A shame to see an old Aztec treated like this.

[A37575]

This aircraft (Aztec)was presented for flight with a clean maintenance sheet.
Purpose of flight was to endorse pilot on type. Before the instructor arrived the student was pre-briefed by the operator's chief pilot that there were a few minor (?) problems with the aircraft. The door was hard to close and occasionally comes open in flight. Student advised to increase approach speed by five knots if door opens. Student advised that autopilot had faulty pitch control channel and it should only be used in two-axis. Student also advised that EGT gauge for both engines inoperative. Student then conveyed this info to her instructor who was to conduct her training.
MR showed 65 hours since last 100 hourly with at least ten different pilots having flown this aircraft. None had seen fit to record any known defects. A flight hours sheet accompanied the MR with entry in remarks column that door came open twice on previous flight which was passenger charter. On boarding it was found the cockpit door was ill-fitting needing abnormal force to push handle over-centre to lock. Impossible to open from outside making rescue impossible.
Only one hydraulic pump installed making a single engine operation problematical if gear and flaps needed to be operated.
Stall warning failed to operate in the air. Neither buzzer or red light worked.
Gear warning horn failed to operate and red light in gear lever failed to operate when throttles closed and gear up.
Control column fore and aft movement caused squealing noise due absence of lubricant. Very noticeable during back movement of wheel during landing flare.
Turn Coordinator abnormal noise from bearings during gyro run-up.
Both CHT gauges u/s - neither needle left the bottom (cold) stop.
Both EGT inoperative.
Second AH fitted for IFR charter was installed bottom right corner of copilot instrument panel and practicably unusable from left seat due parallax error.
Left engine manifold pressure needle (dual needles) frequently failed to move in response to power changes until a differential of six inches of manifold pressure when needle would take up appropriate reading.
Radio panel displayed switch marked No 2 VHF NAV and another switch as No 2 VHF transmitter. In fact the aircraft had only one VHF-NAV and one VHF radio. Feed-back on VHF scratchy and almost unreadable.
During two ILS approaches while three miles on final the LLZ needle indicated one dot off centreline accompanied by rapid oscillation of LLZ needle.
Autopilot over controlled in roll and severe pitch/bunt occurred when pitch channel engaged.
Attached to copilots control wheel were two unidentified switches. One had the words Winchester Electronics Incorporated engraved on the assembly. There was also a press-to-transmit switch with button missing leaving sharp point. This drew blood from instructors finger. The other switch was concealed under the wheel and not noticeable until inadvertently felt. It was a black toggle switch spring loaded to centre but operable in either direction. There was no label to indicate purpose of either switch and no flight manual supplement.
With both mixture levers at forward stops they were two inches from top of quadrant looking as though they were in the mid-lean position.
Right pitch lever abnormally stiff to operate through full range.
Park brake inoperative. Right brake weak during landing. Equal pedal pressure caused strong turn left.
Altimeter on copilot side 120 feet less than pilot's altimeter with equal QNH.
ILS marker lights and audio inoperative. Lights also failed to operate on press to test.
Emergency exit window (passenger) not labelled. There was a single red handle which faces forward but not marked or lock wired. Easy for passengers to inadvertently knock the handle.
At 1100 rpm the right engine manifold pressure needle oscillates rapidly over 125 rpm range.
Pilots overhead air-vent control exposed metal shaft only. Plastic round knob missing.
Internal dim/bright lights on ADF digital control panel appear to be stuck in dim position. Rheostat switch labelled Radio Light. Appears to be disconnected or u/s as it does not illuminate anything.
Flap indicator needle indicates partial flap extended although flaps visually retracted.
Most circuit breakers are underneath the left instrument panel are out of sight of the pilot. Portions of the decals are obliterated due wear and takes time to understand exactly what electrical services are covered. Impossible at night.
Fire extinguisher installed under copilot seat. Label reveals last inspection in 1986.
No POH carried in the aircraft and FM lacked copy of Certificate of Registration.
ASI not marked with red line for Vmca or blue line.
This aircraft was based in those days at Canberra and a short walk across the tarmac from the then CASA field office.
One wonders today how many other aircraft like that are still flying with a list of unrecorded defects?

[Lodown]

Sad! I worked on a new client's aircraft for a Major overhaul many years ago. Elevator cables were flopping on the fuselage skin - no tension. Fuel tanks had significant leaks around caps. Hydraulic fluid looked like it had never been checked because of difficulty to access and reservoir was near dry, etc. Owner was presented with bill and nearly went into orbit. He wanted the sign-off, not the repairs.

[DUXNUTZ]

Call the CASA tip line!

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

"Jumped into a PA31 the other day for a CHTR, clean MR, engaged AP at cruise ht and the thing went all over the sky."

Just curious. Did you pre-flight the AP?

Not criticising as I have done the same thing myself many times, but after a couple of similar excursions I now religiously preflight the autopilot.

Dr:cool:

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

The Bonanza came to me with a list of A, B and C maintenance items, which I think is a "*******" Society thing. My recollection is that it went along the lines of A = must be done at the next 100 hourly; B = should be done sometime; and C = nice to do one day if you get around to it.

My LAME's response was "That's cr*p! It will all be done before I will sign off on it!".

A crack was detected in the exhaust port of one cyclinder. Turns out the cylinder was an orphan on the engine. 25 thou over size cylinder with standard piston and rings.

A very expensive 100 hourly ensued.

The wing bolts in the Bo have just been replaced. The old ones were in the wrong way round. Short bolts where the long ones go - the nuts held by only a couple of threads. Long ones where the short ones go - the nuts packed with washers so they tighten down on something.

All a bit scary really.

We have now been through just about every part of the aeroplane - don't think there are any more surprises lurking.

Dr:cool:

[morno]

Mr Griffin,
Just curious. Would that autopilot be fitted to a certain Chieftain that a certain organisation f**ked off about 1 month ago?? Or is the one with the stunning white/creme paint scheme with some attempt at artwork on the tail :ok:??

If it's the latter, then that's a shame, because when I last flew that it worked beautifully, :(.

If it's the former, I found it's the operators and not so much the autopilot (there were a couple of minor technicalities with it, but it worked more often than not). Try turning it on with the flight director engaged as well. Works wonders, :cool:. And if that so called "safety officer" is the one saying that "It's been broken for months bla bla bla", can you please belt him across the head for me. Cheers, :D.

Hope all is well for ya mate.

morno

[gassed budgie]

The wing bolts in the Bo have just been replaced. The old ones were in the wrong way round. Short bolts where the long ones go - the nuts held by only a couple of threads. Long ones where the short ones go - the nuts packed with washers so they tighten down on something.



Isn't it strange that out here we've never really had any problems with the wing bolts in Bonanza's. It's only since CASA decided that they had to be inspected and replaced, that these problems continue to re-occur. As far as I'm aware, we're the only country where this idiotic policy persists.
I inspected an A36 recently where the wing bolts and fittings were corroded because they were installed dry.
The Bonanza wing bolt issue is a prime example of CASA being derelict in their duty and asleep at the wheel. Safety has not been enhanced one little bit. The current policy and CASA's inaction have only made matters worse. Much worse than it ever was.

[gaunty]

gassed budgie
If I recall it correctly, it was not CASA who made the call but the FAA/Manufacturer and for some very good reasons. NO excuse for incorrect installation will be accepted.

A37575
If the instructor doing the endo was you or whoever it was and they did not subsequently ground the aircraft, by writing up the MR, they should have their license suspended until they could show cause why it should not be jerked, including all of the pilots who had flown the aircraft and signed off on the MR, then, CASA should go after the maintenance org and the C of R holder.:=:{

It's not rocket science and it can't be a little bit serviceable, it either is or it isn't. Period.:=

Peter Griffin and why did you NOT write it up as a snag on the MR. I'm interested in your excuse, given your I have a huge issue if you did then please disregard.
But then I would be interested in your explanation of how you conducted the subsequent IFR charter with the AP U/S.:rolleyes:

The Peter Griffin I know would have had your nuts and probably your guts as well.:ok:

[maxgrad]

Always been the same. New to company/low experience/ladder climbers, many other reasons but drivers at times will not endorse an MR.
Simple fact.
If there is something wrong, write the bloody thing up, know your rules re MEL and CASA/operational req's and advise the owner/operator/boss with straight forward statements, and confidence in what you have done and why. If there ends up being a situation, i.e you out the door, well the place was not worth it anyway. You might be out of a job but you are breathing and within the law!

