Jump to content

Austintatious

Supporter
  • Posts

    824
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Austintatious

  1. Great post... And I want to point out... that while I play by the rules, There is nothing about a certified aircraft that guarantees that someone has not done their own work. Twice now I have been at a maintenance facility and seen a planes that looked a bit rough... I asked about them and the shop said something along the lines of " Yea we are doing an annual on that plane, he has been flying it the last 5 years out of annual " If some owner pilots are willing to do that, you can bet they are willing to do illegal work. On my last altimeter check, There was a big leak. We found, in the line from the pitot tube, a push to connect joiner like you would see on a refrigerator. Don't forget, the is a LARGE list of things owners CAN do to their aircraft, so buying certified in no way protects you from shoddy owner performed work. And to further make my point, the regs actually allow OWNER MADE PARTS on certified aircraft. https://www.cessnaflyer.org/maintenance-tech/item/984-owner-produced-parts-regulations-interpretations-and-applications.html Imagine that... I can MAKE my own part, but I may not be allowed to legally install it. I am about to do this actually with some wheel fairings. I am going to make a mold of them and make some Carbon fiber ones. Of course Ill have to find a mechanic to install them!
  2. No sir, Not condescending at all and I agree with every bit. I have already multiple times in this thread said that I regret here is not double checking the mechanics and acknowledge I should not have trusted them, and usually I do not. I am typically standing over them (on my cars and my plane) watching everything. I certainly should have removed the cowl and taken a look. Well, in actuality, I sort of did... After they had done the Vacuum repair, I did an oil change, I am always careful after an oil change to look around very closely for forgotten rags or tools. My wife was helping and I even showed here the shiny new Vac pump. I say I sort of checked out their work because, I did not really scrutinize the running of the hose to the pump. When I first took off the cowl after the issue, It was not immediately clear that the hose was in the way, it was not until I had someone actuate the throttle while I watch that it became clear. What I should have done was as you say, make a test flight. That all being said and my faults admitted to... The bigger picture here is that, you must admit, someone being able to maintain their own Prop-Jet Lancair while I cannot maintain my own Mooney is a bit silly. I play by these rules even though I do not agree with them. And Remember, This situation is not the only one I have had... Plenty of other Snafu's with maintenance. Here is what I put in my OP I STILL have gouges in my cowl from a mechanic letting my aircraft fall off a spinner jack... Incomplete annuals from even MSC's. Having to hunt down and hound people for logbook entries. Parts being broken and then not replaced ( grease fittings on landing gear), Wrong nose tire being installed resulting in super sensitive steering, Turbo oil line being improperly routed after turbo change, causing it to chafe through from rubbing from vibration.... The wrong %$^& DAMNED propeller being installed on one of my aircraft!!! ARG!!! YES, all this and more has happened to me in 2 years of aircraft ownership! Again, this is not a comprehensive list... Plenty of other issues So, I get it, even the Pro's make mistakes... But it seems that every last time I have maintenance, there is a screw up. I get an occasional goof, but nearly every time? If the certified mechanics can screw it up this often, well then, I prefer to screw it up myself. I know the rules wont change, but it would make sense and would be nice.... Thing is, I like my Mooneys, but I know I will be selling them in a few years because the maintenance situation is untenable for me. I have my hands tied on what I can legally do, and I am sick of the mistakes made by those I am forced to have work on my aircraft. I will be buying something experimental and doing the maintenance myself when I feel confident in doing so.
  3. I found an article about this topic... According to that article it is unlikely they would deny the claim. The circumstances that might would be if the medical being out was a cause, IOW, the pilot was denied because he was unsafe to fly or if he had attempted to get a medical he would have been denied. That and big injury or death $$ enter the equation. The article said they typically just pay because many times paying the claim is cheaper than litigation and since aviation is such a small community, no insurance company wants a reputation of denying claims on shaky grounds or on technicalities.
  4. Good post. I agree that the insurance companies require the aircraft to be airworthy. What I do wonder is if their definition is the same as the FAA. I would think it is. Do you know of any cases where an incorrect part has caused a denial of insurance even though it was not a factor in the accident? that might make for some interesting reading.
  5. Thank you for this post... tells me all I need to know. I'll buy you a tank of gas if you can quote any part of the post you responded to that is any sort of attack or slight at you or anything other than me making an attempt to come back to a discussion about Aviation. You clearly want to keep it personal, so find someone else to rag on for whatever reasons you have for doing so.
