Air Accidents after Maintenance

[Sapphire]

PP said: 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.

 

In the USA you build it, you test fly it, you crash it-tough tittys. If you are going to get into that sort of thing it's up to you to get it right. I think the same here.

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

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 **** on the line with every signature.

I don't know too many engineers who are in jail!

 

[Phil Perry]

Sapphire said. . .

 

In the USA you build it, you test fly it, you crash it-tough tittys. If you are going to get into that sort of thing it's up to you to get it right. I think the same here.

 

I'm not surprised by ANYTHING that they do in "The States" . . .I mean, even their cars have a multitude of warning beeps. bings and bongs to remind the driver to actually do something. . . . .

 

If I ever decide to build another aeroplane, then I don't care how many rides I've had in the company demonstrator, . . . .I'm not going to test fly it. . . . as I'm not quite arrogant enough to assume that I would be able to ascertain precisely if the thing was flying as it should. . . sorry, I can't seriously agree with the " Build it - fly it - crash it, - build it again - fly it. . . . . . . . . " idea.

 

Anyway, I remember that, long long ago at Casey Airfield in Vic, the engineer ALWAYS flew with the pilot / owner after maintenance, thereby placing his A**e as well as his signature on the paper. . . . is that idea no longer in vogue ??

 

 

[facthunter]

I remember in the 60's taking a plane up for the mandatory test flight and we took up a whole group of engineers who had been working on it. There would be no shortage of volunteers. People were more committed then. It was something special to work with aeroplanes and be involved with them. Perhaps more so then than now.

 

Preflight inspection and testing of U/Ls is probably an area where some effort could be made. Check, check and check again. It must never be rushed. Making rules as to who should fly the plane for the test period should not be too absolute. Situations vary enormously.

 

The builder may be keen but limited in experience generally and perhaps not recent due to his involvement with the building. He may also be the most likely to understand the peculiarities of that particular plane, particularly as to its systems, if it is a bit unique, and be a good level-headed person who will methodically approach the process. with a bit of a freshen up with an instructor familiar with testing aircraft he might be the one to do it.

 

Familiarity with the handling charactistics of the type of plane, generally if not the specific type is useful and a broad experience across a lot of different planes ( like Tomo has achieved) invaluable.

 

Some people can adjust rapidly to variations in aircraft feel and response, and readily just get out of one plane to another. Some don't and take a fair amount of time to get used to new types. Fairly obvious which would be preferred. Nev.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Thanks for that Nev. . . .

 

I forgot to mention that after the initial permit to fly is issued, any pilot familiar with the type, BUT NOT THE OWNER can fly with the owner pilot, ( acting as P1 ) and conduct a very simple, post permit inspection trial flight, I have done this myself, ( but not without at least a hundred hours on type ) This is obviously less of a serious situation, as the aircraft has been flying for a year, ( hopefully ) and has survived. So a 30 minute flip checking control responses, dynamic stability and a vne dive; isn't really a a big problem, given the original tolerances calculated by the manufacturer of the kit, and the results shown on the original test pilot's notes and entered into the flight manual allowed for this.

 

Phil

 

 

[facthunter]

Phil, why is the owner excluded? I can think of some situations where it might not be appropriate, but why make it absolute? Here, they don't like 2 persons being on board. The accident rate with the owner flying here seems to be high. ( serious ones) but that is only an observation, Engine failures a common fault. I have no statistics. Nev

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Phil and others,

 

Here we prefer only one on board for obvious reasons. After all, only one suitable person is needed to fly the aircraft (why kill/injure two ?).....Additionally, the aircraft is not overloaded with two on board, and possibly close to it's max takeoff weight for the initial take-off, and the often tricky first landing.

 

During the first flight one needs to perform certain manouvers to confirm control authority, and investigate approach to stalls, plus slow the aircraft to landing/approach speeds, in preparation for the first approach and landing. Should the aircraft be nose heavy and not able to be trimmed correctly, power may need to be carried more than normal until touch down, to keep the nose up. Additionally, should any failure occur with either engine, landing gear, flaps, adj prop etc etc.(it happens !)..and a non-normal approach and landing is needed, it is always better to be lighter than heavier. All the above is better, safer, and less distracting to do, with only one bum on board.

 

On initial-flight engine failures: Most engine failures (around 60%) are fuel related, right across the board. On newly built aircraft in many cases, the owner has altered or modified the original fuel-system design. Fuel systems need to be very basic, very minimal, and very simple, they must work !.... many owner-builders think just the opposite, and make them as complicated as humanly possible for some unknown reason, and therfore potentially more unreliable (the part you leave on the ground is the part that'll never give you any problems !). Even with considerable engine running and testing on the ground, many have failed during the test flight, or shortly after the aircraft has taken off and established a climbing attitude. Modified fuel systems (if you must !) need to be ground run in all flight attitudes, especially climb profile. Initial test-flight should also be done on an airfield familiar to the test-pilot and preferably with multiple long strips, with at least one being grass or unsealed. Test-flights should be done in low wind conditions, however this can always change when airborne, and a cross-wind or tail-wind condition on the first landing should be avoided , unless absolutly necessary in an emergency ..................Maj...

 

 

[Sapphire]

I think the air accident issue goes further than after maintenance-air accidents after design. I used to think if an a/c had a glowing c of a, pre-purchase inspection, lic paid up, and a nod from the general flying community, that my safety would be shrouded in cotton wool. There are many inexpensive a/c built with simple designed engines. They lack carby heat and twin ignition features. I can site engines failures and resulting accidents. That includes a Sapphire I sold. Guess I was just lucky the single ignition failure didn't happen while I had the a/c. I wont be putting my life in the hand of some circuit board again. However, modifications can be relatively easy to make on these type of a/c, otherwise for my purposes they would be unairworthy and unflyable.

 

 

[M61A1]

Anyway, I remember that, long long ago at Casey Airfield in Vic, the engineer ALWAYS flew with the pilot / owner after maintenance, thereby placing his A**e as well as his signature on the paper. . . . is that idea no longer in vogue ??

I work as a civvy on military aircraft, at the last company I worked for it was expected that if you have completed maintenance, you would also be flying in the aircraft (Bell 206).

I wish that was the case with my current employer, but the aircraft type can't take passengers, I'd love to go for a fang in a Tiger.

 

 

[facthunter]

Any body could fly the "tiger" way back. It was what everyone did their first solo on.. Now you have to be Captain Marvel or something, to fly it. Judy Paye (sp?) had the best description I have ever seen of what that plane is. I have always regarded it as "only" what it is. A rather crude and unperforming early trainer. While a lot of people regard it with some affection ( as do I), it's far from inspiring. It DID produce some good pilots, but did not relate much to aircraft they flew subsequently. The RAAF certainly saved money with that as a trainer. How more basic could you get? I got to fly it when there were plenty around that nobody wanted and to instruct in it, because no-one wanted to, at a time when it had been removed from the register as a PRIMARY trainer.. Then I learnt fast, and I am glad for the experience. Try teaching someone who has ONLY flown centre line thrust Jets and hardly knows what the rudder is for.....Nev

 

 

[M61A1]

Any body could fly the "tiger" way back. It was what everyone did their first solo on.. Now you have to be Captain Marvel or something, to fly it. Judy Paye (sp?) had the best description I have ever seen of what that plane is. I have always regarded it as "only" what it is. A rather crude and unperforming early trainer. While a lot of people regard it with some affection ( as do I), it's far from inspiring. It DID produce some good pilots, but did not relate much to aircraft they flew subsequently. The RAAF certainly saved money with that as a trainer. How more basic could you get? I got to fly it when there were plenty around that nobody wanted and to instruct in it, because no-one wanted to, at a time when it had been removed from the register as a PRIMARY trainer.. Then I learnt fast, and I am glad for the experience. Try teaching someone who has ONLY flown centre line thrust Jets and hardly knows what the rudder is for.....Nev

Different "Tiger", I should have been clearer......"Eurocopter ARH Tiger"

[Guest Maj Millard]

Hey there's one up here west of town that nobody is using....or what is left of it anyway !!!!.....a few shreds of carbon fiber...................................................................................Maj...

