Would this plane have flown?

[Robert M. Gary]

http://www.thegaryhouse.com/aircraftdamage/

I was down in a remote area of Mexico this last weekend and a truck
backed into my aileron. I was lucky that the driver had a sat phone and
I was able to call an A&P to come down to Mexico and swap it for me.
However, all the local pilots, and the A&P who came down seemed to
think it would have flown ok as was. From a simply academic point of
view I"m curious what you guys think.

-Robert

[Montblack]

("Robert M. Gary" wrote)
> http://www.thegaryhouse.com/aircraftdamage/


I wonder how the damaged aileron would have reacted to slow flight vs. a
little speed ...better or worse?


Montblack
Don't show your pics to a B-17 crew member. :-)

[Flyingmonk]

yes.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> http://www.thegaryhouse.com/aircraftdamage/
>
> I was down in a remote area of Mexico this last weekend and a truck
> backed into my aileron. I was lucky that the driver had a sat phone and
> I was able to call an A&P to come down to Mexico and swap it for me.
> However, all the local pilots, and the A&P who came down seemed to
> think it would have flown ok as was. From a simply academic point of
> view I"m curious what you guys think.
>
> -Robert

Just looking at the photo, I would have been concerned about the outer
attach point for possible post impact misalignment that might under load
cause an issue, but that being said, I've flown prop fighters on ferry
permits that looked worse off than this.
The bottom line is that you had a known damaged airframe and a take off
decision to make that involved a go/no go without looking inside the aileron
for hidden damage.
If the guys that won't be in the airplane are right, and you don't have a
problem, you're gold. If on the other hand, if the guys not going in the
airplane are wrong, and you do have a problem.........well......they're not
in the airplane......and you might be dead!
My decision would have been to have it looked at before I flew it out.
Dudley Henriques

[Dan Luke]

"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

> http://www.thegaryhouse.com/aircraftdamage/
>
> I was down in a remote area of Mexico this last weekend and a truck
> backed into my aileron. I was lucky that the driver had a sat phone and
> I was able to call an A&P to come down to Mexico and swap it for me.
> However, all the local pilots, and the A&P who came down seemed to
> think it would have flown ok as was. From a simply academic point of
> view I"m curious what you guys think.

Most likely it would have flown fine--perhaps a bit out of trim.

The question one has to ask oneself in such situations is "do I really want
to be a test pilot?"

It is not impossible that the deformed control surface would have fluttered,
with possibly disastrous results.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[NW_PILOT]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> http://www.thegaryhouse.com/aircraftdamage/
>
> I was down in a remote area of Mexico this last weekend and a truck
> backed into my aileron. I was lucky that the driver had a sat phone and
> I was able to call an A&P to come down to Mexico and swap it for me.
> However, all the local pilots, and the A&P who came down seemed to
> think it would have flown ok as was. From a simply academic point of
> view I"m curious what you guys think.
>
> -Robert
>


I think it would have done OK!

[NW_PILOT]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > http://www.thegaryhouse.com/aircraftdamage/
> >
> > I was down in a remote area of Mexico this last weekend and a truck
> > backed into my aileron. I was lucky that the driver had a sat phone and
> > I was able to call an A&P to come down to Mexico and swap it for me.
> > However, all the local pilots, and the A&P who came down seemed to
> > think it would have flown ok as was. From a simply academic point of
> > view I"m curious what you guys think.
> >
> > -Robert
>
> Just looking at the photo, I would have been concerned about the outer
> attach point for possible post impact misalignment that might under load
> cause an issue, but that being said, I've flown prop fighters on ferry
> permits that looked worse off than this.
> The bottom line is that you had a known damaged airframe and a take off
> decision to make that involved a go/no go without looking inside the
aileron
> for hidden damage.
> If the guys that won't be in the airplane are right, and you don't have a
> problem, you're gold. If on the other hand, if the guys not going in the
> airplane are wrong, and you do have a problem.........well......they're
not
> in the airplane......and you might be dead!
> My decision would have been to have it looked at before I flew it out.
> Dudley Henriques
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> [...]
> However, all the local pilots, and the A&P who came down seemed to
> think it would have flown ok as was. From a simply academic point of
> view I"m curious what you guys think.

Playing the odds, sure...pretty good chance it would've flown, and probably
with very little noticeable effect. But there's no way to know for sure,
short of a test flight. It could've been quite bad.

Also, while it's not clear the A&P who came to fix it bothered to check, I
would always be concerned at hidden damage. A relatively small force at the
wingtip can exert a much higher force closer to the fuselage, and of course
even out there at the wingtip who knows how the force of the impact was
transmitted through the airframe. I would be less concerned about the
damage to the aileron (which appears to be mostly cosmetic), and more about
potential damage elsewhere.

The classic rule applies: "when in doubt..."

Pete

[nrp]

My guess is yes - but seriously out of trim for sure. I'd do an empty
trip around the pattern for evaluation. Assuming the handling is
tolerable, load up but keep the speed down.

This is a case where it is really not correct to simply rely on an A&P
mechanic for such a decision. The training they receive doesn't really
include the consequences of aerodynamic variences although their
experience may be very valuable. It really is a situation where the
judgements and experiences of other pilots etc is as valid as any A&P
could give. I definitely don't want to put A&Ps down, but they don't
walk on water - they are only human in their ability to evaluate.

[Jim Macklin]

The damage appears to be confined to the trailing edge of
the aileron, so it would be out of trim. But the
reflections and paint otherwise look straight and
unwrinkled. A ferry permit could be issued for such a
condition and an inspection for range of motion, security,
etc signed of by an A mechanic and of course it would be
finally up to the pilot whether to fly. I would not want to
fly it IFR, most ferry permits only allow Day/VFR.

Since the wing looks good at the tip/aileron area, I'd also
want to see the wing attach points since the strength of the
wing and its lever arm would have a lot of force applied to
the spar points. I'd look for wrinkles, cracked paint along
the fuselage. I'd still look that over, just changing the
aileron doesn't complete the inspection.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
message
ink.net...
|
| "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
|
oups.com...
| > http://www.thegaryhouse.com/aircraftdamage/
| >
| > I was down in a remote area of Mexico this last weekend
and a truck
| > backed into my aileron. I was lucky that the driver had
a sat phone and
| > I was able to call an A&P to come down to Mexico and
swap it for me.
| > However, all the local pilots, and the A&P who came down
seemed to
| > think it would have flown ok as was. From a simply
academic point of
| > view I"m curious what you guys think.
| >
| > -Robert
|
| Just looking at the photo, I would have been concerned
about the outer
| attach point for possible post impact misalignment that
might under load
| cause an issue, but that being said, I've flown prop
fighters on ferry
| permits that looked worse off than this.
| The bottom line is that you had a known damaged airframe
and a take off
| decision to make that involved a go/no go without looking
inside the aileron
| for hidden damage.
| If the guys that won't be in the airplane are right, and
you don't have a
| problem, you're gold. If on the other hand, if the guys
not going in the
| airplane are wrong, and you do have a
problem.........well......they're not
| in the airplane......and you might be dead!
| My decision would have been to have it looked at before I
flew it out.
| Dudley Henriques
|
|

[[email protected]]

I think....

If YOU are going to fly it, I'll bet $10 you'd have no problems.

Buuuuuuuut, I'M not going to try! ;<)

[Michelle]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> http://www.thegaryhouse.com/aircraftdamage/
>
> I was down in a remote area of Mexico this last weekend and a truck
> backed into my aileron. I was lucky that the driver had a sat phone and
> I was able to call an A&P to come down to Mexico and swap it for me.
> However, all the local pilots, and the A&P who came down seemed to
> think it would have flown ok as was. From a simply academic point of
> view I"m curious what you guys think.
>
> -Robert
>
Robert,
It would have flown, poorly. You would have had to hold right aileron to
keep it strait. High speed characteristics would be un-known.

You did the right thing getting replaced.

Michelle (A&P)

[Aluckyguess]

Your alive so you must of made the right decision.
Who cares if it would of flown. You were able to fix it before you flew it.
Good job.
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> http://www.thegaryhouse.com/aircraftdamage/
>
> I was down in a remote area of Mexico this last weekend and a truck
> backed into my aileron. I was lucky that the driver had a sat phone and
> I was able to call an A&P to come down to Mexico and swap it for me.
> However, all the local pilots, and the A&P who came down seemed to
> think it would have flown ok as was. From a simply academic point of
> view I"m curious what you guys think.
>
> -Robert
>

[george]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> http://www.thegaryhouse.com/aircraftdamage/
>
> I was down in a remote area of Mexico this last weekend and a truck
> backed into my aileron. I was lucky that the driver had a sat phone and
> I was able to call an A&P to come down to Mexico and swap it for me.
> However, all the local pilots, and the A&P who came down seemed to
> think it would have flown ok as was. From a simply academic point of
> view I"m curious what you guys think.
>
Nowadays I'd wait for repairs but a neighbour spent 5 years driving
various two and four engined bombers over Occupied Europe and had a
series of photos of just how little you -really- need in the way of
contol surfaces

[Dudley Henriques]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>
>> Just looking at the photo, I would have been concerned about the outer
>> attach point for possible post impact misalignment that might under load
>> cause an issue,
>
> I'm with you, and a little more; the attach point would need a good
> inspection, and I would also want to trace all the rigging back to the
> yoke,
> to see if any other fittings or bearings or bellcranks or rods were
> damaged.
> That might take a bit of time, to expose all of that.
> --
> Jim in NC

You just never know about these "little bang jobs".
There's an old saying in the fighter business. Treat every pilot you meet in
the air as though he was better than you until he shows you by his actions
that he isn't.
Same goes for a damage decision. You should treat it as though it's serious
until it's proven that it's not .
This philosophy has managed to get me all the way through a career in one
piece. There just might be something to it :-))
Dudley

[Dave Doe]

In article . com>,
says...
> http://www.thegaryhouse.com/aircraftdamage/
>
> I was down in a remote area of Mexico this last weekend and a truck
> backed into my aileron. I was lucky that the driver had a sat phone and
> I was able to call an A&P to come down to Mexico and swap it for me.
> However, all the local pilots, and the A&P who came down seemed to
> think it would have flown ok as was. From a simply academic point of
> view I"m curious what you guys think.

There's no way I'd fly it. I saw a similarly damaged plane fly back to
it's homefield (against the advice from many) - and when it got back -
it was a *lot* worse. Considerably fluttering/vibration was apparent -
according to the pilot - in flight.

But he made it. He got quite a shock when he saw the additional damage
the fluttering had caused (dunno why he didn't put it down in one of the
many alternatives on the way).

--
Duncan

[Morgans]

"NW_PILOT" > wrote
>
> I think it would have done OK!

Yeah, I really trust your judgment.
--
Jim in NC

[Robert M. Gary]

> A ferry permit could be issued for such a
> condition and an inspection for range of motion, security,
> etc signed of by an A mechanic and of course it would be
> finally up to the pilot whether to fly. I would not want to
> fly it IFR, most ferry permits only allow Day/VFR.

One of the reasons I didn't want to try for the permit is because I
just don't know what the procedure would have been, but I expect it
would have taken months. The initial inspection would have had to have
been done by an A&E and then approved by Mexico City. However, then
comes the custom's duties, etc. Finally, I'd need an A&P to look at it
before I entered the U.S. (or right after entering, I don't recall).
So I kept very, very quiet about it. I didn't tell the Mexicans about
it and didn't mention anything to U.S. customs.I believe that
technically both the A&P and I could have both been arrested since I
believe it is totally illegal for an A&P to do any major repair without
an A&E present.

I guess I got lucky that the guy who hit me had a sat phone on him.
Otherwise I would have been faced with the decision. Either fly it out
of there as-is or abandon the plane there.

[Jose]

> I guess I got lucky that the guy who hit me had a sat phone on him.
> Otherwise I would have been faced with the decision. Either fly it out
> of there as-is or abandon the plane there.

Well, at that point the insurance company owns the plane. Do you want
to do them a favor that badly?

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Macklin]

I'm not sure about the Mexican rules or even Customs duties
on bringing the repaired airplane back. But a visit to the
FSDO by the A&P before he came to Mexico, with the proper
details would have resulted in a quick issuance of a Special
Airworthiness Certificate [ferry permit] and the A&P would
make such repairs as needed before signing the logbook and
the certificate to make the flight legal. You would also
want to contact your insurance company because most aircraft
insurance policies are restricted to "when a valid standard
airworthiness certificate" is on the airplane. A ferry
permit is not a standard airworthiness certificate and your
insurance is not in force. That would be a violation of
Mexican law.
Also, not informing your insurance company makes it
difficult or impossible to recover damages from the truck
driver.

Since the airplane was US registered and the work was done
by a US A&P, the FAA would have issued the permit within a
hour. But Mexican labor law might have also required that
you hire a Mexican mechanic to supervise.

I hope you flew it back solo and sent the family by airline
or bus.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
|> A ferry permit could be issued for such a
| > condition and an inspection for range of motion,
security,
| > etc signed of by an A mechanic and of course it would be
| > finally up to the pilot whether to fly. I would not
want to
| > fly it IFR, most ferry permits only allow Day/VFR.
|
| One of the reasons I didn't want to try for the permit is
because I
| just don't know what the procedure would have been, but I
expect it
| would have taken months. The initial inspection would have
had to have
| been done by an A&E and then approved by Mexico City.
However, then
| comes the custom's duties, etc. Finally, I'd need an A&P
to look at it
| before I entered the U.S. (or right after entering, I
don't recall).
| So I kept very, very quiet about it. I didn't tell the
Mexicans about
| it and didn't mention anything to U.S. customs.I believe
that
| technically both the A&P and I could have both been
arrested since I
| believe it is totally illegal for an A&P to do any major
repair without
| an A&E present.
|
| I guess I got lucky that the guy who hit me had a sat
phone on him.
| Otherwise I would have been faced with the decision.
Either fly it out
| of there as-is or abandon the plane there.
|

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-03-22, Robert M. Gary > wrote:
> http://www.thegaryhouse.com/aircraftdamage/
>
> I was down in a remote area of Mexico this last weekend and a truck
> backed into my aileron.

One thing to watch out for on seemingly minor damage near the outboard
edges of wings is a bent spar. Think of how much torque on the inboard
part of the wing that an impact to even make a small dent would make.
Needless to say, kinked spars are vastly weaker than unkinked spars.

Our club had a Cessna 170 - someone put the wingtip into a hangar at
taxi speed making a small dent in it. It also made a small kink in the
aft spar even though it was at low speed and seemingly only cosmetic
damage - the spar had to be repaired before the aircraft was airworthy
again.

I believe Highflyer has a story about hitting a wingtip of a Taylorcraft
on a pole at taxi speed - the damage appeared merely cosmetic but
the aft spar fractured in flight, which could have quite easily been fatal.
The torque from hitting the wingtip on the pole caused a compression
fracture in the wooden spar.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Would it have flown, probably. Did you do the right thing, definitely.


"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> http://www.thegaryhouse.com/aircraftdamage/
>
> I was down in a remote area of Mexico this last weekend and a truck
> backed into my aileron. I was lucky that the driver had a sat phone and
> I was able to call an A&P to come down to Mexico and swap it for me.
> However, all the local pilots, and the A&P who came down seemed to
> think it would have flown ok as was. From a simply academic point of
> view I"m curious what you guys think.
>
> -Robert
>

[John Gaquin]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
>
> Most likely it would have flown fine--perhaps a bit out of trim.
>
> It is not impossible that the deformed control surface would have
> fluttered, with possibly disastrous results.


That would have been my take -- a little right wing down, and some
fluttering. Dudley made the right call, though. What you can't see is any
potential damage to the attach point.

[[email protected]]

Bottom line...you were obviously uncomfortable with it, and made a no
go call....NO shame in that...good call

Jamie A. Landers
PP-ASEL

[Robert M. Gary]

> Well, at that point the insurance company owns the plane. Do you want
> to do them a favor that badly?

That's easy to say now. However, that really means that you may never
see your bird again and rather than a 2 hour flight to the states you
are looking at spending the next 2 days barfing in the back of a
pickup.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

Well the local Mooney service center just sent their estimate to the
insurance company. They are recommending a factory new aileron.
Although they are certified and equipped to rebuild them, they say
they've never seen anyone rebuild a Mooney aileron and get it straight.
Apparently the factory is able to do something the service centers
can't do. When I look at the aileron it looks like a bunch of ribs with
some skin on them. The service center is saying there are no ribs in
the aileron and the construction is different. In any case, I sure hope
my insurance company is able to claim against the truck's Mexican
liability coverage. It shouldn't be a problem but the total cost is
looking to be around $4K. The service center is also saying that there
may be a bent rod under the seat, but they haven't actually seen the
plane yet, this is just their Mooney experience. They don't seem
concerned about structural issues at all. The Mooney structure is very
different than a Cessna or Piper and considered much stronger (ever see
the picture of the entire factory floor assembly team standing on top
of a Mooney wing, two people deep?)

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

> What you can't see is any potential damage to the attach point.

Is there actually an "attach point" in the normal sense? I've never
taken one of these apart but my undetstanding is that its a one piece
solid wing and the body of the plane rests on top of the wing. I've
seen the wings removed and they are one solid piece (not two wings like
a Cessna).

-Robert

[Dudley Henriques]

Bob;
I think John is referring to the outer attach point for the aileron, not the
wing attach points, at least this was the attach point I was referencing.
Dudley

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> What you can't see is any potential damage to the attach point.
>
> Is there actually an "attach point" in the normal sense? I've never
> taken one of these apart but my undetstanding is that its a one piece
> solid wing and the body of the plane rests on top of the wing. I've
> seen the wings removed and they are one solid piece (not two wings like
> a Cessna).
>
> -Robert
>

[dlevy]

Not with me in it.

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> http://www.thegaryhouse.com/aircraftdamage/
>
> I was down in a remote area of Mexico this last weekend and a truck
> backed into my aileron. I was lucky that the driver had a sat phone and
> I was able to call an A&P to come down to Mexico and swap it for me.
> However, all the local pilots, and the A&P who came down seemed to
> think it would have flown ok as was. From a simply academic point of
> view I"m curious what you guys think.
>
> -Robert
>

[Robert M. Gary]

> Well, at that point the insurance company owns the plane. Do you want
> to do them a favor that badly?

That's easy to say sitting here but not so easy when you're there. The
concequences of that are 1) You may never see your bird again and 2)
Rather than a 2 hour flight back to the states you are looking at 2
days of Mexican dirt roads blowing chunks the entire way.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

> You would also want to contact your insurance company because most aircraft
> insurance policies are restricted to "when a valid standard
> airworthiness certificate" is on the airplane.

The insurance co's attitude was "spend what you have to, do what ever
you have to" to get the plane out of Mexico. If a pilot leaves a plane
in Mexico it can take months to get it back. The Mexican gov't has a
real hard time with pilots exiting that are not the pilot who flew the
plane in. Also, they know there is money in fixing airplanes and they
want to make real sure they get a piece of that. Everything in Mexico
requires lots of paperwork and every paper needs lots and lots of
stamps

-Robert

[Jim Macklin]

That may all be true, but the FAA does have the ferry permit
to allow damaged airplanes to be flown, solo or required
crew only. Your insurance company has a contract to insure
your airplane if you operate it in accordance with the FAA
regulations.



"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
|> You would also want to contact your insurance company
because most aircraft
| > insurance policies are restricted to "when a valid
standard
| > airworthiness certificate" is on the airplane.
|
| The insurance co's attitude was "spend what you have to,
do what ever
| you have to" to get the plane out of Mexico. If a pilot
leaves a plane
| in Mexico it can take months to get it back. The Mexican
gov't has a
| real hard time with pilots exiting that are not the pilot
who flew the
| plane in. Also, they know there is money in fixing
airplanes and they
| want to make real sure they get a piece of that.
Everything in Mexico
| requires lots of paperwork and every paper needs lots and
lots of
| stamps
|
| -Robert
|

[Juan Jimenez]

Purely from an academic standpoint, I'm curious why people go into remote
areas of a foreign country (particularly one like Mexico) without some way
of calling for help if they get stuck, not having made arrangements/contacts
with a local mechanic in case there were some kind of problem, etc. People
who can afford having an A&P come down to Mexico to fix a problem ought to
be able to afford a little planning ahead for eventualities just like this
one. Academically speaking, of course. :)

Juan

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> http://www.thegaryhouse.com/aircraftdamage/
>
> I was down in a remote area of Mexico this last weekend and a truck
> backed into my aileron. I was lucky that the driver had a sat phone and
> I was able to call an A&P to come down to Mexico and swap it for me.
> However, all the local pilots, and the A&P who came down seemed to
> think it would have flown ok as was. From a simply academic point of
> view I"m curious what you guys think.
>
> -Robert
>


*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

[Steve Foley]

I don't call ahead and make arrangements for a mechanic at every airport I
land at. If something goes wrong, I'll deal with the problem.

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
om...
> Purely from an academic standpoint, I'm curious why people go into remote
> areas of a foreign country (particularly one like Mexico) without some way
> of calling for help if they get stuck, not having made
arrangements/contacts
> with a local mechanic in case there were some kind of problem, etc. People
> who can afford having an A&P come down to Mexico to fix a problem ought to
> be able to afford a little planning ahead for eventualities just like this
> one. Academically speaking, of course. :)
>
> Juan
>
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > http://www.thegaryhouse.com/aircraftdamage/
> >
> > I was down in a remote area of Mexico this last weekend and a truck
> > backed into my aileron. I was lucky that the driver had a sat phone and
> > I was able to call an A&P to come down to Mexico and swap it for me.
> > However, all the local pilots, and the A&P who came down seemed to
> > think it would have flown ok as was. From a simply academic point of
> > view I"m curious what you guys think.
> >
> > -Robert
> >
>
>
> *** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
> *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from
http://www.SecureIX.com ***

[StuartyA330]

Yes, i think she would have flown, but the aerodynamics may be a bit
off until u got it repaired.

[Robert M. Gary]

> Your insurance company has a contract to insure
> your airplane if you operate it in accordance with the FAA regulations.

The insurance co was pretty clear that they did not want me to wait
around for the paperwork process and wanted me to get it back to the
U.S.. The longer you wait around, the more likely the Mexicans will
notice the plane is damaged.

-Robert

[Jim Macklin]

ditto


"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
om...
| Purely from an academic standpoint, I'm curious why people
go into remote
| areas of a foreign country (particularly one like Mexico)
without some way
| of calling for help if they get stuck, not having made
arrangements/contacts
| with a local mechanic in case there were some kind of
problem, etc. People
| who can afford having an A&P come down to Mexico to fix a
problem ought to
| be able to afford a little planning ahead for
eventualities just like this
| one. Academically speaking, of course. :)
|
| Juan
|
| "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
|
oups.com...
| > http://www.thegaryhouse.com/aircraftdamage/
| >
| > I was down in a remote area of Mexico this last weekend
and a truck
| > backed into my aileron. I was lucky that the driver had
a sat phone and
| > I was able to call an A&P to come down to Mexico and
swap it for me.
| > However, all the local pilots, and the A&P who came down
seemed to
| > think it would have flown ok as was. From a simply
academic point of
| > view I"m curious what you guys think.
| >
| > -Robert
| >
|
|
| *** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
| *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account
from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

[NW_PILOT]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "NW_PILOT" > wrote
> >
> > I think it would have done OK!
>
> Yeah, I really trust your judgment.
> --
> Jim in NC

A lot of people have trusted my judgment all the airplanes I have delivered
have all made their destination.



Steven L. Rhine
CP ASEL & AMEL Instrument Airplane
CFI (Student)

[Robert M. Gary]

> not having made arrangements/contacts
> with a local mechanic in case there were some kind of problem, etc

Having a local mechanic work on your plane only solves 1/2 the problem
because the plane is again illegal as soon as you get back to the
states since you would need another log entry from a U.S. mechanic. I
think its better to skip the Mexican mechanic and just have the A&P do
the work and don't let the Mexicans find out.

-Robert

[Michael]

Nobody can really tell just by looking at the picture. I would want a
look at the aileron attach points and control linkages - but that would
be a flashlight-and-mirror deal. If they were OK, I would cheerfully
sign the ferry premit and fly it.

The damage to the aileron is superficial. Stay in the green arc and it
will be OK. Do I know that beyond a shadow of a doubt? No. But as an
A&P and engineer, I consider it so close to certainty that I would be
willing to take the risk.

Michael

[Jay Honeck]

> One thing to watch out for on seemingly minor damage near the outboard
> edges of wings is a bent spar. Think of how much torque on the inboard
> part of the wing that an impact to even make a small dent would make.
> Needless to say, kinked spars are vastly weaker than unkinked spars.

For sure. At OSH '04, our tent -- with 1 inch aluminum poles -- blew over
onto the wing of Atlas, our '74 Piper Pathfinder.

Those very stout tent poles bent like pipe cleaners over the trailing edge
of our right aileron like butter -- with NO damage to the aileron.

If a one-inch-thick pole can break across the trailing edge of an aileron
WITHOUT inflicting damage, just imagine the impact it took to inflict that
kind of damage to your aileron. I'd check the wing spar and attach points
very carefully.

(Incidentally, our '75 Warrior had very similar hangar rash on the aileron
when we bought the plane in '98. Our A&P signed it off at the pre-buy
inspection, and we flew it that way for several months, until we could
afford to have it rebuilt. Never had a problem...)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:W9mUf.840188$x96.700068@attbi_s72...
> For sure. At OSH '04, our tent -- with 1 inch aluminum poles -- blew
> over onto the wing of Atlas, our '74 Piper Pathfinder.
>
> Those very stout tent poles [...]

I thought you said they were "1 inch aluminum poles".

Not to discount your point about the potential of harm to the interior wing
structure (which is valid IMHO), but I'll bet you could take one of those 1
inch aluminum poles and easily bend it over your knee.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
om...
> Purely from an academic standpoint, I'm curious why people go into remote
> areas of a foreign country (particularly one like Mexico) without some way
> of calling for help if they get stuck

What would you suggest? Satellite phones are pretty much the only solution
that I see and they are quite expensive. They are also a relatively recent
invention (especially with respect to consumers like us), and somehow people
managed to get by without them prior to their availability.

>, not having made arrangements/contacts with a local mechanic in case there
>were some kind of problem, etc.

This is an even more bizarre thought, IMHO. Do you arrange for a local
mechanic at every location to which you fly? I sure don't. I doubt many
pilots do.

> People who can afford having an A&P come down to Mexico to fix a problem
> ought to be able to afford a little planning ahead for eventualities just
> like this one. Academically speaking, of course. :)

"People who can afford"? My understanding is that Robert wasn't the one
footing the bill.

Pete

[nrp]

I don't think you would want to EVER disconnect a control surface. Do
others know more about this?

[nrp]

I don't think you EVER want to disconnect a control surface or even a
trim tab. Any Aero engrs out there want to comment?

[Jay Honeck]

> Not to discount your point about the potential of harm to the interior
> wing structure (which is valid IMHO), but I'll bet you could take one of
> those 1 inch aluminum poles and easily bend it over your knee.

Nope -- I tried.

Actually, now that I think about it, they had to be bigger than 1 inch.
More like 1.5 inch.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Morgans]

"george" > wrote

> Nowadays I'd wait for repairs but a neighbour spent 5 years driving
> various two and four engined bombers over Occupied Europe and had a
> series of photos of just how little you -really- need in the way of
> contol surfaces

THEY had no choice, but to fly back home, while they were hit over enemy
territory. This fella did have a choice.

My take on it? He got lucky, and I'm glad he did.

I would say the chance of having a problem is low, less than 10%, most
likely. That means if 10 guys got hit like he did, one would not make it
home. Put in those terms, would you want to be that 1 out of 10? Even if
it was 1 out of 100, it would be too high, when there is a choice.

If it were me, I would have done as detailed inspection (removing access
covers, whatever) as possible. Perhaps, I even would have disconnected that
side at the yoke, or first belcrank, and bolted that aileron stationary.
Flutter scares the crap out of me.

Whatever, I would not have made any decision's based on what the insurance
company said.
--
Jim in NC

[cjcampbell]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> http://www.thegaryhouse.com/aircraftdamage/
>
> I was down in a remote area of Mexico this last weekend and a truck
> backed into my aileron. I was lucky that the driver had a sat phone and
> I was able to call an A&P to come down to Mexico and swap it for me.
> However, all the local pilots, and the A&P who came down seemed to
> think it would have flown ok as was. From a simply academic point of
> view I"m curious what you guys think.

I would not have felt qualified to determine whether it was flyable or
not, so I probably would not have flown it without getting an opinion
and a ferry permit from an A&P (and I am not above making the A&P fly
with me). My main concerns would be weakened attach points and possibly
some sort of flutter induced by disrupted airflow over the aileron.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-03-23, Morgans > wrote:
> Flutter scares the crap out of me.

I would strongly doubt (based on what I know) that there was even the
remotest chance of flutter. From what I understand, flutter would
require the flexing of the wing structure in such a way to cause the
whole thing to oscillate. This happens with experimental airframes (or
used to happen) because the whole surface or wing would warp under
aerodynamic loads in such a way that you'd get the oscillation. A dent
in a Mooney aileron isn't going to cause that.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> On 2006-03-23, Morgans > wrote:
> > Flutter scares the crap out of me.
>
> I would strongly doubt (based on what I know) that there was even the
> remotest chance of flutter. From what I understand, flutter would
> require the flexing of the wing structure in such a way to cause the
> whole thing to oscillate. This happens with experimental airframes (or
> used to happen) because the whole surface or wing would warp under
> aerodynamic loads in such a way that you'd get the oscillation. A dent
> in a Mooney aileron isn't going to cause that.

Yes it could - seen it for myself first hand - significant further
deteriotion occurred in-flight as a result of the flutter (that the
pilot could feel) - the pilot was very relieved to be on the ground
again - and won't be repeating the experience (why he didn't choose to
land at one of the several alternatives, we'll never know).

--
Duncan

[Dave Stadt]

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
news:1143124006.95524@sj-nntpcache-5...
> Dylan Smith wrote:
>> On 2006-03-23, Morgans > wrote:
>>
>>>Flutter scares the crap out of me.
>>
>>
>> I would strongly doubt (based on what I know) that there was even the
>> remotest chance of flutter. From what I understand, flutter would
>> require the flexing of the wing structure in such a way to cause the
>> whole thing to oscillate. This happens with experimental airframes (or
>> used to happen) because the whole surface or wing would warp under
>> aerodynamic loads in such a way that you'd get the oscillation. A dent
>> in a Mooney aileron isn't going to cause that.
>
> FWIW, Mooney ailerons are required to be rebalanced after they are
> *painted*.

As are almost all flight control surfaces on most all aircraft.

[Dave Butler]

Dave Stadt wrote:
> "Dave Butler" > wrote in message
> news:1143124006.95524@sj-nntpcache-5...
>
>>Dylan Smith wrote:
>>
>>>On 2006-03-23, Morgans > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Flutter scares the crap out of me.
>>>
>>>
>>>I would strongly doubt (based on what I know) that there was even the
>>>remotest chance of flutter. From what I understand, flutter would
>>>require the flexing of the wing structure in such a way to cause the
>>>whole thing to oscillate. This happens with experimental airframes (or
>>>used to happen) because the whole surface or wing would warp under
>>>aerodynamic loads in such a way that you'd get the oscillation. A dent
>>>in a Mooney aileron isn't going to cause that.
>>
>>FWIW, Mooney ailerons are required to be rebalanced after they are
>>*painted*.
>
>
> As are almost all flight control surfaces on most all aircraft.

OK, I thought this requirement came from manufacturers service letters and the
like. I know about Bonanza and Mooney. Is there some other more general requirement?

[Dave Butler]

Dave Butler wrote:
> Dave Stadt wrote:
>
>> "Dave Butler" > wrote in message
>> news:1143124006.95524@sj-nntpcache-5...
>>
>>> Dylan Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2006-03-23, Morgans > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Flutter scares the crap out of me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would strongly doubt (based on what I know) that there was even the
>>>> remotest chance of flutter. From what I understand, flutter would
>>>> require the flexing of the wing structure in such a way to cause the
>>>> whole thing to oscillate. This happens with experimental airframes (or
>>>> used to happen) because the whole surface or wing would warp under
>>>> aerodynamic loads in such a way that you'd get the oscillation. A dent
>>>> in a Mooney aileron isn't going to cause that.
>>>
>>>
>>> FWIW, Mooney ailerons are required to be rebalanced after they are
>>> *painted*.
>>
>>
>>
>> As are almost all flight control surfaces on most all aircraft.
>
>
> OK, I thought this requirement came from manufacturers service letters
> and the like. I know about Bonanza and Mooney. Is there some other more
> general requirement?

Here's a quote from http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/182829-1.html "Getting Good
Paint" by Paul Bertorelli:

"Guenther and better shops insist—rightly—that controls be removed, stripped,
inspected and, most important, rebalanced after painting. On some
controls—Bonanza ruddervators and Mooney ailerons—this is a critical task and
shouldn’t be skipped. But it should still be standard on all aircraft. Guenther
goes so far as to record the balance data in the aircraft logbook, along with
the signoff for the paint itself."

which makes me think this is not a general requirement or practice.

[nrp]

Flutter is determined by the torsional stiffness (and mass) of the wing
section. In this case, that did not seem to be compromised - i. e.
there were no diagonal wrinkles across the wing panel. If there were
diagonal wrinkles, flutter would be a real possibility. But dropping
the airspeed greatly helps the flutter margin, just as increasing the
max speed quickly reduces the flutter margin. I understand that during
each new aircraft's flight at the factory, the test pilot must dive it
to 110% of the indicated red line speed. The survivors are certfied.

There were diagonal wrinkles across the aileron panel, but I don't
think the aileron in itself can flutter. The question in this case
would be the aileron control integrity. Someone earlier suggested
blocking or locking one aileron. That could have all sorts of
interesting changes and very definitely I would not recommend.

[Robert M. Gary]

> I would not have felt qualified to determine whether it was flyable or
> not, so I probably would not have flown it without getting an opinion
> and a ferry permit from an A&P (and I am not above making the A&P fly
> with me). My main concerns would be weakened attach points and possibly
> some sort of flutter induced by disrupted airflow over the aileron.

That is exactly how I felt (although I was less concerned with the
permit itself). I was getting lots of advice but it felt good to have
an A&P come out and give me his opinion. It would have been nice to get
the opinion of an aerospace engineer but I wasn't going to hold my
breath for that. I did have the A&P come with me on the test flight
after the repair before I put the family in the plane. My main concern
had also been flutter resulting from the uneven surface.
My broker seems to believe that it would be very unlikely that this
will effect my rates in the future. I"m hoping that they are able to
collect from the truck's Mexican liability policy too. BTW: I wonder
how often people drop their plane off for annual and the mechanic
borrows parts off it to retrieve another plane without the owner ever
knowing:).

-Robert

[Dave Stadt]

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
news:1143128184.860637@sj-nntpcache-3...
> Dave Butler wrote:
>> Dave Stadt wrote:
>>
>>> "Dave Butler" > wrote in message
>>> news:1143124006.95524@sj-nntpcache-5...
>>>
>>>> Dylan Smith wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2006-03-23, Morgans > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Flutter scares the crap out of me.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I would strongly doubt (based on what I know) that there was even the
>>>>> remotest chance of flutter. From what I understand, flutter would
>>>>> require the flexing of the wing structure in such a way to cause the
>>>>> whole thing to oscillate. This happens with experimental airframes (or
>>>>> used to happen) because the whole surface or wing would warp under
>>>>> aerodynamic loads in such a way that you'd get the oscillation. A dent
>>>>> in a Mooney aileron isn't going to cause that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> FWIW, Mooney ailerons are required to be rebalanced after they are
>>>> *painted*.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As are almost all flight control surfaces on most all aircraft.
>>
>>
>> OK, I thought this requirement came from manufacturers service letters
>> and the like. I know about Bonanza and Mooney. Is there some other more
>> general requirement?
>
> Here's a quote from http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/182829-1.html "Getting
> Good Paint" by Paul Bertorelli:
>
> "Guenther and better shops insist—rightly—that controls be removed,
> stripped, inspected and, most important, rebalanced after painting. On
> some controls—Bonanza ruddervators and Mooney ailerons—this is a critical
> task and shouldn’t be skipped. But it should still be standard on all
> aircraft. Guenther goes so far as to record the balance data in the
> aircraft logbook, along with the signoff for the paint itself."
>
> which makes me think this is not a general requirement or practice.

It is. Most all manufacturers provide control surface balance requirements.
Even the Cessna 150 requires it. I also believe it is in the FARs.

[Jim Macklin]

Flutter is caused by imbalanced movable surfaces. When the
plane moves the moment arm of the surface causes deflection
of the surface.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"nrp" > wrote in message
oups.com...
| Flutter is determined by the torsional stiffness (and
mass) of the wing
| section. In this case, that did not seem to be
compromised - i. e.
| there were no diagonal wrinkles across the wing panel. If
there were
| diagonal wrinkles, flutter would be a real possibility.
But dropping
| the airspeed greatly helps the flutter margin, just as
increasing the
| max speed quickly reduces the flutter margin. I
understand that during
| each new aircraft's flight at the factory, the test pilot
must dive it
| to 110% of the indicated red line speed. The survivors
are certfied.
|
| There were diagonal wrinkles across the aileron panel, but
I don't
| think the aileron in itself can flutter. The question in
this case
| would be the aileron control integrity. Someone earlier
suggested
| blocking or locking one aileron. That could have all
sorts of
| interesting changes and very definitely I would not
recommend.
|

[Jim Macklin]

Family values?

We all get there together, where the plane goes. "Daddy,
why are we dead?"



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
|> I would not have felt qualified to determine whether it
was flyable or
| > not, so I probably would not have flown it without
getting an opinion
| > and a ferry permit from an A&P (and I am not above
making the A&P fly
| > with me). My main concerns would be weakened attach
points and possibly
| > some sort of flutter induced by disrupted airflow over
the aileron.
|
| That is exactly how I felt (although I was less concerned
with the
| permit itself). I was getting lots of advice but it felt
good to have
| an A&P come out and give me his opinion. It would have
been nice to get
| the opinion of an aerospace engineer but I wasn't going to
hold my
| breath for that. I did have the A&P come with me on the
test flight
| after the repair before I put the family in the plane. My
main concern
| had also been flutter resulting from the uneven surface.
| My broker seems to believe that it would be very unlikely
that this
| will effect my rates in the future. I"m hoping that they
are able to
| collect from the truck's Mexican liability policy too.
BTW: I wonder
| how often people drop their plane off for annual and the
mechanic
| borrows parts off it to retrieve another plane without the
owner ever
| knowing:).
|
| -Robert
|

[Robert M. Gary]

> Family values?

> We all get there together, where the plane goes. "Daddy,
> why are we dead?"

Jim,

I'm not sure what type of stupid statement you are trying to make. The
plane was fixed (minus mismatched paint). How many years do you
normally require a plane sit idle after the A&P repairs the plane
before you fly it??

-Robert

[Jim Macklin]

Was it repaired and completely inspected or were more
repairs done on return to the USA? The indications that I
had from the thread was that more repairs/inspections were
done on the airplane after it returned to the US. Yet you
carried your family after major repairs caused by damage.

Glad you got away with it, but what would you have done had
the bell crank on the aileron been damaged and stuck the
aileron full up or down? What would have done if something
else was hidden in the controls that was not repaired? You
obviously had a question, why else did you start this
thread?

FAR requires a test flight after repairs and that you, the
pilot doing the test make a logbook entry, right after the
A&P release to service, before any passengers are carried.
Without a ferry permit [special airworthiness certificate]
the A&P can only return the aircraft to service if it is in
the same condition as a "new airplane" or all repairs are
completed. If you are stopped by the FAA on a ramp check,
hope all your paperwork is perfect.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P


"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
|> Family values?
|
| > We all get there together, where the plane goes.
"Daddy,
| > why are we dead?"
|
| Jim,
|
| I'm not sure what type of stupid statement you are trying
to make. The
| plane was fixed (minus mismatched paint). How many years
do you
| normally require a plane sit idle after the A&P repairs
the plane
| before you fly it??
|
| -Robert
|

[Robert M. Gary]

> Was it repaired and completely inspected or were more
> repairs done on return to the USA? The indications that I
> had from the thread was that more repairs/inspections were
> done on the airplane after it returned to the US. Yet you
> carried your family after major repairs caused by damage.

Quoting from the original post "I was able to call an A&P to come down
to Mexico and swap it for me." Sadly, the other Mooney owners wants his
back (go figure) so yes, more repairs were also done back home (like
ordering a factory new aileron for me, paint etc). Yes it was
inspected in Mexico by the A&P doing the work and all wing panels
relevant to aileron control were removed before the A&P got in the
plane with me and we performed the test flight. I honestly don't know
what else to do with regard to inspection other than having had the A&P
look at it. I could ask Mooney if they want to send an engineer down
but I don't think that is going to happen.

Jim, I'm still highly offended by your comment about my family.

-Robert

[nrp]

But I understand flutter also relies on the original torsional
stiffness of the wing being preserved. That if it is not (i. e. a
wrinkled wing skin) the flutter margin is reduced. Might even a
properly balanced control surface still flutter if the primary wing
stiffness is compromised? or is the control surface CG the only
determining item? THX

[Dave Stadt]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...

> Quoting from the original post "I was able to call an A&P to come down
> to Mexico and swap it for me." Sadly, the other Mooney owners wants his
> back (go figure) so yes, more repairs were also done back home (like
> ordering a factory new aileron for me, paint etc). Yes it was
> inspected in Mexico by the A&P doing the work and all wing panels
> relevant to aileron control were removed before the A&P got in the
> plane with me and we performed the test flight. I honestly don't know
> what else to do with regard to inspection other than having had the A&P
> look at it. I could ask Mooney if they want to send an engineer down
> but I don't think that is going to happen.
>
> Jim, I'm still highly offended by your comment about my family.
>
> -Robert

IMHO you did everything that could have reasonably been expected.

[Jim Macklin]

Then you answered the question, IF you really had a complete
repair and the A&P did make a "return to service" entry. If
he did all that and you did a test flight [you really should
not have carried a passenger, which the A&P would be] and
made the pilot's return to service after test flight, then
what was your question, should you have just flown it away
without any work/inspection or repair?

As for your family, my comment was about your judgment, if
you want to substitute three strangers from the beach,
that's fine with me.


BTW, since some FAA types read these groups, they have your
N number.



"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
|> Was it repaired and completely inspected or were more
| > repairs done on return to the USA? The indications that
I
| > had from the thread was that more repairs/inspections
were
| > done on the airplane after it returned to the US. Yet
you
| > carried your family after major repairs caused by
damage.
|
| Quoting from the original post "I was able to call an A&P
to come down
| to Mexico and swap it for me." Sadly, the other Mooney
owners wants his
| back (go figure) so yes, more repairs were also done back
home (like
| ordering a factory new aileron for me, paint etc). Yes it
was
| inspected in Mexico by the A&P doing the work and all wing
panels
| relevant to aileron control were removed before the A&P
got in the
| plane with me and we performed the test flight. I honestly
don't know
| what else to do with regard to inspection other than
having had the A&P
| look at it. I could ask Mooney if they want to send an
engineer down
| but I don't think that is going to happen.
|
| Jim, I'm still highly offended by your comment about my
family.
|
| -Robert
|

[Jim Macklin]

Wing stiffness has more to do with control reversal, flutter
has to do with harmonics and balance.

If I had a question about a control surface and I had to fly
the airplane, I would limit speed to Va so that even a full
deflection of the control would not break the airplane.


I've seen pictures of a C210 [old plane with struts] that
took off from a strip near Tulsa with just a little ice on
the ailerons. I got to cruise speed and crashed shortly
there after, the outer wing panels looked like a Navy
fighter with the wings folded.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"nrp" > wrote in message
oups.com...
| But I understand flutter also relies on the original
torsional
| stiffness of the wing being preserved. That if it is not
(i. e. a
| wrinkled wing skin) the flutter margin is reduced. Might
even a
| properly balanced control surface still flutter if the
primary wing
| stiffness is compromised? or is the control surface CG the
only
| determining item? THX
|

[Robert M. Gary]

> then what was your question, should you have just flown it away
> without any work/inspection or repair?

Jim, again quoting from the original post..
"From a simply academic point of view I"m curious what you guys think."
I was just curious how it would have flown since I obviously did not
fly it.

Again, I was very offended by your comment.

-Robert

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article . com>,
"nrp" > wrote:

> But I understand flutter also relies on the original torsional
> stiffness of the wing being preserved. That if it is not (i. e. a
> wrinkled wing skin) the flutter margin is reduced. Might even a
> properly balanced control surface still flutter if the primary wing
> stiffness is compromised? or is the control surface CG the only
> determining item? THX


Flutter can also result from unusual airflow exciting a surface (such as
the rather large dent in the aileron tip). It is a function of
stiffness, true airspeed, balance and external excitations.

The owner did the conservative thing -- after all his insurance company
was there to stand behind him. Yes -- the whole thing was obviously a
major PITA, but everyone came out fine. Congratulations!

[Juan Jimenez]

And I didn't say people should call ahead at every airport they land on.

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
news:RJiUf.2575$3t1.120@trndny08...
>I don't call ahead and make arrangements for a mechanic at every airport I
> land at. If something goes wrong, I'll deal with the problem.
>
> "Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
> om...
>> Purely from an academic standpoint, I'm curious why people go into remote
>> areas of a foreign country (particularly one like Mexico) without some
>> way
>> of calling for help if they get stuck, not having made
> arrangements/contacts
>> with a local mechanic in case there were some kind of problem, etc.
>> People
>> who can afford having an A&P come down to Mexico to fix a problem ought
>> to
>> be able to afford a little planning ahead for eventualities just like
>> this
>> one. Academically speaking, of course. :)
>>
>> Juan
>>
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > http://www.thegaryhouse.com/aircraftdamage/
>> >
>> > I was down in a remote area of Mexico this last weekend and a truck
>> > backed into my aileron. I was lucky that the driver had a sat phone and
>> > I was able to call an A&P to come down to Mexico and swap it for me.
>> > However, all the local pilots, and the A&P who came down seemed to
>> > think it would have flown ok as was. From a simply academic point of
>> > view I"m curious what you guys think.
>> >
>> > -Robert
>> >
>>
>>
>> *** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
>> *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from
> http://www.SecureIX.com ***
>
>


*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

[Juan Jimenez]

That it may be illegal and that it needs another log entry are two separate
issues. There's also nothing wrong with using a Mexican mechanic if he/she
is an FAA-certified A&P. You can download the airmen database from the
FAA.GOV website and check for certified mechanics living there (as well as
in any other country, they even separate the files for you, domestic and
foreign), or you can go to places like...

http://www.landings.com/evird.acgi$pass*81558983!_h-www.landings.com/_landings/pages/search/certs-ap.html

....and search for COUNTRY = MEXICO and off you go.

Also, if you do a little bit of research you'll find this interesting
document...

http://www.bajabushpilots.com/news-pop.php?NewsID=44

....which contains this interesting little tidbit of useful information:

"2) A&P mechanics working on US aircraft in Mexico
Requested by the BBP (Baja Bush Pilots) at the meeting, the DGAC (Dirección
General de Aeronáutica Civil), after consulting with their legal persons (at
the meeting) indicated that this requirement was not a rule or law and that
US A&P mechanics can work on US aircraft in Mexico without the presence of
or signing off by a Mexican A&P. This major change will make repairs much
simpler and less expensive for anyone who has a problem in Mexico. The DG
indicated that he will be sending a message to all ICAO airports addressing
this situation this week."

All of this is academically-speaking, of course. Don't take it personally,
I'm just trying to show the benefits of doing a bit of googledigging before
heading off in that nice Mooney of yours to a remote location in a foreign
country.

Juan

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> not having made arrangements/contacts
>> with a local mechanic in case there were some kind of problem, etc
>
> Having a local mechanic work on your plane only solves 1/2 the problem
> because the plane is again illegal as soon as you get back to the
> states since you would need another log entry from a U.S. mechanic. I
> think its better to skip the Mexican mechanic and just have the A&P do
> the work and don't let the Mexicans find out.
>
> -Robert
>


*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

[Juan Jimenez]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
> om...
>> Purely from an academic standpoint, I'm curious why people go into remote
>> areas of a foreign country (particularly one like Mexico) without some
>> way of calling for help if they get stuck
>
> What would you suggest? Satellite phones are pretty much the only
> solution that I see and they are quite expensive. They are also a
> relatively recent invention (especially with respect to consumers like
> us), and somehow people managed to get by without them prior to their
> availability.

There are other solutions, such as portable radios of various types, as well
as arrangements to have someone come down to the location if you haven't
been heard from in x number of hours or days.

>>, not having made arrangements/contacts with a local mechanic in case
>>there were some kind of problem, etc.
>
> This is an even more bizarre thought, IMHO. Do you arrange for a local
> mechanic at every location to which you fly? I sure don't. I doubt many
> pilots do.

What is bizarre is reading what I said and translating that into "every
location to which you fly." That is absurd. Note that the original post
mentions a REMOTE LOCATION IN MEXICO. Enough said.

>> People who can afford having an A&P come down to Mexico to fix a problem
>> ought to be able to afford a little planning ahead for eventualities just
>> like this one. Academically speaking, of course. :)
>
> "People who can afford"? My understanding is that Robert wasn't the one
> footing the bill.

I didn't get that at all from what I read. Did the insurance company pay for
the A&P coming down to the "remote location" in Mexico to make the repairs,
including the cost of the parts? The point is there are quite a few A&P's in
Mexico proper, FAA-certified. Just because someone is Mexican doesn't mean
he/she can't do repairs on N-reg aircraft.

Juan


*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

[Juan Jimenez]

And we have your name. Guess which one more people will remember?

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:FdCUf.454$t22.144@dukeread08...
> Then you answered the question, IF you really had a complete
> repair and the A&P did make a "return to service" entry. If
> he did all that and you did a test flight [you really should
> not have carried a passenger, which the A&P would be] and
> made the pilot's return to service after test flight, then
> what was your question, should you have just flown it away
> without any work/inspection or repair?
>
> As for your family, my comment was about your judgment, if
> you want to substitute three strangers from the beach,
> that's fine with me.
>
>
> BTW, since some FAA types read these groups, they have your
> N number.
>
>
>
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> |> Was it repaired and completely inspected or were more
> | > repairs done on return to the USA? The indications that
> I
> | > had from the thread was that more repairs/inspections
> were
> | > done on the airplane after it returned to the US. Yet
> you
> | > carried your family after major repairs caused by
> damage.
> |
> | Quoting from the original post "I was able to call an A&P
> to come down
> | to Mexico and swap it for me." Sadly, the other Mooney
> owners wants his
> | back (go figure) so yes, more repairs were also done back
> home (like
> | ordering a factory new aileron for me, paint etc). Yes it
> was
> | inspected in Mexico by the A&P doing the work and all wing
> panels
> | relevant to aileron control were removed before the A&P
> got in the
> | plane with me and we performed the test flight. I honestly
> don't know
> | what else to do with regard to inspection other than
> having had the A&P
> | look at it. I could ask Mooney if they want to send an
> engineer down
> | but I don't think that is going to happen.
> |
> | Jim, I'm still highly offended by your comment about my
> family.
> |
> | -Robert
> |
>
>


*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

[Jim Macklin]

Nice research.
"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
om...
| That it may be illegal and that it needs another log entry
are two separate
| issues. There's also nothing wrong with using a Mexican
mechanic if he/she
| is an FAA-certified A&P. You can download the airmen
database from the
| FAA.GOV website and check for certified mechanics living
there (as well as
| in any other country, they even separate the files for
you, domestic and
| foreign), or you can go to places like...
|
|
http://www.landings.com/evird.acgi$pass*81558983!_h-www.landings.com/_landings/pages/search/certs-ap.html
|
| ...and search for COUNTRY = MEXICO and off you go.
|
| Also, if you do a little bit of research you'll find this
interesting
| document...
|
| http://www.bajabushpilots.com/news-pop.php?NewsID=44
|
| ...which contains this interesting little tidbit of useful
information:
|
| "2) A&P mechanics working on US aircraft in Mexico
| Requested by the BBP (Baja Bush Pilots) at the meeting,
the DGAC (Dirección
| General de Aeronáutica Civil), after consulting with their
legal persons (at
| the meeting) indicated that this requirement was not a
rule or law and that
| US A&P mechanics can work on US aircraft in Mexico without
the presence of
| or signing off by a Mexican A&P. This major change will
make repairs much
| simpler and less expensive for anyone who has a problem in
Mexico. The DG
| indicated that he will be sending a message to all ICAO
airports addressing
| this situation this week."
|
| All of this is academically-speaking, of course. Don't
take it personally,
| I'm just trying to show the benefits of doing a bit of
googledigging before
| heading off in that nice Mooney of yours to a remote
location in a foreign
| country.
|
| Juan
|
| "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
|
ups.com...
| >> not having made arrangements/contacts
| >> with a local mechanic in case there were some kind of
problem, etc
| >
| > Having a local mechanic work on your plane only solves
1/2 the problem
| > because the plane is again illegal as soon as you get
back to the
| > states since you would need another log entry from a
U.S. mechanic. I
| > think its better to skip the Mexican mechanic and just
have the A&P do
| > the work and don't let the Mexicans find out.
| >
| > -Robert
| >
|
|
| *** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
| *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account
from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

[Jim Macklin]

I meet people all the time who say, "Hey Jim, didn't you go
to Spartan 35 years ago?" or some other such. I always use
my real name, Google for "James H. Macklin" (use the quotes)
and I'm not the Ph.D from California.


"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
om...
| And we have your name. Guess which one more people will
remember?
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:FdCUf.454$t22.144@dukeread08...
| > Then you answered the question, IF you really had a
complete
| > repair and the A&P did make a "return to service" entry.
If
| > he did all that and you did a test flight [you really
should
| > not have carried a passenger, which the A&P would be]
and
| > made the pilot's return to service after test flight,
then
| > what was your question, should you have just flown it
away
| > without any work/inspection or repair?
| >
| > As for your family, my comment was about your judgment,
if
| > you want to substitute three strangers from the beach,
| > that's fine with me.
| >
| >
| > BTW, since some FAA types read these groups, they have
your
| > N number.
| >
| >
| >
| > "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
| >
ups.com...
| > |> Was it repaired and completely inspected or were more
| > | > repairs done on return to the USA? The indications
that
| > I
| > | > had from the thread was that more
repairs/inspections
| > were
| > | > done on the airplane after it returned to the US.
Yet
| > you
| > | > carried your family after major repairs caused by
| > damage.
| > |
| > | Quoting from the original post "I was able to call an
A&P
| > to come down
| > | to Mexico and swap it for me." Sadly, the other Mooney
| > owners wants his
| > | back (go figure) so yes, more repairs were also done
back
| > home (like
| > | ordering a factory new aileron for me, paint etc).
Yes it
| > was
| > | inspected in Mexico by the A&P doing the work and all
wing
| > panels
| > | relevant to aileron control were removed before the
A&P
| > got in the
| > | plane with me and we performed the test flight. I
honestly
| > don't know
| > | what else to do with regard to inspection other than
| > having had the A&P
| > | look at it. I could ask Mooney if they want to send an
| > engineer down
| > | but I don't think that is going to happen.
| > |
| > | Jim, I'm still highly offended by your comment about
my
| > family.
| > |
| > | -Robert
| > |
| >
| >
|
|
| *** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
| *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account
from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

[Jim Macklin]

Been thinking about a test flight to test any airplane after
such damage repair, before carrying passengers.

A full range of control inputs at no more than Va for the
weight, followed with autopilot operation. Then in small
steps of increasing speed up Vne with moderate control
displacement.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message news:gnDUf.476$t22.101@dukeread08...
|I meet people all the time who say, "Hey Jim, didn't you go
| to Spartan 35 years ago?" or some other such. I always
use
| my real name, Google for "James H. Macklin" (use the
quotes)
| and I'm not the Ph.D from California.
|
|
| "Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
| om...
|| And we have your name. Guess which one more people will
| remember?
||
|| "Jim Macklin" >
wrote
| in message
|| news:FdCUf.454$t22.144@dukeread08...
|| > Then you answered the question, IF you really had a
| complete
|| > repair and the A&P did make a "return to service"
entry.
| If
|| > he did all that and you did a test flight [you really
| should
|| > not have carried a passenger, which the A&P would be]
| and
|| > made the pilot's return to service after test flight,
| then
|| > what was your question, should you have just flown it
| away
|| > without any work/inspection or repair?
|| >
|| > As for your family, my comment was about your judgment,
| if
|| > you want to substitute three strangers from the beach,
|| > that's fine with me.
|| >
|| >
|| > BTW, since some FAA types read these groups, they have
| your
|| > N number.
|| >
|| >
|| >
|| > "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
|| >
|
ups.com...
|| > |> Was it repaired and completely inspected or were
more
|| > | > repairs done on return to the USA? The indications
| that
|| > I
|| > | > had from the thread was that more
| repairs/inspections
|| > were
|| > | > done on the airplane after it returned to the US.
| Yet
|| > you
|| > | > carried your family after major repairs caused by
|| > damage.
|| > |
|| > | Quoting from the original post "I was able to call an
| A&P
|| > to come down
|| > | to Mexico and swap it for me." Sadly, the other
Mooney
|| > owners wants his
|| > | back (go figure) so yes, more repairs were also done
| back
|| > home (like
|| > | ordering a factory new aileron for me, paint etc).
| Yes it
|| > was
|| > | inspected in Mexico by the A&P doing the work and all
| wing
|| > panels
|| > | relevant to aileron control were removed before the
| A&P
|| > got in the
|| > | plane with me and we performed the test flight. I
| honestly
|| > don't know
|| > | what else to do with regard to inspection other than
|| > having had the A&P
|| > | look at it. I could ask Mooney if they want to send
an
|| > engineer down
|| > | but I don't think that is going to happen.
|| > |
|| > | Jim, I'm still highly offended by your comment about
| my
|| > family.
|| > |
|| > | -Robert
|| > |
|| >
|| >
||
||
|| *** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
|| *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account
| from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
|
|

[Peter Duniho]

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
m...
> What is bizarre is reading what I said and translating that into "every
> location to which you fly." That is absurd. Note that the original post
> mentions a REMOTE LOCATION IN MEXICO. Enough said.

No, what is bizarre is having two people not understand what you meant, and
blaming both of them rather than considering that your words might have been
ambiguous (they were).

[Juan Jimenez]

They were not.

"Purely from an academic standpoint, I'm curious why people go into remote
areas of a foreign country (particularly one like Mexico) without some way
of calling for help if they get stuck, not having made arrangements/contacts
with a local mechanic in case there were some kind of problem, etc. People
who can afford having an A&P come down to Mexico to fix a problem ought to
be able to afford a little planning ahead for eventualities just like this
one. Academically speaking, of course. :)"

Not a word about "every location to which you fly." Very specific mention of
"remote areas of a foreign country." As I said, enough said.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
> m...
>> What is bizarre is reading what I said and translating that into "every
>> location to which you fly." That is absurd. Note that the original post
>> mentions a REMOTE LOCATION IN MEXICO. Enough said.
>
> No, what is bizarre is having two people not understand what you meant,
> and blaming both of them rather than considering that your words might
> have been ambiguous (they were).
>


*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

[Peter Duniho]

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
om...
> They were not.

They were so.

> [...]
> Not a word about "every location to which you fly." Very specific mention
> of "remote areas of a foreign country." As I said, enough said.

You have no desire to see the truth, because it implies defect in your post.
However, the fact remains that the defect exists. The proof is in the way
your post was read by others.

As far as your claim that you were clear about "remote areas of a foreign
country" go, that clause was interpreted by both me and Steve to be
connected only to the clause immediately following, with the subsequent
comma marking the beginning of an entirely new clause.

As I said, it is bizarre that you would ignore the ample evidence of the
ambiguity in your post, and continue to insist that it was not.

Pete

[Juan Jimenez]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
> om...
>> They were not.
>
> They were so.
>
>> [...]
>> Not a word about "every location to which you fly." Very specific mention
>> of "remote areas of a foreign country." As I said, enough said.
>
> You have no desire to see the truth...

Wrong again, because the only truth is that I don't have time to waste with
irrelevant, prepubescent arguments. Shoo, back to the playpen.

<plonk>



*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

[Jules]

Juan Jimenez wrote:

> Purely from an academic standpoint, I'm curious why people go into remote
> areas of a foreign country (particularly one like Mexico) without some way
> of calling for help if they get stuck,


I would hope, if it developed into a survival situation, he activate his
elt. That seems reasonable.

[Montblack]

("Juan Jimenez" wrote)
> Wrong again, because the only truth is that I don't have time to waste
> with irrelevant, prepubescent arguments. Shoo, back to the playpen.
>
> <plonk>


Plonk?

Now Juan, you can't be sending your virtual playmates away whenever you
disagree with them.

Go out to the cornfield and bring Peter back - right now.

Thank you.


Montblack-in-the-box ...oh crap!!

[Juan Jimenez]

"Jules" > wrote in message
...
>
> Juan Jimenez wrote:
>
>> Purely from an academic standpoint, I'm curious why people go into remote
>> areas of a foreign country (particularly one like Mexico) without some
>> way of calling for help if they get stuck,
>
> I would hope, if it developed into a survival situation, he activate his
> elt. That seems reasonable.

I suppose. But the dude in the truck was there, at least he knew he could
get a ride if the phone didn't work. :)


*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

[Juan Jimenez]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Juan Jimenez" wrote)
>> Wrong again, because the only truth is that I don't have time to waste
>> with irrelevant, prepubescent arguments. Shoo, back to the playpen.
>>
>> <plonk>
>
>
> Plonk?
>
> Now Juan, you can't be sending your virtual playmates away whenever you
> disagree with them.
>
> Go out to the cornfield and bring Peter back - right now.
>
> Thank you.

He's waving the baby rattle at you, not me. Have fun. :)


*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

[Jay Honeck]

> Go out to the cornfield and bring Peter back - right now.

Hey -- I read that book!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter Duniho]

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
om...
> [...]
> <plonk>

Typical. Don't like the message, so shoot the messenger. How mature. It
does fit right in with your childish announcement that you've used your
killfile though. The adults around here just killfile a person and are done
with it. You've done the Usenet equivalent of "la la la...I can't HEAR
you!"