My engine swallowed my air filter

Salty said:
You're arguing with the wrong person. You are saying exactly what I'm saying. I agree with you completely. My question you quoted was posed only to point out the ridiculousness of any other approach to this.
Click to expand...
Okay then, great minds think alike :)
 
Sometimes, short responses are hard to decipher.

It's hard to tell what Tom is replying to when he says:
"It should be, that is a fire retardant so the whole filter won't go poof when exposed to a back fire."

...but we are assuming he's talking about the spray that is applied to foam air filters. As far as I know; Brackett filters are filters, that come with oil already applied, if necessary. I haven't found Brackett oil; it might exist, my short google search didn't find it.
https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/eppages/brackettairfilter.php

In the accessories; it lists no Brackett oil that you can buy. It does state that "The specially treated polyurethane element in the Brackett filter assures near total protection from any foreign material entering the system. Repels water, fire retardant and has good air flow for proper fuel/air ratio. Has no pleats to collect dirt." It reads like they are talking about the polyurethane element; not the spray? NOTE: I am not an A&P and am not trying to be. I'm just a guy on an internet message board; replying as the forum rules allow.

Salty replied:
"I thought it was to aide in collection of particulates."

Tom said:
"That too, primary = fire protection."

Now; if we're talking about the spray that is applied to foam air filters, I think Salty has a point. The primary purpose of the spray is to aid in collection of particulates (that's why I've always used it on my dirt bikes foam air filters). I buy a special filter that aids against backfires; but I put on the spray/oil to try to get more dust in the filter, less in the engine. I think that's most people's use of air filter oil; is to get more particles in the filter, less passing through into the engine.

If we're talking about the polyurethane; then I'm on Tom's side. I think fire retardant is one of the primary purposes.

Enjoy the beautiful day guys!
 
Witmo said:
You seem to think a mechanic is a cast member of Aircraft Maintenance NCIS. My signature only applies to the work I have done, not Joe Bag-a-donuts before me. An IA normally doesn't need to demount a tire that's properly inflated, so why would he even care to search through the logs for an entry? My training as an A&P didn't make me an FAA enforcement officer. I'm responsible for my own work not yours. If I see something incorrect, I inform you and you can see choose whether to pay me to fix it. As long as I don't see something done like a modification or repair requiring an stc I don't really care if that tire change got logged if it's the right size and holding air. The owner is responsible for seeing that his maintenance record is complete with routine entries for work completed. Do you really think the FAA is going to sanction an IA for not doing something (what, I don't know) because an owner didn't log a tire change?
Click to expand...

The debate wasn’t about documenting a tire or air filter change. All I said originally was that it is usually pretty obvious when recent work has been performed (in the case of the original comment it was an air filter) on an airplane that is regularly flying.

When the IA signs off the airplane as being airworthy, they effectively own the sins that occurred before they looked at it. So if that air filter (or patch or whatever) was improperly done prior and the IA didn’t correct it, who do you think the FAA and the lawyers are going to go after? Nothing may happen but I’d bet you’ll be questioned at a minimum.

You’re absolutely right when it comes to work performed. We can do an oil change on an obviously unairworthy airplane and just sign off the oil change without caring about anything else.

Try doing an import sometime. Guess what, you’ll likely end up doing a 337 for someone else’s work that was performed in another country, to get things right. If that’s not owning someone else’s work, at least to a degree, I don’t know what is.
 
Do you believe that you can expect an A&P-IA to find a wrinkle in an inner tube while doing an annual? If the tire was flat maybe.
 
Tom-D said:
Do you believe that you can expect an A&P-IA to find a wrinkle in an inner tube while doing an annual? If the tire was flat maybe.
Click to expand...

No, nor would I expect the IA to take it apart to look. But it would be foolish for the IA not to look at the wheel and tire to try and determine condition and to make sure the right tires are installed.

Same thing with the air filter. I would hope that the IA would be checking to make sure the element is the correct one and that it is installed properly, regardless of who put it in originally and if it was documented.

