PDA

View Full Version : 4-month annual



Tripod
03-13-2009, 11:01 PM
Thanks for allowing me to vent here. I'm just frustrated with this ordeal and typing a few words seem to help. It's not directed at anyone here.

According to my mechanic, today was supposed to be the LAST STEP to completing the "annual." I dropped off my TP this morning to have the struts removed, bore-scoped and then treated with a corrosion inhibitor (I already completed the labor-intensive Maule punch tests). That's fine, no problem with me. The bore-scope and strut corrosion prevention application was supposed to be completed by 5:00 today, but no, now my mechanic "is now waiting to hear back from Piper regarding the rear spars." Rear spars?!!! I am dumbfounded. There was no mention of spars through this long, laborious process until today. I have not heard of any AD's or service bulletins on the spars, rear or otherwise. And my TP lives in a hangar. Am I missing something, or am I being taken for a ride? Just as I'm told we're near the last step of the annual a new "problem" arises. There have many "problems" during this ordeal such as the "strut bushings" ("replace" the strut bushings turned out to be a fallacy), and now this spar thing. Next thing you know, I'll be replacing the muffler bearing!

I want my airplane back.

The never-ending-annual, and thanks for letting me rant.

Dave

joewcasey
03-13-2009, 11:56 PM
I wouldn't worry about the muffler bearing, but it sounds like the guy might claim your blinker fluid is low. :roll:

Stephen
03-14-2009, 02:14 AM
Is removing the struts, treating them, bore scoping and maule testings them worth the effort compared to once and for all replacing them????? I don't know of any rear spar AD.

Steve Pierce
03-14-2009, 09:13 AM
I'd get him to document what he has done and get a fery permit to get the airplane to a mechanic compitent in rag wing Pipers. :evil:

JohnW
03-14-2009, 10:31 AM
What's with borescoping the struts??? The AD and the referenced S.B. call for "punch testing", with an alternate inspection being an ULTRASONIC INSPECTION. This is an accepted practice that "gauges" the material thickness from "one side", and the interior being rusted is "told" by a reduced wall thickness. What does borescope do, except spot rusting that will be shown by either of the two accepted methods (oh, maybe it'll pad the inspectors checking account so that he has an extra truck payment!). If the struts pass the punch test AND do not have apparent rust damage on the outside, the AD says to oil 'em up and reinstall (and re-rig). There is no approved inspection to comply with this AD that uses a borescope...MAYBE it would "tell you something", probably NOT. Most likely it will tell you that PREVIOUS oil put down the struts has dried and hardened and provided the APPEARANCE of an acceptable interior surface, having filled and leveled damage submerged below the "dried oil". Whooptee. The AD does NOT call for a "drop dead time" that replaces the struts with "sealed struts", if you are willing to perform the re-inspection every two years (the SB says "one year"). The Piper S.B. does require downstream replacement. You do not need to comply with the entirety of a S.B. unless an AD REQUIRES that you do, OR the aircraft is used "for hire".

HOW do people with "sealed struts" ever inspect them for pinholes that would result in the exact same condensation inside those struts, with the result that the same damage will be found, some years down the road? Answer: they DON'T! They trust and rely on the "fact" that the strut was built PERFECTLY... and that is that, and they never have to worry about it again in a million years. (Oh. REALLY!?!)

I, too, feel you should get (have gotten, actually. THREE MONTHS AGO, at least!) that aircraft away from that Inspector MUCH earlier on in this process. Look... the inspection should take a COUPLE of DAYS of shop time start to finish. A reliable IA will NOT draw out the Inspection for FOUR MONTHS, continuing with the "next item" when each and every discrepancy is FIXED, one by one. A "Pro" does the WHOLE inspection start to finish and finds ALL the discrepancies in the process, without "dwelling". THEN you get to decide WHO repairs all the discrepancies, and HE as an IA isn't obligated to do so! YOU are not required to pay his rate, if you wish to have someone else perform the maintenance found to be required by his Inspection. But...the Inspection should be done in a timely manner, and signed for, and when you have gotten every discrep repaired and bought back, the airplane becomes airworthy and you go out and fly it. THAT is "how it works"! Now, if it TAKES four months to fix ALL the discepancies that were found, that is another thing entirely. But this "oh gosh, look what I have found NOW" method of performing an Annual is a SURE indicator that the inspector is milking you dry. There is NO OTHER explanation! You SHOULD complain to the local FSDO about this guy. He is clearly a Ripoff Artist. He is using your airplane as a Retirement Fund, and intentionally depriving you of the use of it. Hey, tell us MORE about the "rear struts"!!! Sounds like "Makework" from what little you have told us!!!

