![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
A few examples of what I've seen so far:
-) two springs missing that should have held exhaust pipes together. instructor judged we could fly, though -) fatigue cracks in a bracket that hold the oil cooler. instructor judged we could fly, though -) oil cooler still partially covered for the winter cold on a sunny day in May. instructor judged we could fly, though Badly frayed cable on the horizontal stabilizer. AI caught it while fueling the aircraft. Showed it to the pilot who decided it would make back home, about 30 miles. AI actually begged his pax to stay behind. At about 200' on take off the cable failed. Aircraft did a complete loop impacting the ground at about a 60 degree angle. Nothing left of the aircraft more than knee high. Engine buried about 2'. Pilot died instantly, but the pax with all broken bones, struggled for help for almost 5 minutes before expiring. For a friend here.... he passed on 3 spinner cracks on a rental 172. One crack was 1 1/2 in long. They (others) continued to fly the aircraft for another week before the spinner was removed. All of these point out the old adage that incompetence is unaware of itself. In the first cases, the instructor "judged we could fly." Was the instructor a mechanic, too, or maybe en engineer, to make the determination that broken or missing parts didn't affect the safety of the aircraft? Designers and manufacturers don't typically spend money on stuff that isn't necessary, and as far as cracks go, they don't usually progress in a linear fashion. They can show up, travel slowly, then the part can fail all at once as the metal ahead of the crack reaches its fatigue point from the work-hardening that results when a crack allows too much flexing. A cracked spinner can kill, and has done so in the past. They've been known to come through the windshield. Frayed cables might be ok for a while or might not, as the instance given clearly demonstrates. Would the pilot of that airplane have suspended himself thousands of feet above the earth using a frayed cable? Probably not, be he did what amounted to the same thing. If we're going to just say "it'll be OK," why bother with the preflight in the first place? There are the Five Hazardous Attitudes: Anti-Authority, Resignation, Invulnerability, Macho, and Impulsivity. Under which one does the "it'll be OK" fit? And if the law requires that the airplane be airworthy before flight but we fly it with obvious defects anyway, where does that fit? See this: http://www.pilotoutlook.com/instrume..._and_antidotes I'll get flamed, for sure, but then you guys can place the flamer somewhere in the Hazardous Attitude scale. Dan |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message ... A few examples of what I've seen so far: -----------examples snipped for brevity---------- All of these point out the old adage that incompetence is unaware of itself. In the first cases, the instructor "judged we could fly." Was the instructor a mechanic, too, or maybe en engineer, to make the determination that broken or missing parts didn't affect the safety of the aircraft? Designers and manufacturers don't typically spend money on stuff that isn't necessary, and as far as cracks go, they don't usually progress in a linear fashion. They can show up, travel slowly, then the part can fail all at once as the metal ahead of the crack reaches its fatigue point from the work-hardening that results when a crack allows too much flexing. A cracked spinner can kill, and has done so in the past. They've been known to come through the windshield. Frayed cables might be ok for a while or might not, as the instance given clearly demonstrates. Would the pilot of that airplane have suspended himself thousands of feet above the earth using a frayed cable? Probably not, be he did what amounted to the same thing. -----------more snipped---------- Dan Back when there was a coffee shop, that had become a major hang-out for both pilots and mechanics at my local airport, I once deferred a question to a flight instructor who I knew to also be a certified A&E. The questioned was a student pilot and I knew the correct answer; but really thought that it should come from someone properly certified--and was utterly astounded by the avalanche of poppycock that issued forth. I was so doumfounded that I still can not recall the original question--half a dozen years later. So, while I completely agree with your basic premise, I must also suggest that any trust the general knowledge and good sense of a mechanic or engineer should be evaluated as part of the decision whether to accept his opinion or the products of his work! I do know several mechanics who are darned good engineers, even though the don't have engineering degrees, and also a couple of automotive mechanics whose opinions I would gladly trust with regard to aircraft; but they are not all created equal. Peter |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
annual inspections | [email protected] | Soaring | 1 | October 20th 07 01:08 AM |
100 Hour Inspections | Judah | Piloting | 26 | December 1st 06 02:30 PM |
Homebuilt Inspections | john smith | Home Built | 8 | December 25th 04 02:20 PM |
Time Measurement for Inspections | O. Sami Saydjari | Owning | 15 | April 7th 04 05:26 AM |
Pre-buy inspections | Paul Folbrecht | Owning | 12 | March 1st 04 12:27 AM |