PDA

View Full Version : A new paint job and this Piper Navajo is up for hire and reward


Centaurus
24th Jun 2015, 08:19
On this Forum and in another thread a contributor requested advice on instructing as a career. The replies were well considered and sensible and I am sure the contributor appreciated them. One reply suggested that flying schools with clean maintenance release documents on their aircraft might indicate new aeroplanes and therefore a good mob to work for.

We all know the adage don't judge a book by its cover. The following report to the then BASIS is a instructive example. The aircraft owner at the time of the report was a captain with a reputable Australian domestic airline


From an old CAIR report: Circa 1994

The aircraft was a Piper Navajo engaged on a charter flight. The aircraft was based in Victoria. The maintenance release was squeaky clean of all endorsements and the aircraft had a shiny new paint job on the outside.

It took only 15 minutes to find the following defects seen from a pilot’s point of view but almost one hour to write them down. Starting with:

1. A placard on the pilot’s side-consul states that the aircraft is limited to a maximum landing flap setting of 25 degrees. The Flight Manual has a similar notice with a requirement that 2 knots be added to the flight manual Vref speed for 40 flap when landing with 25 flap. The flap indicator shows a white sector band from up to 15 flap –and nothing else on the gauge to indicate exactly what flap setting in degrees is available beyond 15. When selecting the flap to down, the needle goes beyond 15 by ¾ inch into the unmarked areas and there is no indication if the flap micro-switch stops the flaps (via a limit switch) at 25 or 40. There is no external mark on the wings to indicate current flap position. This is common to many Navajos. In short, the flap indicator is misleading and impossible to comply with the flight manual restriction because there are no markings beyond 15 flap.

2. The rear baggage compartment aft of the rear door has no tie down net. However, the operator has thoughtfully supplied a brightly coloured carpet to throw over any cargo or bags. This rug has eyelets and tape attached to the retaining hooks in the floor. In other words there is no effective restraint.

3. The nose baggage compartment is not equipped with tie down devices or floor restraints. In this compartment are three metal wheel chocks, several empty soft drink bottles, a small metal ladder and various debris. The metal ladder is firmly wedged against thin electrical wiring emanating from behind the instrument panel and disappearing into the nose cone via the sidewall of the front baggage compartment. Everything in the baggage compartment is unrestrained and would float freely in turbulence.

4. Numerous oil leaks are visible through the front of the left engine cowl area with oil running from under the engine nacelle and through to the top surface of the flap area inboard of the engine. The operator is aware of the oil leak but says it is due to over-filling of the oil tank. He directs that that the contents should be 9 quarts maximum to minimize perceived oil loss. Both wheel wells also show signs of excess engine oil leaks.

5. Strong smell of fuel in the fuselage area when the aircraft is stationary. In the immediate vicinity of both cross-feed drains there is wet fuel stains on the fuselage belly with flow patterns extending several inches. The operator was previously advised but no action was taken. The problem of fuel leaks in this area are long-standing. Two wing fuel tank water drains drip fuel at one drop per 30 seconds on to the tarmac.

6. Autopilot when engaged causes very sudden in-flight manoeuvres and has to be hurriedly disengaged. There is no placard indicating an unserviceable autopilot and nothing in the MR The Century 111 autopilot control panel has a missing knob for roll mode – it is just a bare metal rod on which the knob is supposed to be attached. The calibration wheel on the autopilot box has unreadable graduations thus it is not possible to note a specific setting in daytime – worse at night, of course. There is a knob called “Auto Pilot Nav Selector” which can be selected to Nav1, Nav 2 or Off. There is no documentation on the specific use of this section of the autopilot.

The operator’s policy is not to make the system serviceable because he deems it too expensive to rectify. The aircraft flies single pilot IFR with no autopilot. This is apparently legal on passenger charter operations but not on RPT flights. Passengers should be entitled to the same degree of safety regardless of the category of flight. The operator crews RPT flights with two pilots, with the second pilot paying for the right seat under the guise of in command under supervision – but logging the total flight as “in command”. The autopilot has been unserviceable for 9 months and no action taken to rectify the problem. Single pilot IFR/IMC with no auto pilot is not conducive to a safe operation, regardless of the legalities.

7. Normally a green light appears when there is electrical power to the turn-coordinator. The light is inoperative. Next to the u/s light is an empty un-labelled lamp socket.

8. The two position voltage regulator switch is labeled only Main. There is apparently a second position hopefully for the Aux regulator if indeed one is installed. There is no Aux label on the switch assembly.

9. The circuit breaker panel has many obliterated decals or words with one or more letters missing. At night it is difficult to read the decals due grime and dirt or simply non-existent labels. The autopilot circuit breaker was out and easily reset because there is a piece of plastic or broken collar surrounding the circuit breaker shank. Nothing about this in the m/r. If the circuit breaker is inoperative or permanently collared out, then as a protection against circuit breaker resetting it is useless and potentially dangerous fire risk.

10. The green glide slope engaged light is inoperative on press-to-test.

11. There is a decal on the circuit breaker panel which on close scrutiny (impossible at night) says “Turn and Bank Left/Right”. There is however only one turn coordinator – not a Turn and Bank Indicator which is situated on the left instrument panel in front of the left seat pilot. There is no similar instrument in front of the RH seat pilot – only a couple of plugged holes where instruments were once installed.

The circuit breaker marked “Left Turn and Bank”, appears to be a false circuit breaker as it does not pull out and on closer inspection it is merely a black painted knob which looks exactly like a circuit breaker in shape and size. The circuit breaker labeled “RH Turn and Bank” is a real circuit breaker but there is no RH instrument for it to supply power to. One can imagine the confusion in event of electrical smoke or fire when the pseudo circuit breaker is found to be jammed.

11. There is a Stormscope installed. It is well advertised by a decal situated on the fuselage near the entrance door which says “Stormscope equipped.” An identical decal advertising the presence of the Stormscope is situated on the left fuselage sidewall adjacent to the circuit breaker panel. Maybe this is to give an added sense of security to the pilot. However, above the actual instrument is a decal marked Radar. There is also a circuit breaker marked Radar. Only problem is that the aircraft is not equipped with weather radar.

12. There is a set of normal looking rudder pedals for the copilot position. They are identical in size and shape to the pilot’s rudder pedals. However, there are no brakes on the copilot’s pedals. There is no decal warning of this, nothing in the Flight Manual or the Operations Manual and no mention in the maintenance release. Simply, one would not know if the brakes were either not working from the RH side, or if they were not installed.