Sorry, too many sherbets this arvo.:ugh:

[amos2]

You lot in G/A today need a bolt right up your backside!!!

When I was a 21 yr old in G/A years ago we didn't even hesitate to say no!

What are you?...GUTLESS or GUTLESS?

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

This is the gospel truth.

The last aeroplane I flew before acquiring the Bonanza, and my main motivation for doing so, was a Cessna T182RG that I private hired from substantial commercial operator.

While enroute YBTL - YLRE on an IFR plan the oil drained from the magnetic compass and the AH rolled upside down (not a vac pump failure). I was in VMC on top at the time. On the return trip the next day on a VFR plan, I had a total electrical failure. I noticed the electric drain before the battery was flat, dropped the gear, and flew the last 100 miles or so with the gear down. Had to use the hand-held that I carry to get a clearance into YBTL.

I parked the aeroplane, wrote up the MR, and walked away vowing to lease an aeroplane that I could have more faith in - before I killed myself.

Next morning I had a very annoyed owner on the telephone - most upset that I had grounded his aeroplane. It sat in the corner of the aerodrome for months before it was eventually ferried to a repair shop.

Exactly a month later I had the Bonanza. EVERYTHING works!!!!!!!!!! .... and if something stops working - IT IS FIXED!

Life is good!

Dr:cool:

[J430]

Best thing to do with a bucket of cr@p like that would be learn how to be a meat bomber, get your own chute, fly off the coast with in chute range of the beach, and bail out!:} Maybe a Mayday first with some cockeyed aeroplane fault, and tell em you are ditching the plain but have a chute.

Sink the F:mad:er before someone is killed in it!

Or ground it fully before you fly it! And walk away!

J:ok:

[A37575]

Gaunty. The instructor certainly filled up the maintenance release - no worries!

[gaunty]

A37575:ok::D:)

And probably got roundly vilified, burnt at the stake and other medieval niceties.:E

Peter Griffin

then sent me on an IFR CHTRT without a functional AP

gaunty - parked the thing on return with the MR suitably endorsed

seriously Peter, why did you operate the flight?? Was it was worth your license, worse, your life??? :ugh: :(

listen to me mate amos2 :ok::ok:

[27/09]

Certainly sounds like a poorly maintained aircraft.

However I think that some items on your list are unwarranted and perhaps show your lack of knowledge about the type.

As someone has already pointed out the incorrect operation of the original auto pilot can cause pitch excursions.

Many if not all Aztecs were only equiped with one hydraulic pump from the factory.

Aircraft of this vintage very often did not have Vmca marked on the ASI.

The position of the circuit breakers is where they were put at the factory.

As for the mixture lever positions, so long as the levers allow you to get the full range of mixture settings and they are both even in their settings I don't know that it is a problem.

The flap indicator,....... I guess you have never flown the Cessnas with similar gauges.

Yes, there are some major concerns, the biggy for me is the door, Aztecs don't fly well with the door open and blanketing the tailplane. I would not fly it until this was fixed.

Some of the other items are typical of an older plane, they should be fixed but are quite often left.

Some items like the sticky man press gauge are easily fixed.

[BEACH KING]

Gaunty said:

"If I recall it correctly, it was not CASA who made the call but the FAA/Manufacturer and for some very good reasons"

I'm pretty sure you do not recall correctly Gaunty. If wrong please correct me, but as far as I am aware,this AD is unique to Australia requiring mandatory replacement of the bolts washers and nuts in a time period. The original FAA/Manufacturer circular was advisory only, and then with certain conditions. Thats why this crazy AD is not implemented in the US or any other country that I am aware of. I have no problems with inspection/ Xray (and replacement if rooted) as they are a very very important part (they hold the fecking wings on after all). But when replacement time comes around.. you can't buy the bloody parts... anywhere, and when they do come, a $2000 bill comes too.

I've got one of the old bolts as the tow pin on my tractor towing a 48 plate disc plough. 3 years now and still going!

[amos2]

I think most of you lot are more suited to selling used cars!

[gaunty]

Is this the one to which you refer.

You may well be right about it only being "advisory" as far as the FAA/Manufacturer are concerned, but it is not possible to compare the one system with the other in other than broad generalisations. Like the AUSNAS being the "same" as the USNAS. Australians use aircraft in a fundamentally different way that what their manufacturer often intended. There is also the difference between "private" and "charter" maintenance requirements in the US that is/was not so then in Oz.


COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Regulations 1998), PART 39 - 105
CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY
SCHEDULE OF AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
Page 1 of 2
AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE
For the reasons set out in the background section, the CASA delegate whose signature appears below revokes Airworthiness Directive (AD) AD/BEECH 36/43 and
issues the following AD under subregulation 39.1 (1) of CAR 1998. The AD requires that the action set out in the requirement section (being action that the delegate
considers necessary to correct the unsafe condition) be taken in relation to the aircraft or aeronautical product mentioned in the applicability section: (a) in the
circumstances mentioned in the requirement section; and (b) in accordance with the instructions set out in the requirement section; and (c) at the time mentioned in
the compliance section.
Beechcraft 36 Series Aeroplanes
AD/BEECH 36/43
Amdt 1
Wing Bolt, Nut and Fitting 2/2002
Applicability: All models.
Requirement: 1. Remove and inspect wing bolts, washers, nuts and fittings in accordance with
Beechcraft Shop Manual 36-590001-3B15 Section 3 or Maintenance Manual 36-
590001-9A17 Section 57-00-00.
2. Retire wing bolts, washers and nuts from service and replace with new hardware
in accordance with Beechcraft Shop Manual 36-590001-3B15 Section 3 or
Maintenance Manual 36-590001-9A17 Section 57-00-00. Render unserviceable
all hardware retired.
Note: The bolt torque should be checked before replacement to confirm bolt has been
torqued to correct value. If the torque value is incorrect, other maintenance action
may be required.
Compliance: 1. Unless inspection has already been accomplished in accordance with the
Requirement Document, initially inspect before 5 calendar years from initial
installation, or within 100 hours time in service after 1 February 1996, whichever
occurs later. Re-inspect at intervals not to exceed 5 calendar years.
2. Retire before 15 calendar years after initial installation, or within 100 hours time
in service after 1 February 1996, whichever occurs later.
Where date of initial installation is unknown, the date of manufacture of the aircraft
must be used for paragraphs 1 and 2.
This amendment becomes effective on 21 February 2002.
Background: This AD makes mandatory the inspection and replacement periods for the wing
attachment hardware detailed in the Requirement Document.
Amdt 1 - Adds the Note to requirement 2 and adds the fittings as an item to be
inspected when the wing bolts, washers and nuts are removed and inspected.
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Regulations 1998), PART 39 - 105
CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY
SCHEDULE OF AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
Page 2 of 2
Beechcraft 36 Series Aeroplanes
AD/BEECH 36/43 Amdt 1 (continued)
The original issue of this Airworthiness Directive became effective on 1 February
1996.
Eugene Paul Holzapfel
Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority
3 January 2002
The above AD is notified in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette on 30 January 2002.

[amos2]

Hmmm!...I think you may have been corrected BK!

...and rightfully so!

[Wheeler]

Hey Forktail, would have been a very funny 182T with gear going up and down - guess you mean an RG or R182. Those things do seem to have a lot of electrical problems. They really are an excellent aircraft but there aint half some poorly maintained high time dogs of that variety around - usually from owners who dont like maintenance bills so they put them on line somewhere - and then get real maintenance bills!

