Unfortunate Surprise Finding 39 Year Old Secret in Aircraft Logs - Grumman Style

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 29 окт 2024

Комментарии • 23

  • @chrisharmozi4527
    @chrisharmozi4527 2 года назад +1

    Your videos are really nice.👍 Subscribed you just now🙂

    • @GrummanPilots
      @GrummanPilots  2 года назад

      So glad you like them, thanks for subscribing and watching.

  • @superinfinity8312
    @superinfinity8312 2 года назад +5

    Always admire your skill and knowledge. But for the life of me I can’t think of a reason an owner would be happy you found this problem

    • @GrummanPilots
      @GrummanPilots  2 года назад +4

      I am sure this will hurt the bottom line, but now airworthy and legal to fly. I feel funny saying this, but it flew just fine for 39 years.

    • @Brianflys
      @Brianflys Год назад

      This is an absolutely ridiculous and money sucking event. That wing panel looked fine and worked for 39 years! And there was no indication there was any problem with it. In this case the Grumman "expert" A&P mechanic goes completely overboard. The panel looked fine. Why dig thru the logbook to create problems from a 39 yo repair. Move on. Makes me hesitant to go to these "experts".

  • @jameskeane798
    @jameskeane798 2 года назад +3

    This part has a 12,000 hr max life. Was there ANY indication there was an issue with the wing panel? Is there ANY aircraft, even from the first generation Tiger's, that has 12,000 hrs on it at the date of install? I'm just wondering if this could have been more practically handled with paperwork, rather than the removal and re-install of an entire wing panel, the associated costs, and risks.

    • @GrummanPilots
      @GrummanPilots  2 года назад

      According to Trueflight, the TCDS holder for the line, without time on it, it has to be replaced with known timed part. Part worked well for 39 years, and no way to solve with paperwork. Called the original supplier of the part and no history on it.

    • @GrummanPilots
      @GrummanPilots  2 года назад

      Actually, only a few have made it to that number, mostly fish spotters on the coasts.

    • @jamespkeane
      @jamespkeane 2 года назад

      @@GrummanPilots Did you try submitting a FOIA for all 337's submitted on the type for the year the wing was installed, then use the max time on type as a starting point for the part. You could, conservatively, assume this was the oldest wing panel on the most flown Grumman Tiger at the time, and assign a time to toi. Even then, a replacement by the time would not be necessary...not even close. Any reasonable FSDO inspector would have easily accepted this argument, and at worse force a current 337 but with the true-up estimated time.

    • @GrummanPilots
      @GrummanPilots  2 года назад

      Sounds good on paper, no joy. We tried taking data from Fletchair's rental fleet, took max time as a start, and told no by the FAA. FYI, the org that loves to say NO.

    • @Richard-xe1it
      @Richard-xe1it 2 года назад

      @@GrummanPilots FAA motto. We ‘re not happy until you’re not happy. LOL

  • @greghavens7679
    @greghavens7679 2 года назад

    My father was an A&I and I used to help him a lot when I was growing up. He found some of the weirdest damn things when doing inspections and maintenance. Whenever he got a new client he would go through the aircraft inside and out to make sure there was no half-assed work done previously. He once found several large plates of lead bolted to a failing bulkhead in the tail of an aircraft. The weight of the lead, was probably over 100lbs., was tearing the aluminum alloy bulkhead apart. It would not have been long for this to tear loose and become a serious issue in flight. The owner claimed no knowledge of it

    • @GrummanPilots
      @GrummanPilots  2 года назад

      Basically what we do, and every once in a while, you find something.

    • @GrummanPilots
      @GrummanPilots  2 года назад

      Thanks for the story of the tail counterweight.

  • @rwsavory
    @rwsavory 2 года назад +1

    All part of the fun of owning what is essentially an antique airplane. Big lesson here: keep every piece of paper forever.

    • @GrummanPilots
      @GrummanPilots  2 года назад

      Well not every, old cc receipts for fuel would be better in a log of use. Keep what you need to document, add value to the plane. Funny that the GOPA flavored shop missed this a few years ago.

  • @arthurfoyt6727
    @arthurfoyt6727 2 года назад +1

    I know the center spar is "time limited" but I've never heard that an outboard panel had any limits.

    • @GrummanPilots
      @GrummanPilots  2 года назад

      Center spar 12,500 hours, wings 12,000 hours max. FYI, in the MM.

    • @arthurfoyt6727
      @arthurfoyt6727 2 года назад

      @@GrummanPilots Ah, Figure 2. You are correct (though your numbers are reversed from my MM).
      I sure wish AA hade simply tested longer and not given up after 12,000 hours. But hey, who keeps a plane over 45 years anyway ;-)

  • @Flatspinjim
    @Flatspinjim 9 месяцев назад

    Why would a panel be time limited? I can see the spar, but an panel? It's not highly stressed. I mean, that panel had been fine for 49 years and would certainly have outlived the spar. It's not as if it was going to catastrophically fail....ever....

    • @GrummanPilots
      @GrummanPilots  9 месяцев назад

      The panel has a section of spar in it and it is time limited. FAA is getting much tougher on paperwork than maintenance.

  • @yukon_wilderness
    @yukon_wilderness Год назад +1

    Goes to show how useless most annuals are. Far too many just seem like multi-thousand dollar rubber stamps.

    • @GrummanPilots
      @GrummanPilots  Год назад +2

      I agree, people feel safer spending money whether it was useful or not.