HOPEFULLY someone reading this should be able to take away something from your bad experience that helps THEM not get roped in by this Creep, or another like him. How come you haven't told us his NAME, anyway? And where he is located? MAYBE he is doing a "good job" on your airplane, but he certainly isn't "doing it in a respectable manner"!!! Get over there (and meet up with a FAA guy on your way there), and get your airplane OUT OF THERE, Tripod!!!

Stephen
03-14-2009, 10:47 AM
John, well said!

joewcasey
03-14-2009, 11:42 AM
Absolutely! My Tripe's still got the original struts that require the testing, and it's been done twice since I bought it. As John said, I do like the fact that they're being checked occasionally, and it's been a complete non-event both times it's been done. Unless they show evidence of rust, I have no intention of changing them.

Tripod
03-14-2009, 12:52 PM
I haven't bailed on this annual inspection because I don't want to loose all the work that's already been completed. If I failed to mention it previously, this is an owner-assisted annual - I've done nearly all of the grunt work, and I think most of you know what that entails. I removed all of the inspection covers, fairings, seats, wheel-pants, cowling, fuel tank covers, etc. All of that part of the inspection is complete and everything has been reinstalled and the airplane is now whole and flyable.

But, when I'm told that, "oops, we need to inspect and repack the upper oleo bearing" off comes the cowling again. And there goes another 2 weeks, start to finish. They had 6 hours yesterday (11:00 AM to 5:00 PM to complete the corrosion prevention treatment on the struts, but it's not done. 6 hours! One strut can be removed in 5 minutes and then the fork removed in a couple of more minutes. Dump in the corrosion treatment, swish it around and pour out the excess. One strut could be completed, including reinstallation in 30 minutes, and I think I'm being generous with the time.

I'm cringing thinking about the labor bill. The inspection part was quoted as 6 hours @ $80.00 per hour. Of course, now there are these extra things. Anyway, I'll reserve my final judgement (or condemnation) after the airplane is signed off, I have my logbooks back and I've seen the bill. If the mechanic is fair with me on labor costs, I may end up only ranting about the excessive time, measured in months, to do this annual. If he tries to bend me over with extraneous easter-egg hunts for non-existent problems (in other words, misinterpretation of AD's and bulletins), I'm going to say so right here in the hopes that it saves someone else from a similar fate. I'll provide names and place.

-dave

Hillbilly
03-14-2009, 02:39 PM
Even if your plane is unairworthy, all he needs to do is- say so, give you the list and sign the @^$%%$ book!
Tell him to bill you and sign the book and you'll take care of the rest. No harm, no foul. (on your part at least).

(OR you can do it the Hillbilly way- Tell him to bill you and sign the book and then kick him in the balls.)

Good Luck!

Tripod
03-15-2009, 06:57 PM
Update: the deal on the rear spars turned out to really mean the rear struts (kind of what I thought). This SNAFU came from the front desk, not the mechanic. My mechanic said the front struts are fine (no sign of internal rust during bore-scope inspection) and they have been treated with anti-corrosion goop and reinstalled on the airplane. However, the rear struts (original parts, unlike the front struts) show signs of internal rust, so now we're waiting for a judgement call from Piper. As I mentioned in previous posts, all 4 struts passed the Maule punch tests.

I'm not all sure how Piper will respond, even though the struts passed the Maule testing. My guess is they will recommend replacing the struts. If that's what it takes to get this annual done, I'll do it in heart beat.

So, I have a question: what replacement struts do you recommend? My inclination is the Univair PMA sealed struts with the 5/8" forks.
One other thing: since I've become lost in time with this ordeal, I gathered up my invoices and quickly realized that this annual is really 4.5 months in process. I'm glad that no stone is left unturned, but I am really stressed about the outrageous time frame. I'm paying for 2 hangars right now and the 4-month cost of the hangar I'm leaving would've paid for the struts.

Thanks again for letting me rant. I sure am looking forward to flying my TP again, and I'm looking forward to taking it to its new home 30 miles south of here. It's a real friendly GA airport.

-dave

Hillbilly
03-15-2009, 08:42 PM
I still want to kick him in the billiards, just for good measure.

JohnW
03-15-2009, 09:00 PM
This just gets lamer and lamer. Piper wrote the Service Bulletin that fueled the Airworthiness Directive. Piper no where in this document even so much as SUGGESTED that the struts be borescoped, or "visually inspected internally". Neither did the FAA tack on such an instruction, feeling that it would be of some "benefit". Damn it. This Idiot Boy that calls himself an Inspector makes up the requirements as he sees fit. What he HAS TO DO is follow the instructions set forth in the AD, and using the method(s) prescribed, make a determination if these struts "Pass" or "fail" per the requirements of the AD and NO OTHER.

Here's the place where you should draw the line in the sand...RIGHT ACROSS THIS JERKS TOES. TELL HIM, do not ASK HIM, to comply with the AD AS WRITTEN and then either sign off the Annual Inspection (there is the KEY..."Inspection"!!!) as completed, or you are going to the FSDO. It is HIS PREROGATIVE whether he "finishes the signoff" by including the Return to Service statement OR to state that he has given a list of discrepancies to the Owner, dammit! He cannot withhold his signoff for what he HAS done! That is ALL he is required OR Allowed to do...PERFORM THE INSPECTION and write the fact that it has been inspected IN THE LOG. This is becoming a reflection on YOU, as well as him!

If he REFUSES to sign off for ALL that he HAS done, he might as well just "mail in" his Inspection Authorization. It is time for YOU to understand that FAA is behind YOU in this matter. You do NOT "lose" whatever has been done up until now. It is the LAW that he signs for whatever work he performed. If he claims he did not perform it, you do not pay him...its that simple. FSDO will SEE TO THAT. They'll make him forget he ever tried to rip you off by keeping him kicking at the end of his own rope. Get your airplane out from his grasp IMMEDIATELY, even if you have to get a "friendly A&P" from the other field to come over and make it legal to fly out of there. This is ludicrous. His game is untenable, and you are only playing it because you have convinced yourself that you WANT to, not because you HAVE TO.

Tripod
03-15-2009, 09:28 PM
This just gets lamer and lamer. Piper wrote the Service Bulletin that fueled the Airworthiness Directive. Piper no where in this document even so much as SUGGESTED that the struts be borescoped, or "visually inspected internally". Neither did the FAA tack on such an instruction, feeling that it would be of some "benefit". Damn it.

[much snipped]

His game is untenable, and you are only playing it because you have convinced yourself that you WANT to, not because you HAVE TO.


Read this and tell me what you think:

http://savvyshortwing.com/Documents/AFad93-10-06.pdf

-dave

Hillbilly
03-15-2009, 09:39 PM
Dave, you should involve the FSDO. This punk is walking your dog because he thinks he can. You seem to be going right along with him, indicating to him you wont buck...Do you think after all this he'll tread lightly or even fairly on your checkbook?
I'm betting against it, and pulling for you.

Hillbilly
03-15-2009, 10:10 PM
This just gets lamer and lamer. Piper wrote the Service Bulletin that fueled the Airworthiness Directive. Piper no where in this document even so much as SUGGESTED that the struts be borescoped, or "visually inspected internally". Neither did the FAA tack on such an instruction, feeling that it would be of some "benefit". Damn it.

[much snipped]

His game is untenable, and you are only playing it because you have convinced yourself that you WANT to, not because you HAVE TO.


Read this and tell me what you think:

http://savvyshortwing.com/Documents/AFad93-10-06.pdf

-dave

Wow, I know you were talking to JohnW (i think) when you posted, I hope I'm wrong but you seem to be calling him out on the fact that your document from savvyshortwing.com mentions

"Note 1: Inspection methods such as x-ray or boroscope may be utilized
provided they are approved as an alternative method of compliance in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (f) of this AD."

Now maybe you don't get that John is trying to help you, (and he is WELL qualified).
But if you choose to argue with him about a document he is doubtless familiar with,
Id get my reference from the FAA not happyairplanes.com

SO maybe YOU want to read THIS and tell me what you think,
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guida ... enDocument (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgAD.nsf/0/9F806811E7FDF742862569AC005E0493?OpenDocument)
be sure to read all the way down to where it says "(h) This amendment supersedes AD 93-10-06, Amendment 39-8536."
AND where it tells how to do an ultrasonic test, but strangely the whole borescope buttreaming process is omitted.

Curly
03-15-2009, 11:48 PM
Hey - let's cut Dave a bit of slack. He is being right royaly screwed and the frustration is starting to show!

Dave, all I can suggest is that you treat this as a character building exercise - it aint right but then sometimes life can be a bastard. Try to learn from it and make sure that when you finally get your aeroplane back in the air (and you WILL) you spread this pricks name far and wide as someone to avoid like the plague! :evil:

Curly.

mike mcs repair
03-16-2009, 02:43 AM
so then.... the stuts have passed as far as the AD is concerned. period.... whether they are good is another thing.......

and he is using an old unapproved(per the faa AD) and now not included(unacceptable ??+ years) method to determine AD compliance? did he write to the address at bottom of ad for approval too? ;-)

gee... how do you log that one???... "performed superseded & unapproved inspection" for reason x?

JohnW
03-16-2009, 07:30 AM
Read this and tell me what you think:

http://savvyshortwing.com/Documents/AFad93-10-06.pdf

-dave

Well, perhaps "surprisingly to some", I'm not gonna explode and flame out. The use of the words "May", "Shall" "Should" and "Must be" are tantamount to "understanding the English language" (a critical requirement that goes along with an A&P Applicant's Requirements that include reading and writing of same). Especially considering the Legalese nature of Government documents -even when written in Plain Speak- AND the ****house Lawyer techniques employed to interpret them by "us dirt under the fingernail muh-kannicks".

Without meeting him and "getting to know him", I will say this guy is plenty savvy to get both his hands inside your underwear after your Johnnie (that means your "dough", "money", "cash"), but he is too lazy and unmotivated to go so far as to get an AMOC (that is "Alternate Means of Compliance") approved for his DISMISSIBLE idea of borescoping struts. I've GOTTEN AMOCs from FAA. I actually CHECK for them occasionally. Never seen such an AMOC approved, never HEARD about one, and because of the very reasons I spoke to about "dried oil" and "false impressions" I would NEVER under any conditions other than chemically cleaning the inside of the strut FIRST (which would require Hercurlean cleaning efforts after the fact to ensure you didn't ACCELERATE interior rusting as a result!!!) consider this a viable method instead of simply punch testing or ultrasounding. Meaning, I wouldn't USE IT even if it WAS "available"! WHY would you think FAA would tack on a "AMOC" statement unless they were TRYING to encourage the inspector to do it the way they SAY TO???

What is the matter with, having confirmed there are no "dents" on the already inspection-completed areas of your rear struts, and simply ACCEPTING THE RESULTS and signing it off??? He sent in a Engineering Request to PIPER!?! For this??? C'mon... can't you smell Ca-ca when you step in it? Does this guy wear safety pins at the upper end of his jacket zipper so the slider can't come down on its own??? He doesn't have faith in the specified technique given in a document "considered" and written by a government agency-employed PROFESSIONAL A.D. WRITER GUY who worked with other guys in the same department that does this for a living, and this guy has a "better" (not!) method to endorse the integrity of the affected part? So, he wants to use his own "unapproved method" of confirming the Directives results??????? Now I KNOW you think this guys Stuff don't smell, Dave. You are under his spell.

