Putting up with defects

[Whopity]

All aircraft used in flying clubs and available for hire must be maintained to Public Transport standards. There is a very useful document, CAP 520 http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP520.PDF in which Part 1 explains the owners responsibilities. It also provides guidance on Technical Logs and defect sheets.

[huv]

Had an examiner fail a PPL-applicant because he did not abort a takeoff when oil pressure crept up past redline, by about a needle-width. We (instructors) were annoyed with that at first, but then realised we had been teaching the students that engine instrument reading a bit outside "green" could be acceptable. A lesson for the school - the applicant paid deerly.

[IO540]

As a mere former PPL student, my experience is that defects are a way of life, and one is in a poor position to query them, short of walking out and going to another school. There is a lot of politics involved in that, because schools tend to stick together and don't like students doing this.

The previous school might "lose" some previously passed exam results, to make a point

The CAA 50hr checks mean nothing. I have flown planes with bare-end wires hanging in in the engine compartment, and the FI didn't give a damn. The checks just make sure the controls work and the wings are screwed on, more or less. The service firms are under pressure from schools to do a quick job and do it cheap, so only the absolute minimum gets done.

The industry gets away with it because structural/control failures are extremely rare in fixed-wing planes and as a result the planes are just about impossible to get to crash by themselves - the pilot has to do it himself Even the most battered 1970 C150 will be safe to fly, and it would probably be safe even if it didn't the inside of a workshop for many years; with just a squirt of WD40 here and there. And if you started with a new plane, it's unlikely that it would develop a dangerous fault for 10+ years.

Same with cars; structural failures barely feature in accident stats. The real difference between aviation and the motor trade is that the former cowboys are tighly regulated.

[LD Max]

I, personally, do not have a problem writing up an aircraft if it deserves it.

However, a couple of cautionary tales...

As a 35 Hr PPL, I was off on my QXC. When taxiing to the hold, I applied the brakes and "felt" something go "ping" through the pedals. (Sorry but that's the best description I have). So I taxied back and reported in to the engineer. There followed many a few and a couple of . Eventually after taxiing the plane once around the ramp, said engineer pronounced it .

First land away, I almost came off the runway as the Stbd brakes were almost totally ineffective in the rollout.

Now, I KNEW there was something wrong - even after the engineer had coerced me into taking the aircraft anyway. But I bowed to his greater experience and very nearly came unstuck. It turned out that one of the two bolts which holds the brake caliper together had sheared.

Student 1, Engineer 0.

From that point on, I vowed to have the courage of my convictions, and that was sorely tested about 2 years later.

Now as a fully qualified CPL/IR, I was undertaking my JAA FI instructor course in the US. The aircraft was parked overnight away from base. Upon walking out to the PA28 to do my morning checks before the FIC arrived, I noticed a "creak" coming from the Port wing. It so happened that I had left the brakes on - actually due to my earlier incident 2 years previously, so that I could visually identify a sheared caliper bolt. I'd got as far as the prop and was giving it a good push/pull to check for any play in the crankshaft. The aircraft was, of course, rocking back and forth on the brakes.

Well this creak caught my attention so, of course, I checked the brakes first. But the creak was coming from above, apparently within the wing itself. Curious, I lifted the "gas" cover above the oleo strut on top of the wing and while rocking the plane back and forth, observed slight movement of the gas nipple on top of the oleo. It was very slight but was best observed when referenced against the edge of the hole in the skin where the cover was supposed to fit. The creak apparently corresponded with the location and the small amount of displacement. In turn, this suggested that the oleo appeared to have some movement. Was this normal when rocking on the brakes? I had no idea.

So I called over a friendly engineer from a nearby hangar. He checked both sides. Definate movement in the port side with a creak. No visible movement in the starboard side and no creak.

His opinion was that it needed proper inspection before flight, which meant getting it up on jacks and removing some panels. This, of course, was a problem because the plane was not at it's home base. When the FIC arrived, (15,000 Hrs + experience), he looked at it and pronounced it unsatisfactory also.

