Air Accidents after Maintenance

[Vev]

I listend to the attached re air accidents/incidents after aircraft have undergone maintenance ... some good messages about the extra care required in undertaking a proper a test flight after maintenance.

 

 

 

It's a bit long but worth the investment in time to get things right while you are still on the ground.

 

 

 

http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=2016238711001

 

 

 

Cheers

 

Vev

 

 

[Guest sunfish]

Take your mechanic with you:see no evil:

 

I incinerated an aircraft after maintenance. For some "unknown" reason, a large wad of paper towelling found its way into the heating system and finally made contact with the exhaust system at about 60 knots on rotation.

 

Since I hadn't flown for Five months, I fortunately had an instructor with me. As smoke started to fill the cockpit, she politely suggested we terminate the days proceedings very quickly.

 

My resulting circuit was extremely neat, very very tight and my landing was perfect.

 

The fire brigade put out the blaze and the damage bill was around $11000.

 

Since I had an instructor, she had to do the paperwork!

 

 

[Sapphire]

It's a catch 22. If you dont bring in your a/c for maintenance you will be flying dangerously and if you do, then you can be flying dangerously by mistakes made in the maintenance. This danger factor can be multiplied by 4 if the a/c is amature homebuilt and maintained by owner. Homebuilt a/c produce 4 times more fatalities. [statistics obained from reliable source]

 

 

[facthunter]

Most test flights after maintenance that I have done have had serious malfunctions. This is somewhat disconcerting as something must be wrong with the servicing process, but that is what happens. The more complex aircraft have an excuse for obvious reasons. ( there is more to go wrong). You can get serious malfunctions on line too in normal service. Aircraft that have sat for a while are a risk too. Your plane is at its best when it has done about 80 hours and is in regular use and properly inspected, and specified routine servicing done. Nev

 

 

[Vev]

It's a catch 22. If you dont bring in your a/c for maintenance you will be flying dangerously and if you do, then you can be flying dangerously by mistakes made in the maintenance. This danger factor can be multiplied by 4 if the a/c is amature homebuilt and maintained by owner. Homebuilt a/c produce 4 times more fatalities. [statistics obained from reliable source]

I'm not sure if it's a catch 22 ... no one is saying don't do maintenance ... I think the message is to do a proper checks after maintenance and before you take-off, that is, pre-flight checks, full run ups and double check everything before you leave the ground .. be prepared to abort a take-off even on the slightest concern. When in the air do a tight circuit and stay over ground you can put down on.

 

Great if you can share these statistics ... sounds a bit high

 

Cheers

 

Vev

 

 

[Sapphire]

That statistic I got from some FAA publication posted on the accident stuff you see before getting to the forms here. This was a few weeks ago and grabbed my attention as a lot of a/c I am investigating for purchase are home built. I do all the rest you recommend everytime I fly. [Part of my "stay alive abit longer program]

 

 

[dazza 38]

The best way of preventing maintenance errors is the military way.But is wouldnt work due to cost in the civilian arena. Ie- Technician does the job & signs that he/she has completed the task IAW a section of the maintenance manual , Progressive inspectors - inspects the work of the techo then if satisfied, they sign off the job . If it is a critical maintenance task eg- Flight control job.The a 3rd person inspects the job .Known as a independant inspector. With up to 3 different peeps inspecting a maintenance task.Having said all this- Working on airliners ,choppers or fast jets.The jobs are bigger & more involved than your run of the mill LSA or cessna type. Getting a second guy to look over your work is a great idea.They may find something that you have missed.

 

Ps- I grounded a LSA aircraft during a prefight due to finding a elevator trim mounting bracket cracked right through.It had been out of its hundred hourly for about 2 hours. I dunno how the L2 dude who did the hundred hourly missed it.I think it was the same dude who left a ring spanner on the engine mount.TRUST NOBODY

 

 

[Vev]

The best way of preventing maintenance errors is the military way.But is wouldnt work due to cost in the civilian arena. Ie- Technician does the job & signs that he/she has completed the task IAW a section of the maintenance manual , Progressive inspectors - inspects the work of the techo then if satified, they sign off the job . If it is a critical maintenance task eg- Flight control job.The a 3rd person inspects the job .Known as a independant inspector. With up to 3 different peeps inspecting a maintenance task.Having said all this- Working on airliners ,choppers or fast jets.The jobs are bigger & more involved than your run of the mill LSA or cessna type. Getting a second guy to look over your work is a great idea.They may find something that you have missed.

Even the military gets it wrong sometimes Dazz :-) ... but I do like your comment of getting a second guy to look over your own work.

 

http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/KIyYK9oz9Go&autoplay=1&showinfo=0

 

 

[dazza 38]

Even the military gets it wrong sometimes Dazz :-) ... but I do like your comment of getting a second guy to look over your own work.http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/KIyYK9oz9Go&autoplay=1&showinfo=0

Hi Vev, yes unfortunately they do get it wrong sometimes.The wheel coming off was after I left the RAAF.

 

 

[Yenn]

When I flew GA hired planes, I would always find several problems when they came out of maintenance. Usually, loose or missing screws on inspection hatches, but sometimes much worse. One plane I flew was checked for lack of power, twice and after the second check had an EFATO, landed on the runway and then they found the burnt valves. All the same maintenance company, which I believe is no more.

 

 

[rankamateur]

Good to see the RAAF crew doing what they are trained for without injury, hope the spider on the dash wasn't injured either.

 

 

[Guest nunans]

It's a catch 22. If you dont bring in your a/c for maintenance you will be flying dangerously and if you do, then you can be flying dangerously by mistakes made in the maintenance. This danger factor can be multiplied by 4 if the a/c is amature homebuilt and maintained by owner. Homebuilt a/c produce 4 times more fatalities. [statistics obained from reliable source]

That's an alarming statistic, I must admit that I am of the belief that the person who would be most concerned about the detail of maintenance being done on an aircraft is the person who flys it, not the guy in a lame shop who can't wait to get home early to start drinking on new years eve for instance.

 

As long as the owner/operator is happy to do the work and the aircraft isn't used by unsuspecting pilots hiring or doing training in the aircraft then the owner/operator is the best person to do maintanence.

 

 

[Camel]

It's a catch 22. If you dont bring in your a/c for maintenance you will be flying dangerously and if you do, then you can be flying dangerously by mistakes made in the maintenance. This danger factor can be multiplied by 4 if the a/c is amature homebuilt and maintained by owner. Homebuilt a/c produce 4 times more fatalities. [statistics obained from reliable source]

Every Annual inspection of my Cessna that was done over 9 years I found a fault, I am a Motor mechanic. I maintain my RAA aircraft, I am a L2, I find no faults after my services or repairs. Lame's are not perfect and some places use unqualified people and then sign it off and are protected by CASA. I will never own a GA plane again unless I build it and maintain it because I do not trust all that are protected by CASA. rather take it to the local auto mechanic.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Sapphire, I believe the statistic you are referring to is the high rate of crashes and fatalities from first flights of newly completely homebuilt aircraft, flown by the builders themselves.

 

In a lot of the cases the owner/builder/test-pilot has not flown anything for sometime, has not got any prev flight-time in the type he has built, and performing the first flight in. Additionally many of the first-flight crashes are initiated by engine failure or partial failure, due to lack of actual ground -running or testing of the engine and it's systems, or with the aircraft in a post-takeoff angle.

 

The solution of course is to use an experienced test-pilot, with lots of time and experience in the same or similiar type...Additionally the fatality/accident rate in the US on the Cirrus range of aircraft (parachute-equipped) is also around three times the average with other types currently .....................................................................Maj...

 

 

[Sapphire]

It is true, the homebuilder suddenly becomes a test pilot. Every homebuilt is at least slighly different and so the plane is first flown within a restricted flight envelope and then the envelope is slowly widened observing the effects. Where you get the most fatalities would be the home builder who does a quick sloppy job then takes it up with little aeronautical skill. Actual document cases involve wings falling off on first flight, wheels breaking off, flutter, canopy coming loose, fire in engine compartment using marine fuel pump.

 

 

[Thalass]

The best way of preventing maintenance errors is the military way.But is wouldnt work due to cost in the civilian arena. Ie- Technician does the job & signs that he/she has completed the task IAW a section of the maintenance manual , Progressive inspectors - inspects the work of the techo then if satified, they sign off the job . If it is a critical maintenance task eg- Flight control job.The a 3rd person inspects the job .Known as a independant inspector. With up to 3 different peeps inspecting a maintenance task.Having said all this- Working on airliners ,choppers or fast jets.The jobs are bigger & more involved than your run of the mill LSA or cessna type. Getting a second guy to look over your work is a great idea.They may find something that you have missed.Ps- I grounded a LSA aircraft during a prefight due to finding a elevator trim mounting bracket cracked right through.It had been out of its hundred hourly for about 2 hours. I dunno how the L2 dude who did the hundred hourly missed it.I think it was the same dude who left a ring spanner on the engine mount.TRUST NOBODY

What you describe here is pretty much exactly how it's done in the airline game. As an AME all my work can be double checked before the LAME signs off on it. After a while a certain amount of trust is earned bit even them critical things like flight controls and engines are dual certified. Even something as simple as a ceiling panel needs extra checks if the panel could potentially interfere with throttle or flight control cables. And everything is tested after it has been put back together, even engine runs if required.

 

Of course i don't have to pay for the parts i change, so think nothing of swapping out a $10,000 computer or something. Aviation aint cheap.

 

 

[Thalass]

Every Annual inspection of my Cessna that was done over 9 years I found a fault, I am a Motor mechanic. I maintain my RAA aircraft, I am a L2, I find no faults after my services or repairs. Lame's are not perfect and some places use unqualified people and then sign it off and are protected by CASA. I will never own a GA plane again unless I build it and maintain it because I do not trust all that are protected by CASA. rather take it to the local auto mechanic.

That's funny, every engineer i know who has worked GA speaks of owner/pilots who bring their machine in for a 100 hourly, only to get mad when the engineer informs them of a major (or any) problem. They just wanted the check signed off, so they can keep flying. But guess who gets to spend time with big bad bubba in a jail cell when the poor innocent pilot makes a crater? We are not protected by CASA, we put our arse on the line with every signature.

 

While obviously we aren't putting our own lives on the line, they are still lives and any LAME that fobs stuff off to go down the pub should be shot. Two of my cousins FIFO on planes i maintain, not to mention the hundreds of other people. As far as i'm concerned an aircraft should be as close to new condition as possible when it leaves the hangar. Which is probably why it's good i don't run a business - i'd go bust. :p

 

 

[dazza 38]

One of the reasons I changed careers from maintaning aircraft was because of the money. I left the RAAF in 1998 as a Corporal Aircraft techncian from memory the gross pay was $48 K. I joined BAE & became a Crew chief on Royal Saudi Tornados Pay was $72 K Tax free. When my marriage went down hill from being overseas for too long I came back home. I changed careers & became a pool Plumber for 12 years. Finished off grossing around 9o K towards the end as a sub contractor.Now I work in the resource sector, Not everybody gets paid $100 K plus. I dont, I get a salary of $72 500 but I have only been in this game for 9 months & that includes super. Still not bad for a newby.What I am trying to get at is that, Working on aircraft doesnt always pay good money .

 

PS- I checked what a corporal Aircraft tech would get at todays wages in the RAAF.It is about $64 K. Im better off now doing what I do now.

 

 

[Thalass]

Indeed. When i started my apprenticeship in 2000 an avionics LAME was getting over 100k with two a/c types and three categories each (EIR). Now when i get my licence i'll be in the 90k range. 100k with two types. We've stayed still for 12 years while the cost of everything has gone up! (As an AME i'm on 60k)

 

Also, i should say that i did not mean Ultralights should be maintained by LAMEs with part 145 costs and all that. The whole point of RAA is to get away from that red tape, at the cost of being unable to fly in controlled airspace and such - a fair trade i think for the fun of buzzing about.

 

However what should be the same whether you're flying a UAV, an ultralight, an airliner or a 1000 passenger space shuttle is the quality of work from the guy doing the maintenance. Doubly so for a trained LAME with the apprenticeship, 25+ exams, and hundreds of hours of exp in the SOE book. If it's broken, and it can't safely fly in that condition (a light bulb is no big deal, a broken axel or corroded spar is) then it doesn't fly. Simple.

 

 

[storchy neil]

there is a aircraft at locksley with major defects that was repaired by a lame l2 l4

 

the repairer claims that a wire strike is not major and does not require heavey landing inspection

 

i dont give a sxxx any more as i am now bank rupt so i cant aford to fly but every time thread like this apears i can say told you so and tried to change the situation neil

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Sapphire, I believe the statistic you are referring to is the high rate of crashes and fatalities from first flights of newly completely homebuilt aircraft, flown by the builders themselves.In a lot of the cases the owner/builder/test-pilot has not flown anything for sometime, has not got any prev flight-time in the type he has built, and performing the first flight in. Additionally many of the first-flight crashes are initiated by engine failure or partial failure, due to lack of actual ground -running or testing of the engine and it's systems, or with the aircraft in a post-takeoff angle.

