Un-restrained Cessna rudders at Point Cook. Naughty, naughty.

[A37575]

The RAAF Museum at Point Cook today. Plenty of activity. Lots of Cessnas on the tarmac belonging to very big flying school. Interesting point made by one of the spectators was that none of the parked tied-down Cessnas had a rudder restraining chock to prevent the rudder from bashing from side to side in strong winds. Isn't there a CAO or something that states if the flight controls are unrestrained in winds over 25 knots (?) the aircraft is considered un-airworthy until control integrity is checked and signed off by an LAME?

With the gusty northerlies over past few weeks that means an awful lot of un-airworthy rudders maybe. Strong winds can damage rudder cables then one day twang goes the rudder and who knows where you are when that happens. Big flying school too,.. you think they would know better said the spectator who was ex CASA airworthiness.

[swh]

Originally Posted by A37575

Isn't there a CAO or something that states if the flight controls are unrestrained in winds over 25 knots (?) the aircraft is considered un-airworthy until control integrity is checked and signed off by an LAME?

No the CAO says ....

"When an aircraft has been parked, taxied or towed in winds exceeding 35 knots and the control systems and surfaces have not been effectively restrained either by a person in the cockpit or by approved control surface gust locks, the pilot in command or an appropriately licensed maintenance engineer must, before flight, inspect the control systems and control surface attachments for damage."

Originally Posted by A37575

you think they would know better said the spectator who was ex CASA airworthiness.

If said spectator did not know this, maybe that is why they are ex CASA

[scrambler]

I can't recall rudder chocks in any of the tricycle Cessnas I have flown, and there have been many. (or pipers for that matter). Perhaps it has something to do with the coupling of the rudders and nosewheel that restrains the movement of the rudder? The rudder doesn't exactly move freely.

Control column locks (Aileron & Elevator) however are a different matter. These will slam from stop to stop with wind blowing.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

That is a shame. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to shape a couple of pieces of floor timber with some carpet and a long bolt and wingnut to fashion up a suitable rudder lock either....with a suitable "REMOVE BEFORE FLIGHT" ribbon attached , of course.

[Angle of Attack]

Trust me I have seen the result of a 182 parked for a couple of days without a Rudder lock, in winds of up to 35 knots. The upper part of the rudder was trashed, looked like a sardine tin that had been opened. A whole new rudder was required. OZBUSDRIVER's description of the lock is exactly the ones I have seen around the traps.

[podbreak]

Somehow I think the businessman who owns said flying school wouldn't have his new (expensive) fleet of Cessnas out there without rudder locks if they were really in any danger of being damaged...

[swh]

Is it just me, or has the meaning of "approved control surface gust locks" changed.

[4SPOOLED]

Most places dont have them, the first place i ever flew that had them was RACWA. Only need to bits of wood, a little bolt and a butterfly nut to sort the rudder out.

Pretty nifty on a lightie!

4S

[Tee Emm]

Somehow I think the businessman who owns said flying school wouldn't have his new (expensive) fleet of Cessnas out there without rudder locks if they were really in any danger of being damaged

Thank goodness for that. We can all rest assured that the winds never get above 35 knots at Point Cook, Moorabbin and Essendon so the problem simply doesn't exist?

[Centaurus]

Trust me I have seen the result of a 182 parked for a couple of days without a Rudder lock, in winds of up to 35 knots. The upper part of the rudder was trashed, looked like a sardine tin that had been opened. A whole new rudder was required

Certainly a good lesson to be learned from the above incident. From the replies so far, it is obvious that complacency by aircraft owners is here to stay. Reminds me of the saying; "Get away with anything often enough and the perceived risk diminishes considerably.
"
Having seen the damage to the rudder stops on a C172 when a storm went through and knowing that very same aircraft is still flying without the required inspection, makes me shake my head in amazement at the recklessness involved.

What is it with these owners? Is it the cost of a simple piece of wood, a screw, and a red flag which is the factor in owner's turning a blind eye to safety - or is it a case of couldn't care less as long as it doesn't cost money - even $20...

All those reading this post just keep in mind the aircraft you are about to fly or authorise some student pilot to fly, and which does not have a rudder chock in place when tied down, may be un-airworthy. And the damage may be hidden inside the fuselage tail area where you cannot see it.

[Ratshit]

I say, "Rip all them straight tails off and fit them Cessnas with V-tails like the Fork-tailed Dr Killer" - problem solved!

R

[podbreak]

Originally Posted by Tee Emm

Thank goodness for that. We can all rest assured that the winds never get above 35 knots at Point Cook, Moorabbin and Essendon so the problem simply doesn't exist?

