annual inspection - questions

[Strega]

Bullet,,


Why do you betwittle all the pinky Engineers?

Next time you fill your car up with gas, cross a bridge, or pretty much do just about anything. rest assured, somewhere along the line, a pinky Engineer had something to do about it.

My point WRT to the silly formula was to point out how aviaiton in Canada has sunk to the LCD, it seems very few pilots and or AMEs have the education and knowledge that allows them to truly understand what is happening. The formula is an example of this, ie make some BS plug and chug formula and just tell people to use it, regardless if they understand it or not. In the not so distant past, pilots and AMEs needed much more education than we have now, now we have a mountain of paper work to keep everyone safe.

Your comment referencing acceptable data is the best thing written in this thread. but then again, I bet only a fraction of the membership of this forum will know what acceptable, approved and spcified data are, and their differences.


Cheers

[Hedley]

Bullet: interesting reference for the tire tread grooves
simply being wear indicators. And while AC43-13 is
indeed a very good, generic reference, I am not sure
that it is always the final word on all subjects in all
circumstances in all countries.

CF104s, whom ever told you that it was
"common practice" to let the tires wear to the point
that cords were unravelling, that person is full of fertilizer!!

Could be. FWIW the 104 pilot that told me this
flew them in Europe. Dunno if things were done
differently over there.

P.S. Could you guys cool the "pinky ring" engineer
vs "dirty fingers" engineer argument? It's not very
productive, and frankly is beneath both of you. I
somehow doubt you would be having this rather
childish argument again if you were in the same room.

[Hedley]

Update: re: CF-104 tires.

Just contacted two -104 pilots, one flew the
104 primarily in Cold Lake, and the other one
flew the 104 primarily in Europe, and both
clearly remember serviceable 104s with bald
tires and cord showing and "yards of string"
hanging out on the ramp.

The 104 tires had something like 18 plies,
so I presume there was no need to panic
when one ply was showing.

[carholme]

I agree with Bullet Remington. In commercial aviation, if the manuals, manufacturers data or other recognized data do not provide the wear limits, AC-43-13 is used.

As for the 104 tires, these were high pressure tires, which commanded a great deal of respect. Being retired in about 1987, I doubt if there are many active pilots who can remember stats about the tires let alone condition. More to the point they are military tires which have nothing to do with commercial standards.

Just remember what you tell people on this forum, they might just be apt to do.

carholme

[MCRS]

Boy did I open a can of worms when I used Tires as an example!

Sorry, I didn't mean for the Annual inspection thread to be hijacked to a discussion on tire wear. My appologies!
Since we are on the topic. I have been with companies that run tires to the point where the threads show and I have worked with companies that say as soon as the tread is gone you pull the tire.
Guess this opinion is as varied as are Aircraft Maintenance Engineers really Engineers! (And before anyone posts on that topic there is a thread dedicated specifically to that topic so post your comments on this there. )
And now back to the regularily scheduled thread of Annual Inspection- questions.

mcrs

[SeptRepair]

My point WRT to the silly formula was to point out how aviation in Canada has sunk to the LCD, it seems very few pilots and or AMEs have the education and knowledge that allows them to truly understand what is happening. The formula is an example of this, ie make some BS plug and chug formula and just tell people to use it, regardless if they understand it or not.
Cheers

Actually if you would go back and read my original post you will notice i quoted an excerpt from the NTSB. I never made up that formula, somebody a hell of alot more educated than yourself, or myself for that matter, could answer where they came up with that data. I take it they found it relevant to publish that information when they were making a summary of the effects of hydroplaning. In hind sight i guess i could have left off the last bit of that quote so as not to confuse people with an extra little bit of information that challenges people to learn more.

[SeptRepair]

Boy did I open a can of worms when I used Tires as an example!