One endorsement was carried out on this particular aircraft where the instructor was not aware that brakes were not installed on the right hand seat pedals, until after the flight with a student undergoing conversion training. The pilot under training had commented on the heavy nosewheel steering problems, so the instructor took control to “free up” the nosewheel steering by applying alternate foot pressure to each pedal on his side. The brake “pressure” appeared to lock solid on his pedals and the aircraft started to veer off the tarmac towards a nearby obstruction. The instructor quickly told the student to take over control. Later it was discovered that the copilot’s pedals indeed had no braking capability. The aircraft had flown for hundreds of hours and previous pilots had been unaware of the lack of RH seat brakes.

13. There are two engine gauges. Each gauge has an integral oil pressure, oil temperature and CHT sub gauge. In this aircraft the colour coding of the various instruments within the main gauge display do not agree with each other. For example, one oil pressure gauge shows 10 PSI red line limit for the left engine while the right oil pressure gauge shows 25 PSI red line limit. The green normal oil pressure operating range is quite different between the two oil pressure gauges.

The CHT left engine gauge indicates 200F as the lower limit on the needle while the right engine CHT lower limit shows 100F. The varying size of temperature in degrees F scales on the two CHT gauges means that the needle positions are not generally parallel, thus requiring careful scrutiny of the actual readings – rather than a normal scan which looks for similar parallel readings within average temperature parameters. The left oil temperature gauge has no numbers – just a green arc and one red temperature limit mark. The right oil temperature gauge has graduations from 50F to 250F plus – with three colour codes of green, yellow, and red. This means that a normal scan of engine temperatures and pressures in flight is not possible in terms of normal or abnormal needle positions. Instead a close scrutiny of each needle is needed which becomes a problem at night where cockpit directional lighting is poor by even automobile standards.

14. It is impossible to read the Directional Gyro at night because the internal lighting is inoperative. One needs to shine a torch on the instrument or have cat’s eye vision to read compass headings.

15. The upper switch panel over the pilot’s head houses the magneto switches. On the panel is a sign which says “Alternators Press-to-Test”. This refers to alternator test buttons that were presumably once installed. Instead there are two empty holes drilled into the vinyl roof and no buttons to press.

16. Both mixture controls are misaligned. The rear limit (idle cut-off position) actually coincides with a decal marked “Lean” that itself is supposed to indicate typical cruise position of the mixture control when leaned correctly. In other words, if the pilot leaned the mixture levers to the position marked “Lean” both engines would stop. Similarly the full forward rich mixture limit stops one and a half inches from the forward stop. The available movement of the two mixture controls is only slightly more than half of the total quadrant distance between ICO and full rich lever position.

17. There is intolerable noise in the No 1 VHF set and it sounds like a parrot squawking. The No 2 ADF volume control (Bendix) has no decal indicating volume direction. The HF volume control knob is un-marked and the decal obliterated. Similarly the circuit breaker panel has various switches such as landing and taxi light controls. There is no decal showing on/off positions which is confusing, particularly as the alternator field switches lay fore and aft.

18. The metal vertical cover which protects the left engine fire fuel shut-off handles (behind the pilot’s seat) from inadvertent actuation, does a good job indeed. It is tightly jammed and no amount of effort could move it in event of an engine fire - apart from using a set of pliars or a screw driver. The right engine fire fuel handle cover plate is not jammed. It is so loose that it is normally left laying on the cockpit floor.

19. On top of the right engine cowl a crack is evident adjacent to the hinge line of the oil cap cover. The crack is proceeding nicely but there is no stop drilling present.

20. Exposed and unprotected electrical wiring is readily visible coming from behind the left fuselage vinyl wall covering, and running behind the copilot’s seat and leading to the fuel system panel. The wiring is partially secured by masking tape which has peeled away. As the gap between the copilot’s seat and the passenger compartment wooden separation panel is used for maps, brief cases etc, it is easy to snag the wiring.

21. There is an electrically operated passenger seat belt sign attached to a portable wooden bulkhead. The box in which the sign is installed has a thick dark brown plastic cover. The seat belt signs are not visible in daylight, but with much peering one can just see the sign at night. It is quite useless for its task in daylight and only marginally better at night. There is no sign to indicate to passengers that the box displayed to their view is indeed a seat belts fastened device. It is just looks like a dark coloured box with no function.

22. Now here is a real beauty. Above the front right passenger window there is some light coloured masking tape. A closer inspection reveals the faded word EXIT in red but under the masking tape. It would be impossible to read at night in a dim passenger cabin. It is difficult to see in bright daylight. The emergency exit handle is covered by very tough plastic that requires a heavy pull to break in order to get at the handle. Lacerated fingers would occur. The handle assembly is situated in a position between two windows. There is no positive indication which of the two passenger windows is the emergency exit – especially as the small red EXIT sign is covered over with masking tape.

There is a decal which displays the following instruction: Emergency Exit – Lift Latch – Pull pin-Push window out. Which window? So there are two contradictory directions; one says Pull Pin, Lift Latch and the other says Pull handle Down. Very confusing even for the pilot, let alone a passenger at night. There is no doubt that the emergency exit window should be clearly outlined and the decal confusion sorted out.

23. The rear door can be used as an emergency exit. There is no decal indication that it can be used for this purpose. A passenger briefing card is available but the Navajo door opening procedure for the rear exit is complicated. In this aircraft the vital “Press-to-Release” knob which allows the main hatch to be operated that unlocks the exit door, is painted in faded white with what appears to be a faded red touch to it. There is no indication of the importance of that button to release the latch mechanism.

24. There is also a chain and bolt attached to the door area which is supposed to be attached after the door is locked closed, in order to prevent inadvertent door opening in flight. With the chain in place the door can only open an inch or so. There is no mention on the passenger briefing cards of the function of this bolt and chain and no decals or instructions adjacent to the door of the vital need to undo the chain and bolt before attempting to operate the exit mechanism. In other words the whole emergency exit policy in this Navajo is shambles. But all is not yet lost because to balance things up there is a very clearly displayed sign opposite the rear exit which says “Thank you for not smoking”.

25. In front of the copilot position are situated the cockpit heat controls. Next to the levers is a decal marked “Fuel On”. But there is no switch to associate with the decal –just another empty hole where presumably there was once a switch.

26. The fuel tank caps have a red decal stating that 100 octane fuel should be used. However the decal stating fuel tank capacity is missing on all caps.

27. The passenger emergency exit windows are not marked on the outside of the fuselage for ingress into the cabin. There is also no instruction on the outside of the rear door on how to open the door from the outside in event of an emergency.

28. In cruise the No 2 fuel pressure needle shows 3 PSI in excess of the red line limit.

28. The taxi light gives only five metres forward illumination – about the same as the parking lights on a car. In other words useless for obstacle illumination.

29. The right windscreen has numerous small nicks, cracks and crazed areas. Landing at night, runway lights show very diffused patterns through the windscreen and would be impossible to have adequate vision towards the sun.

30. The left oil pressure gauge shows a green band 30 to 60 PSI. The right oil pressure gauge shows a yellow caution band 30-60 PSI – then a green sector. Very confusing.

31. DME inoperative on last leg. Common defect on this aircraft.

32. Both pilot’s sun-visors flop down during take off, and in flight they dangle loosely and apparently have been like this for months.

But all is not lost. On the plus side, the maintenance release for this aircraft is squeaky clean....

Pinky the pilot
24th Jun 2015, 09:05
Centaurus; If it wasn`t so serious (and unfortunately quite believable:ugh:) I`d be roaring with laughter!

Not even the worst, beat up, high time, used, abused and misused Bongo vans, or A model 402`s I poled around the PNG landscape all those years ago were as bad as the Navajo described.:eek:

May one enquire as to the eventual outcome? A box of matches judicially applied perhaps?:ok:

morno
24th Jun 2015, 10:18
And I bet I know the owner..... If it's who I'm thinking, I could have written a list just as long about two of his other Chieftains!

Aussie Bob
24th Jun 2015, 10:31
So, um, what is wrong with it?

Mach E Avelli
24th Jun 2015, 10:42
And the owner was a Captain with a reputable airline?
Un...king believable.

Could well be the same guy once had an Aztec. A colleague hired it so that I could renew his CIR. When we climbed into it there was a very strong smell of fuel. So we climbed out for a closer look. Upon giving the wing a bit of a shake, fuel started pouring out of the centre section belly area.

Of course we cancelled and wrote up the defect. The owner went ballistic, accusing us of trying to send him broke. Seems that a couple of the fuel tank cells had to be replaced to clear the defect from the Maintenance Release. Shame....pr!cks with that attitude deserve to be bankrupted.

Centaurus
24th Jun 2015, 14:23
CAIR Report – Aztec: Around 1995 era

The purpose of the flight was to endorse a pilot on type. The author arrived at the airport to find that the pilot under instruction had been verbally briefed by the company chief pilot that there were problems with the cockpit door which was hard to close and which had previously opened in flight. He said that if the door came open on final, the pilot should increase the approach speed by five knots.

This statement indicated that the door defect was a known event on this particular aircraft. The chief pilot further advised of a faulty autopilot pitch control channel and that it should be only used in two axis. He also indicated that the EGT gauge for both engines was inoperative.

The maintenance release showed that some 65 hours had been flown since the last 100 hourly inspection. There were no recorded defects endorsed in the maintenance release at the time of our flight. However, a company designed flight record sheet that was attached to the maintenance release had an annotation that that the cockpit door had opened twice during one flight. The last three flights shown in the flight record sheet had not been recorded in the maintenance release.

On attending the aircraft the door was found to be ill-fitting and it took several attempts to secure it from inside the cockpit. Abnormal force was needed to push its handle over-centre. As with other types of aircraft, once locked from inside it is not designed to be opened from the outside, thus making it impossible for rescue purposes from the outside.

This Aztec was fitted with only one hydraulic pump with which to operate the landing gear and flaps. This pump was on the left engine. In event of a failure of the left engine, the pilot would operate an emergency hydraulic hand-pump to operate the landing gear and flaps. Thus, besides securing the dead engine, the pilot would be forced to fly with one hand, while withdrawing the hand-pump from its socket with the other hand, before pumping the gear into the wheel wheels. A vision of the proverbial one arm paper-hanger springs to mind.

In this case the single engine rate of climb would be negative and a crash landing ahead inevitable, unless the gear was up at the time of engine failure. Despite this problem, at the time of this report the Aztec was still considered “safe” for charter flights. Some Aztecs have a second engine driven pump installed on the right engine at owner’s option.

After the instructional flight the following defects were recorded in the clean maintenance release:
1. The stall warning system failed to operate during stall recovery demonstrations.
2. The landing gear warning horn failed to operate and the red gear warning light in the gear lever failed to illuminate with gear up and throttles retarded.
3. Control column movement fore and aft caused squealing noises due lack of lubrication. This could be clearly heard during the landing hold off and when checking freedom of movement.

4. The Turn Coordinator was abnormally noisy during gyro run up.

5. Both CHT gauges appeared either unserviceable or unusually under-reading. Neither needle left the bottom (cold) stop although the right CHT needle did flicker higher a couple of times. As I had not flown this particular aircraft before and the OAT was only 10C, I accepted these low readings during run-up, but once airborne there was no discernible increase above the low stop.

6. Both EGT gauges inoperative

.7. The mandatory second artificial horizon (AH) was installed in the bottom far right hand corner of the copilot’s instrument panel and well outside the normal scan from the LH seat. The gross parallax error when viewed from the LH seat would negate the purpose of the second AH and in any case may lead to vertigo as the LH seat pilot leaned way over to his right to see the second AH. This is a well known problem with installation of some second AH’s to satisfy an airworthiness requirement.

It would be dangerous at night if the pilot was faced with a failed AH and was forced to rely on the second instrument well outside his scan. With a passenger in the RH seat, the second AH was not visible to the occupant of the LH seat.

8. The left engine manifold pressure needle (dual needles in a single gauge) frequently failed to respond to power changes until a differential of at least 6 inches of manifold pressure occurred. The needle would then move sluggishly to take up an appropriate reading. This fault showed throughout the flight whenever the throttles were repositioned.

9. The radio switch panel displayed a switch marked No 2 VHF.Nav receiver and another marked as No 2 VHF transmitter. In fact there was only one VHF and one VHF-Nav. These switches should be labelled as inoperative.
10. The feedback on VHF transmissions was scratchy and practically unreadable.
11. On two ILS approaches, while at 3 miles from the runway, the localiser needle showed one dot off centre with the aircraft visually aligned on the runway centre line. On one approach there was a rapid oscillation of the localiser needle on 3 miles final. Oscillation was less on the second ILS approach.
12. The autopilot over-controlled in roll and a severe pitch/bunt occurred when the pitch channel was engaged. No further attempts were made to experiment with the auto-pilot.

