Bits of Wisdom Thanks to Bob Hall

 

Things that do you no good in aviation:

 

Altitude above you.

Runway behind you.

Fuel in the truck.

A navigator.

Half a second ago.

Approach plates in the car.

The airspeed you don’t have.

 

If God had meant man to fly, he would have given him more money.

 

What’s the difference between God and Pilots?  God doesn’t think he’s a pilot.

 

Flying is not dangerous; crashing is dangerous.

 

Flying is the perfect vocation for a man who wants to feel like a boy, but not for one who still is.

 

Young man, was that a landing or were we shot down.

 

Learn from the mistakes of others.  You won’t live long enough to make all of them yourself.

 

Pilots believe in clean living.  They never drink whiskey from a dirty glass.

 

 

MONTHLY SAFETY TIP

 

I for one thought it was not an acceptable practice to use a cell phone from an airplane because when you fly commercial cell phones have to remain off the entire time you are in flight. BUT, here is an article that Nick Gurin gave from Chapter #639’s February 1998 Newsletter that is a reprint of a reprint.

 

I just had a visit with a cell phone sales person and we got around to the subject of cell phones in aircraft.

 

I think I can clear this up once and for all.

 

I am an ops-manager for AT&T Wireless and have dealt with this question several times.

 

The correct answer is yes you can use the phone in your bird with no problem.

 

A phone can only be on one cell at a time and then it hands off to a different cell.  It does not hurt or swamp any other cells.  Second, the FAA could care less and so could the FCC.  It is up to the individual airlines whether or not you can use it on their planes.  This question was addressed when a lawyer in Waco wanted to use his aboard his private jet, and after much checking, the answer was yes, and believe me he does.

 

I carry mine all the time and use it in the Stinson, I have even called approach when my radios went out and got a clearance to land.  That blew their minds. (ss)  Steve Howards-Repro from Chapter 75 Newsletter.  ”Jim Simmons”

 

Interesting?  New and surprising information?  Bad info, maybe?  Well, I am a Cellular One customer, and I have used my cell phone from a C-182RG.  But was I in danger of being hauled away?  Well after reading the email above, I called Cellular One’s customer service and talked to “Pete” there.  Pete told me that there was no problem with using my phone from a private aircraft, and basically told me the same story that Steve Howard reported in the email, that the phone talks to only one cell site at a time.  And the fact that several sites may receive from an airplane (because the plane is in the air) doesn’t confuse the cell system at all.

 

SO . . . rather than having the phone with me and being afraid to use it, I will now use it with confidence.  If you have a cell phone, you should consider this as another communication device - - like a spare radio - - that is available to us when we need it.

 

Since I wrote the note to Paul I’ve looked into this matter a little further.  Although the FAA and the cell phone people don’t seem to care about you using your cell phone from an airplane, the FCC has a law that says you can’t do that.

 

The FCC thought that a cell phone in an airplane would link up with lots of cells and confuse the system, so they enacted this “prohibition”.

 

But the cell sites are smarter than the FCC envisioned and they DO NOT get confused.  The FCC “law”, I think, is one of those outdated laws that will stay on the books forever, unenforced.  Accordingly, I continue to think that it is O.K. to use your phone for you plane . . .

 

Feature builder

 

I have to apologize I didn’t get a feature builder article put together for this issue.  I had taken some pictures of progress and my camera decided it was time to get stubborn and not rewind so I lost the whole film.  I will do better next month as I plan to feature the “Oldtimers” in our chapter so if any of you can give me some tidbits about them please help. 

 

 

Feature ArticleS

I want to Thank Craig Kloppenburg for all of the great material I have been using for my feature articles. 

 

Liquid Penetrant Inspection

Reprint from aircraft maintenance technology/november 1998

 

Liquid penetrant inspection is a process that is both easy to use and inexpensive.  As such, it is one of the most widely used inspection processes used in aviation.