Sorry, I didn't mean for the Annual inspection thread to be hijacked to a discussion on tire wear. My appologies!
Since we are on the topic. I have been with companies that run tires to the point where the threads show and I have worked with companies that say as soon as the tread is gone you pull the tire.
Guess this opinion is as varied as are Aircraft Maintenance Engineers really Engineers! (And before anyone posts on that topic there is a thread dedicated specifically to that topic so post your comments on this there. )
And now back to the regularily scheduled thread of Annual Inspection- questions.

mcrs

I guess it did get a bit off topic. I just wanted to take an opportunity to make sure some person reading this thread did not come away thinking it is a safe practice to fly around with bald tires and threads showing.

[Bullet Remington]

Update: re: CF-104 tires.

Just contacted two -104 pilots, one flew the
104 primarily in Cold Lake, and the other one
flew the 104 primarily in Europe, and both
clearly remember serviceable 104s with bald
tires and cord showing and "yards of string"
hanging out on the ramp.

The 104 tires had something like 18 plies,
so I presume there was no need to panic
when one ply was showing.

Hedley:

I worked on the Pigs ( CF104's) at both the Pig Farm ( 417 Sqdn) and AETE at Cold lake. I can assure you that you are being feed a line! I was a Warrant officier at 417 and a MWO at AETE. There is no way in hell that I'd allow "ýards of cords"to FOD my line!

Having said that, you believe what you want to believe.

With respect to your reference to the AC43.13 not being the "Be all, End all" in all countries, I'm not arguing that. Nor am i concerned about other countries. I am, however, concerned with conforming to thge laws of the state of registration, of the machine/s I am currently working on. I was simply pointing out that, baring the aircraft manufacurer's specification AND the tire manufacturer's recommendations, there is a readily accessable reference for tire wire.

Should you feel your standards are acceptable, then so be it! It's your machine, your butt, and your license. Put either in as much peril as you see fit. Having said that, if I were to do the maintenance, I'd be making an entry in the log books, stating the reference to tire limits. Then you as an owner/operator would have the onus of responsibility and liability. Rather then I, as the releasing engineer.

As for your comment re; "Pinky Ring Engineers vs "Dirty finger Engineers, quite frankly, I prefer the term "enfantile"!!

And I concurr, it serves as much purpose as Steegra's rambling rant about AME's being referred to as "Engineers". My stance has always been, if one is to argue with anybody over anything, one must come down to the oppostion's level, so that the opposing position can understand the other side of the arguement. And I can assure you, I have no hesitation stating the same comments to his or any body else's face. At this stage of my life, I really don't care who likes or dislikes me nor my opinions.

I have a Master's Degree from ERAU. I don't see an need to browbeat nor attempt to undermine comments and observations posted by other folks, who's position defers from mine. It serves no useful purpose.

Have fun with the tires!!

[Bullet Remington]

Bullet,,


Why do you betwittle all the pinky Engineers?

Next time you fill your car up with gas, cross a bridge, or pretty much do just about anything. rest assured, somewhere along the line, a pinky Engineer had something to do about it.

My point WRT to the silly formula was to point out how aviaiton in Canada has sunk to the LCD, it seems very few pilots and or AMEs have the education and knowledge that allows them to truly understand what is happening. The formula is an example of this, ie make some BS plug and chug formula and just tell people to use it, regardless if they understand it or not. In the not so distant past, pilots and AMEs needed much more education than we have now, now we have a mountain of paper work to keep everyone safe.

Your comment referencing acceptable data is the best thing written in this thread. but then again, I bet only a fraction of the membership of this forum will know what acceptable, approved and spcified data are, and their differences.


Cheers

Stegra:

I wasn't disrespecting any Pinky Engineer. Then again, I don't randomly hand out respect because some one has a degree nor a "Professional" association. Maybe you care to enlighten me. Why would you consider this a "silly" and in your words, a " Bug and Chug" formula? Is it because of your vast experience with tires? Per chance the fact that you didn't write the TSB report or because you don't agree with it? Or you didn't write the report? Enlighten me on this!

