DO YOUR CONTOL CHECKS!

Stewart Kissel wrote in message ...
Gee,

Since my(our) premiums pay for these claims, when
does the insurance company not have to pay?

When you haven't done what you are supposed to: current BFR and annual
inspection.

IMPORTANT:

The A/P who signs off on the annual MUST be registered and current.
Most of us assume that the guy in the shop has done all of the
necessary paperwork, but when was the last time you actually checked
the guy's credentials? Probably never. Well, if he is faking it your
insurance company can (and probably will) deny the claim. You can
check his credentials with the FAA. The same thing goes for the CFIG
who signs off on your BFR.
If you think that you can claim ignorance or "acting in good faith",
well you can forget it. This falls into you either comply or you
don't. Period. Of course, you can always gamble that your insurance
company won't catch it. In this case: GOOD LUCK! You can always sue
the offending A/P or instructor, but the odds on this tactic are poor
at best.

Tom Seim
Richland, WA

Was a 2-33. Heard about it secondhand (or I'd give more
detail). I've seen service difficulty reports in Cezznas,
dunno if there are such things for gliders, maybe the
mechanic who fixes it will give official details...I'll
ask...


In article ,
Eric Greenwell wrote:
Mark James Boyd wrote:
I've gone back and forth on this. I've been a big
proponent of the assembly check, and thought the PCC was redundant.
Recently, however, 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...

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?
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA



--

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

From what I now find out, Michael is absolutely correct.
In the 80's this was amended so gliders didn't have
to record the assembly/disassembly in a logbook.

www.ssa.org/ListGovtNewsDetail.asp?id=15

I thought they did, as we've done so locally (I've
seen the notations in our logs). Come to find out this isn't
required (due to the amendment). Funny, I was asked about
this on my CFIG checkride from the FAA guy, and
I said log it, and he didn't disagree. It seems
this means it's ok to log it, but it isn't required.

If I had a quarter for every time I'm spectacularly wrong...

In article 75occ.26961$zh.26113@fed1read07,
Michael McNulty wrote:

"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:4071b778$1@darkstar...
AOPA pilot Feb 2004, page 124, article by John S. Yodice.

Is the airworthiness OK if the aircraft was disassembled,
and then flown without logging reassembly and
43.5 "approval for return to service?" If I was an insurer, depending
on the size of the claim, I might argue it was unairworthy.


This has been hashed out over and over again. There is NO requirement to
log normal glider assembly and disassembly. NONE. Look it up. This is NOT
considered a maintenance action but a part of normal operations. The FAA,
somewhere, even has made an official statement to exactly this effect.

Please stop inventing "requirements" for others to follow.

Michael, thanks for being polite enough to say please!
Quite polite and a lot of restraint here on RAS...




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




--

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

Interesting theory.

ac·ci·dent
n
1. chance: the way things happen without any planning, apparent cause, or
deliberate intent

act of God

n
event beyond human control: a sudden uncontrollable event produced by
natural forces, for example, an earthquake or a tornado

neg·li·gence
n
1. condition of being negligent: the condition or quality of being
negligent
2. law civil wrong causing injury or harm: a civil wrong (tort) causing
injury or harm to another person or to property as the result
of doing something or failing to provide a proper or reasonable level of
care. See also contributory negligence

neg·li·gent
adj
1. habitually careless: habitually careless or irresponsible
2. law guilty of negligence: guilty of failing to provide a proper or
reasonable level of care


By definition, accident implies "act of God". And, by definition, an act of
God can not be forecast and may not be preventable.
Certainly, if your glider is tied down properly and gets blown away by a
windstorm, that is the purpose of
insurance - to make one whole. Conversely, if your aircraft is not tied
down properly and gets blown away by a windstorm,
then insurance should, quite properly, not be paid. (Or in the case of
contributory negligence, should be paid only in proportion to the
percentage equaling the effect of the act of God.)

Negligence, on the other hand, implies inevitability. One who is negligent
contributes to one's ultimate downfall.

What is commonly referred to as an accident, i.e., taking off without your
controls hooked up properly, is more
correctly an act of negligence.

None of this, of course, is to be confused with the phrase, "there but for
the grace of God, go I."

I think I'll take care or not being negligent and let my insurance take care
of acts of God.

Allan



" My understanding is that generally speaking the assumption is that all
accidents are preventable. Insurance is protection against negligence,
not
acts of God, therefore someone's insurance is likely in effect and will be
sorted out once the cause is determined or blame assigned and this could
happen in the courts among insurance carriers. Of course, once found
negligent, you, as any part of the equation, may have trouble securing
future coverage at reasonable rates. However, if your glider is damaged,
then repaired, your current policy should remain in effect through it's
term. If it's destroyed, then you'll need a new policy for the
replacement
glider.

