X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 11:38:18 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-da01.mx.aol.com ([205.188.105.143] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.3) with ESMTP id 5335347 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 03 Jan 2012 09:09:03 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.105.143; envelope-from=vtailjeff@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-db04.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-db04.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.51.202]) by imr-da01.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id q03E8JiM027513 for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 09:08:19 -0500 Received: from core-mnc002c.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-mnc002.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.106.197]) by mtaomg-db04.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id 5DC8AE000085 for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 09:08:19 -0500 (EST) References: X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [LML] old Lancair maintenance In-Reply-To: X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: vtailjeff@aol.com X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CE98384799C61A_209C_16BC23_webmail-m137.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 35138-STANDARD Received: from 24.107.65.42 by webmail-m137.sysops.aol.com (149.174.9.25) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Tue, 03 Jan 2012 09:08:19 -0500 X-Original-Message-Id: <8CE9838477D35A6-209C-79195@webmail-m137.sysops.aol.com> X-Originating-IP: [24.107.65.42] X-Original-Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 09:08:19 -0500 (EST) x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:470975616:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d33ca4f030bd344e0 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ----------MB_8CE98384799C61A_209C_16BC23_webmail-m137.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cessna recommends ten years. Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Chris Zavatson To: lml Sent: Mon, Jan 2, 2012 10:17 am Subject: [LML] old Lancair maintenance I've been trying to establish criteria for parts replacement on a number of= items. The latest of these would be hose assemblies. Manufacturer guidel= ines place the burden for determining useful life on the end user. It woul= d also appear much more reliance is placed on external visual inspection th= an I would have expected in determining "condition" (SAE ARP 1658, "Visual = Inspection Guide for Installed Hose Assemblies"). Nowhere have I found a cr= iteria for determining the condition of the hose interior. Does anyone hav= e any experience in this area? What do the airlines or maintenance shops u= se for replacement criteria? =20 =20 from Aeroquip: "The actual service life of a given hose assembly, in a given application, = is dependent on many variable factors. These variable factors may include, = but are not limited to, operating pressure, pressure surges, flexing, opera= ting temperatures (both fluid and ambient), installed bend radius, cleaning= solutions, ozone and assembly routing. Due to the variety of operating con= ditions and applications, the user, through their own analysis, testing and= /or review of maintenance records and data, is ultimately responsible for m= aking the final selection, of or decisions about replacement hose assemblie= s and assuring that all performance, safety and warning requirements of the= application are met. ...... 1. Normal Duty Hoses Typically, these are hose assemblies in less demanding applications, such a= s in-body, in-wing or other applications not normally exposed to the enviro= nment, cleaning fluids, continuous temperature extremes, heavy pressure pul= sation, etc., and having infrequent maintenance actions associated with the= ir installation. Recommended Maintenance Approach: On Condition 2. Moderate or Heavy Duty Hoses Typically, these are hoses exposed to more frequent maintenance activity or= major system removal, or hoses occasionally exposed to environmental condi= tions (e.g., upper wheel well hoses, APU hoses) Recommended Maintenance App= roach: Either On-Condition or based on user data and maintenance records. 3. Demanding or Severe Duty Hoses Typically, these are hoses continuously or routinely exposed to environment= al, cleaning, or other harsh operating variables such as landing gear brake hoses, EDP hoses, etc., and associated with majo= r systems requiring regular removal, repair or overhaul. Recommended Mainte= nance Approach: Strongly consider replacement at time of major system overh= aul." =20 =20 Chris Zavatson N91CZ 360std www.N91CZ.net ----------MB_8CE98384799C61A_209C_16BC23_webmail-m137.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Cessna recommends ten year= s.
 
Jeff


= -----Original Message-----
From: Chris Zavatson <chris_zavatson@yahoo.com>
To: lml <lml@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Mon, Jan 2, 2012 10:17 am
Subject: [LML] old Lancair maintenance

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 majo= r systems requiring regular removal, repair or overhaul. Recommended Mainte= nance Approach: Strongly consider replacement at time of major system overh= aul."
 
 
Chris Zavatson
N91CZ
360std
----------MB_8CE98384799C61A_209C_16BC23_webmail-m137.sysops.aol.com--