Phone call to the flight school, explaining the problem in as much detail as possible. "Fly it back and we'll look at it", was the response. "No way", I said. Eventually, they sent their own engineer - accompanied by a PPL pilot, (not a student). Guess what? Engineer kicks the tyres, say's it's okay and gets the PPL to fly it back to base while HE drives back in the truck.

Next evening, same plane is out on the line ready to be hired.

So, I kick up a fuss. The engineer kicks up a fuss, going on about his 30 years of engineering experience against my 2 years as a pilot. Threatens to "make sure I never fly at that school again"! The flight school owner tries his best to calm things down and assures me that it will be looked at. However, to make sure... the problem gets "written up". In FAA world, that (should) ground the plane until the engineeer signs it off.

The engineer then says there's nothing to stop him just tearing up the report and binning it!!! It is worth pointing out that the owner knows absolutely NOTHING about aircraft and depends 100% on his engineer's competance. Since I now have substantial reason to doubt the engineer's competance, accordingly I make discreet enquiries with an FAA Engineering inspector at the local safety center. The FAA inspector promptly calls the owner, and the owner bars me from the school for "shopping them to the FAA". Another FAA inspector then attends the school and inspects the plane.

After all that... the FAA agree that there's nothing wrong with the plane. The engineer is "vindicated" and I am the villain!

Engineer: 10 Student: 1

Moral of the story?

Beats me.

[BigEndBob]

Any mechanical device will give plenty of warning of inpending doom.
Might be unusual vibration, sound, etc.
Could be excessive oil burn, plugs fouling.
I instructed on a PA28 with an engine that didn't quite sound right.
Sure enough several hours later i was in a field.
Go with your gut instinct, if it don't feel right..don't fly it.

[SNS3Guppy]

This got me thinking - since becoming an FI I have had to put up with many small defects including missing or inop nav equipment, balding tyres, dead lights, knackered seats, the list goes on.

Obviously the overriding issue is safety but on the other hand if I refuse to fly because a nav light is not working then I can't afford to pay the rent so that would be silly.

As a flight instructor, not only do you NOT have to put up with these things, you have an obligation to set an example for your student by insisting that these problems are properly deferred, or repaired, or you merely refuse the aircraft. Set and live by the standards of a professional NOW.

You can't afford to pay the rent because you insist on operating professionally? You don't need to refuse to fly the airplane because a nav light is inop...you need to insist it gets fixed.

[martinidoc]

The PoH or Manual will contain details of defects which may be deferred and what flight conditions are permissible. At our FTO, this is supplemented for local operations and includes details of what defects may be deferred for PPLs,FIs and Students (e.g. U/S stall warner No students). This is good risk management practice and gets round the problem of making decisions on an ad hoc basis, implying to students that there is a carefree attitude toward A/C servicability, whilst still permitting flights to be undertaken safely.

[Surestick]

One thing that hasn't been noted here is the danger in getting used to seeing stuff U/S on a school's fleet of planes.
I remember renting the C152 Aerobat from my flight-school a few years ago & during preflight noticing that the G meter hand that stays at the max # of Gs pulled was a bit over the max rated & dismissed it with a "huh, must be broken" (which wouldn't have been unusual for that school).
After coming back from my flight my instructor asked me about it as he was concerned as to why I hadn't said anything about it. Turns out that someone had apparently scared themselves a bit a week or so before in it. The aircraft had been inspected & was safe but he was a bit concerned as to why I had flown it w/o checking.

I think that had that school's fleet been in better shape I would probably have said something.

[Whopity]

Since engineering responsibility moved to EASA, the CAA Surveyors have started walking into flying schools and inspecting the aircraft and documentation; one or two schools have already had a nasty shock!

[BEagle]

And haven't you made yourself popular in the process of doing so!