X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 11:16:18 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from nm14.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com ([98.139.91.84] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.3) with SMTP id 5331957 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 30 Dec 2011 16:03:12 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=98.139.91.84; envelope-from=chris_zavatson@yahoo.com Received: from [98.139.91.69] by nm14.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 30 Dec 2011 21:02:37 -0000 Received: from [98.139.91.10] by tm9.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 30 Dec 2011 21:00:37 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1010.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 30 Dec 2011 21:00:37 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 726006.87741.bm@omp1010.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 83605 invoked by uid 60001); 30 Dec 2011 21:00:37 -0000 DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=FMrmRwLxKR/M/rZ0Sxag3BiGDpGAZdysvA0yov3oNqG/pZfmbIctBSTgW8ORhJO79+G5kXyFEXDC+QLidajvyo54gGmr503q8GVLfNcSZoaZ8vAQSWcrYiC5OQfSkSC1iT18Gs/cALnJf9PIH/l1uondhOIFY5IssNW4PqseGg4=; X-YMail-OSG: zYy1ZHMVM1latgU2ZUNrNVchf8TQ.E9HXHmVAEd_5TQPPzg cb9oCEtqmm2QNj2ezcJdcC0izj0tC2x8sVCnaUZyu5mGsrIu3tFATCyhBel8 iuponH0ImdFXJJVvyqcZLyNzVUQgMjaZcEn9XRvv6ZR.7SXn8rVR4KIFfhcn dbum3yKxynW.cgGDCtkPw6TC2MV1OKuHNydnNEdSULx2iwci6Jc7uh.ZQ3fv i7FRmG81Yr9imCnfwW5f1pYg6R5SWarnlM90hnB8W51HRjTBuXu5UYGAeatE bo5EKkDFMo3n1WUqm721sNq0VmioQYhXs6sw1WlrTnE38KqjAe5Gxn.KAmgK .hNlypEBLfsCkx77DgN8DERO.i2QZ2Sk0BMcqnsLIwXrypIVyMJteOW2Jel6 oujd8TugQxty86.pMA.Xf31WOQX2r1zNUhMnMFMftbdzaVb.Csjb1x2cHyvf WCT9OPFbEY25pK8VpoYVKrUt1NOtWcdzX1EfS_hE_K6P6bOE7ad2uY6ARIpt Ee7Q- Received: from [99.149.13.13] by web36901.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:00:37 PST X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.115.331698 References: X-Original-Message-ID: <1325278837.82805.YahooMailNeo@web36901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Original-Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:00:37 -0800 (PST) From: Chris Zavatson Reply-To: Chris Zavatson Subject: old Lancair maintenance X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-2114655128-11346749-1325278837=:82805" ---2114655128-11346749-1325278837=:82805 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I've been trying to establish criteria for parts replacement on a number of= items.=A0 The latest of=A0these=A0would be=A0hose assemblies.=A0 Manufactu= rer guidelines place the burden for determining useful life on the end user= .=A0 It would also appear much more reliance is placed on external visual= =A0inspection than I would have expected=A0in determining "condition" (SAE = ARP 1658, "Visual Inspection Guide for Installed Hose Assemblies").=A0Nowhe= re have I found a criteria for determining the condition of the hose interi= or.=A0 Does anyone have=A0any experience in this area?=A0 What do the airli= nes or maintenance shops use for replacement criteria?=A0 =0A=0Afrom Aeroqu= ip:=0A"The actual service life of a given hose assembly, in a given applica= tion, is dependent on many variable factors. These variable factors may inc= lude, but are not limited to, operating pressure, pressure surges, flexing,= operating temperatures (both fluid and ambient), installed bend radius, cl= eaning solutions, ozone and assembly routing. Due to the variety of operati= ng conditions and applications, the user, through their own analysis, testi= ng and/or review of maintenance records and data, is ultimately responsible= for making the final selection, of or decisions about replacement hose ass= emblies and assuring that all performance, safety and warning requirements = of the application are met.=0A......1. Normal Duty Hoses=0ATypically, these= are hose assemblies in less demanding applications, such as in-body, in-wi= ng or other applications not normally exposed to the environment, cleaning = fluids, continuous temperature extremes, heavy pressure pulsation, etc., an= d having infrequent maintenance actions associated with their installation.= Recommended Maintenance Approach: On Condition=0A2. Moderate or Heavy Duty= Hoses=0ATypically, these are hoses exposed to more frequent maintenance ac= tivity or major system removal, or hoses occasionally exposed to environmen= tal conditions (e.g., upper wheel well hoses, APU hoses) Recommended Mainte= nance Approach: Either On-Condition or based on user data and maintenance r= ecords.=0A3. Demanding or Severe Duty Hoses=0ATypically, these are hoses co= ntinuously or routinely exposed to environmental, cleaning, or other harsh = operating variables=0Asuch as landing gear brake hoses, EDP hoses, etc., an= d associated with major systems requiring regular removal, repair or overha= ul. Recommended Maintenance Approach: Strongly consider replacement at time= of major system overhaul."=0A=A0=0A=A0=0AChris Zavatson=0AN91CZ=0A360std= =0Awww.N91CZ.net ---2114655128-11346749-1325278837=:82805 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'= ve been trying to establish criteria for parts replacement on a number of i= tems.  The latest of these would be hose assemblies.&nb= sp; Manufacturer guidelines place the burden for determining use= ful life on the end user.  It would also appear much more reliance is = placed on external visual inspection tha= n I would have expected in determining "condition" (SAE ARP 1= 658, "Visual Inspection Guide for Installed Hose Assemblies"). Nowhere= have I found a criteria for determining the condition of the hose interior= .  Does anyone have any experience in this area?  What do th= e airlines or maintenance shops use for replacement criteria? 
 
from Aeroquip:
"The actu= al service life of a given hose assembly, in a given application, is depend= ent on many variable factors. These variable factors may include, but are n= ot limited to, operating pressure, pressure surges, flexing, operating temp= eratures (both fluid and ambient), installed bend radius, cleaning solution= s, ozone and assembly routing. Due to the variety of operating conditions a= nd applications, the user, through their own analysis, testing and/or revie= w of maintenance records and data, is ultimately responsible for making the= final selection, of or decisions about replacement hose assemblies and ass= uring that all performance, safety and warning requirements of the applicat= ion are met.
......
1. N= ormal Duty Hoses
Typically, these are hose = assemblies in less demanding applications, such as in-body, in-wing or othe= r applications not normally exposed to the environment, cleaning fluids, co= ntinuous temperature extremes, heavy pressure pulsation, etc., and having i= nfrequent maintenance actions associated with their installation. Recommend= ed Maintenance Approach: On Condition
2. Moderate or Heavy Duty = Hoses
Typi= cally, these are hoses exposed to more frequent maintenance activity or maj= or system removal, or hoses occasionally exposed to environmental condition= s (e.g., upper wheel well hoses, APU hoses) Recommended Maintenance Approach: Either On-Condition or based o= n user data and maintenance records.
3. Demanding or Severe Dut= y Hoses
Typi= cally, these are hoses continuously or routinely exposed to environmental, = cleaning, or other harsh operating variables
such as landing gear brake = hoses, EDP hoses, etc., and associated with major systems requiring regular= removal, repair or overhaul. Recommended Maintenance Approach: Strongly co= nsider replacement at time of major system overhaul."
 
 
Chris Zavatson
N91CZ
360std
---2114655128-11346749-1325278837=:82805--