I'm not denying reality, on the contrary, the winds do exceed 35 Knots, particularly with gusty thunderstorms. Do you really think that if the aircraft were damaged every time this happend a bloke like this wouldn't do something about it?

[A37575]

Podbreak.

I'm not denying reality, on the contrary, the winds do exceed 35 Knots,

Interesting comparison between high capacity RPT operator policy and the cases under discussion. When towing a big jet the landing gear pins are always installed. It is a safety precaution against un-commanded or inadvertent gear retraction. In the light aircraft training schools industry rudder chocks are rarely inserted to prevent rudder damage in strong winds because there is no risk of damage? Or because the flying schools simply can't be bothered and it is all too much trouble. And that attitude is the difference between the airline industry and the GA flying school industry.

If one accepts it is common practice and sound commonsense to use the safety harness wrapped around the control wheel in light aircraft to prevent smashing of the elevators and ailerons in windy conditions, then is it not logical to put in place a rudder chock for the same reason?

[SkySista]

Somehow I think the businessman who owns said flying school

Therein perhaps lies the problem... someone owning a flying school doesn't mean they're a pilot or know the slightest thing about flying... maybe they have a fleet of staff to do that for them. Hence, said person could possibly not care/know of the problem.

Does sound a bit silly to me though, thinking you would 'never' need a rudder lock because your aircraft is not 'usually' at risk... isn't that like saying 'we've never had an engine fire so why fit bottles'??

Ok I'm going back to Cabin Crew now...

[Howard Hughes]

Originally Posted by swh

Is it just me, or has the meaning of "approved control surface gust locks" changed.

I think SWH has hit it right on the head, when I learned to fly every Cessna had the obligatory two pieces of wood, bolt and wingnut attached to the rudder.

However in this day of Regulatory Compliance, I suspect that the said rudder locking device wouldn't stand up to scrutiny, certainly not without an "EO"...

PS: I thought the re-hashed Cessnas built in recent times came, with a factory made (metal) rudder lock?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Ah yes! Approved rudder locks are the same as approved fuel dip sticks and ...dare I say it....throttle locks

[podbreak]

Originally Posted by SkySista

Therein perhaps lies the problem... someone owning a flying school doesn't mean they're a pilot or know the slightest thing about flying... maybe they have a fleet of staff to do that for them. Hence, said person could possibly not care/know of the problem.

Does sound a bit silly to me though, thinking you would 'never' need a rudder lock because your aircraft is not 'usually' at risk... isn't that like saying 'we've never had an engine fire so why fit bottles'??

Ok I'm going back to Cabin Crew now...

I think some people are missing my point. I'm not advocating the practice of un-locked rudders. Said businessman is a very experienced pilot, who has owned large light fleets for many years. Considering this person is extemely careful with his aircraft, and his money, i'm suggesting that perhaps the 172R/S do not require a rudder lock. I'm speculating, the winds can and do exceed 35 kts, and the aircraft have apparently not been damaged by this cause thus far. I think comparing inadvertant gear retraction on RPT jet and rudder damage on a 172 is like comparing apples and oranges...

[bushy]

POH?

Did anyone think to look in the POH ? Does the POH say to use a home made rudder lock, made of plywood and carpet? Would the EX-CASA bloke be happy with a home made rudder lock? Would today's CASA blokes be happy with a home made rudder lock? Surely an engineering order and a specially made rudder lock would be required. Do Cessna or Piper make and supply a rudder lock? I wonder why.

[Centaurus]

i'm suggesting that perhaps the 172R/S do not require a rudder lock.

Are you saying there is something "special" about these specific Cessna's that make them immune to rudder flapping in gusty winds? That said the same immunity will hopefully apply to just about every Cessna single on the tarmac at Essendon and Moorabbin because very few have rudder chocks inserted even though these aircraft are tied down with ropes in case the wind gets up. Interestingly when Crest Flying School at EN was in operation, the operator was quite strict on ensuring every one of the Cessnas had rudder chocks firmly in place. Well done that man.

[here skip]

I dusted off Cessna 210-M POH.

SECTION 8
HANDLING, SERVICE & MAINTENANCE


TIE-DOWN

Proper tie down procedure is the best precaution against damage to the parked airplane by gusty or strong winds. To tie-down the airplane securley, proceed as follows:

1. Set the parking brake and install the control wheel lock.

2. Install a surface control lock over the fin and rudder.

3. Tie sufficiently strong ropes or chains (700 pounds tesile strength) to the wing and tail tie-down fittings and secure each rope or chain to a ramp tie-down.

4. Tie a rope (no chains or cables) to the nose gear torque link and secure to a ramp tie down.

5. Install a pitot tube cover.
(My bolding)

I'm assuming 172's would be much the same. Could be wrong though.


HS