Antique Aircraft Maintenance

Tom-D

Tom-D

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
34,740
Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
One of my Fairchild 24 customers bought his aircraft a couple years ago, prior to him flying it he had me completely rebuild his mechanical brake system, true his 10" Hayes wheels. (chicken lips = hard to find) build new brake drums, and teach his mech to assemble and adjust them.
this year he took the aircraft to a different A&P who had specific orders not to fly or taxi the aircraft, (F-24-H) = Ranger powered)
So, friend get a call that the aircraft failed an extreme braking test and now the rudder pedals fall down to a horizontal position.
Now the new A&P wants big bucks to repair. or they will not sign off the annual.

What say you?
My opinion is, there is no requirement for any extreme breaking test for an annual.
The A&P did not have permission to taxi test the aircraft.
The A&P is requiring the aircraft to do some thing aircraft was never designed to do.
The mechanic broke the aircraft trying.
What's the owner's options?
What should I advise the owner to do?
 
Please move this thread to "MAINTENANCE" Please.
 
OK, then. It sounds as if you have another F-24 brake job. Bad deal all around.... :(
 
Have him ask for documentation on the need for an "extreme braking test".
 
That's ridiculous. I would seek more information then talk to my laywer.
 
First, "signing off the annual" doesn't require fixing the brakes. We know this from previous discussions. Simply calls for a list of discrepancies.
 
nrpetersen said:
I've never heard that term. What does it even mean? A lot of Cubs (including my 1941 J4A) would be grounded based on an intuitive interpretation.
Click to expand...
Exactly. That seems ridiculous. The brakes on my Waco are intentionally weak to prevent nose-over with the high CG. Who makes this crap up?
 
Tom-D said:
One of my Fairchild 24 customers bought his aircraft a couple years ago, prior to him flying it he had me completely rebuild his mechanical brake system, true his 10" Hayes wheels. (chicken lips = hard to find) build new brake drums, and teach his mech to assemble and adjust them.
this year he took the aircraft to a different A&P who had specific orders not to fly or taxi the aircraft, (F-24-H) = Ranger powered)
So, friend get a call that the aircraft failed an extreme braking test and now the rudder pedals fall down to a horizontal position.
Now the new A&P wants big bucks to repair. or they will not sign off the annual.

What say you?
My opinion is, there is no requirement for any extreme breaking test for an annual.
The A&P did not have permission to taxi test the aircraft.
The A&P is requiring the aircraft to do some thing aircraft was never designed to do.
The mechanic broke the aircraft trying.
What's the owner's options?
What should I advise the owner to do?
Click to expand...

If the AP did not have permission from the owner to operate the aircraft, I would get the police involved.

I would say the brakes were designed to handle "extreme" breaking, they should be able to take the force a pilot can put on them.

If the AP had broken into the aircraft and took control of it without the owners permission, any damage done the the brakes or the locks would be his responsibility, I would also bring the police reports to the court with you, the FAA also might want to know that this certificate holder was gaining unauthorized access to aircraft.

Obviously you wouldn't let this guy touch your aircraft again

The only thing I would want from his AP would be the snag list I paid him to generate (that is ALL a annual is), or my money back.
 
How did this new mechanic get chosen to do an annual on a relatively unique airplane in the first place? Apparently he didn't get chosen due to his Fairchild experience.

If it were me I think I'd ask the mechanic to make a logbook entry for what they did do, then take the aircraft elsewhere to have it repaired. I'd consider pursuing an insurance claim or taking the mechanic to small claims court to recover the cost to repair the damages too. That mechanic is not someone I would want fixing the brakes, they had their chance once and they screwed it up that time.
 
James331 said:
I would say the brakes were designed to handle "extreme" breaking, they should be able to take the force a pilot can put on them.
Click to expand...
1937 mechanical brakes were never designed for extreme anything. it's a 1/16"the cable, stand on them and the cable stretches, and does not allow the bird to go up on its nose.
 
After spending some time on the phone with both parties I find this:
1. It is an annual in progress the mechanic stood on the brakes like they normally do for run up. and stretched the cables now the brakes don't work. A&P says it was bad prior to his using it, his using it discovered the discrepancy.
2. The A&P has never dealt with mechanical brakes before. limitations of the A&P certificate says if you've never done it before, you can't do it until you have had training.
3. the owner says he told the A&P not to do the run up until he was present to do it. and warned the A&P the chocks were needed to do a full power run up.
So there starts the pi$$ling contest,
The A&P is doing an annual, for which his dad will sign off. Right there is a violation that the FAA will yank tickets.
The A&P-IA will not sign off the annual as airworthy with this discrepancy.
There is no required brake check as per 43.-D in the required items for an annual.
My advice to the owner was this. Get the A&P-IA to sign the annual off as UN-Airworthy with a list of discrepancies (IAW 43.), in that list show the required test required for airworthiness.
My advice to the A&P sign off the annual as unairworthy, and list the discrepancies showing the required test for airworthiness. and give the owner a paste in sign off. and read FAR 65 as to his limitations, and pray that the owner doesn't take this to FSDO.
So what do you think? good, bad, or ?
 
MauleSkinner said:
Have him ask for documentation on the need for an "extreme braking test".
Click to expand...
I asked that question, he couldn't come up with one. He just thought it was a good thing to do. I also asked if he had adjusted mechanical brakes before, he said no. ---> FAR 65.
 
mondtster said:
How did this new mechanic get chosen to do an annual on a relatively unique airplane in the first place? Apparently he didn't get chosen due to his Fairchild experience.

If it were me I think I'd ask the mechanic to make a logbook entry for what they did do, then take the aircraft elsewhere to have it repaired. I'd consider pursuing an insurance claim or taking the mechanic to small claims court to recover the cost to repair the damages too. That mechanic is not someone I would want fixing the brakes, they had their chance once and they screwed it up that time.
Click to expand...
That's pretty much 100%, there will be a Pi$$ing contest over the payment
 
Fearless Tower said:
Exactly. That seems ridiculous. The brakes on my Waco are intentionally weak to prevent nose-over with the high CG. Who makes this crap up?
Click to expand...
I explained that to the A&P. He didn't agree. He believes the brakes must be strong enough to hold the aircraft at full power.

Never saw a requirement like that.
 
Tom-D said:
I explained that to the A&P. He didn't agree. He believes the brakes must be strong enough to hold the aircraft at full power.

Never saw a requirement like that.
Click to expand...
That's ridiculous. Tell him to provide the reference.

With full tanks, I don't believe you could hold the tail down with full power on my Waco......if you could hold the brakes, which fortunately you can't. My 337 for the wheels/brakes actually states that they are intentionally weak so as to not hold against full power.

Did they damage the aircraft other than the brakes?
 
Remove a/c by any legal means possible, get TD to fix it enough to ferry it outta there.
Chalk it up to lessons learned.
Hopefully the battle over unpaid a+p bill vs a/c damage will be short-lived.
 
Fearless Tower said:
That's ridiculous. Tell him to provide the reference.

With full tanks, I don't believe you could hold the tail down with full power on my Waco......if you could hold the brakes, which fortunately you can't. My 337 for the wheels/brakes actually states that they are intentionally weak so as to not hold against full power.

Did they damage the aircraft other than the brakes?
Click to expand...
No. and fortunately it is in its own hangar.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Remove a/c by any legal means possible, get TD to fix it enough to ferry it outta there.
Chalk it up to lessons learned.
Hopefully the battle over unpaid a+p bill vs a/c damage will be short-lived.
Click to expand...
it is in its own hangar. the mechanic is locked out and the owner has the maintenance records.
 
When you A&P work on strange little aircraft remember this, I know one A&P that got revoked for this

65.81 General privileges and limitations.
(a) A certificated mechanic may perform or supervise the maintenance, preventive maintenance or alteration of an aircraft or appliance, or a part thereof, for which he is rated (but excluding major repairs to, and major alterations of, propellers, and any repair to, or alteration of, instruments), and may perform additional duties in accordance with §§65.85, 65.87, and 65.95. However, he may not supervise the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration of, or approve and return to service, any aircraft or appliance, or part thereof, for which he is rated unless he has satisfactorily performed the work concerned at an earlier date. If he has not so performed that work at an earlier date, he may show his ability to do it by performing it to the satisfaction of the Administrator or under the direct supervision of a certificated and appropriately rated mechanic, or a certificated repairman, who has had previous experience in the specific operation concerned.

(b) A certificated mechanic may not exercise the privileges of his certificate and rating unless he understands the current instructions of the manufacturer, and the maintenance manuals, for the specific operation concerned.
 
Here is the other biggy he isn't in compliance with, ever see a Hayes brake manual? or a Fairchild maintenance manual, they do have them but not many A&Ps will have them. I'll wager this one don't

43.13 Performance rules (general).
(a) Each person performing maintenance, alteration, or preventive maintenance on an aircraft, engine, propeller, or appliance shall use the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the current manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness prepared by its manufacturer, or other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator, except as noted in §43.16. He shall use the tools, equipment, and test apparatus necessary to assure completion of the work in accordance with accepted industry practices. If special equipment or test apparatus is recommended by the manufacturer involved, he must use that equipment or apparatus or its equivalent acceptable to the Administrator.
 
i would tell the mechanic to pound sand, not pay him one cent. let him know that if he *******, that the above info on far violations will be forwarded to the FSDO. you are spot on about the feds pulling tickets for doing work with out the proper manuals. then get you to fix it and do the annual.

bob
 
unsafervguy said:
i would tell the mechanic to pound sand, not pay him one cent. let him know that if he *******, that the above info on far violations will be forwarded to the FSDO. you are spot on about the feds pulling tickets for doing work with out the proper manuals. then get you to fix it and do the annual.

bob
Click to expand...
With any luck it will be coming up soon to get re-covered. This is one case where like many others who own antiques the owner knows more about their aircraft than most A&P-IAs.

