AircraftOwner Online

The FAA is now considering new rules for regional airline pilots in regards to training as well as duty time. Duty time is something we do not think about very often in our bug smashers but we should.

I flew an IFR flight the other day which only lasted three hours. However, I was at the hangar preparing the flight plan, doing some minor maintenance, and cleaning things up for about six hours before takeoff. The result was doing a hard, night, IFR approach to an unfamiliar airport after being “on duty” for about nine hours.

No one was watching my “duty time” nor had I paid much attention but I was sure glad there was someone else with me to drive the three hours from the airport to our final destination.

There are multiple studies which show that fatigue affects performance and increases accident rates. Fatigue is difficult to measure and there are multiple variables which add to its effects such as hunger, thirst, stress, pain (e.g. that low back ache), or distractions. Unfortunately, the National Transportation Safety Board does not worry too much about small plane accidents and takes the easy way out attributing fatal accidents to the generalized “pilot error” cache. But how many of those accidents might be related to fatigue. We will never know without cockpit and data recorders.

We need to be self vigilant and monitor our own “duty time.” Are we fit to fly and by extension, will we be fit to land at the end of our flight?

The problem is accentuated by the demographics of the pilot population. We all are getting older. One of the most common problems brought to the attention of physicians by “older” patients is sleep disturbances. Sleep disturbances create fatigue and somnolence which is accentuated by advancing age.

Naps are good—just not while you are flying by yourself. In fact, sharing flying duties is a great way to reduce the effects of fatigue. Also, being more cognizant of scheduling is important. Do you really need to fly home after an exhausting all day meeting? Waiting till the next morning might may all the difference in the world.

What about drugs to help with getting to sleep, staying asleep, or to adjust sleep cycles to times zones? In a word, very simply, NO!

There are many problems with sleep medications whether they are over the counter (OTC) or prescription. First and foremost, they all are addicting. If you use any sleep medication for three days in a row whether it is Benadryl® OTC or prescription Ambien®, you will not sleep the next night. (Many pharmaceutical companies are allowed to say their medication is not “addicting” by FAA standards, however, that is only because insomnia is not a “withdrawal” symptom.)

More importantly, the metabolic breakdown products of these medications will affect daytime performance and wakefulness. Chemical metabolites also accumulate with chronic use and can cause other symptoms such as irritability and depression.

High carbohydrate meals will also accentuate fatigue. Generally, the carbohydrate load will increase wakefulness as blood sugar rises but this is short lived as fatigue returns with the rapid decrease in blood sugar that is associated with the insulin response. This rapid fall in blood sugar can be mitigated by making sure the preflight meal has significant protein content.

Dehydration increases fatigue as well as other problems. Drinking fluids on long flights, particularly at higher altitudes and pressurized environments, is very important for a variety of reasons. If you are worried about having to urinate in the aircraft, grab some “TravelJohns”. They are inexpensive, single use urinals which turn the urine into gel preventing spills and ensuring order.

The bottom line is that we all should be acting as our own dispatchers. We need to take into account all our physiologic factors when preparing for and making flight decisions.

Is My Fuel Certified?

FAA does not certify aviation fuel, but the agency has a role: FAA certifies use of the fuel in engines and aircraft. Specifically, FAA’s Aircraft Certification Service administers safety regulations for type certification of engines and aircraft. As part of the type certification, standard specifications control the fuel(s) used to show compliance to the regulations. For certificated engines and aircraft, FAA considers the fuel specification an operational limitation. Steve Thompson’s Airworthiness 101 article in the May/June issue of the FAA Aviation News explained the type certification process and described the type certificate data sheet (TCDS). The TCDS, engine installation manual, aircraft flight manual, and aircraft placards all list approved fuels. It is the responsibility of aircraft operators to use only those fuels.

Like many other countries, the United States uses ASTM International (www.astm.org) specifications for aviation fuel. ASTM International is a consensus standards organization comprised of producers, users, and general interest groups that develop, issue, and maintain these fuel specifications and test methods.

Why Are Aviation Fuels Different?

The first aircraft used spark ignition piston engines burning the automotive gasoline that was available at

the time. Over the years, as aircraft engine designs evolved to produce more power with less weight, fuels evolved with them. Operational and research experience in the early part of the 20th century identified fuel parameters that affect engine and aircraft performance, such as density, energy content, vapor pressure, and knock performance. The first fuel specifications captured this experience and ensured more consistent performance. The industry developed the octane scale that indicates how resistant the fuel is to premature detonation, or knock, in the engine. Octane is the factor most associated with engine power and it became the fuel grade.

What Drives Availability of Fuels?

Demand. In the 1930s and 1940s, the military was a primary user of aviation gasoline. The large radial engines used in military aircraft at the time drove the introduction of fuel grades with higher octane. With the introduction of turbine engines in the 1950s, the military and commercial airline focus shifted to jet fuel. Consequently, the need for many of the grades of aviation gasoline decreased. Today, there are only four grades (80, 91, 100LL, and 100) listed in ASTM International Standard Specification D910. Market forces determine the grades produced. The predominant U.S. commercial aviation fuel for reciprocating engines is 100LL avgas.

Cost. Aviation fuel use and production is a fraction of the use and production of diesel, home heating, and automotive fuels, which affects the availability and cost of aviation fuels. For example, 100LL avgas represents fewer than 0.5 percent of the total gasoline produced in the United States and, because of its lead content, 100LL is produced, delivered, and stored separately from its unleaded automotive gasoline counterpart. This contributes to the higher cost of avgas compared with automotive gasoline.

Environmental Concerns. The primary environmental concern for avgas is lead emissions. Though tetraethyl lead (TEL) has not been in automotive gasoline since the late 1970s, it remains an additive in aviation gasoline to boost octane for safety reasons. Introducing grade 100LL did reduce the added TEL amount, but FAA and industry have searched for an unleaded replacement for many years. So far, no one has found a “drop-in replacement fuel” that will cover all applications in the existing fleet. For example, though ethanol has been proposed, it is not a “drop-in.” Among other issues, engine and aircraft performance tests have shown significantly reduced aircraft range that may not be acceptable for all operations.

Introducing New Fuels

In the United States, the path to introducing a new fuel goes through ASTM International, the engine and aircraft type design holders, and FAA. Introducing a new fuel requires testing of fuel properties, components, engines, and aircraft and a thorough technical and safety review of any issues.

Approaches to introduce new fuels include:

- Existing standard specification. An example of this approach is adding different grades of avgas to ASTM International Standard Specification D910. The grades in D910 differ only in the tetraethyl lead quantity added to produce the needed octane and the dye used to differentiate among the grades. Historically, higher octane grades allowed for higher-power engines. Once fuels are included in the specification, those seeking design approval for engines and aircraft can use those fuels to show compliance with certification regulations.

- New fuel specification to replace an existing fuel. This approach introduced Grade 82UL aviation gasoline. The 82UL standard specification provides an aviation quality gasoline using available gasoline stocks that can be used in engines and aircraft with an autogas Supplemental Type Certificate (STC). FAA issued Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) CE-00-19 (http://rgl.faa.gov/) to communicate approval of 82UL as an alternative fuel for certain automotive gasoline STCs.

- New fuel specification for a new fuel. In the early 20th century, this approach produced the first specifications for aviation gasoline and then later for jet fuel. Currently, ASTM is working to introduce new unleaded avgas specifications keeping D910 as the leaded avgas specification. Once the new specification is approved and released, those seeking design approval for engines and aircraft can use fuel that meets this specification to show compliance with certification regulations.

- Hybrid approach. This approach is currently the path used for alternate jet fuels, allowing the introduction of new synthetic turbine fuels. A new specification will list the performance properties of new fuels as blended with Jet A/A-1 and allow designation of the blend as a D1655 fuel. Each new fuel would be a blend component with detailed requirements listed in individual annexes to the main specification. This approach will allow control of parameters unique to the new fuel and separate from Jet A/A-1.

What’s the Future for Aviation Fuels?

While we cannot predict the future for aviation fuels, FAA is an active participant with the industry as this future unfolds. Here’s how.

Research. The Aviation Fuel and Engine Test Facility (AFETF) at the FAA Technical Center in Atlantic City, New Jersey, has conducted research on aviation gasoline for many years. The Center has performed full-scale engine testing and laboratory analyses to evaluate:

- The interaction of advanced fuel chemical components and additives with existing fuels and with each other

- The performance and properties of alternative and experimental fuels, such as ethanol and biofuels

- The octane performance of unleaded avgas

Standard Specifications. As the primary aviation fuel standards organization in the U.S., ASTM International has been active in the aviation fuel arena. Currently, task forces are working on:

- Developing new standard specifications for unleaded avgas

- Introducing 87 and 91 grades into the 82UL standard specification (D6227)

- Developing an aviation grade ethanol standard specification

- Introducing synthetic turbine fuels into D1655

- Preparing for the future introduction of bio-derived jet fuels

Avgas Lead Emissions. FAA’s Office of Environment and Energy is working closely with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to evaluate the impact of lead emissions from aircraft engines on the environment. EPA recently issued a new standard for lead emissions in the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This new standard will require a coordinated response from the aviation industry. FAA is already working with groups, such as the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), the Coordinating Research Council (CRC), and ASTM International to address future fuels for the reciprocating engine fleet.

While we cannot predict the future for aviation fuels, we can be certain that market forces, environmental concerns, and availability issues will drive changes. We can also be certain that FAA will be an active participant in meeting the challenges ahead.

Mark S. Orr is an aviation safety engineer in the FAA Small Airplane Directorate’s Programs and Procedures Branch. Dave Atwood from the Aviation Fuel and Engine Test Facility (AFETF) at the FAA Technical Center in Atlantic City, New Jersey, and Mark Rumizen from the FAA Engine and Propeller Directorate contributed to this article.

I’m talking about access panels—those nondescript and unassuming little doors that hide the working parts of your airplane. These include the round, oblong, or square access panels that mechanics use to peek, poke, and prod inside an airplane during maintenance. On general aviation airplanes, sheet metal or machine screws typically hold these panels in place. Snap latches, such as the flush Hartwell-type latch, often secure the engine-access panels. On larger aircraft, the panels may be held in place by quick disconnect fasteners or other specialized types of hardware, such as Dzus or camlock fasteners.

A Proper Preflight…

What’s the big deal with access panels? One issue is ensuring their security. Pilots routinely open certain access panels during the preflight inspection to check important systems on the airplane. A typical access panel used by pilots is one designed for checking and servicing engine systems. For example, access panels must be opened in order to check the oil level or drain the gascolator. These panels must also be carefully and completely secured by closing the access door and ensuring the latch mechanism is fully engaged.

One of the many things you should have learned about preflight inspection is how to determine that the latches have engaged. Typically, cues, such as a distinctive clicking sound, tell you that the latch has engaged and is locked. Still, don’t move to the next preflight item until you have double-checked and verified the security of any access panel door that you have opened.

…Prevents Problems during Flight!

If you think that a loose or missing access panel is minor, consider these examples.

-A corporate jet returned to the airport shortly after takeoff with the crew reporting a loud banging noise emanating from the tail area. After landing, an inspection revealed that one of the pilots had not properly secured the forward latch on the fueling panel during preflight. When sufficient airflow got under the half-latched panel door it blew open and began banging in the air stream—creating a loud noise and damage to those parts of the airplane it had “attacked.” It took about $7,000 and a day of down time to get the aircraft back in service.

-An Australian-registered amphibious aircraft lost an access panel on one of the floats during flight. The access panel struck the right horizontal stabilizer, causing considerable damage and leading to control issues. Specifically, the airflow across the open access hole caused vibration of the hydraulic lines, which failed and caused loss of hydraulic fluid. One result was partial loss of the landing gear extension system.

-A single-engine Cessna aircraft returned to the airport after the pilot complained of a “buzzing noise” that started above 60 knots. An inspection revealed an underside horizontal-stabilizer access panel had only one screw holding it. Once the air flow became sufficient, the panel began vibrating against the stabilizer structure, which caused the “buzzing.” A new panel and some touchup paint got the airplane back in airworthy condition. The mechanic had to pay the bill since he had not properly secured the panel after maintenance.

-An accident was barely avoided on a training aircraft after a mechanic opened the access panel on the underside of the wing to perform a check and left it open while briefly returning to the hangar. A student pilot was scheduled to use the airplane for his next training flight. Thankfully, though, he found the open access panel during his preflight inspection and asked why it was open.

Lessons to Learn

Any good preflight must include a thorough inspection of all access panels. Check for loose or missing hardware, condition of the panels, and, most importantly, security of the panel. Make sure that you check the underside of the fuselage, wings, and stabilizers. Address any concern before starting the engine.

A final caution: Never assume that simply securing an open panel will take care of the issue. As in the case of the student pilot described above, you need to find out if any maintenance tasks are incomplete. An open panel may indicate that a mechanic started maintenance on the aircraft. Loss of an access panel may be minor in comparison to taking off in an aircraft with incomplete maintenance tasks.

Barry Ballenger is an aerospace engineer with the FAA Small Airplane Directorate in Kansas City, Missouri. He also holds an A&P with Inspection Authorization and is a private pilot.

The Complexities of Buying and Selling Aircraft

    In many transactions, a broker, an attorney, or one of the parties, handles all of the details of transferring title from the Seller to the Buyer, and having the Buyer register the aircraft. In those transactions, the parties who did not participate directly are relying strictly upon the competence and integrity of the people they have chosen to close the transaction for them. In most cases, since it is a relatively straightforward process, there is not a problem. But, for those of you who haven’t actually taken the time to understand what is happening, it is my hope that, by reading this article, you will avoid being one of the unlucky ones who runs into a problem when you sell or buy your aircraft.

    There are at least two basic aspects to every sale: transferring title to the aircraft, and registering the aircraft. Further refinements, particularly a discussion of the International Registry, are beyond the scope of
this article.

    All that is required to transfer title is an FAA Form Bill of Sale, properly executed by the Seller, and a $5.00 fee for recording the Bill of Sale. Assuming  that everything is proper with the Bill of Sale, once it has been recorded in Oklahoma City, the world will know that the Seller no longer owns the aircraft and the Buyer now owns it.
    All that is required to register an aircraft on the Civil Aircraft Registry is a properly-completed FAA Application for Registration signed by the Buyer. Assuming everything is proper, the Aircraft will be able to fly within the United States for the first 90 days after the sale (until the permanent registration card arrives), and the Buyer will appear on the official record as the Registrant of the Aircraft.

    In general, the Bill of Sale is exchanged for the purchase price for the aircraft. The Buyer gives the Seller the money, and the Seller gives the Buyer the Bill of Sale. The Buyer then applies for registration of the new aircraft, usually by sending in his brand new Bill of Sale and his Application for Registration, along with the check for $5.00. Simple, right? What could possibly go wrong?

    Suppose the Seller tells the Buyer that the Seller has sent, or will send, the Bill of Sale to the FAA to save the Buyer the trouble, but never really does? If that happens, the Buyer has lost his money, but never gets good title to the aircraft. He also doesn’t get his registration to the aircraft within 90 days, as he expected to. Theoretically, the Seller could continue to sell the aircraft again and again to multiple buyers using the same scheme.

    Suppose the Buyer tells the Seller that he will send in the Bill of Sale, but doesn’t do it? As far as the FAA, the rest of the World, and every Plaintiff’s lawyer in the world knows, the Seller still owns the aircraft and is still the registrant. If the Buyer is not eligible to register the aircraft in the United States, he can fly the aircraft all over the world using the Seller’s registration. If the Buyer commits a crime with the aircraft, or violates an FAA Regulation using the aircraft, or hurts someone with the aircraft, the FAA, the Police, the FBI, Customs, Interpol and all of those Plaintiff’s attorneys will be knocking on the Seller’s door – not the Buyers’.

    In a prior article, I mentioned using an escrow agent in
Oklahoma City. This is one way to make sure that the documents actually get recorded properly and that the money does not get distributed until the documents are where they are supposed to be. But, if you decide not to use an escrow agent, there are still some things you can do to avoid problems.

     First, insist that you see all the documents being sent to Oklahoma City. Verify the address to which the documents are being sent and get the tracking number or certified mail number of the delivery service being used.

    Second, check the FAA Aircraft Registry web site: registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry. It takes the FAA about two to three weeks in most cases to have the change of ownership show up on the web site, so don’t panic if the transfer doesn’t show up right away. But, if it has been more than a month, you need to start making inquiries as to what has happened. If there are problems with the documents that have been submitted, the FAA will send them back to the individual that sent the document to them. If the problem is not with a document that YOU submitted, you will not know about the problem unless the other party tells you about it. Particularly if there were any hard feelings between the parties at the time of the closing, the other party may not be anxious to tell you what is happening.

         If you are the Buyer and you haven’t received your hard card registration within two months, you should definitely be asking questions of the Civil Registry in Oklahoma City.

          If all else fails, you can hire a title company in Oklahoma City that will search the records, including the “suspense file” for the aircraft, and can get you copies of all of the correspondence relating to the transaction – for a fee.

      A little diligence, and a basic understanding of the importance of the closing documents can save a lot of heartache and expense down the road.

better communicate with these pilots, who are armed with improved technical know-how, and can more accurately diagnose difficulties and properly maintain the aircraft.

But, exactly what type of maintenance can a pilot perform? What are the legal restrictions? Is training required? Does someone need to supervise? These are all questions aircraft owners face at one time or another. This article will address these questions and give you a better understanding of what types of maintenance you can and cannot do.

Getting Started

Perhaps one of the best ways you can prepare for your first foray into the world of aviation maintenance is to have a better understanding of the basics. Start by dusting off those pilot handbooks and manuals and review the systems sections for a good refresher on aircraft engines, propellers, electrical systems, landing gear, and more. You can

also track down the maintenance manuals for your specific aircraft and examine some of the diagrams and procedures in detail. There’s little sense in changing spark plugs or oil filters if you don’t fully understand the systems these components impact.

Other good references are FAA advisory circulars on acceptable methods, techniques, and practices (AC 43.13-1 and AC 43.13-2), now available in a print version and available at several online bookstores. This detailed, one-stop guide for all

elements of aircraft maintenance can be a big help to pilots interested in learning more about the overall inspection and repair process.

In addition to educating yourself in system fundamentals, it’s equally important to prepare mentally before you start turning a wrench. Maintenance is a serious and regimented activity not to be taken lightly. Just as a pilot needs total concentration to ensure a precise and safe landing, concentration is important for anyone who attempts to perform maintenance, no matter how seemingly minor or inconsequential the task may seem.

31 Flavors (of Savings)

Pilots, especially those who enjoy tinkering with mechanical things and interested in saving a few dollars here and there, often ask the question: Exactly what kind of maintenance can I do on my aircraft? If you hold at least a private pilot certificate issued under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 61 and your aircraft is not used under 14 CFR

parts 121, 129, or 135, you may perform preventive maintenance on your own aircraft. To see a list of the 31 items a pilot can perform without supervision, see Appendix A in 14 CFR part 43. Examples of these approved items include:

• Removal, installation, and repair of landinggear tires

• Replacing and servicing batteries

• Cleaning fuel and oil strainers or filter elements

• Replacing any cowling not requiring removal of the propeller or disconnection of flight controls

But before you start changing tires, there’s an often overlooked detail contained in the definition of preventive maintenance that can affect your eligibility to perform these tasks. For one, 14 CFR section 1.1 defines preventive maintenance as “.... simple or minor preservation operations and the replacement of small standard parts not involving complex assembly operations.” The key word here is complex.

