DO YOUR CONTOL CHECKS!

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

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

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...

Good article Jim...it's great to see your insights...

In article ,
Jim Vincent wrote:
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



--

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

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

AOPA pilot Feb 2004, page 124, article by John S. Yodice.
"It excluded coverage 'if the airworthiness certificate
of the aircraft was not in full force and effect'..."

Is the certificate ok if the required AD's have not been complied
with? NO. Some AD's are 100 hour AD's, and occur more
frequently than the annual. Of course this isn't talking about
this particular accident, if the AD's were not "required."

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 is all just my opinion. I recommend reading the
AOPA article, and then 43.5 and 43.9, and then judging for yourself.

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


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


--

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

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

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

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.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

"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.



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

Mark seems to have his own unique interpretations of the CFRs (FARs).
Please don't confuse him with facts!

;0)

Allan


"Michael McNulty" wrote in message
news:75occ.26961$zh.26113@fed1read07...

"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.