IAs often do not do themselves or their customers any favors when they try to take the easy way out of work or try to be the cheapest guy around. This thread is a good example, the OP and his mechanic decided to deviate from Brackett’s instructions and now we’re here. The filter being old may not have been the primary cause of the trouble being experienced but it still isn’t right.
 
mondtster said:
Try doing an import sometime. Guess what, you’ll likely end up doing a 337 for someone else’s work that was performed in another country, to get things right. If that’s not owning someone else’s work, at least to a degree, I don’t know what is.
Click to expand...

So when you do an annual it's done at the scope and detail of an import inspection to determine compliance with the type certificate since everything done to the aircraft prior to import was probably not done by an FAA certificated A&P? If so you are the only IA I've come across that does so. I would charge considerably more for an import inspection than I would for an annual since the FAA is going to require that that imported aircraft is in the same condition or properly altered condition (by FAA standard) it was when it rolled off the assembly line and was granted an airworthiness certificate. You're comparing apples and oranges. And being questioned by the FAA is likely after any accident. If I didn't accomplish the maintenance done incorrectly or not logged and it's not something called out as being required to be inspected as per the checklist I'm using, then how can I be held responsible for some owner who decided to do something and not log it? Who"s to say that the day after an annual an owner decides to do some unauthorized maintenance and not log it and subsequently crashes. Good luck proving the A&P did anything wrong, because he didn't and the FAA can't prove the faulty condition was present at the time the A&P inspected the aircraft. Will he be questioned, most probably. Can he be sanctioned, unlikely, unless someone can prove it was something he was required to do and didn't. If an aircraft engine had an overhaul and critical bolts were improperly torqued and the engine failed after a subsequent annual, the IA doing that last annual is not going to be held responsible unless he assembled the engine or there were visible signs of an engine improperly assembled that he missed when he did the annual.
 
Witmo said:
So when you do an annual it's done at the scope and detail of an import inspection to determine compliance with the type certificate since everything done to the aircraft prior to import was probably not done by an FAA certificated A&P? If so you are the only IA I've come across that does so. I would charge considerably more for an import inspection than I would for an annual since the FAA is going to require that that imported aircraft is in the same condition or properly altered condition (by FAA standard) it was when it rolled off the assembly line and was granted an airworthiness certificate. You're comparing apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I do, and I don’t believe I am comparing apples and oranges considering both DARs I’ve worked with (in two different states) expect the IA working on the import to simply complete an annual inspection prior to them arriving to do their part. When done right the issuance of the airworthiness certificate is quick and easy. What exactly do you feel is supposed to be determined at annual time? We’re talking TCd airplanes here, with set standards.
 
Fiveslide said:
I took my Jeep through a mud hole pretty regularly, it was usually knee deep. Then one day, it was neck deep, someone with something much bigger than my Jeep had dug it out.

Water, mud and the entire paper air filter went into the engine. A guy in a Toyota that was about to pull me out was making fun of me for getting stuck. With water over the windows and the interior full I turned the key with the clutch out and the starter and battery almost got it all the way out of the hole. Had to prove I wasn't stuck, I had an inop engine.

I needed a rebuild after that. It was my most expensive mistake off-road.
Click to expand...

Never, EVER take a strap from an import.
 

Attachments

  • 5EF7B154-A3EB-4F38-9700-FD3E1437BB5E.jpeg
    5EF7B154-A3EB-4F38-9700-FD3E1437BB5E.jpeg
    315.8 KB · Views: 21
Lachlan said:
Never, EVER take a strap from an import.
Click to expand...

I needed him to get back to the house, I wasn't walking. He didn't pull me out of the mud, just up the hill to the driveway. I couldn't rebuild that 4.0 in the woods.

If it makes you feel better, I once pulled that same Toyota out with a stock Isuzu trooper with plain ol' street treads on it. He's got more to be embarrassed about.
 
I pulled a stuck Jeep out with a stock 2003 Nissan Frontier; 6 cylinder!

I was proud; he was relieved!
 
I pulled started a Freightliner Classic XL with a '93 four cylinder Nissan pick up. It was about 18,000 pounds of road tractor that had a bad starter.

Nissans are not wimpy. I've owned the '93, a frontier, an Xterra and 2 Titans. Miss that old 93 the most.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top