"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Mike writes:

I always give each side a good heave up and down for this very reason, so
such can easily be checked on the preflight for impending failure.

It is unlikely that you can create the same magnitude and type of stress
with
"a good heave" that the aircraft would or could experience in flight.

Nor is that the intention.

Certainly. But that's what pre-flight and annual inspections are for.
My
A&P found a cracked bulkhead in the tail on my first annual after I
bought
the plane. It had probably been that way for years. Such problems you
mentioned are common, but how many airframes do you see breaking up in
flight because of it?

More than necessary.

How many do you think that is?

The preflight is just a simple way to find out if the aircraft is
airworthy
to the best of the pilot's ability. I never suggested it was anything
else,
so you should go back and check your inference for any degree of
reasonableness.

You said that if a pilot doesn't find damage, he hasn't done a preflight,
which implies that a preflight will find all damage. Have you changed
your
mind?

Actually I said damage was a non-issue because of the preflight because any
damage that would be an issue for the next flight is going to be found
during the preflight.


So why do you take a simple statement and take it to the nth degree?

It is only necessary to show that the statement cannot stand, which has
been
done.

The previous poster (who has no flight experience, btw) condemned partial
ownership because another owner might "damage" the airplane and not tell
anyone. It was a ridiculous statement to begin with because a proper
preflight and regular inspections make such a non issue to the safety of
flight.

Except that this is not true.

You made an absolute statement where a qualified one was required.

Actually what I have done is show that your fear of "damage" by someone else
is irrational and a weak point against partial ownership.

So once again you've shown your "experience" is limited by what Microsoft FS
can offer.


If you don't want to get flamed, try working your way up the
thread and figuring out what the context is before you jump on a comment
and
try to make it something it isn't.

In the future, structure your statements more carefully, and you will not
find
yourself in a corner in debate.

My "comment" was far more valid than yours, BTW.

Your statement that, in effect, a preflight cannot fail to find damage and
that a pilot who does not find damage has not done a preflight inspection
was
manifestly false, and does a disservice to pilots who do a thorough
preflight
inspection and yet die anyway as a consequence of damage that no preflight
inspection can detect.

Go do a search of the NTSB database sometime and see how many of those cases
you can find, then tell me again about my "disservice".