Only ONE THING pisses me off about your reply, seriously (and I'm not at all surprised that it has already been spoken to....) You sent me to THAT URL to read what may or may not be the latest Revised Issue of a document critical to aviation safety!!!??!!! You think referencing AFTERMARKET WANNABEES in the defense of someone doing ignorant and usurious things to an airplane owner is going to somehow ENLIGHTEN me? There... is not HOW or WHERE I get "the skinny" on this stuff. No, Sir. I am MUCH more dead serious about this stuff, and I have to know what document is that is in effect TODAY, RIGHT NOW when I research ADs. Everything superceded should Be GONE, shredded, burnt, destroyed, made unavailable for use even by accident. This isn't a "HOBBY" for me, it is what I did as my life's career, and I continue to take it VERY seriously whether there is 300, or ONE, person(s) on the aircraft. The documents I take from are the most current...I see to it, and this costs me a LOT of money for "upkeep". I don't exactly think that you MEANT to insult me, on purpose...but that's a little like telling Minnesota Fats that he "sure lucked out on that shot when it went around the table -six rails- and went in the same pocket he called it for originally, after he MISSED IT the first time".

Steve Pierce
03-16-2009, 08:28 AM
For those not sure what is going on, it appears Dave's IA want's to inspect his struts in accordance with (IAW) AD 93-10-06 but that AD was superseded by AD 99-01-05 and is no longer applicable nor approved. I agree with you John, this IA needs a visit from a savvy FAA inspector and I would love to hear him explain himself.

Stephen
03-16-2009, 08:52 AM
Wow, John that's tame, especially since I seen you call experienced mechanics "dumb asses", your dog must have treated you good today.

Dave,

This issue is serious for all non-mechanics who want to trust the shop that they take their planes to.

1. Get a print out of all the AD's (airframe, engine and accessories) that apply for your plane, Hillbilly posted the site. Read them all then discard as John says the out of date AD's. You will learn a great deal about your plane.
2. Gather your A/C records, review your manuals and 337's for continuing compliance requirements for your plane. This is all good information to know.
3. Review your last couple of years lists of AD compliance to see how and if they were done.
4. Find a good copy of an annual inspection list for your plane. You should be able to get all the above information in a few hours.
5. Take all this information to your IA and review what he has done.
6. Ask him for an up to date and detailed list of expenses that you have incurred and a good estimate of remaining costs. You should not pay for any unnecessary work or inspections unless you choose to do them, and not if he mislead you.
7. If you are unsatified, then go to FSDO and make a complaint and/or take you plane away.

I work with an experienced and thorough IA, while I do my own work and he comes to my shop, the inspection has always been under $150. Unless extra work needs to be done a good annual can be done in one day, two at the most.

Good luck and keep us posted,

Stephen[attachment=0:2qwu4e0i]ANNUAL INSPECTION CHECK LIST.doc[/attachment:2qwu4e0i]

Gilbert Pierce
03-16-2009, 09:33 AM
I find this interesting. I went to the Savy Short Wing site, the guy that posted the out of date AD. http://savvyshortwing.com/default.aspx
There is no name, no address etc. If you want more information you have to send him yours but he does not provide any of his. Then he goes on to say that he does not accept any responsibility for what is on his site. That it is your responsibility to insure the correctness of his data.
Is this the same person that didn't know how to take your nose strut apart?

That web site does however show that AD93-10-06 has been superceded by AD99-01-05 and in all fairness no one should take from that site that 93-10-06 applied to our aircraft now. See http://savvyshortwing.com/mxAD.aspx

JohnW
03-16-2009, 10:03 AM
Wow, John that's tame, especially since I seen you call experienced mechanics "dumb asses", your dog must have treated you good today.

Sorry...did you say Lame or Tame?

I calls 'em as I sees 'em, and if that makes me seem HARSH sometimes, maybe that's because sharp "applies"(?) in some cases. A rose is a rose. Poop is poop. So do you say they BOTH smell nice, or do you try to nail them down a little better than that?