Due to differences in aircraft design and accessibility of certain components, a procedure like changing an oil filter may be a simple job on some aircraft, but complex on others. Owners and pilots must use good judgment in determining whether a specific function appropriately qualifies as preventive maintenance. When in doubt, talk to a mechanic. Keep in mind also that if a job is not listed in 14 CFR part 43 Appendix A, it does not qualify as preventive maintenance and therefore cannot be performed unsupervised.

It’s Awl or Nothing

With a wrench in your hand and a brain fresh with mechanical knowledge, you’re now ready to pop open the cowling and get your hands dirty, right? Not exactly. It takes a bit more than technical know-how and a desire to get some dirt under your nails to start any kind of aviation maintenance. There must also be a clear understanding of all facets of the work you plan to perform, along with careful attention to all applicable regulations.

Pilots performing preventive maintenance are bound by the same regulations as any certificated AMT under 14 CFR part 43. Among the regulation requirements is the need to make certain you have all available tools, equipment, and test apparatus necessary for any maintenance task. You’ll also need all associated reference materials and manuals. In particular, 14 CFR section 43.13(a) states that each person performing maintenance—pilot or mechanic— is required to use “the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the current manufacturer’s maintenance manuals…or data

acceptable to the Administrator.”

Part 43 goes on to state that pilots performing preventive maintenance must perform all work in such a manner “that the condition of the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance worked on will be at least equal to its original or

properly altered condition.” Here’s a stipulation that requires a great deal of consideration before you embark on any kind of preventive maintenance. If the job seems the least bit complicated, or includes any step that is beyond your ability, put down the tool, step away, and seek help. Have someone qualified, who knows the task well, walk you through the steps.

“Learn to do it properly, before doing it at all,” says FAA Aviation Safety Inspector (Airworthiness) Kim Barnette. “It might cost a little extra the first time you have a qualified repairman or mechanic show you a particular task, but there are dozens of tips you can only learn from someone who has experience  with that procedure.”

With more than 30 years of GA maintenance experience, Barnette is privy to many of the inside tips that aren’t always explained in a manual and which can easily trip up a unsuspecting pilot during preventive maintenance. “Take safety wire for example,” explains Barnette. “I’ve seen many pilots over-tighten safety wire to where you could pluck it like a guitar string. If installed that tight on an oil filter, the safety wire could begin to cut into the filter, and within 15 to 20 hours, your engine might start dumping oil.” He’s seen it happen—unfortunately with tragic results.

Another easily misunderstood concept concerns torque values. Habits picked up from performing certain automotive maintenance tasks, like hand-tightening an oil filter during an oil change, can trickle over during similar aircraft preventive maintenance tasks, sometimes with deadly consequences. Components such as oil filters, spark plugs, and fasteners typically have a prescribed torque value that must be followed using the appropriate tool or torque wrench.

Also, take care not to exceed the torque values: Tighter does not always mean better. Torque values are set just as much for preventing overtightening as they are for making sure an item is properly secured. An over-tightened spark plug may

actually damage both the engine and the spark plug, which can cause problems with the transfer of heat from the combustion chamber.

Please Sign on the Logbook Line

Maintenance record entries are another critical regulation often overlooked by pilots. Part of the duty and responsibility that comes with the privilege of doing preventive maintenance is returning the aircraft you worked on to service. This is normally a straightforward process that entails making the proper entry in the aircraft records. The entry boils down to three basic parts:

• Description of work

• Date

• Signature and certificate number

In the description of work performed the entry should indicate what was done and how it was done. If the description is extensive, reference the document containing the description, e.g., manufacturer’s manual and/or advisory circular.

The signature constitutes the approval for return to service for the work performed. Forgetting this important step could find you in violation of 14 CFR section 91.407(a), which states that no one may operate any aircraft that has undergone preventive maintenance unless it has been approved for return to service with the required maintenance entry. In addition to your certificate number, include the type of airman certificate you hold. For example, PP, CP, or ATP would be used to indicate private, commercial, or airline transport pilot, respectively. Finally, remember to keep all entries neat and legible.

Can I Do More Than Preventive Maintenance?

You can perform aircraft maintenance other than preventive maintenance, just not by yourself. According to 14 CFR section 43.3(d), you must be under the supervision of a properly certificated AMT or repairman to perform maintenance or

alterations, which the supervising mechanic has authorization to perform. The regulation also does not authorize the performance of any required inspections. Only a properly certificated AMT or repairman can do that.

This provision in the regulations affords pilots, and even non-pilots, a unique ability to learn more about aviation  maintenance and get an inside look at how their aircraft operates beyond the allowed preventive maintenance procedures.

Yet another good opportunity to become more acquainted with your aircraft is during the annual inspection. Although you cannot participate in the actual inspection, you can assist with removing panels, cowlings, seats, etc., as well as help perform some of the maintenance tasks required for the inspection. It’s best to coordinate ahead of time with the AMT with Inspection Authorization (IA) or repair station performing your annual before you attempt any work. Working together to set up a coordinated schedule should allow the inspection process to proceed more smoothly, and possibly help you reduce aircraft downtime. (See Nuts, Bolts, and Electrons on page 34 for more information on IA roles and responsibilities.)

“When working with an AMT or IA, be involved and ask questions,” says Walt Schamel, a FAASTeam representative and training manager for Airline Transport Professionals in Jacksonville, Florida. “The more you know about the condition and

work being done to your aircraft, the safer the plane will be and the more in tune you’ll be to keeping it maintained safely in the future.”

Tools and Training

Like most things in aviation, aircraft maintenance techniques and procedures are in a constant state of flux. The challenge for many mechanically-inclined pilots (and many AMTs for that matter) is keeping up with all the updates. Fortunately, there are several good resources to learn more about aviation maintenance. Start with the aircraft-specific service and maintenance manuals, as well as any specific equipment manuals to cover installed components such as brakes, tires, and carburetors. Also, review any applicable Airworthiness Directives (AD) that pertain to your aircraft.

Another worthy endeavor to make peeking under the cowling a less bewildering experience is to attend a training class. Many AMT schools offer classes on preventive maintenance, some tailored specifically for pilots. Type clubs are another good source for maintenance information, as are many of the various air shows and fly-ins held throughout the year that frequently offer hands-on seminars. If you happen to be at Sun ’n Fun this year, check out Walt Schamel’s presentation on owner-performed maintenance at the FAA Safety Team’s National Resource Center.

Weighing the Pros and Cons

Performing maintenance on your aircraft can have several important benefits. It can save time, money, and can open doors to a new world of understanding about your aircraft. But along with this new knowledge comes responsibilities.

“Don’t get lulled into a false sense of security,” warns Barnette, who has seen pilots, armed with a little maintenance knowledge, try to troubleshoot problems beyond their ability. “Focusing on an incorrect solution may wind up doing more harm than good.” When faced with a mechanical problem, Barnette suggests landing as soon as possible to have

someone qualified check it out.