Does anyone think that aircraft in the US are maintained any better than here? That debate on the Bo wing bolts seems to be a case in point. You see some immaculate V tails over there - that have been maintained superbly - but rarely to manufacturers manual. (Many replacements 'on-condition' only for example.) Although you find aircraft with 'original' 1970's engines that have gone well beyond TBO and maunufacturers calendar time, they do seem to be in better order generally and maintained more consistently than here - or am I dreaming? Is there something about their maintenance system that CASA could learn? Or is it Aussie culture that you just dont dob and so it would not matter what CASA tried to mandate?

[BEACH KING]

Hmmm!...I think you may have been corrected BK!


Like hell I have AMOS,

All Gaunty has done is post the STUPID AUSTRALIAN AD. I'm not questioning whether or not it exists. It f'ing well exists allright, because we have to do what it says, and wastfully and stupidly throw away perfectly good aircraft parts, which adds to costs of operation, and further gives GA another kick in the arse.
Gaunty gives his opinion (which he is most entitled to do) that the US and Australian systems are not comparable. Fair enough, but how is it that if I operate my aircraft in the USA (where the frigging aircraft is manufactured) or any other country on the face of the planet except Australia, the bolts don't have to be replaced.

I read fairly recently that there has never been a documented case where a wing bolt has failed in a Bonanza or Baron aircraft, including some fatal accidents involving thunderstorms where the wing failed, but the bolts remained intact. Buddy Holly was killed in a Bonanza, they have been around longer than just about any aircraft flying, are still manufactured new today, and never a wing bolt failure.

You blokes can't stir me up tonight. The COWBOYS just pissed on the Bulldogs!!!!

[gaunty]

amos2 me old, this is the standard of debate and discussion we have in Oz. :{

STUPID AUSTRALIAN AD. of course what would our regulator know. Eugene may be a lot of things in your mind because he works for CASA, but he is a consumate professional and is responsible for your a$se in so far as he able to protect it from STUPID AUSTRALIANS :ugh:

It f'ing well exists allright, because we have to do what it says, and wastfully and stupidly throw away perfectly good aircraft parts, which adds to costs of operation, and further gives GA another kick in the arse.

Of course you are, because you are a very experienced aeronautical engineer with years of hands on design experience, able to back up that statement with chapter and verse. Hmmmmmmmmmmm.:{

including some fatal accidents involving thunderstorms where the wing failed, but the bolts remained intact. of course that wasn't because the bolts had been designed and inspected to do so and who expects the wings or any part of the aircraft to survive a thunderstorm. BS logic in any case. The bolt has worked as a tow pin on my 48 plate disc plough for 3 years, heck it should be just fine on my aircraft.:confused: Contemplate shear and tension for a bit.

Buddy Holly was killed in a Bonanza, they have been around longer than just about any aircraft flying, are still manufactured new today, and never a wing bolt failure. Does that mean that any aircraft type in which Buddy Holly hasn't been killed and hasn't been around longer than just about any aircraft flying and still manufactured today is unsafe.:rolleyes:

Oh and by the way, there isn't a modern aircraft built or designed after 1945 or so that uses wingbolts as the primary load path.

I would venture that you probably cant really afford to own and operate a Beech anything if you carry on like this.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Wheeler

You are of course correct. It was a Cessna T(for Turbo) 182RG, or whatever the official desigation is.

Yes, I do think there is a "you don't dob" culture in Australia. As far as I am aware none of the potentially very serious maintenance issue that have become apparent on the Bonanza since I have had it have been officially reported.

Dr:cool:

[tinpis]

Just for interest the original Aztruck

Twin Stinson

http://www.stinsonflyer.com/avphoto/tstn-02.jpg

[A37575]

they should be fixed but are quite often left

And isn't that just bloody typical GA.

[27/09]

A 37575

Perhaps my post didn't convey my thoughts as clearly as it could have done.

Your post contained a whole range of problems ranging from problems that were not really problems at all to some that are a major concern. It is apparent from your post that you flew the aircraft.