Ohhhhh! That part hurts. My old dog died a few years ago, and I'm still heartbroken. How insensitive (and Non-Politically Correct) of you! *sniff*




Okay, seriously....! What is happening here NOW is "what I been sayin'" Dave. I'm sorry if my personality is "grating". To know me is actually to love me. I'm more "crude" than "rude". I'm right, though, pretty much most of the time, like it or not. (Hey, ask THESE people...I'm actually mellowing out -SOMEWHAT)

eskflyer
03-16-2009, 10:27 AM
This is the best entertainment ive had all week . And I am learing alot also lol. Steve , John W and all the others who give us great valuable info I just want to say thanks . You keep us civilians on the straight and narrow .


866B
3579A
John

Tripod
03-16-2009, 11:10 AM
Only ONE THING pisses me off about your reply, seriously (and I'm not at all surprised that it has already been spoken to....) You sent me to THAT URL to read what may or may not be the latest Revised Issue of a document critical to aviation safety!!!??!!! You think referencing AFTERMARKET WANNABEES in the defense of someone doing ignorant and usurious things to an airplane owner is going to somehow ENLIGHTEN me? There... is not HOW or WHERE I get "the skinny" on this stuff. No, Sir. I am MUCH more dead serious about this stuff, and I have to know what document is that is in effect TODAY, RIGHT NOW when I research ADs. Everything superceded should Be GONE, shredded, burnt, destroyed, made unavailable for use even by accident. This isn't a "HOBBY" for me, it is what I did as my life's career, and I continue to take it VERY seriously whether there is 300, or ONE, person(s) on the aircraft. The documents I take from are the most current...I see to it, and this costs me a LOT of money for "upkeep". I don't exactly think that you MEANT to insult me, on purpose...but that's a little like telling Minnesota Fats that he "sure lucked out on that shot when it went around the table -six rails- and went in the same pocket he called it for originally, after he MISSED IT the first time".

It was not my intention to insult you. I was looking for further interpretation and clarification of the strut AD. I downloaded AD 99-01-05 that supersedes 93-10-06. It appears that 99-01-05 adds the ultrasonic method for inspection, eliminates PA-25 strut forks from inspection, adds certain airplane models plus the requirement for a "No Step" placard and editorial clarifications.

Thanks for you help,

-dave

JohnW
03-16-2009, 11:29 AM
Honest, Dave. I wasn't looking for an apology. You're a victim in this, and my being less than gracious with you is MY bad. I was "taking on your frustration". Tha's whatcha get when you whine publically :shock: You were DEFINITELY allowed to "whine"...really!

Please don't get the idea that anybody was trying to say that you aren't WELCOME here... I think I can speak for EVERYBODY (since I probably did more to make you feel that way than anybody else) when I say "You most certainly ARE!" welcome here. I rub people the wrong way, more often than not. I know people can find me if they really want to, but I AM NOT AFRAID! :?

Stephen
03-16-2009, 12:12 PM
John, Sorry about you dog, I know how you feel. We keep buying these damn stupid Goldens Retrievers and before you know it they are part of the house hold. And, if you are just razzing me, I'm not sorry.

Dave, even without this strut BS, your annual seems to be taking a long time.

Tripod
03-16-2009, 12:42 PM
Thanks John, Stephen and everyone. Yeah, I have been whining a lot, and it is about the length of time for this annual. To keep everything in context, I should provide a little more background to this situation.

I bought this airplane from my dad in 1976. He bought it in a partnership in 1964. So, I know the airplane pretty well. But, life started getting rather tedious around 2000 and by 2002 I just gave up on flying. Well, after burying my wonderful father-in-law, moving and remodeling our house, helping one kid through a nasty divorce, getting both kids through college, I'm back - I want to fly my TP again. The hurdles, of course, are getting through an annual where the airplane has been sitting in a hangar for 5 years, regaining my medical and doing a BFR. My brain has been pretty much turned off regarding aviation for 5 years.

What really got me on the stick was the fact that my old hangar building is scheduled to be torn down about a year from now. The hangars behind me came down just last week. I can't justify $500.00 per month for the new replacement hangars so I put my name on a waiting list at an airport about 30 miles south of here. 14 months later (last October) my name came up. I had to do it or get off the pot, so I took the hangar. $163.00 per month and it's a very nice hangar - much better than I have now. But now I'm renting 2 hangars.

Now it's decision time: annual or ferry to new airport home. Frankly, I was a bit nervous because the airplane had been sitting so long (I did run it occasionally, put air in the tires and keep it clean, but that's about all), so I nixed the ferry thing. Problem is, both repairs shops are loaded with Cessna and Beechcraft stuff and most of them are high-end. I don't remember seeing any rag-wings in their repair facilities, but I guess that doesn't mean they don't work on them. Anyway, I go way back with the shop I'm using, but not for annuals. I got my Private there back in the mid-70's plus I've purchased lots of oil and parts from them over the years. For annuals, I used another shop across the field that specialized in vintage aircraft. Well, that fellow passed away about 15 years ago, but his helper/apprentice mechanic got his A & P license and I started having him do my annuals. Sometime during the last 5 years he has disappeared.

So now that I'm in pretty deep with my old instructor/ A& P I learn that he did not see eye-to-eye with either of my previous mechanics. And to strengthen his point he discovered some missed AD's during this inspection which included 2 placards, the upper oleo bearing and the magnetos. Happily, all of that is now fixed, but he's suspicious and very cautious. In a way, I don't blame him. It's just the time-frame that's killing me, and the apparent second-guessing on things like the struts.

Anyway, thanks again for listening - it does help. I'll get through this and get my bird setup in its new home. And by the way, there's lots of neat GA stuff going on there. I've already met some of the people and I like it. Lot's of rag-wings and GA activities and even a Lockheed 10A! Our local airport has gone strongly commercial, which is ok, it's just that this has caused the rents to go through the roof.

-dave

Stephen
03-16-2009, 02:13 PM
Does sound a bit complicated. Post a picture asoon as you get it flying and find a good rag wing mechanic for your next annual.

smcnutt
03-16-2009, 02:43 PM
Sounds like your current AI has a chip on his shoulder concerning this airplane and/or the previous IA and he's determined to prove it's justified.

As I'm reading along with your plight it's scaring the the crap out of me because I could see something similar could happen to me. We have two IA's that we've worked with but they don't seem to like/respect each other. We're just starting our current annual with one of them when the other did it last year. I just hope I don't get in the same situation where they get into a pissing match with my plane caught in the middle. I think they will act professional despite their thoughts of each other but in the back of my mind..... :roll:

N4567A
03-16-2009, 02:54 PM
Uh-oh...I have a hunch Dave's kanuter valve is going to have to be rechromed...

Stephen, nice inspection list. I'm going to modify it a bit to use on the mighty Vagabond.
Thanks,
Rodg Petersen
1WA6
PA15

Hillbilly
03-16-2009, 06:04 PM
Uh-oh...I have a hunch Dave's kanuter valve is going to have to be rechromed...


Reminds me of back when...

The B-1B has vortex generators all over the vertical & horizontal stabs to ease control pressure, at any rate we'd take a volt/ohmmeter set it on the most sensitive scale, then we'd take a brand newly graduated from tech school "slick sleeve"
(no stripes) airman and get him up there checking the resistance on the vortex generators (if you touch each lead with a bare finger you'll get a "reading") some of them poor kids would spend a couple hours up there and then come down with a list of "bad ones"... Good Times

Course there was the kid the Air Boss sent after 5 gals of "prop wash" and 1000 feet of flight line...and the supply sargent on duty knew how to play that game...poor kid came back with a spool of parachute cord that looked like 200 pounds and 5 gallons of mop water..fortunately he only had to hump it just a tad over a mile...