  6. Ahh, so if not "always abort" then by what metric have you decided MY go decision was unjustifiable? You seem to gloss right over that part about you not being there. You provided no criteria other than your opinion by which I should have chosen a high speed abort over simply continuing to lift off. No need to delete your post on my account. I am never convinced I am right... I constantly question myself and my thoughts and actions. If you go re-read the OP, I even stated "Maybe I should have aborted". There is a difference here though between you and me and speaking after the fact on my go decision... I was there and I say MAYBE I should have aborted... You WEREN'T there and say I definitely should have aborted and that I have an attitude because I don't agree with you. I have questioned myself on decisions I have made where even in hindsight they were 100 percent the correct decision. I take no issue with you offering your point of view on what you might do in a situation like mine... but you didn't stop there did you? It was that you pretty much asserted I not only made the wrong call, but that I had an attitude about it and you ignored any points I had to the contrary. Nonetheless, If you appreciate different points of view why ignore mine? You still have not bothered to address the points I brought up about the dangers of a high speed abort. We could have been talking about go/no go theory this whole time, instead we are now hashing out my "attitude". So, I am done with this rough conversation... if you wish to discuss continuing vs aborting takeoffs and can do so without being judgemental and accusatory with me I am happy to have that discussion, it is my life blood and I am always happy to have those sorts of discussions.
  7. I am pretty sure you are conflating "justifying" with "rationalization". This is an important distinction. justify To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rationalization The act, process, or result of rationalizing : a way of describing, interpreting, or explaining something (such as bad behavior) that makes it seem proper, more attractive, etc. So, in the case you actually mean Justify... yes, absolutely I am justifying my decision to continue... I am NOT rationalizing it, or rationalizing my decision to make a slow acceleration to a partial power takeoff... I admit that part was not prudent and not having done that would have changed how this scenario played out. The go decision was justified due to the timing of when I realized there was something amiss, had it not been I would have aborted... I felt more confident flying away from the ground at the time than I did pulling the throttle back and attempting a high speed abort. I did not rationalize a poor decision at the time and I am not doing it now. I am unsure why you have chosen to take a few words posted on this site and insinuate I have an attitude that will somehow be detrimental to me or get me into trouble. Because we disagree on a situation I was present for and you are only reading my brief account of, I have a poor attitude? That is a pretty bold judgement you are placing on me and I boggle as to why you might think I should take that as anything but hostile. Perhaps you have not considered what can go wrong with an "always abort" mindset... Have you considered what a fiasco my situation would have been had I decided to try to abort and the throttle WAS stuck? Have you considered that being at high speed, attempting to abort could have resulted in a float down the runway trying to bleed that speed off and then a possible runway excursion? Do you know how much runway I had in front of me for my scenario? Do you know how much of it I would have used slowing down? I am harping because I am baffled at the judgement you have made of me given the very little info you have about the situation. I mean, dang, Im not Chuck Yager, but I fly a 60 million dollar jet professionally, train yearly, Have instructed professional pilots in a 142 school, own 3 aircraft, have no accidents of fault on record, not even and incident, no violations, yet you dont even give me the slightest benefit of the doubt... It comes off to me as very arrogant. You claim to want to learn, but instead of asking me why I did something, you tell me I was wrong and I have a dangerous attitude.
  8. Good post... You are right, if he had an accident that was caused by the wrong battery being in the aircraft, then yea insurance probably wouldn't pay... But insurance companies dont get to not pay out because they find something technically wrong elsewhere... And isn't that a good thing? can you imagine a world where you have a car accident and the company denies your claim because your license plate light was burned out ?
  9. Another post I want to address. I am not post hoc rationalizing continuing the take off... Not at all, I made that go decision in the moment given my situation and I stand by it, MAYBE I am wrong, but I stand by it. Aborted takeoffs at high speed are quite dangerous. It is easy for you to say you would have aborted when you felt a throttle resistance... are you certain that is the case had you been going 80 knots, starting to fly and feel something only slightly amiss yet you have made your power target? How many times have you practiced aborting a takeoff after reaching flying speed? Remember, I was slowly feathering in the power and only started to feel something amiss about .5 inches prior to my power target and was in the process of getting airborn. This aircraft is a Rocket and even at 34" it accelerates very quickly. Arguably the larger mistake on my part, which I admit to and will change, is the super slow application of T/O power to a partial power setting. If I had taken the runway and more quickly increased to FULL power, I would have felt the problem at a slower speed and likely would have seen an abort as the best option. As far as continuing on... After getting up to altitude (still in glide rang of field) I exercised the throttle and It moved freely up to about 34.5 inches and down a few inches, so I knew it wasn't stuck. Could it have stuck? Possibly, You have to understand, I move the throttle very very little during flight in this aircraft. So, if the situation was one where a stuck throttle was a possibility or inevitability , it was merely a matter of which airport it was going to happen at. I had to move the throttle the same amount to return to the field or to land at my destination and was risking a stuck throttle at either. IOW, I did not increase the risk of a stuck throttle by continuing on. I do appreciate the constructive criticism though... as pointed out, I don't hold out that I did nothing wrong... I certainly should not have assumed that the shop did their job. And by doing a slow throttle increase to partial power I made it so that I didn't discover a problem until high speed.
