Reaming Valve Guildes As Preventative Maintenance

Ron Levy said:
You certainly can, but if you want anyone else to understand what you're talking about, you'll stick to the ones everyone else uses, which in this case, is the one in the regulations. Otherwise, nobody can understand what you're saying or what you're asking.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure most people here can understand what I was referring to, if not they have no business flying or chewing gum. They certainly don't need your nit picking about every phase people use on POA.

Preventive Maintenance is a phrase that goes far beyond FAA regs for god's sake. You really think the FAA invented the term and the practice? You think everything holy comes from the government. Pathetic really.

This is just a diversion from the facts of the thread and experimentals. You just can't stand the fact that experimentals are inspected to Part 43. :rolleyes:

Time for you to grab the government regs and head for the bathroom. What you do in there must be covered in the FARS somewhere. :rofl:
 
Last edited:
N801BH said:
Count me out...... Dumping stuff into a cylinder and then goiing "fishing" for it is asking for trouble...IMHO

I fix stuff the right way..... Dropping a valve into a cylinder that can kill you if other damage is done is beyond my risk level.......

And that is coming from a total idiot that built and flys a OVERPOWERED experimental....:redface:....:rofl:
Click to expand...


What's the risk? If you can't fish it out, you pull the jug. You're not going to damage the piston with a softer metal dropping 3 inches on to it.

But I understand where you're coming from.

Your exact argument was shared by a friend who was chicken to do it on his engine. His mechanic said he'd like to do it and they'd pull the jug together if it didn't work out. One rope trick later, the engine was fixed and no more sticky valve.

It had caused him on partial power takeoff and one partial power takeoff abort prior to doing it. Both of those were far more risky than the rope trick, obviously.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Reference for that?
Click to expand...

If you "cite" in your experimental log book that you used a specific "methodology" or followed a specific referenced inspection proceedure you must state that you "certify" that the inspection was completed using same.

Pretty simple really. :dunno:

How many times can you be wrong in one thread? You and Ron and tied at this point. Maybe you both should stop digging! :rofl::rofl::rofl:

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
Pretty sure most people here can understand what I was referring to, if not they have no business flying or chewing gum. They certainly don't need your nit picking about every phase people use on POA.

Preventive Maintenance is a phrase that goes far beyond FAA regs for god's sake. You really think the FAA invented the term and the practice? You think everything holy comes from the government. Pathetic really.

This is just a diversion from the facts of the thread and experimentals. You just can't stand the fact that experimentals are inspected to Part 43. :rolleyes:

Time for you to grab the government regs and head for the bathroom. What you do in there must be covered in the FARS somewhere. :rofl:
Click to expand...
Whatever. :bye:
 
Geico266 said:
If you "cite" in your experimental log book that you used a specific "methodology" or followed a specific referenced inspection proceedure you must state that you "certify" that the inspection was completed using same.

Pretty simple really. :dunno:

How many times can you be wrong in one thread? You and Ron and tied at this point. Maybe you both should stop digging! :rofl::rofl::rofl:

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You've got me and R&W agreeing on something, and you're take is we're both wrong? :sigh:
 
Geico266 said:
If you "cite" in your experimental log book that you used a specific "methodology" or followed a specific referenced inspection proceedure you must state that you "certify" that the inspection was completed using same.

Pretty simple really. :dunno:

How many times can you be wrong in one thread? You and Ron and tied at this point. Maybe you both should stop digging! :rofl::rofl::rofl:

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Nice twist Larry. However you made this statement:

Geico266 said:
You must certify under penalty of law that you completed the inspection per Appendix "D" Part 43. Any a Repairman or A&P understands the penalty.
Click to expand...

I am asking a simple question: Please show me the "law" you referred to that one must "certify" via sign off the inspection per Appendix "D" Part 43 ?
 
RotorAndWing said:
I am asking a simple question: Please show me the "law" you referred to that one must "certify" via sign off the inspection per Appendix "D" Part 43 ?
Click to expand...

Say in the process of building the plane I create a scope and detail inspection process for the plane. Would that have to be approved by the inspector doing the cert to be accepted as the reference to certify against rather Appendix D?
 