DAVE, Hope I didn't step on yer toes. I'm like John inasmuch as I'm feeling your frustration. You are indeed welcome here (probably more so than me...) and if you'll tell us who this guy is, me and Bultaco Jim will go over and whilst Jim distracts him with a beer, I'll kick him in the man berries....

pmanton
03-16-2009, 09:17 PM
Gotta be careful here. Way back when at Iwakuni MCAS I sent the FNG off for some prop wash. He was gone all day long. When the OIC wanted to know where he had been all day---guess what he fingered me as the guy who sent him for prop wash---- :lol:

Cheers:

Paul
N1431A
KSDM

Hillbilly
03-16-2009, 10:12 PM
Gotta be careful here. Way back when at Iwakuni MCAS I sent the FNG off for some prop wash. He was gone all day long. When the OIC wanted to know where he had been all day---guess what he fingered me as the guy who sent him for prop wash---- :lol:

Cheers:

Paul
N1431A
KSDM


Funny How when we think back on all the trouble we got in...At the end you'll invariably catch yourself smiling... Good Times

Bultaco Jim
03-16-2009, 10:20 PM
Seriously though, one of the reasons this forum is valuable is, we hear about the places to stay away from- in this case San Luis Obispo might be a pass.
I understand that a plane that's been sitting 5 yrs needs to be investigated more thoroughly, but that should take a one or two day annual to two or three days. Of course, I'm only talking about the inspection, not the fixes. Maybe I'm just offended cause it's close to home, but 4 1/2 months really offends me.
You're way more patient than me..........maybe I should have you deal with my ex-wife in my behalf.

Hillbilly
03-16-2009, 10:29 PM
Seriously though, one of the reasons this forum is valuable is, we hear about the places to stay away from- in this case San Luis Obispo might be a pass.
I understand that a plane that's been sitting 5 yrs needs to be investigated more thoroughly, but that should take a one or two day annual to two or three days. Of course, I'm only talking about the inspection, not the fixes. Maybe I'm just offended cause it's close to home, but 4 1/2 months really offends me.
You're way more patient than me..........maybe I should have you deal with my ex-wife in my behalf.

Jim, distract her with a beer and I'll kick her in your berries...(I'm assuming you lost them in the divorce)

Tripod
03-16-2009, 11:25 PM
Uh-oh...I have a hunch Dave's kanuter valve is going to have to be rechromed...


Reminds me of back when...

[snip]

DAVE, Hope I didn't step on yer toes. I'm like John inasmuch as I'm feeling your frustration. You are indeed welcome here (probably more so than me...) and if you'll tell us who this guy is, me and Bultaco Jim will go over and whilst Jim distracts him with a beer, I'll kick him in the man berries....

No problem at all. I've been around too many forums over the years to be easily offended. Text-only comm can be difficult at times.

Speaking of old military fun, we [Army] used to send the new FNG's back to drain the air tanks on the 3/4 ton trucks. Gone for an hour. Of course, there weren't any air tanks of the 3/4's. I heard that the swabbies sent new recruits out looking for relative bearing grease.

GA wise, I love the signs over the urinals in the restroom: if you have low manifold pressure, please taxi up close...

-dave

Eagleavn
08-06-2013, 05:59 AM
I am relativly new tothe Forums and just came across this....So someone tell me how the story ends, did he get the acft back, did he get his medical??? What happened????

PS.....As an A&P/IA with some SWP experiance, please shoot me a message if i can help you in any way!!!....

Lloyd

Stonie
08-09-2013, 08:46 PM
Now this was a great read..... Learned a lot. Would also like to know "The rest of the story".

pinkgas
08-10-2013, 10:47 AM
Tripod has not posted since 3/2010. I sent him a PM. Hope he is still around.

Eagleavn
08-11-2013, 06:32 AM
Tripod has not posted since 3/2010. I sent him a PM. Hope he is still around.


Thanks let us know what you find out....

LP

zalto
08-12-2013, 09:37 AM
The saga continued......
http://www.shortwingpipers.org/forum/showthread.php?5220-Mechanic-lost-engine-logbook-Now-what

walt.buskey
08-13-2013, 03:17 AM
OK.... just read the "update." Dave sure had a hard time of it. Thanks for the link; that was a good read! (Think I'm going to make some copies...) WBB