As for your comment with respect to pilot's and engineer's NOT being as educated as years gone by, which are you referring to? Today, one has to complete an approved training course to be an engineer. The requirements for the schools that I checked require completion of grade 12. Wasn't like that when I first recieved a license. And that was probably long before you were born? As for pilot's license, one simply has to complete the training and be able to pass the required exams in either official language. I couldn't find an education requirement for pilots.

And, I didn't post a reference to "acceptable" data. Acceptable data are the manufacturer's maintenance manuals. "Approved " data would be STC's and L/STC's.

"Specified" data would be the AC43.13-1A and or any other Advisory Circular issued by the FAA and approved for use in Canada and/or directly referenced in the manufacturer's maintenance manuals.

Lighten up man. If you're gonna ramble on in another post about how much you "hate"( your word) AME's being referred to as "Engineers', you're gonna open yourself up to cheap shots. And I'm surmising from your latest post that you don't much like it!

And one last thing, there IS a need for Pinky Engineers just as there IS a need for Aircraft Maintenance Engineers. Nobody needs a smart arse Pinky Engineer, and nobody needs a smart arse AME. Those type of personalities don't last long in any organization where the two has to work together. Secondly, the fact that one has an education, whether it be a two year Technology degree from SAIT/NAIT or a 4 year degree from any university, does not by virtue of that degree make that individual an "expert "on that nor any other particular subject. Nobody, except you (based upon your posts) cares that you have a degree or that you have an education, any more then they care about my level of education. When you keep making belittling posts and trying to impress folks with your level of knowledge, it will work the reverse way.

You'll learn more and get a hell of alot more respect by asking questions and enticing discussion rather then making degrading statements.

But then again, I've been wrong at least once before!

And to quote Forect Gump: "That's all I got ta say about that."

[Hedley]

Bullet wrote:

I worked on the Pigs ( CF104's) at both the Pig Farm ( 417 Sqdn) and AETE at Cold lake. I can assure you that you are being feed a line! I was a Warrant officier at 417 and a MWO at AETE. There is no way in hell that I'd allow "ýards of cords"to FOD my line!

Interesting how pilots & mechanics have different memories

I was simply pointing out that, baring the aircraft manufacurer's specification AND the tire manufacturer's recommendations, there is a readily accessable reference for tire wire (43.13)

Gotta agree with you. What I am trouble believing is that there
are NO manufacturer's recommendations on the subject!

EDIT: I run Goodyear Flight Custom III, and I found this
on the web:

http://www.goodyearaviation.com/img/pdf/inspection.pdf

Goodyear tires can remain in service with
visible cord in the tread area ...

which I will abide by, because it is the manufacturer's
recommendation, as opposed to someone simply saying
"you need tread to avoid hydroplaning"

[SeptRepair]

Hedley are you for real??
Here is the rest of your cherry picked quote. Nice try.

Goodyear tires can remain in service with visible cord in the tread area only as long as the top fabric layer
is not worn through or exposed for more than 1/8 of the circumference of the tire, and not more than one
inch wide. Tires within these limits can continue in service no longer than necessary to return to a maintenance
base and be replaced. (This applies to the proper tires for the aircraft as specified in its Aircraft Maintenance
Manual.)

[Hedley]

Sorry, text cut & paste wouldn't work from Adobe
Acrobat to Explorer on this computer. Anyone
know why?

Anyways, I take it the consensus here is now to
ignore the manufacturer's recommendation that
I dug up, and that no one here chose to be
aware of - that a tire with cord showing can still
be airworthy under some circumstances, including
in a commercial air service on a large aircraft - and
to go with AC43.13 instead, because people
like what it says better?

My original point - contradicted by many AME's
here - that tread is completely useless on a light
aircraft, and is NOT there to prevent hydroplaning -
would seem to be correct.

[carholme]

Hedley;

You are twisting the facts and you know it. Nobody in fact stated anything about ignoring the manufacturers recommendations. It was Maintenance manual, Manufacturers recommendations or AC 43-13 when there is no other standard available.
And you are twisting the point about hydroplaning and you know that as well.
Who said tread was there specifically for hydroplaning? In fact, it does assist to overcome the effects of hydroplaning in much the same manner as grooved runways. But only up to the point, where the water in front of the tire resists and the tire rises above the water. Once this happens, it does not matter whether the tire is treaded or bald, and hydroplaning takes place. Bald tires will hydroplane much easier than treaded tires.