Henning said:
Say in the process of building the plane I create a scope and detail inspection process for the plane. Would that have to be approved by the inspector doing the cert to be accepted as the reference to certify against rather Appendix D?
Click to expand...


43.15 Additional performance rules for inspections.


(c) Annual and 100-hour inspections. (1) Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall use a checklist while performing the inspection. The checklist may be of the person's own design, one provided by the manufacturer of the equipment being inspected or one obtained from another source. This checklist must include the scope and detail of the items contained in appendix D to this part and paragraph (b) of this section.
Click to expand...
Now this is for certified aircraft as experimental are not covered by Part 43.

Note the next sentence says "must include the scope and detail of the items contained in appendix D". In other words, inspect the wings, fuselage, landing gear, etc.

I wouldn't see why you couldn't create your own inspection as long as it was equal to or exceeds appendix D. I had a friend of mine do 2 experimental helicopters (Enstrom and Hughes) and he used the factory 100 hour checklist (which exceeds appendix D) for the conditional inspection.

By this discussion am I to understand Van's doesn't publish an inspection guide (conditional inspection) for their airplanes?
 
So I'm good to assume that this list doesn't need an approval stamp?
 
Henning said:
So I'm good to assume that this list doesn't need an approval stamp?
Click to expand...

I don't think any inspections require an approval stamp. The entire operating limitations do and if you can show your inspection meets or exceeds appendix D (which is common sense) then it can be included.
 
RotorAndWing said:
I don't think any inspections require an approval stamp. The entire operating limitations do and if you can show your inspection meets or exceeds appendix D (which is common sense) then it can be included.
Click to expand...

Wrong again! :rofl::rofl:

Geez! How many times are you gonna be wrong in this thread? :dunno:

Since when does common sense apply with the FAA? You worked for them and you think they use common sense? :rofl:
 
Last edited:
RotorAndWing said:
Nice twist Larry. However you made this statement:



I am asking a simple question: Please show me the "law" you referred to that one must "certify" via sign off the inspection per Appendix "D" Part 43 ?
Click to expand...

Me show you? :rofl: I thought you and FAR Ron know everything there is to know?

What do you think the words "I hereby certify" means? Those words MUST be included in the statement written into the log book, and signed by an A&P or the Repairman. If you sign it and you did not do the inspection that is a violation. You can be fined, have your certificate pulled, etc. That would be the "under penalty of law" part. :rolleyes:

So what you are telling me is there is no penalty for signing the log book and not doing the inspection? Call any FSDO and ask them if there is no penalty for falsified inspection records on experimentals. :dunno: :rolleyes:

No wonder you don't work for the FAA anymore. :rofl:
 
Last edited:
This thread is about preventative maintenance, not who has the better grasp of FARS. Quite frankly , I don't give a flip about FARS, or those who come here spouting this rule or that FAR. It bores the hell out of me. I just want my plane to be safe.
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
What do you think the words "I hereby certify" means? Those words MUST be included in the statement written into the log book, and signed by an A&P or the Repairman. If you sign it and you did not do the inspection that is a violation. You can be fined, have your certificate pulled, etc. That would be the "under penalty of law" part. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Again, please show us which regulation states this. Please show us where it is required (by regulation) to make the statement "I hereby certify" in ANY signoff.

Geico266 said:
So what you are telling me is there is no penalty for signing the log book and not doing the inspection? Call any FSDO and ask them if there is no penalty for falsifying inspection records. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Please show me which post I made any such statement.


Geico266 said:
No wonder you don't work for the FAA anymore. :rofl:
Click to expand...

So Larry when, once again, when you demonstrate you don't have a clue as to what you are writing about you resort to mudslinging and false accusations. :nonod: :rolleyes2:
 
Geico266 said:
Me show you? :rofl: I thought you and FAR Ron know everything there is to know?
Click to expand...
The reason we want you to show it to us is we have never seen any such rule ourselves, and we are both pretty familiar with the regs. Since you seem to know one we don't, we'd appreciate it if you would point out the regulation we missed.
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
This thread is about preventative maintenance, not who has the better grasp of FARS.
Click to expand...
We grasp that. Your original question was about whether a non-mechanic owner/pilot could ream valve guildes [sic] as preventative maintenance, and the answer is "no". It is not "preventive maintenance" which a non-mechanic owner/pilot is authorized to do on his/her own. Then you pointed out that this was on an Experimental aircraft, and we noted that there is no such thing as "preventive maintenance" as that term is defined in the fegulations or the aviation industry on an Experimental aircraft. Your response was to say you had your own definition of that term, and so we were both wrong.

