Yearly Inspection

[Jabiru7252]

First up, forgive me if this has already been thrashed out somewhere. You do a yearly inspection. In a years time the yearly inspection is due again, however, you have only flown (say) 10 hours. What do YOU do? The entire inspection again, just a cursory check, completely ignore it or what? 

[Blueadventures]

The manufactures annual for airframe and engine.

[M61A1]

16 minutes ago, Jabiru7252 said:

First up, forgive me if this has already been thrashed out somewhere. You do a yearly inspection. In a years time the yearly inspection is due again, however, you have only flown (say) 10 hours. What do YOU do? The entire inspection again, just a cursory check, completely ignore it or what? 

If you've only flown a few hours it probably needs a thorough inspection anyway.

The less it's flown, generally the more there is that is likely to be wrong with it.

The bare minimum is that which is spelled out in the engine and airframe manual. Generally be more thorough if you value your life.

[Jabiru7252]

So, if you just cleaned and gapped the plugs and inspected the flywheel bolts, checked the frammin and widgets you'd do it all again, even after a few flying hours? That's insane.

 

[RFguy]

M61A1 said : "The less it's flown, generally the more there is that is likely to be wrong with it."

 

WTF really ?

 

in my opinion : 

 

There is no logic to that statement . .

That is a gross over simplification and generalization.

Almost the complete OPPOSITE.  

[onetrack]

Nope, I have to agree with M61A1. Machines deteriorate just as quickly, sitting around, than they do being operated. Corrosion sets in rapidly when oiled surfaces are left unattended, with the oil coating draining off them.

 

Insects and rodents are notorious for finding homes in unattended machines. I have a locked 20' sea container for storage. I recently found rat chew marks on a cardboard box containing parts.

How does a rat get into a locked sea container?? They find ways to do it. Mud dauber wasps are well known for their work, they can install a nest in hours in an unattended machine.

 

Hoses and rubber parts deteriorate just with time and UV light - and it doesn't have to be direct, bright sunlight. UV light is easily reflected, as anyone knows who has installed trimdek roof sheeting on a roof on a moderately sunny day - when they end up being sunburnt from the reflection from the sheeting.

 

Coolant and metals (if you're running a liquid-cooled engine) are in continuous chemical imbalance, and coolant and engine corrosion doesn't stop, when you kill the engine. It continues, day and night, regardless of whether the engine is running.

Corrosion also starts on exposed cables and hose clamps and bolts and a hundred other metal parts, when they just sit. The corrosion comes from moisture and humidity changes from day to night, and from industrial pollutants in the air that come to rest on those parts. Even plain dust carries reactive chemical compounds such as iron oxides from laterites, that settle on parts, and which then gather and hold moisture.

Edited November 14, 2020 by onetrack

[Jabiru7252]

I'm not saying the plane has sat dormant and locked away for a year so wasps and demons etc. can invade the plane. I am simply asking if something that was done 5 flying hours ago should be redone. hells bells, it's not rocket science.

[Blueadventures]

Perhaps best to direct the question to RAA tech or Jabiru for their answer.

 

my understanding is that I fly under RAA and maintain my aircraft in accordance with my maintenance privileges to the manufactures instruction manual eg the airframe, engine, propellor etc and record such in the logbook.  I do the work I can and any other is performed by an experienced person when required.

 

anyone who does not do the scheduled service on time or before the next flight including recording correctly and is involved in an incident that requires viewing the maintenance records and they find it not done correctly adds to the tightening and increase in rules and additional requirements for all of us. Hope this helps your question.

[M61A1]

1 hour ago, Jabiru7252 said:

I'm not saying the plane has sat dormant and locked away for a year so wasps and demons etc. can invade the plane. I am simply asking if something that was done 5 flying hours ago should be redone. hells bells, it's not rocket science.

Well, If it's your aircraft, do what you like. Just make sure you document that.

You might get away with skipping torque checks (not with a wood prop), but checking and lubricating hinges and pivots, general deterioration and oil changes need close inspection if they've not had much use. There is nothing worse for a machine than infrequent use.

You might also notice that oil/engine manufacturers will specify so many hours or months. Oil oxidises and loses some of it's properties.

