I'm a BMAA inspector, but an LAA member.

No, he isn't allowed to sign off his own repairs, EXCEPT where it's through replacement with "identical" parts solely, and then it should normally be counter-signed by another PPL, or by an LAA inspector.

In a case like this, if there is any damage not simply fixeable before next flight by replacement of parts, he should inform LAA engineering, they are likely to suspend the permit. The LAA will then get a report on the damage, agree with the owner (or just impose) a repair scheme, which once done needs signing off by an LAA inspector (who may not have done the repair work themselves). Not unlikely that a check flight would also be required.

For major repairs, he'd also (probably) need a letter of "no technical objection" from the designer.

G

I have a sneaky feeling that if there is a prang airside between an aircraft and any form of motor you have to inform the British Transport police.

Thanks for that Genghis! I suppose it doesn't really matter if permit or CofA, if the guy flying does not have the sense to get something checked, no rules will stop him taking off.

From their website:

Two things must ye know about the Mad Jock...

The offence here may be endangerment but the pilot will, of course, get away with it.

Can the OP remember anything about the registration?

MJ. I think the BTP only have authority where railway trains are involved or on railway property. Not sure if or when they had any juristiction over aircraft.

Edited: beaten to it by Capt Hamster

Where I am based, one renter started up with the towbar attached. He took ~ 1" x 1" piece out of the prop, chucked the mangled towbar into some grass, went for a flight, landed, said nothing. I saw the dent myself. The school never got anything from him, so it was an insurance job.

Sounds completely reasonable. I mean, if you hit a stone with a lawn mower, and it runs OK afterwards, you just carry on, so why should a plane be any different? The engine looks and sounds pretty similar to a lawn mower, and is even harder to start.

I am saying this only ~50% tongue in cheek, because PPL training does not mention shock loading at all (IME) so if the "pilot" is merely trying to avoid getting into trouble, it's perhaps not all that suprising. One should judge people only by reference to their training.

FLH - post 13.

I also have photo if needed.

John

I don't have to imagine that. I have seen the damage that was done to the spar and spar box of a PA28 after a more or less similar taxi incident. The wingtip was dented but that was the easy fix. Fixing the spar box was a major structural repair job that lasted three months or so.

But that taxi incident was duly reported and the aircraft immediately grounded.

Wings are designed to take load mostly in the vertical. In the horizontal plane they're relatively weak. In fact, glider wings have a special diagonal spar in them to handle the horizontal loads that result from a winch launch.

peter 337, Don't get me started on towbars!

My aeroplane had a towbar incident just like you describe (before I owned it). I am absolutely firm about this; You fit the towbar, move the aeroplane then remove the towbar and leave it on the ground beside the nosewheel. I am up to here with telling people not to leave the towbar on the noseleg :=:=:=

Instructors have a responsibility to demonstrate this sort of thing when moving aeroplane on the ground - it's all good airmanship!

Happy landings

3 point

Terrible airmanship and the straw bale accident immediately came to mind. He is not just endangering himself but also anyone who flies that aircraft in the future. If I was the van owner I'd be pretty irate as well.

My little aeroplane pulled its tiedowns out of the ground and ran free during a night of rain and gales on a landaway nightstop some time ago. I had a nasty feeling a wingtip might have hit the ground during its escapade before it was apprehended. I inspected the thing at great length but was not willing to fly it until I had an LAA inspector check the wing internals himself. To knowingly hit the wing and fly anyway is shocking. Perhaps the same mentality as the supermarket moms who grind down the side of adjacent cars trying to nose into parking slots and then hope nobody noticed.

John,

Post 13 doesn't help. G-INFO doesn't have a matching aircraft. Do you mean its reg ends in the letters SD?

There is no harm in posting an undoctored photograph here for all to see.

Frankly, this sort of event is just another disappointment in the catalogue of woeful behaviour from a minority of people who call themselves pilots but are incapable of exercising the judgement which that term assumes. Almost as bad as the authorities' (and their peers') unwillingness to tackle them.

Peterh, once again your post marks you out. Is common sense not a facet of the human condition in Brighton?

I once grounded a C 152 before an instructional flight. Even if my student has done a full preflight inspection, I always do a walk around the aircraft before getting in mostly looking for things hanging/dripping/loose.

This time something didn't look right on the horizontal stab. When I looked closer I realized there was a faint diagonal spanwise crease. When the engineer looked inside he found the spar was kinked:eek:. The damage greatly decreased the structural strenght of the tail.

Nobody fessed up but three flights earlier a dual spin lesson was flown (the spin is a required exercise for the Canadian CPL flight test). Knowing the instructor in question I am sure he grossly abused the aircraft with a over the redline pull out.

The bottom line is simple. If you think you have hurt the aircraft you must report it. Even small bumps can manifest themselves in major hidden damage which often will not be obvious on an external inspection.

Devils advocate
 

While all above seem to want to hang draw and quater this guy I think it is time to play devils advocate.

What if the owner was an LAA inspector & licenced engineer who having inspected the aircraft has decided that the damage is a few scratches to the paint and a dented pride ? He will also have concluded that there is no structural damage to the aircraft and it is safe to fly.

The fact is that few of you above have the technical knowlage to asses the damage to this aircraft and none of you have actually inspected the aircraft.

On these pages the press is condemned for gross mis-reporting of aviation incidents and yet here we have the very people who cry fowl when the press mis- reporting jumping to conclusions with little or no hard evidence of the facts.

Trial by prune...........don't you just love it !

A and C

I suggest you re read the opening post.

So you are basically saying that the LAA standards for inspectors and licensed engineers allow for the kinds of people who need to be told by ATC to go and inspect their aircraft after hitting something while taxing:hmm:

I don't think I would be very impressed with that logic if I was a LAA licensed person......

If the impact was hard enough to remove the paint then I would hope if it was being piloted by an inspector or engineer then the inspection would be more than a simple glance at the wing, especially as at first the impact was ignored

A & C is pushing his advocation a bit methinks:sad:
With any aircraft it is not necessarily the pilot who ignores potential damage, it is the person who flies some time later, even maybe the next owner years later, who will have no indication of a fuse running....:=

"For non-urgent requests" use email, from the AAIB.

I'd ring them if you don't hear from them soon, John. I feel for the next person who flies it, or for the persons house that plane next flies over.

Let us know how you get on.

Lets be honest, any good pilot would have swayed on the side of caution and returned the aircraft to stand for a proper inspection. I know I would have, but then I value my life and don't take unnecessary risks.

Just to pick up on A&C's devil's advocate point. As I understand it from the OP, the aircraft wing rode over the roof of the van and did not for example strike the van head on and spin around or anything like that. Under these circumstances most of the loading will have been in the vertical plane not the horizontal.

That makes it OK??????????

How can anyone guess at the unseen damage? At the very least it needs properly inspecting. What a stunning display of airmanship (NOT) I hope red van man reads this thread - he can't be impressed either