X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:15:06 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.62] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.14) with ESMTP id 3683256 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:59:10 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.62; envelope-from=colyncase@earthlink.net DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=OqERSu0wSYAPhbpeQNbmARqDrZuu7U7EEftVSN9GyEMGdC2zNiMySVNEYvSomZ+q; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:Cc:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [216.57.118.63] (helo=ccaselt3) by elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1MGHO8-0007Pq-Mz; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:58:36 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <01a301c9edeb$48fd5830$6701a8c0@nvidia.com> From: "Colyn Case at earthlink" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" X-Original-Cc: References: Subject: Re: [LML] life time of components in experimentals X-Original-Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:58:34 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01A0_01C9EDC9.C1911510" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-ELNK-Trace: 63d5d3452847f8b1d6dd28457998182d7e972de0d01da940f0e738b774f1af475108c2c9c04dc7f2350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 216.57.118.63 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_01A0_01C9EDC9.C1911510 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable this gets into the debate on "replace on time" vs. "replace on = condition". Mike Busch argues passionately that in many cases replace on condition = is the better course of action. If it were me, I would replace items that arguable deteriorate with age, = like hoses, on time and leave items that don't deteriorate with age, on condition. here are a couple relevant articles. If you take Mike's Savvy Aviator = course there are many pages in the course notes on this subject. http://www.avweb.com/news/savvyaviator/savvy_aviator_53_dark_side_of_main= tenance_196909-1.html http://www.avweb.com/news/savvyaviator/187037-1.html ------=_NextPart_000_01A0_01C9EDC9.C1911510 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
this gets into the debate on "replace = on time" vs.=20 "replace on condition".
Mike Busch argues passionately that in = many cases=20 replace on condition is the better course of action.
If it were me, I would replace items = that arguable=20 deteriorate with age, like hoses, on time and leave items
that don't deteriorate with age, on=20 condition.
 
here are a couple relevant = articles.  If you=20 take Mike's Savvy Aviator course there are many pages in the course=20 notes
on this subject.
 
 
http://www.avweb.com/news/savvyaviator/sav= vy_aviator_53_dark_side_of_maintenance_196909-1.html
http://www.= avweb.com/news/savvyaviator/187037-1.html
------=_NextPart_000_01A0_01C9EDC9.C1911510--