Dumb & Dumber

Javier wrote:
What kind of guy sends The Girl to push the plane?

A lazy one who takes the "I'd do it, but since the door is on your side
and you have to get out *anyway* ..."

What kind of girl puts up with it?

One who thinks she's helping?

Javier wrote:
Gary Drescher wrote:

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:Bafhg.19946$1i1.17134@attbi_s72...

Also, you must figure that the plane is 30+ years old. God knows how
many other times those attach points have been subjected to overload.

I cringe every time I think of it.


I wish planes (especially rental planes) had "Do not push here!"
stenciled on tempting but inappropriate places to push. That would be
as useful as many of the other placards.



I remember looking at the stickers on the control surfaces of a Yak at
SMO some years back.

They said "NO PUSHSKI"

As for the pair featured in Jay's posting, I gotta wonder:

What kind of guy sends The Girl to push the plane?

What kind of girl puts up with it?

-jav
I'd push the plane if I thought the other person had to use the rudder.
I'm lucky, I'm a pilot too, so if it requires pushing and rudder I
usually get the rudder duty, but I would push.

Margy

Gary Drescher wrote:


I wish planes (especially rental planes) had "Do not push here!" stenciled
on tempting but inappropriate places to push.

Mine does.

The placards are available at all the Aircraft Spruce or Sporty's type
places.

There are two stabilator attach points that would have been under tremendous
twisting load with her pushing waaaay out at the end of the "arm" of the
stabilator. I can't think of any in-flight condition that would put such an
asymmetric load on the bird.

The bearings/bushings are a source of stabilator wear that must be
continuously assessed.
Part of my preflight on the Cherokee Six I fly is to grasp the leading
and trailing edge free end and gently move it fore/aft/up/down to
determine the amount of play.
As I wrote back in March, I have not yet found anyone to tell me how
much play in the bearings is acceptable before grounding the aircraft
for excessive play.

john smith wrote:
As I wrote back in March, I have not yet found anyone to tell me how
much play in the bearings is acceptable before grounding the aircraft
for excessive play.



If it comes loose i n your hands, it's probably a no-go item.

You're welcome... glad to help.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

As I wrote back in March, I have not yet found anyone to tell me how
much play in the bearings is acceptable before grounding the aircraft
for excessive play.

If it comes loose i n your hands, it's probably a no-go item.
You're welcome... glad to help.

I thought there might be something I was overlooking.

I had the bushings changed out on my Seneca. I brought it to my
mechanics attention. Holding the end of the stabilizer, it had some for
and aft movement. I can't recall how much. Eigth of an inch? It was just
beyond the detectable point, anyway. Now years later, still zero play.

john smith wrote:
There are two stabilator attach points that would have been under tremendous
twisting load with her pushing waaaay out at the end of the "arm" of the
stabilator. I can't think of any in-flight condition that would put such an
asymmetric load on the bird.


The bearings/bushings are a source of stabilator wear that must be
continuously assessed.
Part of my preflight on the Cherokee Six I fly is to grasp the leading
and trailing edge free end and gently move it fore/aft/up/down to
determine the amount of play.
As I wrote back in March, I have not yet found anyone to tell me how
much play in the bearings is acceptable before grounding the aircraft
for excessive play.

As I wrote back in March, I have not yet found anyone to tell me how
much play in the bearings is acceptable before grounding the aircraft
for excessive play.

Quite true -- and this ambiguousness isn't limited to just stabilator
bushings. It's throughout the aircraft repair industry.

Example: On my old Warrior, the "corporate" shop (who fleeced be for a $5K
"annual", back in '98) mentioned that the "spindle" that the trim cable
wraps around (back in the tail section) had too much free-play in it.

Of course, they wanted a zillion dollars to fix it.

By then, I was pretty much broke, so I agreed to do it ASAP after the
annual, and they signed it off.

Instead, I ran as hard and fast as I could from that shop, and landed in my
current A&P's shop. He looked at it and said the free-play was perfectly
normal, and it needed no maintenance or attention at all.

The subsequent owner never touched it -- and, to my knowledge, it's been
signed off at annuals ever since, without maintenance.

Morale: Find out the financial situation of your mechanic's shop BEFORE you
take your plane to them. It's funny how that condition will directly
impact their perceived condition of your plane.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article NDChg.21352$No1.2367@attbi_s71,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:


Morale: Find out the financial situation of your mechanic's shop BEFORE you
take your plane to them. It's funny how that condition will directly
impact their perceived condition of your plane.
--

Or as Click and Clack repeatedly say, never take your car in for service
just before the shop owner's boat payment is coming due.

by "Jay Honeck" Jun 6, 2006 at 01:12 PM


That stabilizer is designed to stand much more twisting force than any
real life girl could ever apply to it. Otherwise it would come off
during
the first reasonable bumpy flight. (Nevertheless you shouldn't do what
she
had done, of course.)

There are two stabilator attach points that would have been under
tremendous
twisting load with her pushing waaaay out at the end of the "arm" of the
stabilator. I can't think of any in-flight condition that would put such
an
asymmetric load on the bird.

Also, you must figure that the plane is 30+ years old. God knows how
many

other times those attach points have been subjected to overload.

I cringe every time I think of it.


Sounds like the FAA is correct in studying older planes, a study which the
AOPA is (naturally) "opposing."