Frank Whiteley

Well!

He's lucky to get away with that!

Yes, a talk is required. Not a bollocking, but a sensible talk as to
the the cause and solution of the problem. Let's not forget the tug
pilot and others on the ground could have been killed. Therefore the
matter can not just be left to the "competition" pilot.
I wonder what solution he came up with in the few minutes between
launches. The only acceptable one would have been to fit safety pin's
to all L'Hotellier fitting's.

Positive checks would not always have found the problem which causesd
this accident.

"The safety pin or wire prevents the locking plate from backing out
and thus allowing the socket to inadvertently disengage from its
corresponding ball".

Do some of you still fly without safety pins?

If you do don't you are risking your own and other's lives.

Lets hope we all have a safe season.

Happy flying!

Regards

Andy




Eric Greenwell wrote in message ...
Bullwinkle wrote:
Yes, the towpilot knew. He was doing a bit of shaking himself, having just
nearly had his nose driven into the ground. Yet, he, too, drove on that day.

As I remember it (this was over 20 years ago) the towpilot made a pattern,
landed, towed a couple of other gliders, and then the -20 driver was ready
to go again.

Janos and Mark raise an interesting point, though: this was a highly thought
of pilot, the only one who regularly entered competitions. He went cross
country just about every time he towed, when the rest of us were beating the
towplane back to the ground. Thus, he was widely perceived as the best pilot
on the site. Who would have been in a position to sit him down and have the
"come to Jesus" talk he so richly deserved?

What talk did he deserve? If he repeated the bad procedures the next
week, yes, but what made you think he hadn't learned a valuable lesson?
Perhaps he'd already determined the cause and the solution by the time
he'd pushed the glider back to the launch point. What makes you think he
would repeat that mistake?

Not everyone is rattled by a mistake, even a potentially lethal one.
Some can analyze it, correct it, and move on. I've seen good pilots do
this in minutes, not days.

Thinking back on it, the
"culture" at that gliderport just wouldn't have supported it.

A way to start might have been "Wow, that was close! How are you going
to avoid that in the future?" Perhaps the club missed an opportunity to
see how mistakes should be handled, and possibly a good pilot didn't get
some questioning he needed.

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

I think there shouldn't be idols at the airports. Simple we can't
afford it. We are just simple people with all those mistakes
Not long ago I moved to another club partly because there were such
untouchable persons in the previous club. They haven't even flow xc for
years but they was known as hot pilots just because they made serious xc
flights several years ago. This attitude also scare away several
newcomers...
Regards,

/Janos

Bullwinkle wrote:

Yes, the towpilot knew. He was doing a bit of shaking himself, having just
nearly had his nose driven into the ground. Yet, he, too, drove on that day.

As I remember it (this was over 20 years ago) the towpilot made a pattern,
landed, towed a couple of other gliders, and then the -20 driver was ready
to go again.

Janos and Mark raise an interesting point, though: this was a highly thought
of pilot, the only one who regularly entered competitions. He went cross
country just about every time he towed, when the rest of us were beating the
towplane back to the ground. Thus, he was widely perceived as the best pilot
on the site. Who would have been in a position to sit him down and have the
"come to Jesus" talk he so richly deserved? Thinking back on it, the
"culture" at that gliderport just wouldn't have supported it.

I wonder how many other places have hot pilots, who are untouchable because
of their exalted status as hot sticks? I'm sure they're immune from making
basic errors due to their overall excellence, but who among us would dare to
counsel Moffatt, Striedieck, Payne, or Knauff if we saw them doing stupid
things at our field? Or harder still, at their home fields? (Again, I'm sure
none of the legends mentioned would ever deserve counseling, just using
their exalted names as examples: no offense intended or implied.)

Food for thought.

On 4/5/04 2:19 PM, in article 4071b12e$1@darkstar, "Mark James Boyd"
wrote:

What is more surprising is that the towpilot
let him hook up again. I sure wouldn't tow him again until
I had at least a long talk and a day later. I wonder
if the tuggie even knew there had been a problem?

Janos Bauer wrote:
Bullwinkle wrote:

The absolute most amazing thing: He walked the -20 back to the launch point,
Inspected it for damage (found none), hooked up the elevator, and promptly
took off. I'd have been shaking for a week after a near miss like that, not
have taken off within 15 minutes.

I can't believe it! No one asked him to sit down a bit and think about
what he made? The towpilot also could be killed so I think this action
should be investigated a bit more than this...

/Janos


--

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

At 08:42 06 April 2004, Andy Henderson wrote:
Well!

He's lucky to get away with that!

Yes, a talk is required. Not a bollocking, but a sensible
talk as to
the the cause and solution of the problem. Let's not
forget the tug
pilot and others on the ground could have been killed.
Therefore the
matter can not just be left to the 'competition' pilot.
I wonder what solution he came up with in the few minutes
between
launches. The only acceptable one would have been to
fit safety pin's
to all L'Hotellier fitting's.

Positive checks would not always have found the problem
which causesd
this accident.

'The safety pin or wire prevents the locking plate
from backing out
and thus allowing the socket to inadvertently disengage
from its
corresponding ball'.

Do some of you still fly without safety pins?

If you do don't you are risking your own and other's
lives.

Lets hope we all have a safe season.

Happy flying!

Regards

Andy

The spring prevents the locking plate backing out and
thus allowing the socket to inadvertently disengage
from its corresponding ball.

The pin prevents three things.
1. If the mechanism is bunged up with crud the spring
may not be strong enough to move the locking plate
so the socket may be only over the ball, not locked
(should be possible to verify this by trying to pull
the socket off the ball).
2. The spring may be broken through fatigue allowing
the locking plate to back out (you should be able to
feel this by verifying that the spring pushes the locking
plate to the end of its travel when released).
3. If the socket is not properly engaged the locking
plate will not be fully home and the hole will not
be visible, fitting a pin cures this problem but so
does a visual inspection of the holes.

As I understand it, the AD was issued in response to
an incident where the spring was either broken or insufficiently
strong to move the locking plate in a gunged up connector.

I never flew my 20 without pins, but then I fly in
a country where the airworthiness organisation issued
an AD requiring pins to be fitted. If I were in a country
where this was not mandatory then I would consider
flying without pins as long as I had verified that
the locking plate was moving freely, the spring returned
it to the end of its travel and felt strong enough,
that the hole in the locking plate was clearly visible
with the L'Hotelier fitted and that the socket would
not pull off the ball and the pin on the end of the
ball was proud of the slot in the socket (on the flap,
airbrake and elevator connections of the 20).

However, in the case under discussion, the fitting
of the pins was not a factor, the complete failure
to connect the elevator was the problem, having a pin
on a bit of string won't save you in this case.

It's also worth noting that a loose pin can be almost
as dangerous as a disconnected elevator. The pilot
I bought my share in the 20 from contemplated bailing
out on one occasion when the elevator safety pin worked
its way far enough out of the hole in the L'Hotelier
to foul on the structure of the fin and prevent full
elevator travel, fortunately with the application of
a bit of brute force the pin bent and he regained control.
You should make sure that the pin cannot work its way
out in this fashion.

Regards,

Andrew

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

ADP wrote:

Interesting theory.

ac·ci·dent
n
1. chance: the way things happen without any planning, apparent cause, or
deliberate intent

act of God

n
event beyond human control: a sudden uncontrollable event produced by
natural forces, for example, an earthquake or a tornado

neg·li·gence
n
1. condition of being negligent: the condition or quality of being
negligent
2. law civil wrong causing injury or harm: a civil wrong (tort) causing
injury or harm to another person or to property as the result
of doing something or failing to provide a proper or reasonable level of
care. See also contributory negligence

neg·li·gent
adj
1. habitually careless: habitually careless or irresponsible
2. law guilty of negligence: guilty of failing to provide a proper or
reasonable level of care


By definition, accident implies "act of God". And, by definition, an act of
God can not be forecast and may not be preventable.
Certainly, if your glider is tied down properly and gets blown away by a
windstorm, that is the purpose of
insurance - to make one whole. Conversely, if your aircraft is not tied
down properly and gets blown away by a windstorm,
then insurance should, quite properly, not be paid. (Or in the case of
contributory negligence, should be paid only in proportion to the
percentage equaling the effect of the act of God.)

Negligence, on the other hand, implies inevitability. One who is negligent
contributes to one's ultimate downfall.

What is commonly referred to as an accident, i.e., taking off without your
controls hooked up properly, is more
correctly an act of negligence.

None of this, of course, is to be confused with the phrase, "there but for
the grace of God, go I."

I think I'll take care or not being negligent and let my insurance take care
of acts of God.

Interesting theory; nonetheless, your liability insurance will pay, even
if you are negligent. If we were never at fault, we wouldn't need it,
would we? Ditto for the typical hull coverage. Is it an act of God if
you drop and break your canopy while putting it on the glider? I don't
think so, but most policies cover that event.

The typical way the companies deal with "negligent" policy owners is to
raise their premiums or drop them entirely, not by trying to determine
the amount of "fault" in an accident.
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA