DO YOUR CONTOL CHECKS!

I lost a good friend to this 3 years ago.

He took off with his elevator disconnected in an ASW20A-L.
The aircraft ballooned on tow and he impacted the ground from around 100ft.

The sad part about all this is he had "a positive control check" from a
friend who to check the elevator just held the surface down feeling the push
up against the control by the disconnected rod did not lift the surface to
check the control pull against the pressure.

People learn how to do positive control checks properly!!
Always pin your hotellier's and double check the control integrity on any
aircraft using hoteliers. You never know when a control rod could be rattled
off by towing the aircraft to the launch point.

Al

"Bullwinkle" wrote in message
...
I saw this exact thing happen at Stennis field, Bay St Louis, MS, in the
early 80's. The pilot was the best at the field, at least he was the only
one who flew in competitions. He and his wife both flew ASW-20's.

He assembled one day, began his aerotow, nose went up like he was on a
winch/auto tow, and he released at perhaps 40 or 50 feet.

His wife's back was turned, as she gathered dolly, etc that needed to be
stowed. She missed the whole thing. I was sure I was watching a low level
stall/spin happening before my eyes.

Then the nose came down, then back up again, then down again, and at the
bottom of one of these oscillations his wheel touched down, he dumped the
flaps and he got on the brakes and stayed down. Stopped a couple of feet
from the airport fence.

Turns out his elevator hadn't been hooked up, or had popped off between
assembly and tow. He claimed that he had been able to control pitch with
the
flaps, but I (personal opinion, no data to back this up) think he just got
incredibly lucky.

The best news: no damage to aircraft or pilot.

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.

Long way of saying that I agree: DO YOUR CONTROL CHECKS!


On 4/4/04 2:58 PM, in article ,
"Martin Gregorie" wrote:

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 11:40:06 +1200, Bruce Hoult
wrote:

In article ,
Stewart Kissel wrote:

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief2.asp?...0417&ntsbno=CH
I04CA090&akey=1

That looks more like: "if the manufacturer issues an AD [1], you'd
probably better do it, whether you legally have to or not".

-- Bruce

[1] in this case, installing a locking device onto L'Hotellier
connectors.

This is the subject of a BGA AD in 1993 for the ASW-20, so I don't see
where you get the "manufacturer AD" bit from, even though it does
appear in ASW-20 TN-17 on extending the service life beyond 3000
hours.

As the AD in question refers to the requirement for a locking pin in
the Hotellier, I'm a bit gobsmacked that these couplings could ever
have been used without a locking pin or shroud: there's no way you
could inspect the check hole after assembly (other than poking
something through it) on wing control circuits in the ASW-20 and other
gliders. Admittedly you can see the check hole for the elevator, but
that's the only one that is easy to check by inspection on a '20.

--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:4071b3fc$1@darkstar...
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.

You better re-read that article. Coverage was denied because the A/C
in question was out of annual. There was a legal issue in that case
where the owner argued that the lack of a current annual was not
causal to the accident, therefore the insurance company should pay up.
It seems that some states allow this argument. The Supreme Court in
the state where this accident occurred (Nevada) had not ruled on this
one way or the other. The Court of Appeals concluded they probably
would have ruled for the insurance company and let the judgment for
the company stand. I guess a decision based on the odds is appropriate
for Nevada.

The point is, you agree to have a current annual completed and signed
off on your glider in exchange for coverage. Don't do this and you
don't have coverage. What is complicated about that? This is
distinctly different from the question from whether the A/C was
airworthy for that particular flight. I once attempted to launch with
my elevator disconnected. The flight was short and the landing wasn't
pretty. The glider clearly wasn't airworthy for that flight, but
coverage was not in question.

If you have any question about this issue don't argue with me, discuss
it with your insurance company!

Tom Seim
Richland, WA

"ADP" wrote in message
...
Interesting theory.

Not a theory. It was explained quite succinctly by Pat Costello at one of
the SSA Conventions using the example I've conveyed here.

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.

Yep, and you are covered up to your policy limits for whatever damage you
cause and incur. You carry liability insurance to cover you against your
neglience, just like in your car. You carry hull insurance to protect you
from personal material loss.

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.

It may not. If your neighbor has no hull coverage, he may sue you in an
attempt to show you were somehow negligent and any other findings were in
error. That's what the court's determine and your insurance company will
defend you, as ut will be the agent that will be made to pay in the event a
judgement goes against you.

Frank

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

Frank,

I was just tweaking you a bit with a play on words.

As usual, nothing is simple. My reason for having Hull insurance is to
spread the risk of damage
and get back into the air as soon as possible should something untoward
happen - regardless of
its genesis.

We have insurance with the hope that we will never need it. Seems
reasonable to me.

Allan

"F.L. Whiteley" wrote in message
...

"ADP" wrote in message
...
Interesting theory.

Not a theory. It was explained quite succinctly by Pat Costello at one of
the SSA Conventions using the example I've conveyed here.

Agreed, but it is good to know what events may be construed as negligence or
acts of God. There are a number of owner/operators that self-insure. If
you have deep pockets, it may pay off. It's a gamble for some entity either
way.

Frank

"ADP" wrote in message
...
Frank,

I was just tweaking you a bit with a play on words.

As usual, nothing is simple. My reason for having Hull insurance is to
spread the risk of damage
and get back into the air as soon as possible should something untoward
happen - regardless of
its genesis.

