Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Maintenance Bay' started by SixPapaCharlie, Jul 9, 2019.
It came across like you were splitting hairs.
Tom. You were wrong. The gummy stuff is NOT fire retardant. It's not splitting hairs.
I went out of my way to show that you had a good point, but you were still wrong.
See you just want to argue,, grow up
A sign of immaturity is refusing to admit when you are wrong.
I went out and tried to prove my knowledge wrong, and posted the information for all to learn from. I admitted that you were right on one point. You simply wallow in your incorrect knowledge and pretend like you were right all along. Talk about hubris.
Primary ≠ fire protection.....
Yet to see anything you've posted that says "Brackett"
Sell it and buy the 182.
well SALTY, what i'm doing is NOT getting into a personal debate. I'm just saying I like Tom as an A&P and am not weighing in on the specific factual matter being discussed.
you kids can sort out your own fights
You won't find me saying I dislike Tom as an A&P. He knows far more than I do, and I've said that time and time again. That does not mean he is infallible.
I dislike the fact that he muddies the waters by not admitting when he's wrong and trying to pretend he meant something else, or withholds part of the information. I dislike it because it makes it very hard to tell what information in a thread is accurate and what isn't. It dilutes his contributions to this forum to the point where you can't trust what he posts IMO. This thread is a perfect example. He was wrong that the wetting agent was primarily for fire retardant, but he refuses to admit it. He consistently splits hairs to hide his errors and then accuses others of doing that when they try to bring clarity to the discussion. We all make errors. Only some of us refuse to admit it.
Not knowing the wetting agent is for improving the capture of particulates rather than fire suppression doesn't make him a bad A&P. Refusing to admit when he's wrong, well, that one would worry me a bit.
I think the warning is in the spray form. Flammable during spray and maybe while initially applied. Obviously still flammable later since it is an oil, but less so than when applying. And most warnings are b/c of lawyer games.
Post 68.... or do you simply read what you like to keep the argument going...
Yes, your next post after that was indeed only to keep the argument going. And I agree it was adolescent.
thank you for the explanation. I genuinely appreciate it.
Back in the day we oiled dirtbike filters with some pretty sticky stuff similar to chain and bar oil. For what its worth, I think you will find it very difficult to light with a match. In the application of normal operation, I doubt a simple backfire could ignite it. In that thought, I agree that the thick oil may help prevent ignition compared to dry foam or paper. On the other hand, once its hot enough it will certainly contribute to a fire.
It would be a good experiment.
Too be honest, tom and I are both stubborn SOBs and I’m being brutally honest here, I think often he just doesn’t see how he comes across in this media. In person, I bet we’d get along fine. I know I could learn a lot from him, but I’m going to question him. It’s how I learn. I’m not just going to accept everything he says. He might not be able to handle that, dunno. But on the forum, I find it incredibly frustrating to get good info from him that I feel I can trust.
Yup. When the solvents in the oil, which allow it to flow and stick to the filter, evaporate, you'll have a very hard time setting it on fire.
This is the first I am hearing of this interpretation, and as far as I can understand, it says exactly what your post says it does. I've probably attended or listened to at least 4 EAA or FAAST Team or local FSDO presentations on preventive maintenance, and don't ever recall this interpretation being discussed. Am I alone in this and do all the rest of you already know that the preventive maintenance list is only exemplary and not limiting? Also, is there any chance that there was a subsequent interpretation or AC that "corrected" this letter and restored the limitation to only the items on the preventive maintenance list?
As evidenced above by the Yamalube oil and the UNI oil, it is still done the same way.
It is not as difficult as you might think. These foam air filters were quite popular on muscle cars and the like (they may still be) back in the '90s because they were the cheapest thing you could buy. But they sat right on top of the carburetor and one good pop back through the carb due to poor tuning would light them on fire. I don't think it has as much to do with the oil on the filter as it does with it being foam, but I may not be correct on that one.
prove it....none of their literature says what you say.
Well, nothing you've posted pertains to the topic.
then why don't you stop the argument?
Do you find that post to be argumentative? I don't.
See,,,,, another post, Your actions, are very adolescent, most like a child who must have the last word every time.
Plus the fact that almost every one has noticed that you must go to the internet for your info, Never do you quote from your own knowledge.
This is nothing but 100% ad hominem attack. You’ve sunk about as low as you can at this point.
hit home or what?
Another indication of Adolescences, can't except criticism
Name calling is not criticism.
You know more than I do about aircraft mechanics. Pointing that out does not offend me one bit. At least I'm willing to expand my knowledge.
@Checkout_my_Six , the aerosols you posted contain propane, likely the propellant. The oils themselves, according to MSDS is only a slight hazard of flammability.
Now, I wouldn't have called them fire retardant, but they probably do protect the foam. If you put dry foam in place of an air filter, one, it would suck at filtering, two, if the engine did backfire it would probably melt the foam.
I've seen K&N recharge oil, other oil, chain saw lube, motorcycle chain lube, etc, etc. What does any of this discussion have to do with the goo on a Bracket filter or did I miss it?
Adolescents, isn't a name. = strike 2
Tom- give it rest. Let your stroke heal.
None. The stuff used by Brackett is, IIRC, some sort of thick silicone oil. It's water-resistant that way.
Dr's not certain it was a stroke, Second MRI didn't show what the first one did.
On again, off again.
Symptoms come and go.
OBTW, saying some show adolescents isn't like say they are an ______.
But are those filters oiled?
Best I remember, yes. Last time I looked at one was 20+ years ago.
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?
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.
I hope it wasn't a stroke. Nonetheless, getting upset because someone corrected you, or added to your answer, isn't helping the situation. Either own the mistake, expand on the correction or added information, or just let it go, and instead go out and catch some more fish. I wish you many more years and getting upset on this board is not the path to many more happy and productive years.