You must understand, getting FSDO involved there are things that must be proven. much of what happened is a who said what and when.
doesn't get you much.
 
Last edited:
Just have the guy write up the annual, have someone else fix he brakes. I'm not sure how hard he stood on them, or what you mean by "extream", could be he man handled and broke the plane, could be the brakes were long in the tooth to start with, ether way he was NOT authorized to run the aircraft, he did, it broke, pay up.

As far as him doing a run up without authorization, I'd bill the AP for all damages from his unauthorized operations of the aircraft.
 
What are you going to have him log for work performed and discrepancies reported to the owner?
 

Attachments

  • Brake assembly.jpg
    Brake assembly.jpg
    77 KB · Views: 35
MauleSkinner said:
What are you going to have him log for work performed and discrepancies reported to the owner?
Click to expand...
he will give us a list IAW 43- I do not know what will be on the list.
 
James331 said:
Just have the guy write up the annual, have someone else fix he brakes. I'm not sure how hard he stood on them, or what you mean by "extream", could be he man handled and broke the plane, could be the brakes were long in the tooth to start with, ether way he was NOT authorized to run the aircraft, he did, it broke, pay up.

As far as him doing a run up without authorization, I'd bill the AP for all damages from his unauthorized operations of the aircraft.
Click to expand...
OBTW these brakes were working perfectly prior to the A&P doing his thing.
 
Tom-D said:
1937 mechanical brakes were never designed for extreme anything. it's a 1/16"the cable, stand on them and the cable stretches, and does not allow the bird to go up on its nose.
Click to expand...
We only install pre-stretched cables, or we perform pre-stretching when proof loading. 1/16" cables have a pre-stretch/proof load of 288 +25 -0 lbs.
 
GlennAB1 said:
We only install pre-stretched cables, or we perform pre-stretching when proof loading. 1/16" cables have a pre-stretch/proof load of 288 +25 -0 lbs.
Click to expand...
I do too, we preload at assembly and test, the design is to over load the cable and remove the force applied to the shoes prior to the aircraft nosing over.
This A&P overloaded the cables and now the brakes don't work. The A&P did not understand that you can't stand on these with out over loading the cables, mechanical advantage will enable the pilot to do that.

I will guide the owner thru replacements if necessary.
 
I have no idea what that guy did, but if I laid into any brake, not saying jumping up and down on it or anything crazy, but just put a little force on the brakes to check my static RPM for some reason, or some such, and it failed, that would be unacceptable to me.

The concept of the brakes failing before a nose over sounds off, especially in a taildragger, it doesn't take too much to brake a taildragger onto it nose (well it does take a huge lack of skill), the idea that the brakes will break before that sounds flawed.


Also a lot can happen in 100hrs of flight time.

---------

Ether way... Doesn't change the fact that this AP WAS NOT AUTHORIZED to preform the run up, during his unauthorized run up something was damaged, everything else is irrelevant! He did something he wasn't cleared to do, stuff broke during the unauthorized event, it's his azz that needs to pay up.

Gotta be tuff if you're going to be stupid, or in this case gotta pay up.
 
Last edited:
James331 said:
I have no idea what that guy did, but if I laid into any brake, not saying jumping up and down on it or anything crazy, but just put a little force on the brakes to check my static RPM for some reason, or some such, and it failed, that would be unacceptable to me.

The concept of the brakes failing before a nose over sounds off, especially in a taildragger, it doesn't take too much to brake a taildragger onto it nose (well it does take a huge lack of skill), the idea that the brakes will break before that sounds flawed.


Also a lot can happen in 100hrs of flight time.

---------

Ether way... Doesn't change the fact that this AP WAS NOT AUTHORIZED to preform the run up, during his unauthorized run up something was damaged, everything else is irrelevant! He did something he wasn't cleared to do, stuff broke during the unauthorized event, it's his azz that needs to pay up.

Gotta be tuff if you're going to be stupid, or in this case gotta pay up.
Click to expand...
You can place enough pressure on these mechanical brakes to properly operate the aircraft, but you can over do it too. They will hold for a mag check, but they won't hold at full power, (they will creep). That is why the owner required he do the out of inspection run up, to insure chocks were used, and the aircraft would not be nosed up.
One more time we learn when you don't know what you are doing you shouldn't do it.
 
How on earth would you nose over the plane on a runup? That would almost take a deliberate action.


7AC I learned to fly in also had manual brakes, they would creep on a short field takeoff, but if one broke, that would be unacceptable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top