As many pilots would agree, preparation is the key to the quality and safety of a flight. That same approach applies to performing maintenance on your aircraft. With good practices, the proper tools and materials, and a professional attitude, you’ll be sure to “maintain” your way to greater safety.

Tom Hoffmann is associate editor of FAA Aviation News. He is a commercial pilot and holds an A&P certificate.

During those first few hours of flight training, a student pilot is asked to memorize lots of numbers—airspeeds, power settings, runway headings, and traffic pattern altitudes for local airports, to name a few. In the approach and landing phase of a flight, airspeed numbers carry particular significance because minding or ignoring them can mean touching down safely on the intended point or overshooting and ending up in the weeds.

Then, just when the student has dutifully memorized the published numbers, it’s time to learn that sometimes they are adjusted to handle a particular situation. For instance, final approach is flown a little bit faster on a gusty day to compensate

for the variable wind.

But, how much is a little bit? Why do these numbers matter anyway? Why can’t we just fly like the old timers did, by the seat of our pants, and not worry so much about all of these numbers?

The truth is that the more experience a pilot accumulates, the easier it is to control the airplane by feel because the numbers become, in a sense, ingrained in how we fly. We don’t need to look at the tachometer while setting the throttle because we just know, using our tactile, visual, and auditory senses, that everything is configured properly. We set the power and pitch and then scan the instruments to confirm that we got what we asked for. Even while flying on instruments, we don’t fixate on the airspeed indicator or the power setting—our primary focus is on the numberless attitude indicator, just as a student pilot’s primary focus is directed outside the airplane, at the earth and sky.

Final Approach and Vref

To understand how final-approach airspeed is determined for a given airplane, we have to start with the landing—the stall, the moment the airplane stops flying—and work the problem in reverse, back up the final-approach course. In a general sense, the speed at which we want to fly the final approach is some airspeed above the stalling speed that will let us stay aloft while we descend toward the runway, but not have so much excess lift that the airplane will not stop flying when we want it to touch down.

Part 23 of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), which deals with aircraft certification, states that  for normal, utility, and acrobatic category reciprocating engine-powered airplanes of 6,000 pounds or less maximum weight, the reference landing approach speed (Vref) must not be less than the greater of Vmc, determined in 14 CFR section 23.149(b) with the wing flaps in the most extended takeoff position, and 1.3 Vso.”

A common memory aid for Vso is that it is the stall speed with “stuff out,” meaning landing gear and flaps extended. The regulations define Vref as “the speed of the airplane, in a specified landing configuration, at the point where it descends through the 50-foot height in the determination of the landing distance.” You may have heard pilots refer to this point in the landing approach as when the airplane is “crossing the fence” or “over the numbers.” This is typically the point at which power is reduced, perhaps all the way to idle, and a smooth transition begins from a descent, to a level off, flare, and, finally, touchdown. (Vmc, or minimum control airspeed with the critical engine inoperative, refers to airplanes with more than one engine. For simplicity and brevity we’ll limit discussion in this article to single-engine operations.)

Typically, we fly final approach at some airspeed greater than Vref, because in many light airplanes, Vref is just not a comfortable place to be. It’s too slow; it feels mushy. The manufacturer’s recommended final approach airspeed gives the pilot

a generous cushion above the stall that allows for the bit of gentle maneuvering that is necessary to keep the airplane aligned with the runway centerline. The pilot operating handbook (POH) for the 2001 Cessna 182S that I fly shows that Vso at maximum takeoff weight, zero-bank angle, is 35 knots indicated airspeed at the most rearward center of gravity (CG) and 36 knots at the most forward CG position. Assuming that the average pilot cannot reasonably discern a one-knot difference, we’ll use the higher number of 36 knots which, when multiplied by 1.3, produces a Vref of 46 knots. But, as any Cessna 182 pilot will attest, you can’t reasonably expect to fly final approach in this airplane at 46 knots. The POH suggests a final approach airspeed range of 60-70 knots with full flaps, which is closer to 1.9 Vso.

The Art of Interpolation

The numbers published in the POH were generated by an FAA-approved team of engineers and test pilots through a rigorous aircraft certification process. These numbers exist to give the pilot a framework within which to create a stabilized approach and landing, but we need to read the fine print in order to use these numbers effectively.

Stall speeds and final approach speeds are generally published for the airplane at or near maximum gross weight. Yet, we rarely land an airplane when it’s that heavy, because presumably we have been flying around for a while, burning avgas at the rate of six pounds per gallon per hour. We know that an airplane’s stall speed increases with an increase in weight (or with an increase in load factor, such as during a turn; see “Getting It Right in Maneuvering Flight” on page 15), so this means that the actual Vso at the moment of landing is likely to be something lower than what’s listed in the POH. Turning the problem upside down, we can say that most of the time we have a greater margin between the airplane’s actual stalling speed and our final approach airspeed than what the POHwould suggest.

The benefit of this wisdom is that if we follow the numbers and maintain the POH-suggested airspeeds for each phase of flight, we are in a position to make a stabilized approach and landing. The danger is that if we routinely tack on 5 or 10

knots under the false assumption that faster is always safer, we may be setting ourselves up for a go-around at best, or a very hard landing at worst.

The Gust Factor

One of the few times we want to fly faster than published on final is if it’s a really windy, gusty day. The FAA Airplane Flying Handbook (FAA-H-8083-3A) recommends adding one-half of the reported surface-wind gust to the normal final-approach airspeed when landing in turbulent conditions to compensate for any sudden loss of headwind component. But, why not add the whole gust amount, or double it? Why add anything, if the published final approach airspeed already has a built-in cushion above the stall?

The simple answer is that gusts are variable and unpredictable, and we want to ensure that we can outsmart them by carrying enough speed to get us to the pavement safely despite them. The airspeed indicator can fluctuate wildly and be difficult to read on days when we’re getting batted around like a beach ball, so we’d rather overestimate our airspeed than underestimate it and risk a stall. If we discover during the approach that adding half the gust factor to our speed on final was too much and we end up too high and too fast, we can go around and try the approach again at a slightly slower airspeed.

The POH for the Cessna 182S states “normal landing approaches can be made with power on or power off with any flap setting desired. For a short-field landing in smooth conditions, make the power-off approach at 60 KIAS with full flaps. (Slightly higher approach speeds should be used under turbulent conditions.)” For normal landings on longer runways, final approach should be flown at 70-80 knots without flaps, or 60-70 knots with full flaps. Though the POH does not suggest what flap setting to use in turbulent air, it leaves the door open for the pilot to use any flap setting from 0-30 degrees that will get the job done.

Here’s where experience and the art of interpolation comes into play, and why adding half the gust factor is a good compromise on a gusty day. Let’s say we’re approaching a 5,000-foot runway— more than twice what this airplane requires—on a very turbulent day, with surface winds reported as 20 knots gusting to 30 knots with a variable crosswind that is typical when such conditions exist. The gust factor is the difference between the gust and the sustained wind, in this case 10 knots. So, we plan to fly final approach five knots faster than normal. What’s normal? The published range for a normal approach is 60-70 knots, so to what number within that range do we add the five knots? Is using full flaps a good idea on a day like this, in this airplane? Probably not, because the wind can reach under those flaps and grab hold of the wing like a professional wrestler flipping his opponent to the mat.

Recall that the airplane’s actual stall speed is probably lower than advertised due to its lighter weight. Start with the lower number, 60 knots, and add five to that. Try flying final approach at 65 knots with just 20 degrees of flaps and see how

that works. If at any point the gusts are so strong that you hear the stall horn squeak or have any trouble controlling the airplane, given your level of experience, then go around and try the next approach at 70 knots with 10 degrees of flaps, and see if that feels better.

It’s a Wing Thing

An airplane’s wing design and resultant stall characteristics also play an important role in determining Vref and final-approach speed, as well as the airplane’s relative tendency to remain in ground effect during the landing.

The Cessna 182S uses a conventional, riveted aluminum wing that is twisted slightly along its length so that the wing tips present a lower angle of attack than the wing root, allowing the ailerons to remain effective well into the stall. This design has been proven for many decades and is still being produced. Now, consider the seamless, composite, laminar-flow wing of a 2007 Cirrus SR22 G3. The G3 wing is also twisted to maximize aileron effectiveness during the stall, but employs additional features such as stall strips and a two-section leading edge.

The SR22 is flown at Vref minus one knot for short-field landings (77 knots) and a few knots faster for normal approaches (80 knots), and always using full flaps, if available. The SR22 POH lists Vso at maximum gross weight as 59 knots at the most forward CG position and 61 knots at the most aft CG position. If we take the median, 60 knots, and multiply by 1.3 we get a Vref of 78 knots.

Why is there such a difference between Vref and Vso for these airplanes? Though these airplanes are of similar size, weight, and performance, the wing design is the primary reason for the difference in their stall behavior and recommended landing speeds. One wing is not better than the other; they are just different. The Cessna 182S wing creates more drag than the SR22 wing, and this allows for a steeper and shorter approach and less of a tendency to float in ground effect. The SR22 G3 wing (as well as its more powerful engine) allows it to cruise about 30 knots faster than the Cessna 182S, but the G3 wing (and the overall body design of the SR22) results in a faster final-approach speed and longer required landing distances than the Cessna 182S.

Final Thoughts on Final Approach

Pilots who “fly by the numbers” with precision and accuracy are able to fly stabilized approaches, and make consistently smooth landings, because the numbers they follow provide a proven framework for success. These pilots are not reinventing the propeller, so to speak, on each approach. This methodology is what makes airline travel so safe, and it can work for general aviation pilots, too.

Meredith Saini is a flight instructor and active general aviation pilot. She works as a contractor supporting the Flight Standards Service, General Aviation and Commercial Division at FAA Headquarters in Washington, DC.

    If you own, or are thinking of owning, an aircraft manufactured in another country and imported into the United States, you should be aware of the ruling of the NTSB in a recent case. Here are the facts as a prospective purchaser would see them:

    The Aerospatiale Alouette II helicopter has been manufactured in France since the 1950’s and has been used as a military aircraft. At least 70 Alouette II helicopters have been imported into the United States and have been given Normal Category Standard Airworthiness Certificates by the FAA. The particular helicopter involved in this case was manufactured in September of 1959 and went directly to the German military. The Buyers purchased a helicopter with a US Normal Category Standard Airworthiness Certificate, and with an existing N registration, as one of three Alouette II helicopters they were considering for purchase, all of which had US registration numbers and Normal Category Standard Airworthiness Certificates. The FAA had previously issued a Type Certificate – No. 7H1 – for this model helicopter. An FAA Designated Airworthiness Representative (DAR) had issued the Standard Airworthiness Certificate for the helicopter. The helicopter in question had been the subject of an “attestation” written on the letterhead of “Aviation Civile” which stated “Although we have not inspected ourselves [helicopter SE 3130 – Alouetter II S/N 1312], we can certify . . . on the basis of the information listed on the individual record inspection log book at Erocopter’s, that . . . the basis design of the above mentioned helicopter . . . was at the time of manufacture . . . compliant with DGAC Type Certificate No. 1 and with the FAA Type Certificate No. 7H1”. The FAA expressly agreed that the helicopter was safe for operation.

    The Buyers bought the helicopter for $165,000.00 and put it to work in a commercial operation.

    The FAA had, since 2004, had concerns with military surplus helicopters. The FAA, unbeknownst to the public, had formed the “Charter Quest Special Emphasis Investigations Team” based out of the Alliance Airport in the Southwest Region, for the specific purpose of looking through the documentation of each of the foreign military surplus helicopters operating on Normal Category Standard Airworthiness Certificates to make sure that they each had proper documentation that the French Government had issued an appropriate letter after an inspection of each particular helicopter. If they did not find such a document, the FAA would then issue an Order of Emergency Revocation of the Airworthiness Certificate of the helicopter. That is what happened here. (In prior columns, I have written about my perception that the FAA is abusing their power to determine that an emergency situation exists. This is just one more example of that. In this case, everyone agreed that the aircraft was perfectly safe to operate, and that the only alleged problem was a problem of documentation. In fact, at the time of the hearing, the FAA had issued an “Experimental Airworthiness Certificate” to the same aircraft. So, what was the “emergency”?)

    Now, dear reader, you might be asking yourself, “well, didn’t these buyers have a letter from the French Government?” And the answer would be, “sort of”.

    It turns out that the actual arm of the French Government which has the power to issue Type Certificate Data Sheets is called the “Direction Générale de l’Aviation Civile (DGAC).” Our buyers had an attestation from the “Groupement Pour la Securite Aviation Civile (GSAC)”. This entity shares the same logo as the DGAG.

    The Trial Judge, in his Order, stated: “I think it was brought up and brought to our attention that the fifteenth revision to this type certificate data sheet identifies these people as being the same as the DGAC of France or the civil aviation authority over there.” The NTSB itself, only noted in its opinion: “Groupement Pour la Securite Avaition Civile appears to be a French organization separate from the DGAC, but involved in promoting aviation safety by conducting inspections.”

    (I find it alarming that neither the FAA counsel, nor the attorney for the buyers – or for that matter the NTSB, appear to have even performed a Google search of this group. If they had, they would have known that, according to the GSAC: “The Direction G‚n‚rale de l’Aviation Civile (DGAC) has delegated to the Groupement pour la S‚curit‚ de l’Aviation Civile (GSAC) the responsibility to carry out aeronautical technical inspection tasks in its name. The GSAC is a public-private economic interest group, grouping together DGAC, Bureau Veritas and SOFREAVIA. It carries out inspections and checkings of aircrafts, aircraft parts and gears, in France and other countries. It audits institutions in the design, production and maintenance fields, including the engineer training institutions. The inspections, checkings and audits serve the purpose of issuing and renewing airworthiness certificates and permit to fly, aircraft operator certificates, design, production and maintenance approvals, ground mechanic training organisation approvals, aircraft station licenses (LSA) and ground mechanic licenses. In other words, the GSAC is, in fact, the entity that has been delegated the authority to inspect for compliance with the requirements of airworthiness certificates on behalf of the DGAC. This is why they share a common logo.”)

    Both the Judge and the NTSB seemed to get this distinction somewhat, although the FAA contended to the end that the GSAC is not the French government, therefore, the buyers’ certificate came from the wrong people.

    What tripped up the buyers ultimately, however, was the first sentence fragment of the attestation that they did provide: “Although we have not inspected this helicopter...” The actual Type Certificate Data Sheet No. 7H1, issued by the FAA for the Aerospatiale Alouette II helicopter, specifically provides, however: “A U.S. Airworthiness Certificate may be issued on the basis of a Certificate of Airworthiness for Export signed by a representative of the Secretariat General a l’Avaition Civile containing the following statement: ‘The helicopter covered by this certificate has been examined and found to comply with U.S. Civil Air Regulation Part 6, dated January 15, 1951, including Amendments 6-1 through 6-8, and with the Special Requirements notified to the Government of France by the Government of the United States of America and conforms to T.C. 7H1.’ “This type of certification by a foreign Government is known as a “Certificate de Navigability.”

    There was nothing that the buyers could produce to show that any arm of the French government, whether that be the DGAC itself, or the GSAC acting as the delegated representative of the DGAC, had actually inspected the aircraft at the time of export to assure the United States Government that no modifications had been made which might have caused the aircraft not to have complied with the French Type Certificate No. 1 or the US Type Certificate No. 7H1.

    “But”, you might ask, “didn’t a US Designated Airworthiness Representative inspect the helicopter to determine that it was airworthy and safe for operation before granting the helicopter a Normal Category Standard Airworthiness Certificate?” Yes, one sure did. In fact, the way it worked is that an A&P went over this helicopter and its logbooks with a fine-tooth comb and decided that it was airworthy. The A&P then certified this finding to the DAR, who made his own inspection, agreed, and issued the Standard Airworthiness Certificate. The statement of a DAR is considered the act of the FAA Administrator himself, since the DAR is the Administrator’s designated representative.

    However, and this cannot be stressed enough, the concept of “airworthiness” – as interpreted by the FAA and the NTSB is not simply a certification that the aircraft is safe for operation. The test for “airworthiness” is a two-pronged test, the first prong of which is that “the aircraft is in compliance with its Type Certificate Data Sheet.”

    What really happened here, and it is not the first time this has happened, nor is it likely to be the last, is that the FAA changed its mind. Even though there were some 70 buyers out there who had acted in good faith, and had relied on the A&P’s who inspected the logbooks and the helicopters, the DAR’s who inspected the logbooks and the helicopters, the FAA Certification Branch which issued the Type Certificate for the helicopter back in 1951 (when it was the CAA), and who registered the aircraft in N registry, the FAA decided that it no longer liked the fact that people were using these older foreign military surplus helicopters for commercial operations. So they set up a special unit to go out and find ways to declare these helicopters “un-airworthy” and to revoke their certificates on an emergency basis.

    The Administrative Law Judge was extremely apologetic to the buyers throughout his opinion. In speaking about cases like this where the Administrator changes his mind, he stated: “Once the Administrator takes that action, it’s extremely unfair to the folks that it’s directed to, but at the same time, you can’t help but step back and say, well, what other choice did the Administrator have under the circumstances?” When the FAA tried to blame the buyers, saying that the buyers had not done their due diligence, the Judge shot back: “He (the buyer) went out there with three of these helicopters. They looked at the airworthiness certificate. They looked beyond the airworthiness certificate. They looked at the logbooks and records, and they believed that because it did have an airworthiness certificate and these other records from the Administrator that it was a good buy, and they paid $165,000 for that aircraft. And now, with this emergency order of suspension, even though it has an experimental certificate, it cannot be used for any of the purposes they talked about and that they had used it for before, because you can’t use an experimental aircraft for commercial purposes..”

    Also in responding to the Administrator’s argument that the buyers didn’t perform their due diligence, the Judge said: “one of [these arguments] was that these people didn’t do their due diligence, but they did. If there’s anybody that didn’t do their due diligence, it was the representatives of the Administrator in not following up on this.”

    Nevertheless, the Administrative Law Judge felt that he had no choice and suspended the Standard Airworthiness Certificate for the helicopter. The buyers appealed to the NTSB. The Board was also somewhat sympathetic to the buyers, saying: “We note that DAR Cernuda’s and Mr. Marrs’s mistakes are troubling, and we sympathize with respondents’ position that they relied upon the FAA to issue a standard certificate of airworthiness for N225RW only if the aircraft was airworthy. However, we have previously held that such errors do not prohibit the FAA from taking action against a certificate.”

    There are important lessons to be learned from this case. While most modern aircraft being manufactured in foreign countries apply for, and receive, US Type Certificates at the time of their manufacture, and are approved for direct sale by dealers in this country – as opposed to having to be imported from their country of manufacture – many older aircraft lack this documentation. The rules for each of these aircraft are different, and must be understood at a great level of detail by the people who wish to buy and operate them in the United States. Buyers of older foreign aircraft should be aware of this.

            In addition, it is important for aviators to understand that each Flight Standards District Office and Regional Center has the ability to assemble Special Emphasis Investigation Teams. This is being done more and more in recent years. These teams generally operate more-or-less in secret, with little or no public notice, with the goal of correcting a perceived problem that is not isolated. Such a team led to the shutdown of TAG, allegedly for issues concerning control by a foreign company; and other similar matters. They are often heavy-handed, developing new ways of looking at regulations to support their conclusions, gathering evidence under the cover of inspections of other, seemingly-insignificant matters, and then pouncing all at once, bringing the work of the subject of the investigation to an immediate standstill with no warning, and using expedited procedures to force the subject to gather his evidence and present his defense in less than thirty days all the while trying to pay attorneys without any present cash flow. Is it unfair? You bet it is. In a true “emergency” as most of us understand it – when there is imminent danger of death, personal injury, or property damage – it makes sense for the FAA to use these powers. But using them to enforce a policy change with regard to paperwork violations having nothing to do with safety, is simply wrong at every level.

    How many experienced pilots say “I’m sorry, can you repeat that—I don’t hear very well?” Then they get the sophomoric response from the young pilots “Say what?”

    Hearing loss in pilots is almost universal and especially in pilots who learned to fly without headsets.

    When I first started instruction, the instructor had to shout over the engine noise and I still blame all my current bad habits on those miscommunications!

    Hearing loss, in the far majority of people, is due primarily to exposure to loud noise and to some extent, heredity. Loud concerts, noise from drilling, hammering, riveting, wind noises, engine noises, and supersonic prop tips all contribute to hearing loss.

    What is important for everyone to understand is that noise exposure is cumulative. So even when someone already has hearing loss, they need to be aggressive about protecting what they have left because they will continue to lose more hearing with additional exposure.

    Sound intensity is measured in decibels and the scale is logarithmic so a deference of 3 dB is approximately twice the level of sound. In additions, there is “frequency weighting” because some frequencies, particular the 2,000 to 6,000 Hertz range, cause more hearing loss than other frequencies. (For you audio techies out there, I know this is not as simple as this explanation states but this is not a treatise on sound measurements.) General conversation occurs between 500-3000 Hertz.

    To understand the decibel ratings (know as dB level), OHSA (Occupation Health & Safety Administration) standards state the 85 dB over eight hours is safe but only two hours at 91 dB. However, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has identified the level of 70 dB for 24 hour exposure to protect the public from hearing loss which is significantly lower than OHSA.

    Putting this in perspective, a jet taking off has a 180 dB rating. Riveting creates a 120 db level while a car horn at about 20 feet is a 100db. Pain usually begins at about 125 dB but hearing loss can occur with as little as one minute exposure to 100 dB which is about the sound level of a cement mixer.

    It really is impossible to give a dB level of noise in an aircraft unless measured (a reasonable portable dB meter is available from Radio Shack). Piston aircraft create noise from the engine through the exhaust and vibration, propeller blades beating the air, and airflow around the fuselage. Each aircraft has so many variables with these factors that no average level really is valid but the FAA states the range is between 70 and 90 dB. (Obviously, the FAA has never measured a Stearman!) What is valid is that all most all aircraft in the piston fleet will cause hearing loss over time.

    There are no regulatory criteria for aircraft occupants in general aviation which is good by keeping government out of our lives. Unfortunately, the other side of that coin is there are neither standards nor testing for ear protection in aircraft so buyers beware.

    Everyone should wear hearing protection and the type breaks down into passive and active protection. Passive ear protection includes the classic foam plugs and standard but relatively inexpensive headsets. The foam or wax plugs work very well but must be placed in the ear properly. For the foam plugs, this means that the plug must be rolled small enough to fit into the ear so that it completely seals the canal when it expands. The molded wax or custom plastic plugs work very well and are easier to place properly albeit more expensive.

    Passive headsets do not require any fitting and my recommendation is to buy the highest dB reduction set available. It is important to buy a reputable brand since there are no government standards or testing required when bought in the civilian world.

    Active noise reduction headsets (ANR) are more problematic. Most of the audible noise in an aircraft is lower frequency which is handled very well by the electronic portion of the ANR headset. However, higher frequency, less audible noise, which causes hearing damage, is generally not reduced very well by the ANR headset’s passive attenuation. This leads to a false sense of security with ANR headsets.

    My recommendation is to use foam/wax/molded ear plugs under ANR headsets in the aircraft. This will give you the best of both worlds. When working in the hangar, use the highest passive attenuation passive ear muffs available. I recommend ear muffs in the hangar because they are easy to put on and take off which increases use even for short exposures.

            The most important point is the use of some type of ear protection anytime there is exposure to loud noise. It will help avoid those dumb jokes in the future.  < B.B.

If you own or maintain an aircraft which flies behind a TCM fuel injected engine, you'll want to read this. 
I want to find out how many of you realize what TCM is doing right now.  TCM is presently trying to restrict fair trade within the aviation community.  I own a company called Aircraft Fuel Specialists, Ltd. and have operated my business since 1977.  I am one of the few companies that specialize in the repair and overhaul of reciprocating aircraft fuel systems such as carburetors, fuel injection systems, and fuel pumps.  Over many years, Teledyne Continental Motors has made an active effort to put businesses like mine out of the business of TCM fuel system repairs by various methods.  First, they tried to "price" us out of the market, but those few of us in the industry that had the knowledge, experience, and equipment to overhaul TCM fuel injection systems have managed to hang in there.  Now, since they evidently think they've eliminated enough of us out of the market, TCM has began to raise their prices on exchange fuel systems to nose bleed levels once again and it's getting even higher.  As if that isn't bad enough, now they are attempting a new tactic to get rid of the few shops around the world that still overhaul their systems.  They are refusing to distribute the parts to enable us to do proper repairs, so when the existing parts in the system are depleted, mechanics and owners will have no choice but to go to TCM for an exchange for any problem they might have with their fuel systems.  They are also telling anyone who will listen that they are the only ones authorized to overhaul their fuel systems even though they issued overhaul manuals for many years and one can still purchase an overhaul manual and obtain FAA certification to overhaul their systems.  I'm quite sure that the price of an exchange fuel system will go up to a level that few aircraft owners who fly behind a TCM engine could imagine once the few remaining shops are gone if something isn't done.  Right now, if I call their "customer support" to get help with information on a fuel system, they tell me they won't provide any information and that I shouldn't be overhauling their systems.  They state, "The overhaul manual your using is one we have deleted and we no longer support".  Of course, I have four copies of their manual and mine are not deleted, but that doesn't seem to matter to them.  TCM tells me emphatically that they are not selling the parts for TCM fuel injection systems any more and that once the parts in the system are used up, there will not be any more from them. 

Even the FAA seems to be engaged in an effort to make those of us who make a living overhauling TCM fuel systems stop and it seems like TCM has in some way influenced them to do so.  TCM has a responsibility to provide "continued airworthiness" for their systems and they have failed miserably in this for as long as I can remember and the FAA seems to be oblivious to this fact.  TCM has refused to provide information and updates on their fuel systems in order to allow us who overhaul and repair them to do so with safety and reliability.  We have been forced to seek out information by what ever means we can to provide safe and reasonably priced units for the aviation community.  Of course, what they want is the ability to have anyone who needs a simple repair to be required to exchange a component or the entire system.  You see, TCM doesn't do repairs, and they won't overhaul your system, but they would be happy to exchange your entire fuel pump for need of one $5.00 oring.