PCC Presentation

[Jim Vincent]

With all the talk about doing a PCC, I thought I'd post a presentation I just
did at Tom Knauff's Safety Seminar last weekend. I know I posted this deep in
the thread on PCC, but just wanted to give it more visibility for those who did
not follow the thread.

The presentation covers PCC, CAC, preflight check lists, landing check lists,
and other check lists.

I hope you take the opportunity to review it. It might have some insights that
could be of value to you. I've received some very positive comments on it so
far.

The link is:
http://www.mymedtrans.com/personal.htm

Jim Vincent
CFIG
N483SZ

[Martin Gregorie]

On 06 Apr 2004 23:47:08 GMT, (Jim Vincent)
wrote:

>With all the talk about doing a PCC, I thought I'd post a presentation I just
>did at Tom Knauff's Safety Seminar last weekend. I know I posted this deep in
>the thread on PCC, but just wanted to give it more visibility for those who did
>not follow the thread.
>
>The presentation covers PCC, CAC, preflight check lists, landing check lists,
>and other check lists.
>
>I hope you take the opportunity to review it. It might have some insights that
>could be of value to you. I've received some very positive comments on it so
>far.
>
That's a good, clear presentation.

Its very close to what I was taught but for a fairly minor variation.
In this version the PCC is done by the PIC and another pilot, at least
a student. The PIC handles the controls and initiates the test for
each control surface. The assistant reports which way the surface
moves (up, down, left, right). It is up to the PIC to correlate the
reported direction of movement with what (s)he commanded.

>The link is:
>http://www.mymedtrans.com/personal.htm
>

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

[Vaughn]

"Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message
...
> On 06 Apr 2004 23:47:08 GMT, (Jim Vincent)
> wrote:
>
>The PIC handles the controls and initiates the test for
> each control surface. The assistant reports which way the surface
> moves (up, down, left, right). It is up to the PIC to correlate the
> reported direction of movement with what (s)he commanded.

Exactly the opposite of what I have always taught. As the PIC, I want
to be in charge of the force put on the control surface and I want to see,
hear, smell, feel that control surface through its entire movement. That
means that my assistant is moving the stick and I am walking around the
glider touching the control surfaces and looking at everything else.

I never use "up, down, left, right". I substitute "toward me" and
"away from me". Left and right are relative terms at best, and people often
get it wrong. When you move the control stick towards a control surface,
that surface alway goes up; move it away from the control surface and that
surface always goes down...no ambiguity and no error!

Vaughn


>
> >The link is:
> >http://www.mymedtrans.com/personal.htm
> >
>
> --
> martin@ : Martin Gregorie
> gregorie : Harlow, UK
> demon :
> co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
> uk :
>

[Martin Gregorie]

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 10:25:13 GMT, "Vaughn"
> wrote:

>
>"Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message
...
>> On 06 Apr 2004 23:47:08 GMT, (Jim Vincent)
>> wrote:
>>
>>The PIC handles the controls and initiates the test for
>> each control surface. The assistant reports which way the surface
>> moves (up, down, left, right). It is up to the PIC to correlate the
>> reported direction of movement with what (s)he commanded.
>
> Exactly the opposite of what I have always taught. As the PIC, I want
>to be in charge of the force put on the control surface and I want to see,
>hear, smell, feel that control surface through its entire movement. That
>means that my assistant is moving the stick and I am walking around the
>glider touching the control surfaces and looking at everything else.
>
> I never use "up, down, left, right". I substitute "toward me" and
>"away from me". Left and right are relative terms at best, and people often
>get it wrong. When you move the control stick towards a control surface,
>that surface alway goes up; move it away from the control surface and that
>surface always goes down...no ambiguity and no error!
>
I use the PCC solely as a check on control function and will typically
do it directly after rigging, connecting the controls and (preferably)
after a second opinion on the connections but before taping wings etc.
This way the rigging assistants are still there to help with the PCC
and will be detained for the least time: everything after the PCC can
be done by the PIC by himself.

During PCC the calls of Left and right are only for the rudder - up
and down for the rest. Of course its relative - the assistant is not
told which way the surface will move and so has no preconceptions, but
the PIC knows which way he moved the stick and hence which way an
aileron or the elevator should move, e.g. if he moves the stick left
and the assistant doesn't report 'up' for the left aileron then
there's a problem.

I do a complete walk-round after the PCC. This covers all the stuff
you noted, tweaking control surfaces to check for play in hinges or
control circuits and making a careful visual, tactile and auditory
check of the entire exterior, cockpit and straps etc. This is never
delegated.

Following both PCC and walk-round the DI book is written up, any
defects noted and the entry signed.


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

[Miguel Lavalle]

Jim,

Excellent presentation. Thank you very much for making
it available to the whole soaring community.

I am a new pilot and recently bought a Jantar Standard
3. I am not well versed in mechanical matters, so for
the sake of safety I better ask:

My Jantar Std 3 doesn't have automatic connectors for
the ailerons and elevator. Does anybody know wheter
this conecctions are of the L'Hotellier type?

Regards

Miguel Lavalle
N5SZ





At 00:00 07 April 2004, Jim Vincent wrote:
>With all the talk about doing a PCC, I thought I'd
>post a presentation I just
>did at Tom Knauff's Safety Seminar last weekend. I
>know I posted this deep in
>the thread on PCC, but just wanted to give it more
>visibility for those who did
>not follow the thread.
>
>The presentation covers PCC, CAC, preflight check lists,
>landing check lists,
>and other check lists.
>
>I hope you take the opportunity to review it. It might
>have some insights that
>could be of value to you. I've received some very
>positive comments on it so
>far.
>
>The link is:
>http://www.mymedtrans.com/personal.htm
>
>Jim Vincent
>CFIG
>N483SZ

>

[Jim Vincent]

>The PIC handles the controls and initiates the test for
>each control surface. The assistant reports which way the surface
>moves (up, down, left, right). It is up to the PIC to correlate the
>reported direction of movement with what (s)he commanded.

he PIC knows the aircraft best. He is looking to make sure that the amount of
throw is normal at the control surface, not at the stick. They do not
correlate if something is incorrectly hooked up.

The PIC and assistant should interact, rather than a one way conversation. The
person at the wing should be watching the control surface and the stick, same
with person in the cockpit.

Regarding the thought in a follow on thread where the thinking is by having the
PIC at the cockpit, he knows exactly what he is doing, I'm told of a story
where the PIC was facing into the cockpit and moving the stick left and right,
thinking he was applying aileron when he was actually doing elevator!

By the PIC at the control surface saying move the control towards me, away from
me, etc. eliminates most if not all potential failure modes and
miscommunications.

Jim Vincent
CFIG
N483SZ

[Herbert Kilian]

Right on Vaughn, there seems to be an 'Atlantic Divide' regarding the
issue you are making. I've been instructed and have practiced doing
the PCC the way Jim Vincent and you explain. I've voiced concerns
about the US practice at many occasions such as daily safety briefings
during contests. Here are again the points that make me favor putting
the PIC at the control surfaces with an assistant at or better inside
the cockpit:

1. Pilot can observe the amount and direction of deflection at full
stick travel AT THE CONTROL SURFACE
2. PIC can determine amount of play at full deflection
3. He/she can apply a specific force to the controls while the
assistant holds (locks) the stick or brake handle at middle and end of
travel
4. This should be done during the outside assembly check while cirling
the glider counterclockwise BY THE PILOT
5. If you don't have a trusted assistant to move the controls, go find
or train one. There should be at least a tow pilot or a wing runner
at hand, nothing wrong with asking your spouse.
6. I would trust an assistant much more with moving the stick/controls
than having him handle the control surfaces, where is the bigger risk
for damage?
7. Kill two birds with one stone, it is very natural to move around
the glider sliding your hands over leading and trailing edges,
checking connectors, try moving the hor. stab, checking winglets and
so much more between doing the PCC tasks. At the end of the roundtrip
I am quite certain that the ship is ready to go.

Let's discuss this some more. We have here a classic situation where
reason should prevail in determining which of two methods is the best
to find and fix assembly and other problems.

Herb, J7


>
As the PIC, I want
> to be in charge of the force put on the control surface and I want to see,
> hear, smell, feel that control surface through its entire movement. That
> means that my assistant is moving the stick and I am walking around the
> glider touching the control surfaces and looking at everything else.
>
> I never use "up, down, left, right". I substitute "toward me" and
> "away from me". Left and right are relative terms at best, and people often
> get it wrong. When you move the control stick towards a control surface,
> that surface alway goes up; move it away from the control surface and that
> surface always goes down...no ambiguity and no error!
>
> Vaughn
>
>
> >
> > >The link is:
> > >http://www.mymedtrans.com/personal.htm
> > >
> >
> > --
> > martin@ : Martin Gregorie
> > gregorie : Harlow, UK
> > demon :
> > co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
> > uk :
> >

[Martin Gregorie]

On 07 Apr 2004 15:46:36 GMT, (Jim Vincent)
wrote:

>Regarding the thought in a follow on thread where the thinking is by having the
>PIC at the cockpit, he knows exactly what he is doing, I'm told of a story
>where the PIC was facing into the cockpit and moving the stick left and right,
>thinking he was applying aileron when he was actually doing elevator!
>
But surely that would be picked up if the PIC and assistant were
interacting, no matter which was PIC? Either way the PIC isn't going
to hear (or see) the expected response and should investigate the
reason for that.

....but maybe that's incorrect - if the PIC was clueless enough to move
the stick the wrong way and not notice the lack of response from the
assistant then maybe he wouldn't notice *any* misconnection. That's
the reason I require a response reporting the direction of movement
without any hint from me of which way I'm moving the control. The
other approach, with the PIC saying what he's doing and hearing 'OK'
or some such, is far more error-prone.

>By the PIC at the control surface saying move the control towards me, away from
>me, etc. eliminates most if not all potential failure modes and
>miscommunications.
>
That sounds to be similarly fail-safe.


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

[tango4]

"Miguel Lavalle" > wrote in message
...
> Does anybody know wheter
> this conecctions are of the L'Hotellier type?
>
> Regards
>
> Miguel Lavalle
> N5SZ

Which ones? The ones on your Jantar or automatic ones?

If you mean automatic ones then things are different to 'traditional'
control runs that use 'l'hottelier' connections.

In the traditional system a series of pushrods and bellcranks transmit stick
movement from stick to surface. In some cases ( ASW20 and Grob elevator ) a
pushrod connects directly to the control surface via a hottelier and ball
joint mounted a small distance from the hinge line. In the wing control
surface connections the in wing pushrods terminated in hotteliers extend
into the fuselage and are connected to ball joints mounted on the belcrank
arms.

In 'Automatic' hook up different arrangments are made to connect things up.
For example: on Schempp elevators a 2 pronged fork, permanently connected to
the control run using bolted and secured connections, plugs into the
elevator surface. My guess is that this is about 99% certain of being done
correctly and without fault. ( I fly Schempp ships and I still DI and check
before every flight ) Some ships (DG's) have an elevator pushrod that
terminates in a 'C' shaped fitting. A roller bearing on the elevator fits
snugly into the open 'C', a reliable automatic hookup but does need
attention at assembly time.

At the wing root you get to play a different game! My Ventus uses two
different systems. The flaps are driven by a rotating 'torque' tube. The bit
in the fuselage is permanently hooked up and as the wing is fitted a very
simple 'dog clutch' connects the flaps to the drive. The Ailerons and brakes
are a devilishly clever system. On the wing root rib a bellcrank is fitted,
one arm connects to a traditional run inside the wing to the control
surface, the other arm, protruding straight out from the root rib, is
terminated in a roller bearing. The roller bearing slides into a funnel
shaped receiver in the fuselage as the wing is fitted. When the wing is in
place the fit between the bearing and the funnel or horn is reduced to zero.
The horn is permanently connected to the control system so 'voila' automatic
hookups.

Could you convert a traditional ship to automatic hookups? I suppose so
given enough time and money. Worth it? Not really. Rather spend a quiet 5
minutes before every flight going over your ship properly and making sure
everything is in order!

Ian

[Ramy Yanetz]

I think the reasons people skip PCC or doing it wrong is due to the fact
that there is no consistent method and some of the methods suggested are way
too much hassle such as putting another pilot in the cockpit instead of
asking the nearest person to hold the controls. Also the suggestion that the
PIC must seat IN the cockpit doesn't make sense, since you can't see the
controls from the cockpit. Lets Keep it simple! The more complicated we make
it the less will comply. The same results can be achieved by the PIC moving
the stick while any bystander can hold the controls. See comments below.

Ramy

"Herbert Kilian" > wrote in message
om...
> Right on Vaughn, there seems to be an 'Atlantic Divide' regarding the
> issue you are making. I've been instructed and have practiced doing
> the PCC the way Jim Vincent and you explain. I've voiced concerns
> about the US practice at many occasions such as daily safety briefings
> during contests. Here are again the points that make me favor putting
> the PIC at the control surfaces with an assistant at or better inside
> the cockpit:
>
> 1. Pilot can observe the amount and direction of deflection at full
> stick travel AT THE CONTROL SURFACE

The same observation can be done when standing near the cocpit.

> 2. PIC can determine amount of play at full deflection

Better determining amount of play at the stick when the assistant holding
the control surface at full deflection.

> 3. He/she can apply a specific force to the controls while the
> assistant holds (locks) the stick or brake handle at middle and end of
> travel

PIC can ask the assistant to apply more or less force.


> 4. This should be done during the outside assembly check while cirling
> the glider counterclockwise BY THE PILOT

This should be done before or after the PCC according to your checklist.
Trying to do all at once is risking forgetting an item.

> 5. If you don't have a trusted assistant to move the controls, go find
> or train one. There should be at least a tow pilot or a wing runner
> at hand, nothing wrong with asking your spouse.

My spouse wouldn't even reach the rudder pedals. Should I readjust the
pedals for her or should I skip the rudder? Training one or asking the tow
pilot to leave the tow plane is not an option.

> 6. I would trust an assistant much more with moving the stick/controls
> than having him handle the control surfaces, where is the bigger risk
> for damage?

The biggest risk is to put a non pilot in the cocpit. He/she may retract the
gear instead of the spoilers!

> 7. Kill two birds with one stone, it is very natural to move around
> the glider sliding your hands over leading and trailing edges,
> checking connectors, try moving the hor. stab, checking winglets and
> so much more between doing the PCC tasks. At the end of the roundtrip
> I am quite certain that the ship is ready to go.

Again, this should be done separatly and not simultaniously.
>
> Let's discuss this some more. We have here a classic situation where
> reason should prevail in determining which of two methods is the best
> to find and fix assembly and other problems.
>

I would like to hear arguments against doing a PCC the simple way - PIC
standing outside the cockpit moving stick and rudder and observing the
controls while the assistant is holding the control surfaces.
Again, the simpler it is the more likely it will be done.

> Herb, J7
>
>
> >
> As the PIC, I want
> > to be in charge of the force put on the control surface and I want to
see,
> > hear, smell, feel that control surface through its entire movement.
That
> > means that my assistant is moving the stick and I am walking around the
> > glider touching the control surfaces and looking at everything else.

It is more natural to feel the controls with the stick rather than at the
control surface.

> >
> > I never use "up, down, left, right". I substitute "toward me" and
> > "away from me". Left and right are relative terms at best, and people
often
> > get it wrong. When you move the control stick towards a control
surface,
> > that surface alway goes up; move it away from the control surface and
that
> > surface always goes down...no ambiguity and no error!
> >
> > Vaughn
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >The link is:
> > > >http://www.mymedtrans.com/personal.htm
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > martin@ : Martin Gregorie
> > > gregorie : Harlow, UK
> > > demon :
> > > co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
> > > uk :
> > >

[Jim Vincent]

>
>The same observation can be done when standing near the cocpit.

No it can't.

>My spouse wouldn't even reach the rudder pedals.

I don't think it's necessary to check the rudder pedals on POH. I can check it
myself when in the cockpit just by the mass of the feel.

>I would like to hear arguments against doing a PCC the simple way - PIC
>standing outside the cockpit moving stick and rudder and observing the
>controls while the assistant is holding the control surfaces.
>Again, the simpler it is the more likely it will be done.

And that is EXACTLY how the standard cirrus was checked, and the pilot died.
Frankly, IMO, it's simpler to have the assistant outside the cockpit (I never
said have the assistant in the cockpit) moving the stick away and towards me.

Jim Vincent
CFIG
N483SZ

[Jim Vincent]

>(DG's) have an elevator pushrod that
>terminates in a 'C' shaped fitting. A roller bearing on the elevator fits
>snugly into the open 'C', a reliable automatic hookup but does need
>attention at assembly time.

Wrong there, my friend. The standard Cirrus accident where the elevator
disconnected failed because the pushrod did not catch in the "C". Admittingly,
it is very difficult to make it happen, but it can and did. Had he done a
proper inspection, he would have caught it. This is proven by tests Tom Knauff
did on a standard Cirrus. After much effort, he was able to invoke the failure
mode.



Jim Vincent
CFIG
N483SZ

[Eric Greenwell]

Jim Vincent wrote:
>>(DG's) have an elevator pushrod that
>>terminates in a 'C' shaped fitting. A roller bearing on the elevator fits
>>snugly into the open 'C', a reliable automatic hookup but does need
>>attention at assembly time.
>
>
> Wrong there, my friend. The standard Cirrus accident where the elevator
> disconnected failed because the pushrod did not catch in the "C". Admittingly,
> it is very difficult to make it happen, but it can and did. Had he done a
> proper inspection, he would have caught it. This is proven by tests Tom Knauff
> did on a standard Cirrus. After much effort, he was able to invoke the failure
> mode.

After the glider is assembled, and before the pilot does the PCC,
doesn't he walk around the glider and inspect the control surfaces and
move them through their full deflections, in addition to other
inspections? Isn't the improperly assembled elevator noticable during
this inspection?

When the Std Cirrus elevator is connected improperly in this fashion,
isn't the front of the elevator quite high and easily visible to pilot
standing near the cockpit while doing the PCC?

It's been a long time since I've had my Std Cirrus, but I think a pilot
that does a proper inspection has as least 3 chances (including looking
in the little window right after assembly) to notice an improperly
assembled elevator without the need to be at the control surfaces during
the PCC.

I'm with Ramy on this one: keep it simple. This one unfortunate case is
not a good argument for everyone to have the pilot at the control
surfaces during the PCC.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[tango4]

"Jim Vincent" > wrote in message
...
> >(DG's) have an elevator pushrod that
> >terminates in a 'C' shaped fitting. A roller bearing on the elevator fits
> >snugly into the open 'C', a reliable automatic hookup but does need
> >attention at assembly time.
>
> Wrong there, my friend. The standard Cirrus accident where the elevator
> disconnected failed because the pushrod did not catch in the "C".
Admittingly,
> it is very difficult to make it happen, but it can and did. Had he done a
> proper inspection, he would have caught it. This is proven by tests Tom
Knauff
> did on a standard Cirrus. After much effort, he was able to invoke the
failure
> mode.
>

Sorry Jim but where was I wrong? It is reliable - provided that the
assembler pays attention to what they are doing as I said. If it is
assembled correctly it is extremely unlikely to fail unless a pushrod
corrodes, a belcrank fails, a mounting delaminates or other completely
unrelated failure occurs. I first typed 'fairly reliable connection' in my
post but changed it to 'reliable' on reflection with the caveat that it does
need attention to detail. BTW I didn't know the Cirrus used this type of
hookup. My post was not meant to be an exhaustive description of how
automatic hookups work just a fairly reasonable response to Miguels'
question.

Ian

[tango4]

>
> After the glider is assembled, and before the pilot does the PCC,
> doesn't he walk around the glider and inspect the control surfaces and
> move them through their full deflections, in addition to other
> inspections? Isn't the improperly assembled elevator noticable during
> this inspection?
>

Apparently not. A Twin DG at out club has a small storyboard attached to the
top of the fin leaving no doubt in the riggers mind exactly how , where and
when to put things when rigging. I helped with the stab assembly once and
when it didn't go together easily. I suggested the pilot read the list on
the tail, we removed and refitted the stab discovering in the process that
it had gone together wrong first time round! Everything worked OK but the
travels were all out of kilter.

Ian

[Andy Durbin]

Miguel Lavalle > wrote in message >...
> Jim,
>
> My Jantar Std 3 doesn't have automatic connectors for
> the ailerons and elevator. Does anybody know wheter
> this conecctions are of the L'Hotellier type?
>
> Regards
>
> Miguel Lavalle
> N5SZ
>

The original Jantar STD had manual hookups but they were not
L'Hotellier type.
Those connection were pin in one component mating with a hole in the
other component and secured by a sleeve that slid over both. The
sleeve ensures the fitting is correctly mated and no additional safety
is required. (That's based on memory from over 15 years ago). I have
no experience with the -2 or -3 but would be surprised if they changed
to L'Hotellier which are a ball which mates with a cup. After mating
the 2 components, the cup is closed with a plunger driven by a spring
loaded wedge.

If one of these descriptions matches your glider then you have your
answer.


Andy

[Chip Fitzpatrick]

Hi,

According to http://www.standardcirrus.org/, Knauff did not find it
difficult to get the stabilizer hooked up improperly, nor did the
NTSB. I discussed this with the NTSB investigator. Unless one knows
what Tom describes in the link, and instructs the assistant, things
can happen. There is also a sight glass installed on the top.

Unfortunately, I had the experience of watching the accident occur and
the aftermath. The individual who did the check was NOT instructed on
anything other than to observe movement. I spoke with one experienced
glider pilot who had owned a std. cirrus and never heard of the
potential problem.

The point is, know your manual and any quirks associated with the
glider, instruct your helper in the proper PCC procedure and have
someone double check your critical assembly. And, I sure hope no one
ever takes off having automatic hookups and not performing any of the
checks. Trust nothing to chance.

NTSB Identification: NYC02FA159. The docket is stored on NTSB
microfiche number DMS.
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, August 10, 2002 in Hilltown, PA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 12/30/03
Aircraft: Schempp-Hirth Standard Cirrus, registration: N47SS
Injuries: 1 Fatal.
The glider was being towed by an airplane for takeoff, when it was
observed to bounce hard on the runway twice, then it assumed a steep
nose up attitude. The tow rope broke, and the glider impacted the
ground in a near vertical descent. The C-hook on the stabilator push
rod, was found in front of, and not connected to the roller bearing on
the stabilator. The pilot's flight experience was over 3,000 hours
with about 84 hours in gliders. He had accumulated 28 hours in the
accident glider, including 17 flights. This was the first glider the
pilot had operated, that he was required to disassemble for storage
and reassemble for flight. Witnesses reported the pilot experienced
difficulty with the assembly process. A view window was located on top
of the stabilator to check for proper engagement of the C-hook, and
the AFTER ASSEMBLY checklist called for it to be used to check for
proper assembly. A witness reported the pilot moved the control stick
in the cockpit and observed movement of the flight controls, but he
was not observed to actually check the view window for proper
assembly. A check of another glider of the same make and model found
it was possible to lock the stabilator in place on top of the vertical
stabilizer, with the C-hook in the same place as found on the accident
glider. In this configuration, the control rod that held the C-hook
was pressed against the roller bearing and held in place by friction.
However, the incorrect assembly was visible through the view window on
top of the stabilator, and when the stabilator was held in place, it
was still possible to move the cockpit control stick abut 1 inch
forward or aft, with no corresponding movement on the stabilator.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows:

The pilot's improper pre-flight, and failure to follow procedures in
the flight manual to determine that the stabilator was properly
connected prior to flight, and which resulted in a loss of control
while under tow, and uncontrolled impact with the ground.


Chip F.

[Jim Vincent]

>A witness reported the pilot moved the control stick
>in the cockpit and observed movement of the flight controls, but he

I had the opportunity to discuss this in detail with Tom Knauff and the owner
of the Cirrus on which the replicated the failure mode.

The flight control would move correspondingly with the stick movement because
the weight of the elevator kept the C-hook and the elevator in contact. IF
either one of the team (PIC at cockpit or assistant at control surface) had
done a proper PCC, it would have been evident either while applying resisting
pressure while moving the stick in full deflection or from doing a jiggle test.

The assistant in this case is a licensed glider pilot.

I was the field manager that day, and hope never to experience something like
this again. To this day, I still see most people there doing a simple prayer
hand PCC. Go figure.

Jim Vincent
CFIG
N483SZ

[John Gilbert]

Eric Greenwell > wrote in message >...
> Jim Vincent wrote:
> >>(DG's) have an elevator pushrod that
> >>terminates in a 'C' shaped fitting. A roller bearing on the elevator fits
> >>snugly into the open 'C', a reliable automatic hookup but does need
> >>attention at assembly time.
> >
> >
> > Wrong there, my friend. The standard Cirrus accident where the elevator
> > disconnected failed because the pushrod did not catch in the "C". Admittingly,
> > it is very difficult to make it happen, but it can and did. Had he done a
> > proper inspection, he would have caught it. This is proven by tests Tom Knauff
> > did on a standard Cirrus. After much effort, he was able to invoke the failure
> > mode.
>
> After the glider is assembled, and before the pilot does the PCC,
> doesn't he walk around the glider and inspect the control surfaces and
> move them through their full deflections, in addition to other
> inspections? Isn't the improperly assembled elevator noticable during
> this inspection?
>

Eric,

I did misassemble my Std. Cirrus tailplane once. Just once.
The person that showed me how to assemble didn't know that it could go
together wrong. I guess I didn't either, until I did it.

> When the Std Cirrus elevator is connected improperly in this fashion,
> isn't the front of the elevator quite high and easily visible to pilot
> standing near the cockpit while doing the PCC?
>

Not if the pilot is sitting in the ship!! And the trim is all the way
forward to ease assembly, so the tailplane is normally high at this
point anyway.

> It's been a long time since I've had my Std Cirrus, but I think a pilot
> that does a proper inspection has as least 3 chances (including looking
> in the little window right after assembly) to notice an improperly
> assembled elevator without the need to be at the control surfaces during
> the PCC.

The window gets dirty easily and is not very big. It should be cleaned
every year (at least) at annual time. Even then, the plastic yellows,
and it is dark in there
>
> I'm with Ramy on this one: keep it simple. This one unfortunate case is
> not a good argument for everyone to have the pilot at the control
> surfaces during the PCC.

My misassembly was caught at the PCC stage. I have since changed my
assembly procedure to recheck two different ways for tailplane
assembly immediately after installing the tailplane. The manual says
to look for the hook through the little window. But, the most obvious
way is to examine the range of motion of the tailplane for correct,
full travel. The PCC catches it also, with some obvious banging.

After assembly, I corral someone and teach them how to do a Critical
Assembly Check on my ship (and offer to do theirs!). There is actually
a Critical Assembly Checklist in the manual. Then of course I tell
them all the ways the tailplane will look wrong when not put together
correctly. Then we do a PCC. Then I feel like I have a properly
assembled ship.

There are many ways improper assemblies can be caught, I like to use
as many as possible to decrease the odds that any mistakes I make get
through.

Assembly (me)
Check each system after assembled, wing pin & safety pin, spoiler
l'Hotelliers and safety pins, ailerons and safety pins, tailplane.
(me)
Critical Assembly Check (someone else)
Positive Control Check (someone else with me)

Regards,
John Gilbert
Std. Cirrus s/n 266 PY
Seattle, WA, USA