Assuming proper maintanence and a good airframe log/book inspection,
are there any concerns about high time airframes, like insurability,
etc? My partners and I are looking at a warrior with over 11,000
AFTT.

In article
>,
xyzzy > wrote:

> Assuming proper maintanence and a good airframe log/book inspection,
> are there any concerns about high time airframes, like insurability,
> etc? My partners and I are looking at a warrior with over 11,000
> AFTT.

What does Piper have to say about the life-limits of their airframes?
I know I have seen numbers somewhere, but I do not know where to find
them.

xyzzy wrote:
>Assuming proper maintanence and a good airframe log/book inspection,
>are there any concerns about high time airframes, like insurability,
>etc? My partners and I are looking at a warrior with over 11,000
>AFTT.

There is no life limit on the Warrior airframe. The only Piper I know of
that has a limit is the wing/spar structure on the Tomahawk (around 11K hrs.,
IIRC).

I'd take an old airframe that has been well maintained over a low time
airframe that's spent it's life sitting parked. Last year I flew a rental
Warrior with more than 14,000 hrs. on the airframe. It was in better shape
than most of the personally owned low time aircraft on the field.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200807/1

"xyzzy" > wrote in message
...
> Assuming proper maintanence and a good airframe log/book inspection,
> are there any concerns about high time airframes, like insurability,
> etc? My partners and I are looking at a warrior with over 11,000
> AFTT.

I've never heard of an insurance company caring, but that's not to say
there's not some out there as they all seem to march to the beat of their
own drummer.

Many people seem to care about aircraft total time, so obviously it does
affect resale to some extent and right or wrong that should be a
consideration because it affects what the aircraft is worth on the open
market. I would personally be much more concerned about an aircraft that's
sat around in some field with grass growing around it for years on end.
High time generally means the aircraft has been regularly flown, well
maintained, and upgraded for it's entire life. My airplane has almost
9,000 hrs and I'm not at all worried about it. I know a guy that owns a 172
with over 17,000 hrs on it and it's still going strong.

On Jul 17, 3:45*pm, "Mike" > wrote:

> Many people seem to care about aircraft total time, so obviously it does
> affect resale to some extent and right or wrong that should be a
> consideration because it affects what the aircraft is worth on the open
> market. *I would personally be much more concerned about an aircraft that's
> sat around in some field with grass growing around it for years on end.
> High time generally means the aircraft has been regularly flown, well
> maintained, and *upgraded for it's entire life. *My airplane has almost
> 9,000 hrs and I'm not at all worried about it. *I know a guy that owns a 172
> with over 17,000 hrs on it and it's still going strong.

I think that's a concern in the industry though. As our fleet ages we
may find that planes will start falling from the sky at some point.
Boeing puts limits on how many cycles a plane can have. It would make
sense too that a spar can only flex so many times, wouldn't it (I'm
not metal expert though)?

-Robert

> 9,000 hrs and I'm not at all worried about it. I know a guy that owns a
> 172 with over 17,000 hrs on it and it's still going strong.

That's still less than two years in the air. Unless that time was spent
entirely doing touch & goes (which, I suppose, is possible in a 172?),
shouldn't be any problem.

Good maintenance is the key.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article
>,
xyzzy > wrote:

> Assuming proper maintanence and a good airframe log/book inspection,
> are there any concerns about high time airframes, like insurability,
> etc? My partners and I are looking at a warrior with over 11,000
> AFTT.

It is the KIND of time in those 11000 hours that matters. If the plane
has spent most of its time in the air, with only a couple of pilots,
rather than as a student pilot hack, it is a far more attractive
proposition.

There can be far more abused airplanes, with much lower time on them,
out there.

I recall an auction of a C185 that had high time and had spent life in
Alaska as a seaplane. I wouldn't have touched that one with a 10-foot
pole!

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Jul 17, 3:45 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
>
>> Many people seem to care about aircraft total time, so obviously it does
>> affect resale to some extent and right or wrong that should be a
>> consideration because it affects what the aircraft is worth on the open
>> market. I would personally be much more concerned about an aircraft that's
>> sat around in some field with grass growing around it for years on end.
>> High time generally means the aircraft has been regularly flown, well
>> maintained, and upgraded for it's entire life. My airplane has almost
>> 9,000 hrs and I'm not at all worried about it. I know a guy that owns a 172
>> with over 17,000 hrs on it and it's still going strong.
>
> I think that's a concern in the industry though. As our fleet ages we
> may find that planes will start falling from the sky at some point.
> Boeing puts limits on how many cycles a plane can have. It would make
> sense too that a spar can only flex so many times, wouldn't it (I'm
> not metal expert though)?

I think the greater issue with airliners is
the pressurization/depressurization cycles,
not the landings.

xyzzy wrote:
> Assuming proper maintanence and a good airframe log/book inspection,
> are there any concerns about high time airframes, like insurability,
> etc? My partners and I are looking at a warrior with over 11,000
> AFTT.


In this market why would you screw with an airframe with that high of a
total time?

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:42:20 -0700 (PDT), xyzzy >
wrote:

>Assuming proper maintanence and a good airframe log/book inspection,
>are there any concerns about high time airframes, like insurability,
>etc? My partners and I are looking at a warrior with over 11,000
>AFTT.

the theoretical concern with high time aluminium aircraft is due to a
property of fatigue in aluminium.
in steel you can subject a component to stresses below a certain
threshold for as long as you like and it will not suffer fatigue.
Aluminium does not have that threshold. all loadings over the life of
the aircraft no matter how small gradually eat into the fatigue life
of the aircraft.

the rub is that 11000 hours doesnt tell you how may pieces of bad
turbulence it has encountered, how many thumper landings it has
suffered, how many times it has been flogged around overloaded, how
many high G manouvers it has enjoyed. so although you know it has done
11000 hours you have no idea how much has been eaten out of the
fatigue life of the aircraft.

our australian authorities are paranoid about this aspect of older
aircraft, however there has never been tinseled aircraft to give
weight to the fears.
the aircraft that have broken up in midair in australia have mainly
been designs like the aerocommander where it has been realised that
the stressing of the bent centre wing joint has substantially
underestimated the actual loads on the spar.

in the case of the warrior, let your eyes be the guide. fatigue leads
to cracking in thin skins and in fittings. does a close visual
inspection show deterioration in stressed areas?

the other problem you'll have is that the design life of the aircraft
was passed many years ago. some aspects of the construction work
against a long life. corrosion in the bare metal in the lap joints in
the skins can be a problem area. dissimilar metals in the wing attach
points can be a problem. areas of poor ventilation down in the flaps
can lead to intergranular corrosion. have a *good* look.

one other thing to consider is where you are going to fly it. if it
has lived 11000hours in the desert, taking it down to the coast and
parking it overnight on the grass will destroy it in quick time no
matter how good it was.

it could be a very good buy or it could be a lemon. only you can
decide this by very careful inspection of all the aircraft.

I was once interested in a warrior that was going at a good price.
I thought it not a good buy but a local LAME (A&P) obviously thought
us a bunch of mugs because he outbid us and got the aircraft.
It never actually returned to flying. in his haste he overlooked the
actual condition of the aircraft and went on the signed off logs.
the aircraft was actually totally shot in subtle ways and was
scrapped.

open your eyes. check it out carefully and have the balls to follow
through with what you decide.
remember, you dont have to buy *this* aircraft.

Stealth Pilot

In article >,
xyzzy > wrote:

> Assuming proper maintanence and a good airframe log/book inspection,
> are there any concerns about high time airframes, like insurability,
> etc? My partners and I are looking at a warrior with over 11,000
> AFTT.

How many of those hours were spent doing pipeline patrols or other
activities that are tough on the airframe? It is my recollection that
piper wing separations tended to occur on hightime airframes that
also spent considerable time doing pipeline patrols.

otoh - 11,000 hours on that warrior is how many hours per year?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Jul 17, 3:45 pm, "Mike" > wrote:

> > Many people seem to care about aircraft total time, so obviously it does
> > affect resale to some extent and right or wrong that should be a
> > consideration because it affects what the aircraft is worth on the open
> > market. I would personally be much more concerned about an aircraft
> > that's
> > sat around in some field with grass growing around it for years on end.
> > High time generally means the aircraft has been regularly flown, well
> > maintained, and upgraded for it's entire life. My airplane has almost
> > 9,000 hrs and I'm not at all worried about it. I know a guy that owns a
> > 172
> > with over 17,000 hrs on it and it's still going strong.
>
> I think that's a concern in the industry though. As our fleet ages we
> may find that planes will start falling from the sky at some point.
> Boeing puts limits on how many cycles a plane can have. It would make
> sense too that a spar can only flex so many times, wouldn't it (I'm
> not metal expert though)?

Perhaps there is such a point, but I don't believe that point is within the
realistic life of a small GA aircraft. The limit Boeing puts on aircraft
will be in the neighborhood of 40,000 hours or more. Even at that you have
a lot of 727s and 747s still flying at well over 70,000 hours. You're also
talking about aircraft that endure extremes of pressure and temperature on
every flight and routinely penetrate severe weather that no pilot of a small
GA aircraft would purposely go anywhere near. Corrosion is a much greater
threat to GA aircraft than metal fatigue.

> In this market why would you screw with an airframe with that high of a
> total time?

Good point.

A lot of folks are practically begging to sell right now. It's a great time
to be a buyer.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
> xyzzy wrote:
>> Assuming proper maintanence and a good airframe log/book inspection,
>> are there any concerns about high time airframes, like insurability,
>> etc? My partners and I are looking at a warrior with over 11,000
>> AFTT.
>
>
> In this market why would you screw with an airframe with that high of a
> total time?

Probably because high time airframes offer an even better value in many
instances. Also there's lots of high time airframes out there which are
very well equipped because those who were in them spent a lot of time and
they could justify costly improvements.

Here's two aircraft simularly equipped:

This one is listed for $39K
http://www.aso.com/i.aso3/aircraft_view.jsp?aircraft_id=114817

This one is listed for $89K
http://www.aso.com/i.aso3/aircraft_view.jsp?aircraft_id=115832

Both aircraft are the same age, carry the same weight, and go the same
speed. One is $50K cheaper than the other. The 2nd one might be in a
little better shape cosmetically and perhaps even functionally, but not $50K
worth. If I were in the market for such a plane, I would be more inclined
to buy #1 and that's even knowing it almost certainly spent a good part of
it's life as a trainer (notice the wear on the rightside yoke).

On Jul 17, 9:59*pm, Jim Stewart > wrote:

> I think the greater issue with airliners is
> the pressurization/depressurization cycles,
> not the landings.-

That's just another way of saying metal flexing too much. We have flex
in our metal parts too. That's the point.

-Robert

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> In this market why would you screw with an airframe with that high of
>> a total time?
>
> Good point.
>
> A lot of folks are practically begging to sell right now. It's a great
> time to be a buyer.

True, except that about all of the nice 182RGs seem to have that
butt-ugly brown/orange interior with orange or brown paint! Man that is
ugly...

Matt

>How many of those hours were spent doing pipeline patrols or other
>activities that are tough on the airframe? It is my recollection that
>piper wing separations tended to occur on hightime airframes that
>also spent considerable time doing pipeline patrols.
>
>otoh - 11,000 hours on that warrior is how many hours per year?
>
>--
>Bob Noel
>
I would have thought pipeline patrol to be pretty easy hours. Flying
straight and level for long periods and mostly well under gross. What
am I missing?

"Drew Dalgleish" > wrote

> I would have thought pipeline patrol to be pretty easy hours. Flying
> straight and level for long periods and mostly well under gross. What
> am I missing?

Nap of the earth flying, jinking, turning and diving and climbing.

I believe they have to stay close to the pipeline for their sniffers to
work. That would put more stress on the airframe than training, except for
the landing gear.
--
Jim in NC

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:

> "Drew Dalgleish" > wrote
>
> > I would have thought pipeline patrol to be pretty easy hours. Flying
> > straight and level for long periods and mostly well under gross. What
> > am I missing?
>
> Nap of the earth flying, jinking, turning and diving and climbing.

and the bumps down low...not much smooth air down close.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

"Morgans" > writes:


>> I would have thought pipeline patrol to be pretty easy hours. Flying
>> straight and level for long periods and mostly well under gross. What
>> am I missing?

>Nap of the earth flying, jinking, turning and diving and climbing.

>I believe they have to stay close to the pipeline for their sniffers to
>work. That would put more stress on the airframe than training, except for
>the landing gear.

Sniffers? The patrol plane that flew our lines uses a Mark One eyeball.

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

"David Lesher" > wrote

> Sniffers? The patrol plane that flew our lines uses a Mark One eyeball.

What type of lines? Buried or surface?
--
Jim in NC

"David Lesher" > wrote

> Sniffers? The patrol plane that flew our lines uses a Mark One eyeball.

What type of lines? Buried or surface?
--
Jim in NC

xyzzy wrote:

> Assuming proper maintanence and a good airframe log/book inspection,
> are there any concerns about high time airframes, like insurability,
> etc? My partners and I are looking at a warrior with over 11,000
> AFTT.

High time airplane owners will tell you it is a non issue.

Low time owners will tell you to avoid high time airframes like the plague.

As a few brokers what the insurance company take is on airframe time.

Good Luck,
Mike

I was typically at 500 feet (or a bit more)and the air was pretty
smooth. Early morning. I know others used it as an excuse to low fly the
route. Having to pull up for fences and trees. I think the hotdogging
was hard on the airplane.

Drew Dalgleish wrote:
>>How many of those hours were spent doing pipeline patrols or other
>>activities that are tough on the airframe? It is my recollection that
>>piper wing separations tended to occur on hightime airframes that
>>also spent considerable time doing pipeline patrols.
>>
>>otoh - 11,000 hours on that warrior is how many hours per year?
>>
>>--
>>Bob Noel
>>
>
> I would have thought pipeline patrol to be pretty easy hours. Flying
> straight and level for long periods and mostly well under gross. What
> am I missing?

My broker's forms do include a question about TT on the airplane, but I
don't if it's included in the accident risk formula, the value of the
airframe, a cross check to see if I've given them the right information on
my yearly flying time, or all of the above.
--
Best Regards,
Mike

http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel


"Mike Spera" > wrote in message
m...
> xyzzy wrote:
>
>> Assuming proper maintanence and a good airframe log/book inspection,
>> are there any concerns about high time airframes, like insurability,
>> etc? My partners and I are looking at a warrior with over 11,000
>> AFTT.
>
> High time airplane owners will tell you it is a non issue.
>
> Low time owners will tell you to avoid high time airframes like the
> plague.
>
> As a few brokers what the insurance company take is on airframe time.
>
> Good Luck,
> Mike

>
> Probably because high time airframes offer an even better value in many
> instances. Also there's lots of high time airframes out there which are
> very well equipped because those who were in them spent a lot of time
> and they could justify costly improvements.
>
> Here's two aircraft simularly equipped:
>
> This one is listed for $39K
> http://www.aso.com/i.aso3/aircraft_view.jsp?aircraft_id=114817
>
> This one is listed for $89K
> http://www.aso.com/i.aso3/aircraft_view.jsp?aircraft_id=115832
>
> Both aircraft are the same age, carry the same weight, and go the same
> speed. One is $50K cheaper than the other. The 2nd one might be in a
> little better shape cosmetically and perhaps even functionally, but not
> $50K worth. If I were in the market for such a plane, I would be more
> inclined to buy #1 and that's even knowing it almost certainly spent a
> good part of it's life as a trainer (notice the wear on the rightside
> yoke).

My observations:
The second airplane had VERY low hours (1060) AND a zero time engine
overhaul AND a prop overhaul AND a 496 in the panel AND new glass, mags,
brakes, oil/fuel lines, tires, tubes, bat, vac lines, harnesses, AND
overhauled primary instruments AND new carpets/glareshield AND repainted
plastics AND a fresh strip/paint job. We have no idea what the low buck,
high time bird has because the listing only shows the plane's generic
specs for that year. Usually a dead giveaway that the plane's actual
equipment list has some skeletons (run out engine, damage history,
"suspicious" logbooks, inop equipment, etc.). All the pics for the low
buck plane are taken just far enough away and in low light that it
could actually look like anything in real life (great to terrible). The
pics on the higher priced plane are in the full light of day and appear
to show a plane in top shape (well they BOTH had Cessna radios...).

If the low dollar bird is typical (for 11k hours) these two planes can
easily be $50k (or more) apart. Hard to say specifically without a
better listing for the high timer and a personal inspection.

Good Luck,
Mike

"Mike Spera" > wrote in message
m...
>
>>
>> Probably because high time airframes offer an even better value in many
>> instances. Also there's lots of high time airframes out there which are
>> very well equipped because those who were in them spent a lot of time and
>> they could justify costly improvements.
>>
>> Here's two aircraft simularly equipped:
>>
>> This one is listed for $39K
>> http://www.aso.com/i.aso3/aircraft_view.jsp?aircraft_id=114817
>>
>> This one is listed for $89K
>> http://www.aso.com/i.aso3/aircraft_view.jsp?aircraft_id=115832
>>
>> Both aircraft are the same age, carry the same weight, and go the same
>> speed. One is $50K cheaper than the other. The 2nd one might be in a
>> little better shape cosmetically and perhaps even functionally, but not
>> $50K worth. If I were in the market for such a plane, I would be more
>> inclined to buy #1 and that's even knowing it almost certainly spent a
>> good part of it's life as a trainer (notice the wear on the rightside
>> yoke).
>
> My observations:
> The second airplane had VERY low hours (1060) AND a zero time engine
> overhaul AND a prop overhaul AND a 496 in the panel AND new glass, mags,
> brakes, oil/fuel lines, tires, tubes, bat, vac lines, harnesses, AND
> overhauled primary instruments AND new carpets/glareshield AND repainted
> plastics AND a fresh strip/paint job. We have no idea what the low buck,
> high time bird has because the listing only shows the plane's generic
> specs for that year. Usually a dead giveaway that the plane's actual
> equipment list has some skeletons (run out engine, damage history,
> "suspicious" logbooks, inop equipment, etc.). All the pics for the low
> buck plane are taken just far enough away and in low light that it could
> actually look like anything in real life (great to terrible). The pics on
> the higher priced plane are in the full light of day and appear to show a
> plane in top shape (well they BOTH had Cessna radios...).
>
> If the low dollar bird is typical (for 11k hours) these two planes can
> easily be $50k (or more) apart. Hard to say specifically without a better
> listing for the high timer and a personal inspection.

You're assuming worst case scenario for the high time bird and best case
scenario for the low time bird. The high time bird is either in decent
shape, or it is highly overpriced because you can definitely buy a decent
172 of that vintage for $39K. As far as the low time bird goes, the
question that should be going through one's mind is why would someone sink
that kind of money in a nearly 30 year old aircraft just to sell it? My
guess is the plane probably sat in a field for years before someone started
to fix it up and they found some "skeletons" such as corrosion which was
going to cost significantly more to repair or one of a number of other
issues. There are "skeletons" that can be found in high time and low time
aircraft. Furthermore you certainly can't give full value to all the
improvements made to the low time bird because you will never be able to
recoup those investments (although the seller is certainly trying). The
bottom line is people put a premium on low time aircraft, and there's simply
not much reason for it. I'd rather have an aircraft that spent its life
flying than one that spent a good part of its life as a bird and wasp
refuge.

Drew Dalgleish wrote:

> I would have thought pipeline patrol to be pretty easy hours. Flying
> straight and level for long periods and mostly well under gross. What
> am I missing?

Nope, down low and if the wings are level for more than about 30 seconds
at a time it is because the pilot is on final.

David Lesher wrote:
> "Morgans" > writes:
>
>
>>> I would have thought pipeline patrol to be pretty easy hours. Flying
>>> straight and level for long periods and mostly well under gross. What
>>> am I missing?
>
>> Nap of the earth flying, jinking, turning and diving and climbing.
>
>> I believe they have to stay close to the pipeline for their sniffers to
>> work. That would put more stress on the airframe than training, except for
>> the landing gear.
>
> Sniffers? The patrol plane that flew our lines uses a Mark One eyeball.
>


Mk I eyeball is all the guys that fly pipeline around here use.

On Jul 19, 6:55 am, Mike Spera > wrote:

> High time airplane owners will tell you it is a non issue.
>
> Low time owners will tell you to avoid high time airframes like the plague.

And mechanics who work on higher-time light aircraft, like me,
will tell you that all designs have their weak points that need
checking, and that many mechanics either don't know those weak points
or don't care. High-time airplanes that did nothing but long cross-
countries won't be likely to have the fatigue problems that we find in
trainers, but at the same time, the owners of those cross-country 172s
might be doing things that break stuff, like pushing down on the stab
to maneuver the airplane on the ground (breaking the forward stab
spar) or using grass or gravel runways that cause a lot of fuselage
flexing while taxiing over rougher ground (cracking the doorposts in a
spot that is very hard to see and unlikely to get looked at). Cessna
has a number of SEBs on such items, as well as the Continuing
Airworthiness Program stuff that cover more of these issues. The
Cessna R182 (182RG) has its problems, too, such as cracking gear
actuators ($8000 for a new casting) and aft fuselage bulkhead cracks.
Just because no 172s have come apart in flight (that I know of)
doesn't mean that they'll not start doing so. Sooner or later one
will, and I wouldn't want to be one of the people in it. Many owners
think they're getting good maintenance (because their shop tells them
so) and when we look at one of those airplanes we find the usual
cracks. And cracked or broken exhaust components, which will either
poison you or set fire to the airplane; take your pick. And many other
things, too.
If these cracks are caught by your mechanic, they won't kill
you but they'll kill your bank account. If we have a choice between a
"well-maintained" (yeah, right) older high-timer and one that has sat
for years, I'll take the sitter as long as it doesn't have corrosion
issues (humidity, salt air, or non-human residents). Both airplanes
will need new engines and interiors and other plastic and rubber bits
replaced. The high-timer will need structural repairs, maybe a lot of
them. They're not cheap. By the time you're done you could have far
more tied up in the airplane than it would ever be worth in resale
value.

Dan

> wrote in message
...
> On Jul 19, 6:55 am, Mike Spera > wrote:
> If these cracks are caught by your mechanic, they won't kill
> you but they'll kill your bank account. If we have a choice between a
> "well-maintained" (yeah, right) older high-timer and one that has sat
> for years, I'll take the sitter as long as it doesn't have corrosion
> issues (humidity, salt air, or non-human residents). Both airplanes
> will need new engines and interiors and other plastic and rubber bits
> replaced. The high-timer will need structural repairs, maybe a lot of
> them. They're not cheap. By the time you're done you could have far
> more tied up in the airplane than it would ever be worth in resale
> value.

There may be some dud A&Ps out there, but there's also a lot of great ones
that have extensive knowledge of older aircraft. Just because an aircraft
is high time doesn't mean it WILL require structural repairs, and even if
they do, not all such repairs are expensive as some can be addressed by stop
drilling or other solutions. Just because the aircraft is high time,
doesn't mean it WILL need a new engine. In fact, it's less likely to need
one. An older aircraft that's sat for several years or has never had an
overhaul WILL need one as well as a new interior and probably new glass,
whereas the high time aircraft stands a good chance of having things like
interior and glass replaced at some point and definitely has had the engine
reworked or replaced. Everything really boils down to a proper pre-buy from
a knowledgeable mechanic which is just as important regardless of how much
time the airframe has.

At 9,000 hrs, I would definitely consider my airplane high time, but it's
still going strong and there's the same type out there still going strong
with twice that many hours. Since I fly the thing only about 200 hrs per
year, it's going to take 10 years just to get 2,000 more hours assuming I
still have it by then. Since I'm confident my aircraft is structurally
sound, the chances of it needing a significant structural repair are pretty
much the same as a low time aircraft.

Morgans wrote:
> "David Lesher" > wrote
>
>> Sniffers? The patrol plane that flew our lines uses a Mark One eyeball.
>
> What type of lines? Buried or surface?


Around South Arkansas Buried... No Sniffers.

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
> Morgans wrote:
>> "David Lesher" > wrote
>>
>>> Sniffers? The patrol plane that flew our lines uses a Mark One eyeball.
>>
>> What type of lines? Buried or surface?
>
>
> Around South Arkansas Buried... No Sniffers.


It is a one in a million chance a pipeline pilot finds a leak before the
company knows about it. The break would have to happen just as the
pilot gets there as the company has pressure gauges on the line. The
pilot is really looking for things that are happening on the right of way.

On Jul 22, 7:27 am, Newps > wrote:

> It is a one in a million chance a pipeline pilot finds a leak before the
> company knows about it. The break would have to happen just as the
> pilot gets there as the company has pressure gauges on the line. The
> pilot is really looking for things that are happening on the right of way.

If it's a small leak the company might not notice. Gas will
kill vegetation, oil will show as a stain. But as you said, those
pilots are mostly looking for people digging where they're not
supposed to be. There was an incident here few years ago where the
pilot found a farmer digging a ditch with a backhoe right over the
line, so he buzzed the farmer until the guy jumped off the machine.
The farmer was furious until the pipeline guys got there and showed
him that his hoe was within inches of striking the gas line and could
have immolated himself.

Dan

Newps > writes:



>It is a one in a million chance a pipeline pilot finds a leak before the
>company knows about it. The break would have to happen just as the
>pilot gets there as the company has pressure gauges on the line. The
>pilot is really looking for things that are happening on the right of way.

Our pilot had found leaks, but you are correct; he's looking for digging.

Once he called in while someone was running a pan (scraper) near the
line. The line foreman took off that way, but got there right after the
operator had scraped the pipe bare. One more pass and he'd have.....
--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

Newps wrote:
> Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
>> Morgans wrote:
>>> "David Lesher" > wrote
>>>
>>>> Sniffers? The patrol plane that flew our lines uses a Mark One eyeball.
>>>
>>> What type of lines? Buried or surface?
>>
>>
>> Around South Arkansas Buried... No Sniffers.
>
>
> It is a one in a million chance a pipeline pilot finds a leak before the
> company knows about it. The break would have to happen just as the
> pilot gets there as the company has pressure gauges on the line. The
> pilot is really looking for things that are happening on the right of way.

One in a million is a little high. But you are right that they are
mainly looking for other things happening on the right of way.

Of the two based here one is employed by a refinery. The other is an
independent and does contract work for different companies. A few years
ago after a rash of tree poaching that went own around here he just
about doubled is income by contracting with forest land owners to check
on there timber from the air. Last count is he has caught about 20
people stealing timber.

Just as a point of interest these two pipeline patrol pilots do often
meet up in the air. A long while back they decided that one would fly at
400' AGL and the other would do 500'.

Twice now we have had planes go down locally that CAP couldn't find as
they flew their 1000' AGL search patterns. Both times the 400' guy has
finally come in and found the planes within an hour and one of those
times in under 15 minutes. The 15 minute search was after CAP had been
looking for about 2 days and was dead center in the middle of the search
grid.

These guys really are an asset to the community they both have police
band radios in their planes and become the eyes in the sky for local and
county police on a regular basis.

On Jul 17, 2:42*pm, xyzzy > wrote:
> Assuming proper maintanence and a good airframe log/book inspection,
> are there any concerns about high time airframes, like insurability,
> etc? * My partners and I are looking at a warrior with over 11,000
> AFTT.

As others have said maintenance is more important than total time
unless that time was spent down low with aggressive flying like
pipeline or fire patrol. The FAA was about to issue an AD against all
PA-28s a couple of years ago and was only dissuaded when the alphabet
groups pointed out the only PA-28s to suffer inflight breakups were
patrolers or poorly maintained. (i.e. missing wing attach bolts)

For CAR 3 certified aircraft there is no time limit on the airframe.
For FAR 23 aircraft there is usually a wing spar limit i.e. the
Tomahawk and Skipper.

The local flight school has several PA 28s with over 9000 hours and a
couple with more. They point out to me areas of cracking etc. that I
have never seen on the low time Cherokees I typically work on. Get a
prepurchase inspection by someone really knowledgeable in older
Cherokees.

John Dupre'

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:

>
> Just as a point of interest these two pipeline patrol pilots do often
> meet up in the air. A long while back they decided that one would fly at
> 400' AGL and the other would do 500'.

You have to get a waiver to fly a 500 foot altitude at all times. They
don't give waivers for less than that so the 400 foot guy was busting
the reg for traffic purposes.

Newps wrote:
> Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
>
>>
>> Just as a point of interest these two pipeline patrol pilots do often
>> meet up in the air. A long while back they decided that one would fly
>> at 400' AGL and the other would do 500'.
>
> You have to get a waiver to fly a 500 foot altitude at all times. They
> don't give waivers for less than that so the 400 foot guy was busting
> the reg for traffic purposes.
>
>
>

The numbers may be 500 and 600. It's been a while since I talked to them
about it. The memory comes and goes from time to time.

wrote:
> On Jul 22, 7:27 am, Newps > wrote:
>
>> It is a one in a million chance a pipeline pilot finds a leak before the
>> company knows about it. The break would have to happen just as the
>> pilot gets there as the company has pressure gauges on the line. The
>> pilot is really looking for things that are happening on the right of way.
>
> If it's a small leak the company might not notice. Gas will
> kill vegetation, oil will show as a stain. But as you said, those
> pilots are mostly looking for people digging where they're not
> supposed to be. There was an incident here few years ago where the
> pilot found a farmer digging a ditch with a backhoe right over the
> line, so he buzzed the farmer until the guy jumped off the machine.
> The farmer was furious until the pipeline guys got there and showed
> him that his hoe was within inches of striking the gas line and could
> have immolated himself.

Or even worse, he could have burnt himself to a crisp! :-)

Actually, most gas transmission pipelines (I don't think many small
distribution lines are patrolled by aircraft) are unlikely to be
seriously damaged by the size backhoe that a typical farmer would be
using. They are generally made from fairly heavy-walled steel or poly
and I'd be impressed if your run of the mill backhoe would penetrate one.

Now a 2-4" poly distribution line is a different animal...

Matt

There are some natural 'sniffers' out there usable by natural gas pipeline
patrol pilots. Carrion birds are attracted to the sulfurous smell added to
the gas. A gaggle of circling buzzards right over the pipeline would be
worth investigating.
--
Best Regards,
Mike

http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel


"David Lesher" > wrote in message
...
> Newps > writes:
>
>
>
>>It is a one in a million chance a pipeline pilot finds a leak before the
>>company knows about it. The break would have to happen just as the
>>pilot gets there as the company has pressure gauges on the line. The
>>pilot is really looking for things that are happening on the right of way.
>
> Our pilot had found leaks, but you are correct; he's looking for digging.
>
> Once he called in while someone was running a pan (scraper) near the
> line. The line foreman took off that way, but got there right after the
> operator had scraped the pipe bare. One more pass and he'd have.....
> --
> A host is a host from coast to
> & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
> Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
> is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

Matt Whiting > writes:



>Actually, most gas transmission pipelines (I don't think many small
>distribution lines are patrolled by aircraft) are unlikely to be
>seriously damaged by the size backhoe that a typical farmer would be
>using. They are generally made from fairly heavy-walled steel or poly
>and I'd be impressed if your run of the mill backhoe would penetrate one.


I worked in the products pipeline [i.e. refined gas, #2, Kero, etc] business.
Schedule 3000 or not, people holed the lines.

We used to say they were magnetic lines. You would show up at the
leak. There would be an abandoned backhoe, still idling. It must have
been dragged to the scene and started, all by magnetism. No trailer,
truck or operator anywhere in sight...

Why? In that era, construction equipment lacked VIN-type numbers and
titles; and the contractor knew it was cheaper to abandon the hoe that
pay the cleanup costs.


--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:46:02 -0700, "Mike Noel" >
wrote:

>There are some natural 'sniffers' out there usable by natural gas pipeline
>patrol pilots. Carrion birds are attracted to the sulfurous smell added to
>the gas. A gaggle of circling buzzards right over the pipeline would be
>worth investigating.

I read of an interesting parallel today.
the danes have genetically modified a tobacco so that instead of
having green leaves it has bright red leaves in the presence of
explosive components leached out of old landmines.

seems like gas pipeline guys could make the inspections easier by
applying a bit of genetic engineering and doing some planting along
the lines.

Stealth Pilot

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote

> I read of an interesting parallel today.
> the danes have genetically modified a tobacco so that instead of
> having green leaves it has bright red leaves in the presence of
> explosive components leached out of old landmines.
>
> seems like gas pipeline guys could make the inspections easier by
> applying a bit of genetic engineering and doing some planting along
> the lines.

Interesting, but I wonder who is going to be walking out in a minefield
planting the plants?
--
Jim in NC

> Flying at 500' may not be too smart but hardly needs someone's permission
> unless it's in congested area. I'm thinkin' most pipeline patrols aren't
> flown in congested areas...
>
>
>


I said 500 feet at all times. All pipelines get into congested areas.

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:

> > seems like gas pipeline guys could make the inspections easier by
> > applying a bit of genetic engineering and doing some planting along
> > the lines.
>
> Interesting, but I wonder who is going to be walking out in a minefield
> planting the plants?

aerial application of the seeds...

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Mike wrote:
> "Mike Spera" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>>
>>>
>>> Probably because high time airframes offer an even better value in
>>> many instances. Also there's lots of high time airframes out there
>>> which are very well equipped because those who were in them spent a
>>> lot of time and they could justify costly improvements.
>>>
>>> Here's two aircraft simularly equipped:
>>>
>>> This one is listed for $39K
>>> http://www.aso.com/i.aso3/aircraft_view.jsp?aircraft_id=114817
>>>
>>> This one is listed for $89K
>>> http://www.aso.com/i.aso3/aircraft_view.jsp?aircraft_id=115832
>>>
>>> Both aircraft are the same age, carry the same weight, and go the
>>> same speed. One is $50K cheaper than the other. The 2nd one might
>>> be in a little better shape cosmetically and perhaps even
>>> functionally, but not $50K worth. If I were in the market for such a
>>> plane, I would be more inclined to buy #1 and that's even knowing it
>>> almost certainly spent a good part of it's life as a trainer (notice
>>> the wear on the rightside yoke).
>>
>>
>> My observations:
>> The second airplane had VERY low hours (1060) AND a zero time engine
>> overhaul AND a prop overhaul AND a 496 in the panel AND new glass,
>> mags, brakes, oil/fuel lines, tires, tubes, bat, vac lines, harnesses,
>> AND overhauled primary instruments AND new carpets/glareshield AND
>> repainted plastics AND a fresh strip/paint job. We have no idea what
>> the low buck, high time bird has because the listing only shows the
>> plane's generic specs for that year. Usually a dead giveaway that the
>> plane's actual equipment list has some skeletons (run out engine,
>> damage history, "suspicious" logbooks, inop equipment, etc.). All the
>> pics for the low buck plane are taken just far enough away and in low
>> light that it could actually look like anything in real life (great to
>> terrible). The pics on the higher priced plane are in the full light
>> of day and appear to show a plane in top shape (well they BOTH had
>> Cessna radios...).
>>
>> If the low dollar bird is typical (for 11k hours) these two planes can
>> easily be $50k (or more) apart. Hard to say specifically without a
>> better listing for the high timer and a personal inspection.
>
>
> You're assuming worst case scenario for the high time bird and best case
> scenario for the low time bird. The high time bird is either in decent
> shape, or it is highly overpriced because you can definitely buy a
> decent 172 of that vintage for $39K. As far as the low time bird goes,
> the question that should be going through one's mind is why would
> someone sink that kind of money in a nearly 30 year old aircraft just to
> sell it? My guess is the plane probably sat in a field for years before
> someone started to fix it up and they found some "skeletons" such as
> corrosion which was going to cost significantly more to repair or one of
> a number of other issues. There are "skeletons" that can be found in
> high time and low time aircraft. Furthermore you certainly can't give
> full value to all the improvements made to the low time bird because you
> will never be able to recoup those investments (although the seller is
> certainly trying). The bottom line is people put a premium on low time
> aircraft, and there's simply not much reason for it. I'd rather have an
> aircraft that spent its life flying than one that spent a good part of
> its life as a bird and wasp refuge.

Some great points Mike. Thanks for bringing me back down to earth on
this one. I must have been real crabby that night.

I do have to stick to my opinion about the condition of the low time,
high priced bird because it is based on the descriptions, data, and
pictures. That said, even if it is pristine, at $89k I believe it is
about 15% or so overpriced for this market. You are correct in that the
high time bird may not be all that bad. But the pics and (non)
description don't inspired confidence. I agree that it may not be the
disaster I suggested. Have to have a look and more info.

As to your point on "upgrades", I agree that they should not (and do
not) command a full payback. But I don't consider a 0 time engine an
upgrade and would tend towards near full value on engines. Paint and
interior are also not upgrades in my mind, but they do appear to only
fetch a fraction of their cost in the used arena (Vref says $3k for
interior and I believe $5k for paint). Most of the rest of the replaced
components are also not upgrades to me. But having the stuff replaced is
better than having a hundred "crap shoots" bolted to the beast that
could go at any minute because of age and/or wear. That said, at 11k
hours, they MUST have replaced lots of stuff on the high timer. Again,
the lack of description of that plane leaves us guessing.

When I think about upgrades, I think about higher HP engines, 1 piece
windshields, Powerflow exhaust, flap/gap seals and other speed mods,
late model color moving map GPS in the panel, custom built seats and
interiors, speed cowlings, aerodynamic wing/stab tips, etc. I tend to
think of an upgrade as something the factory never put in the plane.
Opinions may vary on what constitutes an upgrade. I'm not terribly
wedded to my definition. It is just a word.

I also have to agree that we would need to hear the "story" about the
low time bird. Why someone would sink the dollars into the thing is a
great question. This one has "owner contracted disease and shelved the
bird hoping for a comeback" written all over it. But to your point, it
could also be a resurrected disaster that sat rotting in the high weeds
for 25 years.

You see, we are not all righteous, stubborn jerks on the 'Net (although
some of my postings may sound that way - apologies to the more sensitive
readers).

Thanks for the counterpoints,
Mike

"Mike Spera" > wrote in message
m...
> Mike wrote:
>> "Mike Spera" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Probably because high time airframes offer an even better value in many
>>>> instances. Also there's lots of high time airframes out there which
>>>> are very well equipped because those who were in them spent a lot of
>>>> time and they could justify costly improvements.
>>>>
>>>> Here's two aircraft simularly equipped:
>>>>
>>>> This one is listed for $39K
>>>> http://www.aso.com/i.aso3/aircraft_view.jsp?aircraft_id=114817
>>>>
>>>> This one is listed for $89K
>>>> http://www.aso.com/i.aso3/aircraft_view.jsp?aircraft_id=115832
>>>>
>>>> Both aircraft are the same age, carry the same weight, and go the same
>>>> speed. One is $50K cheaper than the other. The 2nd one might be in a
>>>> little better shape cosmetically and perhaps even functionally, but not
>>>> $50K worth. If I were in the market for such a plane, I would be more
>>>> inclined to buy #1 and that's even knowing it almost certainly spent a
>>>> good part of it's life as a trainer (notice the wear on the rightside
>>>> yoke).
>>>
>>>
>>> My observations:
>>> The second airplane had VERY low hours (1060) AND a zero time engine
>>> overhaul AND a prop overhaul AND a 496 in the panel AND new glass, mags,
>>> brakes, oil/fuel lines, tires, tubes, bat, vac lines, harnesses, AND
>>> overhauled primary instruments AND new carpets/glareshield AND repainted
>>> plastics AND a fresh strip/paint job. We have no idea what the low buck,
>>> high time bird has because the listing only shows the plane's generic
>>> specs for that year. Usually a dead giveaway that the plane's actual
>>> equipment list has some skeletons (run out engine, damage history,
>>> "suspicious" logbooks, inop equipment, etc.). All the pics for the low
>>> buck plane are taken just far enough away and in low light that it
>>> could actually look like anything in real life (great to terrible). The
>>> pics on the higher priced plane are in the full light of day and appear
>>> to show a plane in top shape (well they BOTH had Cessna radios...).
>>>
>>> If the low dollar bird is typical (for 11k hours) these two planes can
>>> easily be $50k (or more) apart. Hard to say specifically without a
>>> better listing for the high timer and a personal inspection.
>>
>>
>> You're assuming worst case scenario for the high time bird and best case
>> scenario for the low time bird. The high time bird is either in decent
>> shape, or it is highly overpriced because you can definitely buy a decent
>> 172 of that vintage for $39K. As far as the low time bird goes, the
>> question that should be going through one's mind is why would someone
>> sink that kind of money in a nearly 30 year old aircraft just to sell it?
>> My guess is the plane probably sat in a field for years before someone
>> started to fix it up and they found some "skeletons" such as corrosion
>> which was going to cost significantly more to repair or one of a number
>> of other issues. There are "skeletons" that can be found in high time
>> and low time aircraft. Furthermore you certainly can't give full value
>> to all the improvements made to the low time bird because you will never
>> be able to recoup those investments (although the seller is certainly
>> trying). The bottom line is people put a premium on low time aircraft,
>> and there's simply not much reason for it. I'd rather have an aircraft
>> that spent its life flying than one that spent a good part of its life as
>> a bird and wasp refuge.
>
> Some great points Mike. Thanks for bringing me back down to earth on this
> one. I must have been real crabby that night.
>
> I do have to stick to my opinion about the condition of the low time, high
> priced bird because it is based on the descriptions, data, and pictures.
> That said, even if it is pristine, at $89k I believe it is about 15% or so
> overpriced for this market. You are correct in that the high time bird may
> not be all that bad. But the pics and (non) description don't inspired
> confidence. I agree that it may not be the disaster I suggested. Have to
> have a look and more info.
>
> As to your point on "upgrades", I agree that they should not (and do not)
> command a full payback. But I don't consider a 0 time engine an upgrade
> and would tend towards near full value on engines. Paint and interior are
> also not upgrades in my mind, but they do appear to only fetch a fraction
> of their cost in the used arena (Vref says $3k for interior and I believe
> $5k for paint). Most of the rest of the replaced components are also not
> upgrades to me. But having the stuff replaced is better than having a
> hundred "crap shoots" bolted to the beast that could go at any minute
> because of age and/or wear. That said, at 11k hours, they MUST have
> replaced lots of stuff on the high timer. Again, the lack of description
> of that plane leaves us guessing.

From reading the description on the low time plane, I didn't get the
impression it was a 0 time engine. A 0 time engine to me means a factory
new engine or 0 TTSN. In this case the engine could be 0 TTSN, or it could
be 0 TSMOH, or it could be 0 TSTOH. I tend to suspect the latter, because
it isn't specified. The reason I think the plane has been sitting in a
field is because just about everything that wears out from just sitting has
been recently replaced or overhauled.

As far as valuation given to such things, I don't put a lot of value on
overhauled components, because I've had too much bad luck with such things.
In my experience, overhauled avionics (especially gyros) typically buys you
a few months and they are bad again. I'll take a good working gyro that's
been that way for a while over a recent overhaul any day of the week.
There's a few avionics overhaul shops that really do a good job, but they
are few and far between and are typically so expensive they charge almost as
much as buying new and are generally only worth it when you have original
avionics in an antique plane that simply can't be replaced with new. An
engine that has had a major overhaul may add value to a plane, but never the
full cost of the overhaul. The reason is because an engine that has high
time, but still has good specs, still has value. Let's say an engine is 300
hours away from TBO, but otherwise checks good at annual. It could go
another 3-6 years, and perhaps 300-800 hours before needing an overhaul. So
you can't automatically assume a high time engine is worthless. I've seen
major overhauls done buy guys I wouldn't trust to overhaul a lawnmower
engine so not all of those are equal either.

> When I think about upgrades, I think about higher HP engines, 1 piece
> windshields, Powerflow exhaust, flap/gap seals and other speed mods, late
> model color moving map GPS in the panel, custom built seats and interiors,
> speed cowlings, aerodynamic wing/stab tips, etc. I tend to think of an
> upgrade as something the factory never put in the plane. Opinions may vary
> on what constitutes an upgrade. I'm not terribly wedded to my definition.
> It is just a word.
>
> I also have to agree that we would need to hear the "story" about the low
> time bird. Why someone would sink the dollars into the thing is a great
> question. This one has "owner contracted disease and shelved the bird
> hoping for a comeback" written all over it. But to your point, it could
> also be a resurrected disaster that sat rotting in the high weeds for 25
> years.

The two examples I provided probably weren't the best, but I just wanted to
demonstrate the price disparity between high and low time aircraft with
practically everything else being equal. You're right in that there's a
good chance of finding something wrong with the high time plane, however,
very few people will advertise what's wrong with their plane when they are
selling it regardless of how much time it has. Perhaps a few honest ones
will tell you when you ask. I just assume ALL planes for sale have
problems, unless I'm familiar with the owner and the plane in question.
You're also right in that there's some really turkeys out there that aren't
worth the money at practically any price because they have been maintained
by A&P's that do drive-by annuals. However there are some great deals out
there, and my experience has been that the great deals are on the high time
airplanes simply because everyone who sells a low time plane demands a high
premium simply based on the low airframe time.

> You see, we are not all righteous, stubborn jerks on the 'Net (although
> some of my postings may sound that way - apologies to the more sensitive
> readers).

This is just helpful discussion. That's what usenet is all about, but
unfortunately not for some.

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
> Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
>
>>
>> Just as a point of interest these two pipeline patrol pilots do often
>> meet up in the air. A long while back they decided that one would fly at
>> 400' AGL and the other would do 500'.
>
> You have to get a waiver to fly a 500 foot altitude at all times. They
> don't give waivers for less than that so the 400 foot guy was busting the
> reg for traffic purposes.

Hogwash.

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:33:38 GMT, "Mike" > wrote:


>From reading the description on the low time plane, I didn't get the
>impression it was a 0 time engine. A 0 time engine to me means a factory
>new engine or 0 TTSN. In this case the engine could be 0 TTSN, or it could
>be 0 TSMOH, or it could be 0 TSTOH. I tend to suspect the latter, because
>it isn't specified. The reason I think the plane has been sitting in a
>field is because just about everything that wears out from just sitting has
>been recently replaced or overhauled.

Isn't a factory reman also 0 time w/ new logbooks?

"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:33:38 GMT, "Mike" > wrote:
>
>
>>From reading the description on the low time plane, I didn't get the
>>impression it was a 0 time engine. A 0 time engine to me means a factory
>>new engine or 0 TTSN. In this case the engine could be 0 TTSN, or it
>>could
>>be 0 TSMOH, or it could be 0 TSTOH. I tend to suspect the latter, because
>>it isn't specified. The reason I think the plane has been sitting in a
>>field is because just about everything that wears out from just sitting
>>has
>>been recently replaced or overhauled.
>
> Isn't a factory reman also 0 time w/ new logbooks?

It can be. There's also such thing a factory overhaul, which is not a 0
time engine. Most people just do a major overhaul or a top overhaul, which
can be done by someone who is powerplant certified.

My engine was factory new when last replaced. It isn't a factory overhaul
or a factory rebuilt one. It cost $30K (not including installation) and
that was some time back. I could have had the old one overhauled for
probably as cheap as $12K at the time.

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:48:48 GMT, "Mike" > wrote:

>"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:33:38 GMT, "Mike" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>From reading the description on the low time plane, I didn't get the
>>>impression it was a 0 time engine. A 0 time engine to me means a factory
>>>new engine or 0 TTSN. In this case the engine could be 0 TTSN, or it
>>>could
>>>be 0 TSMOH, or it could be 0 TSTOH. I tend to suspect the latter, because
>>>it isn't specified. The reason I think the plane has been sitting in a
>>>field is because just about everything that wears out from just sitting
>>>has
>>>been recently replaced or overhauled.
>>
>> Isn't a factory reman also 0 time w/ new logbooks?
>
>It can be. There's also such thing a factory overhaul, which is not a 0
>time engine. Most people just do a major overhaul or a top overhaul, which
>can be done by someone who is powerplant certified.

Unless I'm mistaken, 0SFOH is not a 0 time engine, where 0SFRM is a 0
time engine with new logs etc. It's how they're defined. So if they
did a factory remain it's cheaper than factory new but still 0 time,
but a factory overhaul carries over whatever time was on it when it
was overhauled.

On Jul 25, 6:28 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
> "Newps" > wrote in message
>
> . ..
>
> > Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
>
> >> Just as a point of interest these two pipeline patrol pilots do often
> >> meet up in the air. A long while back they decided that one would fly at
> >> 400' AGL and the other would do 500'.
>
> > You have to get a waiver to fly a 500 foot altitude at all times. They
> > don't give waivers for less than that so the 400 foot guy was busting the
> > reg for traffic purposes.
>
> Hogwash.

In Canda, we have this rule in
http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/cars/PART6/602.htm#602_14
CAR 602.15(2) A person may operate an aircraft, to the extent
necessary for the purpose of the operation in which the aircraft is
engaged, at altitudes and distances less than those set out in

(a) paragraph 602.14(2)(a), where operation of the aircraft is
authorized under Subpart 3 or section 702.22; or

(b) paragraph 602.14(2)(b), where the aircraft is operated without
creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface and the
aircraft is operated for the purpose of

(i) aerial application or aerial inspection,

(ii) aerial photography conducted by the holder of an air operator
certificate,

(iii) helicopter external load operations, or

(iv) flight training conducted by or under the supervision of a
qualified flight instructor.

So (i) allows it for pipeline patrol. They come over our
airport looking at pipe ROW at around 150'.

I looked at FAR 9.119 but couldn't see any exemptions similar to
ours. They call it a "general" which leads me to believe that there
might be some other section dealing with pipeline patrolling or other
low-altitude ops such as cropspraying.
See
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=c31c19723d6e524113fe11da9355e281&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10.2.4.10&idno=14

Dan

"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:48:48 GMT, "Mike" > wrote:
>
>>"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:33:38 GMT, "Mike" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>From reading the description on the low time plane, I didn't get the
>>>>impression it was a 0 time engine. A 0 time engine to me means a
>>>>factory
>>>>new engine or 0 TTSN. In this case the engine could be 0 TTSN, or it
>>>>could
>>>>be 0 TSMOH, or it could be 0 TSTOH. I tend to suspect the latter,
>>>>because
>>>>it isn't specified. The reason I think the plane has been sitting in a
>>>>field is because just about everything that wears out from just sitting
>>>>has
>>>>been recently replaced or overhauled.
>>>
>>> Isn't a factory reman also 0 time w/ new logbooks?
>>
>>It can be. There's also such thing a factory overhaul, which is not a 0
>>time engine. Most people just do a major overhaul or a top overhaul,
>>which
>>can be done by someone who is powerplant certified.
>
> Unless I'm mistaken, 0SFOH is not a 0 time engine, where 0SFRM is a 0
> time engine with new logs etc. It's how they're defined. So if they
> did a factory remain it's cheaper than factory new but still 0 time,
> but a factory overhaul carries over whatever time was on it when it
> was overhauled.

All of this may be, but it's probably a poor assumption that anything was
done at the factory as most overhauls aren't. Generally people who have
overhauls or rebuilds done at the factory or with notable engine builders
like PennYan Aero are going to mention that in the ad.

> wrote in message
...
> On Jul 25, 6:28 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
>> "Newps" > wrote in message
>>
>> . ..
>>
>> > Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
>>
>> >> Just as a point of interest these two pipeline patrol pilots do often
>> >> meet up in the air. A long while back they decided that one would fly
>> >> at
>> >> 400' AGL and the other would do 500'.
>>
>> > You have to get a waiver to fly a 500 foot altitude at all times. They
>> > don't give waivers for less than that so the 400 foot guy was busting
>> > the
>> > reg for traffic purposes.
>>
>> Hogwash.
>
> In Canda, we have this rule in
> http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/cars/PART6/602.htm#602_14
> CAR 602.15(2) A person may operate an aircraft, to the extent
> necessary for the purpose of the operation in which the aircraft is
> engaged, at altitudes and distances less than those set out in
>
> (a) paragraph 602.14(2)(a), where operation of the aircraft is
> authorized under Subpart 3 or section 702.22; or
>
> (b) paragraph 602.14(2)(b), where the aircraft is operated without
> creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface and the
> aircraft is operated for the purpose of
>
> (i) aerial application or aerial inspection,
>
> (ii) aerial photography conducted by the holder of an air operator
> certificate,
>
> (iii) helicopter external load operations, or
>
> (iv) flight training conducted by or under the supervision of a
> qualified flight instructor.
>
> So (i) allows it for pipeline patrol. They come over our
> airport looking at pipe ROW at around 150'.
>
> I looked at FAR 9.119 but couldn't see any exemptions similar to
> ours. They call it a "general" which leads me to believe that there
> might be some other section dealing with pipeline patrolling or other
> low-altitude ops such as cropspraying.
> See
> http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=c31c19723d6e524113fe11da9355e281&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10.2.4.10&idno=14
>
> Dan

I have no idea what Canada does, but one has to assume there is a method for
getting approval because lots of commercial flying has to be done at lower
than 500'. What I can say is that in the US it is possible to get a waiver
for whatever altitude is necessary to perform the function (aerial
application, pipeline patrol, banner tows, etc.), and many commercial
aviators have waivers that do NOT specify a hard limit such as 500' or
anything else, and that includes pipeline patrol. I know pipeline patrol
guys that routinely go down to 200' or lower quite legally and I'm pretty
sure no aerial applicator is going to spray for boll weevils at 500'.
Stating "they don't give waivers for less than [500']" is hogwash.

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Interesting, but I wonder who is going to be walking out in a minefield
> planting the plants?


Well, as they say, tobacco kills!!!!!!!!!

:)
--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)

On 2008-07-18, Bob Noel > wrote:
> How many of those hours were spent doing pipeline patrols or other
> activities that are tough on the airframe?

I have only ever seen pipeline patrol being done by high wing aircraft -
never a Cherokee.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

In article >,
Dylan Smith > wrote:

> On 2008-07-18, Bob Noel > wrote:
> > How many of those hours were spent doing pipeline patrols or other
> > activities that are tough on the airframe?
>
> I have only ever seen pipeline patrol being done by high wing aircraft -
> never a Cherokee.

IIRC A couple of the cherokees that had wing spar failures which lead
to the (short-lived) wing spar AD were high time aircraft previously
involved in pipeline patrols. I realize that high wing aircraft are
have better visibility for such patrols.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)