DO YOUR CONTOL CHECKS!

Eric Greenwell wrote in message

WHat aircraft was this, which bellcrank, and how was the helper exerting
pressure? Or was he simply holding the surface steady while the pilot
applied the pressure? What, exactly, broke (bellcrank, mounting of the
bellcrank, a bearing), and why did it fail?

I know of one case where an elevator push rod failed during a PCC
(Ventus) and another where an aileron circuit bell crank failed in
flight at the weld line. (G103Acro).


Andy

Jim,

Very good and complete presentation, I agree with all you are saying.
Interesting that you recommend a practice that I rarely see in this
country - in fact when rigging at a contest site I feel like my wife
and I are the only ones doing it right:
Assistant SITS in cockpit, PIC is walking around the plane
moving/holding control surfaces giving instructions to the assistant.
The normal picture I observe is that the pilot is in the glider,
parachute and harness on and ready to go and some bystander is told to
hold onto the control surface while the pilot vigorously shakes the
stick or whatever. Rudder is never subject to being tested. Even
worse is the situation when the pilot stands outside the cockpit
rattling the stick while some poor schmock tries to keep the aileron
or elevator from banging against the stops. All you instructors out
there, this is very bad practice and someone must have been teaching
it to the US glider population.

Herb, J7

illspam (Jim Vincent) wrote in message ...
In my experience, many people do not cover all the critical elements of doing a
crontrol check. I recently gave a presentation on positive control checks,
critical assembly checks, preflight checks and other checks. If you're
interested, here it is:

http://www.mymedtrans.com/personal.htm

You might find elements here that might help you.


Jim Vincent
CFIG
N483SZ
illspam

What's wrong with the standard procedure where the pilots move the stick and
the assistance hold the control surfaces?? Often the assistance is not a
pilot, so putting him in a cockpit expecting him to operate stick and rudder
is too much. My wife wouldn't even reach the rudder pedals. I much rather
move the stick and rudder myself while giving the assistance simple
instructions. All the assistance needs to do is apply pressure in the right
direction while the pilot moves the stick to full deflection each direction.
By moving the stick myself I can ensure it feels right and have a full
travel.
Don't get me wrong, I am strongly advocating PCC and never skip it, but I
can't think of any reason why on earth I would trust a bystander to seat in
my cockpit, and do the pilots job.

Ramy

"Herbert Kilian" wrote in message
...
Jim,

Very good and complete presentation, I agree with all you are saying.
Interesting that you recommend a practice that I rarely see in this
country - in fact when rigging at a contest site I feel like my wife
and I are the only ones doing it right:
Assistant SITS in cockpit, PIC is walking around the plane
moving/holding control surfaces giving instructions to the assistant.
The normal picture I observe is that the pilot is in the glider,
parachute and harness on and ready to go and some bystander is told to
hold onto the control surface while the pilot vigorously shakes the
stick or whatever. Rudder is never subject to being tested. Even
worse is the situation when the pilot stands outside the cockpit
rattling the stick while some poor schmock tries to keep the aileron
or elevator from banging against the stops. All you instructors out
there, this is very bad practice and someone must have been teaching
it to the US glider population.

Herb, J7

illspam (Jim Vincent) wrote in message
...
In my experience, many people do not cover all the critical elements of
doing a
crontrol check. I recently gave a presentation on positive control
checks,
critical assembly checks, preflight checks and other checks. If you're
interested, here it is:

http://www.mymedtrans.com/personal.htm

You might find elements here that might help you.


Jim Vincent
CFIG
N483SZ
illspam

In article ,
Tom Seim wrote:

1. So, assuming there was insurance, would this accident be covered? Or
would the insurer say:

a) you didn't put it together correctly; bad dog, no coverage
b) you didn't comply with the AD; bad dog, no coverage
c) both


Well, in the US, many states say that if ANY aircraft maintenance
was not done as required, coverage is null. 43.5 and 43.9
require logging the assembly before return to service (flight).
If he logged it, but did the assembly incorrectly, I'd suspect
he'd be fine. If he didn't log it, then it is illegal
maintenance, and the insurer could have a case against payment.