13. Attached to the pilot’s control wheel were two unidentified switches. One had the word ‘Winchester Electronics Incorporated” etched on the assembly. This was a press-to-transmit type switch and had it’s button missing, leaving a very nasty sharp threaded point for the pilot to push. The other switch was concealed under the wheel and not readily noticeable until inadvertently felt. It was a black toggle switch, spring loaded to centre, and operable in either direction. There was no labeling to indicate the purpose of either switch and no Flight Manual annotation.

14. With both mixture controls full forward, their position was at least two inches from the top edge of the quadrant, and looked as though they were actually in a mid-lean position. This may be an Aztec characteristic?

15. During run-up, the right pitch control was abnormally stiff to operate throughout the full range from Fine to Feather.
16. The parking brake was useless. As soon as moderate power was applied to any engine for run-up, the aircraft would move forward and veer left.
17. The right brake was weak during landing. Equal foot pressure on both pedals produced a marked turn to the left.

18. The altimeter on the copilot’s side showed 120 ft less than the pilot’s altimeter for same QNH. This was on the ground. There was an 80 ft difference when airborne. The right altimeter was outside IFR limits.

19. On two ILS approaches, the marker beacon lights and audio for the OM and MM failed to operate. The light globes also failed to operate on press to test.
20. The emergency exit window (passenger) is not labelled in any form. There is a single red handle beneath the window. This handle faces forward, but is unmarked. It would be easy for a passenger to inadvertently knock the handle with an elbow.

21. At 1100 rpm, the right engine manifold gauge needle oscillates rapidly over a 150 rpm range.

22. The pilot’s overhead vent control has an exposed metal shaft. The plastic round button is missing.

23. The internal dim/bright lights on the ADF digital control panel appear to be stuck in the dim position.

24. There is a radio rheostat switch labelled “Radio Light”. The switch may be disconnected or inoperative, as it does not appear to illuminate anything. If so, it should be labelled Inoperative.
25. The flap indicator needle indicates slight flap extended, although the flaps are confirmed visually up.
26. Most circuit breakers are underneath the left instrument panel out of sight of the pilot in the normal seated position. A portion of the decal serving these circuit breakers has been obliterated due wear and it takes time to read exactly what services are covered. Impossible at night.

27. A fire extinguisher is installed under the copilot’s seat. A label reveals that the last inspection was in 1986.

28. There is no POH in the aircraft. The Flight Manual did not have a copy of the C of R inside.
29. The ASI has no markings for Vmca, or blue line speed.
……………………………………………………………………………………………

Comments. In view of the inoperative stall warning and gear unsafe warning, the author endorsed the maintenance release as aircraft un-airworthy. This Aztec is used for charter flying by the operator. Signatures on the maintenance release indicate that at least 8 pilots have flown this aircraft since the maintenance release was issued.

It is difficult to believe that there were no defects apparently discovered during the 60 hours of flying until I flew it. The chief pilot was clearly aware of some of the defects because he cautioned the pilot under conversion prior to our flight.

Many of the defects must have been current during the last 100 hourly inspection, but the maintenance organization have appeared to missed them – or more likely deliberately ignored their presence. I understand that the operator has recently undergone routine surveillance by CASA inspectors. Presumably this would have included an inspection of airworthiness aspects of this aircraft. If so, the inspectors concerned perhaps lacked their usual vigour?

A short flight test would have revealed the in-flight defects such as those listed in this report. After all, cars are subject to a short road test to renew some roadworthy issues, so perhaps old aircraft should be required to undergo the same appropriate airworthiness flight tests as part of charter approval for the type.

If nothing else, there should be an airworthiness investigation on the positioning of the second AH which is required for IFR charter. I have seen this problem on many GA types, although this particular Aztec was the worst example. There is little point in having flight instrument redundancy if the pilot faces serious aircraft handling problems when forced to fall back on the spare AH which may be outside his normal scan. The Monarch Airlines Chieftain accident inquiry revealed a similar problem in instrumentation.

Airworthiness authorities are rightly concerned with correctness of paper work during routine operator surveillance. From my experience there is a clear need for inspectors to crawl around a few cockpits. Many of the defects that I have listed on this Aztec should have been readily apparent to a diligent flying operations or airworthiness inspector who took time to open the door – that being the very first defect.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Sunfish
24th Jun 2015, 22:45
"It always does that!". "So we are good to go then?".

International Trader
25th Jun 2015, 02:15
Sounds like most of the aircraft that I spent years on during my my career before I went to airlines, except for the paint job.

Is Centaurus a person who went to Aviation Nirvana with a bare Instructors Rating , 4-500 hours and, is now the Captain of a A380 who wants to go back to his aviation roots?

This guy is sharp because I normally only had time to look after I had been airborne for an hour or so and I used the first couple of hours flying the thing and a few landings to get that sort of information.

Did it really just take 15 minutes to find all those errors?

Did you ever get around to actually flying it?

In an ideal world this would not happen but, General Aviation is not in that world and never was.

I'm not saying that the operator shouldn't be looked at and maybe shut down but, he will only be replaced by another.

I have seen this for forty years and counting.

Centaurus, if you would like to hire my Navajo, it will be available to you providing you can meet my minimum requirements:

Type experiece : 300 hrs on type ,100 hours in 365 days, 3 T/O & Ldgs in 30 days.

Appropriate Licences:

Recurrent training: Evidence of recent type refresher from a recognized organization ( Flight Safety International is Ok).

Cost to you will be something like :

$1500 per flight hour ( min of 3 hours).

7 days notice before flight, payment in advance, no refunds.


Too much?

Go see the guy with the new paint job and,..... most people do.

International Trader
25th Jun 2015, 02:17
Better still,... buy your own!

john_tullamarine
25th Jun 2015, 04:08
Having counted Centaurus a close friend for 45 or more years, I really have to rise to his defence, here ... you are free, of course, to hold whatever view you may choose but to suggest that Centaurus is wet behind the ears is a bit rich ...


Is Centaurus a person who went to Aviation Nirvana with a bare Instructors Rating , 4-500 hours

He passed that sort of milestone somewhat in excess of 60-odd years ago ..


This guy is sharp ..

Oh, that he definitely is ... and very thorough in what he does and says.