Edited November 14, 2020 by M61A1

[RFguy]

OneTrack ansd M61A . yes, sure there are caveats to engines being left around to rot.

 

But that is a generalization and a assumption.. 

 

IMO you shouldn't generalize without caveats.

 

Depends on the audience I guess to who you are providing advice to. I would expect RAAs advice to be for the LCD....

 

Anyway....... :-)

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Don't know why this is such a hot debate - if the book says do an annual DO AN ANNUAL!

 

I enjoy meeting /exceeding the maintenance requirements, I guess there are others at the opposite end of the bell curve - to them I say, if you never take a passenger or fly over built up areas (do not put other's at risk) dont bother maintaining your aircraft, if that's how you feel.

[onetrack]

There's simply a big difference between 5 actual flying hours, and the 8,760 actual hours that pass in a year, sitting around. That's a lot of elapsed time for the inevitable decaying actions of Nature, to occur.

[facthunter]

The system it's wisdom creates the concept of Annual or 100 hours which ever comes first There's also SHELF life. limits where it's  (the part) not even out of the Box. . You might boroscope an engine that's sat for months but you wouldn't if the plane flew twice a week. Bit of common sense required. Non operated engines unless inhibited become a high risk thing . You shouldn't operate a new engine till you are ready to put it in service. Combustion produces the harmful things that cause the corrosion. Some inhibiting processes have to be rejuvenated after a specified time..even with a new  engine that's not been run.. Nev

Edited November 15, 2020 by facthunter

[Yenn]

I work on CASA recommendations from their "Maintenance Guide for Operators. I know CASA have a poor reputation, but what they recommend is just basic commmon sense.

[APenNameAndThatA]

8 hours ago, RFguy said:

OneTrack ansd M61A . yes, sure there are caveats to engines being left around to rot.

 

But that is a generalization and a assumption.. 

 

IMO you shouldn't generalize without caveats.

 

Depends on the audience I guess to who you are providing advice to. I would expect RAAs advice to be for the LCD....

 

Anyway....... 🙂

 

 

Five hour flying time per year IS leaving something around to rot.

[RFguy]

The yearly is pretty simple. If there isn't problems found , there will be little to do. 

[Jabiru7252]

Still haven't got an answer to my question....

 

[Jim188]

6 hours ago, Jabiru7252 said:

Still haven't got an answer to my question....

 

Here is the the answer to your question, Yes, as an aircraft owner you have to get the annual inspection done every year even if the plane has flown no hours. Also if you fly 100 hours before the year is up, you need to do another annual type inspection to get another 100 hours or to have another 12 months from that date of the last inspection. These are the normal maintenance rules.

 

Not to be rude, but if you don't understand the reasons behind what people are trying to saying and you own an RAAus plane. It would best that you don't do any type of maintenance without having an experience LAME, L3 or L2 with you until you gain a much better understand of why we do the maintenance and the system used to do it.   

Edited November 15, 2020 by Jim188

[turboplanner]

7 hours ago, Jabiru7252 said:

Still haven't got an answer to my question....

 

Well you did get an answer; I'll add to it. After sitting for perhaps thousands of hours, gravity will have pushed all the lubricants as far down as they can get without reaching a solid non-permeable surface.

So for those and the earlier reasons mentioned you do the whole yearly inspection again.

In Aircraft cost of ownership there are two wear/deterioration costs, Operating, and Standing.

In this case with 10 hours operating and 8760 hours standing, running costs will be negligible, but standing costs will be high. (So not all bad in terms of annual budget)

Ownership cost (interest lost on the money invested to buy the aircraft) will also be vey high per hour flown.

 

 

 

[facthunter]

Perhaps omitting "Demons etc" might have given your enquiry more  legitimacy. ? Nev

[graham brown]

I have shares in 3 aircraft and do the annuals on them every year. One is old, one is not as old and one is relatively new. They are all not flown over 100 hours a year. I do all the standard base things, lubes, ad’s, inspection etc on all of them. Then I go to where I know I have not been for a while to make sure nothing is wrong or can be made better. After a few years your aircraft are in good condition and you have confidence in them. Doing minimal annual inspection will lead to degradation of the aircraft and you will have to play catch up which will be expensive or worse.