD required inspection difficult or impossible - so I would not approve it that way. It's a part of doing my job to assure that a maintainer will not struggle to perform required maintenance later in the life of the aircraft.

I hope Neverblue can come on side, and support the notion that maintainers jobs be kept easy, with modifications and inspection tasks being designed and documented so as to be effectively possible.

[PilotDAR]

Are you an E?

?..no...but YOU declare YOU know.

I am not an AME-E, though I am a DAR with E scope in delegation. So, in a way, I am an E, but a different kind. About the most important thing I know about EMI, is that determintion of no EMI (compliance) is shown by test, which must be done. I have tested aircraft which have been previously modified, and present EMI which is entirely unacceptable. I know it was there, and the mod was not approved. In other cases, I test, and am satisfied that there is no EMI, and I approve.

[NeverBlue]

Wait a second.

Are you actually saying that if a doubler was installed to stop/prevent cracking you have to be able to still inspect under the doubler for cracking?

Wtf?

What if there is some...do you install another doubler. ?.again...??

So, in a way, I am an E, 

enough said...

[NeverBlue]

I know who you are...you said you failed an stc inspection because of noise in the headsets as soon as you turned things on..."instant fail" you said...they then "tweaked" it and fixed the problem.

Tweaked it you say!

I remember...they simply disconnected a headset that had it's mic curled inside the earcup.


You can't "tweak" away EMI genius

[PilotDAR]

Are you actually saying that if a doubler was installed to stop/prevent cracking you have to be able to still inspect under the doubler for cracking?

No, I am not actually saying this, the FAA is in their AD (or should be with greater clarity - as suggested in my first post).

Perhaps the doubler does not stop cracking, but merely conceals it! Maybe is was poorly designed.

'Ever removed a piece of structure to find that what was concealed underneath was alarming, and had gone by un noticed for too long?

[photofly]

'Ever removed a piece of structure to find that what was concealed underneath was alarming, and had gone by un noticed for too long?

Not in an airplane, but in a building: on renovating, I found the centre of the first floor of my house was being supported by an Acrow prop that had been bricked up in the basement.

[PilotDAR]

You can't "tweak" away EMI genius

is true, I cannot tweak away EMI. I do not design, nor fix. I just witness certification testing.

However the genius people who designed the system which produced the EMI, understood what they needed to do to cause it to cease, and when they invited me to retest the aircraft, it was free of EMI. I presume they did some genius level tweaking - far beyond my understanding, and the problem was solved. Nothing whatever to do with microphones.

[NeverBlue]

So, in a way, I am an E,

Yup...all makes sense now...

..."tweaked" it...

[PilotDAR]

..."tweaked" it...

Yup - tweaked it! Then defined the changed configuration, performed the required testing, documented that, and issued the required approval for release to service.

A lot of design refinement involves "tweaking" to determine the final required configuration, which is followed by a more robust final change if called for (some times it's just a setting with an adjustment range - like a compass correction). Sometimes I've used foam door seal tape, or " 'Hundred mile a hour tape" to tweak a design, then followed up with a final compliant installation with the required robustness - which was approved.

I once was witnessing helicopter external boom testing, and a oscillation of one boom became intolerable during the flying. After a half hour of considered thinking about the problem, I tweaked the design with 5 feet of foam door seal tape, and reflew it. Problem solved, and Transport Canada flight test passed that way. Permanent metal strip put on for STC approval. Happy Transport Canada and happy client!

[NeverBlue]

Look...I don't care anymore...

Your handle is PilotDAR...sounds like an announcement

You can't tell me if moving the conductor from the alternator to the Avionics bus in a C150 from the right side to the left side of the engine ( or visa versa ) is a major mod or not
...and you think you're an AME licensed E kind of because you do inspections...

And you're worried I might be mentoring someone?

Go away...

[photofly]

I don't think PilotDAR does do inspections, nor claim to.