Now you are telling us there's a regulation which neither of us has ever seen which requires Experimental aircraft to have their annual condition inspection performed in accordance with Appendix D to Part 43, and that section must be cited in the inspection sign-off. We asked for a regulatory citation which says that, and your response is to complain that this isn't about the regulations.

I give up.

Next time you ask a question, how about letting everyone know when you're inventing your own definitions of terms defined by the regulations and provide those definitions so we can answer your question in your own language rather than that of the aviation industry and the government agency which regulates it? Thank you.

As to your original question about whether you can ream the valve guides as preventive maintenance using your personal definition of the term "preventive maintenance," the answer would be "Nobody but you can answer your question since nobody but you knows if you have the knowledge and skill to perform that task."

-30-
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
The reason we want you to show it to us is we have never seen any such rule ourselves, and we are both pretty familiar with the regs. Since you seem to know one we don't, we'd appreciate it if you would point out the regulation we missed.
Click to expand...

You called what I was trying to share "total gibberish".

I tried to be nice about it, and not GLOAT about being right, but you and RW are too dumb to take the hint. Go back and re-read my posts. I have told you everything you need to know.

If you need any more info, I'm not your boy. Educate yourself about experimentals.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
We grasp that. Your original question was about whether a non-mechanic owner/pilot could ream valve guildes [sic] as preventative maintenance, and the answer is "no". It is not "preventive maintenance" which a non-mechanic owner/pilot is authorized to do on his/her own. Then you pointed out that this was on an Experimental aircraft, and we noted that there is no such thing as "preventive maintenance" as that term is defined in the fegulations or the aviation industry on an Experimental aircraft. Your response was to say you had your own definition of that term, and so we were both wrong.

Now you are telling us there's a regulation which neither of us has ever seen which requires Experimental aircraft to have their annual condition inspection performed in accordance with Appendix D to Part 43, and that section must be cited in the inspection sign-off. We asked for a regulatory citation which says that, and your response is to complain that this isn't about the regulations.

I give up.

Next time you ask a question, how about letting everyone know when you're inventing your own definitions of terms defined by the regulations and provide those definitions so we can answer your question in your own language rather than that of the aviation industry and the government agency which regulates it? Thank you.

As to your original question about whether you can ream the valve guides as preventive maintenance using your personal definition of the term "preventive maintenance," the answer would be "Nobody but you can answer your question since nobody but you knows if you have the knowledge and skill to perform that task."

-30-
Click to expand...

Complete and total gibberish. :rolleyes:
 
Ron Levy said:
We grasp that. Your original question was about whether a non-mechanic owner/pilot could ream valve guildes [sic] as preventative maintenance, and the answer is "no". It is not "preventive maintenance" which a non-mechanic owner/pilot is authorized to do on his/her own. Then you pointed out that this was on an Experimental aircraft, and we noted that there is no such thing as "preventive maintenance" as that term is defined in the fegulations or the aviation industry on an Experimental aircraft. Your response was to say you had your own definition of that term, and so we were both wrong.

Now you are telling us there's a regulation which neither of us has ever seen which requires Experimental aircraft to have their annual condition inspection performed in accordance with Appendix D to Part 43, and that section must be cited in the inspection sign-off. We asked for a regulatory citation which says that, and your response is to complain that this isn't about the regulations.

I give up.

Next time you ask a question, how about letting everyone know when you're inventing your own definitions of terms defined by the regulations and provide those definitions so we can answer your question in your own language rather than that of the aviation industry and the government agency which regulates it? Thank you.

As to your original question about whether you can ream the valve guides as preventive maintenance using your personal definition of the term "preventive maintenance," the answer would be "Nobody but you can answer your question since nobody but you knows if you have the knowledge and skill to perform that task."

-30-
Click to expand...