God knows how many times you have made mention of your university degree. We get the point, you have a degree, use it at least for common sense rather than trying to twist words.

Hydroplaning is a phenomena that exists under certain conditions subject to many variables and available tread, correct inflation and tire width all contribute to reducing the hydroplaning onset.

But if you feel the need to win for winnings sake, have at it.

carholme

[Strega]

Hedley;

You are twisting the facts and you know it. Nobody in fact stated anything about ignoring the manufacturers recommendations. It was Maintenance manual, Manufacturers recommendations or AC 43-13 when there is no other standard available.
And you are twisting the point about hydroplaning and you know that as well.
Who said tread was there specifically for hydroplaning? In fact, it does assist to overcome the effects of hydroplaning in much the same manner as grooved runways. But only up to the point, where the water in front of the tire resists and the tire rises above the water. Once this happens, it does not matter whether the tire is treaded or bald, and hydroplaning takes place. Bald tires will hydroplane much easier than treaded tires.

God knows how many times you have made mention of your university degree. We get the point, you have a degree, use it at least for common sense rather than trying to twist words.

Hydroplaning is a phenomena that exists under certain conditions subject to many variables and available tread, correct inflation and tire width all contribute to reducing the hydroplaning onset.

But if you feel the need to win for winnings sake, have at it.

carholme

No no no, your wrong!!

hydroplaining has to to with

"The minimum speed, in knots, at which
hydroplaning will commence can be calculated by multiplying
the square root of the tire pressure (PSI) by 7.7 for a nonrotating
tire, or by 9 for a rotating tire"


It has nothing to do with contact Patch, tire load, tire diameter.. sheesh dont you people read?

[carholme]

Dynamic, Reverted rubber and Viscous hydroplaning are described simply in the attached link. The attached link identifies hydroplaning and the formula. The previous posters had the right information about the formula but NASA has taken it to the nth degree which most of us wouldn't be utilizing on a daily basis but many of the airlines do.

http://www.jet-jobs.com/articles/hydropln.html

carholme

[carholme]

For Hedley and Strega;

Apparently the two of you are above the rest of us in understanding things technical, so I have included this for you. The rest of us mere minions will use the previously simplified formula.




http://ca.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGk5WdTO ... ang~en.pdf

carholme

[SeptRepair]

Well thanks for adding more background to this Carholme, These two individuals who feebly attempt to defend their positions under the pretense of being "educated" are what is described as being.... Book smart, life dumb. For all those reading this thread, take into account where the information is coming from. Decide for yourself whos advice you will follow when determining what is acceptable for operating an aircraft and the state of its tires. A pilot or an AME.

[Hedley]

Decide for yourself whos advice you will follow when determining what is acceptable for operating an aircraft and the state of its tires

How about for a change we go with what the manufacturer says,
instead of some AME mumbo-jumbo about the tread being required
to avoid hydroplaning?

I think it's incredible that NONE of the AMEs here had a clue
about what the tire manufacturers said, despite their incredibly
strong opinions on the subject. It took me all of 30 seconds
to find that information on Goodyear's website

Who said tread was there specifically for hydroplaning?

On page 2 of this trip through the looking glass, SeptRepair said:

Hedley i have to disagree with you on operating on bald tires. When i was a younger engineer i used your reasoning on running a bald tire. Except i called the limit as soon as cords showed. A much wiser and older engineer caught me using this logic and made me think. "You work on the west coast and it rains here a hell of alot. Cars hydroplane on bald tires, do you not think airplanes suffer from the same condition if they are bald on a wet runway? If they didnt needs treads then why the hell do they put them on?" I kind of felt stupid because his logic was a hell of alot more sound than mine.

