Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Condition Based Maintenance....?

  1. #1

    Condition Based Maintenance....?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood View Post
    Just to add another element to the discussion on TBO, there was a famous research scientist or engineer in England over the war that found in bombers, that the planes that were inspected more often were LESS reliable and less ready for duty. Thus, LESS NOT MORE, maintenance was better; sort of it it is running good it is better to let well enough alone.
    I don't have his name now, nor more details. but I'd guess that one aspect of this was that if an engine was likely to have trouble it may do it early in its life, and once past a certain hours it is more likely to last longer if not disturbed.
    This is not just theory, at least in the case I am reffuring to, the research was accepted by the RAF.
    Mike will have the details of this. He explains it at his seminars.
    http://www.avweb.com/news/savvyaviat..._195709-1.html

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    FA40
    Posts
    412
    nice article in the dec 2011 S.A. magazine titled "Intervals". summary - "we don' need no steenking intervals"

    ok, "steenking" is not quite accurate, but i was wondering if all that info applies to SLSA and/or ELSA which are not operated for hire? 91.327 indicates "no" but lots of folks have said LAMA standards make the manufacturer the governing authority, not FAA, so ADs and service bulletins etc are mandatory for SLSA if the manufacturer says so. are lots of folks wrong again?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •