Looks like some Grob woes..
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,891
Received 2,829 Likes
on
1,207 Posts
Unnecessary risk ?
...
Interesting time line for an Emergency Airworthiness Directive?
EAD issued on 26th Feb
EAD read and posted by learned PPRuNe citizen - 1st March
EAD effective date 3rd March
If the problem is bad enough to justify an EAD, what's wrong with 'Inspect before next flight' ?
Effectively, up to five days of unnecessary risk.
Would make for an interesting accident investigation.
LFH
...
Interesting time line for an Emergency Airworthiness Directive?
EAD issued on 26th Feb
EAD read and posted by learned PPRuNe citizen - 1st March
EAD effective date 3rd March
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to failure or detachment of a control surface, possibly resulting in loss of control of the aeroplane.
Inspections 1) Before next flight after the effective date of this AD,
Effectively, up to five days of unnecessary risk.
Would make for an interesting accident investigation.
LFH
...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,891
Received 2,829 Likes
on
1,207 Posts
It may be down to transmission times, some countries operating UK registered aircraft may not recieve Emergency AD's at the same time, so still could be operating them after the date issued if it was earlier, that would mean unbeknown they would be operating without a valid ARC and hence and Airworthiness Certificate, that then has knock on effect on Aircraft insurance and pilots flying unairworthy aircraft, so a little leeway is given so hopefully everyone is in the know to prevent the above happening.
That's my thoughts on the possible scenario.
It was issued on the 26th but my email system that gets all AD's from my service provider arrived on the 1st.
That's my thoughts on the possible scenario.
It was issued on the 26th but my email system that gets all AD's from my service provider arrived on the 1st.
On a regular AD you get two weeks warning, on an Emergency AD that warning time is shorter, but I have seen different variations of how short it is. As NutLoose mentioned, the knock on effect of having an effective date concurrent with the publishing date can be significant.
...
Thank you chaps. Understand absolutely. I have no knowledge of the minefield of aviation administrative reality.
Would I authorise a Grob flight, or fly my own Grob (without complying with the EAD) after receiving/reading the EAD, but before it became effective ?
No Way Hosay - 'Corst I ain't gonna get struck by lightning, innit ?
Cheers, LFH
...
Thank you chaps. Understand absolutely. I have no knowledge of the minefield of aviation administrative reality.
Would I authorise a Grob flight, or fly my own Grob (without complying with the EAD) after receiving/reading the EAD, but before it became effective ?
No Way Hosay - 'Corst I ain't gonna get struck by lightning, innit ?
Cheers, LFH
...
Just for fun, let's consider the following scenario:
- Grob owner/operator reads the EAD but notices that is is not yet effective.
- Grob owner/operator then authorises a flight/goes flying without carrrying out the necessary steps to comply with the EAD first. (Definitively not one of us...)
- Flight control bracket detaches, stick actuator loses control of said Grob, Grob experiences a rapid unscheduled disassembly upon reaching ground level (let's assume no loss of life or serious injuries to keep this thought experiment pleasant). There is a significant bit of damage though, including to innocent property.
- Is it still possible to claim that your aircraft was fine/airworthy/not your fault etc. when the property owner sues Grob owner/operator for damages?
Answers on a postcard....
- Grob owner/operator reads the EAD but notices that is is not yet effective.
- Grob owner/operator then authorises a flight/goes flying without carrrying out the necessary steps to comply with the EAD first. (Definitively not one of us...)
- Flight control bracket detaches, stick actuator loses control of said Grob, Grob experiences a rapid unscheduled disassembly upon reaching ground level (let's assume no loss of life or serious injuries to keep this thought experiment pleasant). There is a significant bit of damage though, including to innocent property.
- Is it still possible to claim that your aircraft was fine/airworthy/not your fault etc. when the property owner sues Grob owner/operator for damages?
Answers on a postcard....
It's all a long while ago, but manufacturers and operators used to do anything they could to avoid actually grounding a fleet. So in the RAF there were often instructions to "be complied with before next After Flight servicing" (as opposed to "next Before Flight..."), so technically it was never grounded. Of course, no sane person would ever fly a sortie then do the inspection but it meant that the top brass did not have to be told!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,891
Received 2,829 Likes
on
1,207 Posts
Just for fun, let's consider the following scenario:
- Grob owner/operator reads the EAD but notices that is is not yet effective.
- Grob owner/operator then authorises a flight/goes flying without carrrying out the necessary steps to comply with the EAD first. (Definitively not one of us...)
- Flight control bracket detaches, stick actuator loses control of said Grob, Grob experiences a rapid unscheduled disassembly upon reaching ground level (let's assume no loss of life or serious injuries to keep this thought experiment pleasant). There is a significant bit of damage though, including to innocent property.
- Is it still possible to claim that your aircraft was fine/airworthy/not your fault etc. when the property owner sues Grob owner/operator for damages?
Answers on a postcard....
- Grob owner/operator reads the EAD but notices that is is not yet effective.
- Grob owner/operator then authorises a flight/goes flying without carrrying out the necessary steps to comply with the EAD first. (Definitively not one of us...)
- Flight control bracket detaches, stick actuator loses control of said Grob, Grob experiences a rapid unscheduled disassembly upon reaching ground level (let's assume no loss of life or serious injuries to keep this thought experiment pleasant). There is a significant bit of damage though, including to innocent property.
- Is it still possible to claim that your aircraft was fine/airworthy/not your fault etc. when the property owner sues Grob owner/operator for damages?
Answers on a postcard....
I would think would have to prove he read the AD, he could deny he had seen it, even then it may be it was been ferried for maintenance to get the inspection carried out, you can and do get aircraft stuck at odd places where no maintenance is possible, in that case I would want to carry out a as far as possible detailed inspection prior to flight.
One I remember was the aerobar crankshafts where the mix had been altered resulting in several cavities in the material and a few props shed. The AD in that case said the engine had to come out wherever it was, we had one picking up pax here when the pilot got a call to tell him it was grounded and it sat for about 6 weeks engineless while it was sorted.
Indeed Dervish, and yet still to be declared as such. It was not always so though, a not dissimilar issue affected the Handley Page Hastings in the 60's. An elevator hinge outrigger bracket detached due failure of the securing bolts. All 41 on board perished. The entire RAF Fleet was immediately grounded, and remained so until inspection and repairs were conducted and airworthiness restored.
Little Baldon air crash - Wikipedia
Little Baldon air crash - Wikipedia
I would think would have to prove he read the AD, he could deny he had seen it, even then it may be it was been ferried for maintenance to get the inspection carried out, you can and do get aircraft stuck at odd places where no maintenance is possible, in that case I would want to carry out a as far as possible detailed inspection prior to flight.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Former Home of the Hercules, Wilts
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I wonder if this AD has anything to do with the Tutor which diverted into brize just over a month ago with some form of rudder issue. The aircraft is still parked at Brize minus rudder.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Still on the beach (but this one's cold).
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finally, someone who refers to the aircraft correctly. The Tutor may be having difficulties, but right now the other two types of Grob in RAF service are pretty much okay!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,891
Received 2,829 Likes
on
1,207 Posts
If one wants to be picky it’s actually a civilian registered Grob G115, and as the civilian AD refers to it as that, so regardless of what the RAF have decided to slap on it as their Moniker, a Grob G115 it remains and rightly so as the RAF are just one user in a long list, in fact it was called the Heron when in Royal Navy service.
If one wants to be picky it’s actually a civilian registered Grob G115, and as the civilian AD refers to it as that, so regardless of what the RAF have decided to slap on it as their Moniker, a Grob G115 it remains and rightly so as the RAF are just one user in a long list, in fact it was called the Heron when in Royal Navy service.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,891
Received 2,829 Likes
on
1,207 Posts
Join Date: May 2017
Location: UK
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed. The other models (including the base G115, A, B, etc as generally horrible as they are) use a different construction of control surface, in particular around the bracket mounts. The different construction doesn't require that nuts are torqued (iaw the manual) to an extent that may, on odd occasions, pull the bolt head through the surface...
