DO YOUR CONTOL CHECKS!

[Stewart Kissel]

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief2.asp?ev_id=20040402X00417&ntsbno=CH
I04CA090&akey=1

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
Stewart Kissel > wrote:

> http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief2.asp?ev_id=20040402X00417&ntsbno=CH
> I04CA090&akey=1

That looks more like: "if the manufacturer issues an AD [1], you'd
probably better do it, whether you legally have to or not".

-- Bruce

[1] in this case, installing a locking device onto L'Hotellier
connectors.

[Martin Gregorie]

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 11:40:06 +1200, Bruce Hoult >
wrote:

>In article >,
> Stewart Kissel > wrote:
>
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief2.asp?ev_id=20040402X00417&ntsbno=CH
>> I04CA090&akey=1
>
>That looks more like: "if the manufacturer issues an AD [1], you'd
>probably better do it, whether you legally have to or not".
>
>-- Bruce
>
>[1] in this case, installing a locking device onto L'Hotellier
>connectors.

This is the subject of a BGA AD in 1993 for the ASW-20, so I don't see
where you get the "manufacturer AD" bit from, even though it does
appear in ASW-20 TN-17 on extending the service life beyond 3000
hours.

As the AD in question refers to the requirement for a locking pin in
the Hotellier, I'm a bit gobsmacked that these couplings could ever
have been used without a locking pin or shroud: there's no way you
could inspect the check hole after assembly (other than poking
something through it) on wing control circuits in the ASW-20 and other
gliders. Admittedly you can see the check hole for the elevator, but
that's the only one that is easy to check by inspection on a '20.

--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

[Bullwinkle]

I saw this exact thing happen at Stennis field, Bay St Louis, MS, in the
early 80's. The pilot was the best at the field, at least he was the only
one who flew in competitions. He and his wife both flew ASW-20's.

He assembled one day, began his aerotow, nose went up like he was on a
winch/auto tow, and he released at perhaps 40 or 50 feet.

His wife's back was turned, as she gathered dolly, etc that needed to be
stowed. She missed the whole thing. I was sure I was watching a low level
stall/spin happening before my eyes.

Then the nose came down, then back up again, then down again, and at the
bottom of one of these oscillations his wheel touched down, he dumped the
flaps and he got on the brakes and stayed down. Stopped a couple of feet
from the airport fence.

Turns out his elevator hadn't been hooked up, or had popped off between
assembly and tow. He claimed that he had been able to control pitch with the
flaps, but I (personal opinion, no data to back this up) think he just got
incredibly lucky.

The best news: no damage to aircraft or pilot.

The absolute most amazing thing: He walked the -20 back to the launch point,
Inspected it for damage (found none), hooked up the elevator, and promptly
took off. I'd have been shaking for a week after a near miss like that, not
have taken off within 15 minutes.

Long way of saying that I agree: DO YOUR CONTROL CHECKS!


On 4/4/04 2:58 PM, in article ,
"Martin Gregorie" > wrote:

> On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 11:40:06 +1200, Bruce Hoult >
> wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Stewart Kissel > wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief2.asp?ev_id=20040402X00417&ntsbno=CH
>>> I04CA090&akey=1
>>
>> That looks more like: "if the manufacturer issues an AD [1], you'd
>> probably better do it, whether you legally have to or not".
>>
>> -- Bruce
>>
>> [1] in this case, installing a locking device onto L'Hotellier
>> connectors.
>
> This is the subject of a BGA AD in 1993 for the ASW-20, so I don't see
> where you get the "manufacturer AD" bit from, even though it does
> appear in ASW-20 TN-17 on extending the service life beyond 3000
> hours.
>
> As the AD in question refers to the requirement for a locking pin in
> the Hotellier, I'm a bit gobsmacked that these couplings could ever
> have been used without a locking pin or shroud: there's no way you
> could inspect the check hole after assembly (other than poking
> something through it) on wing control circuits in the ASW-20 and other
> gliders. Admittedly you can see the check hole for the elevator, but
> that's the only one that is easy to check by inspection on a '20.
>
> --
> martin@ : Martin Gregorie
> gregorie : Harlow, UK
> demon :
> co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
> uk :
>

[ken ward]

In article >,
Bruce Hoult > wrote:

> In article >,
> Stewart Kissel > wrote:
>
> > http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief2.asp?ev_id=20040402X00417&ntsbno=CH
> > I04CA090&akey=1
>
> That looks more like: "if the manufacturer issues an AD [1], you'd
> probably better do it, whether you legally have to or not".
>
> -- Bruce
>
> [1] in this case, installing a locking device onto L'Hotellier
> connectors.

I'm really happy the pilot escaped death. This has been fatal in other
accidents.

1. So, assuming there was insurance, would this accident be covered? Or
would the insurer say:

a) you didn't put it together correctly; bad dog, no coverage
b) you didn't comply with the AD; bad dog, no coverage
c) both

2. Will the pilot then say, hey, what about my annual condition
inspection? How come the annual was signed off if the ship didn't
comply with an AD?

3. Then what happens when the mechanic says, gosh, the service I
contract with for AD updates didn't show this AD, so I didn't know to
look for it and would have not signed it off it had I known?

Inquiring minds want to know!

[goneill]

I know of a case here in NZ exactly the same ,very high hours competition
pilot distracted during rigging, took off and released very quickly and
landed
straight ahead in a paddock using flaps only to control pitch.
The ASW20 seems relatively benign in this mode because I have heard of other
cases
I have an interest in this "because"
My ASW20 will be here soon ,Yippee!!!!
gary


"Bullwinkle" > wrote in message
...
> I saw this exact thing happen at Stennis field, Bay St Louis, MS, in the
> early 80's. The pilot was the best at the field, at least he was the only
> one who flew in competitions. He and his wife both flew ASW-20's.
>
> He assembled one day, began his aerotow, nose went up like he was on a
> winch/auto tow, and he released at perhaps 40 or 50 feet.
>
> His wife's back was turned, as she gathered dolly, etc that needed to be
> stowed. She missed the whole thing. I was sure I was watching a low level
> stall/spin happening before my eyes.
>
> Then the nose came down, then back up again, then down again, and at the
> bottom of one of these oscillations his wheel touched down, he dumped the
> flaps and he got on the brakes and stayed down. Stopped a couple of feet
> from the airport fence.
>
> Turns out his elevator hadn't been hooked up, or had popped off between
> assembly and tow. He claimed that he had been able to control pitch with
the
> flaps, but I (personal opinion, no data to back this up) think he just got
> incredibly lucky.
>
> The best news: no damage to aircraft or pilot.
>
> The absolute most amazing thing: He walked the -20 back to the launch
point,
> Inspected it for damage (found none), hooked up the elevator, and promptly
> took off. I'd have been shaking for a week after a near miss like that,
not
> have taken off within 15 minutes.
>
> Long way of saying that I agree: DO YOUR CONTROL CHECKS!
>
>
> On 4/4/04 2:58 PM, in article ,
> "Martin Gregorie" > wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 11:40:06 +1200, Bruce Hoult >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> In article >,
> >> Stewart Kissel > wrote:
> >>
> >>> http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief2.asp?ev_id=20040402X00417&ntsbno=CH
> >>> I04CA090&akey=1
> >>
> >> That looks more like: "if the manufacturer issues an AD [1], you'd
> >> probably better do it, whether you legally have to or not".
> >>
> >> -- Bruce
> >>
> >> [1] in this case, installing a locking device onto L'Hotellier
> >> connectors.
> >
> > This is the subject of a BGA AD in 1993 for the ASW-20, so I don't see
> > where you get the "manufacturer AD" bit from, even though it does
> > appear in ASW-20 TN-17 on extending the service life beyond 3000
> > hours.
> >
> > As the AD in question refers to the requirement for a locking pin in
> > the Hotellier, I'm a bit gobsmacked that these couplings could ever
> > have been used without a locking pin or shroud: there's no way you
> > could inspect the check hole after assembly (other than poking
> > something through it) on wing control circuits in the ASW-20 and other
> > gliders. Admittedly you can see the check hole for the elevator, but
> > that's the only one that is easy to check by inspection on a '20.
> >
> > --
> > martin@ : Martin Gregorie
> > gregorie : Harlow, UK
> > demon :
> > co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
> > uk :
> >
>

[Jeff Dorwart]

OK, As far as AD's are concerned (in the US), An AD
does not apply to an aircraft with an experimental
airwothiness certificate (but is highly recommended),
unless that aircraft previously held a standard certificate.
The ASW-20 does not have a standard certificate so
there is no requirement to comply with this AD. HOWEVER
every IA has access to the FAA database (and you do
too at www.airweb.faa.gov). Is is a pretty simple
process to do a search for L'Hotlier and come up with
the ad I have copied an excerpt from below. Although the Owner/Operator has the perogative
to disreguard this AD as non-applicable, I as an A&P with an IA would be unwilling to sign an annual
without adding a dollar or two worth of safety pins. This being said, I don't recall in 26 years of
gliding any gliders with these connectors not being
equipped with safety pins (or Uerling sleeves more
recently) These devices do not solve the problem of inadequate
assembly or lack of positive control checks.'This AD applies to the L'Hotellier ball and swivel
joint quick connectors. This AD only applies to U.S.type-certifica
ted gliders and sailplanes that have the affected connectors
installed. If the L'Hotellier connectors are not installed
on a glider or sailplane, no action is required by
the owner/operator. This AD does not apply to gliders
and sailplanes that do not have a U.S. type certificate
(i.e., experimental category); however, the FAA strongly
recommends compliance with the intent of this AD for
airplanes involved in U.S. operation where a U.S. type
certificate is not necessary.'

[Tom Seim]

>
> 1. So, assuming there was insurance, would this accident be covered? Or
> would the insurer say:
>
> a) you didn't put it together correctly; bad dog, no coverage
> b) you didn't comply with the AD; bad dog, no coverage
> c) both
>

[Tom Seim]

>
> 1. So, assuming there was insurance, would this accident be covered? Or
> would the insurer say:
>
> a) you didn't put it together correctly; bad dog, no coverage
> b) you didn't comply with the AD; bad dog, no coverage
> c) both
>

You clearly don't know how insurance companies work. They will check
that the required parts of the policy have been complied with (annual
inspection, BFR, etc.). There is nothing in the policy (at least the
ones I have had) that require compliance with all ADs (the annual
inspection is supposed to take care of this). And there is also
nothing in the policy that negates coverage if miss an assembly step.
Read your policy: it is a contract that can't be added to (or
subtracted from) if and when there is a claim.

Tom Seim
Richland, WA

[Jeff Dorwart]

There is no legal requirement to comply with the AD.
The insurance company may say that the owner/operator
did not practice due diligence by not complying with
the manufacturers recomendation but. I recall a PIK-20
that was destroyed by failure to connect the elevator
a number of years back. It was totaled and they replaced
it. Any insurance guys out there have an opinion on
this?

[Jim Vincent]

In my experience, many people do not cover all the critical elements of doing a
crontrol check. I recently gave a presentation on positive control checks,
critical assembly checks, preflight checks and other checks. If you're
interested, here it is:

http://www.mymedtrans.com/personal.htm

You might find elements here that might help you.


Jim Vincent
CFIG
N483SZ

[Stewart Kissel]

Gee,

Since my(our) premiums pay for these claims, when
does the insurance company not have to pay?

[Eric Greenwell]

Stewart Kissel wrote:
> Gee,
>
> Since my(our) premiums pay for these claims, when
> does the insurance company not have to pay?

Most of us buy insurance to protect us from accidents, including ones we
contribute to, and the policies I've bought (generally from the SSA
insurer) do this.

The insurance company lays out the things they will not pay for in the
policy; generally, this would include things like fraud, a non-covered
pilot flying the glider, non-payment of the premium, deliberate damage
by the policy holder, and probably things like acts of war and perhaps
radioactive contamination, but it's been a while since I studied my policy.

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[F.L. Whiteley]

"ken ward" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Bruce Hoult > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Stewart Kissel > wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief2.asp?ev_id=20040402X00417&ntsbno=CH
> > > I04CA090&akey=1
> >
> > That looks more like: "if the manufacturer issues an AD [1], you'd
> > probably better do it, whether you legally have to or not".
> >
> > -- Bruce
> >
> > [1] in this case, installing a locking device onto L'Hotellier
> > connectors.
>
> I'm really happy the pilot escaped death. This has been fatal in other
> accidents.
>
> 1. So, assuming there was insurance, would this accident be covered? Or
> would the insurer say:
>
> a) you didn't put it together correctly; bad dog, no coverage
> b) you didn't comply with the AD; bad dog, no coverage
> c) both
>
> 2. Will the pilot then say, hey, what about my annual condition
> inspection? How come the annual was signed off if the ship didn't
> comply with an AD?
>
> 3. Then what happens when the mechanic says, gosh, the service I
> contract with for AD updates didn't show this AD, so I didn't know to
> look for it and would have not signed it off it had I known?
>
> Inquiring minds want to know!

My understanding is that generally speaking the assumption is that all
accidents are preventable. Insurance is protection against negligence, not
acts of God, therefore someone's insurance is likely in effect and will be
sorted out once the cause is determined or blame assigned and this could
happen in the courts among insurance carriers. Of course, once found
negligent, you, as any part of the equation, may have trouble securing
future coverage at reasonable rates. However, if your glider is damaged,
then repaired, your current policy should remain in effect through it's
term. If it's destroyed, then you'll need a new policy for the replacement
glider.

Frank Whiteley

[Janos Bauer]

Bullwinkle wrote:

> The absolute most amazing thing: He walked the -20 back to the launch point,
> Inspected it for damage (found none), hooked up the elevator, and promptly
> took off. I'd have been shaking for a week after a near miss like that, not
> have taken off within 15 minutes.

I can't believe it! No one asked him to sit down a bit and think about
what he made? The towpilot also could be killed so I think this action
should be investigated a bit more than this...

/Janos

[Andrew Warbrick]

At 21:06 04 April 2004, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 11:40:06 +1200, Bruce Hoult
>wrote:
>
>>In article ,
>> Stewart Kissel wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief2.asp?ev_id=20040402X00417&ntsbno=C
>>>>H
>>> I04CA090&akey=1
>>
>>That looks more like: 'if the manufacturer issues an
>>AD [1], you'd
>>probably better do it, whether you legally have to
>>or not'.
>>
>>-- Bruce
>>
>>[1] in this case, installing a locking device onto
>>L'Hotellier
>>connectors.
>
>This is the subject of a BGA AD in 1993 for the ASW-20,
>so I don't see
>where you get the 'manufacturer AD' bit from, even
>though it does
>appear in ASW-20 TN-17 on extending the service life
>beyond 3000
>hours.
>
>As the AD in question refers to the requirement for
>a locking pin in
>the Hotellier, I'm a bit gobsmacked that these couplings
>could ever
>have been used without a locking pin or shroud: there's
>no way you
>could inspect the check hole after assembly (other
>than poking
>something through it) on wing control circuits in the
>ASW-20 and other
>gliders. Admittedly you can see the check hole for
>the elevator, but
>that's the only one that is easy to check by inspection
>on a '20.
>
>--
>martin@ : Martin Gregorie
>gregorie : Harlow, UK
>demon :
>co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
>uk :
>
>
Martin,

You can see some of the check holes through the hatch
relatively easily (the airbrake ones as I recall).
I was always under the impression that the requirement
for the pin was because the spring loaded wedge could
get gunged up with old greasy crud to the point where
the spring would not push the wedge (or the spring
could break through fatigue and the wedge could work
loose). I always felt safest if, having fitted the
pin, I pushed the wedge up against the pin and gently
tried to pull the L'Hotelier off the ball (as a check
against the cup/wedge being worn enough to detach).

[Martin Gregorie]

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 15:46:35 -0600, Bullwinkle >
wrote:

>I saw this exact thing happen at Stennis field, Bay St Louis, MS, in the
>early 80's. The pilot was the best at the field, at least he was the only
>one who flew in competitions. He and his wife both flew ASW-20's.
>
>He assembled one day, began his aerotow, nose went up like he was on a
>winch/auto tow, and he released at perhaps 40 or 50 feet.
>
>His wife's back was turned, as she gathered dolly, etc that needed to be
>stowed. She missed the whole thing. I was sure I was watching a low level
>stall/spin happening before my eyes.
>
>Then the nose came down, then back up again, then down again, and at the
>bottom of one of these oscillations his wheel touched down, he dumped the
>flaps and he got on the brakes and stayed down. Stopped a couple of feet
>from the airport fence.
>
>Turns out his elevator hadn't been hooked up, or had popped off between
>assembly and tow. He claimed that he had been able to control pitch with the
>flaps, but I (personal opinion, no data to back this up) think he just got
>incredibly lucky.
>
That shows he had read and remembered what's in the POH, which
explicitly says that an ASW-20 can be controlled to in pitch by the
flaps if the elevator control circuit jams and that this control
should be enough to make egress easier or even avoidable.

>The best news: no damage to aircraft or pilot.
>
I'm happy to hear that.


--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

[Martin Gregorie]

On 5 Apr 2004 08:35:48 GMT, Andrew Warbrick
> wrote:

>You can see some of the check holes through the hatch
>relatively easily (the airbrake ones as I recall).
>
Those are the only ones that offer a side view: the flaps and aileron
connections show their topsides to the hatch - hence my comment, as
you'd really need a light and mirror to do the visual check.

>I was always under the impression that the requirement
>for the pin was because the spring loaded wedge could
>get gunged up with old greasy crud to the point where
>the spring would not push the wedge (or the spring
>could break through fatigue and the wedge could work
>loose). I always felt safest if, having fitted the
>pin, I pushed the wedge up against the pin and gently
>tried to pull the L'Hotelier off the ball (as a check
>against the cup/wedge being worn enough to detach).
>
My '20 has spring locking shrouds (I never can remember their correct
name) on all Hotelliers except the elevator, which has a pin. Like
you, I do a rattle test on the Hotelliers after assembly and before
doing positives: checking for wear is a good point, but I use the test
mainly as a check that all the springs are holding things in place.

--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

[Mike Lindsay]

In article >, Jim Vincent
> writes
>In my experience, many people do not cover all the critical elements of doing a
>crontrol check.
Or spelling checks, come to that. :)
--
Mike Lindsay

[Andreas Maurer]

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 10:06:28 +0200, Janos Bauer
> wrote:


> I can't believe it! No one asked him to sit down a bit and think about
>what he made? The towpilot also could be killed so I think this action
>should be investigated a bit more than this...

I guess he got the message...


Bye
Andreas

[Mark James Boyd]

What is more surprising is that the towpilot
let him hook up again. I sure wouldn't tow him again until
I had at least a long talk and a day later. I wonder
if the tuggie even knew there had been a problem?

Janos Bauer > wrote:
>Bullwinkle wrote:
>
>> The absolute most amazing thing: He walked the -20 back to the launch point,
>> Inspected it for damage (found none), hooked up the elevator, and promptly
>> took off. I'd have been shaking for a week after a near miss like that, not
>> have taken off within 15 minutes.
>
> I can't believe it! No one asked him to sit down a bit and think about
>what he made? The towpilot also could be killed so I think this action
>should be investigated a bit more than this...
>
>/Janos


--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Tom Seim > wrote:
>>
>> 1. So, assuming there was insurance, would this accident be covered? Or
>> would the insurer say:
>>
>> a) you didn't put it together correctly; bad dog, no coverage
>> b) you didn't comply with the AD; bad dog, no coverage
>> c) both
>>

Well, in the US, many states say that if ANY aircraft maintenance
was not done as required, coverage is null. 43.5 and 43.9
require logging the assembly before return to service (flight).
If he logged it, but did the assembly incorrectly, I'd suspect
he'd be fine. If he didn't log it, then it is illegal
maintenance, and the insurer could have a case against payment.

I am NOT talking about the AD here. Just the assembly.
AOPA magazine had a good article on insurance and maint.
last month. It seems an aircraft was lacking an AD compliance
that had nothing to do with the fuel starvation that caused the
accident, but the insurer got out of paying because the
aircraft was generally not airworthy due to the not recorded
as done AD. I suppose an insurer could say that assembly
was "required maint" before flight, but since it was not logged,
the aircraft was not airworthy.

That's my take on it anyway...fear not the FAA, better to
focus on how to keep your insurance valid...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Mark James Boyd]

I've gone back and forth on this. I've been a big
proponent of the assembly check, and thought the PCC was redundant.
Recently, however, during a PCC a bellcrank broke and
this was caused by the pressure exerted by the "helper."
Nice to have this happen on the ground, and I can't
think of how this could have been detected without
a PCC. So now I think a PCC is useful too...

Good article Jim...it's great to see your insights...

In article >,
Jim Vincent > wrote:
>In my experience, many people do not cover all the critical elements of doing a
>crontrol check. I recently gave a presentation on positive control checks,
>critical assembly checks, preflight checks and other checks. If you're
>interested, here it is:
>
>http://www.mymedtrans.com/personal.htm
>
>You might find elements here that might help you.
>
>
>Jim Vincent
>CFIG
>N483SZ



--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Eric Greenwell]

Mark James Boyd wrote:
> I've gone back and forth on this. I've been a big
> proponent of the assembly check, and thought the PCC was redundant.
> Recently, however, during a PCC a bellcrank broke and
> this was caused by the pressure exerted by the "helper."
> Nice to have this happen on the ground, and I can't
> think of how this could have been detected without
> a PCC. So now I think a PCC is useful too...

WHat aircraft was this, which bellcrank, and how was the helper exerting
pressure? Or was he simply holding the surface steady while the pilot
applied the pressure? What, exactly, broke (bellcrank, mounting of the
bellcrank, a bearing), and why did it fail?
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Mark James Boyd]

AOPA pilot Feb 2004, page 124, article by John S. Yodice.
"It excluded coverage 'if the airworthiness certificate
of the aircraft was not in full force and effect'..."

Is the certificate ok if the required AD's have not been complied
with? NO. Some AD's are 100 hour AD's, and occur more
frequently than the annual. Of course this isn't talking about
this particular accident, if the AD's were not "required."

Is the airworthiness OK if the aircraft was disassembled,
and then flown without logging reassembly and
43.5 "approval for return to service?" If I was an insurer, depending
on the size of the claim, I might argue it was unairworthy.

This is all just my opinion. I recommend reading the
AOPA article, and then 43.5 and 43.9, and then judging for yourself.

In article >,
Tom Seim > wrote:
>>
>> 1. So, assuming there was insurance, would this accident be covered? Or
>> would the insurer say:
>>
>> a) you didn't put it together correctly; bad dog, no coverage
>> b) you didn't comply with the AD; bad dog, no coverage
>> c) both
>>
>
>You clearly don't know how insurance companies work. They will check
>that the required parts of the policy have been complied with (annual
>inspection, BFR, etc.). There is nothing in the policy (at least the
>ones I have had) that require compliance with all ADs (the annual
>inspection is supposed to take care of this). And there is also
>nothing in the policy that negates coverage if miss an assembly step.
>Read your policy: it is a contract that can't be added to (or
>subtracted from) if and when there is a claim.
>
>Tom Seim
>Richland, WA


--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Herbert Kilian]

Jim,

Very good and complete presentation, I agree with all you are saying.
Interesting that you recommend a practice that I rarely see in this
country - in fact when rigging at a contest site I feel like my wife
and I are the only ones doing it right:
Assistant SITS in cockpit, PIC is walking around the plane
moving/holding control surfaces giving instructions to the assistant.
The normal picture I observe is that the pilot is in the glider,
parachute and harness on and ready to go and some bystander is told to
hold onto the control surface while the pilot vigorously shakes the
stick or whatever. Rudder is never subject to being tested. Even
worse is the situation when the pilot stands outside the cockpit
rattling the stick while some poor schmock tries to keep the aileron
or elevator from banging against the stops. All you instructors out
there, this is very bad practice and someone must have been teaching
it to the US glider population.

Herb, J7

(Jim Vincent) wrote in message >...
> In my experience, many people do not cover all the critical elements of doing a
> crontrol check. I recently gave a presentation on positive control checks,
> critical assembly checks, preflight checks and other checks. If you're
> interested, here it is:
>
> http://www.mymedtrans.com/personal.htm
>
> You might find elements here that might help you.
>
>
> Jim Vincent
> CFIG
> N483SZ
>

[Bullwinkle]

Yes, the towpilot knew. He was doing a bit of shaking himself, having just
nearly had his nose driven into the ground. Yet, he, too, drove on that day.

As I remember it (this was over 20 years ago) the towpilot made a pattern,
landed, towed a couple of other gliders, and then the -20 driver was ready
to go again.

Janos and Mark raise an interesting point, though: this was a highly thought
of pilot, the only one who regularly entered competitions. He went cross
country just about every time he towed, when the rest of us were beating the
towplane back to the ground. Thus, he was widely perceived as the best pilot
on the site. Who would have been in a position to sit him down and have the
"come to Jesus" talk he so richly deserved? Thinking back on it, the
"culture" at that gliderport just wouldn't have supported it.

I wonder how many other places have hot pilots, who are untouchable because
of their exalted status as hot sticks? I'm sure they're immune from making
basic errors due to their overall excellence, but who among us would dare to
counsel Moffatt, Striedieck, Payne, or Knauff if we saw them doing stupid
things at our field? Or harder still, at their home fields? (Again, I'm sure
none of the legends mentioned would ever deserve counseling, just using
their exalted names as examples: no offense intended or implied.)

Food for thought.

On 4/5/04 2:19 PM, in article 4071b12e$1@darkstar, "Mark James Boyd"
> wrote:

> What is more surprising is that the towpilot
> let him hook up again. I sure wouldn't tow him again until
> I had at least a long talk and a day later. I wonder
> if the tuggie even knew there had been a problem?
>
> Janos Bauer > wrote:
>> Bullwinkle wrote:
>>
>>> The absolute most amazing thing: He walked the -20 back to the launch point,
>>> Inspected it for damage (found none), hooked up the elevator, and promptly
>>> took off. I'd have been shaking for a week after a near miss like that, not
>>> have taken off within 15 minutes.
>>
>> I can't believe it! No one asked him to sit down a bit and think about
>> what he made? The towpilot also could be killed so I think this action
>> should be investigated a bit more than this...
>>
>> /Janos
>
>
> --
>
> ------------+
> Mark Boyd
> Avenal, California, USA

[Eric Greenwell]

Bullwinkle wrote:
> Yes, the towpilot knew. He was doing a bit of shaking himself, having just
> nearly had his nose driven into the ground. Yet, he, too, drove on that day.
>
> As I remember it (this was over 20 years ago) the towpilot made a pattern,
> landed, towed a couple of other gliders, and then the -20 driver was ready
> to go again.
>
> Janos and Mark raise an interesting point, though: this was a highly thought
> of pilot, the only one who regularly entered competitions. He went cross
> country just about every time he towed, when the rest of us were beating the
> towplane back to the ground. Thus, he was widely perceived as the best pilot
> on the site. Who would have been in a position to sit him down and have the
> "come to Jesus" talk he so richly deserved?

What talk did he deserve? If he repeated the bad procedures the next
week, yes, but what made you think he hadn't learned a valuable lesson?
Perhaps he'd already determined the cause and the solution by the time
he'd pushed the glider back to the launch point. What makes you think he
would repeat that mistake?

Not everyone is rattled by a mistake, even a potentially lethal one.
Some can analyze it, correct it, and move on. I've seen good pilots do
this in minutes, not days.

> Thinking back on it, the
> "culture" at that gliderport just wouldn't have supported it.

A way to start might have been "Wow, that was close! How are you going
to avoid that in the future?" Perhaps the club missed an opportunity to
see how mistakes should be handled, and possibly a good pilot didn't get
some questioning he needed.

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Michael McNulty]

"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:4071b778$1@darkstar...
> AOPA pilot Feb 2004, page 124, article by John S. Yodice.

> Is the airworthiness OK if the aircraft was disassembled,
> and then flown without logging reassembly and
> 43.5 "approval for return to service?" If I was an insurer, depending
> on the size of the claim, I might argue it was unairworthy.
>

This has been hashed out over and over again. There is NO requirement to
log normal glider assembly and disassembly. NONE. Look it up. This is NOT
considered a maintenance action but a part of normal operations. The FAA,
somewhere, even has made an official statement to exactly this effect.

Please stop inventing "requirements" for others to follow.



> ------------+
> Mark Boyd
> Avenal, California, USA

[ADP]

Mark seems to have his own unique interpretations of the CFRs (FARs).
Please don't confuse him with facts!

;0)

Allan


"Michael McNulty" > wrote in message
news:75occ.26961$zh.26113@fed1read07...
>
> "Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
> news:4071b778$1@darkstar...
>> AOPA pilot Feb 2004, page 124, article by John S. Yodice.
>
>> Is the airworthiness OK if the aircraft was disassembled,
>> and then flown without logging reassembly and
>> 43.5 "approval for return to service?" If I was an insurer, depending
>> on the size of the claim, I might argue it was unairworthy.
>>
>
> This has been hashed out over and over again. There is NO requirement to
> log normal glider assembly and disassembly. NONE. Look it up. This is
> NOT
> considered a maintenance action but a part of normal operations. The FAA,
> somewhere, even has made an official statement to exactly this effect.
>
> Please stop inventing "requirements" for others to follow.
>

[Tom Seim]

Stewart Kissel > wrote in message >...
> Gee,
>
> Since my(our) premiums pay for these claims, when
> does the insurance company not have to pay?

When you haven't done what you are supposed to: current BFR and annual
inspection.

IMPORTANT:

The A/P who signs off on the annual MUST be registered and current.
Most of us assume that the guy in the shop has done all of the
necessary paperwork, but when was the last time you actually checked
the guy's credentials? Probably never. Well, if he is faking it your
insurance company can (and probably will) deny the claim. You can
check his credentials with the FAA. The same thing goes for the CFIG
who signs off on your BFR.
If you think that you can claim ignorance or "acting in good faith",
well you can forget it. This falls into you either comply or you
don't. Period. Of course, you can always gamble that your insurance
company won't catch it. In this case: GOOD LUCK! You can always sue
the offending A/P or instructor, but the odds on this tactic are poor
at best.

Tom Seim
Richland, WA

[Mark James Boyd]

Was a 2-33. Heard about it secondhand (or I'd give more
detail). I've seen service difficulty reports in Cezznas,
dunno if there are such things for gliders, maybe the
mechanic who fixes it will give official details...I'll
ask...


In article >,
Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>> I've gone back and forth on this. I've been a big
>> proponent of the assembly check, and thought the PCC was redundant.
>> Recently, however, during a PCC a bellcrank broke and
>> this was caused by the pressure exerted by the "helper."
>> Nice to have this happen on the ground, and I can't
>> think of how this could have been detected without
>> a PCC. So now I think a PCC is useful too...
>
>WHat aircraft was this, which bellcrank, and how was the helper exerting
>pressure? Or was he simply holding the surface steady while the pilot
>applied the pressure? What, exactly, broke (bellcrank, mounting of the
>bellcrank, a bearing), and why did it fail?
>--
>-----
>change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
>Eric Greenwell
>Washington State
>USA
>


--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Mark James Boyd]

From what I now find out, Michael is absolutely correct.
In the 80's this was amended so gliders didn't have
to record the assembly/disassembly in a logbook.

www.ssa.org/ListGovtNewsDetail.asp?id=15

I thought they did, as we've done so locally (I've
seen the notations in our logs). Come to find out this isn't
required (due to the amendment). Funny, I was asked about
this on my CFIG checkride from the FAA guy, and
I said log it, and he didn't disagree. It seems
this means it's ok to log it, but it isn't required.

If I had a quarter for every time I'm spectacularly wrong...

In article <75occ.26961$zh.26113@fed1read07>,
Michael McNulty > wrote:
>
>"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
>news:4071b778$1@darkstar...
>> AOPA pilot Feb 2004, page 124, article by John S. Yodice.
>
>> Is the airworthiness OK if the aircraft was disassembled,
>> and then flown without logging reassembly and
>> 43.5 "approval for return to service?" If I was an insurer, depending
>> on the size of the claim, I might argue it was unairworthy.
>>
>
>This has been hashed out over and over again. There is NO requirement to
>log normal glider assembly and disassembly. NONE. Look it up. This is NOT
>considered a maintenance action but a part of normal operations. The FAA,
>somewhere, even has made an official statement to exactly this effect.
>
>Please stop inventing "requirements" for others to follow.

Michael, thanks for being polite enough to say please!
Quite polite and a lot of restraint here on RAS...

>
>
>
>> ------------+
>> Mark Boyd
>> Avenal, California, USA
>
>


--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[ADP]

Interesting theory.

ac·ci·dent
n
1. chance: the way things happen without any planning, apparent cause, or
deliberate intent

act of God

n
event beyond human control: a sudden uncontrollable event produced by
natural forces, for example, an earthquake or a tornado

neg·li·gence
n
1. condition of being negligent: the condition or quality of being
negligent
2. law civil wrong causing injury or harm: a civil wrong (tort) causing
injury or harm to another person or to property as the result
of doing something or failing to provide a proper or reasonable level of
care. See also contributory negligence

neg·li·gent
adj
1. habitually careless: habitually careless or irresponsible
2. law guilty of negligence: guilty of failing to provide a proper or
reasonable level of care


By definition, accident implies "act of God". And, by definition, an act of
God can not be forecast and may not be preventable.
Certainly, if your glider is tied down properly and gets blown away by a
windstorm, that is the purpose of
insurance - to make one whole. Conversely, if your aircraft is not tied
down properly and gets blown away by a windstorm,
then insurance should, quite properly, not be paid. (Or in the case of
contributory negligence, should be paid only in proportion to the
percentage equaling the effect of the act of God.)

Negligence, on the other hand, implies inevitability. One who is negligent
contributes to one's ultimate downfall.

What is commonly referred to as an accident, i.e., taking off without your
controls hooked up properly, is more
correctly an act of negligence.

None of this, of course, is to be confused with the phrase, "there but for
the grace of God, go I."

I think I'll take care or not being negligent and let my insurance take care
of acts of God.

Allan



"> My understanding is that generally speaking the assumption is that all
> accidents are preventable. Insurance is protection against negligence,
> not
> acts of God, therefore someone's insurance is likely in effect and will be
> sorted out once the cause is determined or blame assigned and this could
> happen in the courts among insurance carriers. Of course, once found
> negligent, you, as any part of the equation, may have trouble securing
> future coverage at reasonable rates. However, if your glider is damaged,
> then repaired, your current policy should remain in effect through it's
> term. If it's destroyed, then you'll need a new policy for the
> replacement
> glider.
>
> Frank Whiteley

[Andy Henderson]

Well!

He's lucky to get away with that!

Yes, a talk is required. Not a bollocking, but a sensible talk as to
the the cause and solution of the problem. Let's not forget the tug
pilot and others on the ground could have been killed. Therefore the
matter can not just be left to the "competition" pilot.
I wonder what solution he came up with in the few minutes between
launches. The only acceptable one would have been to fit safety pin's
to all L'Hotellier fitting's.

Positive checks would not always have found the problem which causesd
this accident.

"The safety pin or wire prevents the locking plate from backing out
and thus allowing the socket to inadvertently disengage from its
corresponding ball".

Do some of you still fly without safety pins?

If you do don't you are risking your own and other's lives.

Lets hope we all have a safe season.

Happy flying!

Regards

Andy




Eric Greenwell > wrote in message >...
> Bullwinkle wrote:
> > Yes, the towpilot knew. He was doing a bit of shaking himself, having just
> > nearly had his nose driven into the ground. Yet, he, too, drove on that day.
> >
> > As I remember it (this was over 20 years ago) the towpilot made a pattern,
> > landed, towed a couple of other gliders, and then the -20 driver was ready
> > to go again.
> >
> > Janos and Mark raise an interesting point, though: this was a highly thought
> > of pilot, the only one who regularly entered competitions. He went cross
> > country just about every time he towed, when the rest of us were beating the
> > towplane back to the ground. Thus, he was widely perceived as the best pilot
> > on the site. Who would have been in a position to sit him down and have the
> > "come to Jesus" talk he so richly deserved?
>
> What talk did he deserve? If he repeated the bad procedures the next
> week, yes, but what made you think he hadn't learned a valuable lesson?
> Perhaps he'd already determined the cause and the solution by the time
> he'd pushed the glider back to the launch point. What makes you think he
> would repeat that mistake?
>
> Not everyone is rattled by a mistake, even a potentially lethal one.
> Some can analyze it, correct it, and move on. I've seen good pilots do
> this in minutes, not days.
>
> > Thinking back on it, the
> > "culture" at that gliderport just wouldn't have supported it.
>
> A way to start might have been "Wow, that was close! How are you going
> to avoid that in the future?" Perhaps the club missed an opportunity to
> see how mistakes should be handled, and possibly a good pilot didn't get
> some questioning he needed.

[Ramy Yanetz]

What's wrong with the standard procedure where the pilots move the stick and
the assistance hold the control surfaces?? Often the assistance is not a
pilot, so putting him in a cockpit expecting him to operate stick and rudder
is too much. My wife wouldn't even reach the rudder pedals. I much rather
move the stick and rudder myself while giving the assistance simple
instructions. All the assistance needs to do is apply pressure in the right
direction while the pilot moves the stick to full deflection each direction.
By moving the stick myself I can ensure it feels right and have a full
travel.
Don't get me wrong, I am strongly advocating PCC and never skip it, but I
can't think of any reason why on earth I would trust a bystander to seat in
my cockpit, and do the pilots job.

Ramy

"Herbert Kilian" > wrote in message
...
> Jim,
>
> Very good and complete presentation, I agree with all you are saying.
> Interesting that you recommend a practice that I rarely see in this
> country - in fact when rigging at a contest site I feel like my wife
> and I are the only ones doing it right:
> Assistant SITS in cockpit, PIC is walking around the plane
> moving/holding control surfaces giving instructions to the assistant.
> The normal picture I observe is that the pilot is in the glider,
> parachute and harness on and ready to go and some bystander is told to
> hold onto the control surface while the pilot vigorously shakes the
> stick or whatever. Rudder is never subject to being tested. Even
> worse is the situation when the pilot stands outside the cockpit
> rattling the stick while some poor schmock tries to keep the aileron
> or elevator from banging against the stops. All you instructors out
> there, this is very bad practice and someone must have been teaching
> it to the US glider population.
>
> Herb, J7
>
> (Jim Vincent) wrote in message
>...
> > In my experience, many people do not cover all the critical elements of
doing a
> > crontrol check. I recently gave a presentation on positive control
checks,
> > critical assembly checks, preflight checks and other checks. If you're
> > interested, here it is:
> >
> > http://www.mymedtrans.com/personal.htm
> >
> > You might find elements here that might help you.
> >
> >
> > Jim Vincent
> > CFIG
> > N483SZ
> >

[Janos Bauer]

I think there shouldn't be idols at the airports. Simple we can't
afford it. We are just simple people with all those mistakes:)
Not long ago I moved to another club partly because there were such
untouchable persons in the previous club. They haven't even flow xc for
years but they was known as hot pilots just because they made serious xc
flights several years ago. This attitude also scare away several
newcomers...
Regards,

/Janos

Bullwinkle wrote:
>
> Yes, the towpilot knew. He was doing a bit of shaking himself, having just
> nearly had his nose driven into the ground. Yet, he, too, drove on that day.
>
> As I remember it (this was over 20 years ago) the towpilot made a pattern,
> landed, towed a couple of other gliders, and then the -20 driver was ready
> to go again.
>
> Janos and Mark raise an interesting point, though: this was a highly thought
> of pilot, the only one who regularly entered competitions. He went cross
> country just about every time he towed, when the rest of us were beating the
> towplane back to the ground. Thus, he was widely perceived as the best pilot
> on the site. Who would have been in a position to sit him down and have the
> "come to Jesus" talk he so richly deserved? Thinking back on it, the
> "culture" at that gliderport just wouldn't have supported it.
>
> I wonder how many other places have hot pilots, who are untouchable because
> of their exalted status as hot sticks? I'm sure they're immune from making
> basic errors due to their overall excellence, but who among us would dare to
> counsel Moffatt, Striedieck, Payne, or Knauff if we saw them doing stupid
> things at our field? Or harder still, at their home fields? (Again, I'm sure
> none of the legends mentioned would ever deserve counseling, just using
> their exalted names as examples: no offense intended or implied.)
>
> Food for thought.
>
> On 4/5/04 2:19 PM, in article 4071b12e$1@darkstar, "Mark James Boyd"
> > wrote:
>
> > What is more surprising is that the towpilot
> > let him hook up again. I sure wouldn't tow him again until
> > I had at least a long talk and a day later. I wonder
> > if the tuggie even knew there had been a problem?
> >
> > Janos Bauer > wrote:
> >> Bullwinkle wrote:
> >>
> >>> The absolute most amazing thing: He walked the -20 back to the launch point,
> >>> Inspected it for damage (found none), hooked up the elevator, and promptly
> >>> took off. I'd have been shaking for a week after a near miss like that, not
> >>> have taken off within 15 minutes.
> >>
> >> I can't believe it! No one asked him to sit down a bit and think about
> >> what he made? The towpilot also could be killed so I think this action
> >> should be investigated a bit more than this...
> >>
> >> /Janos
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > ------------+
> > Mark Boyd
> > Avenal, California, USA

[Andrew Warbrick]

At 08:42 06 April 2004, Andy Henderson wrote:
>Well!
>
>He's lucky to get away with that!
>
>Yes, a talk is required. Not a bollocking, but a sensible
>talk as to
>the the cause and solution of the problem. Let's not
>forget the tug
>pilot and others on the ground could have been killed.
>Therefore the
>matter can not just be left to the 'competition' pilot.
>I wonder what solution he came up with in the few minutes
>between
>launches. The only acceptable one would have been to
>fit safety pin's
>to all L'Hotellier fitting's.
>
>Positive checks would not always have found the problem
>which causesd
>this accident.
>
> 'The safety pin or wire prevents the locking plate
>from backing out
>and thus allowing the socket to inadvertently disengage
>from its
>corresponding ball'.
>
>Do some of you still fly without safety pins?
>
>If you do don't you are risking your own and other's
>lives.
>
>Lets hope we all have a safe season.
>
>Happy flying!
>
>Regards
>
>Andy
>
The spring prevents the locking plate backing out and
thus allowing the socket to inadvertently disengage
from its corresponding ball.

The pin prevents three things.
1. If the mechanism is bunged up with crud the spring
may not be strong enough to move the locking plate
so the socket may be only over the ball, not locked
(should be possible to verify this by trying to pull
the socket off the ball).
2. The spring may be broken through fatigue allowing
the locking plate to back out (you should be able to
feel this by verifying that the spring pushes the locking
plate to the end of its travel when released).
3. If the socket is not properly engaged the locking
plate will not be fully home and the hole will not
be visible, fitting a pin cures this problem but so
does a visual inspection of the holes.

As I understand it, the AD was issued in response to
an incident where the spring was either broken or insufficiently
strong to move the locking plate in a gunged up connector.

I never flew my 20 without pins, but then I fly in
a country where the airworthiness organisation issued
an AD requiring pins to be fitted. If I were in a country
where this was not mandatory then I would consider
flying without pins as long as I had verified that
the locking plate was moving freely, the spring returned
it to the end of its travel and felt strong enough,
that the hole in the locking plate was clearly visible
with the L'Hotelier fitted and that the socket would
not pull off the ball and the pin on the end of the
ball was proud of the slot in the socket (on the flap,
airbrake and elevator connections of the 20).

However, in the case under discussion, the fitting
of the pins was not a factor, the complete failure
to connect the elevator was the problem, having a pin
on a bit of string won't save you in this case.

It's also worth noting that a loose pin can be almost
as dangerous as a disconnected elevator. The pilot
I bought my share in the 20 from contemplated bailing
out on one occasion when the elevator safety pin worked
its way far enough out of the hole in the L'Hotelier
to foul on the structure of the fin and prevent full
elevator travel, fortunately with the application of
a bit of brute force the pin bent and he regained control.
You should make sure that the pin cannot work its way
out in this fashion.

Regards,

Andrew

[Andy Durbin]

Eric Greenwell > wrote in message
>
> WHat aircraft was this, which bellcrank, and how was the helper exerting
> pressure? Or was he simply holding the surface steady while the pilot
> applied the pressure? What, exactly, broke (bellcrank, mounting of the
> bellcrank, a bearing), and why did it fail?

I know of one case where an elevator push rod failed during a PCC
(Ventus) and another where an aileron circuit bell crank failed in
flight at the weld line. (G103Acro).


Andy

[Eric Greenwell]

ADP wrote:

> Interesting theory.
>
> ac·ci·dent
> n
> 1. chance: the way things happen without any planning, apparent cause, or
> deliberate intent
>
> act of God
>
> n
> event beyond human control: a sudden uncontrollable event produced by
> natural forces, for example, an earthquake or a tornado
>
> neg·li·gence
> n
> 1. condition of being negligent: the condition or quality of being
> negligent
> 2. law civil wrong causing injury or harm: a civil wrong (tort) causing
> injury or harm to another person or to property as the result
> of doing something or failing to provide a proper or reasonable level of
> care. See also contributory negligence
>
> neg·li·gent
> adj
> 1. habitually careless: habitually careless or irresponsible
> 2. law guilty of negligence: guilty of failing to provide a proper or
> reasonable level of care
>
>
> By definition, accident implies "act of God". And, by definition, an act of
> God can not be forecast and may not be preventable.
> Certainly, if your glider is tied down properly and gets blown away by a
> windstorm, that is the purpose of
> insurance - to make one whole. Conversely, if your aircraft is not tied
> down properly and gets blown away by a windstorm,
> then insurance should, quite properly, not be paid. (Or in the case of
> contributory negligence, should be paid only in proportion to the
> percentage equaling the effect of the act of God.)
>
> Negligence, on the other hand, implies inevitability. One who is negligent
> contributes to one's ultimate downfall.
>
> What is commonly referred to as an accident, i.e., taking off without your
> controls hooked up properly, is more
> correctly an act of negligence.
>
> None of this, of course, is to be confused with the phrase, "there but for
> the grace of God, go I."
>
> I think I'll take care or not being negligent and let my insurance take care
> of acts of God.

Interesting theory; nonetheless, your liability insurance will pay, even
if you are negligent. If we were never at fault, we wouldn't need it,
would we? Ditto for the typical hull coverage. Is it an act of God if
you drop and break your canopy while putting it on the glider? I don't
think so, but most policies cover that event.

The typical way the companies deal with "negligent" policy owners is to
raise their premiums or drop them entirely, not by trying to determine
the amount of "fault" in an accident.
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Al]

I lost a good friend to this 3 years ago.

He took off with his elevator disconnected in an ASW20A-L.
The aircraft ballooned on tow and he impacted the ground from around 100ft.

The sad part about all this is he had "a positive control check" from a
friend who to check the elevator just held the surface down feeling the push
up against the control by the disconnected rod did not lift the surface to
check the control pull against the pressure.

People learn how to do positive control checks properly!!
Always pin your hotellier's and double check the control integrity on any
aircraft using hoteliers. You never know when a control rod could be rattled
off by towing the aircraft to the launch point.

Al

"Bullwinkle" > wrote in message
...
> I saw this exact thing happen at Stennis field, Bay St Louis, MS, in the
> early 80's. The pilot was the best at the field, at least he was the only
> one who flew in competitions. He and his wife both flew ASW-20's.
>
> He assembled one day, began his aerotow, nose went up like he was on a
> winch/auto tow, and he released at perhaps 40 or 50 feet.
>
> His wife's back was turned, as she gathered dolly, etc that needed to be
> stowed. She missed the whole thing. I was sure I was watching a low level
> stall/spin happening before my eyes.
>
> Then the nose came down, then back up again, then down again, and at the
> bottom of one of these oscillations his wheel touched down, he dumped the
> flaps and he got on the brakes and stayed down. Stopped a couple of feet
> from the airport fence.
>
> Turns out his elevator hadn't been hooked up, or had popped off between
> assembly and tow. He claimed that he had been able to control pitch with
the
> flaps, but I (personal opinion, no data to back this up) think he just got
> incredibly lucky.
>
> The best news: no damage to aircraft or pilot.
>
> The absolute most amazing thing: He walked the -20 back to the launch
point,
> Inspected it for damage (found none), hooked up the elevator, and promptly
> took off. I'd have been shaking for a week after a near miss like that,
not
> have taken off within 15 minutes.
>
> Long way of saying that I agree: DO YOUR CONTROL CHECKS!
>
>
> On 4/4/04 2:58 PM, in article ,
> "Martin Gregorie" > wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 11:40:06 +1200, Bruce Hoult >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> In article >,
> >> Stewart Kissel > wrote:
> >>
> >>> http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief2.asp?ev_id=20040402X00417&ntsbno=CH
> >>> I04CA090&akey=1
> >>
> >> That looks more like: "if the manufacturer issues an AD [1], you'd
> >> probably better do it, whether you legally have to or not".
> >>
> >> -- Bruce
> >>
> >> [1] in this case, installing a locking device onto L'Hotellier
> >> connectors.
> >
> > This is the subject of a BGA AD in 1993 for the ASW-20, so I don't see
> > where you get the "manufacturer AD" bit from, even though it does
> > appear in ASW-20 TN-17 on extending the service life beyond 3000
> > hours.
> >
> > As the AD in question refers to the requirement for a locking pin in
> > the Hotellier, I'm a bit gobsmacked that these couplings could ever
> > have been used without a locking pin or shroud: there's no way you
> > could inspect the check hole after assembly (other than poking
> > something through it) on wing control circuits in the ASW-20 and other
> > gliders. Admittedly you can see the check hole for the elevator, but
> > that's the only one that is easy to check by inspection on a '20.
> >
> > --
> > martin@ : Martin Gregorie
> > gregorie : Harlow, UK
> > demon :
> > co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
> > uk :
> >
>

[Tom Seim]

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:<4071b3fc$1@darkstar>...
> In article >,
> Tom Seim > wrote:
> >>
> >> 1. So, assuming there was insurance, would this accident be covered? Or
> >> would the insurer say:
> >>
> >> a) you didn't put it together correctly; bad dog, no coverage
> >> b) you didn't comply with the AD; bad dog, no coverage
> >> c) both
> >>
>
> Well, in the US, many states say that if ANY aircraft maintenance
> was not done as required, coverage is null. 43.5 and 43.9
> require logging the assembly before return to service (flight).
> If he logged it, but did the assembly incorrectly, I'd suspect
> he'd be fine. If he didn't log it, then it is illegal
> maintenance, and the insurer could have a case against payment.
>
> I am NOT talking about the AD here. Just the assembly.
> AOPA magazine had a good article on insurance and maint.
> last month. It seems an aircraft was lacking an AD compliance
> that had nothing to do with the fuel starvation that caused the
> accident, but the insurer got out of paying because the
> aircraft was generally not airworthy due to the not recorded
> as done AD. I suppose an insurer could say that assembly
> was "required maint" before flight, but since it was not logged,
> the aircraft was not airworthy.

You better re-read that article. Coverage was denied because the A/C
in question was out of annual. There was a legal issue in that case
where the owner argued that the lack of a current annual was not
causal to the accident, therefore the insurance company should pay up.
It seems that some states allow this argument. The Supreme Court in
the state where this accident occurred (Nevada) had not ruled on this
one way or the other. The Court of Appeals concluded they probably
would have ruled for the insurance company and let the judgment for
the company stand. I guess a decision based on the odds is appropriate
for Nevada.

The point is, you agree to have a current annual completed and signed
off on your glider in exchange for coverage. Don't do this and you
don't have coverage. What is complicated about that? This is
distinctly different from the question from whether the A/C was
airworthy for that particular flight. I once attempted to launch with
my elevator disconnected. The flight was short and the landing wasn't
pretty. The glider clearly wasn't airworthy for that flight, but
coverage was not in question.

If you have any question about this issue don't argue with me, discuss
it with your insurance company!

Tom Seim
Richland, WA

[F.L. Whiteley]

"ADP" > wrote in message
...
> Interesting theory.
>
Not a theory. It was explained quite succinctly by Pat Costello at one of
the SSA Conventions using the example I've conveyed here.

> ac·ci·dent
> n
> 1. chance: the way things happen without any planning, apparent cause, or
> deliberate intent
>
> act of God
>
> n
> event beyond human control: a sudden uncontrollable event produced by
> natural forces, for example, an earthquake or a tornado
>
> neg·li·gence
> n
> 1. condition of being negligent: the condition or quality of being
> negligent
> 2. law civil wrong causing injury or harm: a civil wrong (tort) causing
> injury or harm to another person or to property as the result
> of doing something or failing to provide a proper or reasonable level of
> care. See also contributory negligence
>
> neg·li·gent
> adj
> 1. habitually careless: habitually careless or irresponsible
> 2. law guilty of negligence: guilty of failing to provide a proper or
> reasonable level of care
>
>
> By definition, accident implies "act of God". And, by definition, an act
of
> God can not be forecast and may not be preventable.
> Certainly, if your glider is tied down properly and gets blown away by a
> windstorm, that is the purpose of
> insurance - to make one whole. Conversely, if your aircraft is not tied
> down properly and gets blown away by a windstorm,
> then insurance should, quite properly, not be paid. (Or in the case of
> contributory negligence, should be paid only in proportion to the
> percentage equaling the effect of the act of God.)
>
> Negligence, on the other hand, implies inevitability. One who is
negligent
> contributes to one's ultimate downfall.
>
> What is commonly referred to as an accident, i.e., taking off without your
> controls hooked up properly, is more
> correctly an act of negligence.
>
Yep, and you are covered up to your policy limits for whatever damage you
cause and incur. You carry liability insurance to cover you against your
neglience, just like in your car. You carry hull insurance to protect you
from personal material loss.

> None of this, of course, is to be confused with the phrase, "there but for
> the grace of God, go I."
>
> I think I'll take care or not being negligent and let my insurance take
care
> of acts of God.
>
It may not. If your neighbor has no hull coverage, he may sue you in an
attempt to show you were somehow negligent and any other findings were in
error. That's what the court's determine and your insurance company will
defend you, as ut will be the agent that will be made to pay in the event a
judgement goes against you.

Frank

> Allan
>
>
>
> "> My understanding is that generally speaking the assumption is that all
> > accidents are preventable. Insurance is protection against negligence,
> > not
> > acts of God, therefore someone's insurance is likely in effect and will
be
> > sorted out once the cause is determined or blame assigned and this could
> > happen in the courts among insurance carriers. Of course, once found
> > negligent, you, as any part of the equation, may have trouble securing
> > future coverage at reasonable rates. However, if your glider is
damaged,
> > then repaired, your current policy should remain in effect through it's
> > term. If it's destroyed, then you'll need a new policy for the
> > replacement
> > glider.
> >
> > Frank Whiteley
>
>

[ADP]

Frank,

I was just tweaking you a bit with a play on words.

As usual, nothing is simple. My reason for having Hull insurance is to
spread the risk of damage
and get back into the air as soon as possible should something untoward
happen - regardless of
its genesis.

We have insurance with the hope that we will never need it. Seems
reasonable to me.

Allan

"F.L. Whiteley" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ADP" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Interesting theory.
>>
> Not a theory. It was explained quite succinctly by Pat Costello at one of
> the SSA Conventions using the example I've conveyed here.
>

[F.L. Whiteley]

Agreed, but it is good to know what events may be construed as negligence or
acts of God. There are a number of owner/operators that self-insure. If
you have deep pockets, it may pay off. It's a gamble for some entity either
way.

Frank

"ADP" > wrote in message
...
> Frank,
>
> I was just tweaking you a bit with a play on words.
>
> As usual, nothing is simple. My reason for having Hull insurance is to
> spread the risk of damage
> and get back into the air as soon as possible should something untoward
> happen - regardless of
> its genesis.
>
> We have insurance with the hope that we will never need it. Seems
> reasonable to me.
>
> Allan
>
> "F.L. Whiteley" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "ADP" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Interesting theory.
> >>
> > Not a theory. It was explained quite succinctly by Pat Costello at one
of
> > the SSA Conventions using the example I've conveyed here.
> >
>
>

[CV]

goneill wrote:
> I know of a case here in NZ exactly the same ,very high hours competition
> pilot distracted during rigging, took off and released very quickly and
> landed
> straight ahead in a paddock using flaps only to control pitch.
> The ASW20 seems relatively benign in this mode because I have heard of other
> cases

Well, "benign" is perhaps not the word. But that aside I'd expect it
to depend a lot on CG position whether there is a chance to control it
with flaps alone, or not.

CV (also an ASW20)

[Chris Nicholas]

Mark James Boyd wrote: [snip] " . . . during a PCC a bellcrank broke and
this was caused by the pressure exerted by the "helper."
Nice to have this happen on the ground, and I can't
think of how this could have been detected without
a PCC. So now I think a PCC is useful too..."

Having a helper exert this much force is good???

I retain my renegade attitude to PCC's - they may be suitable for some
things if done right (and breaking gliders is not doing it right in my
book - the above is not an isolated example) but other checks are far
more useful, and less damaging, for some gliders, e.g. my Ka6E.

Chris N.

[Mark James Boyd]

I'm going to guess that the 10,000 repetitions of
opening and closing the dive brakes were what really caused the
bellcrank problem in this case. On the other hand, I'm
not a dig fan of manhandling and potentially
deforming the spoilers on the glass ships either.
If I was smarter and I owned my own ship, I'd
likely investigate the best places to apply pressure which
would't damage anything even when repeated 10000 times...

In article >,
Chris Nicholas > wrote:
>Mark James Boyd wrote: [snip] " . . . during a PCC a bellcrank broke and
>this was caused by the pressure exerted by the "helper."
>Nice to have this happen on the ground, and I can't
>think of how this could have been detected without
>a PCC. So now I think a PCC is useful too..."
>
>Having a helper exert this much force is good???

How much is too much? There's really no manual for this, and
the POH doesn't even mention PCC... This area could
use a bit of advice from sailplane manufacturers/materials
engineers...

>
>I retain my renegade attitude to PCC's - they may be suitable for some
>things if done right (and breaking gliders is not doing it right in my
>book - the above is not an isolated example) but other checks are far
>more useful, and less damaging, for some gliders, e.g. my Ka6E.
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\).]

A Positive Control Check is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

What is required is a Critical Assembly Check, of which the PCC may form a
part.

It is not possible to do a CAC unless the way the particular glider is
rigged is understood, and there may be variations between different versions
of the same type of glider, e.g. the elevator control connection on the
ASK21.

I know of several cases where gliders have flown mis-rigged and got away
with it, e.g.:
K13 with the drag spar pins not in safety.
K21 with the drag spar pins missing.
K13 with the aileron and brake safety pins missing (discovered when one
aileron disconnected itself while flying).
ASW20 with the elevator bolt missing.
ASW24 with the elevator bolt missing.

All these things happened to people I know, none of them would have been
found by a PCC, indeed in many cases a PCC was done.

Of course, there have been many cases where the pilot did not get away with
it.

I also know one club with several K23s, where the elevator control is
automatic when the tailplane is rigged. After PCCs were made compulsory at
that club, at the subsequent annual inspection damage was found to several
elevators almost certainly caused by too much force during the PCC.

I am sure the method of PCC recommended by Jim Vincent is correct, (posting
5th April 04.53 above), and his presentation
http://www.mymedtrans.com/personal.htm looks ideal to me. However this is
only part of a Critical Assembly Check, and if that is done properly the PCC
is not the most important part.

I am sure that a PCC should be done with the pilot at the control surfaces,
and the helper at the cockpit controls.

When Hotelier connections were first used it was not considered necessary
to use safety pins, indeed some were provided with check holes so small that
the use of pins was not possible.

It was subsequently found that it was possible for Hoteliers to come undone
UNDER NORMAL FLIGHT LOADS, and EVEN WHEN CORRECTLY RIGGED. This was why
the use of locking wire, pins or some other safety device was made
compulsory, and those connectors manufactured with small holes had to have
them drilled larger.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.

>
> "Chris Nicholas" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> Mark James Boyd wrote: [snip]
> " . . . during a PCC a bellcrank broke and this was caused by the pressure
> exerted by the "helper."
> Nice to have this happen on the ground, and I can't
> think of how this could have been detected without
> a PCC. So now I think a PCC is useful too..."
>
> Having a helper exert this much force is good???
>
> I retain my renegade attitude to PCC's - they may be suitable for some
> things if done right (and breaking gliders is not doing it right in my
> book - the above is not an isolated example) but other checks are far
> more useful, and less damaging, for some gliders, e.g. my Ka6E.
>
> Chris N.
>

[Jim Vincent]

Bill,

I'm under the impression that you haven't looked at the presentation and are
just evaluating it based on the title itself..if you have, my apologies.

Some points I would like to make:

>What is required is a Critical Assembly Check, of which the PCC may form a
>part

I fully agree with you. Not only is a PCC and CAC needed, but also takeoff
checklists and landing checklists. The presentation does cover the
requirements to do a PCC, CAC, as well as L'Hotelier connectors, the
requirement for pins or LH connectors, preflight checks, landing checks....you
get the picture.

>After PCCs were made compulsory at
>that club, at the subsequent annual inspection damage was found to several
>elevators almost certainly caused by too much force during the PCC.

In addition, regarding avoiding damage to gliders, it does have a detail slide
adressing this, points mentioned here:

* Don’t bang stick or control surfaces against the stops
* Use light pressure on control surface… perhaps equal to weight of forearm
* Control surfaces and trailing edges are damaged easily…apply pressure with
open hand to avoid point loads
* Apply pressure at control surface strong point…typically near pushrod
attach point
* For elevator, one hand on left elevator, one hand on right elevator
* For spoilers, hold by spoiler plate, not spoiler cap…be careful of your
fingers

Regards!







Jim Vincent
CFIG
N483SZ