We have insurance with the hope that we will never need it. Seems
reasonable to me.

Allan

"F.L. Whiteley" wrote in message
...

"ADP" wrote in message
...
Interesting theory.

Not a theory. It was explained quite succinctly by Pat Costello at one
of
the SSA Conventions using the example I've conveyed here.

goneill wrote:
I know of a case here in NZ exactly the same ,very high hours competition
pilot distracted during rigging, took off and released very quickly and
landed
straight ahead in a paddock using flaps only to control pitch.
The ASW20 seems relatively benign in this mode because I have heard of other
cases

Well, "benign" is perhaps not the word. But that aside I'd expect it
to depend a lot on CG position whether there is a chance to control it
with flaps alone, or not.

CV (also an ASW20)

Mark James Boyd wrote: [snip] " . . . 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..."

Having a helper exert this much force is good???

I retain my renegade attitude to PCC's - they may be suitable for some
things if done right (and breaking gliders is not doing it right in my
book - the above is not an isolated example) but other checks are far
more useful, and less damaging, for some gliders, e.g. my Ka6E.

Chris N.

I'm going to guess that the 10,000 repetitions of
opening and closing the dive brakes were what really caused the
bellcrank problem in this case. On the other hand, I'm
not a dig fan of manhandling and potentially
deforming the spoilers on the glass ships either.
If I was smarter and I owned my own ship, I'd
likely investigate the best places to apply pressure which
would't damage anything even when repeated 10000 times...

In article ,
Chris Nicholas wrote:
Mark James Boyd wrote: [snip] " . . . 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..."

Having a helper exert this much force is good???

How much is too much? There's really no manual for this, and
the POH doesn't even mention PCC... This area could
use a bit of advice from sailplane manufacturers/materials
engineers...


I retain my renegade attitude to PCC's - they may be suitable for some
things if done right (and breaking gliders is not doing it right in my
book - the above is not an isolated example) but other checks are far
more useful, and less damaging, for some gliders, e.g. my Ka6E.
--

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

A Positive Control Check is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

What is required is a Critical Assembly Check, of which the PCC may form a
part.

It is not possible to do a CAC unless the way the particular glider is
rigged is understood, and there may be variations between different versions
of the same type of glider, e.g. the elevator control connection on the
ASK21.

I know of several cases where gliders have flown mis-rigged and got away
with it, e.g.:
K13 with the drag spar pins not in safety.
K21 with the drag spar pins missing.
K13 with the aileron and brake safety pins missing (discovered when one
aileron disconnected itself while flying).
ASW20 with the elevator bolt missing.
ASW24 with the elevator bolt missing.

All these things happened to people I know, none of them would have been
found by a PCC, indeed in many cases a PCC was done.

Of course, there have been many cases where the pilot did not get away with
it.

I also know one club with several K23s, where the elevator control is
automatic when the tailplane is rigged. After PCCs were made compulsory at
that club, at the subsequent annual inspection damage was found to several
elevators almost certainly caused by too much force during the PCC.

I am sure the method of PCC recommended by Jim Vincent is correct, (posting
5th April 04.53 above), and his presentation
http://www.mymedtrans.com/personal.htm looks ideal to me. However this is
only part of a Critical Assembly Check, and if that is done properly the PCC
is not the most important part.

I am sure that a PCC should be done with the pilot at the control surfaces,
and the helper at the cockpit controls.

When Hotelier connections were first used it was not considered necessary
to use safety pins, indeed some were provided with check holes so small that
the use of pins was not possible.

It was subsequently found that it was possible for Hoteliers to come undone
UNDER NORMAL FLIGHT LOADS, and EVEN WHEN CORRECTLY RIGGED. This was why
the use of locking wire, pins or some other safety device was made
compulsory, and those connectors manufactured with small holes had to have
them drilled larger.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.


"Chris Nicholas" wrote in message
...

Mark James Boyd wrote: [snip]
" . . . 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..."

Having a helper exert this much force is good???

I retain my renegade attitude to PCC's - they may be suitable for some
things if done right (and breaking gliders is not doing it right in my
book - the above is not an isolated example) but other checks are far
more useful, and less damaging, for some gliders, e.g. my Ka6E.

Chris N.

Bill,

I'm under the impression that you haven't looked at the presentation and are
just evaluating it based on the title itself..if you have, my apologies.

Some points I would like to make:

What is required is a Critical Assembly Check, of which the PCC may form a
part

I fully agree with you. Not only is a PCC and CAC needed, but also takeoff
checklists and landing checklists. The presentation does cover the
requirements to do a PCC, CAC, as well as L'Hotelier connectors, the
requirement for pins or LH connectors, preflight checks, landing checks....you
get the picture.

After PCCs were made compulsory at
that club, at the subsequent annual inspection damage was found to several
elevators almost certainly caused by too much force during the PCC.

In addition, regarding avoiding damage to gliders, it does have a detail slide
adressing this, points mentioned he

* Don’t bang stick or control surfaces against the stops
* Use light pressure on control surface… perhaps equal to weight of forearm
* Control surfaces and trailing edges are damaged easily…apply pressure with
open hand to avoid point loads
* Apply pressure at control surface strong point…typically near pushrod
attach point
* For elevator, one hand on left elevator, one hand on right elevator
* For spoilers, hold by spoiler plate, not spoiler cap…be careful of your
fingers

Regards!







Jim Vincent
CFIG
N483SZ
illspam