Depression after Washing

Mike writes:

You mean the damage which was improperly repaired almost 10 years prior?

Yes. Why didn't he catch it on the preflight? You said that if you miss
damage on a preflight, you're not doing a preflight.

Do you even know what a bulkhead is?

Yes. Apparently the pilot of that aircraft didn't do a preflight inspection,
because you've indicated that the only way to miss damage is to not preflight
the aircraft.

Mike writes:

The chances of any such 'invisible' damage being a safety of flight issue
are pretty much nil.

What natural law ensures that damage related to safety is usually visible? It
seems to have failed that Japanese pilot, not to mention a long list of other
pilots.

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.

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. And an annual inspection provides a year for things to
go wrong in flight.

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?

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.

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.

Charles Talleyrand wrote:
My kid and I just washed the plane. Even after washing it, there are
still chips of paint missing, a bit of rust, a drip-stain of fuel, and
so on. The panel looks like it has been modified every once in a
while since 1966. My plane is relatively nice compared to the other
ones on the field, but it's still in worse cosmetic condition than my
car.

None of these problems is a safety issue, and none of them could be
fixed without spending significant time and/or money.

One of the reasons we own airplanes is pride of ownership.

This makes me sad. Makes me want to sell and rent.


We added this stuff to our Aerostar (inboard wing sections and
horizontal stabs not protected by the de-ice boots). Works wonders. No
stone chips. As for the rust... deal with it. Not only is it a sure
sign you need a paint job, it also tells me you're not spending enough
time with your baby. :-)

http://www.getwrapped.ca/leadingedge/

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

You mean the damage which was improperly repaired almost 10 years prior?

Yes. Why didn't he catch it on the preflight? You said that if you miss
damage on a preflight, you're not doing a preflight.

Do you even know what a bulkhead is?

Yes. Apparently the pilot of that aircraft didn't do a preflight
inspection,
because you've indicated that the only way to miss damage is to not
preflight
the aircraft.

What part of improperly repaired do you not understand?

"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".

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

The chances of any such 'invisible' damage being a safety of flight issue
are pretty much nil.

What natural law ensures that damage related to safety is usually visible?
It
seems to have failed that Japanese pilot, not to mention a long list of
other
pilots.

The damage to the JAL aircraft WAS detected.

On Jul 4, 4:56 pm, "Mike" wrote:

Obviously, you haven't seen some of the things I have seen. One of the
more tender, and more invisible spots on some airframes is where the
horizontal stabilizer connects to the fuze. Many designs allow a
tremendous moment arm for any non-balanced load on the stabilizer to
stress the attachment points. This shows up as cracked spars on Cessnas,
and I have seen stressed and cracked fittings from another airframe. How
can this happen? Well on Cessnas it happens from folks using improper
procedures to back the plane into a parking spot. It can also happen from
innocent (but ignorant) bystanders, mowers, animal activity, or any of
thousands of other posibilities.

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.

A good heave up and down on the end of the stab of a 172
flexes the center of the forward spar, eventually cracking it. A
gentle bit of push-pull is all that's needed, to see if there's
unusual tip travel. I bet your spar is cracked now. Many are. Cessna
calls for stopdrilling the crack unless it has reached the spar
flange, in which case it has to be repaired. I once flew a 172 that I
subsequently found had a broken spar, busted clear through both
flanges so that the skin was all that was holding it. The thing could
have killed me if I gotten into turbulence or had to take violent
evasive action. We run several 172s and have seen cracks, up to four
of them, in a spar; we now forbid students to push down on the things.
No more cracks.
172s suffer cracking at the bottom of the aft doorposts. Some
models crack inside the forward doorposts. Do I need to point out that
these doorposts are what the wing pulls on to lift the airplane, along
with the struts? No preflight will find those. The wing spar attach
lugs are known to crack at the bolt holes. In older 172s the forward
elevator bellcrack bracket would break loose, reducing elevator
control. In newer 172s (rod-style gear; 1973 or so and on) the landing
gear retaining bolt sometimes shears and totals the airplane on
landing. As the years go by, these older airplanes will become the
subjects of ADs addressing age-related airframe failure, probably
after a couple come apart in flight. Sooner or later.

Dan

On Jul 6, 4:45*am, wrote:
On Jul 4, 4:56 pm, "Mike" wrote:

*Obviously, you haven't seen some of the things I have seen. *One of the
more tender, and more invisible spots on some airframes is where the
horizontal stabilizer connects to the fuze. *Many designs allow a
tremendous moment arm for any non-balanced load on the stabilizer to
stress the attachment points. *This shows up as *cracked spars on Cessnas,
and I have seen stressed and cracked fittings from another airframe. *How
can this happen? *Well on Cessnas it happens from folks using improper
procedures to back the plane into a parking spot. *It can also happen from
innocent (but ignorant) bystanders, mowers, animal activity, or any of
thousands of other posibilities.

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.

* * * * *A good heave up and down on the end of the stab of a 172
flexes the center of the forward spar, eventually cracking it. A
gentle bit of push-pull is all that's needed, to see if there's
unusual tip travel. I bet your spar is cracked now. Many are. Cessna
calls for stopdrilling the crack unless it has reached the spar
flange, in which case it has to be repaired. I once flew a 172 that I
subsequently found had a broken spar, busted clear through both
flanges so that the skin was all that was holding it.


Why did your push-pull test not detect it? I prefer to give a shake
and feel the nature of surface response.

Cheers

On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 09:45:11 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:


evasive action. We run several 172s and have seen cracks, up to four
of them, in a spar; we now forbid students to push down on the things.
No more cracks.

Just out of curiosity, is this before or after Cessna put the
reinforced spars (R and S models?) in at the factory? I don't believe
the newer models are prone to this kind of issue, but wouldn't do it
in practice anyway - using the towbar is always better for the
aircraft, and done by hand I don't think it's possible to damage a
172/182 nosewheel.