 

 

[facthunter]

Sorry about that. No doubt your's would be a wilder ride. Nev

 

 

[dazza 38]

I work as a civvy on military aircraft, at the last company I worked for it was expected that if you have completed maintenance, you would also be flying in the aircraft (Bell 206).I wish that was the case with my current employer, but the aircraft type can't take passengers, I'd love to go for a fang in a Tiger.

Me Too, I hinted a few times that I should accompany the test pilot on a F111 post maintenance test flight but I never got the nod.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Me Too, I hinted a few times that I should accompany the test pilot on a F111 post maintenance test flight but I never got the nod.

Know what you mean Daz,. . . . .

 

I fitted some graphics to a 747 fin a few years back, . . . when I asked if I could have a quality control test ride in it to make sure the vinyl material didn't peel off. . . . the chief tecchie smiled weakly and walked away. I DIDN'T get the nod either !

 

 

[M61A1]

I don't know too many engineers who are in jail!

I have heard of them being jailed in other countries, usually as a result of largely contributing to fatalities. I imagine it would be necessary to prove that LAME was deliberately negligent, and that the negligence in question was a major causal factor in a fatal or serious injury type incident. I have an LAME aquaintance who runs a workshop, he told me his insurance costs are around 48k annually. You'd want to make some serious money to make that worthwhile in my eyes.

[M61A1]

Me Too, I hinted a few times that I should accompany the test pilot on a F111 post maintenance test flight but I never got the nod.

I did get a brief (20min) spin in a pig once, but not after maintenance (although a friend of mine got himself on a test flight after a single engine change- involves going really fast to test the whole envelope), mine was when I was posted out of the squadron.

[Phil Perry]

Phil and others,Here we prefer only one on board for obvious reasons. After all, only one suitable person is needed to fly the aircraft (why kill/injure two ?).....Additionally, the aircraft is not overloaded with two on board, and possibly close to it's max takeoff weight for the initial take-off, and the often tricky first landing. Maj...

Hi Nev and Maj, I think I may have confused the issue a bit for you here,. . . . NO PASSENGER, whether a pilot or not can be taken in the aircraft for the first series of tests, for the reasons that Maj pointed out. However, usually on the last couple of flights, which can possibly take a couple of days to achieve, especially if anything comes up requiring adjustment to the airframe,, contrlos or other systems .

 

When the Test Pilot is satisfied with the handling of the machine under test, it is often part of the test programme to carry out certain manouevres at Max all up weight. ( unless it only has one seat ! ) This isn't always practically possible to carry out using ballast, so at the discretion of the Test Pilot, the owner, or any volunteer may fly whilst these remaining tests are carried out. Full insurance is available at reasonable costs for these excercises.

 

This applies to all FIRST FLIGHT TEST programmes, and NOT to the flight following a successful aircraft inspection and the re-issue of a renewal certificate for a pre-exisiting permit to fly, this flight is described as a CHECK FLIGHT and isn't coveredd by the same stringent rules, since it is quite possible that no adjustments whatever may be required, so, apart from some basic dynamic stability tests, which are recommended, and not mandatory. . . , there is no reason to assume that any passenger would be in any mortal danger.

 

Nev, . . . . .Turning to your query regarding an owner who is also a certified inspector AND test pilot on his own type, not being allowed to inspect / test his / her own aircraft, someone decided years ago that human nature being what it is, that it would be a fairer system for a different qualified person to carry out this work. Case in point, an old Flying Club manager / Chief Instructor / Inspector / Check pilot I knew some years ago, put three of his aircraft into his girlfriend's name, so that he could inspect and check fly them all. So whatever the rule, someone will always find a way to circumvent the spirit of it. . . . . I'm not for one minute suggesting that the aircraft were not inspected properly,. . . . . but human nature and commercial pressure could in certain circumstances be dodgy bedfellows . . . ?