Later on page 2 of this long strange, trip, Bullet said:

AC43.13-1B Chg 1. Specifically, Chapter 9,Page 9-14 there is a complete page addressing tire issues and limits. Refer to para 9-14 ( a) which states in part " Tires should be removed when tread has worn to the base of any groove at any spot, or to a minimum depth as specified by the tire or aircraft manufacturer.

Clearly tread on an aircraft tire is used the purpose of
wear indicator, not to avoid hydroplaning as some
hocus-pocus AME's here think.

Goodyear, the tire manufacturer, in the link that I
provided above (that not ONE AME had a clue about)
states clearly that not only can a bald tire be used
on a a large aircraft in a commercial air service under
some circumstances, but you can even use a tire
WITH CORD SHOWING on a large aircraft in a commercial
air service under some circumstances.

This goes to show precisely how important tire
tread is on a light aircraft, with respect to the
prevention of hydroplaning.

On the subject of more AME mumbo-jumbo ... had
dinner with 2 CF-104 pilots last night, and they laughed
out loud at the AME propoganda being spouted here that
CF-104's were never flown with cord showing on
their tires. One of them described the tires before
flight as looking like "a fuzzy dog".

Lots of propoganda here, folks. Not much engineering.

How about we go with what the manufacturer says,
for a change?

As far as me being "life dumb", well, I will defer to
the expert on that subject. I am only a third generation
pilot and engineer, and I have only being operating and
maintaining light aircraft for 35 years - what would I know
about light aircraft?

[itismedd]

Hedley, Do you want a shovel for that s*@&???????

[Hedley]

Hedley, Do you want a shovel for that s*@&???????

Did you come up with that brilliant, insightful, witty
riposte all on your own, or did you require assistance?

[Strega]

[quote="carholme"]For Hedley and Strega;

Apparently the two of you are above the rest of us in understanding things technical, so I have included this for you. The rest of us mere minions will use the previously simplified formula.




Way to set the bar high!!

From the doc that you linked

"So for
flooded runways the hydroplaning speed is determined by tire inflation pressure, fluid density
and tire footprint aspect ratio"

[carholme]

Strega;

If you don't like the formula, write your own. This is a discussion, not a schoolboy's sandbox.

As to your reference at the top of the page re crossing bridges etc, it seems to me that with the number of bridges, overpasses and buildings collapsing that the next generation of your illustrious profession will certainly not run out of rings.

If you don't agree with the discussion, at least try to be constructive

carholme

[itismedd]

Hedley, Do you want a shovel for that s*@&???????

Did you come up with that brilliant, insightful, witty
riposte all on your own, or did you require assistance?

No........I contacted 2 CF 104 pilots to get that one.

[markymarkl]

a bald tire

I did a little research on the subject, and it turns out
that on the CF-104, which lands faster than any aircraft
anybody here has ever worked on, they used tires with
many, many plies and thus did not panic when you saw
a bald tire, and even cord. I am told that many -104's
sitting on the ramp had yards of string hanging out all over,
and they were still serviceable. Go figure.

I don't want to date myself but when I was younger (much) I have the privilege of working on the widow maker. We would change the rubber when we hit the breaker strip or cut limit. SO the tires could be skinned pretty badly as for string hanging out, well I never let it get that bad. We would also polish and sharpen the leading edge for more speed!!!!! It was a fast ship.

[office_supply]

Hey guys - Well me and my friend went ahead and changed the oil, adding 5 quarts 15W50. I've kept the old oil to try and get some kind of analysis done on it.

We didnt rotate the plugs nor clean the screen(s)? though. The weather wasnt too cooperative to remove the entire cowl, and given that neither of us have changed an oil screen on an aircraft engine, without instructions to do it, well I opted not to screw up.

I've spent several days going through Google and other online resources and still havent found anything on oil screen cleaning.. Just a bunch of websites that want to sell me oil filters or oil filter STCs... So if anyone is willing to give me the step-by-step or a manual or something I'd appreciate!

Thanks,
office_supply