I used the first couple of hours flying the thing and a few landings to get that sort of information.

A risky way to do the flying business ?


Did it really just take 15 minutes to find all those errors?

Did is say he was sharp, thorough, and very competent ?


In an ideal world this would not happen but, General Aviation is not in that world and never was.

... and will remain ever thus unless folks speak up.


I have seen this for forty years and counting.

... but not raised your hand in protest ?

Fred Gassit
25th Jun 2015, 05:08
When I started my career, the a/c I operated had already been ridden hard and put away wet for a minimum of 25 years.
There is an entire generation of us out there that had the good luck to operate just the sort of machinery you describe.
If you think a squawk sheet like that is bad (which it is) then you wouldn't believe some of the things that "Joe Lighty" had to do out there to survive in decades past.

I should add that I very much enjoy your anecdotes, they are the type of stories that motivated many of us to get into what has obviously turned out to be a very different aviation universe.

Capt Claret
25th Jun 2015, 05:21
Me thinks the International Trader missed the point, by far more than a country mile!:sad:

TOUCH-AND-GO
25th Jun 2015, 05:22
$1500 per flight hour ( min of 3 hours).

:eek: For a Navajo?

I can hire a King air B200 for $1500 per flight hour :hmm:

Capt Fathom
25th Jun 2015, 05:38
I thought it was good. :ok:

laardvark
25th Jun 2015, 05:38
thanks centaurus , that really takes me back . my alcoholic chief lame had a long , colourful string of names for people like you . navajos also had auto jamming tank selectors but i suspect you didn't get that far .

Snakecharma
25th Jun 2015, 06:16
Funny isn't it.

People get on here to moan about the decline in professional standards, and when someone, Centaurus in this instance, puts his hands up and raises an issue that is clearly an issue and people shoot him down on the basis that they had to put up with the crap he was describing and therefore why whinge about it!

Aviation is a business with razor thing margins and clearly this tempts people to cut corners, but I would rather fly a well maintained aeroplane with a ****ty paint job rather than a shiny looking turd.

Medicine is another business where bastardisation and bullying exists and because it has always been thus it is therefore ok to continue. Different issues but unacceptable nonetheless!

If we don't listen to the lessons of the past we are condemned to repeat them.

As for the regulator allowing this sort of stuff to occur, they are too busy pole vaulting over mouse **** to worry about the real issues.

Car RAMROD
25th Jun 2015, 08:02
That sort of ****box machine is pretty much evidence of the way the industry works, and is believed to be the normal thing.

Why are so many aircraft like the ones described? I think basically because people don't charge appropriate rates for their aircraft. In an effort to get work, they have rates that don't support the REAL cost of operation. Undercut the mob next door just to get more work, don't pay good wages, don't put money into the right maintenance. The old mob next door gets cheaper again and gets the work back but are spending even less now on the aircraft. Cycle repeats.

The attitude gets to me sometimes. Owners, operators, maintainers etc should have a hell of a lot more pride in their service and equipment, and if everyone charges appropriately for such a service the quality of aircraft etc can only increase. Being a tightarse is easy; doing it properly is hard, and those that do it properly should be supported.

Some of the **** that goes on out there is beyond a joke.

prospector
25th Jun 2015, 08:27
Cost to you will be something like :

$1500 per flight hour ( min of 3 hours).

7 days notice before flight, payment in advance, no refunds.


Too much?

Go see the guy with the new paint job and,..... most people do.


For a Navajo?

I can hire a King air B200 for $1500 per flight hour

And there lies the problem.

Pinky the pilot
25th Jun 2015, 09:33
That sort of ****box machine is pretty much evidence of the way the industry works, and is believed to be the normal thing.


Oddly enough, in my admittedly limited time spent in Aussie GA I never ever found an aircraft like those of which Centaurus posted.

And I state here for the record that if I ever do, not only will I refuse to fly it, I will write into the MR each and every defect I find! Oh, and I`ll make a photographic copy of the list with my phone which will be `used in evidence` if required!:=

I`m too old to put up with **** like that!:= And I have this dream of living a real long life!

waren9
25th Jun 2015, 09:45
you may well stand to the defence of your good friend centaurus, john but all international trader has done is ask some questions.

it is not for him to know that centaurus' back ground is ex military as i understand it, and if i'm right is perhaps less experienced than some others as to the maintenance realities of some of the ga fleet

not that it is wrong of centaurus to write the posts the he does

who's to know if, when or how international trader has raised his hand in protest?

its all very well for each of us to say "i'm not flying that". but as 400hr ga pilots most would. if, as elder statesmen of the industry, we have a problem, can we put hands on heart and say putting up multiple paragraph posts on anonymous bulletin boards and say "job done"?

laardvark
25th Jun 2015, 10:26
@ snakecharma - can't see any shootdowns here , hope you didn't mean my post .

RatsoreA
25th Jun 2015, 10:43
interesting...

I have never met Centarus, but he is far from anonymous, he has published a book, under his own name (quite a good read) and the most basic of interwebbing skills will reveal that.

I think what a lot of people are missing is, he didn't say he wrote that up, he copied it from an old BASI journal. In fact, I recall reading that article many years ago! I think there was a forward by the author of the report in the journal about having an hour with nothing to do, so he wanted to look at what he could find.

Interesting that International Trader jumped right on the offensive... :hmm:

Oh, and as long as I'm here, $1500/hr for a Navajo??!?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! :}:}:}

Gold!

1a sound asleep
25th Jun 2015, 11:08
Welcome to GA where many planes are 40+ years old. They may get maintenance but in terms of real upgrades 99% are still flying ancient avionics and equipment.

Many of these planes had an anticipated life in commercial operations of 20 years maximum

Pinky the pilot
25th Jun 2015, 11:09
Oh, and as long as I'm here, $1500/hr for a Navajo??!?

Must admit RatsoreA, that I did wonder about that too! :confused:

The above is a genuine question. I have no idea on what it costs to run a Navajo. :confused:
I am also assuming that a Chieftain would be slightly more expensive again!:hmm:

Snakecharma
25th Jun 2015, 11:19
Laardvark, no not you, though that being said I wasn't quite sure how to take your post - I suspect some may have taken your reference to colourful names the wrong way, but no I was referring to someone else's post/s.

john_tullamarine
25th Jun 2015, 11:29
As for the regulator allowing this sort of stuff to occur, they are too busy pole vaulting over mouse **** to worry about the real issues.

