A shame to see an old Aztec treated like this.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: AMONGST BRIGALOW SUCKERS
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Hmmm!...I think you may have been corrected BK!
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!!!!
Last edited by BEACH KING; 25th May 2007 at 13:46.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
amos2 me old, this is the standard of debate and discussion we have in Oz. 
. 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 
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.
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.
Contemplate shear and tension for a bit.
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.
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.
STUPID AUSTRALIAN AD
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.
including some fatal accidents involving thunderstorms where the wing failed, but the bolts remained intact.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Still in Paradise
Age: 60
Posts: 861
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Learning from it or profiting from it???
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Endor
Age: 83
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
Last edited by 27/09; 28th May 2007 at 21:38.