What Larry is referring to, is extremely common, and is located in the experimental's faa issued operating limitations.

This is straight from my Flybaby operating limitations
Y5WNjsf.png


That seems to make it quite clear, that if you want my Flybaby to be airworthy, you must do the inspection as per Part 43 Appendix D.

Before you buy or fly an Experimental you learn your operation limitations inside and out. They vary and until you read it you really have no idea what can legally be done with that airplane.
 
Last edited:
jesse said:
What Larry is referring to, is extremely common, and is located in the experimental's faa issued operating limitations.

This is straight from my Flybaby operating limitations
Y5WNjsf.png


That seems to make it quite clear, that if you want my Flybaby to be airworthy, you must do the inspection as per Part 43 Appendix D.

Before you buy or fly an Experimental you learn your operation limitations inside and out. They vary and until you read it you really have no idea what can legally be done with that airplane.
Click to expand...

Thanks Jesse! :no: :rofl: I was so looking forward to watching Ron & RW continue to make FAR fools of themselves. :rofl:
 
jesse said:
What Larry is referring to, is extremely common, and is located in the experimental's faa issued operating limitations.

This is straight from my Flybaby operating limitations
Y5WNjsf.png


That seems to make it quite clear, that if you want my Flybaby to be airworthy, you must do the inspection as per Part 43 Appendix D.

Before you buy or fly an Experimental you learn your operation limitations inside and out. They vary and until you read it you really have no idea what can legally be done with that airplane.
Click to expand...


The way I read that, I could write, "I have inspected Aircraft Nxxx on Date ____ in accordance with it's Operating Limitations and find it's condition safe for continued operations." And be perfectly in compliance.
 
Henning said:
The way I read that, I could write, "I have inspected Aircraft Nxxx on Date ____ in accordance with it's Operating Limitations and find it's condition safe for continued operations." And be perfectly in compliance.
Click to expand...

Probably so, but doesn't change the fact that it has to be done per 43 appendix d.
 
jesse said:
Probably so, but doesn't change the fact that it has to be done per 43 appendix d.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is where you can find the scope and detail acceptable to the administrator. It's kind of a little technical glitch in semantics where the issue is. While 43-d details the acceptable standard, it does not apply to the aircraft, so you don't technically certify it to the rule, just the standard contained in it. Makes for a dumb argument in technicality, but the fact remains that 43-d is not the only acceptable place to find a standard, and anything that meets the requirements can be used as the reference. They only gave 43-d as an example. You could write your own list and reference that.
 
Henning said:
Yes, that is where you can find the scope and detail acceptable to the administrator. It's kind of a little technical glitch in semantics where the issue is. While 43-d details the acceptable standard, it does not apply to the aircraft, so you don't technically certify it to the rule, just the standard contained in it. Makes for a dumb argument in technicality, but the fact remains that 43-d is not the only acceptable place to find a standard, and anything that meets the requirements can be used as the reference. They only gave 43-d as an example. You could write your own list and reference that.
Click to expand...

I think you're going to have a hard time meeting 8 unless you can prove it was done according to 43-d. 1st sentence, paragraph 8, is pretty damn clear.
 
jesse said:
I think you're going to have a hard time meeting 8 unless you can prove it was done according to 43-d. 1st sentence, paragraph 8, is pretty damn clear.
Click to expand...

Yes, meets the scope and detail of, not meets the rule. It's a stupid argument really that serves no purpose or clarification. The biggest part of the argument was that it "Must Meet 43-D", it does not. As long as you have a document in similar scope and detail, you may use that as the reference standard on your sign off. The FAA used 43-D as their example/approved sample because they already had it written, not to exclude another document of similar nature.

This is Experimental Aviation, the FAA purposely keeps an arm's length from dictating anything, instead they typically will 'recommend' things. It's a liability issue as much as anything else.

You CAN use 43-D reference if you don't want to develop something for yourself which you are also free to do.
 
Last edited:
RotorAndWing said:
Right........:nonod::rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

See post #62. I tried to nice, to be non confrontational, to be informative without being a "know it all" , but you and Ron couldn't help yourself and "you could see the stars, but still not see the light." :rofl:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top