Do you claim copyright on that ? .. or can any of us relish it and reflect upon it from time to time ? Will keep me in fine humour for the rest of the evening ...


you may well stand to the defence of your good friend centaurus, john but all international trader has done is ask some questions.

.. not having a go at IT, per se .. he is entitled to whatever views he holds and so forth ... however, Centaurus is far too much the gentleman to engage in a biff so I felt obliged to move to his defence.

We all acknowledge that the problem exists .. however, surely the concern is how it may be fixed.

Certainly the first thing is to move to fair pricing so that the operator might make a sensible profit compatible with other Industries. The Micawber Principle certainly applies ..

On the other hand, the problem persists because it is tolerated for a whole raft of reasons.

gerry111
25th Jun 2015, 12:01
'International Trader' please search: www.radschool.org.au (http://www.radschool.org.au)

Check out Magazine vol 50. (June 2015)

See page 16. :ok:

john_tullamarine
25th Jun 2015, 12:42
.. a few folks from my past in that Volume .... I should start reading the series, I guess.

Tee Emm
25th Jun 2015, 14:04
[quote[ On the other hand, the problem persists because it is tolerated for a whole raft of reasons.
http://www.pprune.org/images/statusicon/user_online.gif http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=9023926) [quote/]


Scene at Essendon for example. Young pilot desperate for hours has a casual job flying a 172 on morning and evening rush hour traffic surveillance. The aircraft cockpit stinks of petrol and petrol stains running down under the wings from leaking fuel drains. Been like that for ages.


Warned that a spark from (for example) the flap motor, or electrical equipment in the cockpit, could ignite petrol fumes, let alone a flash of flame from the engine exhaust on engine start, said pilot agreed there was a severe fuel leak problem but was prepared to close his eyes and take the 172 as he said there was no shortage of other pilots waiting for his job should he write up the snag and lose his job.

Centaurus
25th Jun 2015, 14:38
he didn't say he wrote that up, he copied it from an old BASI journal

Just to clarify that point. In fact, I did write up all those defects mentioned above. When nothing was done to rectify them and those aircraft continued to fly with passengers, the decision had to be made to shut up about it or fix the problem. In those days it was called a CAIR which I think was Confidential Aviation Incident Report. See this link:

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/fsa/2001/jan/atsb.pdf

Later I believe an edited version was used by BASIS in their flight safety journal.

RatsoreA
25th Jun 2015, 22:55
There you go! Thanks for clearing it up. I do know they published it in one of the old BASI journals, I just didn't know it was yours originally as well.

Metro man
25th Jun 2015, 23:58
Unfortunately, I wasn't shocked when I read this. The example was a bit much for one aircraft but these things could be encountered with multiple examples.

I went SCUBA diving yesterday with rental gear, after 20 minutes I noticed my tank pressure hadn't decreased at all so I gave the gauge a solid tap and it instantly went from 210 bar to 160 bar.

Obviously my time in GA sharpened my survival skills.;)

International Trader
26th Jun 2015, 00:43
My post was designed to:

1: Find out if the author had a realistic view of the state of general aviation.

2: Agree that most GA aircraft are below standard.
3: Suggest that the situation will never completely reverse.
3: Point out that in order to keep a cheaply built aircraft to 100% operational state of readiness costs $$, big $$$ and, experienced pilots to help keep them that way.
4. Have a bit of fun.

As the discussion was about higher performance GA aircraft , I take it that a view from the professional GA pilot , ex GA or 'would be' was in order.

The point about the bare Instructor to A380 was to suggest that someone who was in GA for a brief time and just out of flight school aircraft ( probably the better standard of aircraft due to the balance of age/regular flight hours/maintenance regularity/productivity),who had now progressed through many years in an airline environment to a new airliner, would be quite out of touch with the condition of many GA aircraft and the state of GA.
I thought about including the alternative of a military pilot but, decided the post was already too long( this will be longer).

That military pilot, moving to GA aircraft,would be in the same boat.

Wouldn't it be wonderful ( aviation nirvana in fact) if all you had to do is write up the maintenance release and walk back to the crew room, hotel or Officer's quarters until your plane was fixed.

I am sure that your passengers ( or friends) would just wait around , your employer would still pay you ( god forbid on time), you actually got a pension in the first place, protection from a union, somebody would still provide you a uniform and other benefits.

Wouldn't it be lovely world to be able to walk into aviation from school, be trained for free, fed, clothed, housed ,paid to fly and have the assurance of a career until you retire or change your job by choice.
Boy, could you really do some good work with that atmosphere.

It would also be great to be able to not have to take jobs at night to pay the rent and food bill, not to have to sleep in your car so that you can follow your dream/ chosen career during the day.
I recall times when my whole salary went for rent... no $ for food those times or, a time when my cash surplus was $7 per week( maybe $30 today?).

Yeah, I was a lucky one.

Did I speak up, many times but, I flew aircraft that I accepted were safe to fly ( at times considering my experience ) but, not perfect.
I walked away from some and some I just didn't know how bad they were.

Still, I did fly some heaps of Sh1t but, I have been also presented some dodgy airline aircraft.

By the way, I lost income ( present and some future) from the aircraft that I walked away from but, I admit that I am also still alive to tell about it.

I held my hand up and paid for the privilege .

Some ( minor)problems, I just fixed myself so that the operation would continue, people were paid and passengers got what they paid for.

Did anything I that I did fix the GA problem or change the world... nope.

I remember a guy who had a small flying school and when he had to do a night flight and the preflight uncovered a blown nav light, he regularly cancelled the flight.
Instead of checking the aircraft earlier in the day time ( engineer available) or changing the globe himself ( as a last resort), he cancelled the flights .

He never flew a un-airworthy aircraft and, his school went broke .

Don't get me wrong, I am not at all sorry about the way I gained my experience and the best pilots that I know of have all come from such a background ( they just probably started with better raw material than I did).
It is a tough process but, those that come through the other end are very good.

Long ago, I decided that the only way forward was to get into a safer area of aviation or get out.

Fortunately (?) for me, the first option presented itself before the second became a necessity.

Most people who have GA aircraft and definitely those who rent them out , cannot afford to own aircraft.

They rent them out to be able to have them ( for as long as the game lasts)

They are people who are having a go, right or wrong but, if they didn't exist, there would be very few aircraft in Australia , rented out a significantly higher rates.

These are as much a dreamer as are most of those who rent their aircraft to fly.