One of the problems that you listed is a a no go item in my opinion, that is the one of the door coming open in flight. The other items you listed pale into insignificance yet you flew the aircraft knowing that fault existed.

Since you were being checked out by an instructor I will accept that you may not have been aware of the quirks of the Aztec, the instructor should be aware though. The Aztec is a handful when the door comes open in flight.

My point was that since you were prepared to fly an aircraft with an known defect like the door coming open in flight puts you in similar light to those that had allowed the other defects you mention to accumulate.

[Wheeler]

Wasn't there some discussion around the door possibly being open in the fatal Aztec crash in Queensland a couple of years ago? - can be fairly nasty on those I believe. After reading that report you'd be nuts to fly one of those with a the possibility of an open door in flight.

[Jamair]

As a previous Aztec owner, I can say with some certainty that

A. There was an issue with main doors opening in flight, which was corrected on the earlier versions with an AD requiring a second latch to be incorporated (looks like a car door lock button).

B. There has never been any link proven between Aztec doors opening and any in-flight handling issues - while there have been crashes connected with open doors (on Aztecs and many other types) the subsequent crashes have been as a result of loosing control due to distraction from the primary task of flying the aeroplane (or in a couple of cases from objects coming out of nose lockers and clouting props), not from any 'blanking of control surfaces' etc.

Not all old Aztecs are buckets - this was my panel then (dunno what its like now) - check out the Garmin 340, 300XL and 327, the JPI, the fully coupled 3-axis AP (incl GS) and the generally good nick. On the outside were two new engines, fresh paint, and everything as mickey-schmick as could be achieved.

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p271/jamair_photos/Panel-1.jpg

[Tee Emm]

One of the problems that you listed is a a no go item in my opinion, that is the one of the door coming open in flight. The other items you listed pale into insignificance yet you flew the aircraft knowing that fault existed.



The doors of the Beech Duchess often came open on take off and in flight yet pilots continued to accept these aircraft with this long standing known defect. In the case mentioned by A37575 he understood from reports that the the door of that specific Aztec had apparently come open in flight on previous occasions. Since there were no defects in the maintenance release he was entitled to believe the problem had been rectified. Obviously on the flight in question the door did not come open. Therefore what is your point?

[bushy]

The aeroplane sales people will be having orgasms while reading this thread.
Let's look at it and learn from it. There are important lessons here.
!. This aeroplane was poorly (or not) maintained. This is obvious.
2. Some of the pilots demonstrate a serious lack of knowledge about the aircraft and the systems etc in this aeroplane, and probably made entries in the MR that were inappropriate. Does the Aztec actually have a stall warning buzzer? Many Pipers have only a red light. The single hydraulic pump, autopilot, circuit breakers and mixture controls may be inappropriate complaints.
Too many GA pilots do not have the depth of aircraft systems knowledge or the motivation to follow through on maintenance issues, as they consider themselves to be only temporary GA pilots, and are not interested. Like almost everything in aviation, it's a team effort and mmunication between pilots and lame's is essential. It is difficult to do the job well with a whole lot of temporary pilots.
3. There are many old wives tales. Aztecs do not fall out of the sky if the door comes open in flight. But they do get very noisy.
4. Australia has a very inadequate aircraft maintenance system, and too many aircraft have been suffering under it for decades.
5.MUNNY,MUNNY,MUNNY.
Most of our aviation system is impoverished, except for the govt ptotected ones,and this aircraft shows what can happen in those circumstances. There is evidence on this thread showing that these aircraft can be maintained in good condition. But it costs money, and takes lots of time and patience and commitment.
And if aircraft are owned by aviation professionals instead of tax dodgers it helps.
It also appears that the person who complained about all this also flew the aeroplane in that condition.
It,s very easy to just say nasty things and expect the problem to go away, but it will not. The blame game is counter productive. We seem to have some on here who have yet to learn that.
There is no doubt that what is described here is very wrong in many ways. What we need is something to prevent this sort of thing developing in the first place. Not smartalec comments afterwards.
Yelling at people will not help.

[YesTAM]

With the greatest respect, there is one thing here that really pisses me right off........

Thats the good old Australian "she'll be right!" attitude as exemplified in 27/09's post

Well its not f^&%ing all right!

I have, on one or two occasions, flown aircraft where things were discovered not to be "all right" and the lame apology offered was "it always does that" or "didn't you know about that?", or "it's easily fixed" or "doesn't matter". Now on one of those occasions I almost got killed by something that "sometimes does that" (Cessna flap switch), and if something is "easily fixed" then I want it f^&*ing fixed before I take the aircraft.

Since I hire aircraft, I, and many other pilots are at huge risk from "idiosyncratic" aircraft which have their little tricks and foibles, like those stupid line gauges on Tobagos that have to be tapped "in a certain way" to get them to unstick. What the f^&k happens when they are reading zero and the poor sod assumes they are simply sticking?

I expect an aircraft and its systems to perform as advertised in the POH, period. If they don't they get written up, and thankfully the aircraft I fly are maintained by a highly competent group of people and things are expected to be written up on the MR.

[27/09]

Tee Emm

My Point...... I though it would have been obvious.

To use your example, you stated that the the door problem didn't appear on the maintenance release so he assumed it had been fixed. I'm not sure how it's done in OZ, but here, there would be an entry in the Tech Log from who ever found the defect and an entry showing when it was fixed and signed off.

This aircraft had flown 68? hours since that last inspection and this problem apparently had occured since that time yet apparently there were no entries on the maintenance release. Surely any pilot knowing about the door issue and seeing the clean maintenance release would be suspicious and ask questions?

However if you read the first post the student was told the door came open at times and there was documented evidence of it coming open twice on the previous flight. How could it be assumed it had been repaired? :confused:


YesTAM

My comment was to do with the fact that things like the broken air vent are common place in old aircraft since new parts are difficult to find and take a while to locate or are impossible to find.

I'm sorry if I gave the impression of "She'll be right". I don't think she'll be right is a good attitude, so don't get pissed off with me. I'll give you an example of one thing I did do fix a common recurring problem rather than do what most people do and that is ignore it and live with it.

You might be familiar with the stall warnings fitted to 1970 vintage Cessna 172's and 150's They use a device like the ones uses in a childs squeezy toy to make the stall warning noise. These can be extremely unreliable, even new ones don't always work well for very long, probably climate related as moisture and dirt can gum them up. Consequently many don't work. People get sick to death of fixing them for them only to fail a short time later.

A few years ago I was involved in running 172's and I know I got tired of paying to get them fixed and with our engineer we designed a more reliable system.


As Bushy said, Munny, Munny, Munny.

Unfortunately aircraft parts are stupid prices and in many cases they are just automotive parts that were in common use in the 1960's and 70's and if they weren't off the shelf automotive parts they were adaptations of the same, made by the same manufacturers.

Using the C152 as an example. If you have a fuel sender fail you cannot just go and buy an over priced fuel sender. The currently available units will not work with the cockpit gauges. You have to buy a new over priced gauge cluster and two over priced sender units. The prices I was quoted several years ago was about $1500 for the lot.

No wonder some operators choose to ignore the fact that fuel gauges are grossly inaccurate (they were probably next to usless even when everything was working given the technology involved). Instead pilots use a dipstick and a watch to monitor the fuel situation, which is a tried and true method that has stood the test of time.

I'm not saying it's right but that's the way things are, and I would suggest not just in Australia.

As pilots we are continually having to make judgement calls on what is or isn't safe, ranging from the weather, to how much fuel we need, to how much we can carry off a particular length strip, to what equipment we need working in the aircraft. Airlines have an MEL, in GA we don't always have that luxury and need to apply a bit of common sense.

There wasn't too much common sense shown by those that flew the aircraft and didn't write up any issues they encountered, and I respectfully suggest that the original poster could have applied a little more common sense as well.

Unfortunately common sense is not all that common. We can all be guilty of showing a lack of it at times.