I am NOT talking about the AD here. Just the assembly.
AOPA magazine had a good article on insurance and maint.
last month. It seems an aircraft was lacking an AD compliance
that had nothing to do with the fuel starvation that caused the
accident, but the insurer got out of paying because the
aircraft was generally not airworthy due to the not recorded
as done AD. I suppose an insurer could say that assembly
was "required maint" before flight, but since it was not logged,
the aircraft was not airworthy.

That's my take on it anyway...fear not the FAA, better to
focus on how to keep your insurance valid...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:4071b3fc$1@darkstar...
In article ,
Tom Seim wrote:

1. So, assuming there was insurance, would this accident be covered? Or
would the insurer say:

a) you didn't put it together correctly; bad dog, no coverage
b) you didn't comply with the AD; bad dog, no coverage
c) both


Well, in the US, many states say that if ANY aircraft maintenance
was not done as required, coverage is null. 43.5 and 43.9
require logging the assembly before return to service (flight).
If he logged it, but did the assembly incorrectly, I'd suspect
he'd be fine. If he didn't log it, then it is illegal
maintenance, and the insurer could have a case against payment.

I am NOT talking about the AD here. Just the assembly.
AOPA magazine had a good article on insurance and maint.
last month. It seems an aircraft was lacking an AD compliance
that had nothing to do with the fuel starvation that caused the
accident, but the insurer got out of paying because the
aircraft was generally not airworthy due to the not recorded
as done AD. I suppose an insurer could say that assembly
was "required maint" before flight, but since it was not logged,
the aircraft was not airworthy.

You better re-read that article. Coverage was denied because the A/C
in question was out of annual. There was a legal issue in that case
where the owner argued that the lack of a current annual was not
causal to the accident, therefore the insurance company should pay up.
It seems that some states allow this argument. The Supreme Court in
the state where this accident occurred (Nevada) had not ruled on this
one way or the other. The Court of Appeals concluded they probably
would have ruled for the insurance company and let the judgment for
the company stand. I guess a decision based on the odds is appropriate
for Nevada.

The point is, you agree to have a current annual completed and signed
off on your glider in exchange for coverage. Don't do this and you
don't have coverage. What is complicated about that? This is
distinctly different from the question from whether the A/C was
airworthy for that particular flight. I once attempted to launch with
my elevator disconnected. The flight was short and the landing wasn't
pretty. The glider clearly wasn't airworthy for that flight, but
coverage was not in question.

If you have any question about this issue don't argue with me, discuss
it with your insurance company!

Tom Seim
Richland, WA

Mark James Boyd wrote: [snip] " . . . during a PCC a bellcrank broke and
this was caused by the pressure exerted by the "helper."
Nice to have this happen on the ground, and I can't
think of how this could have been detected without
a PCC. So now I think a PCC is useful too..."

Having a helper exert this much force is good???

I retain my renegade attitude to PCC's - they may be suitable for some
things if done right (and breaking gliders is not doing it right in my
book - the above is not an isolated example) but other checks are far
more useful, and less damaging, for some gliders, e.g. my Ka6E.

Chris N.

I'm going to guess that the 10,000 repetitions of
opening and closing the dive brakes were what really caused the
bellcrank problem in this case. On the other hand, I'm
not a dig fan of manhandling and potentially
deforming the spoilers on the glass ships either.
If I was smarter and I owned my own ship, I'd
likely investigate the best places to apply pressure which
would't damage anything even when repeated 10000 times...

In article ,
Chris Nicholas wrote:
Mark James Boyd wrote: [snip] " . . . during a PCC a bellcrank broke and
this was caused by the pressure exerted by the "helper."
Nice to have this happen on the ground, and I can't
think of how this could have been detected without
a PCC. So now I think a PCC is useful too..."

Having a helper exert this much force is good???

How much is too much? There's really no manual for this, and
the POH doesn't even mention PCC... This area could
use a bit of advice from sailplane manufacturers/materials
engineers...


I retain my renegade attitude to PCC's - they may be suitable for some
things if done right (and breaking gliders is not doing it right in my
book - the above is not an isolated example) but other checks are far
more useful, and less damaging, for some gliders, e.g. my Ka6E.
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

A Positive Control Check is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

What is required is a Critical Assembly Check, of which the PCC may form a
part.

It is not possible to do a CAC unless the way the particular glider is
rigged is understood, and there may be variations between different versions
of the same type of glider, e.g. the elevator control connection on the
ASK21.

I know of several cases where gliders have flown mis-rigged and got away
with it, e.g.:
K13 with the drag spar pins not in safety.
K21 with the drag spar pins missing.
K13 with the aileron and brake safety pins missing (discovered when one
aileron disconnected itself while flying).
ASW20 with the elevator bolt missing.
ASW24 with the elevator bolt missing.

All these things happened to people I know, none of them would have been
found by a PCC, indeed in many cases a PCC was done.

Of course, there have been many cases where the pilot did not get away with
it.

I also know one club with several K23s, where the elevator control is
automatic when the tailplane is rigged. After PCCs were made compulsory at
that club, at the subsequent annual inspection damage was found to several
elevators almost certainly caused by too much force during the PCC.

I am sure the method of PCC recommended by Jim Vincent is correct, (posting
5th April 04.53 above), and his presentation
http://www.mymedtrans.com/personal.htm looks ideal to me. However this is
only part of a Critical Assembly Check, and if that is done properly the PCC
is not the most important part.

I am sure that a PCC should be done with the pilot at the control surfaces,
and the helper at the cockpit controls.

When Hotelier connections were first used it was not considered necessary
to use safety pins, indeed some were provided with check holes so small that
the use of pins was not possible.

It was subsequently found that it was possible for Hoteliers to come undone
UNDER NORMAL FLIGHT LOADS, and EVEN WHEN CORRECTLY RIGGED. This was why
the use of locking wire, pins or some other safety device was made
compulsory, and those connectors manufactured with small holes had to have
them drilled larger.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.


"Chris Nicholas" wrote in message
...

Mark James Boyd wrote: [snip]
" . . . during a PCC a bellcrank broke and this was caused by the pressure
exerted by the "helper."
Nice to have this happen on the ground, and I can't
think of how this could have been detected without
a PCC. So now I think a PCC is useful too..."

Having a helper exert this much force is good???

I retain my renegade attitude to PCC's - they may be suitable for some
things if done right (and breaking gliders is not doing it right in my
book - the above is not an isolated example) but other checks are far
more useful, and less damaging, for some gliders, e.g. my Ka6E.

Chris N.

Bill,

I'm under the impression that you haven't looked at the presentation and are
just evaluating it based on the title itself..if you have, my apologies.

Some points I would like to make:

What is required is a Critical Assembly Check, of which the PCC may form a
part

I fully agree with you. Not only is a PCC and CAC needed, but also takeoff
checklists and landing checklists. The presentation does cover the
requirements to do a PCC, CAC, as well as L'Hotelier connectors, the
requirement for pins or LH connectors, preflight checks, landing checks....you
get the picture.

After PCCs were made compulsory at
that club, at the subsequent annual inspection damage was found to several
elevators almost certainly caused by too much force during the PCC.

In addition, regarding avoiding damage to gliders, it does have a detail slide
adressing this, points mentioned he

* Don’t bang stick or control surfaces against the stops
* Use light pressure on control surface… perhaps equal to weight of forearm
* Control surfaces and trailing edges are damaged easily…apply pressure with
open hand to avoid point loads
* Apply pressure at control surface strong point…typically near pushrod
attach point
* For elevator, one hand on left elevator, one hand on right elevator
* For spoilers, hold by spoiler plate, not spoiler cap…be careful of your
fingers

Regards!







Jim Vincent
CFIG
N483SZ
illspam

1. So, assuming there was insurance, would this accident be covered? Or
would the insurer say:

a) you didn't put it together correctly; bad dog, no coverage
b) you didn't comply with the AD; bad dog, no coverage
c) both


You clearly don't know how insurance companies work. They will check
that the required parts of the policy have been complied with (annual
inspection, BFR, etc.). There is nothing in the policy (at least the
ones I have had) that require compliance with all ADs (the annual
inspection is supposed to take care of this). And there is also
nothing in the policy that negates coverage if miss an assembly step.
Read your policy: it is a contract that can't be added to (or
subtracted from) if and when there is a claim.

Tom Seim
Richland, WA