People who rent aircraft complain that they are expensive and not up to standard.
People who own ( and rent out ) aircraft complain that pilots want cheap prices and break things because of poor skills /knowledge/ currency.

To those who were laughing at my $1500 ( and even Centaurus although you didn't make comment about costs), consider what it would cost the military or an airline to maintain such an old aircraft in near perfect operational state that you would like ( and the Military don't have to pay for them in the first place ) .

Obviously, a professional operation would retire aircraft that are beyond their economic operational life but, if they were to operate such and aircraft, they would want a fair return for the effort.

That price is probably what one should charge to support an old aircraft in the state that would give Centaurus little or nothing to write up.

Accordingly, to help keep the aircraft in good condition that same operator would require a properly trained, current pilot ( hence the other requirements), more costs.

No, I don't have an Navajo for rent.

At that price, of course, Centaurus would probably not be there in a position to consider flying the aircraft because the price would appear unrealistic to the extreme.

I think that there is a book and movie on such a topic?

We then are back to the dog with a new coat of paint .

QED.

My style of posting maybe unusual to some or all and can be viewed as abrasive or complete tosh.

They are intended to be humorous ( if I can ) , promote discussion , abuse( return abuse that is), occasionally pass on the benefit of my experience and, yes be abrasive but, they are my honest opinions at the time and beyond all else, they are entertaining to me.

Don't like 'em, don't read 'em.

Want to have a go at me, go ahead, I will read your post at some point.

John, I am surprised by your comments and failure to read between the lines. I know you to be a very intelligent person with a good grasp of the GA situation.

:}

I hate the idea of these 'smiles' but, I just love this one with the teeth !
I don't know what it is supposed to mean, I just get a laugh whenever I see it!

megle2
26th Jun 2015, 01:47
I know of two companies that charged $1500 / hour for a Chieftain charter.

One was ten years + ago when the economy could support their pricing policy, ie thats what we believe we should charge for a commercial return

The other more recently ( same pricing policy ), the economy couldn't support the price so it did nothing and was sold

Centaurus
26th Jun 2015, 02:49
My post was designed to:

1: Find out if the author had a realistic view of the state of general aviation.


An enjoyable read IT - so keep posting. As you rightly say, it sure provokes discussion which is probably why Danny Fyne conceived Pprune all those years ago.

For every one responder like you, me and others who have the willingness to put pen to paper in Pprune, there are probably well over 200 others that are content to read the posts and perhaps learn a little from their content.

18 years RAAF, 13 in overseas airlines, 7 in DCA and 24 in general aviation. Most would agree that qualifies as having a realistic view of general aviation in Australia. I'll leave it at that:ok:

Lead Balloon
26th Jun 2015, 03:18
The Piper Navajo and Aztec the subject of the CAIR reports quoted by Centaurus go into maintenance with the instruction: "Restore these aircraft to compliance with the applicable TCDS (including, of course, applicable STCs and ADs)."

Do those aircraft come out of maintenance more airworthy, or less airworthy, than when they went in?

Please cite data to support your answer.

laardvark
26th Jun 2015, 07:12
under those instructions those aircraft would probably be scrapped . is it possible to be less airworthy than not airworthy ?

PhillC
26th Jun 2015, 09:04
The above is a genuine question. I have no idea on what it costs to run a Navajo.
I am also assuming that a Chieftain would be slightly more expensive again!


A decent Chieftain is somewhere between $500 and $600 per hour dry.

Pinky the pilot
26th Jun 2015, 09:07
under those instructions those aircraft would probably be scrapped

Hence my comment in my first post re a box of matches!:D:E

Someone with more knowlege than I on the subject could probably supply a definitive answer, but given the defects listed in both those cases, my suspicion is that to make each aircraft properly airworthy would take far more money than the aircraft was worth!! :uhoh:

Thank you PhillC:ok:

Horatio Leafblower
26th Jun 2015, 11:15
Some might ask if there is such a thing as a "decent Chieftain"

Pinky the pilot
26th Jun 2015, 11:43
Some might ask if there is such a thing as a "decent Chieftain"

A valid question, I guess Horatio!:ok: The last time I flew one was a tad over 10 years ago when I did a bit of casual work for the then Airlines of South Australia.:ooh:

And whilst some of the Pilots I flew and worked with would grizzle about `bloody Chieftains,` when I asked if there was anything wrong/unairworthy/unsafe/etc etc they had to concede there was no reason for complaint! (they generally had Turbine desire in their eyes, quite understandably!)

Everything worked as required and if anything went u/s it was fixed.
In all my time with them I only remember the following defects showing up;



An autopilot went U/S (So we flew the whole trip as a 2 pilot op)
One EGT gauge likewise. (Finished the flight using the fuel flow gauge as a reference, running on the rich side)
A HF radio went bagarup! (Downgraded to VFR sartime)

The defects were reported when we returned to base, and fixed before the next scheduled flight.

The really sad part is that of those three Chieftains I flew in back in those days only one is left. Two were destroyed within months of being sold!!:{:{

I never did tell any of those blokes just what some of the Bongo vans and A model 402`s were like that I used to fly in PNG back in the early 90`s.:uhoh:

Maybe I should have!!:hmm:

gerry111
26th Jun 2015, 12:03
Pinky,
I know of someone who owns a BE35 that budgets for a bit under 100 hours per year. That's at $385-00 per hour including fuel. Fortunately, he has a small number of former aviator friends who are prepared to cost share.

Metro man
26th Jun 2015, 15:38
The only GA operator I know whose maintenance is without question is the RFDS. If it breaks, it's fixed regardless of cost and no comebacks whatsoever ever on pilots for writing up defects. But they aren't a commercial organisation which has to make a profit.

Anyone like to add to the list ?

DropYourSocks
26th Jun 2015, 23:25
Metro Man, I'd like to add hinterland aviation to your list. Nothing too big, small, time consuming or expensive to be fixed. Mind you, they have a dozen engineers and a very well stocked spares room.

International Trader
27th Jun 2015, 01:20
Anyone who flew Navajos or Chieftains remember having to slip your hand under the instrument panel and flick the solenoid lock pin out of the gear lever with you thumb nail before you could select the gear up ?

The Aztecs with the damaged cam inside the flap selector housing ( required some manipulation) that could prevent the flaps from working?

Remember having to remove cowls to belt the starter housing in order to loosen up the starter pinion gear solenoid for an engine start?