 

Phil

 

 

[facthunter]

Most of my comments are directed at early flying of new build aircraft, when choosing the pilot. There are a lot of variables involved with engine choices and individual variation for build "fidelity"to an existing design or an entirely new one.. I agree with Maj's assertion of fuel problems causing engine failure. How much discussion of fuel flow rate checking have I seen here? Fundamental stuff.. New fuel systems are likely to have debris from building tanks and connecting pipes, cutting rubber hoses and burrs from connecting fittings. Heat shielding of fuel lines, venting etc. Nev

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Sorry Nev,

 

I was responding to your query of "Why should the owner be excluded" I'm sorry If I misinterpreted that question. The owner ISN'T totally excluded, as mentioned before, only from the INITIAL test flights. On the two builds and one rebuild I have been associated with in the UK, we did all the engine testing including fuel line routing and re-routing and even redesigning altogether if appropriate within the build guidelines, pressure testing and general operation well before we even considered booking the Test Jockey. . . .

 

I personally re-designed the fuel line circuit on our X'Air, as the original did not allow for a failure of the engine driven pump, I altered the circuit so that the Auxiliary electric pump, inside the cockpit was able to feed both carburettors and maintain full engine power in the event of the other pump giving up the ghost. Why the original design didn't accomodate this defies belief, but that's another tale. . . . ( Editor's Note. . . This Modification had to be approved by BMAA Engineering as well as the Kit Importers, which took a couple of weeks to accomplish. ) So if you have bits and burrs in the system, I assert that most, if not all of these should present some symptoms during the ground running tests.

 

Nobody in their right mind is going to stuff some fuel in a fresh new build and expect it to work properly in flight first time without some bloody good checking first. We did three weeks of taxying trials getting faster each run up to almost flying speed, culminating in "Bunnyhops" to a couple of feet of the ground ( Very Naughty ) before we contacted the crash test dummy. ( I didn't do the bunnyhops by the way, there were TEN owners in the build syndicate, as we bought it from the widow of a friend and pilot who had recently died.) ( Leukaemia - not flying ) and ONE of the other guys hit an "Unexpected Gust" ( yeah . . . right. . . ) and became airborne for a few seconds. . . . When I asked "HOW HIGH ? ? ?" they said, aw, it was only a couple of feet . . .. . . yeah. . couple of hundred more like. . . ( heard that one before, but I don't know why the twat didn't notice that the stick was a bit stiff . . . He may well have been crapping himself, I dunno. . . )

 

The test pilots sometimes get a bit tetchy if they turn up after driving for half a day and have to start doing engineering stuff which the Plebs should have done already. . . when they are really only there to make sure you have built the damn thing properly. ( Remember, the aircraft is inspected in build STAGES so no excuses for sloppiness ) I thought we had, but he reported on the first ( VERY SHORT ) test that the Pitch / Roll control was as stiff as a "Honeymoon Dongler" ( his words ) and the trim control lever was about as much use as a one legged bloke at an a**e kicking party.

 

He then proceeded to adjust all of our control circuits to correct the problem. We also had to add some sheet lead wrapped around the fuselage main tube just in front of the fin as he reckoned that the static weight on the nosewheel was too great, . . .

 

This was almost certainly because our engine, the Deu Temps Rotax 582 Blue-Top with oil injection system, was fitted with an "E" type gearbox on the engine installation. This box is heavier than the earlier models, and we had also got the starter motor added onto the front, as well as maintaining the "Pull-Rope" manual start mechanism on the rear of the engine.

 

This put more weight forward of CofG resulting in the need for ballast near the tail, and moving the battery from mid wing to further back along the main fuse tube. ) his industrial quality digital weighing apparatus was much better than the Wife's bathroom scales apparently. . . . This meant that the thing would operate within it's trim range somewhat better. ( This was following the second test flight ) He didn't miss much. . .

 

After five more flights, each lasting around thirty minutes, he asked for a volunteer to accompany him for some stabilty and spin tests. ( good job the volunteer, our oldest member Ken, at 74 had not had breakfast . . .) He dived it to 115 Mph, and did some other dynamic stab tests at MAUW and then signed it off. Our placarded VNE was set aat 87 Mph.

 

Personally, I appreciate very much these blokes who give of their time and vast experience charging peanuts to make sure our airfix kits built by total idiots in garages will actually fly without killing us all. They are the unsung heroes of Micrlolight / Ultralight and permit to fly aviation in this country.

 

Thank you all Gentlemen.