Get a ferry permit, or just fly it?

[Paul Tomblin]

If you've got a small problem with your plane, do you bother with a ferry
permit, or do you just fly it if you think it's safe?

Hypothetical: Say your (shared) plane has gotten some damage, say for
instance a wingtip strobe/nav light assembly got scraped off against a
hangar while it was being towed. Say that the wires are secured with duct
tape and the person who did the damage flew it home like that. Also say
that the company that does the work on your plane isn't at your home
airport. Would you wait for a good VFR day and fly it over to that
company, or would you go through all the hassle of getting a local
mechanic to inspect it and apply for a ferry permit?

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
"I have a step-ladder. It's a very nice ladder and all, but I wish I had
the chance to get to know my real ladder." - Paula Poundstone

[Bob Gardner]

Although the situation as you describe it does not seem to be one of
airworthiness in a practical sense, I have stayed out of trouble for many
years by asking myself "How will this decision sound at the inquest?" There
must be a mechanic somewhere nearby who could assess the damage and give you
a better answer.

Bob Gardner

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> If you've got a small problem with your plane, do you bother with a ferry
> permit, or do you just fly it if you think it's safe?
>
> Hypothetical: Say your (shared) plane has gotten some damage, say for
> instance a wingtip strobe/nav light assembly got scraped off against a
> hangar while it was being towed. Say that the wires are secured with duct
> tape and the person who did the damage flew it home like that. Also say
> that the company that does the work on your plane isn't at your home
> airport. Would you wait for a good VFR day and fly it over to that
> company, or would you go through all the hassle of getting a local
> mechanic to inspect it and apply for a ferry permit?
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
> "I have a step-ladder. It's a very nice ladder and all, but I wish I had
> the chance to get to know my real ladder." - Paula Poundstone

[Newps]

Paul Tomblin wrote:

> If you've got a small problem with your plane, do you bother with a ferry
> permit, or do you just fly it if you think it's safe?

Fly it.


>
> Hypothetical: Say your (shared) plane has gotten some damage, say for
> instance a wingtip strobe/nav light assembly got scraped off against a
> hangar while it was being towed. Say that the wires are secured with duct
> tape and the person who did the damage flew it home like that.


Fly it.


Also say
> that the company that does the work on your plane isn't at your home
> airport. Would you wait for a good VFR day and fly it over to that
> company, or would you go through all the hassle of getting a local
> mechanic to inspect it and apply for a ferry permit?


Fly it.

[Robert M. Gary]

Newps wrote:
> Paul Tomblin wrote:
>
> > If you've got a small problem with your plane, do you bother with a ferry
> > permit, or do you just fly it if you think it's safe?
>
> Fly it.

I agree. Interestingly, I was involve in an FAA "altercation" a little
while back. The C-182 that the FBO rents out got an onsite inspection
by the FSDO and failed. All of us CFIs who taught in the plane got
called to the carpet for not taknig off inspection covers before flight
(or something stupid like that). Interestingly though a few pilot who
also happen to be FAA ATC's didn't get called at all. Seems like the
FAA takes care of their own??

-Robert

[Newps]

Robert M. Gary wrote:


Interestingly though a few pilot who
> also happen to be FAA ATC's didn't get called at all. Seems like the
> FAA takes care of their own??

They may have had their interview at the tower.

[john smith]

> Hypothetical: Say your (shared) plane has gotten some damage, say for
> instance a wingtip strobe/nav light assembly got scraped off against a
> hangar while it was being towed. Say that the wires are secured with duct
> tape and the person who did the damage flew it home like that. Also say
> that the company that does the work on your plane isn't at your home
> airport. Would you wait for a good VFR day and fly it over to that
> company, or would you go through all the hassle of getting a local
> mechanic to inspect it and apply for a ferry permit?

Wingtip strobe is not a structural part and is not required for day VFR
flight. No structural damage so safety of flight is not an issue.

[[email protected]]

Newps wrote:
> Paul Tomblin wrote:
>
> > If you've got a small problem with your plane, do you bother with a ferry
> > permit, or do you just fly it if you think it's safe?
>
> Fly it.
>
>
> >
> > Hypothetical: Say your (shared) plane has gotten some damage, say for
> > instance a wingtip strobe/nav light assembly got scraped off against a
> > hangar while it was being towed. Say that the wires are secured with duct
> > tape and the person who did the damage flew it home like that.
>
>
> Fly it.
>
>
> Also say
> > that the company that does the work on your plane isn't at your home
> > airport. Would you wait for a good VFR day and fly it over to that
> > company, or would you go through all the hassle of getting a local
> > mechanic to inspect it and apply for a ferry permit?
>
>
> Fly it.

Does this hypothetical pilot have enough education to
determine that there is no hidden damage? Wingtip damage sometimes
results in wing root damage, particularly at the aft spar. A bashed
wingtip might be ready to come loose in flight and foul an aileron,
especialy those cheap plastic tips found on so many airplanes. If most
pilots saw the light structure inside most light aircraft, structure
that was designed for flight loads, not ground abuses, they'd think
again about "just flying it." Been there, done that, lived to tell the
story.
I would imagine that ferry permits were created to protect
people from themselves.

Dan

[Robert M. Gary]

wrote:
> Newps wrote:
> > Paul Tomblin wrote:
> Does this hypothetical pilot have enough education to
> determine that there is no hidden damage? Wingtip damage sometimes
> results in wing root damage, particularly at the aft spar.

I guess that's one argument. However, you can take anything to an
extream. Hitting the nav light plastic cover with the hanger door
wouldn't seem too important to most of us. In the end a pilot must make
his own determination. There is probably not a plane in the air that
the FDSO couldn't ground for one reason or another. Pilots must use the
best common sense they have.

> I would imagine that ferry permits were created to protect
> people from themselves.

My bet is that the permits were created as a legal loophole so the FSDO
couldn't strand your plane in some remote area that wasn't capable of
performing the required maintenance. Once the FAA uses the
"unairworthy" word a pilot is otherwise stuck. Those of us who have
done some bush flying have had situations where we've needed to fly
"unairworthy" planes out of remote areas. I've had insurance companies
pay me to fly planes that have had illegal field repairs (although done
by licensed IA's) that would have required major alteration 337's to
otherwise fly out of very remote areas (or countries), especially when
flight controls have been damaged and repaired.

-Robert

[Newps]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

>
>
> My bet is that the permits were created as a legal loophole so the FSDO
> couldn't strand your plane in some remote area that wasn't capable of
> performing the required maintenance. Once the FAA uses the
> "unairworthy" word a pilot is otherwise stuck. Those of us who have
> done some bush flying have had situations where we've needed to fly
> "unairworthy" planes out of remote areas.

Absolutely. And some of us just don't care. Helped a buddy who taxiied
his Cub into a hole that bent one of the prop blades. We used a 5 pound
mallet and a wooden wheel chock to pound it more or less back into shape
so he could fly it the 30 miles back home. He said it vibrated pretty
good on the way back home but who cares?

[Robert M. Gary]

Newps wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
>
> Interestingly though a few pilot who
> > also happen to be FAA ATC's didn't get called at all. Seems like the
> > FAA takes care of their own??
>
> They may have had their interview at the tower.

That could be.

[Jim Burns[_1_]]

As long as there is no hypothetical structural damage, I'd have a
hypothetical pilot, unknown to you, hypothetically fly it to your A&P's shop
and it would hypothetically show up on their ramp one morning all by itself.
For all you know, they hypothetically taxied it all the way.

(Is the wing tip with the nav light easily removeable? Could you pull the
tip off and deliver it to your shop for repair then have a local A&P install
it?)
Jim

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> If you've got a small problem with your plane, do you bother with a ferry
> permit, or do you just fly it if you think it's safe?
>
> Hypothetical: Say your (shared) plane has gotten some damage, say for
> instance a wingtip strobe/nav light assembly got scraped off against a
> hangar while it was being towed. Say that the wires are secured with duct
> tape and the person who did the damage flew it home like that. Also say
> that the company that does the work on your plane isn't at your home
> airport. Would you wait for a good VFR day and fly it over to that
> company, or would you go through all the hassle of getting a local
> mechanic to inspect it and apply for a ferry permit?
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
> "I have a step-ladder. It's a very nice ladder and all, but I wish I had
> the chance to get to know my real ladder." - Paula Poundstone

[[email protected]]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

>
> > I would imagine that ferry permits were created to protect
> > people from themselves.
>
> My bet is that the permits were created as a legal loophole so the FSDO
> couldn't strand your plane in some remote area that wasn't capable of
> performing the required maintenance. Once the FAA uses the
> "unairworthy" word a pilot is otherwise stuck. Those of us who have
> done some bush flying have had situations where we've needed to fly
> "unairworthy" planes out of remote areas. I've had insurance companies
> pay me to fly planes that have had illegal field repairs (although done
> by licensed IA's) that would have required major alteration 337's to
> otherwise fly out of very remote areas (or countries), especially when
> flight controls have been damaged and repaired.
>
> -Robert

In Canada the ferry permit must be signed by a mechanic who has
inspected the airplane and certified it "safe and fit for flight,"
which means it's safe enough but not in compliance with its type
certificate and therefore not airworthy. In most cases only essential
flight crew may be carried.

Dan

[[email protected]]

Newps wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > My bet is that the permits were created as a legal loophole so the FSDO
> > couldn't strand your plane in some remote area that wasn't capable of
> > performing the required maintenance. Once the FAA uses the
> > "unairworthy" word a pilot is otherwise stuck. Those of us who have
> > done some bush flying have had situations where we've needed to fly
> > "unairworthy" planes out of remote areas.
>
> Absolutely. And some of us just don't care. Helped a buddy who taxiied
> his Cub into a hole that bent one of the prop blades. We used a 5 pound
> mallet and a wooden wheel chock to pound it more or less back into shape
> so he could fly it the 30 miles back home. He said it vibrated pretty
> good on the way back home but who cares?

He would have, if the crank had busted or he'd lost part of that
prop blade. Blades often crack when bent beyond certain angles-per-unit
of blade span, and a cracked blade will often let go and leave the rest
so unbalanced that the whole engine is torn from the airplane. CG moves
way aft and it won't even glide. It has happened. Propeller bolts are
known to crack, as well.
And you *would* have cared, too, trying to explain to his
widow and kids what you guys had been up to.
I once had a crank break. In flight. There'd been a
propstrike sometime in the distant past (old engine) and the crack that
resulted finally made itself known. Same sort of engine as in your
friend's old Cub. The crank tends to crack between the #1 and #2
throws. I have a picture of the front end of an O-520 crank that had
been propstruck. Came right out of the engine some time after the
strike.
These days most insurance companies, engine manufacturers and
even some governments want the engine torn down after a propstrike due
to the high incidence of engine failure following such an event. I just
heard the other day of an engine that failed 100 hours after a strike,
and after the gyppo shop missed the crack in the crank and put the
engine back together.
During a propstrike, some Lycomings are known to spit loose the
camshaft drive gear retaining bolt in the back of the crank, eventually
letting the gear get away. An engine doesn't run too well without the
cam turning. See:

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/9FA5E5F8683A0A4686256E9B004BC295?OpenDocument

Some shops find bent or cracked con rods, pistons, cranks and/or cases.
The shock of a prop striking something firm is transmitted directly to
the engine, unlike an automobile that has tires and a drivetrain to
twist and absorb it.

Dan

[Jim Macklin]

Same in USA. In fact that is one of the prime uses I made
of my A&P. Go get a damaged airplane and inspect and sign
off the permit.

It is a good idea to check with the insurance company to be
sure that the insurance is valid because a "ferry permit" is
a good idea.

§ 21.197 Special flight permits.
(a) A special flight permit may be issued for an aircraft
that may not currently meet applicable airworthiness
requirements but is capable of safe flight, for the
following purposes:

(1) Flying the aircraft to a base where repairs,
alterations, or maintenance are to be performed, or to a
point of storage.

(2) Delivering or exporting the aircraft.

(3) Production flight testing new production aircraft.

(4) Evacuating aircraft from areas of impending danger.

(5) Conducting customer demonstration flights in new
production aircraft that have satisfactorily completed
production flight tests.

(b) A special flight permit may also be issued to authorize
the operation of an aircraft at a weight in excess of its
maximum certificated takeoff weight for flight beyond the
normal range over water, or over land areas where adequate
landing facilities or appropriate fuel is not available. The
excess weight that may be authorized under this paragraph is
limited to the additional fuel, fuel-carrying facilities,
and navigation equipment necessary for the flight.

(c) Upon application, as prescribed in §119.51 or §91.1017
of this chapter, a special flight permit with a continuing
authorization may be issued for aircraft that may not meet
applicable airworthiness requirements but are capable of
safe flight for the purpose of flying aircraft to a base
where maintenance or alterations are to be performed. The
permit issued under this paragraph is an authorization,
including conditions and limitations for flight, which is
set forth in the certificate holder's operations
specifications. The permit issued under this paragraph may
be issued to-

(1) Certificate holders authorized to conduct operations
under Part 121 of this chapter; or

(2) Certificate holders authorized to conduct operations
under Part 135 for those aircraft they operate and maintain
under a continuous airworthiness maintenance program
prescribed by §135.411 (a)(2) or (b) of that part.

The permit issued under this paragraph is an authorization,
including any conditions and limitations for flight, which
is set forth in the certificate holder's operations
specifications.

(3) Management specification holders authorized to conduct
operations under part 91, subpart K, for those aircraft they
operate and maintain under a continuous airworthiness
maintenance program prescribed by §91.1411 of this part.

[Doc. No. 5085, 29 FR 14570, Oct. 24, 1964, as amended by
Amdt. 21-21, 33 FR 6859, May 7, 1968; Amdt. 21-51, 45 FR
60170, Sept. 11, 1980; Amdt. 21-54, 46 FR 37878, July 23,
1981; Amdt. 21-79, 66 FR 21066, Apr. 27, 2001; Amdt. 21-84,
68 FR 54559, Sept. 17, 2003; Amdt. 21-87, 71 FR 536,



Home Page > Executive Branch > Code of Federal Regulations >
Electronic Code of Federal Regulations

Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR)
BETA TEST SITE
e-CFR Data is current as of November 23, 2006




Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 21-CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR PRODUCTS AND PARTS
Subpart H-Airworthiness Certificates


Browse Previous


§ 21.199 Issue of special flight permits.
(a) Except as provided in §21.197(c), an applicant for a
special flight permit must submit a statement in a form and
manner prescribed by the Administrator, indicating-

(1) The purpose of the flight.

(2) The proposed itinerary.

(3) The crew required to operate the aircraft and its
equipment, e.g., pilot, co-pilot, navigator, etc.

(4) The ways, if any, in which the aircraft does not comply
with the applicable airworthiness requirements.

(5) Any restriction the applicant considers necessary for
safe operation of the aircraft.

(6) Any other information considered necessary by the
Administrator for the purpose of prescribing operating
limitations.

(b) The Administrator may make, or require the applicant to
make appropriate inspections or tests necessary for safety.

[Doc. No. 5085, 29 FR 14570, Oct. 24, 1964, as amended by
Amdt. 21-21, 33 FR 6859, May 7, 1968; Amdt. 21-22, 33 FR
11901, Aug. 22, 1968]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Robert M. Gary wrote:
|
| >
| > > I would imagine that ferry permits were
created to protect
| > > people from themselves.
| >
| > My bet is that the permits were created as a legal
loophole so the FSDO
| > couldn't strand your plane in some remote area that
wasn't capable of
| > performing the required maintenance. Once the FAA uses
the
| > "unairworthy" word a pilot is otherwise stuck. Those of
us who have
| > done some bush flying have had situations where we've
needed to fly
| > "unairworthy" planes out of remote areas. I've had
insurance companies
| > pay me to fly planes that have had illegal field repairs
(although done
| > by licensed IA's) that would have required major
alteration 337's to
| > otherwise fly out of very remote areas (or countries),
especially when
| > flight controls have been damaged and repaired.
| >
| > -Robert
|
| In Canada the ferry permit must be signed by a
mechanic who has
| inspected the airplane and certified it "safe and fit for
flight,"
| which means it's safe enough but not in compliance with
its type
| certificate and therefore not airworthy. In most cases
only essential
| flight crew may be carried.
|
| Dan
|

[Robert M. Gary]

wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> In Canada the ferry permit must be signed by a mechanic who has
> inspected the airplane and certified it "safe and fit for flight,"
> which means it's safe enough but not in compliance with its type
> certificate and therefore not airworthy. In most cases only essential
> flight crew may be carried.

In the U.S. its hard to get a ferry permit for "elevator smashed,
reskinned in the field, structural repair done as well". Sometimes the
insurance company just wants a respected A&P to say it will fly and
then have a pilot get it out of the area, rather than abondon the plane
in the weeds. As mentioned by Newsps, there is no way he would have
been able to get a ferry permit for "used hammer to straighten prop".

-Robert

[Morgans[_2_]]

"john smith" > wrote
>
> Wingtip strobe is not a structural part and is not required for day VFR
> flight. No structural damage so safety of flight is not an issue.

I thought that violated something about not having anything attached to the
exterior of the aircraft that was not originally there, or attached in a manner
that it was not originally attached. Duct tape is not how it was in original
condition.

I think that is the same bit that they can get you on for flying with, say, an
exterior camera tapped to a strut brace, or something like that.

Or am I imagining something I heard again? <g> I can never tell. :-)
--
Jim in NC

[BT]

taking off maintenace inspection panels during a standard preflight?

Sorry boss, that step is not in the manufacturer's FAA APPROVED check list.

just how many stripped screw heads will the mechnics be replacing.

BT

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Newps wrote:
>> Paul Tomblin wrote:
>>
>> > If you've got a small problem with your plane, do you bother with a
>> > ferry
>> > permit, or do you just fly it if you think it's safe?
>>
>> Fly it.
>
> I agree. Interestingly, I was involve in an FAA "altercation" a little
> while back. The C-182 that the FBO rents out got an onsite inspection
> by the FSDO and failed. All of us CFIs who taught in the plane got
> called to the carpet for not taknig off inspection covers before flight
> (or something stupid like that). Interestingly though a few pilot who
> also happen to be FAA ATC's didn't get called at all. Seems like the
> FAA takes care of their own??
>
> -Robert
>

[Judah]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
oups.com:

> I agree. Interestingly, I was involve in an FAA "altercation" a little
> while back. The C-182 that the FBO rents out got an onsite inspection
> by the FSDO and failed. All of us CFIs who taught in the plane got
> called to the carpet for not taknig off inspection covers before flight
> (or something stupid like that). Interestingly though a few pilot who
> also happen to be FAA ATC's didn't get called at all. Seems like the
> FAA takes care of their own??

I don't know all of the details in this case, so I'll just throw out some
general concepts that were relayed to me recently by a fellow pilot who
spent some time at the local FSDO. He said that the FAA holds higher
expectations for CFIs with respect to regulatory infractions. Basically,
CFIs represent the FAA to their student pilots every day. It is their
responsibility to accurately teach pilots the rules that the pilots are
supposed to follow to ensure safe flight.

It is ultimately the Pilot's responsibility to ensure safety of flight, and
it is ultimately the pilot's responsibility to ensure the plane he is
commanding is airworthy. However, when a pilot is renting a plane from an
FBO, he is typically not given free access to maintenance Logbooks, and has
to trust that the FBO is properly maintaining the planes.

If the FAA finds out that the plane has not been properly maintained, they
are obviously going to take action to ensure that the problem gets
corrected. In reality, all the pilots who flew it in that condition may
have violated FAA regulations. However, as a CFI, you are not only supposed
to know how to determine if the plane was safe, you are also supposed to be
training pilots how to do the same. If, after being chastised by the FAA,
you STILL don't know what the problem was, or how to have detected it, I
would be concerned that you do not take seriously your RESPONSIBILITY as a
CFI to both your students and to the FAA.

What if the problem had caused fatalities? What if the problem could have
easily been detected, and your student missed it because you never taught
him that it is his responsibility to check for it, or even how to check for
it? Don't you think that CFIs SHOULD be held to a higher standard than
pilots?

Whether your students work for ATC or McDonalds is irrelevant - ATC is not
responsible for teaching pilots how to fly safely. CFIs are.

[PilotWeb.org]

First, just follow the FAR's there is a section on airworthiness,
follow the following sequence of questions...

1. Is the inop equipment required by 91.105? (VFR required equipment)
2. Is it required by some AD? (Airworthiness directive)
3. Is it required in the POH as required equipment?
4. Was is required for aircraft certification?
5. Is it or not on a minimum equipment list? (Most private AC dont
have this)


If you fly with it INOP, make sure it is, placarded INOP, disconnected,
removed, and/or deactivated.

[Newps]

wrote:


>
> He would have, if the crank had busted or he'd lost part of that
> prop blade. Blades often crack when bent beyond certain angles-per-unit
> of blade span, and a cracked blade will often let go and leave the rest
> so unbalanced that the whole engine is torn from the airplane. CG moves
> way aft and it won't even glide. It has happened. Propeller bolts are
> known to crack, as well.
> And you *would* have cared, too, trying to explain to his
> widow and kids what you guys had been up to.

You worry too much.




> These days most insurance companies, engine manufacturers and
> even some governments want the engine torn down after a propstrike due
> to the high incidence of engine failure following such an event.


Sure, if you carry insurance.

[Newps]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> wrote:
>
>>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>
>> In Canada the ferry permit must be signed by a mechanic who has
>>inspected the airplane and certified it "safe and fit for flight,"
>>which means it's safe enough but not in compliance with its type
>>certificate and therefore not airworthy. In most cases only essential
>>flight crew may be carried.
>
>
> In the U.S. its hard to get a ferry permit for "elevator smashed,
> reskinned in the field, structural repair done as well".


Go find a copy of the movie Long Props, Big Rocks 2. Just came out not
too long ago. See what they jury rigged together and flew out.

[Danny Dot]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> If you've got a small problem with your plane, do you bother with a ferry
> permit, or do you just fly it if you think it's safe?
>
> Hypothetical: Say your (shared) plane has gotten some damage, say for
> instance a wingtip strobe/nav light assembly got scraped off against a
> hangar while it was being towed. Say that the wires are secured with duct
> tape and the person who did the damage flew it home like that. Also say
> that the company that does the work on your plane isn't at your home
> airport. Would you wait for a good VFR day and fly it over to that
> company, or would you go through all the hassle of getting a local
> mechanic to inspect it and apply for a ferry permit?
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
> "I have a step-ladder. It's a very nice ladder and all, but I wish I had
> the chance to get to know my real ladder." - Paula Poundstone

Ferry permits are for planes that are not currently certified, e.g. not been
inspected with a year. At least this is my understanding.

Danny Dot
www.mobbinggonemad.org

[Newps]

Danny Dot wrote:


>
>
> Ferry permits are for planes that are not currently certified, e.g. not been
> inspected with a year. At least this is my understanding.

Not correct, it has nothing to do with the annual. A plane that is out
of annual can get a ferry permit but being out of annual is not a
prerequisite.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Danny Dot" > wrote in message
...

> Ferry permits are for planes that are not currently certified, e.g. not
> been inspected with a year. At least this is my understanding.
>
> Danny Dot
> www.mobbinggonemad.org
>
>

Ferry permits are granted for aircraft that are otherwise unairworthy but
have been deemed safe to fly under specific and limited guidelines. Being
out of annual and need to be moved in order to receive an annual is just one
reason.

[Robert M. Gary]

wrote:
> These days most insurance companies, engine manufacturers and
> even some governments want the engine torn down after a propstrike due
> to the high incidence of engine failure following such an event.

That's certainly *not* been my experience with insurance companies.
They want the plane flown out to a secure location where it won't be
looted.


> During a propstrike, some Lycomings are known to spit loose the
> camshaft drive gear retaining bolt in the back of the crank, eventually
> letting the gear get away. An engine doesn't run too well without the
> cam turning.

Again, contrary to my experience. In the Mooney community the factory
service centers frequently fly out to airports with a prop and a pair
of jacks after a gear up landing. Jack the plane up, swap the prop, and
fly it back to the shop. I've never heard of any shop having any
problems getting a Lycoming Mooney back to the shop

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

Judah wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
> oups.com:

> If the FAA finds out that the plane has not been properly maintained, they
> are obviously going to take action to ensure that the problem gets
> corrected. In reality, all the pilots who flew it in that condition may
> have violated FAA regulations. However, as a CFI, you are not only supposed
> to know how to determine if the plane was safe, you are also supposed to be
> training pilots how to do the same. If, after being chastised by the FAA,
> you STILL don't know what the problem was, or how to have detected it, I
> would be concerned that you do not take seriously your RESPONSIBILITY as a
> CFI to both your students and to the FAA.

I guess that's me. I can't remember the last time I took an inspection
panel off and noticed a lose bell crank on the aileron assembly. I
can't remember the last time I checked the bolts that secure the seat
to the plane. I think you have a *very* optimistic view of the FSDO. In
this case, the FSDO had a beef with the FBO and wanted to scare CFIs
away.

-Robert, CFII

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> He would have, if the crank had busted or he'd lost part of that
>> prop blade. Blades often crack when bent beyond certain angles-per-unit
>> of blade span, and a cracked blade will often let go and leave the rest
>> so unbalanced that the whole engine is torn from the airplane. CG moves
>> way aft and it won't even glide. It has happened. Propeller bolts are
>> known to crack, as well.
>> And you *would* have cared, too, trying to explain to his
>> widow and kids what you guys had been up to.
>
> You worry too much.
>


Thank God you didn't have a non TSO bulb in the landing light. You would
have crashed for sure.

For the clue-impared among us: No I don't really mean that. I was being
sarcastic. Again.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Judah]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
oups.com:

>
> Judah wrote:
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>> oups.com:
>
>> If the FAA finds out that the plane has not been properly maintained,
>> they are obviously going to take action to ensure that the problem gets
>> corrected. In reality, all the pilots who flew it in that condition may
>> have violated FAA regulations. However, as a CFI, you are not only
>> supposed to know how to determine if the plane was safe, you are also
>> supposed to be training pilots how to do the same. If, after being
>> chastised by the FAA, you STILL don't know what the problem was, or how
>> to have detected it, I would be concerned that you do not take
>> seriously your RESPONSIBILITY as a CFI to both your students and to the
>> FAA.
>
> I guess that's me. I can't remember the last time I took an inspection
> panel off and noticed a lose bell crank on the aileron assembly. I
> can't remember the last time I checked the bolts that secure the seat
> to the plane. I think you have a *very* optimistic view of the FSDO. In
> this case, the FSDO had a beef with the FBO and wanted to scare CFIs
> away.
>
> -Robert, CFII

Maybe... FSDOs are run by people, and certainly not all people are
reasonable. There used to be a guy at the local FSDO who was clearly just a
ballbuster, and didn't really care about his job, about aviation, or about
his responsibilty to the public. Certainly there are others like him out
there, but I suspect that the FAA in general is not overrun with people
like him.

I also can't imagine that a FSDO inspector simply walked up to the plane
and randomly opened an inspection panel and found a loose bell crank. Could
it be that there was some other symptom that caused the inspector to draw
his attention there? Perhaps this symptom should have been noticed by a
pilot and especially a CFI?

[Robert M. Gary]

Judah wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
> oups.com:
> I also can't imagine that a FSDO inspector simply walked up to the plane
> and randomly opened an inspection panel and found a loose bell crank. Could
> it be that there was some other symptom that caused the inspector to draw
> his attention there? Perhaps this symptom should have been noticed by a
> pilot and especially a CFI?

No, the FSDO does onsite inspections of all FBO's in the district at
least once every two years. Sometimes its a paperwork inspection, other
times they pick a couple of airplanes and disassemble them. I spoke
with several FBOs about this and they had all had this inspection done
at least once. Some did better than others. At some point I think the
FSDO is going to require all CFI's to have a valid IA certificate
before they can instruct.

-Robert

[Danny Dot]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Danny Dot wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> Ferry permits are for planes that are not currently certified, e.g. not
>> been inspected with a year. At least this is my understanding.
>
> Not correct, it has nothing to do with the annual. A plane that is out of
> annual can get a ferry permit but being out of annual is not a
> prerequisite.
>
>

Thanks for the information. I gather if the plane is in annual, but
"damaged" the rules state the pilot in command makes a decision if the plane
is air worthy????

Danny Dot
www.mobbinggonemad.org

[Peter Duniho]

"Danny Dot" > wrote in message
...
>>> Ferry permits are for planes that are not currently certified, e.g. not
>>> been inspected with a year. At least this is my understanding.
>>
>> Not correct, it has nothing to do with the annual. A plane that is out
>> of annual can get a ferry permit but being out of annual is not a
>> prerequisite.
>
> Thanks for the information. I gather if the plane is in annual, but
> "damaged" the rules state the pilot in command makes a decision if the
> plane is air worthy????

The PIC is responsible for ensuring that the airplane is airworthy.
However, anything with respect to the airplane that does not meet the
standards under which the airplane was granted an airworthiness certificate
is automatically not airworthy. Whether the PIC determines this is the case
or not doesn't matter with respect to whether the aircraft is or is not
airworthy.

Note that technically speaking, the annual inspection is not a question of
airworthiness. That is, as far as I can recall, the airworthiness
certificate doesn't require annual inspections. Part 91 does (FAR 91.409,
specifically). An airplane without a current annual inspection is not legal
to fly, but it may technically still be "airworthy" (assuming it still meets
the criteria attached to the airworthiness certificate).

Basically, a ferry permit is a method that can be used to legally obtain a
waiver to allow the operation of an airplane outside of the normal
regulations. This applies to a wide variety of situations including (but
not limited to) lack of a current annual inspection, failure to meet the
airworthiness certificate criteria, or even simply to operate the aircraft
outside of the regulations (for example, exceeding the design maximum gross
weight).

Pete

[Judah]

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

>
> Judah wrote:
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>> oups.com:
>> I also can't imagine that a FSDO inspector simply walked up to the
>> plane and randomly opened an inspection panel and found a loose bell
>> crank. Could it be that there was some other symptom that caused the
>> inspector to draw his attention there? Perhaps this symptom should have
>> been noticed by a pilot and especially a CFI?
>
> No, the FSDO does onsite inspections of all FBO's in the district at
> least once every two years. Sometimes its a paperwork inspection, other
> times they pick a couple of airplanes and disassemble them. I spoke
> with several FBOs about this and they had all had this inspection done
> at least once. Some did better than others. At some point I think the
> FSDO is going to require all CFI's to have a valid IA certificate
> before they can instruct.

I've never seen the FSDO rip apart planes on an FBO. I'm not completely
surprised with that, especially if the FBO does its own service.

You're saying the FSDO gave the CFIs crap for flying a plane that was
properly annualed, maintained, and documented, but had some obscure fault
that was not evidencible without ripping the plane apart?

[Robert M. Gary]

Judah wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
> ups.com:
> I've never seen the FSDO rip apart planes on an FBO. I'm not completely
> surprised with that, especially if the FBO does its own service.
>
> You're saying the FSDO gave the CFIs crap for flying a plane that was
> properly annualed, maintained, and documented, but had some obscure fault
> that was not evidencible without ripping the plane apart?

Absolutely. They wrote up 7 items. 2 of which were that the door seal
on the C-182 was not glued down propertly (so you hold it against the
door as you close the door), other items were the torque of the seat
attachment bolts, two flight control issues (lose bell crank nut, and a
rubbing cable internal), and a couple other similar issues. The FSDO
said none of the items make the plane unairworthly but that they
grounded for the "cummulative issues".
After a couple of the CFIs called lawyers the FSDO "settled" by making
us all go to a manditory safety meeting, no mention on our records.
However, we did have to produce copies of our certificates and medicals
(apparently the FSDO doesn't have a computer that they could look it up
at registry.faa.gov), in addition to BFRs, CFI renewal dates, etc

-Robert

[Judah]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:1164771652.238928.229720
@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:


> Absolutely. They wrote up 7 items. 2 of which were that the door seal
> on the C-182 was not glued down propertly (so you hold it against the
> door as you close the door), other items were the torque of the seat
> attachment bolts, two flight control issues (lose bell crank nut, and a
> rubbing cable internal), and a couple other similar issues. The FSDO
> said none of the items make the plane unairworthly but that they
> grounded for the "cummulative issues".
> After a couple of the CFIs called lawyers the FSDO "settled" by making
> us all go to a manditory safety meeting, no mention on our records.
> However, we did have to produce copies of our certificates and medicals
> (apparently the FSDO doesn't have a computer that they could look it up
> at registry.faa.gov), in addition to BFRs, CFI renewal dates, etc
>
> -Robert

Wow. What ballbusters.

[[email protected]]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> Again, contrary to my experience. In the Mooney community the factory
> service centers frequently fly out to airports with a prop and a pair
> of jacks after a gear up landing. Jack the plane up, swap the prop, and
> fly it back to the shop. I've never heard of any shop having any
> problems getting a Lycoming Mooney back to the shop
>
> -Robert

That's normal procedure. Get it out of there with a ferry permit, then
do the major work in the shop. The crank maty be bent or cracked, so
that's the reason for the permit: to limit risk to passengers or people
and property on the ground. The fact that they jacked it up, put on
another prop and flew it back does not in any way prove that the engine
isn't going to fail within the next 100 hours or whatever.

Dan

[Peter Duniho]

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> That's an interesting difference between an experimental,
> such as my glider, and an aircraft with a standard type
> cert. The experimental does not require an annual, it
> requires a yearly "condition inspection," and *that*
> inspection, unlike an annual is required by the experimental
> airworthiness cert.

Right. As described in 91.409(c), experimental aircraft (and others,
including light-sport) are exempt from the requirement in 91.409(a) to have
an annual inspection. Of course, as you note, an annual inspection is still
actually required (though it's called something else)...the FAA causes that
requirement to be incorporated into the airworthiness certificate.

It's my assumption that this is specific to the kinds of "experimental"
certificates that are likely to be attached to aircraft used in
non-flight-testing situations (such as amateur built). This way, aircraft
that really are true experimental flight design development platforms can
get their exemption, while still applying the common-sense idea of having an
aircraft used for transportation still comply with the spirit of 91.409(a).
It may well be that experimentals used in the development of
non-experimental certificated aircraft have no annual inspection requirement
at all.

Pete