 

Because of its ease of use and wide availability, many in the industry take dye penetrant for granted, allowing anyone, under any conditions to inspect critical aviation parts without the benefit of proper training and controlled conditions.

 

Like any other inspection process, liquid penetrant, whether visible or fluorescent must be applied through a controlled process in order for it to be accurate.  These controls include such things as dwell time, rinsing practices, wiping practices, penetrant selection for the conditions and parts being inspected, black light intensity, etc.

 

The following is a basic re-view of good practices for using liquid penetrants.

 

According to Magnaflux, one of the manufacturers of liquid penetrants and related equipment, the liquid penetrant inspection process uses the natural seepage of a liquid around a suspected flaw to create a recognizable indication of all types of cracks or surface opening defects.

 

Penetrants are useful only for surface breaking cracks in a solid and non-porous material.  Its sensitivity is greater than that of magnetic particle inspection if it is applied properly.

 

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE

According to Magnaflux, penetrant inspection is accomplished in five simple but critical steps.  One of the most important steps in the process is the initial cleaning of the workpiece in order to “open” potential cracks to the surface.  Oil, water, dirt grease and other contaminants that are not thoroughly cleaned will tend to accumulate penetrant that can either mask real indications or create false indications of defects.  A cleaner/remover and rag should be utilized, while rags and paper towels that leave residue on the inspection surface should be avoided.  It is critical that the cleaned surface be completely dry before the penetrant ia applied.  This is particularly important when using water based cleaners.

 

The desired degree of sensitivity and cost are usually the most important  factors in selecting the proper penetrant method for given application.  The visible liquid penetrant method is utilized primarily for localized applications.  The fluorescent method is used for larger pieces and for volume applications and is actually more accurate.

 

When using either method, the next step in the inspection process is the application of the penetrant fluid (usually red in color for visible or a transparent green cast for fluorescent) to the cleaned surface, forming a film over the area.  The aerosol spray or liquid should spread freely and uniformly over the surface and migrate into any openings.  With the visible method, the vivid red indications contrast the fight background of developer under visible light.  Application time varies depending on crack size, shape, characteristics of the defect, physical characteristics of the fluids and environmental conditions.  Generally, you should allow at least ten minutes for complete penetration. If the temperature falls below 40F, increase the dwell time to compensate.  When using immersion, the dwell time can vary from three to five minutes. Check with the manufacturer of the penetrant however, to ensure proper dwell times.  Also with immersion, parts can be immersed one at a time, or small parts can be batch processed.  When batch processing a number of parts at once, they must be separated from each other during the immersion and dwell period.  Contact between parts interferes with the formation of a smooth, even coating of penetrant.

 

The visible liquid penetrant inspectionmethod employs color contrasting water wash, post emulsifiable and solvent removable penetrants to satisfy all but the highest range of sensitivities. The fluorescent method can be used at all ranges of sensitvity.

 

Post-emulsifiable penetrants are penetrants that cannot be completely removed from the part surface with water.  They require a second processing step to convert the surface penetrant layer into a mixture that can be removed with water.  Removing the excess penetrant maybe the most difficult step in the entire process.  When using the visible method, use a dry cloth, then a damp cloth to remove excess penetrant.  Keep in mind that insufficient cleaning will leave a background of penetrant on the surface, creating only a slight visible difference between the defect and the background, a contrast that may not be sufficient for detection.  Cleaning too aggressively, however, may remove the penetrant from the upper area of the defect, not allowing the developer to reach the penetrant and, therefore, offering no possibility of indicating a flaw.  Due care must be exercised to avoid over-removal.

 

For fluorescent dip tank applications, the wash procedure will vary depending on which type of penetrant used - water wash, lipophilic (PE), hydrophilic (PR) or solvent-removable.

 

The water wash method involves simple equipment and is ideal for large parts.  It requires washing the penetrant off with 65F to 75F water (30 to 120 seconds according to manufacturer's specs.

 

The lipophilic method offers greater control than any other penetrant method, but it is more difficult to handle large parts effectively and generates more waste watter.  This method requires removal of penetrant by dipping in emulsfier first, then washing with water as with the water wash method.

 

 

The hydrophilic method is a bit more complex, yet it is the most common in the industry.  The process involves a dip, pre-rinse, application of a penetrant remover, and a water wash.

 

The last step in the process involves developing the remaining penetrant as it seeps from the cracks, and a visual examination for indication of penetrant bleedback from surface openings.

 

If inspecting visibly, be sure you are using suitable lighting conditions.

 

Fluorescent inspection requires the use of a suitable black light.

 

Remember that although many manufacturers don't specify a shelve life for their products, old penetrant that has been sitting in a tank for a year may not be as sensitive as new penetrant.  So check it regularly and change it when needed.

 

 

RECENT UPDATES IN PENETRANT SPECIFICATIONS

 

The specification for Penetrant Inspection Materials AMS2644 has recently been adopted to replace MIL-I-24135, the long-time standard in the industry.  AMS 2644, issued August 1996, has several similarities to MIL-I-25135, but also has new requirements that were not part of the old military standards.  The intent was for penetrant material manufacturers and other interested parties to be able to conduct the tests as written.  This is true for the most part except for sensitivity tests, which are still being conducted at Wright Patterson Air Force Base.  On the same note, WPAFB will still be responsible for the maintenance of the Qualified Products List, QPL-2644.  The first revision of the list was issued on March 13, 1998, the same time MIL-I-25135E and QPL-25135-17 were canceled.  The highlights of the new AMS2644 in comparison to the old MIL-I-25135 include:

 

	AMS-2644	MIL-I-25135
Type of Penetrant	Type 1 Fluorescent Type 2 Visible	Type I Fluorescent Type II Visible Type III Dual Mode
Forms of Developer	Form a Dry Powder Form B Water Soluble Form c Water-suspendible Form d Nonaqueous Type 1 Form e Nonaqueous Type 2 Form f Special Application	Form A Dry Powder Form b Water soluble Form c Water-suspendible Form d Nonaqueous Form e Special Application
Designation of Reference materials for sensitivity and removability	Standards for each method	One set of standards for all
Fluorescent brightness standard	One standard for all sensitivity	One standard for each level

 

JUNE MINUTES - EAA CHAPTER #72

By Frenchy Fernand, V.P.  June 19, 1999

 

Burrall Sanders, Chuck Grow and I were all unable to attend the June meeting at Kelly Airpark so Frenchy had to wear three hats that day.  Thanks for filling in Frenchy.

 

Frenchy Fernand opened the meeting following the Flyin/Breakfast at Dave Allen’s Hanger at Kelly Airpark.  There were 15 members in attendance.  The April and May Meeting Minutes were approved by the membership.  Pete Gonzalez asked to delay the Treasurers Report until the next meeting.

 

Loyd Remus reported on the successful Young Eagles Rally.  17 kids received rides and were delighted with the experience.  Many thanks to all the volunteers who put together such a great program.  Loyd reports that two more rallies are in the works for the fall.  One rally will be at Limon.  Larry Dale reports that 100 new Chapter 72 Logo Embroidered Patches are being made and will be available soon.  Pete Gonzalez proposed that the Newsletter Editor have a Polaroid Camera for recording Chapter events.  The membership approved the purchase.  The business meeting was closed and Dave Allen presented a program on the WACO that he is building.  What an outstanding day.  There were 38 or more airplanes flown in for the fly in.  You should have been there!

ANNUAL PICNIC

Sat - aug. 14 @ 3:00 p.m

WHERE?   The Canteen & Taildraggers Plus.

NE of Leading Edge Air Foils

Orange Hangar

Bring a covered dish, your family, plane & anything else you want to share with the chapter members!

EAA Chapter #72

Jean Jenkins
Newsletter Editor
4826 Trailmark Loop
Colorado Springs, CO 80916

---