Toasted my engine

FAA inspectors have a form (more of a tag, really) that is designed to
be attached to an aircraft that the inspector believes should not be
flown. If one removes that tag, and flies the aircraft anyway, one may
lose the privilege of flying for some set period. Not immediately, but
in due course. I knew a pilot who did so. He flew the aircraft three
states away from the site it was tagged. The FAA inspector traced the
plane, found its location, notified the local FSDO, got the assistance
of the local sheriff, who chained and locked the aircraft to the ground.
All in one day. And merely because one of the elevators had a 12"
crack.

And then there was the FAA inspector who tagged an aircraft with a Q-tip
prop because he thought it had prop damage. True story, happened back in
the late-70's, early 80's.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
Already gone from my screen...oh well!

I take that back, it finally showed up my my ISP's news server today...three
days later.

Lemme take a look...



"Kobra" wrote in message
...
I'm not that knowledgeable about the internal details of the engines,
so
could you explain how that bolt could get sheared off?


See my post about three lines up under . I found some info
in
the Cardinal Flyers group.

Kobra

"Dale Scroggins" wrote in message
...


Are you saying that, if you perform an inspection, and the aircraft has
unairworthy items, that you make no entry in the aircraft records? If so,
do you believe this is legal?

Case in point ... I'm "getting ready" to do the final inspection day after
tomorrow on a 150 for a fellow I've known for 30 years. He just busted a
medical and has to sell his airplane. The "pre-inspection" a month ago
found a bunch of piddledies like missing placards, filters that were due on
time, and the rest of it. I wrote these up on a bitch sheet and told him
that when they were taken care of, I'd finish the inspection.

Had I written the items up in the logbook and signed the annual, he would
have had to get a mechanic to either do the work or inspect the work after
he was done. This way he does, I inspect, and the whole thing gets taken
care of in one labor charge instead of two.

Which one do you think is more legal AND ethical?



I've owned several Pacers and Tripacers, and inspected scores of them.
I've never seen one that had only "On" and "Off" positions for the magneto
switch. Nor have I seen any such thing in the parts catalog or
maintenance data.

The OP said that the switch was original equipment. I've never seen one on
a 'pacer series either, but that doesn't say that they don't exist. I can't
debate the OP assertation because I'm not there.



Punch testing fabric covering is not a sufficient test for determination
of airworthiness IF the fabric condition is questionable. I leave you to
reference AC43.13-1B for the only acceptable method of determination if a
covering either fails or barely passes a punch test.


Yes, the famous lab test. How many swatches have YOU sent in for lab
testing? And how do you know that the swatch you cut out is representative
of the covering as a whole?

Jim

I heard it was a "she" who tagged the Q tip. Owner thought it was joke his
buddies were playing on him.

"john smith" wrote in message
...
FAA inspectors have a form (more of a tag, really) that is designed to
be attached to an aircraft that the inspector believes should not be
flown. If one removes that tag, and flies the aircraft anyway, one may
lose the privilege of flying for some set period. Not immediately, but
in due course. I knew a pilot who did so. He flew the aircraft three
states away from the site it was tagged. The FAA inspector traced the
plane, found its location, notified the local FSDO, got the assistance
of the local sheriff, who chained and locked the aircraft to the ground.
All in one day. And merely because one of the elevators had a 12"
crack.

And then there was the FAA inspector who tagged an aircraft with a Q-tip
prop because he thought it had prop damage. True story, happened back in
the late-70's, early 80's.

"LWG" wrote in message
...
And then there was the FAA inspector who tagged an aircraft with a Q-tip
prop because he thought it had prop damage. True story, happened back in
the late-70's, early 80's.

I heard it was a "she" who tagged the Q tip. Owner thought it was joke his
buddies were playing on him.

As the owner of an airplane with a Q-tip prop, I've heard all sorts of
variations of that story.

I've yet to see ANY *documented* proof that it ever actually happened. I
doubt it did. Anyone who says "true story" ought to have more specific
information than that it "happened back in the late-70's, early 80's".
Like, some specific knowledge of a specific instance.

Pete

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

As the owner of an airplane with a Q-tip prop, I've heard all sorts of
variations of that story.

I've yet to see ANY *documented* proof that it ever actually happened. I
doubt it did. Anyone who says "true story" ought to have more specific
information than that it "happened back in the late-70's, early 80's".
Like, some specific knowledge of a specific instance.

I first heard it reported in an issue of Pacific Flyer (actually a reprint
of the that blurb was in the Atlantic Flyer). I will look to see if I still
have the newspaper scrap at work (the year was 1991 or 1992).

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

"LWG" wrote in message
...
And then there was the FAA inspector who tagged an aircraft with a Q-tip
prop because he thought it had prop damage. True story, happened back in
the late-70's, early 80's.

I heard it was a "she" who tagged the Q tip. Owner thought it was joke his
buddies were playing on him.

As the owner of an airplane with a Q-tip prop, I've heard all sorts of
variations of that story.

I've yet to see ANY *documented* proof that it ever actually happened. I
doubt it did. Anyone who says "true story" ought to have more specific
information than that it "happened back in the late-70's, early 80's".
Like, some specific knowledge of a specific instance.

New Cessna 152's came from the factory with a Q-tip prop in 1974? 75?
This was pre-internet, so the reporting came from the regular news
sources at the time (aviation periodicals, regional newspapers, etc).
It is difficult to cite a specific source from twenty-five to thirty
years ago without a clipping in front of me.
If you haven't been around that long, don't bitch about it.
You cannot GOOGLE everything. Not everything is available on the web,
and alot of what is is of dubious credibility. :-))

john smith wrote:
In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

"LWG" wrote in message
...
And then there was the FAA inspector who tagged an aircraft with a Q-tip
prop because he thought it had prop damage. True story, happened back in
the late-70's, early 80's.

I heard it was a "she" who tagged the Q tip. Owner thought it was joke his
buddies were playing on him.



Yes it was a female that did the tagging along for various alleged
violations. If I remember correctly it was on one of the Phoenix area
airports. We had a client whose aircraft was there for maintenance that
got tagged for having 3" N numbers. He forwarded the violation letter
that he got to us as our boss was also his DAR. Turns out it was some
female within the DC office that wanted to get transferred to the
Flight Inspection group. She tagged something like 60 aircraft and
wrote up violation letters on them all to try and prove how good of an
inspector she was. Turns out that nothing she tagged was a violation
and it created a big headache for a couple of the FSDO's for a week or
two. Time frame was around 1989.

wrote:

Time frame was around 1989.

That's about when I read about it. Probably in Atlantic Flyer.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

john smith wrote:

New Cessna 152's came from the factory with a Q-tip prop in 1974? 75?
This was pre-internet, so the reporting came from the regular news
sources at the time (aviation periodicals, regional newspapers, etc).
It is difficult to cite a specific source from twenty-five to thirty
years ago without a clipping in front of me.
If you haven't been around that long, don't bitch about it.
You cannot GOOGLE everything. Not everything is available on the web,
and alot of what is is of dubious credibility. :-))

Dubious credibility, indeed! Cessna didn't start making the 152 until
1978, and they never, ever delivered a 150 or 152 with a Q-tip prop.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane