Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Damage To Static Port Area - Rvsm Compromised.  
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31702 posts, RR: 56
Posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4579 times:

In case there is an unfortunate damage to the RVSM area around the static port area,which is beyond go limits needing a patch repair under the Static port & expanding outwards say approx 3-4 inches,but since the patch in the RVSM zone....What transpires.

Will that Aircraft always be required to fly NON RVSM or how can RVSM status be restored on that Aircraft?.


Think of the brighter side!
15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5647 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4552 times:

The local engineering department, in accordance with manufacturer and regulatory guidance, will make the final determination as to the repair scheme. But, I have seen a small area of damage enlarged so that the repair area grows. It's quite possible and likely that a flush repair be ordered instead of a doubler/tripler as the case may be.

I can't imagine that an operator would even consider remaining non-RVSM for a long period.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31702 posts, RR: 56
Reply 2, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4390 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 1):

I can't imagine that an operator would even consider remaining non-RVSM for a long period.

They would not.....Hence extending the patch over a larger area,thereby making the RVSM smooth area available makes sense.



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offline737tdi From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 933 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4381 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

If I recall correctly on the 737, the existing static port would be removed then a repair large enough to regain distance limits around/over the port would be installed, then a new port would be installed and spotfaced to limits. With the SRM changing quite a bit it may have changed since the last time I saw it done.

User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31702 posts, RR: 56
Reply 4, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4349 times:

Quoting 737tdi (Reply 3):

Thats what I think too....If the patch covers the entire static area requiring to be dent free & reinstallation of the Static port over the patch,it should be ok.
However I've noticed a couple of aircraft flying RVSM & having a patch stretching only 3-4 inches in the RVSM zone.I'll try & get a pic if I come accross the Aircraft in future.



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offline767eng From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2010, 49 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4308 times:

I'm not sure, I've seen a couple of aircraft with scab patches encroaching into the RVSM area around the static ports but still flying RVSM with the repair approved and permanent.

We've also replaced and entire skin panel on a 320 because someone hit the RVSM area with a set of steps and dented it badly.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31702 posts, RR: 56
Reply 6, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4262 times:

What is the Regulation say.........The RVSM Zone should not be compromised,so obviously the patch should extend outside the zone.


Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5647 posts, RR: 15
Reply 7, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4247 times:

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 6):
The RVSM Zone should not be compromised,so obviously the patch should extend outside the zone.

If the engineering department says it's ok, then it's ok. Their repair schemes do go in front of the FAA (here is the US) for oversight.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineboeing767mech From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1031 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4141 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 1):
I can't imagine that an operator would even consider remaining non-RVSM for a long period.

Depends on the carrier and the aircraft's mission, my little bankrupt carrier has a 757 that has been out of RVSM complience for a couple of years now because of a dent in the RVSM critral inspection area. Since this aircraft is a NON-ETOPS and NON-OVERWATER aircraft and the damage is allowable without a repair. The company doesn't want to spend the money to repair the dent to make the airplane RVSM qual'd

David



Never under-estimate the predictably of stupidty
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31702 posts, RR: 56
Reply 9, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4116 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 7):
If the engineering department says it's ok, then it's ok

shouldn't it be approved by the Manufacturer & regulatory first,if its not in the repair scheme,before engineering/Maintenance can give the goahead.

Quoting boeing767mech (Reply 8):
dent in the RVSM critral inspection area.

where is the dent exactly?.



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 10, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4032 times:

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 9):
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 7):
If the engineering department says it's ok, then it's ok

shouldn't it be approved by the Manufacturer & regulatory first

In order to be approved by engineering, it has to be approved by the regulator. This doesn't necessarily mean the regulator actually explicitly approved it though...many airlines have their own engineering capability and delegated authority to approve repairs. This is very similar to what the OEM's do...the regulators actually explicitly approve only a vanishingly small number of repairs. The regulators delegate their authority to qualified engineers at the OEM's, and some airlines if they can demonstrate the capability.

Tom.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31702 posts, RR: 56
Reply 11, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4012 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10):
The regulators delegate their authority to qualified engineers at the OEM's, and some airlines if they can demonstrate the capability.

Agreed.....But what explains the variation in the RVSM Area repairs.....Who is wrong.



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 12, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4010 times:

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 11):
But what explains the variation in the RVSM Area repairs.....Who is wrong.

Possibly none of them...the ability to approve a repair is directly related to how well you know, exactly, what the actual requirements are and how your repair will impact them. That, in turn, depends on your engineering analysis capability and your access to the original requirements and specifications. The very same repair may be approvable by one organization and not approvable by another because one may have the ability and authority to show compliance and the other may not.

Tom.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31702 posts, RR: 56
Reply 13, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3746 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 12):
The very same repair may be approvable by one organization and not approvable by another because one may have the ability and authority to show compliance and the other may not.

Shouldn't an approved organisation for that task have the capability if approved.



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 14, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3706 times:

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 13):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 12):
The very same repair may be approvable by one organization and not approvable by another because one may have the ability and authority to show compliance and the other may not.

Shouldn't an approved organisation for that task have the capability if approved.

Not really; any organization that's approved to certify their own repairs still needs to complete paperwork so say that they certify that the repair meets the FARs (or whatever the equivalent is in the relevant country). The trick is in being able to prove that you meet the FARs. A complex repair in a tricky area is difficult to analyze; a large MRO or airline with a very capable engineering group might be able to do very detailed analysis to show that the repair is good. A small operator, faced with the same repair, might not have the capability or know-how to show that the repair is good so, even though they're an approved organization, they may not be able to approve that particular repair.

A big kicker with repair design is knowing the loads; usually on the OEM knows that. That leaves 3rd parties with the task of proving that the repair is at least as strong as the original (hence must be strong enough for the loads)...that can be very easy or very difficult to do depending on the complexity of the repair.

Tom.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31702 posts, RR: 56
Reply 15, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1581 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 14):
A big kicker with repair design is knowing the loads

That would need to be calculated theoritically........and approved by regulatory too right.



Think of the brighter side!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Damage To Static Port Area - Rvsm Compromised.
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
How Bad Is This Damage To EK A340-500? posted Mon Oct 4 2010 10:22:20 by afriwing
Water Damage To Propellers posted Fri Aug 17 2007 08:48:27 by A346Dude
Easy Way To Remember Port And Starboard? posted Fri Jul 29 2005 19:55:14 by TupolevTu154
What Caused The Damage To This HP 733? posted Mon Feb 9 2004 20:04:44 by USAFHummer
What Could Cause This Damage To A Prop? posted Sat Feb 7 2004 01:53:02 by Sushka
Does Vapor Cause Any Damage To The Wing? posted Fri Nov 21 2003 19:12:59 by PIA777
Reversers Cuase Damage To Runway? posted Sat Oct 19 2002 05:23:21 by Indianguy
Sound "resonance" Damage To Jets? posted Tue May 8 2001 21:06:52 by Mr Spaceman
Static Pressure Port Research Help Requested posted Wed Jan 9 2008 17:42:40 by AeroTechnical
Fire Alarms In Cargo/baggage Area - What To Do? posted Thu May 4 2006 15:22:35 by JulianUK

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format