Other option was to attempt an air start, after getting it in the air , on one engine.
There was that infamous individual from my time who was known for doing this ( rumoured ) .

megle2
27th Jun 2015, 06:49
Metroman, I can think of a number GA operators who had / have excellent aircraft and maintenance to match. They would sail through any casa / external audit or pilot wish list.

Pinky the pilot
27th Jun 2015, 09:00
Other option was to attempt an air start, after getting it in the air , on one engine.

I call BS on that one!:*:ugh:

Centaurus
27th Jun 2015, 13:32
Remember having to remove cowls to belt the starter housing in order to loosen up the starter pinion gear solenoid for an engine start?


Now that brings back memories; but not of an Aztetc. Yours truly flew a Sea Fury at Nowra a long time ago. During engine start a sailor called a Pilot's Mate stands by the wing, hands clasped behind his back, near the starboard wheel.

I selected a cartridge and tried to start the engine (A Bristol Centaurus, would you believe?) Prop spins a few revs, lots of black smoke but doesn't catch. Pilot's Mate does a Tarzan act and springs first onto the wheel and then leaps on to the wing and produces a nasty looking rubber mallet from behind his back.

I was about to wind the canopy shut to protect myself, but before I could do so, the PM delivers a terrible blow with said mallet to a certain sweet spot at the back and top of the Centaurus. Seems there is a starter solenoid there which sometimes sticks.

The PM then leaps to the ground or deck or whatever, and with a thumbs up says "Try that, Sir". Flattered at being called "Sir" for the first time in my life when actually I was a sergeant NCO pilot, I selected another cartridge and tried again - this time successful.

International Trader
28th Jun 2015, 09:47
Now these stories are getting my interest.

Reminds me of evenings flying the bar stool in the pub after work.

Me thinks that "Pinky" has led a bit of a sheltered life.

Pinky the pilot
28th Jun 2015, 09:56
Me thinks that "Pinky" has led a bit of a sheltered life.

Consider yourself free to think what you wish, International Trader.

Those who know me may think otherwise. And quite frankly I don`t care anyway.

AFAIC, I no longer have anything to prove.:=

International Trader
28th Jun 2015, 12:35
Consider yourself free to think what you wish, International Trader.

Those who know me may think otherwise. And quite frankly I don`t care anyway.

AFAIC, I no longer have anything to prove.:=

Pinky,

Never said that you had anything to prove .
Are we in a pis.ing competition?
You are the one who called BS .
All I need to do is mention a name and several from that era would probably nod in agreement.
None of us have seen everything but, looking at the date of your earlier post, this was before your time perhaps.

john_tullamarine
28th Jun 2015, 13:16
John, I am surprised by your comments and failure to read between the lines.

When I post as JT, I need to tread a fine line ... too much reading betwixt the lines can get a mod into hot water without too much effort.

Enjoying the thread, I am .... and there is a value to be had for the newchums in these sorts of robust discussions.

As a side comment, I always enjoyed my Chieftain time .. not quite so keen on the little one, though.

Jamair
28th Jun 2015, 15:47
I will second the BS on taking off in an Aztec on one engine and airstarting the other. I owned one - they wont even TAXI on one engine let alone take off. :rolleyes:

RatsoreA
29th Jun 2015, 00:06
Sorry for the thread drift, but I have heard of someone air starting the tail engine on an empty Trislander, then landing, shutting down the wing engines, loading and leaving. But even that sounds like a stretch!

Pinky the pilot
29th Jun 2015, 09:22
starting the tail engine on an empty Trislander, then landing, shutting down the wing engines, loading and leaving. But even that sounds like a stretch!

I have only three hours ICUS in a Trislander; But I definitely call BS on that one!!!!:*:=

International Trader; Let`s have some names, dates and a/c types involved (PM if you like) but I still call BS.

I heard the story of someone doing the excercise you described in a BN2 when I was in PNG, and even the teller of the tale said that in his opinion it was BS.

Jamair
30th Jun 2015, 15:52
A looong time ago, I believe the original Rockwell 500 (IIRC) was flown across the USA with the 2nd prop stowed in the cabin.....

n 1950, when the developers were working to satisfy Civil Aeronautics Authority (CAA) regulations for certification of the 500, they chose a novel method of demonstrating its single-engine safety and performance: They removed one of the two-bladed propellers, secured it in the aft cabin, and flew from Bethany to Washington, D.C. on one engine. There they met with CAA personnel, then replaced the propeller and returned to Oklahoma in the conventional manner.

International Trader
30th Jun 2015, 23:57
Oh Pinky, now you ask too much!

Names, dates, places ...... on a rumour site?
:=

For what purpose, to convince you?

I doubt that it would.

I did say that I had heard that it had been done and it is nice to hear that you also have heard of it.

Now a 3rd event.


At least we are on the same page on that.

Perhaps, if the person concerned is reading, he may wish to comment.

I don't have any time on a Trislander but, it should be easier with the centre engine out at light weights as it is a controllability problem in a twin.

I didn't mean to suggest that the aircraft was an Aztec, I never was told the type concerned.

As far as Aztecs do go, I have taxied them on one several times without any trouble.

I have noted many aircraft owners to have , let's say, " limited " abilities.

piratepete
3rd Jul 2015, 12:19
Like JT I also have had the priviledge of knowing 50 CENT-TAURUS for a long long time.He has a very good aviation brain and from time to time when I find myself stumped, especially on training issues, turn to him for some good advice.
CENT will remember the many stories I have told him about one of my earlier employers in a far away land who operated 757s at the time.I noticed him both laughing his head off and looking at me strangely as if I was bloody liar/loony when he heard of the following maintenance "problems" on the 757.

1.A composite leading edge panel around 2 feet wide and 16 feet long rapidly breaking up in flight and disappearing completely from the 757 WHILE OVERHEAD A MAJOR CITY.The yoke had about 20 degrees deflection just to keep wings level.
2.At 35000 feet a large bang was heard followed by yoke deflection, upon inspection at XXXX the left engine COWLING was completely missing/gone.Someone got a free garden shed.
3.The RB211 engine on one 757 regularly flamed out at idle at TOD and was not able to be restarted.I flew it to investigate and the same thing happened.I grounded it.The CEO called me to demand that I fly it back to XXXX ON ONE ENGINE!!! without PAX or CREW.When I refused/said it cant be done he said "why not? you always do this in the simulator"!!! I kid you not.
I have about 15 more crazy examples like these but will save them for the bar.NOT ONLY IN G/A!!!!