The solution of course is to use an experienced test-pilot, with lots of time and experience in the same or similiar type...Additionally the fatality/accident rate in the US on the Cirrus range of aircraft (parachute-equipped) is also around three times the average with other types currently .....................................................................Maj...

In the UK, we have two organisations which have control over home built aircraft. These are the Light Aircraft Association ( formerly the PFA ) and the British Microlight Aircraft Association or BMAA.

 

In some cases, Identical aircraft may be certified by Either organisation, if both have the aircraft listed as an APPROVED TYPE.

 

These organisations can issue "Permit to Test Fly" and after the qualified test pilot. . . . who is HAS TO BE highly conversant and experienced on the type. . . . . has completed his / her testing programme on the machine, there is then a temporary permit to fly issue. this means that for 25 hours, the aircraft must only be flown to specific listed airfields, and not taken away for more than an agreed distance.

 

( NOTE ** It used to be 25 Nm, but this may have altered, I'll check and report back if youse like. . . .. ) This 25 hour period is to produce a good "Shakedown" of the particular aircraft and it's associated systems, and it is most likely that if anything strange went wrong in build, and was not noticed by the Test Pilot, [statistically unlikely. . .] ( Who is also a registered INSPECTOR OF TYPE ) is going to go wrong, then it will statistically more than likely. . . happen within this test period.

 

The aircraft, if passed happily, is then certified and awarded a permit to fly which lasts for 12 months.

 

In NO CASE IS A HOME BUILDER EVER ALLOWED TO TEST FLY HIS / HER OWN BUILD PROJECT, EVEN IF THE BUILDER IS A TEST PILOT. Just as an added safeguard.

 

Can't imagine how it could operate sensibly otherwise ? I'm Gobsmacked if this procedure, or something very similar did not exist in any country which values aeronautical safety and plain old commonsense. All this doesn't take very long at all from a paperwork / admin point of view either.

 

Inspectors / Test Pilots here don't really charge a lot of money either,. . . usually just expenses in getting to your airfield.

 

I pay £50.00 to the inspector / check pilot ( factory built aircraft ) and £120.00 per annum for the permit to fly. Basic insurance is also required ( By the CAA ) and they must sight a copy of your policy before you can lift off, otherwise the aircraft will be listed on the CAA website as grounded.

 

I wonder if someone can let me know how it all works in Australia please, as I'm sure our Staffordshire Aero Club members would find that info interesting.

 

Kind regards,

 

Phil P.

 

 

[Camel]

there is a aircraft at locksley with major defects that was repaired by a lame l2 l4the repairer claims that a wire strike is not major and does not require heavey landing inspection

i dont give a sxxx any more as i am now bank rupt so i cant aford to fly but every time thread like this apears i can say told you so and tried to change the situation neil

CASA protects Lame's and the faults they create when repairing or servicing and become our problem not theirs. I feel for you Neil and have read many of your posts and pretty well know your story. Casa need to lift their game and stop protecting the system that allow Lame's that are not reputable to get away with rip off and poor workmanship.

 

When will CASA start concerns over safety not protecting themselves with paperwork.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

CASA spends most of it's time and efforts covering it's own butt, they hide behind the word safety, and I really don't think they know what the words 'safety in aviation' really mean. the rest of their time is spent creating 'paper trails' once again to generally cover their own butts. Their next name change should be to 'Civil Aviation Control Authority'.....(CACA) it has a good ring to it really ! CA CA !....................................................................Maj...

 

 

[Camel]

CASA spends most of it's time and efforts covering it's own butt, they hide behind the word safety, and I really don't think they know what the words 'safety in aviation' really mean. the rest of their time is spent creating 'paper trails' once again to generally cover their own butts. Their next name change should be to 'Civil Aviation Control Authority'.....(CACA) it has a good ring to it really ! CA CA !....................................................................Maj...

Well said Maj, you told it how it is .

 

I can't help thinking that is what is happening at RAA now as the paperwork issues seem trivial and not a threat to safety, , what a load of Ca Ca.

 

( I got Italian blood )

 

 

[Thalass]

Everything i've been told, right from being a wee little apprentice, is that CASA will only protect you in cases like your employer trying to coerce you into releasing an aircraft into service that should be grounded. Things like that. Not the other way around. I don't know how it is in bugsmasher land, mind you, and if someone is doing that sort of thing then everyone should know so they can be avoided in future. Or something. The S word is your weapon as well as ours.