  10. I wanted to address this... That is correct, I did not. Reason being that it was a changing of a Vacuum pump and the shop ran the aircraft after changing it. So yes I trusted they had done the job properly. I get your point, don't trust the mechanics, and I agree with you... your point is also my point, If I cannot trust the Certified A&P's to do a simple job and hand me back the aircraft without a screw up like this... why do I need them in the first place? If there is a need for me to double check their work via testing to make sure it was done properly, then why cant I just double check my own work?
  11. I think my long term plan is to buy a Lancair 4 and just not insure it. I do not think the aircraft is dangerous... are the Columbia 400's crashing at the same rate? I think the sad fact is that the people flying them overall just are not up to the task. Weekend warriors flying an absolute hot rod. I would much love the extra speed and efficiency over my rocket. I think it would be cheaper to own to (sans insurance) as I can work on it myself and have an A&P who could do the yearly safety inspection.
  12. So, the other day flying home I have a vacuum pump failure. I send the airplane to a shop, because you know, the FAA wont allow me to do this sort of work myself... Shop does the work, I haven't seen the bill yet... probably 1 AMU. They scared the hell out of me to, texted me while I was high as a kite on Nitrous oxide, getting a root canal at the dentist office asking "was it not getting any oil pressure either? We started it and no oil pressure" ... talk about ruining a good time. Anyhow they were probably looking at the wrong gauge since they texted back 10 min later to say it was fine now. Anyhow, I go to the airplane to take a trip. Its home base with a long runway so I do what I normally do and only go partial power (35/35) for takeoff. Although as I get to about 34 inches, I feel a resistance in the throttle. I'm already about to flying speed and still have plenty of power so I continue on... Maybe I Should I have aborted or returned to the field. Aborting arguably might have been more dangerous. If the runway had been critical I would have had to (continue). Coming back to the field wouldn't have been any safer than continuing, it may have prevented the second part of this story, but would have delayed my departure, which was a tad bit pressing. I was pretty sure I knew what was going on. Anyway, I get to where I am going and take care of business and when I can I go open the cowl. I find that they have routed the vacuum line off the pump right in the way of the throttle linkage. Ok I think, no big deal, I'll just re route the hose. I see that the 90 degree elbow needs to be turned to a different angle coming off the pump to allow for a better hose routeing. Well, these guys tightened the living dickens out of the fragile pipe and the portion with facets was well rounded off, so I cant get the thing to budge. At this point I call these guys... and express my dissatisfaction, politely. In doing so I told him about the elbow being rounded off. He tells me to hang on and he speaks with the mechanic, who tells him that "it was already pretty rounded off when I worked on it"... And this was for some reason suppose to make me feel better? I ask why if it was so bad was it not replaced instead of putting a problematic one onto a brand new pump. I ask him to offer any advice on what the hell to do to get this off... He gave me a few ideas..... And then cautioned ME about routing the hose because " it might interfere with something" ... good advice... he should probably give that to whatever mechanic did the work! Anyhow, I was able to hammer a 17mm box end wrench down onto the striped facets and get the damned thing loose... I then cut about 2 inches of hose off and was able to set a good angle for the elbow and have a good route for the hose... all good and the throttle went all the way in. I post this a week after a thread about maintenance and floating the idea of making maintenance on these old aircraft the same as on experimental. What use was it in this case to have a maintenance shop mess this up, charge me 3-500.00 in labor to do so, Send an aircraft with a hidden flaw back to the owner to be flown and then said owner having to spend 2 hours messing with this on the ramp with borrowed tools anyway? I could have done the damned job myself from the get go. This is a common theme... Either I cannot find maintenance or when I do the work is sup par. The rules need to change, I am so very sick of this... I STILL have gouges in my cowl from a mechanic letting my aircraft fall off a spinner jack... Incomplete annuals from even MSC's. Having to hunt down and hound people for logbook entries. Parts being broken and then not replaced ( grease fittings on landing gear), Wrong nose tire being installed resulting in super sensitive steering, Turbo oil line being improperly routed after turbo change, causing it to chafe through from rubbing from vibration.... The wrong %$^& DAMNED propeller being installed on one of my aircraft!!! ARG!!! YES, all this and more has happened to me in 2 years of aircraft ownership! Rant over... Ill finish by saying, Collectively I think owners need to push to have older aircraft be subject to the same rules as experimental as far as maintenance goes. I plan to figure out who I should write a letter to and do so. I may go on a tear asking others to do the same. This is just getting stupid. EDIT: added (continue) for clarity
  13. Rogers Arkansas is a pretty nice area. Though I have not been in a while. Used to fly a lear 31 into there.
  14. That looks like the tire went off the edge of a taxiway and the door contacted the higher cement/asphalt, Thus the double curve.
  15. Look, I agree with you. I think these older aircraft should be treated just like experimental... What sense does it make that someone can be maintaining their own Lancair 4p that does 280 knots carrying more fuel than me, with only a safety inspection by an A&P each year and no insurance.... yet I cant touch so much simple stuff on my 40 year old Mooney? It makes no sense and needs to change. That being said, until it does, my biggest problem is getting maintenance at a reasonable cost and time frame by someone that knows what they are doing, specifically on a mooney. For annuals I have to fly the aircraft an hour away from home and back. That adds significant cost, time and inconvenience. I do my own oil changes because the shop at home base wants 550.00 to do one. I do it for $150.00 with camguard and it takes me about 30 min of actual labor. The only silver lining is that My aircraft does not break that often. I am 2 months away from being due for annual and this vacuum pump issue is the only maintenance I have needed. The annual cost me about 3k minimum... So if I could spend 6k throughout the year for a maintenance club, that is only about 3k more per year to have someone available year round who knows what they are doing and is available to fix stuff, I think it would be a pretty good deal.
  16. Nothing is more expensive per hour than an airplane you cannot operate because you cannot find maintenance to keep it flying.
  17. Here is the video, worth a watch. One Idea he floated was a Maintenance club, whereby a group of aircraft owners get together and hire a full time mechanic to maintain the aircraft. I think it is a great idea. I may try to spearhead such a club in my area. If for example, I could get 20 aircraft to pool together at say 500 per month each, That would be a budget of 120k per year to hire a full time A&P AI. 20 aircraft is certainly a lot, but for owners that fly less than 100 hours per year I suspect it is doable by a single mechanic. You may have 1 or two broken planes a week. Of course there would be 1-2 annuals to complete per month as well. If such a thing was pursued, It would be very beneficial for all if all the aircraft were same make at least. I do not know what Mechanics are currently making. I know what shop rates are but I don't think that all goes to the mechanic. Maybe 120k a year is too little. It would almost certainly have to be 1099 pay, which might be good given the mechanic could then write off a whole slew of things including mileage driven. I am curious to explore this, so Please chime in with thoughts and knowledge.
  18. Subbed! My regular flight is down to Galveston. SAT is a cool town for sure. Corpus is a neat place as well, the USS Lexington is definitely worth seeing.
  19. I fly professionally and the mechanic who keeps the airplane up is not legally allowed to fly the aircraft... Such is the case for many... IMHO, since they may not even be capable or allowed to fly the aircraft... My rule is that after major maintenance, repair, ECT.... they better be at least WILLING to ride along. I have accepted aircraft out of maintenance before and told the mechanic to hop in for the test flight... I had one say "uhh, give me another half hour with the airplane". Jerk.
  20. I don't know why, but this popped into my head randomly today... I guess it was living rent free. Anyhow, the thought I had is that we dont necessarily care about the minimum fuel flow per unit of velocity... what we should really care about is the minimum DOLLAR flow per unit of velocity. For this we have to factor gas price AND operating cost per hour. I may try using chat GPT to create a spreadsheet or formula to calculate this. This Speed would be different from Carson speed, best economy speed and Min en route speed. It would in fact be a "best bang for your buck" speed if my reasoning is correct. Edit: I am having 0 success in getting any sort of actual formula... however on further pondering the matter, I reason that if the fixed operating cost per hour is equal too or less than the cost of fuel per hour, then Carson speed is still the speed to fly to achieve the least dollars spent per knot of velocity. If hourly fixed operating cost are greater than fuel per hour cost, then speed would need to increase above Carson speed. For example, if the fuel cost is 0 and hourly fixed cost are 100 an hour, you would do best to go as fast as possible to achieve the most knots per dollar spent... Conversely if the Fuel cost anything and hourly fixed cost were 0, then Carson speed would be the most knots per dollar. For us Mooniacs, I believe fuel cost is the bigger cost per hour so if you want to achieve this least dollars per knot speed, then carson speed it is. If you fly something which has fixed operating cost in excess of the hourly fuel cost, well, you might be better off flying faster.
  21. I used hot glue... ROCK solid and no long drying time... I did slightly heat up the metal ball before putting the glue on it to promote better adhesion.. I also cleaned the headset with alcohol. Has not budged.
  22. Yeap... and @Yooper Rocketman you should have scott connectors.... But verify it! Ill bet you can go back and forth from Florida 6 times on a tank with this... and I don't even know where in the US you live.
  23. Its for an M20K ? Do you know the PN for the left side? How much do you want for it?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.